Chicago Tribune from Chicago, Illinois on October 9, 1858 · 2
Get access to this page with a Free Trial

Chicago Tribune from Chicago, Illinois · 2

Publication:
Location:
Chicago, Illinois
Issue Date:
Saturday, October 9, 1858
Page:
2
Start Free Trial
Cancel

PRESS AND TRIBUNE. SATURDAY MOSKING, OCTOBER 9, 1858. ltrpubtlra.il NonalaaiUona. Fnr TniUA Stot4 Snntor. SON. ABBAX axvx LINCOU. For Shit Tretteurer. JAMES MILLER. For fuprintntent ot AWic iMtructiiM. K E W T O M BATE MAN. For tmaree.2d JHitrict. . JOHMF. FARMS WORTH. GREAT DEBATE BETWEEN DOUGLAS AND LINCOLN AT GiLEbBUEQ. Sixteen to Eighteen Thousand Persons a resent. LiRGEST PROCKSSlOX OF TUB C4BPAIS3 FOR OLD ABE. New and Powerful Argument by Mr. Lincoln. DOUGLAS TELLS THE SAME OLD STORV. TbeTkree-fold Endeavor to Perpetuate the Uomiaance ot Slavery. The charge that the North is constantly makiug aggressions upon the South has been uttered upon every stump in the latter, and by every Democratic dough face in the for mer. So often has it been repeated, that inany honest, though not well-informed, men have come to regard it as having at least Vonie foundation in truth. We undertook a ew days ago, by a citation of the leading historical lacts in our government relative to the acquisition of territory and the organiza tion of new States, to prove that the lion's fehare had always fallen to the South that he North had from the beginning aided iu strengthening the political power of the South nnd in perpetuating its controlling influence in the administration of the federal government. This has been the fact from the organization of the government to the present day, and never more so ti;an now. Notwithstanding the free States are numerically greater than the slave States, and should ly the genins of our institutions have aeon-trolling voice in the federal government, still within the last four years each of the three branches into which it is divided, has strenuously labored for the extension of Southern interests at the expense of those which pertain to the free States Let us see if this is not so. 1. The Legislative Department has labored o this end by the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, opening all our Territory north of 36 deg. 30 min. to the incursion of slavery, by sanctioning the lawless outrages perpetuated by Southern ruffians npon the Free State settlers of Kansas, by denying the latter all redress for their many grievances, and finally, by offering to admit Kansas into the Union as a State with 40,000 population, provided, she would come iu with a slave constitution, or compelling her otherwise to remain under her Territorial organization until she shall have a population of 93,4(10. 2. The Judiciary has sought to accomplish the same work by giving an interpretation to the Federal Constitution which is equivalent to an amendment ot that instrument, where by slavery is made the common law, and its "protection guaranteed in all the Territories of the United States iu uVQauce of the will of the people thereof, or of the action of the Federal Congress. 3. Lastly, we have the Chief Executive of the nation sustaining both the action of Congress and of the Supreme Court in the premises, filling Kansas with officials and troops to force slavery npon the people, and proclaiming in the Silliiuan letter and in the Special Message of February last, that slavery is as much an institution of Kansas as it is of Georgia or of South Carolina. ' These are facts within the knowledge of every citizen, and they clearly show that slavery, not freedom the slave States, not the free constitute the aggressive power in the government, a power which will not rest satisfied with anything short of complete and quiet submission to its behests. This whole question is of peculiar import ance to the people ot Illinois at the present moment. Mr. Douglas has. been the chief ngent of the Slavery Oligarchy in bringing about the three fold effort of the coordinate branches of the Federal Government to per petuate its dominion. His "ruthless hand'' struck down the Missouri Compromise, lie marshalled the Democratic hosts of Congress on every occasion that the outraged people oi JvansaB petitioned Pir redress. He struck from the Toombs' bill the clause req airing the Constitution of Kansas to be submitted to a vote of the people. He was the first leading man in the North to indorse theDred Scott decision. lie is looking to the Charleston Conversion, which will be under the control of the Slavery Oligarchy, lor nomination to the Fi-eiidency, and, to gain favor with that body, is prepared to vote for a federal slave Code for the Territories, should he be re-elected to the Senate. People of Illinois! if you desire to see the National Legislature, the Ofcief Executive of the Nat ion, and the Feder al Judiciary continued as mere instruments in the hands of the Slavery Oligarchy, vote tor Representatives to the Legislature who win support Douglas for the Senate if not, vote for those who will Eupport Lincoln. .Another Head in the Same Basket. Another of Mr. Douglas' friends has ielt the keen edge of the Executive axe. The head of L. M. Webber, Esq., P. M. at Rock Island, is in the basket, and the blood is spouting from his severed carotids as he walks about, a pitiable spectacle to men. Ilia successor to the emoluments of office, is Herman Field, an insurance agent, sod lately a mail agent on the Chicago and Rock Island road. " We are all Demo-erata." Verbatim Report of the Speeches. ion it has upon the subject ot slavery. I held then, and I hold now, that if the people of Kan sas wanted a stare Mate, it was tbeir right to make one, and be received into the Union under 11. It, on the contrary, they wanted a free state, it was their right to do so, and no man should have opposed them on that account. I hold to that great principle of self-government wbi asserts tne ngnt ot every people to wccide for tnemseivea the nature and th&cler of the institutions and the fundamental law under which tbey are te live, bat the effort was made, and is now being made by certain postmasters and omer leaerai omce-noioers. to make a test oi taitb. on tne support of the English Bill. They are making speeches these postmasters are ail over tne State against me, and m favor ot Lincoln, either directly or indirectly, because 1 would not sanction that odious discrimination between free and slave States by voting for the Knglisb Bill. Hut While that English Bill is made a test in Illinois for the purpose ot breaking down the An Arctic frost, accompanied by a sour north. west wind, invaded the city of Galesburg and county of Knox, on Thursday, and sent Repub licans and Democrats shivering in doors. The preceding day and night bad brought a semi-deluge of rain. The elements seemed to have conspired to dampen and congeal all political ardor, but the attendance upon the public de. bate between Lincoln and Douglas was some two or three thousand larger than the largest of its predecessors. Until ten o'clock the streets gave no evidence of anything unusual abont to transpire. The weather, notwithstanding the sun shone bright and clear, was too tedious for anything but the most explosive enthusiasm. Shortly after ten, Mr. Douglas arrived on a train of cars from the west, and was escorted from the depot by a re spectable procession. Mr. Lincoln's approach to the city was her alded by a long procession of citizens of Gales- burgh, the most noticeable feature of which was a cavalcade of one hundred ladies and gentle men on horseback. This escort moved ont of town on the Knoxville road about eleven o'clock, in the direction Mr. Lincoln was expected to come. Half an hour afterwards ths gbzat po-cbssion or ths campaign entered the city from the east. It was about long enough, taken all together, to reach around the town and tie in a bow-knot. It marched through the principal street ot the city from the east to the public square, thence south two squares, thence east and north two squares, crossing its own track. At this point the rear end of the procession had not yet entered town. Banners and devices of everv descriDtion flattered in the wind. One of them, which elicited shouts of laughter, was a painting of the Capitol at Washington, over which were the words "March 4, lbo." 'iho Little giant was observed blubbering at the door, "Lincoln has got my plant." The ceremonies at the house of Mr. bander- son, where Mr. Lincoln alighted, were of an un usually pleasant character. In addition to the customary welcoming speech, the students of Lombard University presented Mr. Lincoln a fine banner ; after which one of ths ladies of the cavalcade, Miss Hurd, of Galesburg, rode for ward, and presented a beautifully embroidered Bhield and coat of arms, worked in silk of the red. white and blue." On one aide wag the inscription : PAE:ESTED TO HON. ABRAHAM LINCOLN : BT THS REPUBLICAN LADIES OF GAU3BUKCJ. October 7th. 1858. Letter from Galena. eiuu. Oct. 7, 158. Editors Press and Tribune : I see the Tuntf correspondent at this place claims 600 majority in this county for Fred. Strockey, the Know-Nothing Douglas candidate for Senator in this Senatorial district. This bragging oa majorities in this county by the Douglasitea has its significance. It is to pre. pare the public miad for the stupendous frauds they contemplate on the ballot-box. At Dun-leith, immediately across the river from Dubuque, the leaders have been impudent enough to disclo&e their infamous purposes, by resolving to give 800 majority for the Democratic ticket. This is a fair notice to the world that they intend to poll at least 200 fraudulent votes. Two years ago 1S56 -there were only 254 votea polled in the town, and Fremont got 91 of them. Since that time the vote of the town has notoriously decreased very much, and to give now 800 majority would require at least two BUKPRio illegal and fraudulent votes. Wa thank the Dunleilh conspirators against the purity of the ballot-box for their timely notice. " Forewarned is forearmed." Full and ample provision is being made to protect the polls at that place from pollution, and and the parties to the proposed fraud, Strockey, indeed, will be duly notified of the consequences that will result from any attempt to play the "Kansas game." It is said reliance is had upon Charles Bogy to carry out this fraud. Mr. Bogy is the proprietor of the Dunlcith and Dubuque ferry, and a Doaglaa man, and be is the last man to enter into those schemes. He fully understands that the Illinois Legislature did not grant him his valuable terry privilege in order to bring over illegal voters from Dubuque, and that if it were used in that way it might give rise to investigation next winter. I will only add that if any of your Douglas men want to make investments in Strockey's election, they can be accommodated to any amount. Adams will be elected by eight hun dred majority. That is the idea which prevails in "This s Diugiss." Letter from Menard County. ICorreapundeuce of the Press and Tribune.) inua. October X, 158. The most powerful speech delivered in Centre Illinois in the present contest has just been finished by Win. H. Herndoa of Springfield. He has well sustained bis relation as a partner of Hon. Abraham Lincoln. Although laboring un der a severe mciapoamon which was apparent to the entire auaience be held the large assembly for over two hours nnder his control, and ronnd after round of applause testified their extreme delight. He is certainly an eloquent man the most eloquent I have ever heard and this speech, notable as the first Republican speech ever delivered in Athens, has told with tremendous eilect on the people. The centre is stirred as never before, we are aroused. The people are with us, and you may Set down Cass and Menard for Lincoln. Jim Judy, our candidate, ia bound to be elected, and bo effort, fair or unfair, can roll back the vote which will be cast for him on that coming mem orable November day. Nan. The Firefly Sate. Norfolk, Oct. 8. The IT. S. Surveying steamer i ireny, which was reported to have been tost, is sate at xtaauiort, N. c. On the other was the whole of the Declaration of Independence in a fine and beautiful hand writing- I cannot help adding that Miss Hurd's part in this ceremony was performed with pe culiar grace and dignity. Several other processions came during the morning a decided preponderance of which carried banners " For Lincoln and Kellogg. Several long special trains came also that from Chicago and the intermediate Btatious consist ing of eleven cars. A special tram from reona, consisting of twenty-two cart and over two taou- land per torn, did not arrive till nearly 5 o'cl the engine having given out with M9 ttnex- pected enormous load, soma mi lea east of the ! city. The speaking commenced at half past two in the college grounds the platform having been erected on the east side of the fine college building. The crowd was unprecedented. The num ber on the ground during the afternoon must have exceeded the audience at the Freeport debate by 3,000. The weather continued r-oM and raw all day, but very few left the grounds until the speaking was concluded at half past five. Mr. Douglas said; Lambs and Gbhtlbh