友情提示:如果本网页打开太慢或显示不完整,请尝试鼠标右键“刷新”本网页!阅读过程发现任何错误请告诉我们,谢谢!! 报告错误
依依小说 返回本书目录 我的书架 我的书签 TXT全本下载 进入书吧 加入书签

the writings-4-第2部分

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页,按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页,按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部!
————未阅读完?加入书签已便下次继续阅读!




it is true; though I am not certain; that in some instances

constitutions framed under such bills have been submitted to a vote

of the people with the law silent upon the subject; but it does not

appear that they once had their enabling acts framed with an express

provision for submitting the constitution to be framed to a vote of

the people; then that they were stricken out when Congress did not

mean to alter the effect of the law。  That there have been bills

which never had the provision in; I do not question; but when was

that provision taken out of one that it was in?  More especially does

the evidence tend to prove the proposition that Trumbull advanced;

when we remember that the provision was stricken out of the bill

almost simultaneously with the time that Bigler says there was a

conference among certain senators; and in which it was agreed that a

bill should be passed leaving that out。  Judge Douglas; in answering

Trumbull; omits to attend to the testimony of Bigler; that there was

a meeting in which it was agreed they should so frame the bill that

there should be no submission of the constitution to a vote of the

people。  The Judge does not notice this part of it。  If you take this

as one piece of evidence; and then ascertain that simultaneously

Judge Douglas struck out a provision that did require it to be

submitted; and put the two together; I think it will make a pretty

fair show of proof that Judge Douglas did; as Trumbull says; enter

into a plot to put in force a constitution for Kansas; without giving

the people any opportunity of voting upon it。



But I must hurry on。  The next proposition that Judge Douglas puts is

this:



〃But upon examination it turns out that the Toombs bill never did

contain a clause requiring the constitution to be submitted。〃



This is a mere question of fact; and can be determined by evidence。

I only want to ask this question: Why did not Judge Douglas say that

these words were not stricken out of the Toomb's bill; or this bill

from which it is alleged the provision was stricken out;a bill

which goes by the name of Toomb's; because he originally brought it

forward?  I ask why; if the Judge wanted to make a direct issue with

Trumbull; did he not take the exact proposition Trumbull made in his

speech; and say it was not stricken out?  Trumbull has given the

exact words that he says were in the Toomb's bill; and he alleges

that when the bill came back; they were stricken out。  Judge Douglas

does not say that the words which Trumbull says were stricken out

were not so stricken out; but he says there was no provision in the

Toomb's bill to submit the constitution to a vote of the people。  We

see at once that he is merely making an issue upon the meaning of the

words。  He has not undertaken to say that Trumbull tells a lie about

these words being stricken out; but he is really; when pushed up to

it; only taking an issue upon the meaning of the words。  Now; then;

if there be any issue upon the meaning of the words; or if there be

upon the question of fact as to whether these words were stricken

out; I have before me what I suppose to be a genuine copy of the

Toomb's bill; in which it can be shown that the words Trumbull says

were in it were; in fact; originally there。  If there be any dispute

upon the fact; I have got the documents here to show they were there。

If there be any controversy upon the sense of the words;whether

these words which were stricken out really constituted a provision

for submitting the matter to a vote of the people;as that is a

matter of argument; I think I may as well use Trumbull's own

argument。  He says that the proposition is in these words:



〃That the following propositions be and the same are hereby offered

to the said Convention of the people of Kansas when formed; for their

free acceptance or rejection; which; if accepted by the Convention

and ratified by the people at the election for the adoption of the

constitution; shall be obligatory upon the United States and the said

State of Kansas。〃



Now; Trumbull alleges that these last words were stricken out of the

bill when it came back; and he says this was a provision for

submitting the constitution to a vote of the people; and his argument

is this:



