When the Judge spoke at Clinton, he came very near making a charge of falsehood against me.  He used, as I found it printed in a newspaper, which, I remember, was very nearly like the real speech, the following language: 

“I did not answer the charge [of conspiracy] before, for the reason that I did not suppose there was a man in America with a heart so corrupt as to believe such a charge could be true.  I have too much respect for Mr. Lincoln to suppose he is serious in making the charge.”

I confess this is rather a curious view, that out of respect for me he should consider I was making what I deemed rather a grave charge in fun.  I confess it strikes me rather strangely.  But I let it pass.  As the Judge did not for a moment believe that there was a man in America whose heart was so “corrupt” as to make such a charge, and as he places me among the “men in America” who have hearts base enough to make such a charge, I hope he will excuse me if I hunt out another charge very like this; and if it should turn out that in hunting I should find that other, and it should turn out to be Judge Douglas himself who made it, I hope he will reconsider this question of the deep corruption of heart he has thought fit to ascribe to me.  In Judge Douglas’s speech of March 22, 1858, which I hold in my hand, he says: 

“In this connection there is another topic to which I desire to allude.  I seldom refer to the course of newspapers, or notice the articles which they publish in regard to myself; but the course of the Washington Union has been so extraordinary for the last two or three months, that I think it well enough to make some allusion to it.  It has read me out of the Democratic party every other day, at least for two or three months, and keeps reading me out, and, as if it had not succeeded, still continues to read me out, using such terms as ‘traitor,’ ‘renegade,’ ‘deserter,’ and other kind and polite epithets of that nature.  Sir, I have no vindication to make of my Democracy against the Washington Union, or any other newspapers.  I am willing to allow my history and action for the last twenty years to speak for themselves as to my political principles and my fidelity to political obligations.  The Washington Union has a personal grievance.  When its editor was nominated for public printer, I declined to vote for him, and stated that at some time I might give my reasons for doing so.  Since I declined to give that vote, this scurrilous abuse, these vindictive and constant attacks have been repeated almost daily on me.  Will any friend from Michigan read the article to which I allude?”

This is a part of the speech.  You must excuse me from reading the entire article of the Washington Union, as Mr. Stuart read it for Mr. Douglas.  The Judge goes on and sums up, as I think, correctly: