in, and not that he did n't take it out again. It is said that a bear is
sometimes hard enough pushed to drop a cub; and so I presume it was in
this case. I presume the truth is that Douglas put it in, and afterward
took it out. That, I take it, is the truth about it. Judge Trumbull says
one thing, Douglas says another thing, and the two don't contradict one
another at all. The question is, what did he put it in for? In the first
place, what did he take the other provision out of the bill for,--the
provision which Trumbull argued was necessary for submitting the
constitution to a vote of the people? What did he take that out for; and,
having taken it out, what did he put this in for? I say that in the run
of things it is not unlikely forces conspire to render it vastly
expedient for Judge Douglas to take that latter clause out again. The
question that Trumbull has made is that Judge Douglas put it in; and he
don't meet Trumbull at all unless he denies that.

In the clause of Judge Douglas's speech upon this subject he uses this
language toward Judge Trumbull. He says:

"He forges his evidence from beginning to end; and by falsifying the
record, he endeavors to bolster up his false charge."

Well, that is a pretty serious statement--Trumbull forges his evidence
from beginning to end. Now, upon my own authority I say that it is not
true. What is a forgery? Consider the evidence that Trumbull has brought
forward. When you come to read the speech, as you will be able to,
examine whether the evidence is a forgery from beginning to end. He had
the bill or document in his hand like that [holding up a paper]. He says
that is a copy of the Toomb's bill,--the amendment offered by Toomb's. He
says that is a copy of the bill as it was introduced and went into Judge
Douglas's hands. Now, does Judge Douglas say that is a forgery? That is