General Cass took some part in the little running debate upon that
amendment, and then ran away and did not vote on it at all. Is not that
the fact? So confident, as I think, was General Cass that there was a
snake somewhere about, he chose to run away from the whole thing. This is
an inference I draw from the fact that, though he took part in the
debate, his name does not appear in the ayes and noes. But does Judge
Douglas's reply amount to a satisfactory answer?

[Cries of "Yes," "Yes," and "No," "No."]

There is some little difference of opinion here. But I ask attention to a
few more views bearing on the question of whether it amounts to a
satisfactory answer. The men who were determined that that amendment
should not get into the bill, and spoil the place where the Dred Scott
decision was to come in, sought an excuse to get rid of it somewhere. One
of these ways--one of these excuses--was to ask Chase to add to his
proposed amendment a provision that the people might introduce slavery if
they wanted to. They very well knew Chase would do no such thing, that
Mr. Chase was one of the men differing from them on the broad principle
of his insisting that freedom was better than slavery,--a man who would
not consent to enact a law, penned with his own hand, by which he was
made to recognize slavery on the one hand, and liberty on the other, as
precisely equal; and when they insisted on his doing this, they very well
knew they insisted on that which he would not for a moment think of
doing, and that they were only bluffing him. I believe (I have not, since
he made his answer, had a chance to examine the journals or Congressional
Globe and therefore speak from memory)--I believe the state of the bill
at that time, according to parliamentary rules, was such that no member
could propose an additional amendment to Chase's amendment. I rather
think this is the truth,--the Judge shakes his head. Very well. I would