Supreme　Court？　　Has　not　the　Supreme　Court　decided　that　question？
  when　he　now　says　the　people　may　exclude　slavery；　does　he　not　make
  it　a　question　for　the　people？　　Does　he　not　virtually　shift　his
  ground　and　say　that　it　is　not　a　question　for　the　Court；　but　for
  the　people？　　This　is　a　very　simple　proposition；a　very　plain　and
  naked　one。　　It　seems　to　me　that　there　is　no　difficulty　in
  deciding　it。　　In　a　variety　of　ways　he　said　that　it　was　a　question
  for　the　Supreme　Court。　　He　did　not　stop　then　to　tell　us　that；
  whatever　the　Supreme　Court　decides；　the　people　can　by　withholding
  necessary　〃police　regulations〃　keep　slavery　out。　　He　did　not　make
  any　such　answer　　I　submit　to　you　now　whether　the　new　state　of　the
  case　has　not　induced　the　Judge　to　sheer　away　from　his　original
  ground。　　Would　not　this　be　the　impression　of　every　fair…minded
  man？
  I　hold　that　the　proposition　that　slavery　cannot　enter　a　new
  country　without　police　regulations　is　historically　false。　　It　is
  not　true　at　all。　　I　hold　that　the　history　of　this　country　shows
  that　the　institution　of　slavery　was　originally　planted　upon　this
  continent　without　these　〃police　regulations；〃　which　the　Judge　now
  thinks　necessary　for　the　actual　establishment　of　it。　　Not　only
  so；　but　is　there　not　another　fact：　how　came　this　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？　　There　is　at　least　one
  matter　of　record　as　to　his　having　been　held　in　slavery　in　the
  Territory；　not　only　without　police　regulations；　but　in　the　teeth
  of　Congressional　legislation　supposed　to　be　valid　at　the　time。
  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　law　to　keep　it　out。　　That　is
  the　history　of　this　country　upon　the　subject。
  I　wish　to　ask　one　other　question。　　It　being　understood　that　the
  Constitution　of　the　United　States　guarantees　property　in　slaves
  in　the　Territories；　if　there　is　any　infringement　of　the　right　of
  that　property；　would　not　the　United　States　courts；　organized　for
  the　government　of　the　Territory；　apply　such　remedy　as　might　be
  necessary　in　that　case？　　It　is　a　maxim　held　by　the　courts　that
  there　is　no　wrong　without　its　remedy；　and　the　courts　have　a
  remedy　for　whatever　is　acknowledged　and　treated　as　a　wrong。
  Again：　I　will　ask　you；　my　friends；　if　you　were　elected　members　of
  the　Legislature；　what　would　be　the　first　thing　you　would　have　to
  do　before　entering　upon　your　duties？　　Swear　to　support　the
  Constitution　of　the　United　States。　　Suppose　you　believe；　as　Judge
  Douglas　does；　that　the　Constitution　of　the　United　States
  guarantees　to　your　neighbor　the　right　to　hold　slaves　in　that
  Territory；　that　they　are　his　property：　　how　can　you　clear　your
  oaths　unless　you　give　him　such　legislation　as　is　necessary　to
  enable　him　to　enjoy　that　property？　　What　do　you　understand　by
  supporting　the　Constitution　of　a　State；　or　of　the　United　States？
  Is　it　not　to　give　such　constitutional　helps　to　the　rights
  established　by　that　Constitution　as　may　be　practically　needed？
  Can　you；　if　you　swear　to　support　the　Constitution；　and　believe
  that　the　Constitution　establishes　a　right；　clear　your　oath；
  without　giving　it　support？　　Do　you　support　the　Constitution　if；
  knowing　or　believing　there　is　a　right　established　under　it　which
  needs　specific　legislation；　you　withhold　that　legislation？　　Do
  you　not　violate　and　disregard　your　oath？　　I　can　conceive　of
  nothing　plainer　in　the　world。　　There　can　be　nothing　in　the　words
  〃support　the　Constitution；〃　if　you　may　run　counter　to　it　by
  refusing　support　to　any　right　established　under　the　Constitution。
  And　what　I　say　here　will　hold　with　still　more　force　against　the
  Judge's　doctrine　of　〃unfriendly　legislation。〃　　How　could　you；
  having　sworn　to　support　the　Constitution；　and　believing　it
  guaranteed　the　right　to　hold　slaves　in　the　Territories；　assist　in
  legislation　intended　to　defeat　that　right？　　That　would　be
  violating　your　own　view　of　the　Constitution。　　Not　only　so；　but　if
  you　were　to　do　so；　how　long　would　it　take　the　courts　to　hold　your
  votes　unconstitutional　and　void？　　Not　a　moment。
