At the meeting at Freeport, August 27, 1858, occurred one of those passages which brings out the traits and characteristics of the champions. Mr. Lincoln, after alluding to some questions propounded to him by Senator Douglas, at Ottawa, said:

I now propose that I will answer any of the interrogatories, upon condition that he will answer questions from me, not exceeding the same number, to which I give him an opportunity to respond. The Judge remains silent; I now say that I will answer his interrogatories, whether he answer mine or not, and that after I have done so, I shall propound mine to him.

I have supposed myself, since the organization of the Republican party at Bloomington, in May, 1856, bound as a party man by the platforms of the party, then, and since. If, in any interrogatories which I shall answer, I go beyond the scope of what is within these platforms, it will be perceived that no one is responsible but myself.

Having said thus much, I will take up the Judge's interrogatories, as I find them printed in the Chicago Times, and answer them seriatim. In order that there may be no mistake about it, I have copied the interrogatories in writing, and also my answers to them. The first one of these interrogatories is in these words:

Question 1.—I desire to know whether Lincoln to-day stands, as he did in 1854, in favor of the unconditional repeal of the Fugitive Slave Law?

Answer.- I do not now, nor ever did, stand in favor of the unconditional repeal of the Fugitive Slave Law.

Q. 2.-I desire him to answer whether he stands pledged to-day, as he did in 1854, against the admission of any more slave States into the Union, even if the people want them?

A.-I do not now, nor ever did, stand pledged against the admission of any more slave States into the Union.

Q. 3.-I want to know, whether he stands pledged against the admission of a new State into the Union, with such a Constitution as the people of that State may see fit to make?

A-I do not stand pledged against the admission of a new State into the Union, with such a Constitution as the people of that State may see fit to make.

Q.4-I want to know whether he stands to-day pledged to the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia?

A-I do not stand to-day pledged to the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia.

Q. 5.-I desire him to answer whether he stands pledged to the prohibition of the slave trade between the different States?

A-I do not stand pledged to the prohibition of the slave trade between the different States.

Q. 6. I desire to know whether he stands pledged to prohibit slavery in all the Territories of the United States, North as well as South of the Missouri Compromise line?

A-I am impliedly, if not expressly, pledged to a belief in the right and duty of Congress to prohibit slavery in all the United States' Territories.

Q. 7.- I desire him to answer, whether he is opposed to the acquisition of any new territory, unless slavery is first prohibited therein?

A. I am not generally opposed to honest acquisition of territory; and, in any given case, I would or would not oppose such acquisition, according as I might think such acquisition would or would not aggravate the slavery question among ourselves.

Now my friends, it will be perceived upon an examination of these questions and answers, that so far, I have only answered that I was not pledged to this, that, or the other.

The Judge has not framed his interrogatories to ask me anything more than this, and I have answered in strict accordance with the interrogatories-and have answered truly, that I am not pledged at all upon any of the points to which I have answered. But I am not disposed to hang upon the exact form of his interrogatory. I am rather disposed to take up, at least some of these questions, and state what I really think upon them.

The fourth one is in regard to the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. In relation to that, I have my mind very distinctly made up. I should be very glad to see slavery abolished in the District of Columbia. I believe that Congress possesses the constitutional power to abolish it. Yet, as a member of Congress, I should not, with my present views, be in favor of endeavoring to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, unless it should be upon these conditions: First, That the abolition should be gradual; Second, That it should be on a vote of the majority of qualified voters in the District; and Third, That compensation should be made to unwilling owners. With these three conditions, I confess I would be exceedingly glad to see Congress abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, and, in the language of Henry Clay, "sweep from our Capital that foul blot upon our nation." I now proceed to propound to the Judge the interrogatories, so far as I have framed them. I will bring forward a new instalment when I get them ready. I will bring now only four. The first one is

1. If the people of Kansas shall, by means entirely unobjectionable in all other respects, adopt a State Constitution and ask admission into the Union under it before they have the requisite number of inhabitants, according to the English bill - some ninety-three thousand- will you vote to admit them?

