The Writings of Abraham Lincoln, vol 4 | Page 8

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originally made it.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 statement--Trumbull 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