nality　of　the　Dred　Scott　decision　and　the　exclusion　of　negroes　from　the　Declaration　of　Independence　were　insisted　on。　　Much　of　the　speech　was　devoted　to　the　local　and　transient　questions　of　Illinois　politics。
  Lincoln；　replying　to　the　charge　that　the　slavery　agitation　was　the　result　of　the　aggressive　attitude　of　Northern　Abolitionists；　again　insisted　that　the　propagandists　of　slavery　were　the　aggressors；　having　attempted　to　change　it　from　a　local　and　declining　institution　and　spread　it　through　all　the　Territories；　removing　it　〃from　the　basis　on　which　the　fathers　left　it　to　the　basis　of　its　perpetuation　and　nationalization。〃　　The　agitation　began　with　the　repeal　of　the　Missouri　Compromise。
  〃Who；〃　he　asked；　〃did　that？　　Why；　when　we　had　peace　under　the　Missouri　Compromise；　could　you　not　have　left　it　alone？〃
  He　quoted　Douglas'　speech　in　the　Senate　on　June　9th；　1856；　in　which　he　had　declared　that　〃whether　the　people　could　exclude　slavery　prior　to　the　formation　of　a　Constitution　or　not；　was　a　question　to　be　decided　by　the　Supreme　Court。　　*　*　*　*　When　he　says；　after　the　Supreme　Court　has　decided　the　question；　that　the　people　may　yet　exclude　slavery　by　any　means　whatever；　he　does　virtually　say　that　it　is　not　a　question　for　the　Supreme　Court。　　*　*　*　the　proposition　that　slavery　cannot　enter　a　new　country　without　police　regulations　is　historically　false。　　*　*　*　Slavery　was　originally　planted　upon　this　continent　without　these　police　regulations。　　*　*　*　How　came　the　Dred　Scott　decision　to　be　made？　　It　was　made　upon　the　case　of　a　negro　being　taken　and　actually　held　in　slavery　in　Minnesota　Territory；　claiming　his　freedom　because　the　act　of　Congress　prohibited　his　being　so　held　there。　　Will　the　Judge　pretend　that　Dred　Scott　was　not　held　there　without　police　regulations？　　*　*　*　*　This　shows　that　there　is　vigor　enough　in　slavery　to　plant　itself　in　a　new　country；　even　against　unfriendly　legislation。　　It　takes　not　only　law；　but　the　enforcement　of　the　law；　to　keep　it　out。　　This　is　the　history　of　this　country　upon　the　subject。　　*　*　*　The　first　thing　a　Senator　does　is　swear　to　support　the　Constitution　of　the　United　States。　　Suppose　a　Senator　believes；　as　Douglas　does；　that　the　Constitution　guarantees　the　right　to　hold　slaves　in　a　Territory。　How　can　he　clear　his　oath　unless　he　supports　such　legislation　as　is　necessary　to　enable　the　people　to　enjoy　their　property？　　Can　you；　if　you　swear　to　support　the　Constitution；　and　believe　that　the　Constitution　establishes　a　right；　clear　your　oath　without　giving　it　support？　　*　*　*　*　There　can　be　nothing　in　the　words；　'support　the　Constitution；'　if　you　may　run　counter　to　it　by　refusing　to　support　it。　　*　*　*　*　And　what　I　say　here　will　hod　with　still　more　force　against　the　Judge's　doctrine　of　unfriendly　legislation。　　*　*　*　Is　not　Congress　itself　bound　to　give　legislative　support　to　any　right　that　is　established　in　the　United　States　Constitution？　　A　Member　of　Congress　swears　to　support　the　Constitution　*　*　*　and　if　he　sees　a　right　established　by　that　Constitution　which　needs　specific　legislative　protection；　can　he　clear　his　oath　without　giving　that　protection。　　*　*　*　If　I　acknowledge　*　*　*　that　this　（Dred　Scott）　decision　properly　construes　the　Constitution；　I　cannot　conceive　that　I　would　be　less　than　a　perjured　man　if　I　should　refuse　in　Congress　to　give　such　protection　to　that　property　as　in　its　nature　is　needed。〃
  He　then　stated　his　fifth　interrogatory：　　If　slave…holding　citizens　of　the　United　States　Territory　should　need　and　demand　congressional　legislation　for　the　protection　of　their　slave　property　in　such　Territory；　would　you　as　a　Member　of　Congress；　vote　for　or　against　such　legislation？
  Douglas　in　his　reply　took　up　Lincoln's　rather　evasive　answer　to　his　second　interrogatory　submitted　at　Ottawa。　　〃Lincoln；〃　he　said；　〃would　be　exceedingly　sorry　to　be　put　in　a　position　where　he　would　have　to　vote　on　the　question　of　the　admission　of　slave　States。　　Why　is　he　a　candidate　for　the　Senate　if　he　would　be　sorry　to　be　put　in　that　position？　　*　*　*　*　If　Congress　keeps　out　slavery　by　law　while　it　is　a　Territory　and　then　the　people　should　have　a　fair　chance　and　should　adopt　slavery；　he　supposes　he　would　have　to　admit　the　State。　　Suppose　Congress　should　not　keep　slavery　out　during　their　territorial　existence；　then　how　would　he　vote　when　the　people　applied　for　admission　with　a　slave　Constitution？　　That　he　does　not　answer；　and　that　is　the　condition　of　every　Territory　we　have　now　got。　　His　answer　only　applies　to　a　given　case　which　he　knows　does　not　exist　in　any　Territory。　　But　Mr。　Lincoln　does　not　want　to　be　held　responsible　for　the　black　Republican　doctrine　of　no　more　slave　States。　　Why　are　men　running　for　Congress　in　the　northern　Distracts　and　taking　that　Abolition　platform　for　their　guide　when　Mr。　Lincoln　does　not　want　to　be　held　to　it　down　here　in　Egypt？　　His　party　in　the　northern　part　of　the　State　hold　to　that　Abolition　platform；　and　if　they　do　not　in　the　south；　they　present　the　extra…ordinary　spectacle　of　'a　house　divided　against　itself'　and　hence　'cannot　stand。'〃
