ourt for the District of Missouri; and both Nebraska bill and
lawsuit were brought to a decision in the same month of May, 1854. The
negro's name was "Dred Scott," which name now designates the decision
finally made in the case. Before the then next presidential election,
the law case came to and was argued in the Supreme Court of the United
States; but the decision of it was deferred until after the election.
Still, before the election, Senator Trumbull, on the floor of the
Senate, requested the leading advocate of the Nebraska bill to state
_his opinion_ whether the people of a Territory can constitutionally
exclude slavery from their limits; and the latter answers: "That is a
question for the Supreme Court."

The election came. Mr. Buchanan was elected, and the indorsement, such
as it was, secured. That was the second point gained. The
indorsement, however, fell short of a clear popular majority by nearly
four hundred thousand votes, and so, perhaps, was not overwhelmingly
reliable and satisfactory. The out-going President, in his last annual
message, as impressively as possible echoed back upon the people the
weight and authority of the indorsement. The Supreme Court met again;
did not announce their decision, but ordered a reargument. The
presidential inauguration came, and still no decision of the court; but
the incoming President in his inaugural address fervently exhorted the
people to abide by the forthcoming decision, whatever it might be.
Then, in a few days, came the decision.

The reputed author of the Nebraska bill finds an early occasion to make
a speech at this capital indorseing the Dred Scott decision, and
vehemently denouncing all opposition to it. The new President, too,
seizes the early occasion of the Silliman letter to indorse and
strongly construe that decision, and to express his astonishment that
any different view had ever been entertained!

At length a squabble springs up between the President and the author of
the Nebraska bill, on the mere question of _fact_, whether the
Lecompton Constitution was or was not, in any just sense, made by the
people of Kansas; and in that quarrel the latter declares that all he
wants is a fair vote for the people, and that he cares not whether
slavery be voted _down_ or voted _up_. I do not understand his
declaration that he cares not whether slavery be voted down or voted up
to be intended by him other than as an apt definition of the policy he
w