first of
its kind; it is an astonisher in legal history. It is a new wonder of the
world. It is based upon falsehood in the main as to the facts; allegations
of facts upon which it stands are not facts at all in many instances, and
no decision made on any question--the first instance of a decision made
under so many unfavorable circumstances--thus placed, has ever been held
by the profession as law, and it has always needed confirmation before the
lawyers regarded it as settled law. But Judge Douglas will have it
that all hands must take this extraordinary decision, made under these
extraordinary circumstances, and give their vote in Congress in accordance
with it, yield to it, and obey it in every possible sense. Circumstances
alter cases. Do not gentlemen here remember the case of that same Supreme
Court some twenty-five or thirty years ago deciding that a National Bank
was constitutional? I ask, if somebody does not remember that a National
Bank was declared to be constitutional? Such is the truth, whether it be
remembered or not. The Bank charter ran out, and a recharter was granted
by Congress. That recharter was laid before General Jackson. It was urged
upon him, when he denied the constitutionality of the Bank, that the
Supreme Court had decided that it was constitutional; and General Jackson
then said that the Supreme Court had no right to lay down a rule to govern
a coordinate branch of the government, the members of which had sworn
to support the Constitution; that each member had sworn to support that
Constitution as he understood it. I will venture here to say that I have
heard Judge Douglas say that he approved of General Jackson for that act.
What has now become of all his tirade about "resistance of the Supreme
Court"?

My fellow-citizens, getting back a little,--for I pass from these
points,--when Judge Douglas makes his threat of annihilation upon the
"alliance," he is cautious to say that that warfare of his is to fall
upon the leaders of the Republican party. Almost every word he utters,
and every distinction he makes, has its significance. He means for the
Republicans who do not count themselves as leaders, to be his friends; he
makes no fuss over them; it is the leaders that he is making war upon. He
wants it understood that the mass of the Republican party are really
his friends. It is only the leaders that are doing something that are
intolerant, and that require extermination at his hands. As this