按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
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 propositionsfirst； 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 usesfirst； 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。
Judicial decisions are of greater or less authority as precedents
according to circumstances。 That this should be so accords both
with common sense and the customary understanding of the legal
profession。
If this important decision had been made by the unanimous
concurrence of the judges； and without any apparent partisan
bias； and in accordance with legal public expectation and with
the steady practice of the departments throughout our history；
and had been in no part based on assumed historical facts which
are not really true； or； if wanting in some of these； it had been
before the court more than once； and had there been affirmed and
reaffirmed through a course of years； it then might be； perhaps
would be； factious； nay； even revolutionary； not to acquiesce in
it as a precedent。
But when； as is true； we find it wanting in all these claims to
the public confidence； it is not resistance； it is not factious；
it is not even disrespectful； to treat it as not having yet quite
established a settled doctrine for the country。 But Judge
Douglas considers this view awful。 Hear him：
〃The courts are the tribunals prescribed by the Constitution and
created by the authority of the people to determine； expound； and
enforce the law。 Hence； whoever resists the final decision of
the highest judicial tribunal aims a deadly blow at our whole
republican system of governmenta blow which； if successful；
would place all our rights and liberties at the mercy of passion；
anarchy； and violence。 I repeat； therefore； that if resistance
to the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States； in a
matter like the points decided in the Dred Scott case； clearly
within their jurisdiction as defined by the Constitution； shall
be forced upon the country as a political issue； it will become a
distinct and naked issue between the friends and enemies of the
Constitutionthe friends and the enemies of the supremacy of the
laws。〃
Why； this same Supreme Court once decided a national bank to be
constitutional； but General Jackson； as President of the United
States； disregarded the decision； and vetoed a bill for a
recharter； partly on constitutional ground； declaring that each
public functionary must support the Constitution 〃as he
understands it。〃 But hear the General's own words。 Here they
are； taken from his veto message：
〃It is maintained by the advocates of the bank that its
constitutionality； in all its features； ought to be considered as
settled by precedent； and by the decision of the Supreme Court。
To this conclusion I cannot assent。 Mere precedent is a
dangerous source of authority； and should not be regarded as
deciding questions of constitutional power； except where the
acquiescence of the people and the States can be considered as
well settled。 So far from this being the case on this subject；
an argument against the bank might be based on precedent。 One
Congress； in 1791； decided in favor of a bank； another； in 1811；
decided against it。 One Congress； in 1815； decided against a
bank； another； in 1816； decided in its favor。 Prior to the
present Congress； therefore； the precedents drawn from that
course were equal。 If we resort to the States； the expressions
of legislative； judicial； and executive opinions against the bank
have been probably to those in its favor as four to one。 There
is nothing in precedent； therefore； which； if its authority were
admitted； ought to weigh in favor of the act before me。〃
I drop the quotations merely to remark that all there ever was in
the way of precedent up to the Dred Scott decision； on the points
therein decided； had been against that decision。 But hear
General Jackson further：
〃If the opinion of the Supreme Court covered the whole ground of
this act； it ought not to control the coordinate authorities of
this government。 The Congress； the executive； and the courts
must； each for itself； be guided by its own opinion of the
Constitution。 Each public officer who takes an oath to support
the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands
it； and not as it is understood by others。〃
Again and again have I heard Judge Douglas denounce that bank
decision and applaud General Jackson for disregarding it。 It
would be interesting for him to look over his recent speech； and
see how exactly his fierce philippics against us for resisting
Supreme Court decisions fall upon his own head。 It will call to