I wish to say at the beginning that I will hand to the reporters that portion of Judge Trumbull’s Alton speech which was devoted to this matter, and also that portion of Judge Douglas’s speech made at Jacksonville in answer to it.  I shall thereby furnish the readers of this debate with the complete discussion between Trumbull and Douglas.  I cannot now read them, for the reason that it would take half of my first hour to do so.  I can only make some comments upon them.  Trumbull’s charge is in the following words: 

“Now, the charge is, that there was a plot entered into to have a constitution formed for Kansas, and put in force, without giving the people an opportunity to vote upon it, and that Mr. Douglas was in the plot.”

I will state, without quoting further, for all will have an opportunity of reading it hereafter, that Judge Trumbull brings forward what he regards as sufficient evidence to substantiate this charge.

It will be perceived Judge Trumbull shows that Senator Bigler, upon the floor of the Senate, had declared there had been a conference among the senators, in which conference it was determined to have an enabling act passed for the people of Kansas to form a constitution under, and in this conference it was agreed among them that it was best not to have a provision for submitting the constitution to a vote of the people after it should be formed.  He then brings forward to show, and showing, as he deemed, that Judge Douglas reported the bill back to the Senate with that clause stricken out.  He then shows that there was a new clause inserted into the bill, which would in its nature prevent a reference of the constitution back for a vote of the people,—­if, indeed, upon a mere silence in the law, it could be assumed that they had the right to vote upon it.  These are the general statements that he has made.

I propose to examine the points in Judge Douglas’s speech in which he attempts to answer that speech of Judge Trumbull’s.  When you come to examine Judge Douglas’s speech, you will find that the first point he makes is: 

“Suppose it were true that there was such a change in the bill, and that I struck it out,—­is that a proof of a plot to force a constitution upon them against their will?”

His striking out such a provision, if there was such a one in the bill, he argues, does not establish the proof that it was stricken out for the purpose of robbing the people of that right.  I would say, in the first place, that that would be a most manifest reason for it.  It is true, as Judge Douglas states, that many Territorial bills have passed without 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