And now as to the Judge’s inference that because I wish to see slavery placed in the course of ultimate extinction,—­placed where our fathers originally placed it,—­I wish to annihilate the State Legislatures, to force cotton to grow upon the tops of the Green Mountains, to freeze ice in Florida, to cut lumber on the broad Illinois prairie,—­that I am in favor of all these ridiculous and impossible things.

It seems to me it is a complete answer to all this to ask if, when Congress did have the fashion of restricting slavery from free territory; when courts did have the fashion of deciding that taking a slave into a free country made him free,—­I say it is a sufficient answer to ask if any of this ridiculous nonsense about consolidation and uniformity did actually follow.  Who heard of any such thing because of the Ordinance of ’87? because of the Missouri restriction? because of the numerous court decisions of that character?

Now, as to the Dred Scott decision; for upon that he makes his last point at me.  He boldly takes ground in favor of that decision.

This is one half the onslaught, and one third of the entire plan of the campaign.  I am opposed to that decision in a certain sense, but not in the sense which he puts it.  I say that in so far as it decided in favor of Dred Scott’s master, and against Dred Scott and his family, I do not propose to disturb or resist the decision.

I never have proposed to do any such thing.  I think that in respect for judicial authority my humble history would not suffer in comparison with that of Judge Douglas.  He would have the citizen conform his vote to that decision; the member of Congress, his; the President, his use of the veto power.  He would make it a rule of political action for the people and all the departments of the government.  I would not.  By resisting it as a political rule, I disturb no right of property, create no disorder, excite no mobs.

When he spoke at Chicago, on Friday evening of last week, he made this same point upon me.  On Saturday evening I replied, and reminded him of a Supreme Court decision which he opposed for at least several years.  Last night, at Bloomington, he took some notice of that reply, but entirely forgot to remember that part of it.

He renews his onslaught upon me, forgetting to remember that I have turned the tables against himself on that very point.  I renew the effort to draw his attention to it.  I wish to stand erect before the country, as well as Judge Douglas, on this question of judicial authority; and therefore I add something to the authority in favor of my own position.  I wish to show that I am sustained by authority, in addition to that heretofore presented.  I do not expect to convince the Judge.  It is part of the plan of his campaign, and he will cling to it with a desperate grip.  Even turn it upon him,—­the sharp point against him, and gaff him through,—­he will still cling to it till he can invent some new dodge to take the place of it.