preme Court of the Nation. Have we not here a standing confession to the world that the great American conflict of the Sixties originated in the North?

The South prefers to answer Lincoln's question herself as to what will satisfy her. It is simply this: "The North must recognize the Supreme Court decisions and laws Constitutionally enacted, and prove by deed as well as by word that she will faithfully obey them. This will satisfy the South. All well informed men know she never did demand more. justice testifies she never should have consented to less.

Common

The very next words are not less hostile to the authoritative voice of the Third Great Fundamental Department of this Government: "I am aware they have not as yet in terms demanded the overthrow of our free State Constitutions. Yet these Constitutions declare the wrong of slavery with more solemn emphasis than all other sayings against it, and when all the other sayings shall have been silenced, the overthrow of the free State Constitutions will be demanded, and nothing will be left to resist the demand."

In the words: "I am aware they have not as yet in terms demanded the overthrow of our free State Constitutions" we have both an implied confession, and an implied charge against the South and the Supreme Court. The implied confession is that the South and the Supreme Court "have not as yet demanded in terms" that the North give up her State Constitutions. His implied charge is that they will eventually do so. These assertions are without even a shadow of truth. There can be but one other construction put upon these words, and that construction is a kindred one, viz: While they have not as yet actually "demanded in terms the overthrow of our free State Constitutions," they have already substantially done so. Was absurdity ever more

absurd?

And what shall be said of these words? "Yet these Constitutions declare the wrong of slavery with more solemn emphasis than all other sayings against it." Do they not declare the wrong of slavery is the paramount issue before which the Supreme Court decisions must succumb? If slavery is wrong is not the crime

with equal justice chargeable to both sections? Upon what just basis does he exempt the North from the wrong and settle

it upon the South? Is it not universally known and admitted that it was not a conviction that slavery was wrong, but "the law of climate" that gave the free States their Constitutions abolishing slavery? Chief Justice Taney was not an advocate of slavery, yet in rendering the decision for seven Supreme Court Judges in the Dred Scott case he said: "In that portion of the United States where the labor of the negro race was found to be unsuited to the climate and unprofitable to the master, but few slaves were held at the time of the Declaration of Independence; and, when the Constitution was adopted, it had entirely worn out in one of them, and measures had been taken for its gradual abolition in several others. But this change had not been produced by any change of opinion in relation to this race, but because it was discovered from experience that slave labor was unsuited to the climate and productions of these States; for some of these States, in which it had ceased, or nearly ceased, to exist, were actively engaged in the slave-trade; procuring cargoes on the coast of Africa, and transporting them for sale to these parts of the Union where their labor was found to be profitable and suited to the climate and productions. And this traffic was openly carried on, and fortunes accumulated by it, without reproach from the people of the States where they resided."

Who is the more trustworthy witness here, the unbiased judge with no political string to pull, or the politician courting popular favor? The one is a partisan, speaking as a partisan to an audience of partisans. The other is a judge, sworn to be impartial, pronouncing a judicial opinion to all American citizens without regard to parties, stating well established facts in connection with that decision. Which of the two is the more worthy witness?

Let us next consider Lincoln's doleful climax, the fruit of a strained imagination: "And when all the other sayings (whatever this means) shall have been silenced the overthrow of the Constitution will be demanded, and nothing will be left to resist the demands."

Think of it! Himself in the very midst of an effort to overthrow the Constitution of the Union of the States, by conspiring to defeat a decision of the Supreme Court, he charges that, in the most remote possibility, the South and the Supreme Court will be guilty of the great crime of overthrowing the Constitution. Note the difference. What Mr. Lincoln is now doing is a fact. What he charges the South and the Supreme Court will do is not a possible fact, except "when all the other sayings shall have been silenced"-a most remote period, when human beings will not inhabit this earth. Which is the greater crime, that which is now being committed by Lincoln and his party, or that to be committed by the South and the Supreme Court under circumstances impossible to exist?

With what urgency does he press his claim? If resistance is not now made to this decision, by the North "nothing will be left to resist the demand" of the Supreme Court and the South. Why this wild exaggeration? Upon what fact is it based? upon any fact at all it is upon that most distant fact which has not yet occurred, and which will not occur till "all other sayings shall have been silenced."

"There is nothing so kingly as kindness;

Nothing so royal as truth."

If

THE COOPER INSTITUTE SPEECH

CONTINUED.

We have shown in the two chapters, immediately preceding this, that this speech is very remarkable for a number of reasons, among them the following:

1. For what it undertakes to accomplish, viz.: "To put the new party, the Republican, on Constitutional ground;"-in other words to overthrow the Supreme Court's decision which has declared it to be on unconstitutional grounds.—

2. For basing his argument in the accomplishment of this undertaking on the very untenable ground that he had secured absolute knowledge that a majority of the 39 signers of the Constitution did not "disclose their real sentiments" either by their votes or in signing the Constitution;-knowledge, when the records are silent, as in this case, possessed only by Him who hears the secret and silent whisperings of the human consci

ence.

3. For the absurd claim that even if such knowledge is actually attainable by man under such conditions, it would be sufficient to qualify and justify him, a mere private citizen, to legally demolish a decision of the Supreme Court.

4. For the fact that having only such knowledge he lays claim "to evidence so conclusive and argument so clear that even the fathers' great authority, when fairly considered and weighed can not stand."

5. For not recognizing the very important fact that when the records are silent the unbiased judgment of mankind has unanimously been lenient enough to decide that representatives generally "disclose their real sentiments" by their votes and

acts.

6. For the exaggerations throughout his entire discourse,on a par with 7 to 2 is "a bare majority."

7. For his words of counsel to the South: "You will not break up the Union rather than submit to a denial of your Con

stitutional rights?" "Do you really feel yourselves justified to break up the Government unless such a Court's decision as yours is shall be at once submitted to as a conclusive and final rule of political action?" We further admonish you that "It is exceedingly desirable that all parts of this great Confederacy shall be at peace, and in harmony one with another;"-admonitions. clearly meaning you shall submit to a denial of your Constitutional rights.

8. For his repeated assertions that this right or that right is not written in the Constitutions, and can therefore be exercised by the United States Government only, ignoring the unmistakable meaning of these plain words in the Compact: "Each State retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right which is not in the Confederation expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled."

9. For its derision of the Supreme Court's decision, calling its decision "a sort of decision," "an obvious mistake," and, "such a decision as yours is." The same character of derision pervades more or less, the entire address. Yet its very title, The Supreme Court," fixes its rank and authority. As Congress is supreme in regulating commerce, and in making war and peace, so the Supreme Court is the supreme judicial authority in the Government. In the words of the Constitution its jurisdiction is extended to all cases in law and equity arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;-to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls ;to all cases of admirality and maritime jurisdiction;-and to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;-to controversies between two or more States; between a State and citizens of another State;-between citizens of different States; between citizens of the same State claiming lands under grants of different States, and between a State, or the citizens thereof, and the foreign States, citizens or subjects." (Art. 3, Sec. 2).