it　shall　become　alike　lawful　in　all　the　States；　old　as　well　as
  new；　North　as　well　as　South。〃
  Now；　you　all　see；　from　that　quotation；　I　did　not　express　my　wish
  on　anything。　　In　that　passage　I　indicated　no　wish　or　purpose　of
  my　own；　I　simply　expressed　my　expectation。　　Cannot　the　Judge
  perceive　a　distinction　between　a　purpose　and　an　expectation？　　I
  have　often　expressed　an　expectation　to　die；　but　I　have　never
  expressed　a　wish　to　die。　　I　said　at　Chicago；　and　now　repeat；　that
  I　am　quite　aware　this　government　has　endured；　half　slave　and　half
  free；　for　eighty…two　years。　　I　understand　that　little　bit　of
  history。　　I　expressed　the　opinion　I　did　because　I　perceivedor
  thought　I　perceiveda　new　set　of　causes　introduced。　　I　did　say
  at　Chicago；　in　my　speech　there；　that　I　do　wish　to　see　the　spread
  of　slavery　arrested；　and　to　see　it　placed　where　the　public　mind
  shall　rest　in　the　belief　that　it　is　in　the　course　of　ultimate
  extinction。　　I　said　that　because　I　supposed；　when　the　public　mind
  shall　rest　in　that　belief；　we　shall　have　peace　on　the　slavery
  question。　　I　have　believedand　now　believethe　public　mind　did
  rest　on　that　belief　up　to　the　introduction　of　the　Nebraska　Bill。
  Although　I　have　ever　been　opposed　to　slavery；　so　far　I　rested　in
  the　hope　and　belief　that　it　was　in　the　course　of　ultimate
  extinction。　　For　that　reason　it　had　been　a　minor　question　with
  me。　　I　might　have　been　mistaken；　but　I　had　believed；　and　now
  believe；　that　the　whole　public　mind；　that　is；　the　mind　of　the
  great　majority；　had　rested　in　that　belief　up　to　the　repeal　of　the
  Missouri　Compromise。　　But　upon　that　event　I　became　convinced　that
  either　I　had　been　resting　in　a　delusion；　or　the　institution　was
  being　placed　on　a　new　basis；　a　basis　for　making　it　perpetual；
  national；　and　universal。　　Subsequent　events　have　greatly
  confirmed　me　in　that　belief。　　I　believe　that　bill　to　be　the
  beginning　of　a　conspiracy　for　that　purpose。　　So　believing；　I　have
  since　then　considered　that　question　a　paramount　one。　　So
  believing；　I　thought　the　public　mind　will　never　rest　till　the
  power　of　Congress　to　restrict　the　spread　of　it　shall　again　be
  acknowledged　and　exercised　on　the　one　hand　or；　on　the　other；　all
  resistance　be　entirely　crushed　out。　　I　have　expressed　that
  opinion；　and　I　entertain　it　to…night。　　It　is　denied　that　there　is
  any　tendency　to　the　nationalization　of　slavery　in　these　States。
  Mr。　Brooks；　of　South　Carolina；　in　one　of　his　speeches；　when　they
  were　presenting　him　canes；　silver　plate；　gold　pitchers；　and　the
  like；　for　assaulting　Senator　Sumner；　distinctly　affirmed　his
  opinion　that　when　this　Constitution　was　formed　it　was　the　belief
  of　no　man　that　slavery　would　last　to　the　present　day。　　He　said；
  what　I　think；　that　the　framers　of　our　Constitution　placed　the
  institution　of　slavery　where　the　public　mind　rested　in　the　hope
  that　it　was　in　the　course　of　ultimate　extinction。　　But　he　went　on
  to　say　that　the　men　of　the　present　age；　by　their　experience；　have
  become　wiser　than　the　framers　of　the　Constitution；　and　the
  invention　of　the　cotton　gin　had　made　the　perpetuity　of　slavery　a
  necessity　in　this　country。
  As　another　piece　of　evidence　tending　to　this　same　point：　Quite
  recently　in　Virginia；　a　manthe　owner　of　slavesmade　a　will
  providing　that　after　his　death　certain　of　his　slaves　should　have
  their　freedom　if　they　should　so　choose；　and　go　to　Liberia；　rather
  than　remain　in　slavery。　　They　chose　to　be　liberated。　　But　the
  persons　to　whom　they　would　descend　as　property　claimed　them　as
  slaves。　　A　suit　was　instituted；　which　finally　came　to　the　Supreme
  Court　of　Virginia；　and　was　therein　decided　against　the　slaves
  upon　the　ground　that　a　negro　cannot　make　a　choice；　that　they　had
  no　legal　power　to　choose；　could　not　perform　the　condition　upon
  which　their　freedom　depended。
  I　do　not　mention　this　with　any　purpose　of　criticizing　it；　but　to
  connect　it　with　the　arguments　as　affording　additional　evidence　of
  the　change　of　sentiment　upon　this　question　of　slavery　in　the
  direction　of　making　it　perpetual　and　national。　　I　argue　now　as　I
  did　before；　that　there　is　such　a　tendency；　and　I　am　backed；　not
  merely　by　the　facts；　but　by　the　open　confession　in　the　slave
  States。
  And　now　as　to　the　Judge's　inference　that　because　I　wish　to　see
  slavery　placed　in　the　course　of　ultimate　extinction；placed
  where　our　fathers　originally　placed　it；I　wish　to　annihilate　the
  State　Legislatures；　to　force　cotton　to　grow　upon　the　tops　of　the
