the writings-4-第2章

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