Everyone admitted that the compromise scheme had been wrecked.  It was highly probable, however, that with some changes the proposals of the committee could be adopted, if they were considered separately.  Such was Douglas’s opinion.  The eventuality had occurred which he had foreseen.  He was ready for it.  He had promptly called up his original California bill and had secured its consideration, when the Utah bill passed to a third reading.  Then a bill to settle the Texan boundary controversy was introduced.  The Senate passed many weary days discussing first one and then the other.  The Texas question was disposed of on August 9th; the California bill, after weathering many storms, came to port four days later; and two days afterward, New Mexico was organized as a Territory under the same conditions as Utah.  That is to say, the Senate handed on these bills with its approval to the lower house, where all were voted.  It remained only to complete the compromise programme piece-meal, by abolishing the slave trade in the District of Columbia and by providing a more stringent fugitive slave law.  By the middle of September, these measures had become law, and the work of Congress went to its final review before the tribunal of public opinion.

Douglas voted for all the compromise measures but the Fugitive Slave Law.  This was an unfortunate omission, for many a Congressman had sought to dodge the question.[364] The partisan press did not spare him, though he stated publicly that he would have voted for the bill, had he not been forced to absent himself.  Such excuses were common and unconvincing.  Irritated by sly thrusts on every side, Douglas at last resolved to give a detailed account of the circumstances that had prevented him from putting himself on record in the vote.  This public vindication was made upon the floor of the Senate a year later.[365] A “pecuniary obligation” for nearly four thousand dollars was about to fall due in New York.  Arrangements which he had made to pay the note miscarried, so that he was compelled to go to New York at once, or suffer the note to be protested.  Upon the assurance of his fellow senators that the discussion of the bill would continue at least a week, he hastened to New York.  While dining with some friends from Illinois, he was astounded to hear that the bill had been ordered engrossed for a third reading.  He immediately left the city for Washington, but arrived too late.  He was about to ask permission then to explain his absence, when his colleague dissuaded him.  Everyone knew, said Shields, that he was in favor of the bill; besides, very probably the bill would be returned from the House with amendments.

The circumstantial nature of this defense now seems quite unnecessary.  After all, the best refutation of the charge lay in Douglas’s reputation for courageous and manly conduct.  He was true to himself when he said, “The dodging of votes—­the attempt to avoid responsibility—­is no part of my system of political tactics.”