sit Four years ago I appeared before the people of Knox county for the purpose of defending my political action upon the Compromise measurea of 1S50, and the passage of the Kansas Nebraska Dill in 1851. Those of yon who are now present will bear in mind that 1 placed my defence on the support of these two measures Upon the fact that both rested upon a great fundamental principle, that the people ef each State, each Territory have the right, and should be permitted to exercise thj right, of regulating their own domestic affairs in their own way, subject to no other limitation than that which the Constitution of the United States imposes upon them. I then called upon the people ot Illinois to decide whether that principle was right or wrong. If that great principle ot sell-goveinuient be right, then toe Compromise measures of 1X50 were right, and eonsequently the Kansas Nebraska Bill, based on the same principle, must necessarily have been right. The Kansas Nebraska Bill declared in so many worda that it was the true intent and meauiog of the act not to legislate slavery into any State or Territory, nor to exclude it therefrom, bur to leave the people thereof per-pectly free to form and regulate their own domestic institutions in their own wav. subject only to the Constitution of the United States. ror the last tour years 1 have devoted all my time in private and in public to commend that principle to the whole American people. Whatever else may be said in condemnation or support of my political course, 1 apprenend tbat no honest manwill doubt the fidelity with which under all circumstances, I have stood by that principle. During tbe last year a question arose ia the Congress of the United Slates whether or not that principle was not being violated by the admission of Kansas into the Union under the Lecompton Constitution. In my opinion, the attempt to force Kansas into the Union un der that Constitution was a gross violation of the principle enunciated in the Compromise measures of 1850, and the Kansas Nebraska Bill in 1 so, cor that reason 1 led oil in the tight against the Lecompton Constitution con ducted that tight until the effort was abandoned of forcing Kansas into the Union under it. During the whole of the fight, 1 can appeal to all men, friends and foes, Democrats and Re publicans, northern men and southern men, that 1 carried the banner alott, and never al lowed it to trail in the dust, and never lowered the dag until victory perched upon our banner. When the Lecompton Constitution was de feated, then the question arose in the minds of those who then defended it what they should next resort to in order to carry their views. They devised the measure known as the " English Bin." They then granted political pardon and general amnesty to all men who had fought against the Lecompton Constilntion, provided they would support the English Bill. I for one did not choose to accept the pardon nor to avail myself of the amnestv granted on that condi tion. The fact, however, that the supporters of tne l-iecompton constitution were wilting to forgive all diff erences of opinion up to that time in tne event ot supporting tbe i-nglisn Bui, is an admission that to be opposed to Lecompton did not quite impair a man's position ia the democratic party. Now the Question arises, what was the Enir. liah bill which certain men now attempt to make a test of political orthodoxy in this country? it provided in substance that the Lecomntnn Con stitution should be sent back to the people of iv.ustia, auu suojectea to vote in August last on the question of admission under that constitution, and in the event tbe people of Kansas rejected the Leeutnnton Constitution. K annua to be kept out of the Union until she bad y3,4JO inhabitants. I was in favor of sending tbe con stitution back in order to enable the people of nansas to say wnetner or not it was their act and deed whether it embodied their wilL liut tbe other proposition, that they should be punished for rtjicting tbe Lecompton Constitution by being kept out ot the Union until they should double and treble their inhabitants, 1 never did and never would sanction by my vote. The reason why 1 could not sanction that proposition is to be found in this fact, that bv the English bill. if the people ot Kansas would only have agreed to come -.uto tbe Union as a slaveholding State, under the Lecompton Constitution, then they were to be admitted with 85,000 people. But it tbay insisted upon bavins a free State, aa thev had a -right to do, then ttiey were to be punish- cU wj ikiuK uu u, me union until they had nearly three times that number. I then said in my place in the Senate what I now say to yon whenever Kansas has nnnnl.tin enough for a slave State, she has enough for a tree fiabe. A Voice Good for you. Juoua Douglas. 1 never yet have given a vote, and 1 never intend to record a vote by which 1 will make an odious and unjust distinction between tbe different States nf thia llninn I hold it to be a fundamental principle in our republican form of government, that all States of this Union, old and new, tree and slave, stand on an exact equality. Eaualitv anions the States is the cardinal principle on which all of our lusiuuuona ira. tt nenever, tneretore, you make an odious distinction by which yon say tbat a slave State may be admitted into the Union with 85,000, but a tree State does not come in until it has 95,0o0 or 100,000, you are throwing tne wnoie weigut oi tne leaerai government into tbe scale of one class of Stales against the other. Nor do 1 sanction the doc trine tbat a free State may be admitted with 35,000. but a slave State sbonld be kept out un til it has the $3,000. 1 am willing now, I have always declared mv willingness in the Senate. to adopt the rule tbat no Territory shall ever become a State until it has the requisite population for a member of Congress, according to the then existing ratio. But while I was willing to adopt that general rule, I was not willing auu wouiu not consent to make sn exception ot Kansas aa a punishment for her obstinacy in demanding the right to do as she pleased in the lormation of her constitution. . It is proper that I should here remark that my opposition to the Lecompton Constitution did not rest upon the ground of the peculiar provis- Democratic organisation in this State, how is it in other States? Go to Indiana, and there you find that Mr. English himself, the author ot tne Kmrlish Kill, has been lorced or puonc opinion. aa a candidate for re-election, to abandon his own darling project, and pledge himself to vote tor the admission ot n.ansas at once, wnenever she forms a Constitution in pursuance ot law, and ratifies it bv the Votes of her own people. Not only is that the case witb fengiisn nimseir, but 1 am informed that every Democratic candi date in tbe State of Indiana takes the same ground. Pass to Ohio, and there you find that G roes beck, and Pendleton, and Cox, and all the other anti-Lecompton Constitution men who stood shoulder to shoulder against that Lecomp-tnn Conatitntinn andwho Voted for the English Bill, now repudiate it, and take the same ground that I do on taat question. So it is with the Joneses and others in Pennsylvania. And so it is with every other anti-Lecompton Democrat in all the Krea states ot America, iney now auanuou that darling project, and come back to the true Democratic platform which I proclaimed at the time in the Senate, and upon which the Democracy of Illinois now stands. And yet you are told that while every other Democrat in America, Lecompton and Anti-Lecompton I mean the t ree States nas aoanooneu iue uguu Kill vKt it ia to be a test on me. while the pow er and patronage of government is all exerted tn ert men nnnosfd to it in the other States. My political ouence, tnen, consists in not uaving first pledged myself by voting for that English Ki l tn keen Kansas out until bub uau uiuciv- threo thousand inhabitants, and then come home, turn round and violate the pledge, and repudiate ilia law and tnke the onnosite" ground. I did not choose to give that pledge, because I did not intAnH tn mitt out that Drincinle. 1 never in tend, for the sake of conciliating the friends of power, to pledge mysell to ao tnat wuicu uu nnt mi.nti tn nArrnrm. ads nun buviui. iu. question to you as my constituency.whether I was not right in resisting the Lecompton Constitution, and conseauentlr in resisting the English Kill t Cries 01 " yes, yes." 1 repeat, mat i op posed the Lecompton Constitution because it was not the act ana aeea 01 tue pwpic ui Kiiuaa. I ODoosed it because it was not the will of that people. I deny the right of any power on earth, under oar system of government to torce a constitution on an uuwmiug peupits. fAnnlauae.1 i nere was a time wnen some men couiu utucn; that the Lecompton Constitution was the will of the people ot Kansas, but that time has passed by. Tne question was reierrea to tne people oi ivansus last August, and there at the polk, at a fair election, the people rejected the Lecrimpton Constitu tion by eight or ten to oe against it. since me Lecompton Constitution was voted down by that overwhelming majority, no man can hereafter pretend that it ever was the act and deed of that people. And yet I submit the question to you whether if it had not been for me, that Constitution could not have been crammed down the throats of that people against their consent. "That's so," and applause. While you would all, at least ninety-uiue out of every hundred of the people here present, would agree that I was right in defeating that project, yet you can use the fact that I did defeat it by doing right, as a means of trying to break me down, and put another man in my place in the Senate of the United States. Applause.J The very men that acknowledges that I was right iu defeating the Le-compion Constitution now form an alliance with the postmasters, with the federal officers, with the professed Lecompton men to defeat me because I did right. My political opponents have no hope on earth. Mr. Lincoln would never dream tbat he had a chance of success but for the aid he is receiving from the federal officers, that is exerted against me in revenge for my having defeated the Leeompton Consiitution. Now let me ask you what do you think of a political orgoniaation which will try to make an unholy and unnatural combination to beat a man merely because he was ngut. xct you uiuw uv,u w .ut. " Know tue aie 01 urusciipt-iuu - i - . the heart of everv D-- . fended over Tiiinnia ,,,,1, roetutic office holder in " w?.lia iiw tlie 4?Akilklman tlftlrofc 8hd my Democratic associates. Ap--utrne.l I could "sd instances ia Galesburg ud ut every other post office in this tfc'.nity where men were stncKen down lor Having nrst Uiscnarg-ed their dutieR faithfully and Secondly, supported tne ruguiar Democratic tic net in this state in the right. My mends, X Know that political parties are prone to avail themselves of all the means in their power to carry the election When they think they have got a chance, and the Republican parly, if this one chance was taken from then, they won hi never have another, and their ho)es would be blasted. Now let me exk yon whether or sot this country has any interest in sustaining this organization known as the Republican party ? That Re publican party is unlike all other political organizations in this country. All other parties have been National in their character. All others hare avowed their principles alike in tbe free States and in the slave States, and avowed them in Kentucky as wall as in Illinois, in Louisiana aa well as in Massachusetts. Such was the cam with the old Whig party : such was tbe case, and now is, with the Democratic party. Whigs and Democrats could proclaim their principles boldly and fearlessly in the North and in the South, in the bast and in the W est, wherever tbe American Constitution ruled, or tbe American flag waved over American soiL But now you have a sectional organization, a body appealing to the Northern section against tbe Southern section, a party appealing to Northern hopes. Northern spirit, Northern ambition and Northern prejudice, against Southern people, and Southern States, and Southern institutions. They hope to be able to connect the Northern States into one great sectional party, and inasmuch aa tbe Northern section i8 the stronger, that tbe stronger section will out-vote and control and govern the weaker section. And hence you find that the Republican leaders now make speeches advocating principles and measures which cannot be advocated in any slaveholding State in this Union. What Republican from Galesburg can travel into Kentucky and carry bis principles with him across the Ohio River f What Republican from Massachusetts can visit the Old Dominion without leaving his principles behind when he crosses Mason and Dixon's line t Now, permit me to say to you in all good humor, but in all sincerity, that no political creed is sound which cannot be proclaimed fearlessly in every State of this Union wherever tbe American Constitution is the supreme law of the land. And we find that this Republican party is una ble to proclaim its principles alike in the North and in the South, in the free States and in the slave States, but they cannot proclaim them in the same sense, and give them the same meaning in alt parts ot the same State. Aty friend Lincoln, here, finds it extremely ditiicntt to manage a debate in the central part of this State, where there is a mixture of men from the North and the South, la the extreme North he can advocate as bold and radical Abolitionism as ever Giddings, or Lovejoy, or Garrison have enunciated. When you get down South he claims then to be an old line Wbig, laughter that be is tbe disciple of Henry Clay, adhering to the old Whig creed, and has nothing whatever to do with Abolitionism, or with Negro citizenship, or Negro equality. 