the writings-3-第28节
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!
Supreme Court? Has not the Supreme Court decided that question?
when he now says the people may exclude slavery; does he not make
it a question for the people? Does he not virtually shift his
ground and say that it is not a question for the Court; but for
the people? This is a very simple proposition;a very plain and
naked one。 It seems to me that there is no difficulty in
deciding it。 In a variety of ways he said that it was a question
for the Supreme Court。 He did not stop then to tell us that;
whatever the Supreme Court decides; the people can by withholding
necessary 〃police regulations〃 keep slavery out。 He did not make
any such answer I submit to you now whether the new state of the
case has not induced the Judge to sheer away from his original
ground。 Would not this be the impression of every fair…minded
man?
I hold that the proposition that slavery cannot enter a new
country without police regulations is historically false。 It is
not true at all。 I hold that the history of this country shows
that the institution of slavery was originally planted upon this
continent without these 〃police regulations;〃 which the Judge now
thinks necessary for the actual establishment of it。 Not only
so; but is there not another fact: how came this Dred Scott
decision to be made? It was made upon the case of a negro being
taken and actually held in slavery in Minnesota Territory;
claiming his freedom because the Act of Congress prohibited his
being so held there。 Will the Judge pretend that Dred Scott was
not held there without police regulations? There is at least one
matter of record as to his having been held in slavery in the
Territory; not only without police regulations; but in the teeth
of Congressional legislation supposed to be valid at the time。
This shows that there is vigor enough in slavery to plant itself
in a new country even against unfriendly legislation。 It takes
not only law; but the enforcement of law to keep it out。 That is
the history of this country upon the subject。
I wish to ask one other question。 It being understood that the
Constitution of the United States guarantees property in slaves
in the Territories; if there is any infringement of the right of
that property; would not the United States courts; organized for
the government of the Territory; apply such remedy as might be
necessary in that case? It is a maxim held by the courts that
there is no wrong without its remedy; and the courts have a
remedy for whatever is acknowledged and treated as a wrong。
Again: I will ask you; my friends; if you were elected members of
the Legislature; what would be the first thing you would have to
do before entering upon your duties? Swear to support the
Constitution of the United States。 Suppose you believe; as Judge
Douglas does; that the Constitution of the United States
guarantees to your neighbor the right to hold slaves in that
Territory; that they are his property: how can you clear your
oaths unless you give him such legislation as is necessary to
enable him to enjoy that property? What do you understand by
supporting the Constitution of a State; or of the United States?
Is it not to give such constitutional helps to the rights
established by that Constitution as may be practically needed?
Can you; if you swear to support the Constitution; and believe
that the Constitution establishes a right; clear your oath;
without giving it support? Do you support the Constitution if;
knowing or believing there is a right established under it which
needs specific legislation; you withhold that legislation? Do
you not violate and disregard your oath? I can conceive of
nothing plainer in the world。 There can be nothing in the words
〃support the Constitution;〃 if you may run counter to it by
refusing support to any right established under the Constitution。
And what I say here will hold with still more force against the
Judge's doctrine of 〃unfriendly legislation。〃 How could you;
having sworn to support the Constitution; and believing it
guaranteed the right to hold slaves in the Territories; assist in
legislation intended to defeat that right? That would be
violating your own view of the Constitution。 Not only so; but if
you were to do so; how long would it take the courts to hold your
votes unconstitutional and void? Not a moment。
Lastly; I would ask: Is not Congress itself under obligation to
give legislative support to any right that is established under
the United States Constitution? I repeat the question: Is not
Congress itself bound to give legislative support to any right
that is established in the United States Constitution? A member
of Congress swears to support the Constitution of the United
States: and if he sees a right established by that Constitution
which needs specific legislative protection; can he clear his
oath without giving that protection? Let me ask you why many of
us who are opposed to slavery upon principle give our
acquiescence to a Fugitive Slave law? Why do we hold ourselves
under obligations to pass such a law; and abide by it when it is
passed? Because the Constitution makes provision that the owners
of slaves shall have the right to reclaim them。 It gives the
right to reclaim slaves; and that right is; as Judge Douglas
says; a barren right; unless there is legislation that will
enforce it。
The mere declaration; 〃No person held to service or labor in one
State under the laws thereof; escaping into another; shall in
consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged from
such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the
party to whom such service or labor may be due; 〃is powerless
without specific legislation to enforce it。〃 Now; on what ground
would a member of Congress; who is opposed to slavery in the
abstract; vote for a Fugitive law; as I would deem it my duty to
do? Because there is a constitutional right which needs
legislation to enforce it。 And although it is distasteful to me;
I have sworn to support the Constitution; and having so sworn; I
cannot conceive that I do support it if I withhold from that
right any necessary legislation to make it practical。 And if
that is true in regard to a Fugitive Slave law; is the right to
have fugitive slaves reclaimed any better fixed in the
Constitution than the right to hold slaves in the Territories?
For this decision is a just exposition of the Constitution; as
Judge Douglas thinks。 Is the one right any better than the
other? Is there any man who; while a member of Congress; would
give support to the one any more than the other? If I wished to
refuse to give legislative support to slave property in the
Territories; if a member of Congress; I could not do it; holding
the view that the Constitution establishes that right。 If I did
it at all; it would be because I deny that this decision properly
construes the Constitution。 But if I acknowledge; with Judge
Douglas; that this decision properly construes the Constitution;
I cannot conceive that I would be less than a perjured man if I
should refuse in Congress to give such protection to that
property as in its nature it needed。
At the end of what I have said here I propose to give the Judge
my fifth interrogatory; which he may take and answer at his
leisure。 My fifth interrogatory is this:
If the slaveholding citizens of a United States Territory should
need and demand Congressional legislation for the protection of
their slave property in such Territory; would you; as a member of
Congress; vote for or against such legislation?
'Judge DOUGLAS: Will you repeat that? I want to answer that
question。'
If the slaveholding citizens of a United States Territory should
need and demand Congressional legislation for the protection of
their slave property in such Territory; would you; as a member of
Congress; vote for or against such legislation?
I am aware that in some of the speeches Judge Douglas has made;
he has spoken as if he did not know or think that the Supreme
Court had decided that a Territorial Legislature cannot exclude
slavery。 Precisely what the Judge would say upon the subject
whether he would say definitely that he does not understand they
have so decided; or whether he would say he does understand that
the court have so decided;I do not know; but I know that in his
speech at Springfield he spoke of it as a thing they had not
decided yet; and in his answer to me at Freeport; he spoke of it;
so far; again; as I can comprehend it; as a thing that had not
yet been decided。 Now; I hold that if the Judge does entertain
that view; I think that he is not mistaken in so far as it can be
said that the court has not decided anything save the mere
question of jurisdiction。 I know the legal arguments that can be
made;that after a court has decided that it cannot take
jurisdiction in a case