he most exquisite farce ever enacted. I am watching with
considerable interest to ascertain what figure "the free-State Democrats"
cut in the concern. Of course they voted,--all Democrats do their
duty,--and of course they did not vote for slave-State candidates. We soon
shall know how many delegates they elected, how many candidates they had
pledged to a free State, and how many votes were cast for them.

Allow me to barely whisper my suspicion that there were no such things in
Kansas as "free-State Democrats"--that they were altogether mythical, good
only to figure in newspapers and speeches in the free States. If there
should prove to be one real living free-State Democrat in Kansas, I
suggest that it might be well to catch him, and stuff and preserve his
skin as an interesting specimen of that soon-to-be extinct variety of the
genus Democrat.

And now as to the Dred Scott decision. That decision declares two
propositions--first, that a negro cannot sue in the United States courts;
and secondly, that Congress cannot prohibit slavery in the Territories. It
was made by a divided court dividing differently on the different points.
Judge Douglas does not discuss the merits of the decision, and in that
respect I shall follow his example, believing I could no more improve on
McLean and Curtis than he could on Taney.

He denounces all who question the correctness of that decision, as
offering violent resistance to it. But who resists it? Who has, in spite
of the decision, declared Dred Scott free, and resisted the authority of
his master over him?

Judicial decisions have two uses--first, to absolutely determine the case
decided, and secondly, to indicate to the public how other similar cases
will be decided when they arise. For the latter use, they are called
"precedents" and "authorities."

We believe as much as Judge Douglas (perhaps more) in obedience to, and
respect for, the judicial department of government. We think its decisions
on constitutional questions, when fully settled, should control not only
the particular cases decided, but the general policy of the country,
subject to be disturbed only by amendments of the Constitution as provided
in that instrument itself. More than this would be revolution. But we
think the Dred Scott decision is erroneous. We know the court that made it
has often overruled its own decisions, and we shall do what we can to have
it to overrule this. We offer no resistance to it.

J