ok your hat off your head, and you prove me
a liar by putting it on your head. That is the whole force of Douglas's
argument.

Now, I want to come back to my original question. Trumbull says that Judge
Douglas had a bill with a provision in it for submitting a constitution
to be made to a vote of the people of Kansas. Does Judge Douglas deny that
fact? Does he deny that the provision which Trumbull reads was put in that
bill? Then Trumbull says he struck it out. Does he dare to deny that? He
does not, and I have the right to repeat the question,--Why Judge Douglas
took it out? Bigler has said there was a combination of certain senators,
among whom he did not include Judge Douglas, by which it was agreed that
the Kansas Bill should have a clause in it not to have the constitution
formed under it submitted to a vote of the people. He did not say that
Douglas was among them, but we prove by another source that about the same
time Douglas comes into the Senate with that provision stricken out of the
bill. Although Bigler cannot say they were all working in concert, yet
it looks very much as if the thing was agreed upon and done with a mutual
understanding after the conference; and while we do not know that it was
absolutely so, yet it looks so probable that we have a right to call upon
the man who knows the true reason why it was done to tell what the true
reason was. When he will not tell what the true reason was, he stands in
the attitude of an accused thief who has stolen goods in his possession,
and when called to account refuses to tell where he got them. Not only is
this the evidence, but when he comes in with the bill having the provision
stricken out, he tells us in a speech, not then but since, that these
alterations and modifications in the bill had been made by HIM, in
consultation with Toombs, the originator of the bill. He tells us the
same to-day. He says there were certain modifications made in the bill in
committee that he did not vote for. I ask you to remember, while certain
amendments were made which he disapproved of, but which a majority of the
committee voted in, he has himself told us that in this particular the
alterations and modifications were made by him, upon consultation with
Toombs. We have his own word that these alterations were made by him, and
not by the committee. Now, I ask, what is the reason Judge Douglas is so
chary about coming to the exact question? What is the reason he will not
tell