the writings-3-第13章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！



would　make　it　a　rule　of　political　action　for　the　people　and　all

the　departments　of　the　government。　　I　would　not。　　By　resisting　it

as　a　political　rule；　I　disturb　no　right　of　property；　create　no

disorder；　excite　no　mobs。



When　he　spoke　at　Chicago；　on　Friday　evening　of　last　week；　he　made

this　same　point　upon　me。　　On　Saturday　evening　I　replied；　and

reminded　him　of　a　Supreme　Court　decision　which　he　opposed　for　at

least　several　years。　　Last　night；　at　Bloomington；　he　took　some

notice　of　that　reply；　but　entirely　forgot　to　remember　that　part

of　it。



He　renews　his　onslaught　upon　me；　forgetting　to　remember　that　I

have　turned　the　tables　against　himself　on　that　very　point。　　I

renew　the　effort　to　draw　his　attention　to　it。　　I　wish　to　stand

erect　before　the　country；　as　well　as　Judge　Douglas；　on　this

question　of　judicial　authority；　and　therefore　I　add　something　to

the　authority　in　favor　of　my　own　position。　　I　wish　to　show　that　I

am　sustained　by　authority；　in　addition　to　that　heretofore

presented。　　I　do　not　expect　to　convince　the　Judge。　　It　is　part　of

the　plan　of　his　campaign；　and　he　will　cling　to　it　with　a

desperate　grip。　　Even　turn　it　upon　him；the　sharp　point　against

him；　and　gaff　him　through；he　will　still　cling　to　it　till　he　can

invent　some　new　dodge　to　take　the　place　of　it。



In　public　speaking　it　is　tedious　reading　from　documents；　but　I

must　beg　to　indulge　the　practice　to　a　limited　extent。　　I　shall

read　from　a　letter　written　by　Mr。　Jefferson　in　1820；　and　now　to

be　found　in　the　seventh　volume　of　his　correspondence；　at　page

177。　　It　seems　he　had　been　presented　by　a　gentleman　of　the　name

of　Jarvis　with　a　book；　or　essay；　or　periodical；　called　the

Republican；　and　he　was　writing　in　acknowledgment　of　the　present；

and　noting　some　of　its　contents。　　After　expressing　the　hope　that

the　work　will　produce　a　favorable　effect　upon　the　minds　of　the

young；　he　proceeds　to　say：



〃That　it　will　have　this　tendency　may　be　expected；　and　for　that

reason　I　feel　an　urgency　to　note　what　I　deem　an　error　in　it；　the

more　requiring　notice　as　your　opinion　is　strengthened　by　that　of

many　others。　　You　seem；　in　pages　84　and　148；　to　consider　the

judges　as　the　ultimate　arbiters　of　all　constitutional　questions；…

…a　very　dangerous　doctrine　indeed；　and　one　which　would　place　us

under　the　despotism　of　an　oligarchy。　　Our　judges　are　as　honest　as

other　men；　and　not　more　so。　　They　have；　with　others；　the　same

passions　for　party；　for　power；　and　the　privilege　of　their　corps。

Their　maxim　is；　'Boni　judicis　est　ampliare　jurisdictionem'；　and

their　power　is　the　more　dangerous　as　they　are　in　office　for　life；

and　not　responsible；　as　the　other　functionaries　are；　to　the

elective　control。　　The　Constitution　has　erected　no　such　single

tribunal；　knowing　that；　to　whatever　hands　confided；　with　the

corruptions　of　time　and　party；　its　members　would　become　despots。

It　has　more　wisely　made　all　the　departments　co…equal　and

co…sovereign　with　themselves。〃



Thus　we　see　the　power　claimed　for　the　Supreme　Court　by　Judge

Douglas；　Mr。　Jefferson　holds；　would　reduce　us　to　the　despotism　of

an　oligarchy。



Now；　I　have　said　no　more　than　this；in　fact；　never　quite　so　much

as　this；　at　least　I　am　sustained　by　Mr。　Jefferson。



Let　us　go　a　little　further。　　You　remember　we　once　had　a　National

Bank。　　Some　one　owed　the　bank　a　debt；　he　was　sued；　and　sought　to

avoid　payment　on　the　ground　that　the　bank　was　unconstitutional。

The　case　went　to　the　Supreme　Court；　and　therein　it　was　decided

that　the　bank　was　constitutional。　　The　whole　Democratic　party

revolted　against　that　decision。　　General　Jackson　himself　asserted

that　he；　as　President；　would　not　be　bound　to　hold　a　National　Bank

to　be　constitutional；　even　though　the　court　had　decided　it　to　be

so。　　He　fell　in　precisely　with　the　view　of　Mr。　Jefferson；　and

acted　upon　it　under　his　official　oath；　in　vetoing　a　charter　for　a

National　Bank。　　The　declaration　that　Congress　does　not　possess

