Mr.Johnson believed the decision to be right, and felt that his opinion on a question of law was at least entitled to as much respect as that of either of the senators from Massachusetts, "one of whom did not pretend to be a lawyer at all, while the other was a lawyer for only a few months." He proceeded to vindicate the historical accuracy of the Chief Justice, and answered Mr.
Sumner with that amplitude and readiness which Mr.Johnson displayed in every discussion involving legal questions.
Mr.Sumner's protest was vigorously seconded by Mr.Hale of New Hampshire and Mr.Wade of Ohio.

The former said that a monument to Taney "would give the lie to all that had been said by the friends of justice, liberty, and down-trodden humanity," respecting the iniquity of the Dred Scott decision.

Mr.Wade violently opposed the proposition.

He avowed his belief that the "Dred Scott case was got up to give judicial sanction to the enormous iniquity that prevailed in every branch of our government at that period." He declared that "the greater you make Judge Taney's legal acumen the more you dishonor his memory by showing that he sinned against light and knowledge." He insisted that the people of Ohio, whose opinion he professed to represent, "would pay two thousand dollars to hang the late Chief Justice in effigy rather than one thousand dollars for a bust to commemorate his merits." Mr.McDougall of California spoke in favor of the bill, and commented on the rudeness of Mr.Sumner's speech.

Mr.Carlile of West Virginia spoke very effectively in praise of the Chief Justice.