I hope he will understand that I do not at all question but that in all
this matter he is entirely "conscientious."

But to draw your attention to one of the points I made in this case,
beginning at the beginning: When the Nebraska Bill was introduced, or a
short time afterward, by an amendment, I believe, it was provided that it
must be considered "the true intent and meaning of this Act not to
legislate slavery into any State or Territory, or to exclude it
therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and
regulate their own domestic institutions in their own way, subject only
to the Constitution of the United States." I have called his attention to
the fact that when he and some others began arguing that they were giving
an increased degree of liberty to the people in the Territories over and
above what they formerly had on the question of slavery, a question was
raised whether the law was enacted to give such unconditional liberty to
the people; and to test the sincerity of this mode of argument, Mr.
Chase, of Ohio, introduced an amendment, in which he made the law--if the
amendment were adopted--expressly declare that the people of the
Territory should have the power to exclude slavery if they saw fit. I
have asked attention also to the fact that Judge Douglas and those who
acted with him voted that amendment down, notwithstanding it expressed
exactly the thing they said was the true intent and meaning of the law. I
have called attention to the fact that in subsequent times a decision of
the Supreme Court has been made, in which it has been declared that a
Territorial Legislature has no constitutional right to exclude slavery.
And I have argued and said that for men who did, intend that the people
of the Territory should have the right to exclude slavery absolutely and
unconditionally, the voting down of Chase's amendment is wholly
inexplicable. It is a puzzle, a riddle. But I have said, that with men
who did look forward to such a decision, or who had it in contemplation