“he has helped to nurture there a whole kennel of Carolina bloodhounds, trained, with savage jaw and insatiable scent, for the hunt of flying bondmen. No, Sir, I do not believe that there is any ‘kennel of bloodhounds,’ or even any ‘dog,’ in the Constitution.” I said further:-- “Since I have been charged with openly declaring a purpose to violate the Constitution, and to break the oath which I have taken at that desk, I shall be pardoned for showing simply how a few plain words will put all this down.” I next proceeded to cite the memorable veto by President Jackson, in 1832, of the Bank of the United States. It will be remembered that to his course at that critical time were opposed the authority of the Supreme Court and his oath to support the Constitution,--precisely as the Senator from Illinois now, with ignorance, or with want of logic greater than his ignorance, undertakes to revile me. Here is the triumphant reply of President Jackson:-- “If the opinion of the Supreme Court covered the whole ground of this Act, it ought not to control the coördinate authorities of this Government. The Congress, the Executive, and the Court must, each for itself, be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. _Each public officer, who takes an oath to support the Constitution, swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others._ It is as much the duty of the House of Representatives, of the Senate, and of the President, to decide upon the constitutionality of any bill or resolution which may be presented to them for passage or approval, as it is of the Supreme Judges, when it may be brought before them for judicial decision.… The authority of the Supreme Court must not, therefore, be permitted to control the Congress or the Executive, when acting in their legislative capacities, but to have only such influence as the force of their reasoning may deserve.” After this passage from General Jackson I proceeded as follows:-- “In swearing to support the Constitution at your desk, Mr. President, I did not swear to support it as _you_ understand it,--oh, no, Sir!--or as the Senator from Virginia understands it,--by no means!--or as the Senator from South Carolina understands it, with a kennel of bloodhounds, or at least a ‘dog’ in it, ‘pawing to get free his hinder parts,’ in pursuit of a slave. No such thing. Sir, I swore to support the Constitution _as I understand it_,--nor more, nor less.” Then explaining at some length my understanding of the clause, I concluded on this point in these words:-- “I desire to say, that, as I understand the Constitution, this clause does not impose upon me, as Senator or citizen, any obligation to take part, directly or indirectly, in the surrender of a fugitive slave.”