whether I have succeeded in sustaining the charge, and whether Judge
Douglas has at all succeeded in rebutting it? You all heard me call upon
him to say which of these pieces of evidence was a forgery. Does he say
that what I present here as a copy of the original Toombs bill is a
forgery? Does he say that what I present as a copy of the bill reported
by himself is a forgery, or what is presented as a transcript from the
Globe of the quotations from Bigler's speech is a forgery? Does he say
the quotations from his own speech are forgeries? Does he say this
transcript from Trumbull's speech is a forgery?

["He didn't deny one of them."]

I would then like to know how it comes about that when each piece of a
story is true the whole story turns out false. I take it these people
have some sense; they see plainly that Judge Douglas is playing
cuttle-fish, a small species of fish that has no mode of defending itself
when pursued except by throwing out a black fluid, which makes the water
so dark the enemy cannot see it, and thus it escapes. Ain't the Judge
playing the cuttle-fish?

Now, I would ask very special attention to the consideration of Judge
Douglas's speech at Jacksonville; and when you shall read his speech of
to-day, I ask you to watch closely and see which of these pieces of
testimony, every one of which he says is a forgery, he has shown to be
such. Not one of them has he shown to be a forgery. Then I ask the
original question, if each of the pieces of testimony is true, how is it
possible that the whole is a falsehood?

In regard to Trumbull's charge that he [Douglas] inserted a provision
into the bill to prevent the constitution being submitted to the people,