The Evansville daily journal. [volume] (Evansville, Ia. [i.e. Ind.]) 1848-1862, 1858-09-23
Douglas on Judie al Decisions.

In the debate between Lincoln and Doug
las at JonesbOro on the 18th inst, Judge
Douglas presented the following views upon
the binding obligations of judicial decisions,
in commenting upon the opinion of the Su-
preme Court in the Dred Scott case:
Is every man in the land allowed TO resist
decisions he does not like, and only support
those that meet his approval? What are
important courts worth unless their decis-
ions are binding on all good citizens? 1t is
tie fundamental principle of the judiciary
that its decisions are final. Ii is created for
that purpose, so that when you cannot agree
among yourselves on disputed point you
appeal to the judicial tribunal which steps
in and decides for you, aud that decision is
then binding on every good citizen. III Is
the law of the land just as much with Mr.
Lincoln against it as for it. And yet he
says that ii that decision is. binding, lie is
q perjured man if he does not vote for slave
code in the different Territories Of this
Union. Well, if you (turuing to Lincoln),
are not gt.ing TO resist the decision, If you
obey~it and do not intend to array mob law
against the constituted authorities, then, ac-
cording 10 your own statement, you will be
a perjured man if you do not vote TO estab-
lSh slavery in these Territories. Ny doe
trne is, that even taking Mr.. Lincoln's view
that the decision recognizes the right of a
man to carry his slaves into the Territories
of the United States, if be plcases, yet after
he gets there he needs affirmative law to make
that right of any value. The same doe
trne not only applies to slave property, but
all other kinds of property. Chief Justice
fancy places il upon the ground that slave
property is on an equal footing with ether
property. Suppose one of your merchants
should move to Kansas and open liquor
store; he has right TO take groceries and
liquors there, but the mode of selling them
Qud the circumstances under which they
shall be sold, and all the remedies must be
prescribed by local legislation, and if that
is unfriendly it will drive him out just as
eifectualIy as if there was constitutional
provision against the sale of liquor. So the
absence of local legislation TO encourage and
support slave property in Territory ex-
cludes II practically, just as as.eiIectually as if
there was a constitutional provision against
it. Hence, assert that under the Dred
Scott decision you cannot maintain slavery
a day in a Territory where there is an un-
willing people and unfriendly legislation.-
Ii the people are opposed to it, our right is
a barren, worthless, useless right, and if
they are tor it, they'will support and en-
courage it. We como right back, therefore,
TO the practical question, if the people of a
Territory want slavery they will have it,
and if they de not want it you cannot force
il on them. And this is the practical ques-
ton, the great principle upon which our in
stitutions rest. That's the doctrine. y.
| am willing to take the decision of the Su-
preme Court as it was pronounced by that
august tribunal, without stopping to enquire
whether / would have decided that way or
not. | have had many decision made
against me on questions of law which 1 did
not like, but | was bound by them just as
much as if had had hand in making
them, and approved them. Did you ever see
lawyer or client lose his case that he
approved the decision of the court? They
always think the decision unjust when it
is given against them. In IL government of
laws like ours we must sustain the Con-
stitution as our fathers made it, and main
tain the rights ufthe States as they are
guaranteed under the Constitution, aud then
We will have peace and harmony between
the different States and sections of this glo-
7 UI1iyr