the writings-4-第2部分

快捷操作: 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! 如果本书没有阅读完，想下次继续接着阅读，可使用上方 "收藏到我的浏览器" 功能 和 "加入书签" 功能！



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　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　stricke