the writings-4-第5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！



that　Judge　Douglas；　in　his　speech；　December　9；　1857　（Congressional

Globe；　part　I。；　page　15）；　stated：



〃That　during　the　last　session　of　Congress；　I　（Mr。　Douglas＇　reported　a

bill　from　the　Committee　on　Territories；　to　authorize　the　people　of

Kansas　to　assemble　and　form　a　constitution　for　themselves。

Subsequently　the　senator　from　Georgia　＇Mr。　Toombs＇　brought　forward　a

substitute　for　my　bill；　which；　after　having　been　modified　by　him　and

myself　in　consultation；　was　passed　by　the　Senate。〃



Now；　Trumbull　says　this　is　a　quotation　from　a　speech　of　Douglas；　and

is　recorded　in　the　Congressional　Globe。　　Is　it　a　forgery？　　Is　it

there　or　not？　　It　may　not　be　there；　but　I　want　the　Judge　to　take

these　pieces　of　evidence；　and　distinctly　say　they　are　forgeries　if　he

dare　do　it。



＇A　voice：〃He　will。〃＇



Well；　sir；　you　had　better　not　commit　him。　　He　gives　other

quotations；another　from　Judge　Douglas。　　He　says：



〃I　will　ask　the　senator　to　show　me　an　intimation；　from　any　one　member

of　the　Senate；　in　the　whole　debate　on　the　Toombs　bill；　and　in　the

Union；　from　any　quarter；　that　the　constitution　was　not　to　be

submitted　to　the　people。　　I　will　venture　to　say　that　on　all　sides　of

the　chamber　it　was　so　understood　at　the　time。　　If　the　opponents　of

the　bill　had　understood　it　was　not；　they　would　have　made　the　point　on

it；　and　if　they　had　made　it；　we　should　certainly　have　yielded　to　it；

and　put　in　the　clause。　　That　is　a　discovery　made　since　the　President

found　out　that　it　was　not　safe　to　take　it　for　granted　that　that　would

be　done；　which　ought　in　fairness　to　have　been　done。〃



Judge　Trumbull　says　Douglas　made　that　speech；　and　it　is　recorded。

Does　Judge　Douglas　say　it　is　a　forgery；　and　was　not　true？　　Trumbull

says　somewhere；　and　I　propose　to　skip　it；　but　it　will　be　found　by　any

one　who　will　read　this　debate；　that　he　did　distinctly　bring　it　to　the

notice　of　those　who　were　engineering　the　bill；　that　it　lacked　that

provision；　and　then　he　goes　on　to　give　another　quotation　from　Judge

Douglas；　where　Judge　Trumbull　uses　this　language：



〃Judge　Douglas；　however；　on　the　same　day　and　in　the　same　debate；

probably　recollecting　or　being　reminded　of　the　fact　that　I　had

objected　to　the　Toombs　bill　when　pending　that　it　did　not　provide　for

a　submission　of　the　constitution　to　the　people；　made　another

statement；　which　is　to　be　found　in　the　same　volume　of　the　Globe；　page

22；　in　which　he　says：

'That　the　bill　was　silent　on　this　subject　was　true；　and　my　attention

was　called　to　that　about　the　time　it　was　passed；　and　I　took　the　fair

construction　to　be；　that　powers　not　delegated　were　reserved；　and　that

of　course　the　constitution　would　be　submitted　to　the　people。'



