This is a mere question of fact, and can be determined by evidence.  I only want to ask this question:  Why did not Judge Douglas say that these words were not stricken out of the Toomb’s bill, or this bill from which it is alleged the provision was stricken out,—­a bill which goes by the name of Toomb’s, because he originally brought it forward?  I ask why, if the Judge wanted to make a direct issue with Trumbull, did he not take the exact proposition Trumbull made in his speech, and say it was not stricken out?  Trumbull has given the exact words that he says were in the Toomb’s bill, and he alleges that when the bill came back, they were stricken out.  Judge Douglas does not say that the words which Trumbull says were stricken out were not so stricken out, but he says there was no provision in the Toomb’s bill to submit the constitution to a vote of the people.  We see at once that he is merely making an issue upon the meaning of the words.  He has not undertaken to say that Trumbull tells a lie about these words being stricken out, but he is really, when pushed up to it, only taking an issue upon the meaning of the words.  Now, then, if there be any issue upon the meaning of the words, or if there be upon the question of fact as to whether these words were stricken out, I have before me what I suppose to be a genuine copy of the Toomb’s bill, in which it can be shown that the words Trumbull says were in it were, in fact, originally there.  If there be any dispute upon the fact, I have got the documents here to show they were there.  If there be any controversy upon the sense of the words,—­whether these words which were stricken out really constituted a provision for submitting the matter to a vote of the people,—­as that is a matter of argument, I think I may as well use Trumbull’s own argument.  He says that the proposition is in these words: 

“That the following propositions be and the same are hereby offered to the said Convention of the people of Kansas when formed, for their free acceptance or rejection; which, if accepted by the Convention and ratified by the people at the election for the adoption of the constitution, shall be obligatory upon the United States and the said State of Kansas.”

Now, Trumbull alleges that these last words were stricken out of the bill when it came back, and he says this was a provision for submitting the constitution to a vote of the people; and his argument is this: 

“Would it have been possible to ratify the land propositions at the election for the adoption of the constitution, unless such an election was to be held?”