this　constitutional　power　to　charter　a　bank　has　gone　into　the

Democratic　platform；　at　their　National　Conventions；　and　was

brought　forward　and　reaffirmed　in　their　last　Convention　at

Cincinnati。　　They　have　contended　for　that　declaration；　in　the

very　teeth　of　the　Supreme　Court；　for　more　than　a　quarter　of　a

century。　　In　fact；　they　have　reduced　the　decision　to　an　absolute

nullity。　　That　decision；　I　repeat；　is　repudiated　in　the

Cincinnati　platform；　and　still；　as　if　to　show　that　effrontery　can

go　no　further；　Judge　Douglas　vaunts　in　the　very　speeches　in　which

he　denounces　me　for　opposing　the　Dred　Scott　decision　that　he

stands　on　the　Cincinnati　platform。



Now；　I　wish　to　know　what　the　Judge　can　charge　upon　me；　with

respect　to　decisions　of　the　Supreme　Court；　which　does　not　lie　in

all　its　length；　breadth；　and　proportions　at　his　own　door。　　The

plain　truth　is　simply　this：　Judge　Douglas　is　for　Supreme　Court

decisions　when　he　likes　and　against　them　when　he　does　not　like

them。　　He　is　for　the　Dred　Scott　decision　because　it　tends　to

nationalize　slavery；　because　it　is　part　of　the　original

combination　for　that　object。　　It　so　happens；　singularly　enough；

that　I　never　stood　opposed　to　a　decision　of　the　Supreme　Court

till　this；　on　the　contrary；　I　have　no　recollection　that　he　was

ever　particularly　in　favor　of　one　till　this。　　He　never　was　in

favor　of　any　nor　opposed　to　any；　till　the　present　one；　which

helps　to　nationalize　slavery。



Free　men　of　Sangamon；　free　men　of　Illinois；　free　men　everywhere；

judge　ye　between　him　and　me　upon　this　issue。



He　says　this　Dred　Scott　case　is　a　very　small　matter　at　most；

that　it　has　no　practical　effect；　that　at　best；　or　rather；　I

suppose；　at　worst；　it　is　but　an　abstraction。　　I　submit　that　the

proposition　that　the　thing　which　determines　whether　a　man　is　free

or　a　slave　is　rather　concrete　than　abstract。　　I　think　you　would

conclude　that　it　was；　if　your　liberty　depended　upon　it；　and　so

would　Judge　Douglas；　if　his　liberty　depended　upon　it。　　But

suppose　it　was　on　the　question　of　spreading　slavery　over　the　new

Territories　that　he　considers　it　as　being　merely　an　abstract

matter；　and　one　of　no　practical　importance。　　How　has　the　planting

of　slavery　in　new　countries　always　been　effected？　　It　has　now

been　decided　that　slavery　cannot　be　kept　out　of　our　new

Territories　by　any　legal　means。　　In　what　do　our　new　Territories

now　differ　in　this　respect　from　the　old　Colonies　when　slavery　was

first　planted　within　them？　　It　was　planted；　as　Mr。　Clay　once

declared；　and　as　history　proves　true；　by　individual　men；　in　spite

of　the　wishes　of　the　people；　the　Mother　Government　refusing　to

prohibit　it；　and　withholding　from　the　people　of　the　Colonies　the

authority　to　prohibit　it　for　themselves。　　Mr。　Clay　says　this　was

one　of　the　great　and　just　causes　of　complaint　against　Great

Britain　by　the　Colonies；　and　the　best　apology　we　can　now　make　for

having　the　institution　amongst　us。　　In　that　precise　condition　our

Nebraska　politicians　have　at　last　succeeded　in　placing　our　own

new　Territories；　the　government　will　not　prohibit　slavery　within

them；　nor　allow　the　people　to　prohibit　it。



I　defy　any　man　to　find　any　difference　between　the　policy　which

originally　planted　slavery　in　these　Colonies　and　that　policy

which　now　prevails　in　our　new　Territories。　　If　it　does　not　go

into　them；　it　is　only　because　no　individual　wishes　it　to　go。　　The

Judge　indulged　himself　doubtless　to…day　with　the　question　as　to

what　I　am　going　to　do　with　or　about　the　Dred　Scott　decision。

Well；　Judge；　will　you　please　tell　me　what　you　did　about　the　bank

decision？　　Will　you　not　graciously　allow　us　to　do　with　the　Dred

Scott　decision　precisely　as　you　did　with　the　bank　decision？　　You

succeeded　in　breaking　down　the　moral　effect　of　that　decision：　did

you　find　it　necessary　to　amend　the　Constitution；　or　to　set　up　a

court　of　negroes　in　order　to　do　it？



There　is　one　other　point。　　Judge　Douglas　has　a　very　affectionate

leaning　toward　the　Americans　and　Old　Whigs。　　Last　evening；　in　a

sort　of