1 once hinted this same remark in a public speech, and Mr. Lincoln at Charleston defied me to show that hut speeches in the North and m the South were not alike and in entire harmony with each other. I will now call your attention to two of them, and let you see whether you believe the same man ever uttered them, i Applause. I in a speech at Chicago in July last, replying to me. Mr. Lincoln, on this subject of equality of the negro with the white man, used the following language : " I should like to know, if taking tms old Declaration oi independence, which " declares that all men are equal upon principle. " and making exceptiona to it, where will it " stop ? If one man saya it does not mean a negro, why not another say it does not mean "a German? Loud cheers. It that Declara- tion is not tbe truth, let us get the statute " book, in which we find it, and tear it ont ! " Who ia so bold as to do it t If it is not true " let ns tear it out !" There you find that Mr. Lincoln said if the Declaration of Independence declaring all men to be born equal did not include the negro and make him equal to tbe white man, then, he says, " let us take the Statute " book and tear it out." f Applause. 1 He then took the ground that the negro race was included in the Declaration of Independence aathe equal of the white race that there could be no auch thing as distinction in races, making one superior and tbe other inferior. 1 read now from soother portion of the same speech : "Mr " friends, 1 have detained you about as long as " I desired to do, and 1 have only to say, let ns "discard all this quibbling sbontthis man and " the other man, this race and that race and the " other race, and the other race being inferior, " therefore they must be placed in aa inferior ' position. Discarding oar standard that we " have left, let us discard all these opinions and " unite as one people throughout this land, until " we shall once more stand up declaring that all men are created equal. A Voice That'a right. Judge DocotAS Yes, I have no doubt you think it's right, but tbe Lincoln men down in Coles, and Tazewell, and Sangamon don't think it ia right. Applause. In the conclusion of the same speech, Mr. Lincoln says, in talking to the Chicago Abolitionists: "1 leave you, hoping that the lamp of liberty will burn in your bosoms until there shall no longer be a doubt that all men are created free and equal." Cries of "good, "good. J now you say, -good" on that, and are going to vote tor Mr. Lincoln because he holds that doctrine. I Cries of " 1 es. that's so," and spplanse Now I am not going to blame yon for supporting him on tnat ground, but 1 will show vou in immediate contrast to that. what Mr. Lincoln said, in order to get votes down in Egvpt, where they didn't bold that doctrine. Applause. "I will say, then, that I am not, nor never have been, in favor of bring ing about iu any way the social and political equality of the white and black races." Cheera, " That I am not, nor ever have been, in iavor oi mazing voters or jurors ot negroes, nor ot qualifying them to hold office, nor to in termarry with white people ; cries of " good," ' good," hurrah for Lincoln ; " and I wilt say in addition to this that there is s physical difference between tbe white and black races which will ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior. I am as much aa any other man in favor ot having the superior position assigned to the white race." " Hurrah for Lincoln." Tea, here you find men who hurrahs for Lincoln, and aay be is right when he discards ail distinction between races, or when he declares that he discards the doctrine that there is such a thing as a superior and inferior race ; and Abolitionists are required and expected to vote tor Mr. Lincoln because he goes for thd equality of the races, holding that in the Declaration of Independence the white man and the negro were declared equal, and ,enooweu j Divine law with eauality. And uowu ouum with the Old Line Whigs, with tbe Kentuck- ians, the Virginians, and the Tennesseeaua, m tells you that there ia a physical difference be tween the races, mum; tue one super"", other inferior, and he is tavor oi niaiuu-g the superiority of the white race over the ne gro. Now, let me ask yon. how can yon reconcile these two position ? He is voted for in the South as being a Pro-Slavery man ; be is to De voted for in the North as being an Abolitionist. Un here, he thinks it is all nonsense to talk about different races. He aays we must discard all quibbmg about thia man and the .other man about this race and that race and the other being inferior, and therelorethey must be placed m an interior position, that decision is to oe discarded in the North, to be adopted as tbe creed of his party in the South. And hence von find that their political meetings are called by different names in different eouetiea. c roin bere norm, tney can can ine meetings as republican meetings. Q over into old Tazewell, where Mr. Lincoln made aspeech, last Saturday I think it was, but perhaps it was Monday, and they don't have any auek thing as Republican meetings Ma. Liscour. Nor Democratic here. Jodgs Douglas. There they gave a notice calling all the Lincoln men together. Laugh ter!. Not a word about republicans mere. Decease Tazewell is filled with old Virginians and Kentuckians, part of whom are W bigs and part Democrats, and if you called a Republican or Abolition meeting, Lincoln could not get any votes. Laughter . Then go down into figypt and yon find be even discords that, and gives a different name there. When 1 was in Monroe Countv a few Weeks ago. addressing tbe people on this question, 1 saw tbe handbill of one of Trumbull s meetings, where be was going to make a speech for Mr. Lincoln. And what do vou think it was? The Free Democracy were reoaested to meet. ILaugbterl. Trumbull and Jehu Baker to address the Free Democracy of Monroe Countv ! Langhter . And it was signed " Many Free Democrats." The reason he adopted that name down there, was this: Tbat was always an old-fashioned Democratic county. They have no old Whigs there, and hence" it waa necessary to make thembelieve down there that they were Democrats, i Langh ter. And they were appealing to them to vote for Lincoltvas Democrats, down there. Go np to Springfield, where Mr. Linco'n now Uvea, and always has lived, and his conventions and meet-ings there dare nut adopt tbe Dame of Republican. They call a convention and nominate men for the Legislature who are to support Mr. Lincoln, under the title of all opposed to Democracy. And thus youtind tbat his creed can't travel even half the counties of thia State. It has to change its color and its hues, getting lighter and lighter from the extreme North, until you get down into tbe extreme South. Now 1 ask yon, my friends, why can't public men men avow their principles alike every where ? I would despise myself if I thought that 1 were seexing your votes Dy concealing my opinions, or advocating one sci of princi ples m one part ot the Btat8 B ainerent class in another -part of the State. If 1 do not trulr a'i honorably represent your feeliDcs I ought not to be your Senator, and 1 will never conceal my opinions, or modify them, or change them and waste breath in order to get votes. I tell you ttat in my opinion this Chicago doctrine ot Mr. Lincoln's declaring that negroes and white men were included alike in the Declaration ot Independence, made equal by Divine Providence, is a monstrous, heresy. The signers of the Declaration of Independbace never dreamed of the negro when they were writing that document. They referred to white men, men of European birth and European descent, when they declared the equality of til men. I see a gentleman here shaking his head. Let me remind him that when Thomas Jefferson wrote that Declaration he was the owner, and continued to the end of his life the owner of a large number of slaves. Did he intend to aay that his negro slaves were created his equals by Divine law, and that he was violating the law of God every time of his life by holding them as slaves? Bear in mind that when tbat Declaration was put forth every - one of the thirteen Colonies were slaveholding Colonies, and every man who signed the Declaration of Independence represented a slaveholding constituency. Bear in mind that no- one of them emancipated his slaves, mnch less put them on an equality with himself when he signed the Declaration, un tne contrary, they cc- . to hold them as slaves durir . ,""'DT, vnlutinnarv war - lR entire Ke- Are voS --'- "w do J belieTe that -.King to have it said that every man -MO citHied the Declaration of IndenendenM declared the negro bis equal, and then was hypocrite enough to hold him as his slave, in tuola-tion of what he believed to be Divine law? Cries of " No " " No." And yet when you say. that the Declaration of Independence included the negro you charge the signers ot the 1'VjCiarauou oi xouepenuece wun nypocrisy. Now I say to you frankly that in my opinion this Government was made by our lathera on the white basis. It was made by white men for the benefit of white men and their posterity iorever, anu was lntenuea to ne administered in all time to come by White men. "That's so." But while I hold that under our Constitution and political system the negro is not a citizen eannot be a citizen ought not to be a citizen-yet it don't follow by any meana that he should De a slave, un tne contrary, it does follow that the negro as an interior race ought to possess every privilege, every immuuiiT wnicu ne can safely exercise consistent with the good of society where he lives. Humanity requires. Christianity commands that yon shall extend to every inferior being and every dependent race all the privileges, all the immunities and all the advantages which can be granted to him consistent with the safety of society. Again you ask me what is the nature and extent of these rights and privileges. My answer to that question is this: It is a question which the people of each State mnst decide for themselves, liiinois has decided that question for herself. We have said th.il in this State the negro shall not be a slave, nor shall ho be a citizen. Kentucky holds a different doctrine, New lork noius one uinercni irom either. Maine is dillereut from all the rest, Virginia differs iu many respects from each of the otherR, and so on. There are hardlv two Slates whose nulicv is tm- cisely alike in regard to the relat ion of the white mau with the negro. Von cannot reconcile them and make them alike. Kuril must do as it pleases. Illinois has as much rixht to adopt the polii'y we have on this subject as Kentucky has to a dillereut policy. The great principle of this government is that each Slate lias a right to do us it pleases on all these questions, ami that no oilier power on earth has a right to interfere with ns or eim- plain of us merely because our system differs from theirs. In the Compromise measures of 1S50, Mr. Clay recognized the great principle which 1 have a-wrt-ed, and again in the KansasXebraska Bill of lssot, mat tins same privilege oogin to ne extended iu-to the Territories as well as the States. But Mr. Lincoln cannot be made to understand, and those who are determined to vote for him, no matter wliich side, whether in the North or Sonih, whether for negro equality at one end of the State or against it at another you cannot make one of them understand how it is that in a Territory the people can do as they please on the slavery question under the Dred Scott decision. Let ns see if 1 cannot make all impart. al men see how that is. Chief Justice Taney has said in his opinion in the Dred Scott case, that the neirro ulave oeiug property, stands on an equal looting with other property Jind that the ownermay carrv them to a L nited States Territory the same as be does other property. Now suppose two of you. neighbors, concluded to go to Kansas. Suppose one should hare a hundred negro slaves, and the other a hundred dollars' worth of mixed merchandise, including a quantity ot liquors, yon both, according to that decision, may carry your property to Kansas. When you get there, the merchant with his liquors meets the Maine Liquor Law which forbids him to use or tell his property when he gets it there. What is thia right to carry it there worth, if unfriendly legis lation renuers it useless auu worm less wnen he gets there? How can tbe owner of tbe slave be more fortunate ? Tbe slaveholder, when be gets there, finds there