regard to the Lecompton Constitution or any principle in it? He says he
did not make his opposition on the ground as to whether it was a free or
slave constitution, and he would have you understand that the Republicans
made their opposition because it ultimately became a slave constitution.
To make proof in favor of himself on this point, he reminds us that he
opposed Lecompton before the vote was taken declaring whether the State
was to be free or slave. But he forgets to say that our Republican
Senator, Trumbull, made a speech against Lecompton even before he did.

Why did he oppose it? Partly, as he declares, because the members of the
convention who framed it were not fairly elected by the people; that the
people were not allowed to vote unless they had been registered; and that
the people of whole counties, some instances, were not registered. For
these reasons he declares the Constitution was not an emanation, in any
true sense, from the people. He also has an additional objection as to
the mode of submitting the Constitution back to the people. But bearing
on the question of whether the delegates were fairly elected, a speech of
his, made something more than twelve months ago, from this stand, becomes
important. It was made a little while before the election of the
delegates who made Lecompton. In that speech he declared there was every
reason to hope and believe the election would be fair; and if any one
failed to vote, it would be his own culpable fault.

I, a few days after, made a sort of answer to that speech. In that answer
I made, substantially, the very argument with which he combated his
Lecompton adversaries in the Senate last winter. I pointed to the facts
that the people could not vote without being registered, and that the
time for registering had gone by. I commented on it as wonderful that
Judge Douglas could be ignorant of these facts which every one else in
the nation so well knew.