the writings-3-第32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！



us　who　are　opposed　to　slavery　upon　principle　give　our

acquiescence　to　a　Fugitive　Slave　law？　　　Why　do　we　hold　ourselves

under　obligations　to　pass　such　a　law；　and　abide　by　it　when　it　is

passed？　　Because　the　Constitution　makes　provision　that　the　owners

of　slaves　shall　have　the　right　to　reclaim　them。　　It　gives　the

right　to　reclaim　slaves；　and　that　right　is；　as　Judge　Douglas

says；　a　barren　right；　unless　there　is　legislation　that　will

enforce　it。



The　mere　declaration；　〃No　person　held　to　service　or　labor　in　one

State　under　the　laws　thereof；　escaping　into　another；　shall　in

consequence　of　any　law　or　regulation　therein　be　discharged　from

such　service　or　labor；　but　shall　be　delivered　up　on　claim　of　the

party　to　whom　such　service　or　labor　may　be　due；　〃is　powerless

without　specific　legislation　to　enforce　it。〃　　Now；　on　what　ground

would　a　member　of　Congress；　who　is　opposed　to　slavery　in　the

abstract；　vote　for　a　Fugitive　law；　as　I　would　deem　it　my　duty　to

do？　　Because　there　is　a　constitutional　right　which　needs

legislation　to　enforce　it。　　And　although　it　is　distasteful　to　me；

I　have　sworn　to　support　the　Constitution；　and　having　so　sworn；　I

cannot　conceive　that　I　do　support　it　if　I　withhold　from　that

right　any　necessary　legislation　to　make　it　practical。　　And　if

that　is　true　in　regard　to　a　Fugitive　Slave　law；　is　the　right　to

have　fugitive　slaves　reclaimed　any　better　fixed　in　the

Constitution　than　the　right　to　hold　slaves　in　the　Territories？

For　this　decision　is　a　just　exposition　of　the　Constitution；　as

Judge　Douglas　thinks。　　Is　the　one　right　any　better　than　the

other？　　Is　there　any　man　who；　while　a　member　of　Congress；　would

give　support　to　the　one　any　more　than　the　other？　　If　I　wished　to

refuse　to　give　legislative　support　to　slave　property　in　the

Territories；　if　a　member　of　Congress；　I　could　not　do　it；　holding

the　view　that　the　Constitution　establishes　that　right。　　If　I　did

it　at　all；　it　would　be　because　I　deny　that　this　decision　properly

construes　the　Constitution。　　But　if　I　acknowledge；　with　Judge

Douglas；　that　this　decision　properly　construes　the　Constitution；

I　cannot　conceive　that　I　would　be　less　than　a　perjured　man　if　I

should　refuse　in　Congress　to　give　such　protection　to　that

property　as　in　its　nature　it　needed。



At　the　end　of　what　I　have　said　here　I　propose　to　give　the　Judge

my　fifth　interrogatory；　which　he　may　take　and　answer　at　his

leisure。　　My　fifth　interrogatory　is　this：



If　the　slaveholding　citizens　of　a　United　States　Territory　should

need　and　demand　Congressional　legislation　for　the　protection　of

their　slave　property　in　such　Territory；　would　you；　as　a　member　of

Congress；　vote　for　or　against　such　legislation？



＇Judge　DOUGLAS：　Will　you　repeat　that？　　I　want　to　answer　that

question。＇



If　the　slaveholding　citizens　of　a　United　States　Territory　should

need　and　demand　Congressional　legislation　for　the　protection　of

their　slave　property　in　such　Territory；　would　you；　as　a　member　of

Congress；　vote　for　or　against　such　legislation？



I　am　aware　that　in　some　of　the　speeches　Judge　Douglas　has　made；

he　has　spoken　as　if　he　did　not　know　or　think　that　the　Supreme

Court　had　decided　that　a　Territorial　Legislature　cannot　exclude

slavery。　　Precisely　what　the　Judge　would　say　upon　the　subject

whether　he　would　say　definitely　that　he　does　not　understand　they

have　so　decided；　or　whether　he　would　say　he　does　understand　that

the　court　have　so　decided；I　do　not　know；　but　I　know　that　in　his

speech　at　Springfield　he　spoke　of　it　as　a　thing　they　had　not

decided　yet；　and　in　his　answer　to　me　at　Freeport；　he　spoke　of　it；

so　far；　again；　as　I　can　comprehend　it；　as　a　thing　that　had　not

yet　been　decided。　　Now；　I　hold　that　if　the　Judge　does　entertain

that　view；　I　think　that　he　is　not　mistaken　in　so　far　as　it　can　be

said　that　the　court　has　not　decided　anything　save　the　mere

question　of　jurisdiction。　　I　know　the　legal　arguments　that　can　be

made；that　after　a　court　has　decided　that　it　cannot　take