is no local law, no slave code, no police regulation supporting and sustaining his right ss s slaveholder, and he finds at once that the absence of friendly legislation excludes him just as posi'ively and irresistibly as a positive constitutional prohibition could exclude him. 1 hus you hnd with any kind of propertv in a Territory, that it depends for its protection on toe local ana municipal law. rlence it the people of a Territory want slaverv they will make friendly legislation to introduce it. If they don t want it, they will withhold all protection from it, and then it can't exist there. Such was the view of Southern men when the Nebraska bill passed. Read the speech of Mr. Orr, of South Carolina, the present Speaker of Congress, and there you hnd this who.e doctrine argued out at full length which I have now advanced. Read the speeches of other Senators and Representatives, and yon will find they understood the Kansas-Nebraska bill in that way at that time, and hence slavery never could be force on a people who didn't want it. 1 hold that in this country there is no power, there should be no power on the globe that can force soy institution on an unwilling people. The great fundamental principle is that the people of each State and each Territory shall be left free to decide for themselves what shall be the nature and character of our institutions. This Government waa based on that principle. When this Government was made there were twelve Slaveholding States and one Free State in this Union. Suppose this doctrine of Mr. Lincoln and tbe Republicans of umformitv on the subject of slavery in tbe laws of all the States bad prevailed when this Government waa made. Suppose air. Lincoln had been a member of the Convention that made the Constitution of the United States and that he had risen in that august body and addressing the father of bin country, bad said as he did at Spnngheld, " bouse divided against itself cannot stand, this Government divided into Free and Slave States cannot permanently endure, that they must be all free or all slave, all tbe one thing or all the other," what do you think would have been the result? (I don't pretend to quote bis exact language out t give nis idea) suppose be bad made that Convention believe tbat doc trine, and they bad acted upon that, what would have been tbe result? Do you think that one Free State would have out-voted the twelve Slaveholding States and have abolished slavery therefrom. On the contrary, would not the twelve Slaveholdmg States have oat-voted the one Free State and under his doctrine have fast ened slavery under a Constitutional provision on every inch of the American Republic. Thus you see tbat the doctrine which he advocates now, if proclaimed at tbe beginning of the government would have fastened slavery everywhere throughout the American continent. Are yea willing now sinee we have become the majority to exercise a power which we never would have submitted to when we were in the minoritv. If tbeSouthern Stales had attempted to control our institutions, and make tbe Stales all alave when they bad the power, 1 ask yon wonld you have submitted to it ? If you would not, are vou willing bow since we have become the majority under the great principle of self pleaBea, are you prepared now to force the doc trine on them? My friends, I say to you there ia bnt one path of peace in this Republic, and that is to administer thia Government aa our fathers made it, divided into free States and slave States, allowing each State to decide tor itself whether it wants slavery or not. If Illinois wdl settle the question (br herself,, mind her own business aud let her neighbors alone, we will be at peace with our neighbors. If Kentucky and every other Southern State will settle the question to snit themselves, and mind their own business and let others alone, there will be peace between the North and the South, and the w-'- iJnion. 1 am told my hour is jnd '."piauae. Mr. Lincoln Reply. Z Mr. Lincoln was received as he came forward I with three enthusiastic cheers, coming from every part of the vast assembly. After silence was restored, Mr. Lincoln said : Mr Fsllow Citizsns A very large portion of the speech whieh Judge Douglaa has addressed to you has previously been delivered and pnt in print, l Laughter, j 1 do not mean tnat lor a bit npon tne juoge at au. Renewed laugnter.j ii i naa not neen interrupted, I was going to say that such an answer as 1 was able to make to a very large portion of it, bad already been more than once made and published. There has aeea an opportunity afforded to the public to see our reapevuvv views upon tne topics uiscusseu in large portion ot the speech which he baa just delivered. I make these remarks for the par-pose of excusing myself for not passing over the entire ground that the Judge has traversed. 1 nowever oes-re te take up some oi tne points that he has attended to, and ask your attention to them, and 1 shall follow him backwards npon some notes which I have taken, reversing the order by beginning where he concluded. 1 be Judge has alluded to the Declaration of Independence, and insisted that negroes are not included in that Declaration ; and that it ia a Bhtnder cpon the f ram era of that instrument, to suppose that negroes were meant therein ; and he asxs you : Is it possible to Delieve that Mr. Jefferson, who penned the immortal paper, could have supposed himself applying the language of that instrument to the negro race, and yet held a portion of that race in slavery? Would he not at once have freed them ? I only have to remark upon this part of the Judge's speech, (and that, too, very briefly, lor I shall not detain mysell, or you, upon tnat point tor any great length of time,) that 1 believe the entire records of the world, from the date of the Declaration of Independence np to within three years ago, may be searched in vain for one single affirmation, from one single man, that the negro waa not included in the Declaration of Independence. 1 think 1 may defy Judge Douglas to show that he ever said so. that Washing ton ever said so, that any President ever said so, that any member of Congress ever sail! o, or that aoy living man upon the whole earth ever said so, nntii the necessities of tbe present policy of the Democratic party in regard to slavery, had to invent that aKimiation. Tremendous applause. And I will remind Judge Douglas and this audience, that while Mr. Jefferson waa tbe owner ot slaves, as undoubtedly he was, in speaking npon thia very subject, he used the strong language that "he tremblod for his country when he remembered that God was just(" and I will offer the highest premium in Iny power to Jndge Douglaa if he will show that he, in all his life, ever uttered a sentiment at all akin to that of Jefferson, Great applause and cries of "Hit him again," "good, ""good." The next thing to which 1 will ask your attention is tbe Judge's comments upon the fact, as he assumes it to be, that we canoot call our public meeliugs as Republican meetings ; and be instances Tazewell county aa one of the places where the friends of Lincoln have called a nublio meeting and have not dared to name it a Republican meeting. He instances Monroe county as another where Judge Trumbull and Jehu baker addressed mc ifi-ieuus nuum toe tfuu.ue assumes to uc .unfriends of Lincoln, calliug them the "Free Democracy." I have the honor to inform Jndse Douglas that he spoke in that very Aunty of Tazewell last Saturday, and I was there on Tuesday last, and when he spoke there he spoke under a call not venturing to use the word "Democrat." Cheers and laughter. (Turning to Judge Douglas.) What do you think of this? Immense applause and roars of laughter.) So again, there ! another thing to which I wonld ask the Judge's attention npon this subject. In the contest of 1856 his party delighted to call themselves together as the "National Democracy," but now, if there should bela notice out np anywhere for aimeeting of the "National Democracy," Judge Douglas ami his friends would not come. Laughter. They would not suppose themselves invited. Renewed laughter and cheers. Tlity would understand that it was a call for those hateful Postmasters whom he talks about. Uproaxi'- . laughter. -ua Now a few words - a tbege extracta ir" , . r -.!.... '. :. ,i. T . . n -m j rr, v i ui uimc, nuii:u nuuge Jjungiaa UaB read to you, and which he supposes are in very great contrast to each other. Those speeches have been before- the public for a considerable time, and if they have any iuconsisteney in them, u mere is any connict in mem the public have Deen able to detect it. "hen the Judge says, in speaking on this subject, that I make speeches of of one sort for the people of the Northern end of the State, and of a different sort for the Southern people, he assumes that I do not under stand that my speeches will be put in print aud read North and South. I knew all the while that the speech that I made at Chicago and the one I made at Jonesboro and tbe one at Charleston, would all be put in print and all tbe reading and intelligent men in the community wonld aee them and know all about my opinions. And I have not supposed, and do not now suppose, that there is any conflict whatever between them. ("They are all good speeches!" " Hurrah for Lincoln !" But the Judge will have it that if we do not confess that there is s sort of inequality between the white and black races, whicb justifies us in making them slaves, we must, then, insist that there is a degree of equality that requires us to mBKe tnem oor wives. Loud applause, and cries, " Give it to him:" "Hit him again."! Now, I have all the while taken a broad distinc tion in regard to that matter ; and that is all there is in these dinerent speeches which he arrays here, and the entire reading of either of the speeches will show that that distinction was made. Perhaps by taking two parts of tbe same speech, he could have got up as much of a conflict as the one be baa found. I have all tbe while maintained, that in so far as it should be insisted that there was an equality between tbe white and black races tbat should produce a perfect social and political equality, it was sn impossibility. This you have seen in my print-el speeches, snd with it I have said, that in their right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," as proclaimed in that old Declaration, the inferior races are our equals. Long-continued cheering. And these declarations 1 have constantly made in reference to the abstract moral question, to contemplate and consider when we are legislating about any new country which is not already cursed with tbe actual presence of the evil slavery. 1 have never manifested any impatience with the necessities that spring from the actual presence of black people amongst ns, and tbe actual exist-ence of slavery amongst us where it does already exist ; but I have insisted that, in legislating for new countries, where it does not ex ist, there is no just rule other than that of moral and abstract right ! ys uh relerence to those new countries, those maxims as to the right of a people to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," were the just rules to be con stantly referred to. There is no misunderstanding this, except try men interested to misunderstand it. I Applause. I 1 lake it that 1 nave to address an intelligent and reading commuuity, who will pe- rnse wuat l say, weign it, ana men judge Whether I advance improjier or unsound views, or whether 1 advance hypocritical, and deceptive, aud con-trarv views in diiferent portions of the country. I believe myself to be guilty of no such thing as the latter, though', of course, 1 cannot claim tliat 1 am entirely free from all error in the opinions 1 4ilvan.ee. The Judge has also detained ns a while in re gard to the distinction between his party and our party. His be assumes to be a national party ours, a sectional one. lie does this in asking the question whether this country has any interest iu the maintenance of the Republican party ? He assumes that our party is altogether sectional that the party to which he adheres is national : and the argument is, that no party can be a rightful party can be based upon rightful principles unless it can auuounce its principles everywhere. I presume that Judge Douglas could not go into Russia aud announce the doctriue of our national democracy ; he could not denonnce the doctrine of kings, and emperors, and monarchies, in Russia ; and it may be true of this conutry, that in some places we may not be able to pro claim a doctrine as clearly true as tbe truth of democracy, because there is a section so directly opposed to it that they will not tolerate us in duing so. Ts it tbe true test of the soundness of a doctriue, that in some places people won't let you proclaim it 1 lo, no, no.j is that the way to test the truth of any doc time? No, no, no. Why, I understood that at one time the people of Chicago would not let Judge Douglas preach a certain favorite doctrine of his. Laughter and ciieers.j i commend to his consideration the question, whether he takes that as a test of the unsoundness of what he wanted to preach. JLoud cheers. J There is another thing to which I wish to ask attention for a little while on this occasion. What has always been tbe evidence brought forward to prove that the Republican party is a sectional party ? Tbe mam one was tbat in the southern portion of the Union the people did not let the Republicans proclaim their doctrine amongst them. That has been tbe main evidence brought forward that they had no supporters, or substantially none, in the Slave States. Tbe South have not taken hold of oor principles as we announce them ; nordoesJodge Dongias now grapple with those principles. n e bare a itepuoncan state i lairorm, laid down in Sprintield in June last, stating our posi tion all the way through the questions before the coantrv. We are now far advanced in this canvass. Judge Dongias and I have made per haps forty speeches apiece, and we have now for the fifth time met face to face in debate, and np to this day I have not found either Jndge Douglas or any lnend ot bis taking nolo ot tue Republican plitform or laving his finger npon anything in it that is wrong. Cheera I ask you all to recollect that. Judge Douglas turns away from the platform of principles to the fact that he can find people somewhere who will not allow us to announce those principles. Applause. If he bad great confidence that our principles were wrong, be would take hold of them and demonstrate them to be wrong. But he does not do so. The only evidence he baa of their being wrong is in the fact that there are people who won t allow na to preach them. 1 ask again, is that tbe wsy to test toe sound ness of a doctrine? fCries of "No," "No" I ask his attention also to the fact that by ths rule of nationality he is himself fast becoming sectional. Ureal cheers and laugnter. I l asx his attention to the fact that his speeches would not go as current now south of tbe Ohio River as thev have formerly gone there. Load cheers.) 