〃Whether　this　statement　is　consistent　with　the　statement　just　before

made；　that　had　the　point　been　made　it　would　have　been　yielded　to；　or

that　it　was　a　new　discovery；　you　will　determine。〃



So　I　say。　　I　do　not　know　whether　Judge　Douglas　will　dispute　this；　and

yet　maintain　his　position　that　Trumbull's　evidence　〃was　forged　from

beginning　to　end。〃　　I　will　remark　that　I　have　not　got　these

Congressional　Globes　with　me。　　They　are　large　books；　and　difficult　to

carry　about；　and　if　Judge　Douglas　shall　say　that　on　these　points

where　Trumbull　has　quoted　from　them　there　are　no　such　passages　there；

I　shall　not　be　able　to　prove　they　are　there　upon　this　occasion；　but　I

will　have　another　chance。　　Whenever　he　points　out　the　forgery　and

says；　〃I　declare　that　this　particular　thing　which　Trumbull　has

uttered　is　not　to　be　found　where　he　says　it　is；〃　then　my　attention

will　be　drawn　to　that；　and　I　will　arm　myself　for　the　contest；　stating

now　that　I　have　not　the　slightest　doubt　on　earth　that　I　will　find

every　quotation　just　where　Trumbull　says　it　is。　　Then　the　question

is；　How　can　Douglas　call　that　a　forgery？　　How　can　he　make　out　that　it

is　a　forgery？　　What　is　a　forgery？　　It　is　the　bringing　forward

something　in　writing　or　in　print　purporting　to　be　of　certain　effect

when　it　is　altogether　untrue。　　If　you　come　forward　with　my　note　for

one　hundred　dollars　when　I　have　never　given　such　a　note；　there　is　a

forgery。　　If　you　come　forward　with　a　letter　purporting　to　be　written

by　me　which　I　never　wrote；　there　is　another　forgery。　　If　you　produce

anything　in　writing　or　in　print　saying　it　is　so　and　so；　the　document

not　being　genuine；　a　forgery　has　been　committed。　　How　do　you　make

this　forgery　when　every　piece　of　the　evidence　is　genuine？　　　If　Judge

Douglas　does　say　these　documents　and　quotations　are　false　and　forged；

he　has　a　full　right　to　do　so；　but　until　he　does　it　specifically；　we

don't　know　how　to　get　at　him。　　If　he　does　say　they　are　false　and

forged；　I　will　then　look　further　into　it；　and　presume　I　can　procure

the　certificates　of　the　proper　officers　that　they　are　genuine　copies。

I　have　no　doubt　each　of　these　extracts　will　be　found　exactly　where

Trumbull　says　it　is。　　Then　I　leave　it　to　you　if　Judge　Douglas；　in

making　his　sweeping　charge　that　Judge　Trumbull's　evidence　is　forged

from　beginning　to　end；　at　all　meets　the　case；if　that　is　the　way　to

get　at　the　facts。　　I　repeat　again；　if　he　will　point　out　which　one　is

a　forgery；　I　will　carefully　examine　it；　and　if　it　proves　that　any　one

of　them　is　really　a　forgery；　it　will　not　be　me　who　will　hold　to　it

any　longer。　　I　have　always　wanted　to　deal　with　everyone　I　meet

candidly　and　honestly。　　If　I　have　made　any　assertion　not　warranted　by

facts；　and　it　is　pointed　out　to　me；　I　will　withdraw　it　cheerfully。

But　I　do　not　choose　to　see　Judge　Trumbull　calumniated；　and　the

evidence　he　has　brought　forward　branded　in　general　terms　〃a　forgery

from　beginning　to　end。〃　　This　is　not　the　legal　way　of　meeting　a

charge；　and　I　submit　it　to　all　intelligent　persons；　both　friends　of

Judge　Douglas　and　of　myself；　whether　it　is。



The　point　upon　Judge　Douglas　is　this：　The　bill　that　went　into　his

hands　had　the　provision　in　it　for　a　submission　of　the　constitution　to

the　people；　and　I　say　its　language　amounts　to　an　express　provision

for　a　submission；　and　that　he　took　the　provision　out。　　He　says　it　was

known　that　the　bill　was　silent　in　this　particular；　but　I　say；　Judge

Douglas；　it　was　not　silent　when　you　got　it。　　It　was　vocal　with　the

declaration；　when　you　got　it；　for　a　submission　of　the　constitution　to

the　people。　　And　now；　my　direct　question　to　Judge　Douglas　is；　to

answer　why；　if　he　deemed　the　bill　silent　on　this　point；　he　found　it

necessary　to　strike　out　those　particular　harmless　words。　　If　he　had

found　the　bill　silent　and　without　this　provision；　he　might　say　what

he　does　now。　　If　he　supposes　it　was　implied　that　the　constitution

would　be　submitted　to　a　vote　of　the　people；　how　could　these　two　lines

so　encumber　the　statute　as　to　make　it　necessary　to　strike　them　out？

How　could　he　infer　that　a　submission　was　still　implied；　after　its

express　provision　had　been　stricken　from　the　bill？　　I　find　the　bill

vocal　with　the　provision；　while　he　silenced　it。　　He　took　it　out；　and

although　he　took　out　the　other　provision　preventing　a　su