The sacredness that Judge Douglas throws around this decision is a degree of sacredness that has never been before thrown around any other decision.  I have never heard of such a thing.  Why, decisions apparently contrary to that decision, or that good lawyers thought were contrary to that decision, have been made by that very court before.  It is the 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 unfavourable 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 re-charter was granted by Congress.  That re-charter 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 the 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 against “resistance to 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 require extermination at his hands.  As this is clearly and unquestionably the light in which he presents that matter, I want to ask your attention, addressing myself to Republicans here, that I may ask you some questions as to where you, as the Republican