I wish to ask one other question.  It being understood that the Constitution of the United States guarantees property in slaves in the Territories, if there is any infringement of the right of that property, would not the United States courts, organized for the government of the Territory, apply such remedy as might be necessary in that case?  It is a maxim held by the courts that there is no wrong without its remedy; and the courts have a remedy for whatever is acknowledged and treated as a wrong.

Again:  I will ask you, my friends, if you were elected members of the Legislature, what would be the first thing you would have to do before entering upon your duties?  Swear to support the Constitution of the United States.  Suppose you believe, as Judge Douglas does, that the Constitution of the United States guarantees to your neighbor the right to hold slaves in that Territory; that they are his property:  how can you clear your oaths unless you give him such legislation as is necessary to enable him to enjoy that property?  What do you understand by supporting the Constitution of a State, or of the United States?  Is it not to give such constitutional helps to the rights established by that Constitution as may be practically needed?  Can you, if you swear to support the Constitution, and believe that the Constitution establishes a right, clear your oath, without giving it support?  Do you support the Constitution if, knowing or believing there is a right established under it which needs specific legislation, you withhold that legislation?  Do you not violate and disregard your oath?  I can conceive of nothing plainer in the world.  There can be nothing in the words “support the Constitution,” if you may run counter to it by refusing support to any right established under the Constitution.  And what I say here will hold with still more force against the Judge’s doctrine of “unfriendly legislation.”  How could you, having sworn to support the Constitution, and believing it guaranteed the right to hold slaves in the Territories, assist in legislation intended to defeat that right?  That would be violating your own view of the Constitution.  Not only so, but if you were to do so, how long would it take the courts to hold your votes unconstitutional and void?  Not a moment.

Lastly, I would ask:  Is not Congress itself under obligation to give legislative support to any right that is established under the United States Constitution?  I repeat the question:  Is not Congress itself bound to give legislative support to any right that is established in the United States Constitution?  A member of Congress swears to support the Constitution of the United States:  and if he sees a right established by that Constitution which needs specific legislative protection, can he clear his oath without giving that protection?  Let me ask you why many of us who are opposed to slavery upon principle give our acquiescence to a Fugitive Slave law?  Why do we hold ourselves under obligations to pass such a law, and abide by it when it is passed?  Because the Constitution makes provision that the owners of slaves shall have the right to reclaim them.  It gives the right to reclaim slaves; and that right is, as Judge Douglas says, a barren right, unless there is legislation that will enforce it.