  Green　Mountains；　to　freeze　ice　in　Florida；　to　cut　lumber　on　the
  broad　Illinois　prairie；that　I　am　in　favor　of　all　these
  ridiculous　and　impossible　things。
  It　seems　to　me　it　is　a　complete　answer　to　all　this　to　ask　if；
  when　Congress　did　have　the　fashion　of　restricting　slavery　from
  free　territory；　when　courts　did　have　the　fashion　of　deciding　that
  taking　a　slave　into　a　free　country　made　him　free；I　say　it　is　a
  sufficient　answer　to　ask　if　any　of　this　ridiculous　nonsense　about
  consolidation　and　uniformity　did　actually　follow。　　Who　heard　of
  any　such　thing　because　of　the　Ordinance　of　'87？　　because　of　the
  Missouri　restriction？　　because　of　the　numerous　court　decisions　of
  that　character？
  Now；　as　to　the　Dred　Scott　decision；　for　upon　that　he　makes　his
  last　point　at　me。　　He　boldly　takes　ground　in　favor　of　that
  decision。
  This　is　one　half　the　onslaught；　and　one　third　of　the　entire　plan
  of　the　campaign。　　I　am　opposed　to　that　decision　in　a　certain
  sense；　but　not　in　the　sense　which　he　puts　it。　　I　say　that　in　so
  far　as　it　decided　in　favor　of　Dred　Scott's　master；　and　against
  Dred　Scott　and　his　family；　I　do　not　propose　to　disturb　or　resist
  the　decision。
  I　never　have　proposed　to　do　any　such　thing。　　I　think　that　in
  respect　for　judicial　authority　my　humble　history　would　not　suffer
  in　comparison　with　that　of　Judge　Douglas。　　He　would　have　the
  citizen　conform　his　vote　to　that　decision；　the　member　of
  Congress；　his；　the　President；　his　use　of　the　veto　power。　　He
  would　make　it　a　rule　of　political　action　for　the　people　and　all
  the　departments　of　the　government。　　I　would　not。　　By　resisting　it
  as　a　political　rule；　I　disturb　no　right　of　property；　create　no
  disorder；　excite　no　mobs。
  When　he　spoke　at　Chicago；　on　Friday　evening　of　last　week；　he　made
  this　same　point　upon　me。　　On　Saturday　evening　I　replied；　and
  reminded　him　of　a　Supreme　Court　decision　which　he　opposed　for　at
  least　several　years。　　Last　night；　at　Bloomington；　he　took　some
  notice　of　that　reply；　but　entirely　forgot　to　remember　that　part
  of　it。
  He　renews　his　onslaught　upon　me；　forgetting　to　remember　that　I
  have　turned　the　tables　against　himself　on　that　very　point。　　I
  renew　the　effort　to　draw　his　attention　to　it。　　I　wish　to　stand
  erect　before　the　country；　as　well　as　Judge　Douglas；　on　this
  question　of　judicial　authority；　and　therefore　I　add　something　to
  the　authority　in　favor　of　my　own　position。　　I　wish　to　show　that　I
  am　sustained　by　authority；　in　addition　to　that　heretofore
  presented。　　I　do　not　expect　to　convince　the　Judge。　　It　is　part　of
  the　plan　of　his　campaign；　and　he　will　cling　to　it　with　a
  desperate　grip。　　Even　turn　it　upon　him；the　sharp　point　against
  him；　and　gaff　him　through；he　will　still　cling　to　it　till　he　can
  invent　some　new　dodge　to　take　the　place　of　it。
  In　public　speaking　it　is　tedious　reading　from　documents；　but　I
  must　beg　to　indulge　the　practice　to　a　limited　extent。　　I　shall
  read　from　a　letter　written　by　Mr。　Jefferson　in　1820；　and　now　to
  be　found　in　the　seventh　volume　of　his　correspondence；　at　page
  177。　　It　seems　he　had　been　presented　by　a　gentleman　of　the　name
  of　Jarvis　with　a　book；　or　essay；　or　periodical；　called　the
  Republican；　and　he　was　writing　in　acknowledgment　of　the　present；
  and　noting　some　of　its　contents。　　After　expressing　the　hope　that
  the　work　will　produce　a　favorable　effect　upon　the　minds　of　the
  young；　he　proceeds　to　say：
  〃That　it　will　have　this　tendency　may　be　expected；　and　for　that
  reason　I　feel　an　urgency　to　note　what　I　deem　an　error　in　it；　the
  more　requiring　notice　as　your　opinion　is　strengthened　by　that　of
  many　others。　　You　seem；　in　pages　84　and　148；　to　consider　the
  judges　as　the　ultimate　arbiters　of　all　constitutional　questions；…
  …a　very　dangerous　doctrine　indeed；　and　one　which　would　place　us
  under　the　despotism　of　an　oligarchy。　　Our　judges　are　as　honest　as
  other　men；　and　not　more　so。　　They　have；　with　others；　the　same
  passions　for　party；　for　power；　and　the　privilege　of　their　corps。
  Their　maxim　is；　'Boni　judicis　est　ampliare　jurisdictionem'；　and
  their　power　is　the　more　dangerous　as　they　are　in　office　for　life；
  and　not　responsible；　as　the　other　functionaries　are；　to　the
  elective　control。　　The　Constitution　has　erected　no　such　single
  tribunal；　knowing　that；　to　whatever　hands　confided；　with　the
  corruptions　of　time　and　party；　its　members　would　become　despots。
  It　has　more　wisely　made　all　the　departments　co…equal　and
  co…sovereign　with　themselves。〃
  Thus　we　see　the　power　claimed　for　the　Supreme　Court　by　Ju