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！
people making charges against him only two years old！
The Judge thinks it is altogether wrong that I should have dwelt upon
this charge of Trumbull's at all。 I gave the apology for doing so in
my opening speech。 Perhaps it did n't fix your attention。 I said
that when Judge Douglas was speaking at placewhere I spoke on the
succeeding day he used very harsh language about this charge。 Two or
three times afterward I said I had confidence in Judge Trumbull's
veracity and intelligence； and my own opinion was； from what I knew
of the character of Judge Trumbull； that he would vindicate his
position and prove whatever he had stated to be true。 This I
repeated two or three times； and then I dropped it； without saying
anything more on the subject for weeksperhaps a month。 I passed it
by without noticing it at all till I found； at Jacksonville； Judge
Douglas in the plenitude of his power is not willing to answer
Trumbull and let me alone； but he comes out there and uses this
language： 〃He should not hereafter occupy his time in refuting such
charges made by Trumbull but that； Lincoln having indorsed the
character of Trumbull for veracity； he should hold him ＇Lincoln＇
responsible for the slanders。〃 What was Lincoln to do？ Did he not
do right； when he had the fit opportunity of meeting Judge Douglas
here； to tell him he was ready for the responsibility？ I ask a
candid audience whether in doing thus Judge Douglas was not the
assailant rather than I？ Here I meet him face to face； and say I am
ready to take the responsibility； so far as it rests on me。
Having done so I ask the attention of this audience to the question
whether I have succeeded in sustaining the charge； and whether Judge
Douglas has at all succeeded in rebutting it？ You all heard me call
upon him to say which of these pieces of evidence was a forgery。
Does he say that what I present here as a copy of the original Toombs
bill is a forgery？ Does he say that what I present as a copy of the
bill reported by himself is a forgery； or what is presented as a
transcript from the Globe of the quotations from Bigler's speech is a
forgery？ Does he say the quotations from his own speech are
forgeries？ Does he say this transcript from Trumbull's speech is a
forgery？
＇〃He didn't deny one of them。〃＇
I would then like to know how it comes about that when each piece of
a story is true the whole story turns out false。 I take it these
people have some sense； they see plainly that Judge Douglas is
playing cuttle…fish； a small species of fish that has no mode of
defending itself when pursued except by throwing out a black fluid；
which makes the water so dark the enemy cannot see it； and thus it
escapes。 Ain't the Judge playing the cuttle…fish？
Now； I would ask very special attention to the consideration of Judge
Douglas's speech at Jacksonville； and when you shall read his speech
of to…day； I ask you to watch closely and see which of these pieces
of testimony； every one of which he says is a forgery； he has shown
to be such。 Not one of them has he shown to be a forgery。 Then I
ask the original question； if each of the pieces of testimony is
true； how is it possible that the whole is a falsehood？
In regard to Trumbull's charge that he Douglas＇ inserted a provision
into the bill to prevent the constitution being submitted to the
people； what was his answer？ He comes here and reads from the
Congressional Globe to show that on his motion that provision was
struck out of the bill。 Why； Trumbull has not said it was not
stricken out； but Trumbull says he ＇Douglas＇ put it in； and it is no
answer to the charge to say he afterwards took it out。 Both are
perhaps true。 It was in regard to that thing precisely that I told
him he had dropped the cub。 Trumbull shows you that by his
introducing the bill it was his cub。 It is no answer to that
assertion to call Trumbull a liar merely because he did not specially
say that Douglas struck it out。 Suppose that were the case； does it
answer Trumbull？ I assert that you ＇pointing to an individual＇ are
here to…day； and you undertake to prove me a liar by showing that you
were in Mattoon yesterday。 I say that you took your hat off your
head； and you prove me a liar by putting it on your head。 That is
the whole force of Douglas's argument。
Now； I want to come back to my original question。 Trumbull says that
Judge Douglas had a bill with a provision in it for submitting a
constitution to be made to a vote of the people of Kansas。 Does
Judge Douglas deny that fact？ Does be deny that the provision which
Trumbull reads was put in that bill？ Then Trumbull says he struck it
out。 Does he dare to deny that？ He does not； and I have the right
to repeat the question ；Why Judge Douglas took it out？ Bigler has
said there was a combination of certain senators； among whom he did
not include Judge Douglas； by which it was agreed that the Kansas
Bill should have a clause in it not to have the constitution formed
under it submitted to a vote of the people。 He did not say that
Douglas was among them； but we prove by another source that about the
same time Douglas comes into the Senate with that provision stricken
out of the bill。 Although Bigler cannot say they were all working in
concert； yet it looks very much as if the thing was agreed upon and
done with a mutual understanding after the conference； and while we
do not know that it was absolutely so； yet it looks so probable that
we have a right to call upon the man who knows the true reason why it
was done to tell what the true reason was。 When he will not tell
what the true reason was； he stands in the attitude of an accused
thief who has stolen goods in his possession； and when called to
account refuses to tell where he got them。 Not only is this the
evidence； but when he comes in with the bill having the provision
stricken out； he tells us in a speech； not then but since； that these
alterations and modifications in the bill had been made by HIM； in
consultation with Toombs； the originator of the bill。 He tells us
the same to…day。 He says there were certain modifications made in
the bill in committee that he did not vote for。 I ask you to
remember； while certain amendments were made which he disapproved of；
but which a majority of the committee voted in； he has himself told
us that in this particular the alterations and modifications were
made by him； upon consultation with Toombs。 We have his own word
that these alterations were made by him； and not by the committee。
Now； I ask； what is the reason Judge Douglas is so chary about coming
to the exact question？ What is the reason he will not tell you
anything about How it was made； BY WHOM it was made； or that he
remembers it being made at all？ Why does he stand playing upon the
meaning of words and quibbling around the edges of the evidence？ If
he can explain all this； but leaves it unexplained； I have the right
to infer that Judge Douglas understood it was the purpose of his
party； in engineering that bill through； to make a constitution； and
have Kansas come into the Union with that constitution； without its
being submitted to a vote of the people。 If he will explain his
action on this question； by giving a better reason for the facts that
happened than he has done； it will be satisfactory。 But until he
does thatuntil he gives a better or more plausible reason than he
has offered against the evidence in the caseI suggest to him it
will not avail him at all that he swells himself up； takes on
dignity； and calls people liars。 Why； sir； there is not a word in
Trumbull's speech that depends on Trumbull's veracity at all。 He has
only arrayed the evidence and told you what follows as a matter of
reasoning。 There is not a statement in the whole speech that depends
on Trumbull's word。 If you have ever studied geometry； you remember
that by a course of reasoning Euclid