one thing Trumbull brought forward. Judge Douglas says he forged it from
beginning to end! That is the "beginning," we will say. Does Douglas say
that is a forgery? Let him say it to-day, and we will have a subsequent
examination upon this subject. Trumbull then holds up another document
like this, and says that is an exact copy of the bill as it came back in
the amended form out of Judge Douglas's hands. Does Judge Douglas say
that is a forgery? Does he say it in his general sweeping charge? Does he
say so now? If he does not, then take this Toomb's bill and the bill in
the amended form, and it only needs to compare them to see that the
provision is in the one and not in the other; it leaves the inference
inevitable that it was taken out.

But, while I am dealing with this question, let us see what Trumbull's
other evidence is. One other piece of evidence I will read. Trumbull says
there are in this original Toomb's bill these words:

"That the following propositions be and the same are hereby offered to
the said Convention of the people of Kansas, when formed, for their free
acceptance or rejection; which, if accepted by the Convention and
ratified by the people at the election for the adoption of the
constitution, shall be obligatory upon the United States and the said
State of Kansas."

Now, if it is said that this is a forgery, we will open the paper here
and see whether it is or not. Again, Trumbull says, as he goes along,
that Mr. Bigler made the following statement in his place in the Senate,
December 9, 1857:

"I was present when that subject was discussed by senators before the
bill was introduced, and the question was raised and discussed, whether