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, Trumbull alleges that these last words were stricken out of the bill
when it came back, and he says this was a provision for submitting the
constitution to a vote of the people; and his argument is this:

"Would it have been possible to ratify the land propositions at the
election for the adoption of the constitution, unless such an election
was to be held?"

This is Trumbull's argument. Now, Judge Douglas does not meet the charge
at all, but he stands up and says there was no such proposition in that
bill for submitting the constitution to be framed to a vote of the
people. Trumbull admits that the language is not a direct provision for
submitting it, but it is a provision necessarily implied from another
provision. He asks you how it is possible to ratify the land proposition
at the election for the adoption of the constitution, if there was no
election to be held for the adoption of the constitution. And he goes on
to show that it is not any less a law because the provision is put in
that indirect shape than it would be if it were put directly. But I
presume I have said enough to draw attention to this point, and I pass it
by also.

Another one of the points that Judge Douglas makes upon Trumbull, and at
very great length, is, that Trumbull, while the bill was pending, said in
a speech in the Senate that he supposed the constitution to be made would
have to be submitted to the people. He asks, if Trumbull thought so then,
what ground is there for anybody thinking otherwise now? Fellow-citizens,