1 ssk his attention to the fact that he felicitates himself to-day that all tbe Democrats of the Free States are agreeing with him, applause,! while he omits to tell us that tbe Democrata of anv Slavs State agree with him. If he has sot thought of this, I commend to his consideration the evidence ia his own dec.ara- tion. on thia day. of bis becoming sectional too. Immense cheering. I see it rapidly approaching. Whatever may be the result of this ephemeral contest between Judge Douglaa and my sell, 1 see the day rapidly approacning wnen his Dill of sectionalism, which he has been thrusting down the throats of Republicans for years past, will be crowded down his own throat. ITremendous anolause-l Now in regard to what Jndge Douglas said (in the beginning of his speech) about the Compromise of 1850, containing the principle of tbe Nebraska bill, although I have often presented my views upon tbat Subject, yet as 1 have not done ao in this canvass, twill, if you please, detain yea a little with them. 1 have always maintained, so far as I waa able, that there waa nothing of the principle of the Nebraska bill in the compromise ot 1850 at all--noihing whatever. Where Ton fin1 the pi.m(.ip.e ef tbe i.eDraaka bill in that compromise? If anywhere, in the two pieces of the compromise organizing the Territories of New Mexico and Utah, it was expressly provided in these two acts, mat, when they came to be admitted into the Union, they should be admitted with or without slaverv, aa they should choose, by their own constitutions. Nothing was said in either of those sets ss to what waa to be done in relation to slavery during the territorial existence of those territories, while Henry Clay constantly made the declaration, ( J udge Douglaa recogni sing him aa a leader) tbat, in his opinion, the old Mexican laws would control that question during the territorial existence, and that these bid Mexican laws excluded slavery. How can tbat be used aa a principle for declaring that during the territorial exiataoes as well aa at the time of fra.'.ng the constitution, the people, if you piease, mignt nave slaves H they wanted them ? 1 am not discussing the question whe ther it is right or wrong i but how fire the Je r Mexican and Utah laws patterns for the Nebras ka bill? I maintain that the organization of Utah ud New Mexico did not establish a general principle at all. It bad no feature of establishing a general principle. The acts to which I have referred were a part of a general system ot Compromises. They did not lay down what was proposed as a regnlsr policy for the Terri tories; only an agreement in this particular case to do in that way. because other things were done that were to be a compensation for it. Tber were allowed to come in in that shape, because in another way it was paid for considering that aa a part of that system of measures called the Compromise of 1S50, which finally included bait a dofen acts. It included the ad m'SBion of California aa a free State. which was kept out of the Union for half a year because it had formed a free Constitution. It included the settlement of the boundary of Texas, which had been undefined before, which was in itself a slavery iiuestfon i for. if van pushed tbe line farther west, yon made Texaa larger, and made more slave territory ; while, it you drew the line towards the east, yon narrowed tbe boundary and diminished the domain ot slavery, and by so much ineweed tree terri tory. It included the abolition of tbe slave tradr; in tbe District of Columbia. It included the passage of a new I ugitive Slave Law. All these things were liut together, and though Ttcu in separate acta, were nevertheless in legislation, (as tbe speeches at the time will Btiowl made to depend noon each other. Each got tcte's, with the understanding that tbe other measures were to pass, and by this system of compromise, in that aeries ef measures, those two bills the New Mexico snd Utah bills were passed and 1 say tor that reason tbey could not be taken aa models, framed upon their own intrinsic principle, for all future Territories. And 1 have the evidence of this in the fact that dadge Douglas, a year afterwards, or more than a year afterwards, perhaps, when he first introduced bills for the purpose of framing new Territories, did not attempt to follow these bills of New Mexico and Utah; and even when he introduced this Rebraska bill, 1 thick you will discover that be did not exactly follow them. But 1 do not wish to dwell at great length upon thia branch ot tbe discussion. Jliy own opinion is, that thnroucrh investigation will show most nlainla that the New Mexico and Utah bills were part of a system of compromise, and not designed ss patterns for future territorial legislation ; and that this Nebraska bill $i& not follow them as a pattc-r .it The Judge tells, In proceeding, that he is opposed to slaking any odious distinctions between Free and Slave States. I am altogether unaware that the Republicans are in lavor of making any odious distinctions between the Free and Slava States. But there etill is a dtTerence, 1 think, between Judge Douglas and the Republicans in this. I suppose that the real difference between Judge Douglas and his friends, and the Republicans on the contrary, is that the Judge is not in favor of making any difference between Slavery and Liberty that he is in favor of eradicating, ef pressing out of view, the questions of preference iu this country for Free over Slave institutions ; and consequently every sentiment he utters discards the idea that there is aay wrong in Slavery. Everything that emanates irom him or his coadjutors in their course of policy, care'- excludes 1 ll U thmifrlil that 1 ,"-" ci.7-- "ere is anytning wrong in all t li ..1 ot-'ti imuTil j if .iin will sider them, will be seen to exclude the thought that there is anything whatever wrong in SlaTery. It you will take the Judge s speeches, and select the short and pointed sentences expressed by him as his declaration tnat ne don't care whether Slavery is voted up or down" you will see at once that this is perfectly logical, if you do not admit that Slavery is wrong. If you do admit that it is wrong. Judge Douglas cannoAlogi-cally say that he don't care whether a wrong ia voted up or voted down, judge Dongias declares that if any community want Slavery they have a right to have it. He can say that logically, if he says itliat there is no wrong in Slavery ; but if you admit that there is a wrong in it, he cannot logically say that anybody has a right to do wrong, tie insists that, upon the score of equalitv, the owners of slaves and owners of property of horses and every other sort of property should be alike and hold them alike in a new Territory. Tbat is perfectly logical, if tbe two species of property are alike and are equally founded in right. But if yon admit that one ot them is wrong, yon cannot institute any equality between right and wrong. And from this difference of sentiment the belief on the part of one that the institution is wrong, and a policy springing from that belief which looks to tbe arrest of tbe enlargement of that wrong; and thia other sentiment, that it is no wrong, and a policy sprung irom that sentiment which will tolerate no idea of preventing that wrong from growing larger, and looks to there never being an end ot it through alt the existence of things, arises tbe real diuerence between J udge Douglas snd his friends, on the one hand. and the Republicans on tbe other. Now. 1 confess myself as belonging to that class in the country who contemplate slavery as a moral, social and political evil, having due regard for its actual existence amongst us and the difficulties of getting rid of it in any satisfactory way, and to ail the constitutional obligations which hsve been thrown about it; but, nevertheless, desire a policy that looks to tbe preven tion ot it as a wrong, and looks hopefully to tbe time when ss a wrong it may come to an end. Great applause. Judge Dongias has again, for, I believe, the fifth time, it not tbe seventh, in my presence. reiterated his charge of a conspiracy or combination between the National Democrata and Republicans. Wbat evidence Judge Douglaa has upon this subject I know not, inasmuch aa he never favora us with any. Laughter and cheers. J 1 have aaid upon a former occasion, and I do not choose to suppress it now. tbat I have no objection to the division in tbe Judge'a party. Cheers. He got it op himself. It was all his and their work. He had, 1 think, a great deal more to do with tbe steps that led to the Lecompton Constitution than Mr. Buchanan had I applausel ; though at last, when they Teached it, they quarrelled over it, and tbeir trienda divided npon it. Applause. i am very free to confess to Judje Dcnglas that I have no objection to the division, lond ap plause and laughter J; but I dety the Judge to show auy evidence that I have in any way promoted that division, unless be insists on being a witness himself in merely saying so. Laughter.! 1 can give ail fair friends of Judge Doug las here to understand exactly the view that republicans take in regard to that division. Don't von remember how two years ago the op ponents of the Democratic party were divided between fremont and ralmore? I guess you do. 'Yes, sir, we remember it mighty welL" Any Democrat wno remembers that division. will remember also that he was at the time very glad of it, laughter, aud then he will be able to see all there is between the National Democrats and the Republicans. Wbat we now think of the two divisions of Democrats, you then thought oi tbe fremont ana i minors di visions. Great cheers. That ia all there is of it. But, if the Judge continues to put forward tbe declaration that there is an unholy and un natural alliance between the Republican and the National Democrats, 1 now want to enter my protest against receiving him as an entirely competent witness upon tbat subject, bond cheers!. I want to call to the Judge's atten tion an attack he made upon me in the first one of these debates, at uttawa, on tbe zlst of August. In order to fix extreme Abolitionism np on me. Judge Douglas read a set of resolutions which he declared bad been passed by a Republican State Convention, in Oct., 1S54, at Springfield, Illinois, and he declared I had taken part in that Convention. It turned ont tbat although a few men callipg themselves an Anti-Nebraska State Convention had sat at Springfield abont tnat time, yet neitner did 1 tune any part in it, nor did it pass the resolutions or anv such reso lutions as Judge Docglaa read. Great applause. So apparent had it become that the resolutions which he read had not been passed at Springfield at all, nor by a State Convention in which I had taken part, that seven days afterwards, at Freeport, Judge Douglas declared that be had been misled by Charles 11. x.anpbier, editor ot tbe State SiuUter, and Thomas L. Har ris, member of Congress in that District, and he promised in that speech that when he went to Springfield he wocld investigate the matter. Since then Judge Dongias has been to Springfield, and 1 presume has made the investigation ; but a month has passed since he has been there. and so far as I know, he has made no report of the result of hia investigation. Great applause. I have waited