would？　　Does　he　place　his　superior　claim　to　credit　on　the　ground
  that　he　performed　a　good　act　which　was　never　expected　of　him？　　He
  says　I　have　a　proneness　for　quoting　Scripture。　　If　I　should　do　so
  now；　it　occurs　that　perhaps　he　places　himself　somewhat　upon　the
  ground　of　the　parable　of　the　lost　sheep　which　went　astray　upon
  the　mountains；　and　when　the　owner　of　the　hundred　sheep　found　the
  one　that　was　lost；　and　threw　it　upon　his　shoulders　and　came　home
  rejoicing；　it　was　said　that　there　was　more　rejoicing　over　the　one
  sheep　that　was　lost　and　had　been　found　than　over　the　ninety　and
  nine　in　the　fold。　　The　application　is　made　by　the　Saviour　in　this
  parable；　thus：　〃Verily；　I　say　unto　you；　there　is　more　rejoicing
  in　heaven　over　one　sinner　that　repenteth；　than　over　ninety　and
  nine　just　persons　that　need　no　repentance。〃
  And　now；　if　the　Judge　claims　the　benefit　of　this　parable；　let　him
  repent。　　Let　him　not　come　up　here　and　say：　〃I　am　the　only　just
  person；　and　you　are　the　ninety…nine　sinners！　　Repentance　before
  forgiveness　is　a　provision　of　the　Christian　system；　and　on　that
  condition　alone　will　the　Republicans　grant　his　forgiveness。
  How　will　he　prove　that　we　have　ever　occupied　a　different　position
  in　regard　to　the　Lecompton　Constitution　or　any　principle　in　it？
  He　says　he　did　not　make　his　opposition　on　the　ground　as　to
  whether　it　was　a　free　or　slave　constitution；　and　he　would　have
  you　understand　that　the　Republicans　made　their　opposition　because
  it　ultimately　became　a　slave　constitution。　　To　make　proof　in
  favor　of　himself　on　this　point；　he　reminds　us　that　he　opposed
  Lecompton　before　the　vote　was　taken　declaring　whether　the　State
  was　to　be　free　or　slave。　　But　he　forgets　to　say　that　our
  Republican　Senator；　Trumbull；　made　a　speech　against　Lecompton
  even　before　he　did。
  Why　did　he　oppose　it？　　Partly；　as　he　declares；　because　the
  members　of　the　convention　who　framed　it　were　not　fairly　elected
  by　the　people；　that　the　people　were　not　allowed　to　vote　unless
  they　had　been　registered；　and　that　the　people　of　whole　counties；
  some　instances；　were　not　registered。　　For　these　reasons　he
  declares　the　Constitution　was　not　an　emanation；　in　any　true
  sense；　from　the　people。　　He　also　has　an　additional　objection　as
  to　the　mode　of　submitting　the　Constitution　back　to　the　people。
  But　bearing　on　the　question　of　whether　the　delegates　were　fairly
  elected；　a　speech　of　his；　made　something　more　than　twelve　months
  ago；　from　this　stand；　becomes　important。　　It　was　made　a　little
  while　before　the　election　of　the　delegates　who　made　Lecompton。
  In　that　speech　he　declared　there　was　every　reason　to　hope　and
  believe　the　election　would　be　fair；　and　if　any　one　failed　to
  vote；　it　would　be　his　own　culpable　fault。
  I；　a　few　days　after；　made　a　sort　of　answer　to　that　speech。　　In
  that　answer　I　made；　substantially；　the　very　argument　with　which
  he　combated　his　Lecompton　adversaries　in　the　Senate　last　winter。
  I　pointed　to　the　facts　that　the　people　could　not　vote　without
  being　registered；　and　that　the　time　for　registering　had　gone　by。
  I　commented　on　it　as　wonderful　that　Judge　Douglas　could　be
  ignorant　of　these　facts　which　every　one　else　in　the　nation　so
  well　knew。
  I　now　pass　from　popular　sovereignty　and　Lecompton。　　I　may　have
  occasion　to　refer　to　one　or　both。
  When　he　was　preparing　his　plan　of　campaign；　Napoleon…like；　in　New
  York；　as　appears　by　two　speeches　I　have　heard　him　deliver　since
  his　arrival　in　Illinois；　he　gave　special　attention　to　a　speech　of
  mine；　delivered　here　on　the　16th　of　June　last。　　He　says　that　he
  carefully　read　that　speech。　　He　told　us　that　at　Chicago　a　week
  ago　last　night　and　he　repeated　it　at　Bloomington　last　night。
  Doubtless；　he　repeated　it　again　to…day；　though　I　did　not　hear
  him。　　In　the　first　two　placesChicago　and　Bloomington　I　heard
  him；　to…day　I　did　not。　　He　said　he　had　carefully　examined　that
  speech；when；　he　did　not　say；　but　there　is　no　reasonable　doubt
  it　was　when　he　was　in　New　York　preparing　his　plan　of　campaign。　　I
  am　glad　he　did　read　it　carefully。　　He　says　it　was　evidently
  prepared　with　great　care。　　I　freely　admit　it　was　prepared　with
  care。　　I　claim　not　to　be　more　free　from　errors　than　others；
  perhaps　scarcely　so　much；　but　I　was　very　careful　not　to　put
  anything　in　that　speech　as　a　matter　of　fact；　or　make　any
  inferences；　which　did　not　appear　to　me　to　be　true　and　fully
  warrantable。　　If　I　had　made　any　mistake；　I　was　willing　to　be
  corrected；　if　I　had　drawn　any　inference　in　regard　to　Judge
