“SANGAMON JOURNAL,” SPRINGFIELD, ILL., Oct. 28, 1837.
In the Republican of this morning a publication of Gen. Adams’s appears,
in which my name is used quite unreservedly. For this I thank the
General. I thank him because it gives me an opportunity, without
appearing obtrusive, of explaining a part of a former publication of
mine, which appears to me to have been misunderstood by many.
In the former publication alluded to, I stated, in substance, that
Mr. Talbott got a deed from a son of Gen. Adams’s for the purpose of
correcting a mistake that had occurred on the record of the said deed
in the recorder’s office; that he corrected the record, and brought the
deed and handed it to me, and that on opening the deed, another paper,
being the assignment of a judgment, fell out of it. This statement
Gen. Adams and the editor of the Republican have seized upon as a most
palpable evidence of fabrication and falsehood. They set themselves
gravely about proving that the assignment could not have been in the
deed when Talbott got it from young Adams, as he, Talbott, would have
seen it when he opened the deed to correct the record. Now, the truth
is, Talbott did see the assignment when he opened the deed, or at least
he told me he did on the same day; and I only omitted to say so, in
my former publication, because it was a matter of such palpable and
necessary inference. I had stated that Talbott had corrected the record
by the deed; and of course he must have opened it; and, just as the
General and his friends argue, must have seen the assignment. I omitted
to state the fact of Talbott’s seeing the assignment, because its
existence was so necessarily connected with other facts which I did
state, that I thought the greatest dunce could not but understand
it. Did I say Talbott had not seen it? Did I say anything that was
inconsistent with his having seen it before? Most certainly I did
neither; and if I did not, what becomes of the argument? These logical
gentlemen can sustain their argument only by assuming that I did say
negatively everything that I did not say affirmatively; and upon the
same assumption, we may expect to find the General, if a little harder
pressed for argument, saying that I said Talbott came to our office with
his head downward, not that I actually said so, but because I omitted to
say he came feet downward.
In his publication to-day, the General produces the affidavit of Reuben
Radford, in which it is said that Talbott told Radford that he did not
find the assignment in the deed, in the recording of which the error
was committed, but that he found it wrapped in another paper in the
recorder’s office, upon which statement the Genl. comments as follows,
to wit: “If it be true as stated by Talbott to Radford, that he
found the assignment wrapped up in another paper at his office, that
contradicts the statement of Lincoln that it fell out of the deed.”
Is common sense to be abused with such sophistry? Did I say what Talbott
found it in? If Talbott did find it in another paper at his office, is
that any reason why he could not have folded it in a deed and brought
it to my office? Can any one be so far duped as to be made believe that
what may have happened at Talbot’s office at one time is inconsistent
with what happened at my office at another time?
Now Talbott’s statement of the case as he makes it to me is this, that
he got a bunch of deeds from young Adams, and that he knows he found the
assignment in the bunch, but he is not certain which particular deed it
was in, nor is he certain whether it was folded in the same deed out of
which it was taken, or another one, when it was brought to my office. Is
this a mysterious story? Is there anything suspicious about it?
“But it is useless to dwell longer on this point. Any man who is not
wilfully blind can see at a flash, that there is no discrepancy, and
Lincoln has shown that they are not only inconsistent with truth, but
each other”—I can only say, that I have shown that he has done no such
thing; and if the reader is disposed to require any other evidence than
the General’s assertion, he will be of my opinion.
Excepting the General’s most flimsy attempt at mystification, in regard
to a discrepance between Talbott and myself, he has not denied a single
statement that I made in my hand-bill. Every material statement that
I made has been sworn to by men who, in former times, were thought as
respectable as General Adams. I stated that an assignment of a judgment,
a copy of which I gave, had existed—Benj. Talbott, C. R. Matheny, Wm.
Butler, and Judge Logan swore to its existence. I stated that it was
said to be in Gen. Adams’s handwriting—the same men swore it was in
his handwriting. I stated that Talbott would swear that he got it out of
Gen. Adams’s possession—Talbott came forward and did swear it.
Bidding adieu to the former publication, I now propose to examine the
General’s last gigantic production. I now propose to point out some
discrepancies in the General’s address; and such, too, as he shall not
be able to escape from. Speaking of the famous assignment, the General
says: “This last charge, which was their last resort, their dying
effort to render my character infamous among my fellow citizens, was
manufactured at a certain lawyer’s office in the town, printed at the
office of the Sangamon Journal, and found its way into the world some
time between two days just before the last election.” Now turn to Mr.
Keys’ affidavit, in which you will find the following, viz.: “I
certify that some time in May or the early part of June, 1837, I saw
at Williams’s corner a paper purporting to be an assignment from Joseph
Anderson to James Adams, which assignment was signed by a mark to
Anderson’s name,” etc. Now mark, if Keys saw the assignment on the last
of May or first of June, Gen. Adams tells a falsehood when he says
it was manufactured just before the election, which was on the 7th of
August; and if it was manufactured just before the election, Keys tells
a falsehood when he says he saw it on the last of May or first of
June. Either Keys or the General is irretrievably in for it; and in the
General’s very condescending language, I say “Let them settle it between
them.”
Now again, let the reader, bearing in mind that General Adams has
unequivocally said, in one part of his address, that the charge in
relation to the assignment was manufactured just before the election,
turn to the affidavit of Peter S. Weber, where the following will be
found viz.: “I, Peter S. Weber, do certify that from the best of
my recollection, on the day or day after Gen. Adams started for the
Illinois Rapids, in May last, that I was at the house of Gen. Adams,
sitting in the kitchen, situated on the back part of the house, it being
in the afternoon, and that Benjamin Talbott came around the house, back
into the kitchen, and appeared wild and confused, and that he laid a
package of papers on the kitchen table and requested that they should be
handed to Lucian. He made no apology for coming to the kitchen, nor
for not handing them to Lucian himself, but showed the token of being
frightened and confused both in demeanor and speech and for what cause I
could not apprehend.”
