My fellow-citizens:—­When a man hears himself somewhat misrepresented, it provokes him, at least, I find it so with myself; but when misrepresentation becomes very gross and palpable, it is more apt to amuse him.  The first thing I see fit to notice is the fact that Judge Douglas alleges, after running through the history of the old Democratic and the old Whig parties, that Judge Trumbull and myself made an arrangement in 1854, by which I was to have the place of General Shields in the United States Senate, and Judge Trumbull was to have the place of Judge Douglas.  Now, all I have to say upon that subject is that I think no man not even Judge Douglas can prove it, because it is not true.  I have no doubt he is “conscientious” in saying it.  As to those resolutions that he took such a length of time to read, as being the platform of the Republican party in 1854, I say I never had anything to do with them, and I think Trumbull never had.  Judge Douglas cannot show that either of us ever did have anything to do with them.

I believe this is true about those resolutions:  There was a call for a convention to form a Republican party at Springfield, and I think that my friend Mr. Lovejoy, who is here upon this stand, had a hand in it.  I think this is true, and I think if he will remember accurately he will be able to recollect that he tried to get me into it, and I would not go in.  I believe it is also true that I went away from Springfield when the convention was in session, to attend court in Tazewell county.  It is true they did place my name, though without authority, upon the committee, and afterward wrote me to attend the meeting of the committee; but I refused to do so, and I never had anything to do with that organization.  This is the plain truth about all that matter of the resolutions.

Now, about this story that Judge Douglas tells of Trumbull bargaining to sell out the old Democratic party, and Lincoln agreeing to sell out the old Whig party, I have the means of knowing about that:  Judge Douglas cannot have; and I know there is no substance to it whatever.  Yet I have no doubt he is “conscientious” about it.  I know that after Mr. Lovejoy got into the Legislature that winter, he complained of me that I had told all the old Whigs of his district that the old Whig party was good enough for them, and some of them voted against him because I told them so.  Now, I have no means of totally disproving such charges as this which the Judge makes.  A man cannot prove a negative; but he has a right to claim that when a man makes an affirmative charge, he must offer some proof to show the truth of what he says.  I certainly cannot introduce testimony to show the negative about things, but I have a right to claim that if a man says he knows a thing, then he must show how he knows it.  I always have a right to claim this, and it is not satisfactory to me that he may be “conscientious” on the subject.