judicial authority my humble history would not suffer in comparison with
that of Judge Douglas. He would have the citizen conform his vote to that
decision; the member of Congress, his; the President, his use of the veto
power. He would make it a rule of political action for the people and all
the departments of the government. I would not. By resisting it as a
political rule, I disturb no right of property, create no disorder,
excite no mobs.

When he spoke at Chicago, on Friday evening of last week, he made this
same point upon me. On Saturday evening I replied, and reminded him of a
Supreme Court decision which he opposed for at least several years. Last
night, at Bloomington, he took some notice of that reply, but entirely
forgot to remember that part of it.

He renews his onslaught upon me, forgetting to remember that I have
turned the tables against himself on that very point. I renew the effort
to draw his attention to it. I wish to stand erect before the country, as
well as Judge Douglas, on this question of judicial authority; and
therefore I add something to the authority in favor of my own position. I
wish to show that I am sustained by authority, in addition to that
heretofore presented. I do not expect to convince the Judge. It is part
of the plan of his campaign, and he will cling to it with a desperate
grip. Even turn it upon him,--the sharp point against him, and gaff him
through,--he will still cling to it till he can invent some new dodge to
take the place of it.

In public speaking it is tedious reading from documents; but I must beg
to indulge the practice to a limited extent. I shall read from a letter
written by Mr. Jefferson in 1820, and now to be found in the seventh
volume of his correspondence, at page 177. It seems he had been presented