election；　of　helping　to　re…elect　Judge　Douglas。　　He　is　the　editor
  of　a　newspaper　＇De　Kalb　County　Sentinel＇；　and　in　that　paper　I
  find　the　extract　I　am　going　to　read。　　It　is　part　of　an　editorial
  article　in　which　he　was　electioneering　as　fiercely　as　he　could
  for　Judge　Douglas　and　against　me。　　It　was　a　curious　thing；　I
  think；　to　be　in　such　a　paper。　　I　will　agree　to　that；　and　the
  Judge　may　make　the　most　of　it：
  〃Our　education　has　been　such　that　we　have　been　rather　in　favor　of
  the　equality　of　the　blacks；　that　is；　that　they　should　enjoy　all
  the　privileges　of　the　whites　where　they　reside。　　We　are　aware
  that　this　is　not　a　very　popular　doctrine。　　We　have　had　many　a
  confab　with　some　who　are　now　strong　'Republicans'　we　taking　the
  broad　ground　of　equality；　and　they　the　opposite　ground。
  〃We　were　brought　up　in　a　State　where　blacks　were　voters；　and　we
  do　not　know　of　any　inconvenience　resulting　from　it；　though
  perhaps　it　would　not　work　as　well　where　the　blacks　are　more
  numerous。　　We　have　no　doubt　of　the　right　of　the　whites　to　guard
  against　such　an　evil；　if　it　is　one。　　Our　opinion　is　that　it　would
  be　best　for　all　concerned　to　have　the　colored　population　in　a
  State　by　themselves　＇in　this　I　agree　with　him＇；　but　if　within　the
  jurisdiction　of　the　United　States；　we　say　by　all　means　they
  should　have　the　right　to　have　their　Senators　and　Representatives
  in　Congress；　and　to　vote　for　President。　　With　us　'worth　makes　the
  man；　and　want　of　it　the　fellow。'　We　have　seen　many　a　'nigger'
  that　we　thought　more　of　than　some　white　men。〃
  That　is　one　of　Judge　Douglas's　friends。　　Now；　I　do　not　want　to
  leave　myself　in　an　attitude　where　I　can　be　misrepresented；　so　I
  will　say　I　do　not　think　the　Judge　is　responsible　for　this
  article；　but　he　is　quite　as　responsible　for　it　as　I　would　be　if
  one　of　my　friends　had　said　it。　　I　think　that　is　fair　enough。
  I　have　here　also　a　set　of　resolutions　passed　by　a　Democratic
  State　Convention　in　Judge　Douglas's　own　good　State　of　Vermont；
  that　I　think　ought　to　be　good　for　him　too：
  〃Resolved；　That　liberty　is　a　right　inherent　and　inalienable　in
  man；　and　that　herein　all　men　are　equal。
  〃Resolved；　That　we　claim　no　authority　in　the　Federal　Government
  to　abolish　slavery　in　the　several　States；　but　we　do　claim　for　it
  Constitutional　power　perpetually　to　prohibit　the　introduction　of
  slavery　into　territory　now　free；　and　abolish　it　wherever；　under
  the　jurisdiction　of　Congress；　it　exists。
  〃Resolved；　That　this　power　ought　immediately　to　be　exercised　in
  prohibiting　the　introduction　and　existence　of　slavery　in　New
  Mexico　and　California；　in　abolishing　slavery　and　the　slave…trade
  in　the　District　of　Columbia；　on　the　high　seas；　and　wherever　else；
  under　the　Constitution；　it　can　be　reached。
  〃Resolved；　That　no　more　Slave　States　should　be　admitted　into　the
  Federal　Union。
  〃Resolved；　That　the　Government　ought　to　return　to　its　ancient
  policy；　not　to　extend；　nationalize；　or　encourage；　but　to　limit；
  localize；　and　discourage　slavery。〃
  At　Freeport　I　answered　several　interrogatories　that　had　been
  propounded　to　me　by　Judge　Douglas　at　the　Ottawa　meeting。　　The
  Judge　has　not　yet　seen　fit　to　find　any　fault　with　the　position
  that　I　took　in　regard　to　those　seven　interrogatories；　which　were
  certainly　broad　enough；　in　all　conscience；　to　cover　the　entire
  ground。　　In　my　answers；　which　have　been　printed；　and　all　have　had
  the　opportunity　of　seeing；　I　take　the　ground　that　those　who　elect
  me　must　expect　that　I　will　do　nothing　which　will　not　be　in
  accordance　with　those　answers。　　I　have　some　right　to　assert　that
  Judge　Douglas　has　no　fault　to　find　with　them。　　But　he　chooses　to
  still　try　to　thrust　me　upon　different　ground；　without　paying　any
  attention　to　my　answers；　the　obtaining　of　which　from　me　cost　him
  so　much　trouble　and　concern。　　At　the　same　time　I　propounded　four
  interrogatories　to　him；　claiming　it　as　a　right　that　he　should
  answer　as　many　interrogatories　for　me　as　I　did　for　him；　and　I