2. Can the people of a United States Territory, in any lawful way, against the wish of any citizen of the United States, exclude slavery from its limits prior to the formation of a State Constitution?

3. If the Supreme Court of the United States shall decide that States cannot exclude slavery from their limits, are you in favor of acquiescing in, adopting and following such decision as a rule of political action?

4. Are you in favor of acquiring additional territory, in disregard of how such acquisition may affect the nation on the slavery question?

It will be observed that the answers of Mr. Lincoln are full, fair and candid, and it is just to state, that these answers were not satisfactory to the radical anti-slavery men whom he addressed, and he knew they would not be.

To the first question, Mr. Douglas said:

In reference to Kansas, it is my opinion that, as she has population enough to constitute a slave State, she has people enough for a free State.

I hold it to be a sacred rule of universal application, to require a Territory to contain the requisite population for a member of Congress, before it is admitted as a State into the Union!

To the second question, Douglas replied:

It matters not what way the Supreme Court may hereafter decide, as to the abstract question whether slavery may or may not go into a Territory under the Constitution, the people have the lawful means to introduce it, or exclude it as they please, for the reason that slavery cannot exist a day, or an hour, anywhere, unless it is supported by local police regulations. Those police regulations can only be established by the local legislature, and if the people are opposed to slavery, they will elect representatives to that body, who will, by unfriendly legislation, effectually prevent the introduction of it into their midst. If, on the contrary, they are

for it, their legislation will favor its extension. Hence, no matter what the decision of the Supreme Court may be on that abstract question, still the right of the people to make a slave Territory or a free Territory is perfect and complete under the Nebraska bill.

It was in regard to this question that a friend of Mr. Lincoln said: "If Douglas answers in such a way, as to give practical force and effect to the 'Dred Scott' decision, he inevitably loses the battle, but he will therefore reply, by declaring the decision an abstract proposition; he will adhere to his doctrine of squatter sovereignty, and declare that a territory may exclude slavery." "If he does that," said Mr. Lincoln, "he can never be President." "But," said the friend, “he may be Senator." "Perhaps," replied Lincoln, "but I am after larger game; the battle of 1860 is worth a hundred of this."

It is not known positively whether Mr. Lincoln then looked forward to the possibility of his being a candidate for the Presidency; it is not improbable that by his rare sagacity, and knowledge of public sentiment he already saw, in the rivalry of prominent leaders, his own nomination. However this may have been, he believed that the elevation of Douglas to the Executive chair, with his avowed sentiments, would be dangerous to liberty, and sought by every legitimate means to damage his prospects.

To the third question, Mr. Douglas said:

The third question which Mr. Lincoln presented is, if the Supreme Court of the United States shall decide that a State of this Union cannot exclude slavery from its own limits, will I submit to it? I am amazed that Lincoln should ask such a question.

He casts an imputation upon the Supreme Court of the United States by supposing that they would violate the Constitution of the United States. I tell him that such a thing is not possible. It would be an act of moral treason that no man on the bench could ever descend to. Mr. Lincoln, himself, would never, in his partisan feelings, so far forget what was right, as to be guilty of such an act.

This, however, from Mr. Douglas, was an evasion, not an

answer.

To the fourth question, whether he "was in favor of acquiring additional territory in disregard as to how such acquisition may affect the slavery question," he replied:

With our natural increase, growing with a rapidity unknown in any other part of the globe, with the tide of emigration that is fleeing from despotism in the old world, to seek refuge in our own, there is a constant torrent pouring into this

country that requires more land - more territory upon which to settle, and just as fast as our interests and our destiny require additional territory in the North, in the South, or on the Islands of the Ocean, I am for it, and when we acquire it, will leave the people, according to the Nebraska bill, free to do as they please on the subject of slavery, and every other question.

It was impossible to reconcile Douglas' position at Freeport, that slavery could be rightfully excluded from a Territory by legislation, and the "Dred Scott" decision, which decided that a slaveholder had a legal right to take his slaves into all the territories.