  Lastly；　I　would　ask：　Is　not　Congress　itself　under　obligation　to
  give　legislative　support　to　any　right　that　is　established　under
  the　United　States　Constitution？　　I　repeat　the　question：　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　of　the　United
  States：　and　if　he　sees　a　right　established　by　that　Constitution
  which　needs　specific　legislative　protection；　can　he　clear　his
  oath　without　giving　that　protection？　　Let　me　ask　you　why　many　of
  us　who　are　opposed　to　slavery　upon　principle　give　our
  acquiescence　to　a　Fugitive　Slave　law？　　　Why　do　we　hold　ourselves
  under　obligations　to　pass　such　a　law；　and　abide　by　it　when　it　is
  passed？　　Because　the　Constitution　makes　provision　that　the　owners
  of　slaves　shall　have　the　right　to　reclaim　them。　　It　gives　the
  right　to　reclaim　slaves；　and　that　right　is；　as　Judge　Douglas
  says；　a　barren　right；　unless　there　is　legislation　that　will
  enforce　it。
  The　mere　declaration；　〃No　person　held　to　service　or　labor　in　one
  State　under　the　laws　thereof；　escaping　into　another；　shall　in
  consequence　of　any　law　or　regulation　therein　be　discharged　from
  such　service　or　labor；　but　shall　be　delivered　up　on　claim　of　the
  party　to　whom　such　service　or　labor　may　be　due；　〃is　powerless
  without　specific　legislation　to　enforce　it。〃　　Now；　on　what　ground
  would　a　member　of　Congress；　who　is　opposed　to　slavery　in　the
  abstract；　vote　for　a　Fugitive　law；　as　I　would　deem　it　my　duty　to
  do？　　Because　there　is　a　constitutional　right　which　needs
  legislation　to　enforce　it。　　And　although　it　is　distasteful　to　me；
  I　have　sworn　to　support　the　Constitution；　and　having　so　sworn；　I
  cannot　conceive　that　I　do　support　it　if　I　withhold　from　that
  right　any　necessary　legislation　to　make　it　practical。　　And　if
  that　is　true　in　regard　to　a　Fugitive　Slave　law；　is　the　right　to
  have　fugitive　slaves　reclaimed　any　better　fixed　in　the
  Constitution　than　the　right　to　hold　slaves　in　the　Territories？
  For　this　decision　is　a　just　exposition　of　the　Constitution；　as
  Judge　Douglas　thinks。　　Is　the　one　right　any　better　than　the
  other？　　Is　there　any　man　who；　while　a　member　of　Congress；　would
  give　support　to　the　one　any　more　than　the　other？　　If　I　wished　to
  refuse　to　give　legislative　support　to　slave　property　in　the
  Territories；　if　a　member　of　Congress；　I　could　not　do　it；　holding
  the　view　that　the　Constitution　establishes　that　right。　　If　I　did
  it　at　all；　it　would　be　because　I　deny　that　this　decision　properly
  construes　the　Constitution。　　But　if　I　acknowledge；　with　Judge
  Douglas；　that　this　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　it　needed。
  At　the　end　of　what　I　have　said　here　I　propose　to　give　the　Judge
  my　fifth　interrogatory；　which　he　may　take　and　answer　at　his
  leisure。　　My　fifth　interrogatory　is　this：
  If　the　slaveholding　citizens　of　a　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？
  ＇Judge　DOUGLAS：　Will　you　repeat　that？　　I　want　to　answer　that
  question。＇
  If　the　slaveholding　citizens　of　a　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？
  I　am　aware　that　in　some　of　the　speeches　Judge　Douglas　has　made；
  he　has　spoken　as　if　he　did　not　know　or　think　that　the　Supreme
  Court　had　decided　that　a　Territorial　Legislature　cannot　exclude
  slavery。　　Precisely　what　the　Judge　would　say　upon　the　subject
  whether　he　would　say　definitely　that　he　does　not　understand　they
  have　so　decided；　or　whether　he　would　say　he　does　understand　that
  the　court　have　so　decided；I　do　not　know；　but　I　know　that　in　his
  speech　at　Springfield　he　spoke　of　it　as　a　thing　they　had　not
  decided　yet；　and　in　his　answer　to　me　at　Freeport；　he　spoke　of　it；
  so　far；　again；　as　I　can　comprehend　it；　as　a　thing　that　had　not
  yet　been　decided。　　Now；　I　hold　that　if　the　Judge　does　entertain
  that　view；　I　think　that　he　is　not　mistaken　in　so　far　as　it　can　be
  said　that　the　court　has　not　decided　anything　save　the　mere
  question　of　jurisdiction。　　I　know　the　legal　arguments　that　can　be
  made；that　after　a　court　has　decided　that　it　cannot　take
  jurisdiction　in　a　case