Now, my friends, there is one other thing that I feel myself under some sort of obligation to mention.  Judge Douglas has here to-day—­in a very rambling way, I was about saying—­spoken of the platforms for which he seeks to hold me responsible.  He says, “Why can’t you come out and make an open avowal of principles in all places alike?” and he reads from an advertisement that he says was used to notify the people of a speech to be made by Judge Trumbull at Waterloo.  In commenting on it he desires to know whether we cannot speak frankly and manfully, as he and his friends do.  How, I ask, do his friends speak out their own sentiments?  A Convention of his party in this State met on the 21st of April at Springfield, and passed a set of resolutions which they proclaim to the country as their platform.  This does constitute their platform, and it is because Judge Douglas claims it is his platform—­that these are his principles and purposes—­that he has a right to declare he speaks his sentiments “frankly and manfully.”  On the 9th of June Colonel John Dougherty, Governor Reynolds, and others, calling themselves National Democrats, met in Springfield and adopted a set of resolutions which are as easily understood, as plain and as definite in stating to the country and to the world what they believed in and would stand upon, as Judge Douglas’s platform Now, what is the reason that Judge Douglas is not willing that Colonel Dougherty and Governor Reynolds should stand upon their own written and printed platform as well as he upon his?  Why must he look farther than their platform when he claims himself to stand by his platform?

Again, in reference to our platform:  On the 16th of June the Republicans had their Convention and published their platform, which is as clear and distinct as Judge Douglas’s.  In it they spoke their principles as plainly and as definitely to the world.  What is the reason that Judge Douglas is not willing I should stand upon that platform?  Why must he go around hunting for some one who is supporting me or has supported me at some time in his life, and who has said something at some time contrary to that platform?  Does the Judge regard that rule as a good one?  If it turn out that the rule is a good one for me—­that I am responsible for any and every opinion that any man has expressed who is my friend,—­then it is a good rule for him.  I ask, is it not as good a rule for him as it is for me?  In my opinion, it is not a good rule for either of us.  Do you think differently, Judge?

[Mr. Douglas:  I do not.]

Judge Douglas says he does not think differently.  I am glad of it.  Then can he tell me why he is looking up resolutions of five or six years ago, and insisting that they were my platform, notwithstanding my protest that they are not, and never were my platform, and my pointing out the platform of the State Convention which he delights to say nominated me for the Senate?  I cannot see what he means by parading these resolutions,