The Evansville daily journal. [volume] (Evansville, Ia. [i.e. Ind.]) 1848-1862, 1860-07-30

tutional. The whole Democratic party re-
vo!ted against that decision. General
Jackson himself asserted that he as Presi-
dent, would not be bound 10 hold National
/ Bank to be constitutional, even though the
court had decided it to be so. He fell in
/ precisely with the views of Mr.. Jefferson,
and acted upon it under his official oath, in
/ vetoing a charter for National Bank.
The declaration that Congress does not
possess this constitutional power 10 charter
Il bank, has gone into the Democratic plat
form, at their National Convention, and
was brought forward and reaffirmed in their
last Convention at Cincinnati. They have
contended for that declaration, in the very
teeth of the Supreme Court, for more than
a quarter cf a century. In fact they have
reduced the decision to an absolute nullity.
That decision, l repeat, is repudiated in The
Cincinnati platform; and still, as if to show
that effrOntery can go no farther, Judge
Douglas vaunts in the very speeches in
which he denounces NE for opposing the
Dred Scott decision, that he stands on the
Cincinnati platform.
Now l wish to know what the Judge can
charge upon me, with respect to decisions
of the Supreme Court, which does not lie in
all its length, breadth, and proportions at
his own door? The plain truth is simply
this: Judge Douglas is for Supreme Court
decisions when he likes and against them
when he does not like them. He .is for
the Ored Scott decision because it tends to
nationalize slavery-because it is part of
the original combination for that object.
1t so happens, Singularly enough, that
never stood opposed to a decision ofthe Su-
preme Court till this On the contrary, |
have no recollection that he was ever par
ticularly in favor of one till this. He new
er was in favor of any, nor opposed to any
till the present one, which helps to national
ize slavery.
Free men of Sangamon-free men of Illi-
nois-free men eyerywhere-judge ye be-
tween him and me, upon this Issue.
A close reading of the language of Mr..
Lincoln shows that he was plaguing, in his
homorous way, his irritable antagonist, and
trying to show how ludicrous it was for
Douglas-who had always been notorious
for resisting National and State Supreme
Court decisions-to charge with disregard of
legal decisions Lincoln-who had always
yielded implicit obedience 10 them, and had
never been even accused of disregard for
decisions until that controversy arose.
Ia regard to that portion of the Enguirer's
article that is bristling with such fierce en-
phasis, let US see what Mr.. Lincoln did
really say, and how he said it:
" l have expressed heretofore, and now
repeat, my opposition to the Dred Scott de-
cision; but l should be allowed to state the
nature of that opposition, and | ask your
indulgence while | do so. What is fairly
implied by the term Judge Douglas has used,
" resistance to the decision :" | do not re-
sist it. If l wanted to take bred Scott from
his master, | would be interfering with
property, and that terrible difficulty that
Judge Douglas speaks of of interfering
with property, would arise. But l am
doing no such thing as that, but all that
am doing is refusing to obey it as politi-
cal rule. If | were in Congress, and a vote
should come up on a question whether
slavery should be prohibited in a new Ter
ritory, in spite of the Dred Scott decision, l
would vote that it should.
Here is no such terrible doctrine as justi-
ties the fuss Of the Enquirer. Mr. Lincoln
simply denies as lawyer that the Court
decided anything further than that
Dred Scott was not free man. He yielded
to the decision of the Court, but refused to
acknowledge the mere unauthorized dicta
of portion of the judges as law and gos-
pei, or, as he expresses it elsewhere, as a
% thus saith the Lord p
The dishonest cutting and carving of the
matter printed by the Enquirer-the mutt
lation of Mr.. Lincoln's language-the garb-
ling resorted to by our neighbors-is con-
elusive evidence Of a weak cause on their
sde and poverty of substantial argu-
ments, as well as an entire recklessness of
assertion. When we take into considera-
ton the fact that this stale compound of
falsehood-this Ola podrida of misrepre-
sentation-has been published ocer seren
,eeeks in the Democratic organ, we feel NOR
titled over the imputation that will fall on
our city from enlightened people.
If the cause we advocate were so impov-
erished that it could furnish no better mat
ter for our paper than Douglas Democracy
yields for the use of the Enquirer, we
should desire to see it go down, and the
sooner the better No such poor, pitiful
cause deserves to live.