In the Senate of the United States, in 1850, Judge Trumbull, in a speech substantially, if not directly, put the same interrogatory to Judge Douglas, as to whether the people of a Territory had the lawful power to exclude slavery prior to the formation of a constitution.  Judge Douglas then answered at considerable length, and his answer will be found in the Congressional Globe, under date of June 9th, 1856.  The Judge said that whether the people could exclude slavery prior to the formation of a constitution or not was a question to be decided by the Supreme Court.  He put that proposition, as will be seen by the Congressional Globe, in a variety of forms, all running to the same thing in substance,—­that it was a question for the Supreme Court.  I maintain that when he says, after the Supreme Court have decided the question, that the people may yet exclude slavery by any means whatever, he does virtually say that it is not a question for the Supreme Court.  He shifts his ground.  I appeal to you whether he did not say it was a question for the Supreme Court?  Has not the Supreme Court decided that question? when he now says the people may exclude slavery, does he not make it a question for the people?  Does he not virtually shift his ground and say that it is not a question for the Court, but for the people?  This is a very simple proposition,—­a very plain and naked one.  It seems to me that there is no difficulty in deciding it.  In a variety of ways he said that it was a question for the Supreme Court.  He did not stop then to tell us that, whatever the Supreme Court decides, the people can by withholding necessary “police regulations” keep slavery out.  He did not make any such answer I submit to you now whether the new state of the case has not induced the Judge to sheer away from his original ground.  Would not this be the impression of every fair-minded man?

I hold that the proposition that slavery cannot enter a new country without police regulations is historically false.  It is not true at all.  I hold that the history of this country shows that the institution of slavery was originally planted upon this continent without these “police regulations,” which the Judge now thinks necessary for the actual establishment of it.  Not only so, but is there not another fact:  how came this Dred Scott decision to be made?  It was made upon the case of a negro being taken and actually held in slavery in Minnesota Territory, claiming his freedom because the Act of Congress prohibited his being so held there.  Will the Judge pretend that Dred Scott was not held there without police regulations?  There is at least one matter of record as to his having been held in slavery in the Territory, not only without police regulations, but in the teeth of Congressional legislation supposed to be valid at the time.  This shows that there is vigor enough in slavery to plant itself in a new country even against unfriendly legislation.  It takes not only law, but the enforcement of law to keep it out.  That is the history of this country upon the subject.