Noted Speeches of Abraham Lincoln — Lincoln's Reply, Part 2

Now, my friends, I wish you to attend for a little while to one or two other things in that Springfield speech.

My main object was to show, so far as my humble ability was capable of showing, to the people of this country what I believed was the truth,--that there was a _tendency_, if not a conspiracy, among those who have engineered this slavery question for the last four or five years, to make slavery perpetual and universal in this nation.

Having made that speech principally for that object, after arranging the evidences that I thought tended to prove my proposition, I concluded with this bit of comment: “We cannot absolutely know that these exact adaptations are the results of pre-concert; but, when we see a lot of framed timbers, different portions of which we know have been gotten out at different times and places, and by different workmen,--Stephen [Senator Douglas], Franklin [President Pierce], Roger [Chief Justice Taney], and James [President Buchanan], for instance,--and when we see these timbers joined together, and see they exactly make the frame of a house or a mill, all the tenons and mortises exactly fitting, and all the lengths and proportions of the different pieces exactly adapted to their respective places, and not a piece too many or too few,--not omitting even the scaffolding,--or if a single piece be lacking, we see the place in the frame exactly fitted and prepared to yet bring such piece in,--in such a case we feel it impossible not to believe that Stephen, and Franklin, and Roger, and James, all understood one another from the beginning, and all worked upon a common plan or draft drawn before the first blow was struck.

” When my friend, Judge Douglas, came to Chicago on the 9th of July, this speech having been delivered on the 16th of June, he made an harangue there in which he took hold of this speech of mine, showing that he had carefully read it; and, while he paid no attention to _this_ matter at all, but complimented me as being a “kind, amiable, and intelligent gentleman,” notwithstanding I had said this, he goes on and deduces, or draws out, from my speech this tendency of mine to set the States at war with one another, to make all the institutions uniform, and set the niggers and white people to marry together.

Then, as the Judge had complimented me with these pleasant titles, (I must confess to my weakness) I was a little “taken”; for it came from a great man.

I was not very much accustomed to flattery, and it came the sweeter to me.

I was rather like the Hoosier with the gingerbread, when he said he reckoned he loved it better than any other man, and got less of it.

As the Judge had so flattered me, I could not make up my mind that he meant to deal unfairly with me.

So I went to work to show him that he misunderstood the whole scope of my speech, and that I really never intended to set the people at war with one another.

As an illustration, the next time I met him, which was at Springfield, I used this expression, that I claimed no right under the Constitution, nor had I any inclination, to enter into the Slave States and interfere with the institutions of slavery.

He says upon that: Lincoln will not enter into the Slave States, but will go to the banks of the Ohio, on this side, and shoot over!

He runs on, step by step, in the horse-chestnut style of argument, until in the Springfield speech he says, “Unless he shall be successful in firing his batteries until he shall have extinguished slavery in all the States, the Union shall be dissolved.

” Now I don’t think that was exactly the way to treat “a kind, amiable, intelligent gentleman.

” I know if I had asked the Judge to show when or where it was I had said that, if I didn’t succeed in firing into the Slave States until slavery should be extinguished, the Union should be dissolved, he could not have shown it.

I understand what he would do.

He would say, “I don’t mean to quote from you, but this was the _result_ of what you say.

” But I have the right to ask, and I do ask now, Did you not put it in such a form that an ordinary reader or listener would take it as an expression _from me_?

In a speech at Springfield, on the night of the 17th, I thought I might as well attend to my own business a little; and I recalled his attention as well as I could to this charge of conspiracy to nationalize slavery.

I called his attention to the fact that he had acknowledged in my hearing twice that he had carefully read the speech;

and, in the language of the lawyers, as he had twice read the speech and still had put in no plea or answer, I took a default on him.

I

insisted that I had a right then to renew that charge of conspiracy.

Ten days afterwards I met the Judge at Clinton,--that is to say, I was on the ground, but not in the discussion,--and heard him make a speech.

Then he comes in with his plea to this charge, for the first time; and his plea when put in, as well as I can recollect it, amounted to this: That he never had any talk with Judge Taney or the President of the United States with regard to the Dred Scott decision before it was made; I (Lincoln) ought to know that the man who makes a charge without knowing it to be true falsifies as much as he who knowingly tells a falsehood; and, lastly, that he would pronounce the whole thing a falsehood; but he would make no personal application of the charge of falsehood, not because of any regard for the “kind, amiable, intelligent gentleman,” but because of his own personal self-respect!

I have understood since then (but [turning to Judge Douglas] will not hold the Judge to it if he is not willing) that he has broken through the “self-respect,” and has got to saying the thing _out_.

The Judge nods to me that it is so.

It is fortunate for me that I can keep as good-humored as I do, when the Judge acknowledges that he has been trying to make a question of veracity with me.

