the writings-4-第8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　and　let　me　alone；　but　he　comes　out　there　and　uses　this

language：　〃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。〃　　What　was　Lincoln　to　do？　　Did　he　not

do　right；　when　he　had　the　fit　opportunity　of　meeting　Judge　Douglas

here；　to　tell　him　he　was　ready　for　the　responsibility？　　I　ask　a

candid　audience　whether　in　doing　thus　Judge　Douglas　was　not　the

assailant　rather　than　I？　　Here　I　meet　him　face　to　face；　and　say　I　am

ready　to　take　the　responsibility；　so　far　as　it　rests　on　me。



Having　done　so　I　ask　the　attention　of　this　audience　to　the　question

whether　I　have　succeeded　in　sustaining　the　charge；　and　whether　Judge

Douglas　has　at　all　succeeded　in　rebutting　it？　　You　all　heard　me　call

upon　him　to　say　which　of　these　pieces　of　evidence　was　a　forgery。

Does　he　say　that　what　I　present　here　as　a　copy　of　the　original　Toombs

bill　is　a　forgery？　　Does　he　say　that　what　I　present　as　a　copy　of　the

bill　reported　by　himself　is　a　forgery；　or　what　is　presented　as　a

transcript　from　the　Globe　of　the　quotations　from　Bigler's　speech　is　a

forgery？　　Does　he　say　the　quotations　from　his　own　speech　are

forgeries？　　Does　he　say　this　transcript　from　Trumbull's　speech　is　a

forgery？



＇〃He　didn't　deny　one　of　them。〃＇



I　would　then　like　to　know　how　it　comes　about　that　when　each　piece　of

a　story　is　true　the　whole　story　turns　out　false。　　I　take　it　these

people　have　some　sense；　they　see　plainly　that　Judge　Douglas　is

playing　cuttle…fish；　a　small　species　of　fish　that　has　no　mode　of

defending　itself　when　pursued　except　by　throwing　out　a　black　fluid；

which　makes　the　water　so　dark　the　enemy　cannot　see　it；　and　thus　it

escapes。　　Ain't　the　Judge　playing　the　cuttle…fish？



Now；　I　would　ask　very　special　attention　to　the　consideration　of　Judge

Douglas's　speech　at　Jacksonville；　and　when　you　shall　read　his　speech

of　to…day；　I　ask　you　to　watch　closely　and　see　which　of　these　pieces

of　testimony；　every　one　of　which　he　says　is　a　forgery；　he　has　shown

to　be　such。　　Not　one　of　them　has　he　shown　to　be　a　forgery。　　Then　I

ask　the　original　question；　if　each　of　the　pieces　of　testimony　is

true；　how　is　it　possible　that　the　whole　is　a　falsehood？



In　regard　to　Trumbull's　charge　that　he　Douglas＇　inserted　a　provision

into　the　bill　to　prevent　the　constitution　being　submitted　to　the

people；　what　was　his　answer？　　He　comes　here　and　reads　from　the

Congressional　Globe　to　show　that　on　his　motion　that　provision　was

struck　out　of　the　bill。　　Why；　Trumbull　has　not　said　it　was　not

stricken　out；　but　Trumbull　says　he　＇Douglas＇　put　it　in；　and　it　is　no

answer　to　the　charge　to　say　he　afterwards　took　it　out。　　Both　are

perhaps　true。　　It　was　in　regard　to　that　thing　precisely　that　I　told

him　he　had　dropped　the　cub。　　Trumbull　shows　you　that　by　his

introducing　the　bill　it　was　his　cub。　　It　is　no　answer　to　that

assertion　to　call　Trumbull　a　liar　merely　because　he　did　not　specially

say　that　Douglas　struck　it　out。　　Suppose　that　were　the　case；　does　it

answer　Trumbull？　　I　assert　that　you　＇pointing　to　an　individual＇　are

here　to…day；　and　you　undertake　to　prove　me　a　liar　by　showing　that　you

were　in　Mattoon　yesterday。　　I　say　that　you　took　your　hat　off　your

head；　and　you　prove　me　a　liar　by　putting　it　on　your　head。　　That　is

the　whole　force　of　Douglas's　argument。



Now；　I　want　to　come　back　to　my　original　question。　　Trumbull　says　that

Judge　Douglas　had　a　bill　with　a　provision　in　it　for　submitting　a

