inistration was wrong. But I state again that, as a
matter of principle, there is no dispute upon the right of a people in
a Territory, merging into a State, to form a constitution for themselves
without outside interference from any quarter. This being so, what is
Judge Douglas going to spend his life for? Is he going to spend his life
in maintaining a principle that nobody on earth opposes? Does he expect to
stand up in majestic dignity, and go through his apotheosis and become a
god in the maintaining of a principle which neither man nor mouse in
all God's creation is opposing? Now something in regard to the Lecompton
Constitution more specially; for I pass from this other question of
popular sovereignty as the most arrant humbug that has ever been attempted
on an intelligent community.

As to the Lecompton Constitution, I have already said that on the question
of fact, as to whether it was a fair emanation of the people or not, Judge
Douglas, with the Republicans and some Americans, had greatly the argument
against the Administration; and while I repeat this, I wish to know what
there is in the opposition of Judge Douglas to the Lecompton Constitution
that entitles him to be considered the only opponent to it,--as being
par excellence the very quintessence of that opposition. I agree to the
rightfulness of his opposition. He in the Senate and his class of men
there formed the number three and no more. In the House of Representatives
his class of men--the Anti-Lecompton Democrats--formed a number of about
twenty. It took one hundred and twenty to defeat the measure, against one
hundred and twelve. Of the votes of that one hundred and twenty, Judge
Douglas's friends furnished twenty, to add to which there were six
Americans and ninety-four Republicans. I do not say that I am precisely
accurate in their numbers, but I am sufficiently so for any use I am
making of it.

Why is it that twenty shall be entitled to all the credit of doing that
work, and the hundred none of it? Why, if, as Judge Douglas says, the
honor is to be divided and due credit is to be given to other parties, why
is just so much given as is consonant with the wishes, the interests, and
advancement of the twenty? My understanding is, when a common job is done,
or a common enterprise prosecuted, if I put in five dollars to your one,
I have a right to take out five dollars to your one. But he does not so
understand it. He declares the dividend of credit