I know the Judge is a great man, while I am only a small man; but I feel that I have got him.

I demur to that plea.

I waive all objections that it was not filed till after default was taken, and demur to it upon the merits.

What if Judge Douglas never did talk with Chief Justice Taney and the President before the Dred Scott decision was made: does it follow that he could not have had as perfect an understanding without talking as with it?

I am not disposed to stand upon my legal advantage.

I am disposed to take his denial as being like an answer in chancery, that he neither had any knowledge, information, nor belief in the existence of such a conspiracy.

I am disposed to take his answer as being as broad as though he had put it in these words.

And now, I ask, even if he had done so, have not I a right to _prove it on him_, and to offer the evidence of more than two witnesses, by whom to prove it; and if the evidence proves the existence of the conspiracy, does his broad answer denying all knowledge, information, or belief, disturb the fact?

It can only show that he was _used_ by conspirators, and was not a _leader_ of them.

Now, in regard to his reminding me of the moral rule that persons who tell what they do not know to be true, falsify as much as those who knowingly tell falsehoods.

I remember the rule, and it must be borne in mind that in what I have read to you, I do not say that I know such a conspiracy to exist.

To that I reply, I believe it.

If the Judge says that I do not believe it, then he says what he does not know, and falls within his own rule that he who asserts a thing which he does not know to be true, falsifies as much as he who knowingly tells a falsehood.

I want to call your attention to a little discussion on that branch of the case, and the evidence which brought my mind to the conclusion which I expressed as my belief.

If, in arraying that evidence, I had stated anything which was false or erroneous, it needed but that Judge Douglas should point it out, and I would have taken it back with all the kindness in the world.

I do not deal in that way.

If I have brought forward anything not a fact, if he will point it out, it will not even ruffle me to take it back.

But if he will not point out anything erroneous in the evidence, is it not rather for him to show by a comparison of the evidence that I have reasoned falsely, than to call the “kind, amiable, intelligent gentleman” a liar?

If I have reasoned to a false conclusion, it is the vocation of an able debater to show by argument that I have wandered to an erroneous conclusion.

I want to ask your attention to a portion of the Nebraska bill which Judge Douglas has quoted: “It being the true intent and meaning of this Act not to legislate slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States.

” Thereupon Judge Douglas and others began to argue in favor of “Popular Sovereignty,”--the right of the people to have slaves if they wanted them, and to exclude slavery if they did not want them.

“But,” said, in substance, a Senator from Ohio (Mr. Chase, I believe), “we more than suspect that you do not mean to allow the people to exclude slavery if they wish to; and if you do mean it, accept an amendment which I propose expressly authorizing the people to exclude slavery.

” I believe I have the amendment here before me which was offered, and under which the people of the Territory, through their proper representatives, might, if they saw fit, prohibit the existence of slavery therein.

And now I state it as a _fact_, to be taken back if there is any mistake about it, that Judge Douglas and those acting with him _voted that amendment down_.

I now think that those men who voted it down had a _real reason_ for doing so.

They know what that reason was.

It looks to us, since we have seen the Dred Scott decision pronounced, holding that “under the Constitution” the people cannot exclude slavery--I say it looks to outsiders, poor, simple, “amiable, intelligent gentlemen,” as though the niche was left as a place to put that Dred Scott decision in,--a niche which would have been spoiled by adopting the amendment.

And now I say again, if _this_ was not the reason, it will avail the judge much more to calmly and good-humoredly point out to these people what that _other_ reason was for voting the amendment down than swelling himself up to vociferate that he may be provoked to call somebody a liar.

Again, there is in that same quotation from the Nebraska bill this clause: “It being the true intent and meaning of this bill not to legislate slavery into any Territory or _State_.

” I have always been puzzled to know what business the word “State” had in that connection.

Judge Douglas knows.

He put it there.

He knows what he put it there for.

We outsiders cannot say what he put it there for.

The law they were passing was not about States, and was not making provision for States.

What was it placed there for?

After seeing the Dred Scott decision, which holds that the people cannot exclude slavery from a _Territory_, if another Dred Scott decision shall come, holding that they cannot exclude it from a _State_, we shall discover that when the word was originally put there it was in view of something which was to come in due time; we shall see that it was the _other half_ of something.

I now say again, if there is any different reason for putting it there, Judge Douglas, in a good-humored way, without calling anybody a liar, _can tell what the reason was_.

* * * * * Now, my friends, I have but one branch of the subject, in the little time I have left, to which to call your attention; and, as I shall come to a close at the end of that branch, it is probable that I shall not occupy quite all the time allotted to me.

Although on these questions I would like to talk twice as long as I have, I could not enter upon another head and discuss it properly without running over my time.