  would　reserve　myself　for　a　future　instalment　when　I　got　them
  ready。　　The　Judge；　in　answering　me　upon　that　occasion；　put　in
  what　I　suppose　he　intends　as　answers　to　all　four　of　my
  interrogatories。　　The　first　one　of　these　interrogatories　I　have
  before　me；　and　it　is　in　these　words：
  〃Question　1。If　the　people　of　Kansas　shall；　by　means　entirely
  unobjectionable　in　all　other　respects；　adopt　a　State
  constitution；　and　ask　admission　into　the　Union　under　it；　before
  they　have　the　requisite　number　of　inhabitants　according　to　the
  English　bill；　〃…some　ninety…three　thousand；…〃　will　you　vote　to
  admit　them？〃
  As　I　read　the　Judge's　answer　in　the　newspaper；　and　as　I　remember
  it　as　pronounced　at　the　time；　he　does　not　give　any　answer　which
  is　equivalent　to　yes　or　no；I　will　or　I　won't。　　He　answers　at
  very　considerable　length；　rather　quarreling　with　me　for　asking
  the　question；　and　insisting　that　Judge　Trumbull　had　done
  something　that　I　ought　to　say　something　about；　and　finally
  getting　out　such　statements　as　induce　me　to　infer　that　he　means
  to　be　understood　he　will；　in　that　supposed　case；　vote　for　the
  admission　of　Kansas。　　I　only　bring　this　forward　now　for　the
  purpose　of　saying　that　if　he　chooses　to　put　a　different
  construction　upon　his　answer；　he　may　do　it。　　But　if　he　does　not；
  I　shall　from　this　time　forward　assume　that　he　will　vote　for　the
  admission　of　Kansas　in　disregard　of　the　English　bill。　　He　has　the
  right　to　remove　any　misunderstanding　I　may　have。　　I　only　mention
  it　now；　that　I　may　hereafter　assume　this　to　be　the　true
  construction　of　his　answer；　if　he　does　not　now　choose　to　correct
  me。
  The　second　interrogatory　that　I　propounded　to　him　was　this：
  〃Question　2。Can　the　people　of　a　United　States　Territory；　in　any
  lawful　way；　against　the　wish　of　any　citizen　of　the　United　States；
  exclude　slavery　from　its　limits　prior　to　the　formation　of　a　State
  Constitution？〃
  To　this　Judge　Douglas　answered　that　they　can　lawfully　exclude
  slavery　from　the　Territory　prior　to　the　formation　of　a
  constitution。　　He　goes　on　to　tell　us　how　it　can　be　done。　　As　I
  understand　him；　he　holds　that　it　can　be　done　by　the　Territorial
  Legislature　refusing　to　make　any　enactments　for　the　protection　of
  slavery　in　the　Territory；　and　especially　by　adopting　unfriendly
  legislation　to　it。　　For　the　sake　of　clearness；　I　state　it　again：
  that　they　can　exclude　slavery　from　the　Territory；　1st；　by
  withholding　what　he　assumes　to　be　an　indispensable　assistance　to
  it　in　the　way　of　legislation；　and；　2d；　by　unfriendly　legislation。
  If　I　rightly　understand　him；　I　wish　to　ask　your　attention　for　a
  while　to　his　position。
  In　the　first　place；　the　Supreme　Court　of　the　United　States　has
  decided　that　any　Congressional　prohibition　of　slavery　in　the
  Territories　is　unconstitutional；　that　they　have　reached　this
  proposition　as　a　conclusion　from　their　former　proposition；　that
  the　Constitution　of　the　United　States　expressly　recognizes
  property　in　slaves；　and　from　that　other　Constitutional　provision；
  that　no　person　shall　be　deprived　of　property　without　due　process
  of　law。　　Hence　they　reach　the　conclusion　that　as　the　Constitution
  of　the　United　States　expressly　recognizes　property　in　slaves；　and
  prohibits　any　person　from　being　deprived　of　property　without　due
  process　of　law；　to　pass　an　Act　of　Congress　by　which　a　man　who
  owned　a　slave　on　one　side　of　a　line　would　be　deprived　of　him　if
  he　took　him　on　the　other　side；　is　depriving　him　of　that　property
  without　due　process　of　law。　　That　I　understand　to　be　the　decision
  of　the　Supreme　Court。　　I　understand　also　that　Judge　Douglas
  adheres　most　firmly　to　that　decision；　and　the　difficulty　is；　how
  is　it　possible　for　any　power　to　exclude　slavery　from　the
  Territory；　unless　in　violation　of　that　decision？　　That　is　the
  difficulty。
  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　Congressiona1　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