at Judge Douglas and those who acted with him
voted that amendment down, notwithstanding it expressed exactly the
thing they said was the true intent and meaning of the law. I have called
attention to the fact that in subsequent times a decision of the Supreme
Court has been made, in which it has been declared that a Territorial
Legislature has no constitutional right to exclude slavery. And I have
argued and said that for men who did, intend that the people of the
Territory should have the right to exclude slavery absolutely and
unconditionally, the voting down of Chase's amendment is wholly
inexplicable. It is a puzzle, a riddle. But I have said, that with men who
did look forward to such a decision, or who had it in contemplation that
such a decision of the Supreme Court would or might be made, the voting
down of that amendment would be perfectly rational and intelligible. It
would keep Congress from coming in collision with the decision when it was
made. Anybody can conceive that if there was an intention or expectation
that such a decision was to follow, it would not be a very desirable party
attitude to get into for the Supreme Court--all or nearly all its members
belonging to the same party--to decide one way, when the party in Congress
had decided the other way. Hence it would be very rational for men
expecting such a decision to keep the niche in that law clear for it.
After pointing this out, I tell Judge Douglas that it looks to me as
though here was the reason why Chase's amendment was voted down. I tell
him that, as he did it, and knows why he did it, if it was done for a
reason different from this, he knows what that reason was and can tell us
what it was. I tell him, also, it will be vastly more satisfactory to the
country for him to give some other plausible, intelligible reason why it
was voted down than to stand upon his dignity and call people liars. Well,
on Saturday he did make his answer; and what do you think it was? He
says if I had only taken upon myself to tell the whole truth about that
amendment of Chase's, no explanation would have been necessary on his part
or words to that effect. Now, I say here that I am quite unconscious of
having suppressed anything material to the case, and I am very frank to
admit if there is any sound reason other than that which appeared to me
material, it is quite fair for him to present it. What reason does
he propose? That when Chase came forward with his amendment