Douglas’s hands.  Now, does Judge Douglas say that is a forgery?  That is one thing Trumbull brought forward.  Judge Douglas says he forged it from beginning to end!  That is the “beginning,” we will say.  Does Douglas say that is a forgery?  Let him say it to-day, and we will have a subsequent examination upon this subject.  Trumbull then holds up another document like this, and says that is an exact copy of the bill as it came back in the amended form out of Judge Douglas’s hands.  Does Judge Douglas say that is a forgery?  Does he say it in his general sweeping charge?  Does he say so now?  If he does not, then take this Toomb’s bill and the bill in the amended form, and it only needs to compare them to see that the provision is in the one and not in the other; it leaves the inference inevitable that it was taken out.

But, while I am dealing with this question, let us see what Trumbull’s other evidence is.  One other piece of evidence I will read.  Trumbull says there are in this original Toomb’s bill 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, if it is said that this is a forgery, we will open the paper here and see whether it is or not.  Again, Trumbull says, as he goes along, that Mr. Bigler made the following statement in his place in the Senate, December 9, 1857: 

“I was present when that subject was discussed by senators before the bill was introduced, and the question was raised and discussed, whether the constitution, when formed, should be submitted to a vote of the people.  It was held by those most intelligent on the subject that, in view of all the difficulties surrounding that Territory, the danger of any experiment at that time of a popular vote, it would be better there should be no such provision in the Toomb’s bill; and it was my understanding, in all the intercourse I had, that the Convention would make a constitution, and send it here, without submitting it to the popular vote.”

Then Trumbull follows on: 

“In speaking of this meeting again on the 21st December, 1857 [Congressional Globe, same vol., page 113], Senator Bigler said: 

“’Nothing was further from my mind than to allude to any social or confidential interview.  The meeting was not of that character.  Indeed, it was semi-official, and called to promote the public good.  My recollection was clear that I left the conference under the impression that it had been deemed best to adopt measures to admit Kansas as a State through the agency of one popular election, and that for delegates to this Convention.  This impression was stronger because I thought the spirit of the bill infringed