having such a provision in them. I believe it is true, though I am not
certain, that in some instances constitutions framed under such bills
have been submitted to a vote of the people with the law silent upon the
subject; but it does not appear that they once had their enabling acts
framed with an express provision for submitting the constitution to be
framed to a vote of the people, then that they were stricken out when
Congress did not mean to alter the effect of the law. That there have
been bills which never had the provision in, I do not question; but when
was that provision taken out of one that it was in? More especially does
the evidence tend to prove the proposition that Trumbull advanced, when
we remember that the provision was stricken out of the bill almost
simultaneously with the time that Bigler says there was a conference
among certain senators, and in which it was agreed that a bill should be
passed leaving that out. Judge Douglas, in answering Trumbull, omits to
attend to the testimony of Bigler, that there was a meeting in which it
was agreed they should so frame the bill that there should be no
submission of the constitution to a vote of the people. The Judge does
not notice this part of it. If you take this as one piece of evidence,
and then ascertain that simultaneously Judge Douglas struck out a
provision that did require it to be submitted, and put the two together,
I think it will make a pretty fair show of proof that Judge Douglas did,
as Trumbull says, enter into a plot to put in force a constitution for
Kansas, without giving the people any opportunity of voting upon it.

But I must hurry on. The next proposition that Judge Douglas puts is
this:

"But upon examination it turns out that the Toombs bill never did contain
a clause requiring the constitution to be submitted."