as I think sufficient time for the report of that investigation, and 1 bave some curiosity to aee and bear it. -Applause. A fraud an acsolute forgerr was commuted, and tbe perpetration of it was traced to the three Lanpheir, Harris and Doug! f Applause and Laughter. Whether it canoe narrowed in any way ao as to exonerate an v one of them, ia what Judge Douglas' report would probably show. Applause and laugbter.l It la true that the set of resolutions read by Judge Douglaa were published in the Illinois Utate Jit'itUr on the l'iih Oct., 1S54, as being tbe resolutions ot an Anti-Nebraska Convention, which had sat in that aame month of October, at Sprtngheld. rlut it is also true that the puoli-cation in the linrister was a forgerv then. cheers, and the question is still behind, which of the three, if not ail of them, committed that lorgery r ureat applause. I The idea that was done by mistake, is absurd. The article in the Illinois State fiegiettr contains part ot the real proceedings oi that Sprtngheld Convention, abowmg that tbe writer of the article had the real proceedings before him, and purposely threw out tbe genuine resolutions passed by the Convention, and fraudulently substituted the otners. ianpnier then, as now. was tne edi tor of the Jitoitter. so tbat there seems to be bnt little room for hia escape. But then it ia to be borne in mind that Lanphier had less interest in the object of that forgery than either of the other two. Cheers. The main object of tbat forgery at that time was to oeat 1 ates and elect Harris to Congress, and tbat ohiect waa known to be ex ceedingly dear to Judge Dongias at tbat time. Laughter. Harris and Douglas were both in Springfield when the Convention waa in session, and although tbey both lett before tbe fraud appeared in the Jlegister, subsequent events show tbat tbey bave both bad their eyes fixed upon tbat Convention. The fraud having been apparently successful npon tbe occasion, both Harris and Douglas have more than once since then been attempting to put it to new uses. As tbe fisherman's wife, whose drowned husband's body was brought home with tbe pockets full of eels, said when su waa asked, " What was to be done with him ?" " Talt the tell Out and $et Kim again." great laughter ;) so Harris and Dongias bare shown a disposition to take the eels out of that stale traud by which tbey gained narria eieu- tion, and set tne trend again more tnan anew. tremendous cheering and laugnter. un tns a.th of July, 1S56. Douglaa attempted S repetition of it upon Trumbull on the Soor of the Senate of the United States, sa will appear from the appendix of the Congrtttionti Globe of that date. On tbe th of August Harna attempted It again upon Norton in the House of Representatives, aa will appear by the aame documents tbe appendix to tne vonpretnonai. viooe ot tnat date, un tne ziat oi August an uuw-ua- , phire, Dongias ahd Harris re-attempted it upon me at uttawa. 1 1 renienaous appiause.j It has been clung to and played out again and again aa an exceedingly high trump by this blessed trio. Hoars ot laugnter and tnmuitn-.TinUnu "lliw it tnhim " Acl And now tbat it has been discovered publicly to be a fraud, we find tbat Jndge Douglaa manifests no surprise at it at a)L I Laughter, "That'e it." " Hit him again." He makes no complaint oi Lanphire who must bave known it to be a fraud from tbe beginning. Both Lanphire and llama are just aa crazy now, and juat aa active in the concoction of new schemes aa they were berore the general discovery ot this traud. r ow all this ia verv natural if they are all alike guilty in that fraud, laughter and cheers, and it is very unnatural if aqy ona of them is innocent. Great langhter, " iiit him again," " Hurrah for Lincoln." Lanphire perhaps insists tbat the rule ot honor among thieves does not quite require him to take all upon himseif, laughter, ana couseqaentiy my menu juare Loagias finds it dirticilt fo make a atiafoory report npon his investigation. Laughter and applause. But meanwhile the three are agreed that each is " a moet Honorable man." Cheers and explosions of laughter. ) Judge Douglaa requires an indorsement- ot bis truth and hoior by a re-election to the United States Senate, and be makes and reports againat me and against Judge Trumbull day alter day chrj-gea which we know to be utterly untrue, without for a moment seeming te think that this one nBenlficd fauu, whicb he pro-m:sd to investigate, will be the least drawback to his claim to belief. Harris ditto. He aska a re-election to the lower House of Congress without seeming to remember at all that he is involved in this dishonorable fraud ! The Illinois MmuUt; edited by Lanphier, then, as now, the . central organ of both Harris and Douglas, continues to din the publio ear with thia assertion without seeming to SMsrwct that these assertions art at all lacking in title to be- iiei. After alL the Question still recurs unon ua. bow did that fraud originally get into tbe State Begtiter t Lanphier then aa now waa the edi tor of that paper. Lanphier knows. Lanphier cannot be ignorant of how and by whom it Was originally concocted. Can he be induced to tell, or if be has told, can Judge Douglaa be induced to tell how it originally waa concocted ? It may be true that Lanphier insists that the two men for whose benefit it was originally devised, shall at least bear their share of it ! How that is, I do not know, and while it remains unexplained I hope to be pardoned if I insist tbat the mere fact of Judge Douglas making ehanres against Trumbull and myself is not quite edtfeient evi dence to establish them 1 Great cheering. '.' Hit him again." " Give it to him." Ao.1 While we were at Freeport. in one of these joiet disensssions, I answered certain interrog atories which J udge Dongias had propounded ft .. iha in Inn J J - . .w, r..M.uunu MIUVUI him, whir u , i aort Qf W4y answered. Tbe third one of theae interrogatoriea I have with me and wish now to make aame comments upon it It was In these vfcrds: "if tbe Supreme " Court of the United States shall decide that " the States cannot exclude slavery from their " limits, are yon in favor of acquiescing in, ad-"heringto and following auch decision, as a " rule of political action ?" To this interrogatory J udge Douglas made no answer in any just sens of the word. He contented himself with sneering at the thought that it waa possible for the Supreme Court ever to make such a decision. He sneered at me for propounding the interrogatory. 1 had not propounded it without some reflection, and I wish now to address to this audience some remarks upon it. in tbe second clause of the sixth article, I be lieve it is of the Constitution of the United States, we find the following language: "Thia "Constitution and tne laws ot the united States which shall be made in pursuance thereof ; and all the treaties or whish shall be made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land ; "and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby anything in tbe constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." - The essence of the Dred Scott ease ia com prised into the sentence which I will now read : Now, aa we nave already said tn an earlier "part of this opinion, upon a different point, the "right of property in a slave is distinctly and ex-"pressly affirmed in the Constitution." 1 repeat it, " Hi rvjht Of propertv ut Have m autincuy and expreetly mMrmed in the Uonettiutuml What ia amrmtd in the Constitution? Made firm in the Constitution so made that it can not be separated from the Constitntion without breaking the constitution durable as tne Constitution, and part of the Constitution. Now, remembering the provision of tbe Constitution which 1 hare read, affirming that that instru ment is the supreme law of the land; that the Judgea of every State ahall be bound by it, any law or constitution oi any state to me contrary notwithstsnding ; that the right of property in a alave is sthrmed in tbat Constitution, is made. formed into and cannot be separated from it Without breaking it; durable as the instrument; part of the instrument ; what follows as a abort and even syllogistic argument trom it r 1 tbink it follows, and i aubmit to the consideration of men capable of arguing, whether as I state it m syllogistic form the argument has any fault in it : Nothing in the Constitution or lawa of any State can destroy a right distinctly and express ly alhrmed m the Constitution of the United States. The right of property in a alave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution of tbe United states: Therefore, nothing in the Constitution or laws of any State can destroy the right of property in a slave. 1 believe that no fault can be pointed out in that argument; assuming the truth of tbe premises, the cooclnsi n, so far as I hsve capacity at ail to understand it, follows inevitably. There is a fault in it as 1 think, but the fault ia not in the reasoning; but the falsehood in fact ia a fault of the premises. 1 believe that tbe right of property in a slave i not distinctly and ex- Iireasly atlirmed in the Constitution, and Jndge louglas thinks it ie. I believe thsrthe Supreme Court snd tbe advocates of that decision may search in vain lor tne place in tne constitution where tbe right ot property in a slave is distinctly and expressly sttirmen. I say, there fore, that I think one of tbe premises is not true in fact. Bnt it is true with Judge Douglas. It is true with the Supreme Court who pronounced it. They are estopped from denying it, and being estopped trom denying it, the conclusion follows that tbe Constitution ot tbe United states being ths supreme law, no constitution or law can in terfere with it. It being affirmed in the decision tbat the right of propertv in a slave is dis tinctly and expressly atlirmed in the Constitution, tbe conclusion inevitably follows that no State law or constitution can destroy that right. 1 then say to Judge Dongias and to all others. that 1 think it will take a better answer than a sneer to show that those who have said that the rmht of property in a slave is distinctly and ex pressly affirmed ia the Constitution, are not prepared to show tbat no constitution or law can destroy tbat right. I say I believe it will take a far better argument than a mere sneer to show to the minds of intelligent men tbat whoever has so said, is not prepared, whenever public sentiment is so far advanced aa to justify it. to say the other. "That's so." This is but sn opin ion, ana me opinion oi tine very uumoie man ; but it is my opinion tbat the Dred Scott decision, as it is. never would have been made in its ire- aent form if the party that made it had not been sustiined previously by the elections. My own opinion ia, that the new Dred Scott decision, de ciding againit the right of the people of the States to exclude slavery, will never be msde, if tnat party ia cot sustained Dy the elections. Criea of " Yea. yea."l I believe, further, tbat it ia just aa sure to be made aa to-morrow ia to come, it teat party snail oe sustained. " n e won't sustain it, never, never." I have said, npon a former occasion, and I repeat it now. that tne course ot argument tnat Judge Doug las makes use of upon thia subject, (I charge not Dia motives in this), is preparing the public mind for that new Dred Scott decision. 