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！
the people；if； indeed； upon a mere silence in the law； it could be
assumed that they had the right to vote upon it。 These are the
general statements that he has made。
I propose to examine the points in Judge Douglas's speech in which he
attempts to answer that speech of Judge Trumbull's。 When you come to
examine Judge Douglas's speech； you will find that the first point he
makes is：
〃Suppose it were true that there was such a change in the bill； and
that I struck it out；is that a proof of a plot to force a
constitution upon them against their will？〃
His striking out such a provision； if there was such a one in the
bill； he argues； does not establish the proof that it was stricken
out for the purpose of robbing the people of that right。 I would
say； in the first place； that that would be a most manifest reason
for it。 It is true； as Judge Douglas states； that many Territorial
bills have passed without having such a provision in them。 I believe
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 con