太子爷小说网 > 英语电子书 > the writings-4 >

第10节

the writings-4-第10节

小说: the writings-4 字数: 每页4000字

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!




attempted a repetition of it upon Trumbull on the floor of the Senate

of the United States; as will appear from the appendix of the

Congressional Globe of that date。



On the 9th of August; Harris attempted it again upon Norton in the

House of Representatives; as will appear by the same documents;the

appendix to the Congressional Globe of that date。  On the 21st of

August last; all threeLanphier; Douglas; and Harrisreattempted it

upon me at Ottawa。  It has been clung to and played out again and

again as an exceedingly high trump by this blessed trio。  And now

that it has been discovered publicly to be a fraud we find that Judge

Douglas manifests no surprise at it at all。  He makes no complaint of

Lanphier; who must have known it to be a fraud from the beginning。

He; Lanphier; and Harris are just as cozy now and just as active in

the concoction of new schemes as they were before the general

discovery of this fraud。  Now; all this is very natural if they are

all alike guilty in that fraud; and it is very unnatural if any one

of them is innocent。  Lanphier perhaps insists that the rule of honor

among thieves does not quite require him to take all upon himself;

and consequently my friend Judge Douglas finds it difficult to make a

satisfactory report upon his investigation。  But meanwhile the three

are agreed that each is 〃a most honorable man。〃



Judge Douglas requires an indorsement of his truth and honor by a

re…election to the United States Senate; and he makes and reports

against me and against Judge Trumbull; day after day; charges which

we know to be utterly untrue; without for a moment seeming to think

that this one unexplained fraud; which he promised to investigate;

will be the least drawback to his claim to belief。  Harris ditto。  He

asks 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 State Register; edited by Lanphier; then; as now; the

central organ of both Harris and Douglas; continues to din the public

ear with this assertion; without seeming to suspect that these

assertions are at all lacking in title to belief。



After all; the question still recurs upon us; How did that fraud

originally get into the State Register。?  Lanphier then; as now; was

the editor 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 he has told; can Judge Douglas be induced to

tell how it originally was 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

that the mere fact of Judge Douglas making charges against Trumbull

and myself is not quite sufficient evidence to establish them!



While we were at Freeport; in one of these joint discussions; I

answered certain interrogatories which Judge Douglas had propounded

to me; and then in turn propounded some to him; which he in a sort of

way answered。  The third one of these interrogatories I have with me;

and wish now to make some comments upon it。  It was in these words:

 〃If the Supreme Court of the United States shall decide that the

States cannot exclude slavery from their limits; are you in favor of

acquiescing in; adhering to; and following such decision as a rule of

political action?〃



To this interrogatory Judge Douglas made no answer in any just sense

of the word。  He contented himself with sneering at the thought that

it was possible for the Supreme Court ever to make such a decision。

He sneered at me for propounding the interrogatory。  I had not

propounded it without some reflection; and I wish now to address to

this audience some remarks upon it。



In the second clause of the sixth article; I believe it is; of the

Constitution of the United States; we find the following language:



〃This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be

made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made; or which 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 the Constitution or laws of any State to the

contrary notwithstanding。〃



The essence of the Dred Scott case is compressed into the sentence

which I will now read:



〃Now; as we have already said in an earlier part of this opinion;

upon a different point; the right of property in a slave is

distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution。〃



I repeat it; 〃The right of property in a slave is distinctly and

expressly affirmed in the Constitution〃!  What is it to be 〃affirmed〃

in the Constitution?  Made firm in the Constitution; so made that it

cannot be separated from the Constitution without breaking the

Constitution; durable as the Constitution; and part of the

Constitution。  Now; remembering the provision of the Constitution

which I have readaffirming that that instrument is the supreme law

of the land; that the judges of every State shall be bound by it; any

law or constitution of any State to the contrary notwithstanding;

that the right of property in a slave is affirmed in that

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 short and even syllogistic argument

from it?  I think it follows; and I submit to the consideration of

men capable of arguing whether; as I state it; in syllogistic form;

the argument has any fault in it:



Nothing in the Constitution or laws of any State can destroy a right

distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution of the United

States。



The right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed

in the Constitution of the United States。



Therefore; nothing in the Constitution or laws of any State can

destroy the right of property in a slave。



I believe that no fault can be pointed out in that argument; assuming

the truth of the premises; the conclusion; so far as I have capacity

at all to understand it; follows inevitably。  There is a fault in it

as I think; but the fault is not in the reasoning; but the falsehood

in fact is a fault of the premises。  I believe that the right of

property in a slave is not distinctly and expressly affirmed in the

Constitution; and Judge Douglas thinks it is。  I believe that the

Supreme Court and the advocates of that decision may search in vain

for the place in the Constitution where the right of property in a

slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed I say; therefore; that I

think one of the premises is not true in fact。  But 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 from denying

it; the conclusion follows that; the Constitution of the United

States being the supreme law; no constitution or law can interfere

with it。  It being affirmed in the decision that the right of

property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the

Constitution; the conclusion inevitably follows that no State law or

constitution can destroy that right。  I then say to Judge Douglas and

to all others that I think it will take a better answer than a sneer

to show that those who have said that the right of property in a

slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution; are

not prepared to show that no constitution or law can destroy that

right。  I say I believe it will take a far better argument than a

mere sneer to show to the minds of intelligent men that whoever has

so said is not prepared; whenever public sentiment is so far advanced

as to justify it; to say the other。  This is but an opinion; and the

opinion of one very humble man; but it is my opinion that the Dred

Scott decision; as it is; never would have been made in its present

form if the party that made it had not been sustained previously by

the elections。  My own opinion is; that the new Dred Scott decision;

deciding against the right of the people of the States to exclude

slavery; will never be made if that party is not sustained by the

elections。  I believe; further; that it is just as sure to be made as

to…morrow is to come; if that party shall be sustained。  I have said;

upon a former occasion; and I repeat it now; that the course of

arguement that Judge Douglas makes use of upon this subject (I charge

not his motives in this); is preparing the public mind for that new

Dred Scott decision。  I have asked him again to point out to me the

reasons for his first adherence to the Dred Scott decision as it is。

I have turned his attention to the fact that General Jackson differed

with him in regard to the political obligation of a Supreme Court

decision。  I have asked his attention to

返回目录 上一页 下一页 回到顶部 0 0

你可能喜欢的