of Judge Douglas's speech in which he tries to show that in the
controversy between himself and the Administration party he is in the
right, I do not feel myself at all competent or inclined to answer him. I
say to him, "Give it to them,--give it to them just all you can!" and, on
the other hand, I say to Carlin, and Jake Davis, and to this man Wogley
up here in Hancock, "Give it to Douglas, just pour it into him!"

Now, in regard to this matter of the Dred Scott decision, I wish to say a
word or two. After all, the Judge will not say whether, if a decision is
made holding that the people of the States cannot exclude slavery, he
will support it or not. He obstinately refuses to say what he will do in
that case. The judges of the Supreme Court as obstinately refused to say
what they would do on this subject. Before this I reminded him that at
Galesburgh he said the judges had expressly declared the contrary, and
you remember that in my Opening speech I told him I had the book
containing that decision here, and I would thank him to lay his finger on
the place where any such thing was said. He has occupied his hour and a
half, and he has not ventured to try to sustain his assertion. He never
will. But he is desirous of knowing how we are going to reverse that Dred
Scott decision. Judge Douglas ought to know how. Did not he and his
political friends find a way to reverse the decision of that same court
in favor of the constitutionality of the National Bank? Didn't they find
a way to do it so effectually that they have reversed it as completely as
any decision ever was reversed, so far as its practical operation is
concerned?

And let me ask you, did n't Judge Douglas find a way to reverse the
decision of our Supreme Court when it decided that Carlin's father--old
Governor Carlin had not the constitutional power to remove a Secretary of
State? Did he not appeal to the "MOBS," as he calls them? Did he not make