  In　answer　to　Lincoln's　last　question；　he　said：　　〃It　is　a　fundamental　article　of　the　Democratic　creed　that　there　should　be　non…interference　or　non…intervention　of　Congress　with　slavery　in　the　States　or　Territories。　　The　Democratic　party　have　always　stood　by　that　great　principle　and　I　stand　on　that　platform　now。　　*　*　*　*　Lincoln　himself　will　not　answer　this　question。　　*　*　*　It　is　true　*　*　*　（he　admits）　that　under　the　decision　of　the　Supreme　Court；　it　is　the　duty　of　a　man　to　vote　for　a　slave　code　in　the　Territories。　　If　he　believed　in　that　decision　he　would　be　a　perjured　man　if　he　did　not　give　the　vote。　　I　want　to　know　whether　he　is　not　bound　to　a　decision　which　is　contrary　to　his　opinions　just　as　much　as　to　one　in　accordance　with　his　opinions？　　*　*　*　Is　every　man　in　this　land　allowed　to　resist　decisions　he　does　not　like　and　only　support　those　which　meet　his　approval？　　*　*　*　*　It　is　the　fundamental　principle　of　the　judiciary　that　its　decisions　are　final。　　*　*　*　*　My　doctrine　is　that；　even　taking　Mr。　Lincoln's　view　that　the　decision　recognizes　the　right　of　a　man　to　carry　his　slaves　into　the　Territories；　yet　after　he　gets　them　there　he　needs　affirmative　law　to　make　that　right　of　any　value。　The　same　doctrine　applies　to　all　other　kinds　of　property。
  〃Suppose　one　of　your　merchants　should　move　to　Kansas　and　open　a　liquor　store；　he　has　a　right　to　take　groceries　or　liquor　there；　but　the　circumstances　under　which　they　shall　be　sold　and　all　the　remedies　must　be　prescribed　by　local　legislation；　and　if　that　is　unfriendly　it　will　drive　him　out　just　as　effectually　as　if　there　was　a　constitutional　provision　against　the　sale　of　liquor。　　Hence；　I　assert；　that　under　the　Dred　Scott　decision　you　cannot　maintain　slavery　a　day　in　a　Territory　where　there　is　an　unwilling　people　and　unfriendly　legislation。　　If　the　people　want　slavery　they　will　have　it；　and　if　they　do　not　want　it　you　cannot　force　it　upon　them。〃
  Neither　Lincoln　nor　Douglas　could　as　yet　fairly　and　fearlessly　grapple　with　the　great　problem。　　Lincoln's　virtual　rejection　and　defiance　of　the　decision　of　the　Supreme　Court　suggests　not　reform　but　revolution。　　These　dark　hints　that　the　decisions　of　the　highest　tribunal　should　not　be　accepted　or　obeyed；　that　they　were　binding　only　on　those　who　believed　in　them；　portended　nothing　less　than　war。　　Slavery　being　an　established　institution；　recognized　by　the　Constitution　and　regulated　by　law；　had　the　right　to　exist。　　Lincoln　and　his　party　abhorred　it　and　resented　the　injustice　of　the　law。　Obeying　the　dominant　instinct　of　the　race；　the　scrupulously　observed　the　form　of　the　law　while　waging　war　upon　it。　　On　the　other　hand　it　is　impossible　to　find　either　legal　or　philosophical　foundation　for　Douglas'　arguments。　　Slavery　had　been　adjudged　lawful　in　all　the　Territories。　　The　proposition　gravely　argued　by　him；　that　the　people　could　lawfully　exclude　a　thing　from　a　place　where　it　had　a　lawful　right　to　be；　was　monstrous。　　He　sternly　rebuked　Lincoln　for　his　irreverence　in　refusing　to　cordially　accept　the　Dred　Scott　decision　and　in　the　next　breath；　with　shocking　inconsistency；　dissolved　its　entire　force　in　the　menstruum　of　unfriendly　legislation。　　The　decision　was　utterly　repugnant　to　the　people　of　the　State。　　The　both　viewed　it　as　a　political　rather　than　a　philosophic　problem。　Both　rejected　it　and　the　consequences　flowing　from　it。　　Lincoln　quibbled　when　asked　to　accept　it　as　a　rule　governing　his　political　conduct。　　Douglas；　by　a　cunning　device；　sought　to　destroy　its　force　as　a　rule　of　private　right。　　Lincoln　insisted　on　the　essential　dishonesty　of　the　juggling　trick　by　which　Douglas　got　rid　of　the　adjudicated　law。　　Douglas　insisted　on　the　anarchic　spirit　with　which　Lincoln　bade　defiance　to　it。
  It　would　be　tedious　to　follow　the　debates　through　in　detail。　Necessarily　the　later　arguments　were　mainly　a　repetition　of　those　made　in　the　earlier　speeches。　　Thee　was　a　marked　falling　off　in　the　good　temper　and　mutual　courtesy　of　the　combatants　in　the　later　stages　of　the　contest。　　The　abiding　question　to　which　the　argument　constantly　recurred　was　that　of　negro　slavery；　as　to　which　Lincoln　was　darkly　oracular　and　Douglas　was　resolutely　evasive。　　Lincoln　again　and　again　pressed　Douglas　to　say　whether　he