de slavery, does he not make it a
question for the people? Does he not virtually shift his ground and say
that it is not a question for the court, but for the people? This is a
very simple proposition,--a very plain and naked one. It seems to me
that there is no difficulty in deciding it. In a variety of ways he said
that it was a question for the Supreme Court. He did not stop then to
tell us that, whatever the Supreme Court decides, the people can by
withholding necessary "police regulations" keep slavery out. He did not
make any such answer. I submit to you now, whether the new state of the
case has not induced the Judge to sheer away from his original ground?
Would not this be the impression of every fair-minded man?

I hold that the proposition that slavery cannot enter a new country
without police regulations is historically false. It is not true at all.
I hold that the history of this country shows that the institution of
slavery was originally planted upon this continent without these "police
regulations" which the Judge now thinks necessary for the actual
establishment of it. Not only so, but is there not another fact,--how
came this Dred Scott decision to be made? It was made upon the case of a
negro being taken and actually held in slavery in Minnesota Territory,
claiming his freedom because the act of Congress prohibited his being so
held there. Will the Judge pretend that Dred Scott was not held there
without police regulations? There is at least one matter of record as to
his having been held in slavery in the Territory, not only without
police regulations, but in the teeth of congressional legislation
supposed to be valid at the time. This shows that there is vigour enough
in slavery to plant itself in a new country, even against unfriendly
legislation. It takes not only law, but the enforcement of law to keep
it out. That is the history of this country upon the subject.

I wish to ask one other question. It being understood that the
Constitution of the United States guarantees property in slaves in the
Territories, if there is any infringement of the right of that property,
would not the United States courts, organized for the government of the
Territory, apply such remedy as might be necessary in that case? It is a
maxim held by the courts that there is no wrong without its remedy; and
the courts have a remedy for whatever is acknowledged and treated as a
wrong.

Again: I will ask you, my friends, if