constitution　to　be　made　to　a　vote　of　the　people　of　Kansas。　　Does

Judge　Douglas　deny　that　fact？　　Does　be　deny　that　the　provision　which

Trumbull　reads　was　put　in　that　bill？　　Then　Trumbull　says　he　struck　it

out。　　Does　he　dare　to　deny　that？　　He　does　not；　and　I　have　the　right

to　repeat　the　question　；Why　Judge　Douglas　took　it　out？　　Bigler　has

said　there　was　a　combination　of　certain　senators；　among　whom　he　did

not　include　Judge　Douglas；　by　which　it　was　agreed　that　the　Kansas

Bill　should　have　a　clause　in　it　not　to　have　the　constitution　formed

under　it　submitted　to　a　vote　of　the　people。　　He　did　not　say　that

Douglas　was　among　them；　but　we　prove　by　another　source　that　about　the

same　time　Douglas　comes　into　the　Senate　with　that　provision　stricken

out　of　the　bill。　　Although　Bigler　cannot　say　they　were　all　working　in

concert；　yet　it　looks　very　much　as　if　the　thing　was　agreed　upon　and

done　with　a　mutual　understanding　after　the　conference；　and　while　we

do　not　know　that　it　was　absolutely　so；　yet　it　looks　so　probable　that

we　have　a　right　to　call　upon　the　man　who　knows　the　true　reason　why　it

was　done　to　tell　what　the　true　reason　was。　　When　he　will　not　tell

what　the　true　reason　was；　he　stands　in　the　attitude　of　an　accused

thief　who　has　stolen　goods　in　his　possession；　and　when　called　to

account　refuses　to　tell　where　he　got　them。　　Not　only　is　this　the

evidence；　but　when　he　comes　in　with　the　bill　having　the　provision

stricken　out；　he　tells　us　in　a　speech；　not　then　but　since；　that　these

alterations　and　modifications　in　the　bill　had　been　made　by　HIM；　in

consultation　with　Toombs；　the　originator　of　the　bill。　　He　tells　us

the　same　to…day。　　He　says　there　were　certain　modifications　made　in

the　bill　in　committee　that　he　did　not　vote　for。　　I　ask　you　to

remember；　while　certain　amendments　were　made　which　he　disapproved　of；

but　which　a　majority　of　the　committee　voted　in；　he　has　himself　told

us　that　in　this　particular　the　alterations　and　modifications　were

made　by　him；　upon　consultation　with　Toombs。　　We　have　his　own　word

that　these　alterations　were　made　by　him；　and　not　by　the　committee。

Now；　I　ask；　what　is　the　reason　Judge　Douglas　is　so　chary　about　coming

to　the　exact　question？　　What　is　the　reason　he　will　not　tell　you

anything　about　How　it　was　made；　BY　WHOM　it　was　made；　or　that　he

remembers　it　being　made　at　all？　　Why　does　he　stand　playing　upon　the

meaning　of　words　and　quibbling　around　the　edges　of　the　evidence？　　If

he　can　explain　all　this；　but　leaves　it　unexplained；　I　have　the　right

to　infer　that　Judge　Douglas　understood　it　was　the　purpose　of　his

party；　in　engineering　that　bill　through；　to　make　a　constitution；　and

have　Kansas　come　into　the　Union　with　that　constitution；　without　its

being　submitted　to　a　vote　of　the　people。　　If　he　will　explain　his

action　on　this　question；　by　giving　a　better　reason　for　the　facts　that

happened　than　he　has　done；　it　will　be　satisfactory。　　But　until　he

does　thatuntil　he　gives　a　better　or　more　plausible　reason　than　he

has　offered　against　the　evidence　in　the　caseI　suggest　to　him　it

will　not　avail　him　at　all　that　he　swells　himself　up；　takes　on

dignity；　and　calls　people　liars。　　Why；　sir；　there　is　not　a　word　in

Trumbull's　speech　that　depends　on　Trumbull's　veracity　at　all。　　He　has

only　arrayed　the　evidence　and　told　you　what　follows　as　a　matter　of

reasoning。　　There　is　not　a　statement　in　the　whole　speech　that　depends

on　Trumbull's　word。　　If　you　have　ever　studied　geometry；