But　in　all　this　it　is　very　plain　the　Judge　evades　the　only
  question　the　Republicans　have　ever　pressed　upon　the　Democracy　in
  regard　to　Utah。　　That　question　the　Judge　well　knew　to　be　this：
  〃If　the　people　of　Utah　peacefully　form　a　State　constitution
  tolerating　polygamy；　will　the　Democracy　admit　them　into　the
  Union？〃　There　is　nothing　in　the　United　States　Constitution　or　law
  against　polygamy；　and　why　is　it　not　a　part　of　the　Judge's　〃sacred
  right　of　self…government〃　for　the　people　to　have　it；　or　rather　to
  keep　it；　if　they　choose？　　These　questions；　so　far　as　I　know；　the
  Judge　never　answers。　　It　might　involve　the　Democracy　to　answer
  them　either　way；　and　they　go　unanswered。
  As　to　Kansas。　　The　substance　of　the　Judge's　speech　on　Kansas　is
  an　effort　to　put　the　free…State　men　in　the　wrong　for　not　voting
  at　the　election　of　delegates　to　the　constitutional　convention。
  He　says：
  〃There　is　every　reason　to　hope　and　believe　that　the　law　will　be
  fairly　interpreted　and　impartially　executed；　so　as　to　insure　to
  every　bona　fide　inhabitant　the　free　and　quiet　exercise　of　the
  elective　franchise。〃
  It　appears　extraordinary　that　Judge　Douglas　should　make　such　a
  statement。　　He　knows　that；　by　the　law；　no　one　can　vote　who　has
  not　been　registered；　and　he　knows　that　the　free…State　men　place
  their　refusal　to　vote　on　the　ground　that　but　few　of　them　have
  been　registered。　　It　is　possible　that　this　is　not　true；　but　Judge
  Douglas　knows　it　is　asserted　to　be　true　in　letters；　newspapers；
  and　public　speeches；　and　borne　by　every　mail　and　blown　by　every
  breeze　to　the　eyes　and　ears　of　the　world。　　He　knows　it　is　boldly
  declared　that　the　people　of　many　whole　counties；　and　many　whole
  neighborhoods　in　others；　are　left　unregistered；　yet　he　does　not
  venture　to　contradict　the　declaration；　or　to　point　out　how　they
  can　vote　without　being　registered；　but　he　just　slips　along；　not
  seeming　to　know　there　is　any　such　question　of　fact；　and
  complacently　declares：
  〃There　is　every　reason　to　hope　and　believe　that　the　law　will　be
  fairly　and　impartially　executed；　so　as　to　insure　to　every　bona
  fide　inhabitant　the　free　and　quiet　exercise　of　the　elective
  franchise。〃
  I　readily　agree　that　if　all　had　a　chance　to　vote　they　ought　to
  have　voted。　　If；　on　the　contrary；　as　they　allege；　and　Judge
  Douglas　ventures　not　to　particularly　contradict；　few　only　of　the
  free…State　men　had　a　chance　to　vote；　they　were　perfectly　right　in
  staying　from　the　polls　in　a　body。
  By　the　way；　since　the　Judge　spoke；　the　Kansas　election　has　come
  off。　　The　Judge　expressed　his　confidence　that　all　the　Democrats
  in　Kansas　would　do　their　duty…including　〃free…State　Democrats；〃
  of　course。　　The　returns　received　here　as　yet　are　very　incomplete；
  but　so　far　as　they　go；　they　indicate　that　only　about　one　sixth　of
  the　registered　voters　have　really　voted；　and　this；　too；　when　not
  more；　perhaps；　than　one　half　of　the　rightful　voters　have　been
  registered；　thus　showing　the　thing　to　have　been　altogether　the
  most　exquisite　farce　ever　enacted。　　I　am　watching　with
  considerable　interest　to　ascertain　what　figure　〃the　free…State
  Democrats〃　cut　in　the　concern。　　Of　course　they　voted；all
  Democrats　do　their　duty；and　of　course　they　did　not　vote　for
  slave…State　candidates。　　We　soon　shall　know　how　many　delegates
  they　elected；　how　many　candidates　they　had　pledged　to　a　free
  State；　and　how　many　votes　were　cast　for　them。
  Allow　me　to　barely　whisper　my　suspicion　that　there　were　no　such
  things　in　Kansas　as　〃free…State　Democrats〃that　they　were
  altogether　mythical；　good　only　to　figure　in　newspapers　and
  speeches　in　the　free　States。　　If　there　should　prove　to　be　one
  real　living　free…State　Democrat　in　Kansas；　I　suggest　that　it
  might　be　well　to　catch　him；　and　stuff　and　preserve　his　skin　as　an
  interesting　specimen　of　that　soon…to…be　extinct　variety　of　the
  genus　Democrat。
  And　now　as　to　the　Dred　Scott　decision。　　That　decision　declares
  two　propositionsfirst；　that　a　negro　cannot　sue　in　the　United
  States　courts；　and　secondly；　that　Congress　cannot　prohibit
  slavery　in　the　Territories。　　It　was　made　by　a　divided　court
  dividing　differently　on　the　different　points。　　Judge　Douglas　does
  not　discuss　the　merits　of　the　decision；　and　in　that　respect　I
  shall　follow　his　example；　believing　I　could　no　more　improve　on
  McLean　and　Curtis　than　he　could　on　Taney。
  He　denounces　all　who　question　the　correctness　of　that　decision；
  as　offering　violent　resistance　to　it。　　But　who　resists　it？　　Who
