I　have　argued　and　said　that　for　men　who　did；　intend　that　the
  people　of　the　Territory　should　have　the　right　to　exclude　slavery
  absolutely　and　unconditionally；　the　voting　down　of　Chase's
  amendment　is　wholly　inexplicable。　　It　is　a　puzzle；　a　riddle。　　But
  I　have　said；　that　with　men　who　did　look　forward　to　such　a
  decision；　or　who　had　it　in　contemplation　that　such　a　decision　of
  the　Supreme　Court　would　or　might　be　made；　the　voting　down　of　that
  amendment　would　be　perfectly　rational　and　intelligible。　　It　would
  keep　Congress　from　coming　in　collision　with　the　decision　when　it
  was　made。　　Anybody　can　conceive　that　if　there　was　an　intention　or
  expectation　that　such　a　decision　was　to　follow；　it　would　not　be　a
  very　desirable　party　attitude　to　get　into　for　the　Supreme　Court
  all　or　nearly　all　its　members　belonging　to　the　same　partyto
  decide　one　way；　when　the　party　in　Congress　had　decided　the　other
  way。　　Hence　it　would　be　very　rational　for　men　expecting　such　a
  decision　to　keep　the　niche　in　that　law　clear　for　it。　　After
  pointing　this　out；　I　tell　Judge　Douglas　that　it　looks　to　me　as
  though　here　was　the　reason　why　Chase's　amendment　was　voted　down。
  I　tell　him　that；　as　he　did　it；　and　knows　why　he　did　it；　if　it　was
  done　for　a　reason　different　from　this；　he　knows　what　that　reason
  was　and　can　tell　us　what　it　was。　　I　tell　him；　also；　it　will　be
  vastly　more　satisfactory　to　the　country　for　him　to　give　some
  other　plausible；　intelligible　reason　why　it　was　voted　down　than
  to　stand　upon　his　dignity　and　call　people　liars。　　Well；　on
  Saturday　he　did　make　his　answer；　and　what　do　you　think　it　was？
  He　says　if　I　had　only　taken　upon　myself　to　tell　the　whole　truth
  about　that　amendment　of　Chase's；　no　explanation　would　have　been
  necessary　on　his　part　or　words　to　that　effect。　　Now；　I　say　here
  that　I　am　quite　unconscious　of　having　suppressed　anything
  material　to　the　case；　and　I　am　very　frank　to　admit　if　there　is
  any　sound　reason　other　than　that　which　appeared　to　me　material；
  it　is　quite　fair　for　him　to　present　it。　　What　reason　does　he
  propose？　　That　when　Chase　came　forward　with　his　amendment
  expressly　authorizing　the　people　to　exclude　slavery　from　the
  limits　of　every　Territory；　General　Cass　proposed　to　Chase；　if　he
  （Chase）　would　add　to　his　amendment　that　the　people　should　have
  the　power　to　introduce　or　exclude；　they　would　let　it　go。　　This　is
  substantially　all　of　his　reply。　　And　because　Chase　would　not　do
  that；　they　voted　his　amendment　down。　　Well；　it　turns　out；　I
  believe；　upon　examination；　that　General　Cass　took　some　part　in
  the　little　running　debate　upon　that　amendment；　and　then　ran　away
  and　did　not　vote　on　it　at　all。　　Is　not　that　the　fact？　　So
  confident；　as　I　think；　was　General　Cass　that　there　was　a　snake
  somewhere　about；　he　chose　to　run　away　from　the　whole　thing。　　This
  is　an　inference　I　draw　from　the　fact　that；　though　he　took　part　in
  the　debate；　his　name　does　not　appear　in　the　ayes　and　noes。　　But
  does　Judge　Douglas's　reply　amount　to　a　satisfactory　answer？
  ＇Cries　of　〃Yes；　〃Yes；〃　and　〃No；〃　〃No。〃＇
  There　is　some　little　difference　of　opinion　here。　　But　I　ask
  attention　to　a　few　more　views　bearing　on　the　question　of　whether
  it　amounts　to　a　satisfactory　answer。　　The　men　who　were　determined
  that　that　amendment　should　not　get　into　the　bill；　and　spoil　the
  place　where　the　Dred　Scott　decision　was　to　come　in；　sought　an
  excuse　to　get　rid　of　it　somewhere。　　One　of　these　waysone　of
  these　excuseswas　to　ask　Chase　to　add　to　his　proposed　amendment
  a　provision　that　the　people　might　introduce　slavery　if　they
  wanted　to。　　They　very　well　knew　Chase　would　do　no　such　thing；
  that　Mr。　Chase　was　one　of　the　men　differing　from　them　on　the
  broad　principle　of　his　insisting　that　freedom　was　better　than
  slavery；a　man　who　would　not　consent　to　enact　a　law；　penned　with
  his　own　hand；　by　which　he　was　made　to　recognize　slavery　on　the
  one　hand；　and　liberty　on　the　other；　as　precisely　equal；　and　when
  they　insisted　on　his　doing　this；　they　very　well　knew　they
  insisted　on　that　which　he　would　not　for　a　moment　think　of　doing；
  and　that　they　were　only　bluffing　him。　　I　believe　（I　have　not；
  since　he　made　his　answer；　had　a　chance　to　examine　the　journals　or
  Congressional　Globe　and　therefore　speak　from　memory）I　believe
  the　state　of　the　bill　at　that　time；　according　to　parliamentary
  rules；　was　such　that　no　member　could　propose　an　additional
  amendment　to　Chase's　amendment。　　I　rather　think　this　is　the
  truth；the　Judge　shakes　his　head。　　Very　well。　　I　would　like　to
