I pass over some portions of the speech, and I hope that any one who
feels interested in this matter will read the entire section of the
speech, and see whether I do the Judge injustice. He proceeds:

"When I saw that article in the Union of the 17th of November, followed
by the glorification of the Lecompton Constitution on the 10th of
November, and this clause in the Constitution asserting the doctrine that
a State has no right to prohibit slavery within its limits, I saw that
there was a fatal blow being struck at the sovereignty of the States of
this Union."

I stop the quotation there, again requesting that it may all be read. I
have read all of the portion I desire to comment upon. What is this
charge that the Judge thinks I must have a very corrupt heart to make? It
was a purpose on the part of certain high functionaries to make it
impossible for the people of one State to prohibit the people of any
other State from entering it with their "property," so called, and making
it a slave State. In other words, it was a charge implying a design to
make the institution of slavery national. And now I ask your attention to
what Judge Douglas has himself done here. I know he made that part of the
speech as a reason why he had refused to vote for a certain man for
public printer; but when we get at it, the charge itself is the very one
I made against him, that he thinks I am so corrupt for uttering. Now,
whom does he make that charge against? Does he make it against that
newspaper editor merely? No; he says it is identical in spirit with the
Lecompton Constitution, and so the framers of that Constitution are
brought in with the editor of the newspaper in that "fatal blow being
struck." He did not call it a "conspiracy." In his language, it is a
"fatal blow being struck." And if the words carry the meaning better when
changed from a "conspiracy" into a "fatal blow being struck," I will