Douglas can prove it, because it is not true. I have no doubt he is
"conscientious" in saying it. As to those resolutions that he took such a
length of time to read, as being the platform of the Republican party in
1854, I say I never had anything to do with them, and I think Trumbull
never had. Judge Douglas cannot show that either of us ever did have
anything to do with them.

I believe this is true about those resolutions: There was a call for a
convention to form a Republican party at Springfield, and I think that my
friend Mr. Lovejoy, who is here upon this stand, had a hand in it. I think
this is true, and I think if he will remember accurately he will be able
to recollect that he tried to get me into it, and I would not go in.
I believe it is also true that I went away from Springfield when the
convention was in session, to attend court in Tazewell county. It is true
they did place my name, though without authority, upon the committee, and
afterward wrote me to attend the meeting of the committee; but I refused
to do so, and I never had anything to do with that organization. This is
the plain truth about all that matter of the resolutions.

Now, about this story that Judge Douglas tells of Trumbull bargaining to
sell out the old Democratic party, and Lincoln agreeing to sell out the
old Whig party, I have the means of knowing about that: Judge Douglas
cannot have; and I know there is no substance to it whatever. Yet I have
no doubt he is "conscientious" about it. I know that after Mr. Lovejoy got
into the Legislature that winter, he complained of me that I had told all
the old Whigs of his district that the old Whig party was good enough for
them, and some of them voted against him because I told them so. Now, I
have no means of totally disproving such charges as this which the Judge
makes. A man cannot prove a negative; but he has a right to claim that
when a man makes an affirmative charge, he must offer some proof to show
the truth of what he says. I certainly cannot introduce testimony to show
the negative about things, but I have a right to claim that if a man says
he knows a thing, then he must show how he knows it. I always have a
right to claim this, and it is not satisfactory to me that he may be
"conscientious" on the subject.

Now, gentlemen, I hate to waste my time on such things; but in regard to
that general Abolition tilt that Judge Douglas makes, when he says that
I was engaged at that time in s