Mr. Lincoln exposed this in one of his terse, clear sentences, when he said "it was declaring that a thing may be lawfully driven away from a place, where it has a lawful right to go."

These debates, and the debaters, have passed into history. The world has pronounced Mr. Lincoln the victor, but it should be remembered, in justice to Douglas, that Lincoln spoke for liberty and against the extension of slavery; he was the organ of a new and vigorous party, and he knew he was right. Douglas was a candidate for the Presidency as well as Senator, and must keep one eye on the slaveholders, and the other on the citizens of Illinois. This hampered and embarrassed him, yet he made a brilliant canvass.

An immense vote was cast-for Mr. Lincoln, 126,084; for Mr. Douglas, 121,940; and 5,091 were given for the Buchanan ticket, which was run to defeat Douglas.

Owing to the fact that several Democratic senators held over in districts which gave Republican majorities, and the inequality of the apportionment,it having been made on the basis of the population of 1850, Mr. Douglas was reëlected.

These debates were published at the time in the leading newspapers throughout the Union. The manly bearing, the vigorous logic, the straight-forward honesty and earnest sincerity, as well as the intellectual power manifested by Mr. Lincoln in these discussions, made a deep impression upon the people. So well satisfied was the Republican party with the efforts of its champion, that these debates, including the speeches of Douglas and Lincoln, were published, without alteration, as a campaign document, and scattered everywhere throughout the Union.

At the close of the canvass, Mr. Lincoln resumed the practice of his profession. His fame as a lawyer and a statesman had extended throughout the West, and he was called by professional engagements, not only into every part of Illinois, but into Indiana, Wisconsin, Missouri and Ohio.

In 1859, he visited Kansas, and the grateful people of that young State received him as one who had eloquently plead their cause.

In the autumn of 1859, Douglas visited and stumped Ohio. The fame of Lincoln had extended there, and he was sent for to come to that State and reply. He went, and spoke at Columbus and Cincinnati.

A few extracts are given from his speech at Columbus:

The American people, on the first day of January, 1854, found the African slave trade prohibited by a law of Congress. In a majority of the States of this Union, they found African slavery, or any other sort of slavery, prohibited by State Constitutions. They also found a law existing, supposed to be valid, by which slavery was excluded from almost all the territory the United States then owned. This was the condition of the country, with reference to the institution of slavery, on the first of January, 1854. A few days after that, a bill was introduced into Congress, which ran through its regular course in the two branches of the National Legislature, and finally passed into a law in the month of May, by which the act of Congress prohibiting slavery from going into the Territories of the United States was repealed. In connection with the law itself, and, in fact, in the terms of the law, the then existing prohibition was not only repealed, but there was a declaration of a purpose on the part of Congress never thereafter to exercise any power that they might have, real or supposed, to prohibit the extension or spread of slavery. This was a very great change; for the law thus repealed was of more than thirty years' standing. Following rapidly upon the heels of this action of Congress, a decision of the Supreme Court is made, by which it is declared that Congress, if it desires to prohibit the spread of slavery into the Territories, has no Constitutional power to do so. Not only so, but that decision lays down principles which, if pushed to their logical conclusion-I say pushed to their logical conclusion - would decide that the Constitutions of free States, forbidding slavery, are themselves unconstitutional. Mark me, I do not say the Judge said this, and let no man say I affirm the Judge used these words; but I only say it is my opinion that what he did say, if pressed to its logical conclusion, will inevitably result thus.

Looking at these things, the Republican party, as I understand its principles and policy, believe that there is great danger of the institution of slavery being spread out and extended, until it is ultimately made alike lawful in all the States of this Union; so believing, to prevent that incidental and ultimate consummation, is the original and chief purpose of the Republican organization. I say chief purpose of the Republican organization; for it is certainly true that if the National House shall fall into the hands of the Republicans, they will have to attend to all the other matters of National House-keeping, as well as this.

Of the Ordinance of 1787, he said:

Not only did that Ordinance prevail, but it was constantly looked to whenever a step was taken by a new Territory to become a State. Congress always turned their attention to it, and in all their movements upon that subject, they traced