I

ask the attention of the people here assembled and elsewhere to the course that Judge Douglas is pursuing every day as bearing upon this question of making slavery national.

Not going back to the records, but taking the speeches he makes, the speeches he made yesterday and day before, and makes constantly all over the country,--I ask your attention to them.

In the first place, what is necessary to make the institution national?

Not war.

There is no danger that the people of Kentucky will shoulder their muskets, and, with a young nigger stuck on every bayonet, march into Illinois and force them upon us.

There is no danger of our going over there and making war upon them.

Then what is necessary for the nationalization of slavery?

It is simply the next Dred Scott decision.

It is merely for the Supreme Court to decide that no _State_ under the Constitution can exclude it, just as they have already decided that under the Constitution neither Congress nor the Territorial legislature can do it.

When that is decided and acquiesced in, the whole thing is done.

This being true, and this being the way, as I think, that slavery is to be made national, let us consider what Judge Douglas is doing every day to that end.

In the first place, let us see what influence he is exerting on public sentiment.

In this and like communities, public sentiment is everything.

With public sentiment, nothing can fail: without it, nothing can succeed.

Consequently, he who molds public sentiment goes deeper than he who enacts statutes or pronounces decisions.

He makes statutes and decisions possible or impossible to be executed.

This must be borne in mind, as also the additional fact that Judge Douglas is a man of vast influence, so great that it is enough for many men to profess to believe anything when they once find out that Judge Douglas professes to believe it.

Consider also the attitude he occupies at the head of a large party,--a party which he claims has a majority of all the voters in the country.

This man sticks to a decision which forbids the people of a Territory to exclude slavery, and he does so not because he says it is right in itself,--he does not give any opinion on that,--but because it has been _decided by the court_; and, being decided by the court, he is, and you are, bound to take it in your political action as law,--not that he judges at all of its merits, but because a decision of the court is to him a “Thus saith the Lord.

” He places it on that ground alone, and you will bear in mind that thus committing himself unreservedly to this decision _commits him to the next one_ just as firmly as to this.

He did not commit himself on account of the merit or demerit of the decision, but it is a “Thus saith the Lord.

” The next decision, as much as this, will be a “Thus saith the Lord.

” There is nothing that can divert or turn him away from this decision.

It is nothing that I point out to him that his great prototype, General Jackson, did not believe in the binding force of decisions.

It is nothing to him that Jefferson did not so believe.

I have said that I have often heard him approve of Jackson’s course in disregarding the decision of the Supreme Court pronouncing a national bank constitutional.

He says I did not hear him say so.

He denies the accuracy of my recollection.

I say he ought to know better than I; but I will make no question about this thing, though it still seems to me that I heard him say it twenty times.

I will tell him, though, that he now claims to stand on the Cincinnati platform, which affirms that Congress cannot charter a national bank, in the teeth of that old standing decision that Congress can charter a bank.

And I remind him of another piece of history on the question of respect for judicial decisions, and it is a piece of Illinois history, belonging to a time when a large party to which Judge Douglas belonged were displeased with a decision of the Supreme Court of Illinois because they had decided that a Governor could not remove a Secretary of State.

You will find the whole story in Ford’s _History of Illinois_, and I know that Judge Douglas will not deny that he was then in favor of overslaughing that decision by the mode of adding five new judges, so as to vote down the four old ones.

Not only so, but it ended in the Judge’s sitting down on the very bench as one of the five new Judges to break down the four old ones.

It was in this way precisely that he got his title of judge.

Now, when the Judge tells me that men appointed conditionally to sit as members of a court will have to be catechised beforehand upon some subject, I say, “You know, Judge; you have tried it.

” When he says a court of this kind will lose the confidence of all men, will be prostituted and disgraced by such a proceeding, I say, “You know best, Judge; you have been through the mill.

” But I cannot shake Judge Douglas’s teeth loose from the Dred Scott decision.

Like some obstinate animal (I mean no disrespect) that will hang on when he has once got his teeth fixed, you may cut off a leg or you may tear away an arm, still he will not relax his hold.

And so I may point out to the Judge, and say that he is bespattered all over, from the beginning of his political life to the present time, with attacks upon judicial decisions; I may cut off limb after limb of his public record, and strive to wrench from him a single dictum of the court,--yet I cannot divert him from it.

He hangs to the last to the Dred Scott decision.

These things show there is a purpose strong as death and eternity for which he adheres to this decision, and for which he will adhere to all other decisions of the same court.

[_A voice: “Give us something besides Dred Scott.

”_] Yes; no doubt you want to hear something that don’t hurt.

Now, having spoken of the Dred Scott decision, one more word and I am done.