  has；　in　spite　of　the　decision；　declared　Dred　Scott　free；　and
  resisted　the　authority　of　his　master　over　him？
  Judicial　decisions　have　two　usesfirst；　to　absolutely　determine
  the　case　decided；　and　secondly；　to　indicate　to　the　public　how
  other　similar　cases　will　be　decided　when　they　arise。　　For　the
  latter　use；　they　are　called　〃precedents〃　and　〃authorities。〃
  We　believe　as　much　as　Judge　Douglas　（perhaps　more）　in　obedience
  to；　and　respect　for；　the　judicial　department　of　government。　　We
  think　its　decisions　on　constitutional　questions；　when　fully
  settled；　should　control　not　only　the　particular　cases　decided；
  but　the　general　policy　of　the　country；　subject　to　be　disturbed
  only　by　amendments　of　the　Constitution　as　provided　in　that
  instrument　itself。　　More　than　this　would　be　revolution。　　But　we
  think　the　Dred　Scott　decision　is　erroneous。　　We　know　the　court
  that　made　it　has　often　overruled　its　own　decisions；　and　we　shall
  do　what　we　can　to　have　it　to　overrule　this。　　We　offer　no
  resistance　to　it。
  Judicial　decisions　are　of　greater　or　less　authority　as　precedents
  according　to　circumstances。　　That　this　should　be　so　accords　both
  with　common　sense　and　the　customary　understanding　of　the　legal
  profession。
  If　this　important　decision　had　been　made　by　the　unanimous
  concurrence　of　the　judges；　and　without　any　apparent　partisan
  bias；　and　in　accordance　with　legal　public　expectation　and　with
  the　steady　practice　of　the　departments　throughout　our　history；
  and　had　been　in　no　part　based　on　assumed　historical　facts　which
  are　not　really　true；　or；　if　wanting　in　some　of　these；　it　had　been
  before　the　court　more　than　once；　and　had　there　been　affirmed　and
  reaffirmed　through　a　course　of　years；　it　then　might　be；　perhaps
  would　be；　factious；　nay；　even　revolutionary；　not　to　acquiesce　in
  it　as　a　precedent。
  But　when；　as　is　true；　we　find　it　wanting　in　all　these　claims　to
  the　public　confidence；　it　is　not　resistance；　it　is　not　factious；
  it　is　not　even　disrespectful；　to　treat　it　as　not　having　yet　quite
  established　a　settled　doctrine　for　the　country。　　But　Judge
  Douglas　considers　this　view　awful。　　Hear　him：
  〃The　courts　are　the　tribunals　prescribed　by　the　Constitution　and
  created　by　the　authority　of　the　people　to　determine；　expound；　and
  enforce　the　law。　　Hence；　whoever　resists　the　final　decision　of
  the　highest　judicial　tribunal　aims　a　deadly　blow　at　our　whole
  republican　system　of　governmenta　blow　which；　if　successful；
  would　place　all　our　rights　and　liberties　at　the　mercy　of　passion；
  anarchy；　and　violence。　　I　repeat；　therefore；　that　if　resistance
  to　the　decisions　of　the　Supreme　Court　of　the　United　States；　in　a
  matter　like　the　points　decided　in　the　Dred　Scott　case；　clearly
  within　their　jurisdiction　as　defined　by　the　Constitution；　shall
  be　forced　upon　the　country　as　a　political　issue；　it　will　become　a
  distinct　and　naked　issue　between　the　friends　and　enemies　of　the
  Constitutionthe　friends　and　the　enemies　of　the　supremacy　of　the
  laws。〃
  Why；　this　same　Supreme　Court　once　decided　a　national　bank　to　be
  constitutional；　but　General　Jackson；　as　President　of　the　United
  States；　disregarded　the　decision；　and　vetoed　a　bill　for　a
  recharter；　partly　on　constitutional　ground；　declaring　that　each
  public　functionary　must　support　the　Constitution　〃as　he
  understands　it。〃　But　hear　the　General's　own　words。　　Here　they
  are；　taken　from　his　veto　message：
  〃It　is　maintained　by　the　advocates　of　the　bank　that　its
  constitutionality；　in　all　its　features；　ought　to　be　considered　as
  settled　by　precedent；　and　by　the　decision　of　the　Supreme　Court。
  To　this　conclusion　I　cannot　assent。　　Mere　precedent　is　a
  dangerous　source　of　authority；　and　should　not　be　regarded　as
  deciding　questions　of　constitutional　power；　except　where　the
  acquiescence　of　the　people　and　the　States　can　be　considered　as
  well　settled。　　So　far　from　this　being　the　case　on　this　subject；
  an　argument　against　the　bank　might　be　based　on　precedent。　　One
  Congress；　in　1791；　decided　in　favor　of　a　bank；　another；　in　1811；
  decided　against　it。　　One　Congress；　in　1815；　decided　against　a
  bank；　another；　in　1816；　decided　in　its　favor。　　Prior　to　the
  present　Congress；　therefore；　the　precedents　drawn　from　that
  course　were　equal。　　If　we　resort　to　the　States；　the　expressions
  of　legislative；　judicial；　and　executive　opinions　against　the　bank
  have　been　probably　to　those　in　its　favor　as　four　to　one。　　There
  is　nothing　in　precedent；　therefore；　which；　if　its　authority　were
  admitted；　ough