jurisdiction　in　a　case；　it　then　has　decided　all　that　is　before

it；　and　that　is　the　end　of　it。　　A　plausib1e　argument　can　be　made

in　favor　of　that　proposition；　but　I　know　that　Judge　Douglas　has

said　in　one　of　his　speeches　that　the　court　went　forward；　like

honest　men　as　they　were；　and　decided　all　the　points　in　the　case。

If　any　points　are　really　extra…judicially　decided；　because　not

necessarily　before　them；　then　this　one　as　to　the　power　of　the

Territorial　Legislature；　to　exclude　slavery　is　one　of　them；　as

also　the　one　that　the　Missouri　Compromise　was　null　and　void。

They　are　both　extra…judicial；　or　neither　is；　according　as　the

court　held　that　they　had　no　jurisdiction　in　the　case　between　the

parties；　because　of　want　of　capacity　of　one　party　to　maintain　a

suit　in　that　court。　　I　want；　if　I　have　sufficient　time；　to　show

that　the　court　did　pass　its　opinion；　but　that　is　the　only　thing

actually　done　in　the　case。　　If　they　did　not　decide；　they　showed

what　they　were　ready　to　decide　whenever　the　matter　was　before

them。　　What　is　that　opinion？　　After　having　argued　that　Congress

had　no　power　to　pass　a　law　excluding　slavery　from　a　United　States

Territory；　they　then　used　language　to　this　effect：　　That　inasmuch

as　Congress　itself　could　not　exercise　such　a　power；　it　followed

as　a　matter　of　course　that　it　could　not　authorize　a　Territorial

government　to　exercise　it；　for　the　Territorial　Legislature　can　do

no　more　than　Congress　could　do。　　Thus　it　expressed　its　opinion

emphatically　against　the　power　of　a　Territorial　Legislature　to

exclude　slavery；　leaving　us　in　just　as　little　doubt　on　that　point

as　upon　any　other　point　they　really　decided。



Now；　my　fellow…citizens；　I　will　detain　you　only　a　little　while

longer；　my　time　is　nearly　out。　　I　find　a　report　of　a　speech　made

by　Judge　Douglas　at　Joliet；　since　we　last　met　at　Freeport；

published；　I　believe；　in　the　Missouri　Republican；　on　the　9th　of

this　month；　in　which　Judge　Douglas　says：



〃You　know　at　Ottawa　I　read　this　platform；　and　asked　him　if　he

concurred　in　each　and　all　of　the　principles　set　forth　in　it。　　He

would　not　answer　these　questions。　　At　last　I　said　frankly；　I　wish

you　to　answer　them；　because　when　I　get　them　up　here　where　the

color　of　your　principles　are　a　little　darker　than　in　Egypt；　I

intend　to　trot　you　down　to　Jonesboro。　　The　very　notice　that　I　was

going　to　take　him　down　to　Egypt　made　him　tremble　in　his　knees　so

that　he　had　to　be　carried　from　the　platform。　　He　laid　up　seven

days；　and　in　the　meantime　held　a　consultation　with　his　political

physicians；　they　had　Lovejoy　and　Farnsworth　and　all　the　leaders

of　the　Abolition　party；　they　consulted　it　all　over；　and　at　last

Lincoln　came　to　the　conclusion　that　he　would　answer；　so　he　came

up　to　Freeport　last　Friday。〃



Now；　that　statement　altogether　furnishes　a　subject　for

philosophical　contemplation。　　I　have　been　treating　it　in　that

way；　and　I　have　really　come　to　the　conclusion　that　I　can　explain

it　in　no　other　way　than　by　believing　the　Judge　is　crazy。　　If　he

was　in　his　right　mind　I　cannot　conceive　how　he　would　have　risked

disgusting　the　four　or　five　thousand　of　his　own　friends　who　stood

there　and　knew；　as　to　my　having　been　carried　from　the　platform；

that　there　was　not　a　word　of　truth　in　it。



＇Judge　DOUGLAS：　Did　n't　they　carry　you　off？＇



There　that　question　illustrates　the　character　of　this　man　Douglas

exactly。　　He　smiles　now；　and　says；　〃Did　n't　they　carry　you　off？〃

but　he　said　then　〃he　had　to　be　carried　off〃；　and　he　said　it　to

convince　the　country　that　he　had　so　completely　broken　me　down　by

his　speech　that　I　had　to　be　carried　away。　　Now　he　seeks　to　dodge

it；　and　asks；　〃Did　n't　they　carry　you　off？〃　Yes；　they　did。　　But；

Judge　Douglas；　why　didn't　you　tell　the　truth？〃　I　would　like　to

know　why　you　did　n't　tell　the　truth　about　it。　　And　then　again　〃He

laid　up　seven　days。〃　　He　put　this　in　print　for　the　people　of　the

country　to　read　as　a　serious　document。　　I　think　if　he　had　been　in

his　sober　senses　he　would　not　have　risked　t