what was his answer? He comes here and reads from the Congressional Globe
to show that on his motion that provision was struck out of the bill.
Why, Trumbull has not said it was not stricken out, but Trumbull says he
[Douglas] put it in; and it is no answer to the charge to say he
afterwards took it out. Both are perhaps true. It was in regard to that
thing precisely that I told him he had dropped the cub. Trumbull shows
you that by his introducing the bill it was his cub. It is no answer to
that assertion to call Trumbull a liar merely because he did not
specially say that Douglas struck it out. Suppose that were the case,
does it answer Trumbull? I assert that you [pointing to an individual]
are here to-day, and you undertake to prove me a liar by showing that you
were in Mattoon yesterday. I say that you took your hat off your head,
and you prove me a liar by putting it on your head. That is the whole
force of Douglas's argument.

Now, I want to come back to my original question. Trumbull says that
Judge Douglas had a bill with a provision in it for submitting a
constitution to be made to a vote of the people of Kansas. Does Judge
Douglas deny that fact? Does he deny that the provision which Trumbull
reads was put in that bill? Then Trumbull says he struck it out. Does he
dare to deny that? He does not, and I have the right to repeat the
question,--Why Judge Douglas took it out? Bigler has said there was a
combination of certain senators, among whom he did not include Judge
Douglas, by which it was agreed that the Kansas Bill should have a clause
in it not to have the constitution formed under it submitted to a vote of
the people. He did not say that Douglas was among them, but we prove by
another source that about the same time Douglas comes into the Senate
with that provision stricken out of the bill. Although Bigler cannot say
they were all working in concert, yet it looks very much as if the thing
was agreed upon and done with a mutual understanding after the