Henry Clay, my beau-ideal of a statesman, the man for whom I fought all my humble life,--Henry Clay once said of a class of men who would repress all tendencies to liberty and ultimate emancipation, that they must, if they would do this, go back to the era of our independence and muzzle the cannon which thunders its annual joyous return; they must blow out the moral lights around us; they must penetrate the human soul and eradicate there the love of liberty; and then, and not till then, could they perpetuate slavery in this country!

To my thinking, Judge Douglas is, by his example and vast influence, doing that very thing in this community when he says that the negro has nothing in the Declaration of Independence.

Henry Clay plainly understood the contrary.

Judge Douglas is going back to the era of our Revolution, and to the extent of his ability muzzling the cannon which thunders its annual joyous return.

When he invites any people, willing to have slavery, to establish it, he is blowing out the moral lights around us.

When he says he “cares not whether slavery is voted down or voted up,”--that it is a sacred right of self-government,--he is, in my judgment, penetrating the human soul, and eradicating the light of reason and the love of liberty in this American people.

And now I will only say that when, by all these means and appliances, Judge Douglas shall succeed in bringing public sentiment to an exact accordance with his own views,--when these vast assemblages shall echo back all these sentiments,--when they shall come to repeat his views and to avow his principles, and to say all that he says on these mighty questions,--then it needs only the formality of the second Dred Scott decision, which he indorses in advance, to make slavery alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new, North as well as South.

* * * * * * Transcriber’s note: Punctuation and spelling were made consistent when a predominant preference was found in this book; otherwise they were not changed.

Simple typographical errors were corrected; occasional unpaired quotation marks were retained.

Inconsistent hyphenation and ambiguous hyphens at the ends of lines have been retained.

Page 89: “wofully” was printed that way.

Page 92: “in which is now is” was printed that way, probably was a misprint for “in which it now is”.

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK NOTED SPEECHES OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN, INCLUDING THE LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE *** Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U. S.

copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!

) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright royalties.

Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark.

Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark.

If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very easy.

You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research.

Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U. S.

copyright law.

Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG™ LICENSE

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg License available with this file or online at www.

gutenberg.

org/license.

Section 1.

General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg electronic works 1. A.

By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement.

If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg electronic works in your possession.

If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1. E.

8. 1. B.

“Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark.

It may only be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.

There are a few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg electronic works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.

See paragraph 1. C below.

There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg electronic works.

See paragraph 1. E below.

1. C.

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg electronic works.

Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the United States.

If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed.

Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg name associated with the work.

You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg License when you share it without charge with others.

1. D.

The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you can do with this work.

Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant state of change.

If you are outside the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg work.

The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country other than the United States.

1. E.

Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: 1. E.

1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed: This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever.

You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License included with this eBook or online at www.

gutenberg.

org.

If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

1. E.

2. If an individual Project Gutenberg electronic work is derived from texts not protected by U. S.

copyright law (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges.

If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1. E.

1 through 1. E.

7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1. E.

8 or 1. E.

9. 1. E.

3. If an individual Project Gutenberg electronic work is posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1. E.

1 through 1. E.

7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder.

Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.

1. E.

4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg.

1. E.

5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1. E.

1 with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg License.

1. E.

6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word processing or hypertext form.

However, if you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg website (www.

gutenberg.

org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form.

Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg License as specified in paragraph 1. E.

1. 1. E.

7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg works unless you comply with paragraph 1. E.

8 or 1. E.

9. 1. E.

8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg electronic works provided that: • You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes.

The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.

Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns.

Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.

” • You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License.

You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.

• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1. F.

3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work.

• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1. E.

9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark.

Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.

1. F.

1. F.

1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works not protected by U. S.

copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection.

Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.

1. F.

2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1. F.

3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees.

YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT

LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.

F.

3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE

TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1. F.

3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you received the work from.

If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation.

The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund.

If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.

If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1. F.

4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in paragraph 1. F.

3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1. F.

5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.

If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law.

The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

1. F.

6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg work, and (c) any Defect you cause.

Section 2.

Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg Project Gutenberg is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.

It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg collection will remain freely available for generations to come.

In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg and future generations.

To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.

gutenberg.

org.

Section 3.

Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service.

The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.

S.

federal laws and your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 41 Watchung Plaza #516, Montclair NJ 07042, USA, +1 (862) 621-9288. Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website and official page at www.

gutenberg.

org/contact Section 4.

Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated equipment.

Many small donations ( to ,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States.

Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these requirements.

We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not received written confirmation of compliance.

To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit www.

gutenberg.

org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the United States.

U.

S.

laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation methods and addresses.

Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations.

To donate, please visit: www.

gutenberg.

org/donate.

Section 5.

General Information About Project Gutenberg electronic works Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone.

For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U. S.

unless a copyright notice is included.

Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility: www.

gutenberg.

org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg, including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.