their own way, subject only to the constitution of the United States."

Thereupon Judge Douglas and others began to argue in favor of "popular sovereignty "—the right of the people to have slaves if they wanted them and to exclude slavery if they did not want them. "But," said in substance a senator from Ohio (Mr. Chase, I believe), we more than suspect

that you do not mean to allow the people to exclude slavery if they wish to; and if you do mean it accept an amendment which I propose expressly authorizing the people to exclude slavery."

I believe I have the amendment here before me which was offered, and under which the people of the Territory through their proper representatives might if they saw fit prohibit the existence of slavery therein. And now I state it as a fact, to be taken back if there is any mistake about it, that Judge Douglas and those acting with him voted that amendment down.

66

I now think that those men who voted it down had a real reason for doing so. They know what that reason was. It looks to us since we have seen the Dred Scott decision pronounced, holding that "under the constitution" the people cannot exclude slavery-I say it looks to outsiders, poor, simple, amiable, intelligent gentlemen," as though the niche was left as a place to put that Dred Scott decision ina niche which would have been spoiled by adopting the amendment. And now I say again, if this was not the reason it will avail the judge much more to calmly and goodhumoredly point out to these people what that other reason was for voting the amendment down than swelling himself up to vociferate that he may be provoked to call somebody a liar.

Again, there is in that same quotation from the Nebraska bill this clause: "It being the true intent and meaning of this bill not to legislate slavery into any Territory or State." I have always been puzzled to know what business the word "State" had in that connection. Judge Douglas knows. He put it there. He knows what he put it there for. We outsiders cannot say what he put it there for. The law they were passing was not about States and was not making provision for States. What was it placed there for? After seeing the Dred Scott decision, which holds that the people cannot exclude slavery from a Territory, if another Dred Scott decision shall come holding that they cannot exclude it from a State, we shall discover that when the word was originally put there it was in view of something which was to come in due time, we shall see that it was the other half of something. I now say again, if there is any different reason for putting it there Judge Douglas in a good-humored way, without calling anybody a liar, can tell what the reason

was.

When the judge spoke at Clinton he came very near making a charge of falsehood against me. He used, as I found it printed in a newspaper, which I remember was very nearly like the real speech, the following language:

“I did not answer the charge [of conspiracy] before for the reason that I did not suppose there was a man in America with a heart so corrupt as to believe such a charge could be true. I have too much respect for Mr. Lincoln to suppose he is serious in making the charge."

I confess this is rather a curious view, that out of respect for me he should consider I was making what I deemed rather a grave charge in fun. I confess it strikes me rather strangely. But I let it pass. As the judge did not for a

moment believe that there was a man in America whose heart was so "corrupt " as to make such a charge, and as he places me among the "men in America" who have hearts base enough to make such a charge, I hope he will excuse me if I hunt out another charge very like this; and if it should turn out that in hunting I should find that other and it should turn out to be Judge Douglas himself who made it, I hope he will reconsider this question of the deep corruption of heart he has thought fit to ascribe to me. In Judge Douglas's speech of March 22, 1858, which I hold in my hand,

he says:

"In this connection there is another topic to which I desire to allude. I seldom refer to the course of newspapers or notice the articles which they publish in regard to myself; but the course of the Washington Union' has been so extraordinary for the last two or three months that I think it well enough to make some allusion to it. It has read me out of the Democratic party every other day, at least for two or three months, and keeps reading me out, and, as if it had not succeeded, still continues to read me out, using such terms as 'traitor,' renegade,' 'deserter,' and other kind and polite epithets of that nature.

6

"Sir, I have no vindication to make of my Democracy against the Washington Union' or any other newspaper. I am willing to allow my history and actions for the last twenty years to speak for themselves as to my political principles and my fidelity to political obligations. The Washington Union' has a personal grievance. When the editor was nominated for public printer I declined to vote for him, and stated that at some time I might give my reasons for doing so. Since I declined to give that vote this scurrilous abuse, these vindictive and constant attacks have been repeated almost daily on me. Will my friend from Michigan read the article to which I allude?"

This is part of the speech. You must excuse me from reading the entire article of the Washington "Union," as

Mr. Stuart read it for Mr. Douglas. The judge goes on and sums up as I think correctly:

"Mr. President, you here find several distinct propositions advanced boldly by the Washington Union' editorially, and apparently authoritatively; and any man who questions any of them is denounced as an Abolitionist, a Free-Soiler, a fanatic. The propositions are first, that the primary object of all government at its original institution is the protection of person and property; second, that the constitution of the United States declares that the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and that, therefore, thirdly, all State laws, whether organic or otherwise, which prohibit the citizens of one State from settling in another with their slave property, and especially declaring it forfeited, are direct violations of the original intention of the government and constitution of the United States; and fourth, that the emancipation of the slaves of the northern States was a gross outrage on the rights of property, inasmuch as it was involuntarily done on the part of the owner.

"Remember that this article was published in the 'Union' on the 17th of November, and on the 18th appeared the first article giving the adhesion of the 'Union' to the Lecompton constitution. It was in these words:

66

"Kansas and her constitution. The vexed question is settled. The problem is solved. The dead point of danger is passed. All serious trouble to Kansas affairs is over and gone.' And a column nearly of the same sort. Then when you come to look into the Lecompton constitution you find the same doctrine incorporated in it which was put forth editorially in the Union.' What is it? '

"Article 7, section 1. The right of property is before and higher than any constitutional sanction; and the right of the owner of a slave to such slave and its increase is the same and as inviolable as the right of the owner of any property whatever.'

"Then in the schedule is a provision that the constitution may be amended after 1864 by a two-thirds vote.

"But no alteration shall be made to affect the right of property in the ownership of slaves.'

It will be seen by these clauses in the Lecompton constitution that they are identical in spirit with the authoritative article in the Washington Union' of the day previous to its indorsement of this constitution."

I pass over some portions of the speech and I hope that any one who feels interested in this matter will read the entire section of the speech and see whether I do the judge an injustice. He proceeds:

"When I saw that article in the Union' of the 17th of November, followed by the glorification of the Lecompton constitution on the 18th of November, and this clause in the constitution asserting the doctrine that a State has no right to prohibit slavery within its limits, I saw that there was a fatal blow being struck at the sovereignty of the States of this Union."

I stop the quotation there, again requesting that it may all be read. I have read all of the portion I desire to comment upon. What is this charge that the judge thinks I must have a very corrupt heart to make? It was a purpose on the part of certain high functionaries to make it impossible for the people of one State to prohibit the people of any other State from entering it with their "property," so called, and making it a slave State. In other words, it was a charge implying a design to make the institution of slavery national.

And now I ask your attention to what Judge Douglas has himself done here. I know that he made that part of the speech as a reason why he had refused to vote for a certain man for public printer; but when we get at it, the charge itself is the very one I made against him, that he thinks I am so corrupt for uttering. Now whom does he make that charge against? Does he make it against that newspaper editor merely? No, he says it is identical in spirit with the Lecompton constitution and so the framers of that constitution are