“SANGAMON JOURNAL,” SPRINGFIELD, ILL., Aug. 19, 1837.
In accordance with our determination, as expressed last week, we present
to the reader the articles which were published in hand-bill form, in
reference to the case of the heirs of Joseph Anderson vs. James Adams.
These articles can now be read uninfluenced by personal or party
feeling, and with the sole motive of learning the truth. When that is
done, the reader can pass his own judgment on the matters at issue.
We only regret in this case, that the publications were not made some
weeks before the election. Such a course might have prevented the
expressions of regret, which have often been heard since, from different
individuals, on account of the disposition they made of their votes.
To the Public:
It is well known to most of you, that there is existing at this time
considerable excitement in regard to Gen. Adams’s titles to certain
tracts of land, and the manner in which he acquired them. As I
understand, the Gen. charges that the whole has been gotten up by a knot
of lawyers to injure his election; and as I am one of the knot to which
he refers, and as I happen to be in possession of facts connected with
the matter, I will, in as brief a manner as possible, make a statement
of them, together with the means by which I arrived at the knowledge of
them.
Sometime in May or June last, a widow woman, by the name of Anderson,
and her son, who resides in Fulton county, came to Springfield, for
the purpose as they said of selling a ten acre lot of ground lying near
town, which they claimed as the property of the deceased husband and
father.
When they reached town they found the land was claimed by Gen. Adams.
John T. Stuart and myself were employed to look into the matter, and if
it was thought we could do so with any prospect of success, to commence
a suit for the land. I went immediately to the recorder’s office to
examine Adams’s title, and found that the land had been entered by one
Dixon, deeded by Dixon to Thomas, by Thomas to one Miller, and by Miller
to Gen. Adams. The oldest of these three deeds was about ten or eleven
years old, and the latest more than five, all recorded at the same
time, and that within less than one year. This I thought a suspicious
circumstance, and I was thereby induced to examine the deeds very
closely, with a view to the discovery of some defect by which to
overturn the title, being almost convinced then it was founded in fraud.
I discovered that in the deed from Thomas to Miller, although Miller’s
name stood in a sort of marginal note on the record book, it was nowhere
in the deed itself. I told the fact to Talbott, the recorder, and
proposed to him that he should go to Gen. Adams’s and get the original
deed, and compare it with the record, and thereby ascertain whether
the defect was in the original or there was merely an error in the
recording. As Talbott afterwards told me, he went to the General’s, but
not finding him at home, got the deed from his son, which, when compared
with the record, proved what we had discovered was merely an error of
the recorder. After Mr. Talbott corrected the record, he brought the
original to our office, as I then thought and think yet, to show us
that it was right. When he came into the room he handed the deed to me,
remarking that the fault was all his own. On opening it, another paper
fell out of it, which on examination proved to be an assignment of a
judgment in the Circuit Court of Sangamon County from Joseph Anderson,
the late husband of the widow above named, to James Adams, the judgment
being in favor of said Anderson against one Joseph Miller. Knowing that
this judgment had some connection with the land affair, I immediately
took a copy of it, which is word for word, letter for letter and cross
for cross as follows:
Joseph Anderson, vs. Joseph Miller.
Judgment in Sangamon Circuit Court against Joseph Miller obtained on a
note originally 25 dolls and interest thereon accrued. I assign all my
right, title and interest to James Adams which is in consideration of a
debt I owe said Adams.
his JOSEPH x ANDERSON. mark.
As the copy shows, it bore date May 10, 1827; although the judgment
assigned by it was not obtained until the October afterwards, as may be
seen by any one on the records of the Circuit Court. Two other strange
circumstances attended it which cannot be represented by a copy. One of
them was, that the date “1827” had first been made “1837” and, without
the figure “3,” being fully obliterated, the figure “2” had afterwards
been made on top of it; the other was that, although the date was ten
years old, the writing on it, from the freshness of its appearance, was
thought by many, and I believe by all who saw it, not to be more than a
week old. The paper on which it was written had a very old appearance;
and there were some old figures on the back of it which made the
freshness of the writing on the face of it much more striking than I
suppose it otherwise might have been. The reader’s curiosity is no doubt
excited to know what connection this assignment had with the land in
question. The story is this: Dixon sold and deeded the land to Thomas;
Thomas sold it to Anderson; but before he gave a deed, Anderson sold it
to Miller, and took Miller’s note for the purchase money. When this
note became due, Anderson sued Miller on it, and Miller procured an
injunction from the Court of Chancery to stay the collection of the
money until he should get a deed for the land. Gen. Adams was employed
as an attorney by Anderson in this chancery suit, and at the October
term, 1827, the injunction was dissolved, and a judgment given in favor
of Anderson against Miller; and it was provided that Thomas was to
execute a deed for the land in favor of Miller and deliver it to Gen.
Adams, to be held up by him till Miller paid the judgment, and then to
deliver it to him. Miller left the county without paying the judgment.
Anderson moved to Fulton county, where he has since died When the widow
came to Springfield last May or June, as before mentioned, and found the
land deeded to Gen. Adams by Miller, she was naturally led to inquire
why the money due upon the judgment had not been sent to them, inasmuch
as he, Gen. Adams, had no authority to deliver Thomas’s deed to Miller
until the money was paid. Then it was the General told her, or perhaps
her son, who came with her, that Anderson, in his lifetime, had assigned
the judgment to him, Gen. Adams. I am now told that the General is
exhibiting an assignment of the same judgment bearing date “1828” and
in other respects differing from the one described; and that he is
asserting that no such assignment as the one copied by me ever existed;
or if there did, it was forged between Talbott and the lawyers, and
slipped into his papers for the purpose of injuring him. Now, I can only
say that I know precisely such a one did exist, and that Ben. Talbott,
Wm. Butler, C.R. Matheny, John T. Stuart, Judge Logan, Robert Irwin, P.
C. Canedy and S. M. Tinsley, all saw and examined it, and that at least
one half of them will swear that IT WAS IN GENERAL ADAMS’S HANDWRITING!!
And further, I know that Talbott will swear that he got it out of the
General’s possession, and returned it into his possession again. The
assignment which the General is now exhibiting purports to have been by
Anderson in writing. The one I copied was signed with a cross.
I am told that Gen. Neale says that he will swear that he heard Gen.
Adams tell young Anderson that the assignment made by his father was
signed with a cross.
The above are ‘facts,’ as stated. I leave them without comment. I have
given the names of persons who have knowledge of these facts, in order
that any one who chooses may call on them and ascertain how far they
will corroborate my statements. I have only made these statements
because I am known by many to be one of the individuals against whom
the charge of forging the assignment and slipping it into the General’s
papers has been made, and because our silence might be construed into
a confession of its truth. I shall not subscribe my name; but I hereby
authorize the editor of the Journal to give it up to any one that may
call for it.