  Douglas　or　any　one　else　which　was　not　warranted；　I　was　fully
  prepared　to　modify　it　as　soon　as　discovered。　　I　planted　myself
  upon　the　truth　and　the　truth　only；　so　far　as　I　knew　it；　or　could
  be　brought　to　know　it。
  Having　made　that　speech　with　the　most　kindly　feelings　toward
  Judge　Douglas；　as　manifested　therein；　I　was　gratified　when　I
  found　that　he　had　carefully　examined　it；　and　had　detected　no
  error　of　fact；　nor　any　inference　against　him；　nor　any
  misrepresentations　of　which　he　thought　fit　to　complain。　　In
  neither　of　the　two　speeches　I　have　mentioned　did　he　make　any　such
  complaint。　　I　will　thank　any　one　who　will　inform　me　that　he；　in
  his　speech　to…day；　pointed　out　anything　I　had　stated　respecting
  him　as　being　erroneous。　　I　presume　there　is　no　such　thing。　　I
  have　reason　to　be　gratified　that　the　care　and　caution　used　in
  that　speech　left　it　so　that　he；　most　of　all　others　interested　in
  discovering　error；　has　not　been　able　to　point　out　one　thing
  against　him　which　he　could　say　was　wrong。　　He　seizes　upon　the
  doctrines　he　supposes　to　be　included　in　that　speech；　and　declares
  that　upon　them　will　turn　the　issues　of　this　campaign。　　He　then
  quotes；　or　attempts　to　quote；　from　my　speech。　　I　will　not　say
  that　he　wilfully　misquotes；　but　he　does　fail　to　quote　accurately。
  His　attempt　at　quoting　is　from　a　passage　which　I　believe　I　can
  quote　accurately　from　memory。　　I　shall　make　the　quotation　now；
  with　some　comments　upon　it；　as　I　have　already　said；　in　order　that
  the　Judge　shall　be　left　entirely　without　excuse　for
  misrepresenting　me。　　I　do　so　now；　as　I　hope；　for　the　last　time。
  I　do　this　in　great　caution；　in　order　that　if　he　repeats　his
  misrepresentation　it　shall　be　plain　to　all　that　he　does　so
  wilfully。　　If；　after　all；　he　still　persists；　I　shall　be　compelled
  to　reconstruct　the　course　I　have　marked　out　for　myself；　and　draw
  upon　such　humble　resources；　as　I　have；　for　a　new　course；　better
  suited　to　the　real　exigencies　of　the　case。　　I　set　out　in　this
  campaign　with　the　intention　of　conducting　it　strictly　as　a
  gentleman；　in　substance　at　least；　if　not　in　the　outside　polish。
  The　latter　I　shall　never　be；　but　that　which　constitutes　the
  inside　of　a　gentleman　I　hope　I　understand；　and　am　not　less
  inclined　to　practice　than　others。　　It　was　my　purpose　and
  expectation　that　this　canvass　would　be　conducted　upon　principle；
  and　with　fairness　on　both　sides；　and　it　shall　not　be　my　fault　if
  this　purpose　and　expectation　shall　be　given　up。
  He　charges；　in　substance；　that　I　invite　a　war　of　sections；　that　I
  propose　all　the　local　institutions　of　the　different　States　shall
  become　consolidated　and　uniform。　　What　is　there　in　the　language
  of　that　speech　which　expresses　such　purpose　or　bears　such
  construction？　　I　have　again　and　again　said　that　I　would　not　enter
  into　any　of　the　States　to　disturb　the　institution　of　slavery。
  Judge　Douglas　said；　at　Bloomington；　that　I　used　language　most
  able　and　ingenious　for　concealing　what　I　really　meant；　and　that
  while　I　had　protested　against　entering　into　the　slave　States；　I
  nevertheless　did　mean　to　go　on　the　banks　of　the　Ohio　and　throw
  missiles　into　Kentucky；　to　disturb　them　in　their　domestic
  institutions。
  I　said　in　that　speech；　and　I　meant　no　more；　that　the　institution
  of　slavery　ought　to　be　placed　in　the　very　attitude　where　the
  framers　of　this　government　placed　it　and　left　it。　　I　do　not
  understand　that　the　framers　of　our　Constitution　left　the　people
  of　the　free　States　in　the　attitude　of　firing　bombs　or　shells　into
  the　slave　States。　　I　was　not　using　that　passage　for　the　purpose
  for　which　he　infers　I　did　use　it。　　I　said：
  〃We　are　now　far　advanced　into　the　fifth　year　since　a　policy　was
  created　for　the　avowed　object　and　with　the　confident　promise　of
  putting　an　end　to　slavery　agitation。　　Under　the　operation　of　that
  policy　that　agitation　has　not　only　not　ceased；　but　has　constantly
  augmented。　　In　my　opinion　it　will　not　cease　till　a　crisis　shall
  have　been　reached　and　passed。　　'A　house　divided　against　itself
  cannot　stand。'　I　believe　that　this　government　cannot　endure
  permanently　half　slave　and　half　free；　it　will　become　all　one
  thing　or　all　the　other。　　Either　the　opponents　of　slavery　will
  arrest　the　further　spread　of　it；　and　place　it　where　the　public
  mind　shall　rest　in　the　belief　that　it　is　in　the　course　of
  ultimate　extinction；　or　its　advocates　will　push　it　forward　till
  it　shall　become　alike　lawful　in　all　the　States；　old　as　well　as
  new；　North　as　well　as　South。〃