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！
Toomb's。 And Judge Douglas goes on to comment upon the fact of
Trumbull's adducing in his Alton speech the proposition that the bill
not only came back with that proposition stricken out； but with
another clause and another provision in it； saying that 〃until the
complete execution of this Act there shall be no election in said
Territory；〃which； Trumbull argued； was not only taking the
provision for submitting to a vote of the people out of the bill； but
was adding an affirmative one； in that it prevented the people from
exercising the right under a bill that was merely silent on the
question。 Now； in regard to what he says； that Trumbull shifts the
issue； that he shifts his ground；and I believe he uses the term
that； 〃it being proven false； he has changed ground；〃 I call upon all
of you； when you come to examine that portion of Trumbull's speech
（for it will make a part of mine）； to examine whether Trumbull has
shifted his ground or not。 I say he did not shift his ground； but
that he brought forward his original charge and the evidence to
sustain it yet more fully；
but precisely as he originally made it。 Then； in addition thereto；
he brought in a new piece of evidence。 He shifted no ground。 He
brought no new piece of evidence inconsistent with his former
testimony； but he brought a new piece； tending； as he thought； and as
I think； to prove his proposition。 To illustrate： A man brings an
accusation against another； and on trial the man making the charge
introduces A and B to prove the accusation。 At a second trial he
introduces the same witnesses； who tell the same story as before； and
a third witness； who tells the same thing； and in addition gives
further testimony corroborative of the charge。 So with Trumbull。
There was no shifting of ground； nor inconsistency of testimony
between the new piece of evidence and what he originally introduced。
But Judge Douglas says that he himself moved to strike out that last
provision of the bill； and that on his motion it was stricken out and
a substitute inserted。 That I presume is the truth。 I presume it is
true that that last proposition was stricken out by Judge Douglas。
Trumbull has not said it was not； Trumbull has himself said that it
was so stricken out。 He says： 〃I am now speaking of the bill as
Judge Douglas reported it back。 It was amended somewhat in the
Senate before it passed； but I am speaking of it as he brought it
back。〃 Now； when Judge Douglas parades the fact that the provision
was stricken out of the bill when it came back； he asserts nothing
contrary to what Trumbull alleges。 Trumbull has only said that he
originally put it in； not that he did not strike it out。 Trumbull
says it was not in the bill when it went to the committee。 When it
came back it was in； and Judge Douglas said the alterations were made
by him in consultation with Toomb's。 Trumbull alleges； therefore； as
his conclusion； that Judge Douglas put it in。 Then； if Douglas wants
to contradict Trumbull and call him a liar； let him say he did not
put it in； and not that he did n't take it out again。 It is said
that a bear is sometimes hard enough pushed to drop a cub； and so I
presume it was in this case。 I presume the truth is that Douglas put
it in； and afterward took it out。 That； I take it； is the truth
about it。 Judge Trumbull says one thing； Douglas says another thing；
and the two don't contradict one another at all。 The question is；
what did he put it in for？ In the first place； what did he take the
other provision out of the bill for；the provision which Trumbull
argued was necessary for submitting the constitution to a vote of the
people？ What did he take that out for； and； having taken it out；
what did he put this in for？ I say that in the run of things it is
not unlikely forces conspire to render it vastly expedient for Judge
Douglas to take that latter clause out again。 The question that
Trumbull has made is that Judge Douglas put it in； and he don't meet
Trumbull at all unless he denies that。
In the clause of Judge Douglas's speech upon this subject he uses
this language toward Judge Trumbull。 He says：
〃He forges his evidence from beginning to end； and by falsifying the
record； he endeavors to bolster up his false charge。〃
Well； that is a pretty serious statementTrumbull forges his
evidence from beginning to end。 Now； upon my own authority I say
that it is not true。 What is a forgery？ Consider the evidence that
Trumbull has brought forward。 When you come to read the speech； as
you will be able to； examine whether the evidence is a forgery from
beginning to end。 He had the bill or document in his hand like that
＇holding up a paper＇。 He says that is a copy of the Toomb's bill；
the amendment offered by Toomb's。 He says that is a copy of the bill
as it was introduced and went into Judge Douglas's hands。 Now； does
Judge Douglas say that is a forgery？ That is one thing Trumbull
brought forward。 Judge Douglas says he forged it from beginning to
end！ That is the 〃beginning；〃 we will say。 Does Douglas say that is
a forgery？ Let him say it to…day； and we will have a subsequent
examination upon this subject。 Trumbull then holds up another
document like this； and says that is an exact copy of the bill as it
came back in the amended form out of Judge Douglas's hands。 Does
Judge Douglas say that is a forgery？ Does he say it in his general
sweeping charge？ Does he say so now？ If he does not； then take this
Toomb's bill and the bill in the amended form； and it only needs to
compare them to see that the provision is in the one and not in the
other； it leaves the inference inevitable that it was taken out。
But； while I am dealing with this question； let us see what
Trumbull's other evidence is。 One other piece of evidence I will
read。 Trumbull says there are in this original Toomb's bill 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； if it is said that this is a forgery； we will open the paper
here and see whether it is or not。 Again； Trumbull says； as he goes
along； that Mr。 Bigler made the following statement in his place in
the Senate； December 9； 1857：
〃I was present when that subject was discussed by senators before the
bill was introduced； and the question was raised and discussed；
whether the constitution； when formed； should be submitted to a vote
of the people。 It was held by those most intelligent on the subject
that； in view of all the difficulties surrounding that Territory； the
danger of any experiment at that time of a popular vote； it would be
better there should be no such provision in the Toomb's bill； and it
was my understanding； in all the intercourse I had； that the
Convention would make a constitution； and send it here； without
submitting it to the popular vote。〃
Then Trumbull follows on：
〃In speaking of this meeting again on the 21st December； 1857
＇Congressional Globe； same vol。； page 113＇； Senator Bigler said：
〃'Nothing was further from my mind than to allude to any social or
confidential interview。 The meeting was not of that character。
Indeed； it was semi…official； and called to promote the public good。
My recollection was clear that I left the conference under the
impression that it had been deemed best to adopt measures to admit
Kansas as a State through the agency of one popular election； and
that for delegates to this Convention。 This impression was stronger
because I thought the spirit of the bill infringed upon the doctrine
of non…intervention； to which I had great aversion； but with the hope
of accomplishing a great good； and as no movement had been made in
that direction in the Territory； I waived this objection； and
concluded to support the measure。 I have a few items of testimony as
to the correctness of these impressions； and with their submission I
shall be content。 I have before me the bill reported by the senator
from Illinois on the 7th of March； 1856； providing for the admission
of Kansas as a State； the third section of which reads as follows：
〃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。〃
The bill read in his place by the senator from Georgia on the 25th of
June； and referred to the Committee on Territories； contained the
same section wor