1 have asked him agam to point out to me the reasons for hia firm adherence to the Dred Scott decis ion as it is. 1 have turned bis attention to the foct that General Jackson differed with him in regard to tbe political obligation of a Supreme kCourt decision. I have asked hia attention to tbe fact that Jefferson differed with him in regard to the political obligation of a Supreme Court decision. Jenerson said, tbat "Judge! are as honest as other men, and not more bo." And he said, substantially, that " whenever a free people should give un "absolute submission to any department of govern- "merit, retaining tor themselves no appeal irom it "their liberties were gone.'' I have asked his at tention to the tact tbat the Cincinnati platform, upon which he says he stands, disregards a time-honored decision of the Supreme Court, in deny ing tbe power ot Congress to establish a National Bank. I have asked bis attention to the fact that he himself was on ; of the most active instruments at one time in I lacking down the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois, because it had made a decision distasteful to him a struggle ending in the remarkable circumstance of his sitting down as one ot the new Judges who were to overstaug that decision loud applause getting his title of Judge in that very way. Tremendous applause and laughter. So far in this controversy I can get no answer at all from Judge Dongias upon these subjects. Not one can I get from him, except that he swells himself up and says, " All of us who stand by the "decision of the Supreme Court are the friends of "the Consiitution ; all you fellows that dare question it in any way, are the enemies of the Consti- "t ut ion. Continued laughterand checrs.l Now, in this very devoted adherence to this decision, in opposition to all the great political leaders whom be has recognized as leaders in opiiosition to his forner self and history, there is something very marked. And the manner in which he adheres to it not as being right upon tbe merits, as he conceives (because be did not discuss that at all), but as being absolutely obligatory npon every one simply because ef the source from whence it comes as that which no man can gainsay, what ever it may be, this is another marked feature of his adherence to tbat decision. It marks it in this respect that it commits him to the next de cision, whenever it comes, as being as obligatory as this one, since be does not investigate it, and won't inquire whether this opinion is right or wrong. So he takes the next one without inquiring whether if is right or wrong. Applause He teaches men this doctrine, and in so doing prepares the public mind to take tbe next decision when it comes, without any inquiry. In this I think I argue fairlv ( without questioning motives at all) that Judge Dongias is most ingeniously and powerfully preparing the public mind to take that decision when it comes ; and not only so, but he is doing it in various other ways. In these general maxims about liberty in his assertions that he don't care whether Slavery is voted up w vowu uuvd , ma. - niiwrer wants blav, cry nas a rim to nave it;- mat "upon principles of equality it should be allowed. "to go everywhere" ; that ' there is ao ineon-"sistency between free and slave institutions." In thin he ia also preparing (whether purposely or not) the way for making the institution of Slavery national ! Criea of "Yea," "Yes," "That'a ao." I repeat again, for I wish no misunderstanding, that 1 do not Charge that he meana it so ; but I call upon your minds to inquire, if you were going to get the best instrument yon oould, and then set it to work in tbe most ingenious wsy, to prepare tbe public mind for this movement, operating in ths tree States, where there ia now an abhorrence ot the institution of Slsvery, could you find an in-ti-nment ao capable of doing it aa Judge Doug laa? or one employed in ao apt a way to do it ? Great cheering. 1 Cries of "Hit him again," That'a the doctrlne."1 1 bave said once before, and I will repeat it now, that Mr. Clay, when he was once answering an objection to the Colonization Society, thit it h,l a tendencv to the ultimate emancipa tion ot the slaves, said that " those who would "repress all tendeneifta to liberty and ultimate "emancipation must do more than put down the "benevolent efforts of the Colonization Society "they must go bsck to the era or our liberty ana "independence and muzzle the cannon tbat than- "dera its annual iovoua return tbey must blot "oat the moral lights aronnd us they mast penetrate the human soul, and eradicate tbe light "of reason and the love of liberty 1" And 1 do think I repeat, though I aaid it on a former see alien that Jndge Doaglaa, and whoever Ilka him teaches that the negro baa no scare. bumble though it msy be, in the Declaration of . , - . ! o the era. of our independence, ut going dm. .r . .. liberty aad independence, ana, so ur as n lies, muimin tne cannon tnat tnanaers its su-nual joyous return; "Taa'.'a to." tbat he ia blotting out tbe moral lights around ns, when be contends tbat whoever want slaves nas a right to hold them ; tbat he ia penetrating, ao far aa Ilea in hia power, the human aoui, ana eradicating the light of reasea aud tbe leva of liberty, when he ia in every possible Wsy pressing the publio mind, by bis vast influence, for making the institution of slavery perpetual aud national. , Great applause, and criea of "Hurraa for Lincoln," 'That a the trua doctrine." There is, my friends, only one ether point to which I will call your attention for the remaining time tbat 1 have left me, and perhaps 1 shall not occupy the entire time that 1 hare, aa that one point fiisy not take ma clear through it. Among the interrogatories that Judge Donglaa propounded to me at Freeport, there was one in about this language : " Are you opposed to the ' acquisition ot any further territory to the tTnit-" ed States, unless slavery ehall first be prohibited therein I " I answered as I thoucht, in this wsy, that I am not generally opposed to the acquisition of additional territory, and that I would support a proposition for the acquisitinn of additional territory, according as my supporting it was or was not calculated to aggravate this slavery question amongst as. I then proposed to Judge Douglas another interrogatory, which Wis correlative to that : "Are you in lavor of acquiring additional territory in disregard of how it may affect ns up- on tne slavery question l" Judge Douglas an-swered, tbat is, in his own way he answered it. Langhter. I believe that, although he took a good many words to answer it, it was a little mote fully answered than any other. The substance of his answer was, that this country would continue to expand that it would need additional territory tnat it was as absurd to suppose that we could continue npon our present territory; enlarging in population aa we are, as it wonld be to hoop a boy tweive years of age, and expect Liin to grow to man'a am Kilhnnl Rn-etina. 1, n D V. ter. I I believe it was something hie that. - sequently he was in favor of tbe acquisition of fur ther territory, as fast as we might need it, in disregard cf how it might affect the, slavery question. I do not say this as giving his eiact langunge.but he said so substantially, and he wonld leave tbe question of slavery where tbe territory was acquired, to be settled by the people of the acquired territory. " That's the doctrine.r May be it is ; let us consider that for a while. This will probably, in. the run . of things, become one of the concrete manifestations ot this slavery question. it Judge Douglas policy upon this question succeeds, and gets fairly settled down, until ail opposition is crushed out, the next thing will be a grab for the territory of poor Mexico, an invasion of the rich lands of South America, then the adjoining islands will follow, each one of which promisee additional slave fields. And lull question is to oe ielt to tue jkuuib ui iuuoo countries for settlement. When we shall get Mexico, I don't know whether the Jndge will be in favor of the Mexican people that we get with it settling that question for therraelvee and all others ; because we know the Judge has a great horror for mongrels, t langhter, ana 1 understand that the people of Mexico are most decidedly a race of mongrels. Renewed laughter. I understand that there is not more tnan one rirson there ont of eight who is pure white, and suppose trom the Judge's previous declaration that when we get Mexico or any considerable portion of it, that he will be in favor of these mongrels settling tbe question, which would bring bim somewhat into collision with his horror of an inferior race. It ia to be remembered, though, that thia power of acquiring additional territory is power eonnoed to tne rresioent ana senate oi the United States. It ia a power not nnder the control of the Representatives of tbe people any further than they, the President and ths Senate can be considered the representatives of the people. lt me illustrate tbat by a ease we nave in our history. When we acquired the territory from Mexico m the Mexican war, the House ot uepresentatives, composed ot tne immediate representatives of the people all the time insisted that the territory thus to be acquired should be brought in upon condition that aiavery should be iorever proniDited therein, upon the terms and in tbe language that slavery had been prohibited from coming into this country. That waa insisted npoa constantly. and never tailed to call lortn an assurance tnat any territory thna acquired ahould have that prohibition in it, ao far aa tbe House of Repre sentatives waa concerned. Hut at last the President and Senate acquired the territory without asking the House of Representatives anything about it, and took it witbout that prohibition. Thev bave the power of acquiring territory without the immediate representatives of the people being called upon to aay anything aoout it, ana tnua iurnisninga very apt and powerful meana of bringing new territory into tte Union, and when it is once brought into the country, involving us anew in thia aiavery agita tion. It ia, therefore, aa I think, a very important question for tbe eonaideration of the American people, whether the policy of bringing in additional territory, without considering at all bow it will operate upon tbe safety of the Union in reference to thia one great disturbing element in our nations! polities, shall be adopt- ea as tne policy oi tne country, loa win bear in mind that it is to be acquired, according to tbe Judge's view, as faat as it is needed, and tbe indefinite part of thia proposition ia tbat we bave only Jndge Douglas and bis class of men to decide how fast it ia needed. We have no clear and certain way ot determining or demon atrating bow fast territory is needed by the ne cessities of tbe country. Whoever wants to go out fillibustering, then, thinks that more territory ia needed. Whoever wanta wider alave fields, feels sure that some additional territory ia needed aa slave territory. Then it ia as easy to show the necessity of additional alave territory as it is to assert anything that ia incapable of absolute demonstration. Whatever motive a a man or a set of men may have for making annexation of property or territory, it is very easy to asaert, but much less easy to disprove, that it is necessary lor the wants 01 tne country. And now it only remains for me to say that think it is a very grave question for the people of this Union to consider whether, in view of tne tact tbat this Slavery question has been the only one tbat has ever endangered oar republican inatitotiona the only one that has ever threatened or menaced a dissolution of the Union that baa ever disturbed na in auch a way as to make na fear for the perpetuity of our liberty in view ot these tacts, l think it is an exceedingly interesting and important Question for this people to consider, whether we shall engage in the policy of acquiring additional ter-ri lorry, discarding altogether trom our consideration, while obtaining new territory, tbe question how it may affect ua in regard to thia the only endangering element to our libertiea and national greatness. The Judge's view has been expressed. L, in my answer to his question, have expressed mine. I think it will become an important and practical question. Our viewa are before tbe public I am willing and anx ious that they should consider them fully that tney snouia turn it aooat ana consider tne importance of the question, snd arrive at a just conclusion as to whether it is or ia not wise in the people of this Union, in tbe acquisition of new territory, to consider whether it will add to the disturbance that ia existing smongst us whether it will add to the one only danger that has ever threatened the perpetuity of the Union or our own liberties. I think it ia extremely important tbat they ahall decide, and rightly decide that question before entering upon that policy. And now, my friends, having said the little I wish to say upon thia head, whether I have occupied the whole of the remnant ot my time or not, I believe 1 could not enter upon any new topic so aa to treat it fully without transcending my time, which I would not for a moment think of doing. I give way to Judge Douglaa. Three tremendous cheers for Lincoln from the Whole vast audience were given with great enthusiasm, aa their favorite retired. Mr. Douglas' Rejoinder. Now, gentlemen, tbe highest compliment yoa can pay me during the brief half hour 1 have to conclude, ia your entire silence, I desire to be beard rather than to be applauded. Tbe first criticism that Mr. Lincoln makes oa my speech is, that it is in substance what I have said everywhere else in the State, when I bave addressed the people. I wish I could aay the same ot his speeches. Laughter. Tbe principal point of complaint 1 make of htm ia, that he makes one speech North and another South one set of sentiments in the Abolition counties, and another aet in those counties opposed to Abolitionism. Tbe point of complaint ia, that 1 cannot hold him to a common standard in the different portions of the State. He didn't pretendno other man willthat I have one set of principles tor Galesburg and another for Charleston. He didn't pretend 1 have one aet for Chisago and another for J onesboro. 