  know；　then；　if　they　wanted　Chase's　amendment　fixed　over；　why
  somebody　else　could　not　have　offered　to　do　it？　　If　they　wanted　it
  amended；　why　did　they　not　offer　the　amendment？　　Why　did　they　not
  put　it　in　themselves？　　　But　to　put　it　on　the　other　ground：
  suppose　that　there　was　such　an　amendment　offered；　and　Chase's　was
  an　amendment　to　an　amendment；　until　one　is　disposed　of　by
  parliamentary　law；　you　cannot　pile　another　on。　　Then　all　these
  gentlemen　had　to　do　was　to　vote　Chase's　on；　and　then；　in　the
  amended　form　in　which　the　whole　stood；　add　their　own　amendment　to
  it；　if　they　wanted　to　put　it　in　that　shape。　　This　was　all　they
  were　obliged　to　do；　and　the　ayes　and　noes　show　that　there　were
  thirty…six　who　voted　it　down；　against　ten　who　voted　in　favor　of
  it。　　The　thirty…six　held　entire　sway　and　control。　　They　could　in
  some　form　or　other　have　put　that　bill　in　the　exact　shape　they
  wanted。　　If　there　was　a　rule　preventing　their　amending　it　at　the
  time；　they　could　pass　that；　and　then；　Chase's　amendment　being
  merged；　put　it　in　the　shape　they　wanted。　　They　did　not　choose　to
  do　so；　but　they　went　into　a　quibble　with　Chase　to　get　him　to　add
  what　they　knew　he　would　not　add；　and　because　he　would　not；　they
  stand　upon　the　flimsy　pretext　for　voting　down　what　they　argued
  was　the　meaning　and　intent　of　their　own　bill。　　They　left　room
  thereby　for　this　Dred　Scott　decision；　which　goes　very　far　to　make
  slavery　national　throughout　the　United　States。
  I　pass　one　or　two　points　I　have；　because　my　time　will　very　soon
  expire；　but　I　must　be　allowed　to　say　that　Judge　Douglas　recurs
  again；　as　he　did　upon　one　or　two　other　occasions；　to　the　enormity
  of　Lincoln；　an　insignificant　individual　like　Lincoln；upon　his
  ipse　dixit　charging　a　conspiracy　upon　a　large　number　of　members
  of　Congress；　the　Supreme　Court；　and　two　Presidents；　to
  nationalize　slavery。　　I　want　to　say　that；　in　the　first　place；　I
  have　made　no　charge　of　this　sort　upon　my　ipse　dixit。　　I　have　only
  arrayed　the　evidence　tending　to　prove　it；　and　presented　it　to　the
  understanding　of　others；　saying　what　I　think　it　proves；　but
  giving　you　the　means　of　judging　whether　it　proves　it　or　not。
  This　is　precisely　what　I　have　done。　　I　have　not　placed　it　upon　my
  ipse　dixit　at　all。　　On　this　occasion；　I　wish　to　recall　his
  attention　to　a　piece　of　evidence　which　I　brought　forward　at
  Ottawa　on　Saturday；　showing　that　he　had　made　substantially　the
  same　charge　against　substantially　the　same　persons；　excluding　his
  dear　self　from　the　category。　　I　ask　him　to　give　some　attention　to
  the　evidence　which　I　brought　forward　that　he　himself　had
  discovered　a　〃fatal　blow　being　struck〃　against　the　right　of　the
  people　to　exclude　slavery　from　their　limits；　which　fatal　blow　he
  assumed　as　in　evidence　in　an　article　in　the　Washington　Union；
  published　〃by　authority。〃　　I　ask　by　whose　authority？　　He
  discovers　a　similar　or　identical　provision　in　the　Lecompton
  Constitution。　　Made　by　whom？　　The　framers　of　that　Constitution。
  Advocated　by　whom？　　By　all　the　members　of　the　party　in　the
  nation；　who　advocated　the　introduction　of　Kansas　into　the　Union
  under　the　Lecompton　Constitution。　　I　have　asked　his　attention　to
  the　evidence　that　he　arrayed　to　prove　that　such　a　fatal　blow　was
  being　struck；　and　to　the　facts　which　he　brought　forward　in
  support　of　that　charge；being　identical　with　the　one　which　he
  thinks　so　villainous　in　me。　　He　pointed　it；　not　at　a　newspaper
  editor　merely；　but　at　the　President　and　his　Cabinet　and　the
  members　of　Congress　advocating　the　Lecompton　Constitution　and
  those　framing　that　instrument。　　I　must　again　be　permitted　to
  remind　him　that　although　my　ipse　dixit　may　not　be　as　great　as
  his；　yet　it　somewhat　reduces　the　force　of　his　calling　my
  attention　to　the　enormity　of　my　making　a　like　charge　against　him。
  Go　on；　Judge　Douglas。
  Mr。　LINCOLN'S　REJOINDER。
  MY　FRIENDS：It　will　readily　occur　to　you　that　I　cannot；　in　half
  an　hour；　notice　all　the　things　that　so　able　a　man　as　Judge
  Douglas　can　say　in　an　hour　and　a　half；　and　I　hope；　therefore；　if
  there　be　anything　that　he　has　said　upon　which　you　would　like　to
  hear　something　from　me；　but　which　I　omit　to　comment　upon；　you
  will　bear　in　mind　that　it　would　be　expecting　an　impossibility　for
  me　to　go　over　his　whole　ground。　　I　can　but　take　up　some　of　the
  points　that　he　has　dwelt　upon；　and　employ　my　half…hour　specially
  on　them。
  The　first　thing　I　have　to　say　to　you　is　a　word　in　regard　to　Judge
  Douglas's　declaration　about　the　〃