〃Would it have been possible to ratify the land propositions at the

election for the adoption of the constitution; unless such an

election was to be held?〃



This is Trumbull's argument。  Now; Judge Douglas does not meet the

charge at all; but he stands up and says there was no such

proposition in that bill for submitting the constitution to be framed

to a vote of the people。  Trumbull admits that the language is not a

direct provision for submitting it; but it is a provision necessarily

implied from another provision。  He asks you how it is possible to

ratify the land proposition at the election for the adoption of the

constitution; if there was no election to be held for the adoption of

the constitution。  And he goes on to show that it is not any less a

law because the provision is put in that indirect shape than it would

be if it were put directly。  But I presume I have said enough to draw

attention to this point; and I pass it by also。



Another one of the points that Judge Douglas makes upon Trumbull; and

at very great length; is; that Trumbull; while the bill was pending;

said in a speech in the Senate that he supposed the constitution to

be made would have to be submitted to the people。  He asks; if

Trumbull thought so then; what ground is there for anybody thinking

otherwise now?  Fellow…citizens; this much may be said in reply: That

bill had been in the hands of a party to which Trumbull did not

belong。  It had been in the hands of the committee at the head of

which Judge Douglas stood。  Trumbull perhaps had a printed copy of

the original Toomb's bill。  I have not the evidence on that point

except a sort of inference I draw from the general course of business

there。  What alterations; or what provisions in the way of altering;

were going on in committee; Trumbull had no means of knowing; until

the altered bill was reported back。  Soon afterwards; when it was

reported back; there was a discussion over it; and perhaps Trumbull

in reading it hastily in the altered form did not perceive all the

bearings of the alterations。  He was hastily borne into the debate;

and it does not follow that because there was something in it

Trumbull did not perceive; that something did not exist。  More than

this; is it true that what Trumbull did can have any effect on what

Douglas did?  Suppose Trumbull had been in the plot with these other

men; would that let Douglas out of it?   Would it exonerate Douglas

that Trumbull did n't then perceive he was in the plot?  He also asks

the question: Why did n't Trumbull propose to amend the bill; if he

thought it needed any amendment?  Why; I believe that everything

Judge Trumbull had proposed; particularly in connection with this

question of Kansas and Nebraska; since he had been on the floor of

the Senate; had been promptly voted down by Judge Douglas and his

friends。  He had no promise that an amendment offered by him to

anything on this subject would receive the slightest consideration。

Judge Trumbull did bring to the notice of the Senate at that time the

fact that there was no provision for submitting the constitution

about to be made for the people of Kansas to a vote of the people。  I

believe I may venture to say that Judge Douglas made some reply to

this speech of Judge Trumbull's; but he never noticed that part of it

at all。  And so the thing passed by。  I think; then; the fact that

Judge Trumbull offered no amendment does not throw much blame upon

him; and if it did; it does not reach the question of fact as to what

Judge Douglas was doing。  I repeat; that if Trumbull had himself been

in the plot; it would not at all relieve the others who were in it

from blame。  If I should be indicted for murder; and upon the trial

it should be discovered that I had been implicated in that murder;

but that the prosecuting witness was guilty too; that would not at

all touch the question of my crime。  It would be no relief to my neck

that they discovered this other man who charged the crime upon me to

be guilty too。



Another one of the points Judge Douglas makes upon Judge Trumbull is;

that when he spoke in Chicago he made his charge to rest upon the

fact that the bill had the provision in it for submitting the

constitution to a vote of the people when it went into his Judge

Douglas's) hands; that it was missing when he reported it to the

Senate; and that in a public speech he had subsequently said the

alterations in the bill were made while it was in committee; and that

they were made in consultation between him (Judge Douglas) and

Toomb's。  And Judge Douglas goes on to comment upon the fact of

Trumbull's adducing in his Alton speech 
返回目录 上一页 下一页 回到顶部 0 0
未阅读完?加入书签已便下次继续阅读!
温馨提示: 温看小说的同时发表评论,说出自己的看法和其它小伙伴们分享也不错哦!发表书评还可以获得积分和经验奖励,认真写原创书评 被采纳为精评可以获得大量金币、积分和经验奖励哦!