1 have proved that he haa different aeta of principles for each locality. Cries of " lt'a not so," Ac, and great confusion. Silence, if you please. All I could ask et him waa to have delivered the apeeeb that he baa made to-day tbat the speech be has made to-day, be would have delivered in Celea county, instead of old Knox. It wonld hsve settled the queation between him and me in that doubtful county, if the speech delivered here had been made there. Here 1 understand him to re-aflirm the doctrine of equality that by the Declaration of Independence, the negro ia declared equal to the white man. Hetetla yoa today that tbe negro waa included in the Declaration of Independence, which aays all men were created equal. A Voica We believe it, Jcpgb Douglas You believe it. Very well ! Gentlemen, I ask you to remember that Mr. Lincoln waa listened to respectfully, and 1 have a right to insist that I ahall not be interrupted in my reply. fie asserts to-day, as he did in Chicago, that that the negro waa included in that clanse of tbe Declaration of Independence which aaya that all men were created equal, and endowed by the Creator witb certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Then, if the negro was made his equal aud mine, it that equality waa established by Divine law, if that equality was an inaliemv ble right, how came be to aay at Charleston to those nentucKisna tbat ths negro was pnyst cally inferior to tbe white man, belonged to an inferior race, ana ne was ior seeping min always in that inferior condition ? 1 wish yoa to bear these things in mind. Ia Charleston he says, tbe negro belongs to an interior race, ana tbat be is tor seeping tnem in mat mienor con dition. There be gave tnem to understand tnax there was no moral question in it, because the inlenonty being established, it waa only a question of degree and not a question of right. Here to-day, instead of making it a question of degree be aays it is a great crime to hold bim in that inferior position. He bolds that it was a grevt wrong to hold him in tbat inferior condition. Is he right now, or was be right at Charleston? Criea of "both," "both," "both,") This, ec cording to your doctrine, ia right in one locality and wrong in another, ao aa to secure votes. All I desire ia that be will declare the same doe-trine in the North that be doea ia the South, and wherever the Constitution rules. But did yoa notice bow he answers my position that a man ahould bold the aame doctrine throughout the length and breadth of thia Republic? He says, would J udge Doaglaa goto Russia and proclaim the same principles tbat be doea here? I remind him that Russia ia not under tbe American Constitution. If Russia was a part of the American Republic under tbe same constitution, and I was sworn to support that constitution, I would maintain the same doctriue that I do in the United States. Applause J These slaveholders are ander the same federal constitution with ourselves. Hence, aar man's principles, to be ia harmony with the Constitntion, must be tbe aame in tbe North as they ars n the South, the same ia the free States that thef are tbe srave states. whenever a nun advocates one set ol principles' in one section, and another in another aeetiosz, hia opinions are in violation of the Constitution which be haa aworn to support. "That'a the doctrine." j Suppose When Mr. Lincoln went to Cengress in 1547, and pnt hut baad on the Boly Evangelists, and took a solemn oath in preenee of high h!aveni ha, wonld be faithful to the Coa-atitution. bow did ne tran the Constitution aa be explaina it in Galesburg, or tie Constitution aa he explaina it at Charleston. Laughter. Mr. Lincoln has devoted considerable time to tbe circumstance of my having read at Ottawa series or resolutions as havmg been adopted at Springfield, in this State, on the ith of tk-tober, 10. He has used hard names has dared to tal about fraud and about forgery, and has insinuated that thve was conspiracy between Mr. lanphier, Mr. Harris auu ine!f to perpetrate a lorgery. Niw bear in mind that lie did not deny but what those resolutions were adopted by a majority of all the Republican party in tue First Congressional District, In the second, in tb third and in many counties in tbe north, and this became the platform of the party in a majority ot the counties unon which he notr relies for sap port. He didn't deny the truthfulness of the resolutions, but he teVea exception to the spot where thev were adopted. Laughter. He makes a, great merit that they were hot adopted on tn right spot, as he thought the Mexican war was unjust because it was not begun on the right spot. He tries to make out that there was something very extraordinary simply on account of the place where the thing was done, and not of the thing itself. Now, IneVer believed before, that Abraham Lineoln would have been guilty ot what be has done this day tn regard to those resolutions. Applause. In the first place, the moment It was intimated to me that the resolutions were adopteJ at Ploomipgton and then at Aurora Z1$ then at Rocktord, mstcaa oi cprmm.. did not wait for him to call my attention to it, bnt led off and explained in advance at my first meeting wbat the mistake was, ana now i. wa made. 1 would suppose tbat with every honest msn conscious cf his on rectitude, that explanation would bare been sufficient. 1 did not wait for him when the mistake had been made to call my attention to it, but frankly explained it as an honest man would. Applause. Here Judge kouglaa turned round to Mr. Lincoln and talked to him.1 1 explained tne iminiruj " on which I made the statement, that having seen these resolutions quoted by .atsjor nams in debate in Congress as having been adopted by tbe first Republican State Contention in Illinois, I wrote to Major Harris asking him for the authority aa to place and time of their adoption. Hams being extremely ui, vnariea w"111 called at his sick bed, received hie answer, and wrote tome that it waa adopted at Springfield on the 6th of October, 1S54, and sent ma a copy of the Springfield papef Containing them. I read them from tbe newspaper rasi as r. udwih reads the Droceedings of meetings years ago in the files ot newspapera he finda. 1 made the explanation et the time. 1 did not believe that there waa an nonest waa in uvww , mmv-who did not believe that it waa an error I waa led into innocently in that way. 1 win aay more, that I de not believe tbat there is aa honest man on the face of this State that don't abhor with disgust his insinuations of my complicity with that forgery, as he calls it, Applause. Does be wish to push these tuinga to tne pomi of personal difficulties here ? I began this contest treating him courteously, kindly, snd spoke ot him in words of respect. He seems now to try to divert tbe poblie attention frcm the enormity of hia revolutoinary principles by getting into personal quarrels, impeaching my sincerity and integrity. 1 desired to conduct the contest with bim use a gentleman, out t spurn the insincetion of there being a complicity in a fraud merely because an editor of a newspaper had made a mistake as to the place where tbe tbing waa done, instead of the thing itself. These resolutions were the platform of the Republican party tbat year. Tbey were adopted in tbe majority of all the Republican counties in the State, and it was those resolutions tbat 1 asked him to answer at Ottawa, and be won't answer. At Ottawa he himself believed that those resolutions were adopted at Springfield. He did not deny it, but aaid he wan t there when they were adopted, bnt waa attending Tazewell Court. He thought he bad seen tuem fublisbed as having been adopted there just aa did. He knew that if there waa a mistake I had nothing nnder heaven to do with that mistake. Bnt yet yoa find in all these northern counties candidates running pledged to bim tor the Senate, yet adopting that political platform. One cardinal point in that platform which be shrinks from is that there abonld be no more Slave States admitted into thia Union even if the people wanted them. Lovejoy standi pledged against sny more Slave States. A Voice So do L Judge Douglas So do yoa say Farnsworth too stands pledged against more Slave States, Washburne stands pledged against any more Slave States being received npon any condition. The candidate for the Legislature, who ia running on Lincoln's ticket in Heudeteon snd Warren Counties, atands pledged for the same ttnng. and 1 am informed, though I do not know the fact certainly, tbat your candidate atands pledged to the same thing. A Voice Good tor bim. Judge Doi'Olas Now yoa Republicans all hallow "hurrah for him, and yet Mr. Lincoln tells you thst hia conscience won't enable him to sustain that doctrine. Mr. Lincoln's complaint is that these resolutions which I bsre read, make him, aa a member of tbe party, responsible for and aaactionmg the doctrine of no more Slave States, while he went be committed to it. Now yoa are one way, as you confess, and he pretends that he ia tbe other, and yet yoa are both governed by principle, and yoa are governed by principle, I suppose, ia your vote. Now if it be true that in all thia north half of the State, the Republican party stands committed to the docttine of no more Slave States, while that doctrine is repudiated by ths Republicans in the other half of the State, 1 wonder if Mr. Lincoln and his party haa not presented tbe case tbat he has cited in tbe Scripture, that a boose divided against itself cannot stand. Applause. J 1 desire to hnd out wbat hia principlea are on tbat point. 1 want to know the principles of his party. I hold, and the party with which I am identified bold, and that the people ot each State, old or new, have a right to decide this aiavery question for themselves. A Voice That'a it, sir. Jcdgb Doc c. las When I used the remark that "I didn't care whether slavery waa voted np or voted down," 1 used it in thia connection 1 was for allowing Kansas to do just aa aha pleased on the slavery question. I said, I care not whether they vote it np or vote it down, because they have a right to do aa they piease, and my action would not be controlled by their decision. Why can't be, or the party with which he acts, speak oat their principlea, so thst they would not be misunderstood, and not claim to be one way in; one part of the State, and another in a different part of the State ? Whenever I advance these Abolition doctrines, which he complains of as being slanderous when applid to him whenever I advance them np here, yoa halloo out "That'a right," not knowing that your candidate ia the other way. Now I have a few worda to say on the Dred Scott ease, which baa troubled the brains of Lincoln ao much. He goes on and insists tbat the Dred Scott decision would carry slavery into the free States, notwithstanding the deci-cion itself saya the contrary. He made an argument to make me believe that I waa in favor of and would sanction the doctrine thst aiavea could be brought here to Illinois aa slaves, contrary to oar State Constitution and laws. Now Mr. Lincoln knew the facta about that. He knew that bnt one newspaper in America, and so far aa I know but one, ever asserted the doctrine, and that I was the first man in either Houses of Congress that read the article in a speech in the Senate, denouncing it on tbe spot aa revolutionary. When the Washington L'nwn on the IT tb of November, published aa article to that effect I branded it, and hence the Union haa been pursuing me ever since. Mr. Toombs, of Georgia, replied to me by saying that there wan't a man south of the Potomac River in ail the Slave States that held any auch doctrine. Mr. Lincoln knowa that there ia no member of the Supreme Court that holda that doctrine. He knowa that every one of them in tbeir opinions held tbe reverse. Why then thia attempt to bring the Supreme Court into disrepute among tbe people ? It looks as if there was an effort to destroy public confidence in tbe highest judicial tribunal on earth. Suppose a man succeeded in destroying public confidence ia the Court, so that the people wonld not respect its decisions, so that men will feel at liberty to disregard and resist tbe laws of tbe bind, what will he have gained? ,He will have changed thia Government from one of lawa to that of a mob, in which tbe strong ami of power and violence will be substituted tor the decisions of tbe courts of justice. Pretty good." He complains that 1 don't go into tha argument and review Justice Taney'a opinions, and the other opinions of the different Judges, to determine whether their reasoning ia right or wrong on the question of law. Wbat use would that be ? He wants to take an appeal from tbs decision of the Supreme Court to the meeting to decide whether a Question of law waa rightly settled He is going to appeal from tbe Supreme Court to every town meeting, in the hope of exciting prejudice against tbe Supreme Coon, and on the wave of that prejudice, ride into the Senate of the United Slates, when he couldn't get there upon his own p'inciplesor his own merits. Suppose be should succeed in getting into the Senate, what then ? Will be have to do with tbe decision of the Supreme Court in the Died Scott case ? Can he reverse tbe decision when be gets there ? Can be act upon it ? Has the Senate any i ight to reverse or revise it ? He will not pretend that. Then why drag it into this canvass, unless it is to make a false issue, upon which he can divert pnblie pinion from tbe real issue. He then cites Gen. Jackson for bis justitieatioa, in making war upon tbe decision of the Supreme Court. Mr. Lincoln mw-nnderstands the history of tbe country, if be be-Ueves there is any paraUcL ItistraetlieStiprroa

What members have found on this page

Get access to Newspapers.com

  • The largest online newspaper archive
  • 19,500+ newspapers from the 1700s–2000s
  • Millions of additional pages added every month

Try it free