nphier 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
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 read--affirming that that
instrument is the su