Commenting on Weber’s affidavit, Gen. Adams asks, “Why this fright and
confusion?” I reply that this is a question for the General himself.
Weber says that it was in May, and if so, it is most clear that Talbott
was not frightened on account of the assignment, unless the General
lies when he says the assignment charge was manufactured just before the
election. Is it not a strong evidence, that the General is not traveling
with the pole-star of truth in his front, to see him in one part of
his address roundly asserting that the assignment was manufactured
just before the election, and then, forgetting that position, procuring
Weber’s most foolish affidavit, to prove that Talbott had been engaged
in manufacturing it two months before?
In another part of his address, Gen. Adams says: “That I hold an
assignment of said judgment, dated the 20th of May, 1828, and signed
by said Anderson, I have never pretended to deny or conceal, but stated
that fact in one of my circulars previous to the election, and also
in answer to a bill in chancery.” Now I pronounce this statement
unqualifiedly false, and shall not rely on the word or oath of any
man to sustain me in what I say; but will let the whole be decided by
reference to the circular and answer in chancery of which the General
speaks. In his circular he did speak of an assignment; but he did not
say it bore date 20th of May, 1828; nor did he say it bore any date. In
his answer in chancery, he did say that he had an assignment; but he
did not say that it bore date the 20th May, 1828; but so far from it, he
said on oath (for he swore to the answer) that as well as recollected,
he obtained it in 1827. If any one doubts, let him examine the circular
and answer for himself. They are both accessible.
It will readily be observed that the principal part of Adams’s defense
rests upon the argument that if he had been base enough to forge an
assignment he would not have been fool enough to forge one that would
not cover the case. This argument he used in his circular before the
election. The Republican has used it at least once, since then; and
Adams uses it again in his publication of to-day. Now I pledge myself to
show that he is just such a fool that he and his friends have contended
it was impossible for him to be. Recollect—he says he has a genuine
assignment; and that he got Joseph Klein’s affidavit, stating that he
had seen it, and that he believed the signature to have been executed
by the same hand that signed Anderson’s name to the answer in chancery.
Luckily Klein took a copy of this genuine assignment, which I have been
permitted to see; and hence I know it does not cover the case. In the
first place it is headed “Joseph Anderson vs. Joseph Miller,” and heads
off “Judgment in Sangamon Circuit Court.” Now, mark, there never was
a case in Sangamon Circuit Court entitled Joseph Anderson vs. Joseph
Miller. The case mentioned in my former publication, and the only
one between these parties that ever existed in the Circuit Court, was
entitled Joseph Miller vs. Joseph Anderson, Miller being the plaintiff.
What then becomes of all their sophistry about Adams not being fool
enough to forge an assignment that would not cover the case? It is
certain that the present one does not cover the case; and if he got
it honestly, it is still clear that he was fool enough to pay for an
assignment that does not cover the case.
The General asks for the proof of disinterested witnesses. Whom does he
consider disinterested? None can be more so than those who have already
testified against him. No one of them had the least interest on earth,
so far as I can learn, to injure him. True, he says they had conspired
against him; but if the testimony of an angel from Heaven were
introduced against him, he would make the same charge of conspiracy.
And now I put the question to every reflecting man, Do you believe that
Benjamin Talbott, Chas. R. Matheny, William Butler and Stephen T. Logan,
all sustaining high and spotless characters, and justly proud of them,
would deliberately perjure themselves, without any motive whatever,
except to injure a man’s election; and that, too, a man who had been a
candidate, time out of mind, and yet who had never been elected to any
office?
Adams’s assurance, in demanding disinterested testimony, is surpassing.
He brings in the affidavit of his own son, and even of Peter S. Weber,
with whom I am not acquainted, but who, I suppose, is some black or
mulatto boy, from his being kept in the kitchen, to prove his points;
but when such a man as Talbott, a man who, but two years ago, ran
against Gen. Adams for the office of Recorder and beat him more than
four votes to one, is introduced against him, he asks the community,
with all the consequence of a lord, to reject his testimony.
I might easily write a volume, pointing out inconsistencies between
the statements in Adams’s last address with one another, and with other
known facts; but I am aware the reader must already be tired with
the length of this article. His opening statements, that he was first
accused of being a Tory, and that he refuted that; that then the
Sampson’s ghost story was got up, and he refuted that; that as a last
resort, a dying effort, the assignment charge was got up is all as false
as hell, as all this community must know. Sampson’s ghost first made
its appearance in print, and that, too, after Keys swears he saw the
assignment, as any one may see by reference to the files of papers; and
Gen. Adams himself, in reply to the Sampson’s ghost story, was the first
man that raised the cry of toryism, and it was only by way of set-off,
and never in seriousness, that it was bandied back at him. His effort is
to make the impression that his enemies first made the charge of toryism
and he drove them from that, then Sampson’s ghost, he drove them from
that, then finally the assignment charge was manufactured just before
election. Now, the only general reply he ever made to the Sampson’s
ghost and tory charges he made at one and the same time, and not in
succession as he states; and the date of that reply will show, that it
was made at least a month after the date on which Keys swears he saw the
Anderson assignment. But enough. In conclusion I will only say that I
have a character to defend as well as Gen. Adams, but I disdain to whine
about it as he does. It is true I have no children nor kitchen boys; and
if I had, I should scorn to lug them in to make affidavits for me.
A. LINCOLN, September 6, 1837.