The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1858-08-21

The Trumbull Talseho0ds...Speech OF
Mr.. Wallace In Reply to the Chicago
Times.
On Thursday evening Of last week Sena-
Tor Trumbull made speech in Ottawa. In
that speech he repeated the falsehoods he
had uttered few days before in Chicago,
in reference to Judge Douglas mutilating
the "Toombs bill" The republicans were
in high glee, and thought point had been
made upon the Little Giant'-an advan-
tace gained-from which there was no es-
cape. In the midst of their glee, however,
along came the Chicago Times and it fell on
them-not like a wet blanket, but much
worse, it was a tower Of Gaza-a crusher.
Great was the dismay of the Republicans.
The great Trumbull invention was not only
demolished, but storm Of Indignation was
sri,ing against him, and an overwhelming
tide setting in favor Of Douglas. Goomily
and anx;ously now did the republicans await
the arrival next day Of the Chicago Tribune
and Journal. Surely these papers must be
able to bolster up some sort of reply to the
Times. Next day came, and with them the
anxiously awaited dailies; but imagine the
disappointment: they contained, no satislac
tory reply to the Tines. What was to be
done! 1t is Itrue, the Ottapa Republican
would be out next Saturday, and that ire
mendous gun would demolish the Times
at one shot, but until Saturday was too long
TO wait. So, in this torturing strait, Mr..
Wallace-W. Ii. L. Wallace, Esq, the gen.
tleman who didn't beat Lovejoy in the Re-
publican Congressional Convention, by a
long gun! came to the rescue, and adver-
tised that he would make a speech in the
Court House on Tuesday evening, that
should completely wipe cut the Times.
We did not hear that speech, but have
been furnished with notes Of it sufficient to
gather its substance. Mr.. Trumbull, both
in Chicago and Ottawa, had said, unequivo-
cally and without qualification:
That the Toombs bill as originally intro
duced contained clause requiring the con-
stitution of Kansas to be submitted to the
people:
That by the committee on territories this
clause had been stricken out; and
That Judge Douglas as chairman of that
committee, admitted that lie had stricken It
out on consultation with Mr.. Toombs.
Mr.. Wallace made no attempt to prove
that. in the unqualifie d language in which
these charges were made, a single one Of
them was true, but he spent his force in a
pettifogging attempt to show that inferenti-
ally they could be shown to be Substantially
true.
To do this Mr.. ". had to start out with
the admission that the Toombs bill did con-
tain no clause requiring the constitution to
be submitted to the people, and therefore
Douglas could have stricken no such clause
out, but he eontended that the clause (,-aich
ras stricken OUT requiring the land ordi-
aance to be subm tied sat the election for
the adoption of the constitution" required
inferentially that all election should be held
for the adoption Of the constitution. Con-
sidering how hard Mr.. Wallace, following
in the wake OF Trumbull,) labored to prove
that Toombs, Douglas, Pierce, the Supreme
Judges, &c, had all been engaged in con-
spiracy to force a slavery constitution upon
the people of Kansas. against their will (and
what an ass Toombs, as one Of these con-
spirators) would have made of himself, had
he defeated this purpose by inserting this
unfortunate clause,-we are prepared to APP
preciate the refined disquisition on the
principles Of legal construction-the exqui-
site touches of the reconcile science of
special pleading-by which Mr.. Wallace was
enabled to infuse in this excised clause such
a miraculous potency. The effort, however,
was failure, just as it would be to infer
from the statement, Johns hand trcmbles."
that John has been frightened by ghost.
The truth is, and Judge Trumbu!l and
Mr.. Wallace know itas well as any body else,
that the Toombs bill contained, and was Meth
er by Mr.. Toombs n or any body else intended
to contain, a clause requiring the Kansas
Convention to submit the Constitution to q
vote Of the people. Toombs, Trumbull, all
the terms of the Nebraska bill themselves
guaranteeing to the people Of Kansas the
right to make just such a constitution as
majority Of them might want-,hat the uni
form pledges Of the democratic party to the
sme purpose, had settled it beyond all
1bt or question, that Of course that Con-
tor, whenever formed, would be sub
to vote of the people.
go oppose, for arguments sake, friend
ut that the clause so unfortunately
lace, (, did require all you claim for
ken GU sfact of Douglas conserving to
you'd tn -sn out prove him inconsistent
in his cSansa. reference to the Lecompton
Constitution 1,,sseol!sct, Douglas and tbs
whole democratic party, had>cnly pledge"
themselves that the people OF Kansas should
have such constitution as clear and I'M
doubted majority should be satisfied with.
In very few cascs-we are not certain that
in AIRY case up 20 that t;me-had Congress,
in passing enabling acts for the territories,
required their constitutions to be submitted
to vote Of the people. Yet the territories
had generally, though not always done it.
Sucpose that in the case of Kansas, under
the T.ombs bill convention had been cleo
ted composed three fourths of free State
men, and they had made constitution gen
orally acceptable, would not all the pledges
of Judge Douglas and the democracy have
been redeemed, though there had been no
submission ? Or suppose, on the other
hand, that convention assembled under the
Toombs bill had made a constitution more
e1ecrable than the Lecompton concern, and
had refused to submit it to the people, could
mt Judpe Douglas have indicated his con.