to leave it to impartial judges whether his questions have not been more
directly and circumstantially answered than mine.

Judge Douglas says he made a charge upon the editor of the Washington
Union, alone, of entertaining a purpose to rob the States of their power
to exclude slavery from their limits. I undertake to say, and I make the
direct issue, that he did not make his charge against the editor of the
Union alone. I will undertake to prove by the record here that he made
that charge against more and higher dignitaries than the editor of the
Washington Union. I am quite aware that he was shirking and dodging
around the form in which he put it, but I can make it manifest that he
leveled his "fatal blow" against more persons than this Washington
editor. Will he dodge it now by alleging that I am trying to defend Mr.
Buchanan against the charge? Not at all. Am I not making the same charge
myself? I am trying to show that you, Judge Douglas, are a witness on my
side. I am not defending Buchanan, and I will tell Judge Douglas that in
my opinion, when he made that charge, he had an eye farther north than he
has to-day. He was then fighting against people who called him a Black
Republican and an Abolitionist. It is mixed all through his speech, and
it is tolerably manifest that his eye was a great deal farther north than
it is to-day. The Judge says that though he made this charge, Toombs got
up and declared there was not a man in the United States, except the
editor of the Union, who was in favor of the doctrines put forth in that
article. And thereupon I understand that the Judge withdrew the charge.
Although he had taken extracts from the newspaper, and then from the
Lecompton Constitution, to show the existence of a conspiracy to bring
about a "fatal blow," by which the States were to be deprived of the
right of excluding slavery, it all went to pot as soon as Toombs got up
and told him it was not true. It reminds me of the story that John
Phoenix, the California railroad surveyor, tells. He says they started