The Writings of Abraham Lincoln, vol 4 | Page 5

did
personally know Judge Trumbull; that I believed him to be a man of
veracity; that I believed him to be a man of capacity sufficient to know
very well whether an assertion he was making, as a conclusion drawn
from a set of facts, was true or false; and as a conclusion of my own
from that, I stated it as my belief if Trumbull should ever be called
upon, he would prove everything he had said. I said this upon two or
three occasions. Upon a subsequent occasion, Judge Trumbull spoke
again before an audience at Alton, and upon that occasion not only
repeated his charge against Douglas, but arrayed the evidence he relied
upon to substantiate it. This speech was published at length; and
subsequently at Jacksonville Judge Douglas alluded to the matter. In
the course of his speech, and near the close of it, he stated in regard to
myself what I will now read:
"Judge Douglas proceeded to remark that 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."
I have done simply what I have told you, to subject me to this invitation
to notice the charge. I now wish to say that it had not originally been
my purpose to discuss that matter at all But in-as- much as it seems to
be the wish of Judge Douglas to hold me responsible for it, then for
once in my life I will play General Jackson, and to the just extent I take
the responsibility.
I wish to say at the beginning that I will hand to the reporters that
portion of Judge Trumbull's Alton speech which was devoted to this
matter, and also that portion of Judge Douglas's speech made at
Jacksonville in answer to it. I shall thereby furnish the readers of this
debate with the complete discussion between Trumbull and Douglas. I
cannot now read them, for the reason that it would take half of my first
hour to do so. I can only make some comments upon them. Trumbull's
charge is in the following words:
"Now, the charge is, that there was a plot entered into to have a
constitution formed for Kansas, and put in force, without giving the
people an opportunity to vote upon it, and that Mr. Douglas was in the
plot."
I will state, without quoting further, for all will have an opportunity of
reading it hereafter, that Judge Trumbull brings forward what he
regards as sufficient evidence to substantiate this charge.
It will be perceived Judge Trumbull shows that Senator Bigler, upon
the floor of the Senate, had declared there had been a conference
among the senators, in which conference it was determined to have an
enabling act passed for the people of Kansas to form a constitution
under, and in this conference it was agreed among them that it was best
not to have a provision for submitting the constitution to a vote of the
people after it should be formed. He then brings forward to show, and
showing, as he deemed, that Judge Douglas reported the bill back to the
Senate with that clause stricken out. He then shows that there was a
new clause inserted into the bill, which would in its nature prevent a
reference of the constitution back for a vote of 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