“SANGAMON JOURNAL,” Springfield, Ill, Oct.28, 1837.
Such is the turn which things have taken lately, that when Gen. Adams
writes a book, I am expected to write a commentary on it. In the
Republican of this morning he has presented the world with a new work
of six columns in length; in consequence of which I must beg the room of
one column in the Journal. It is obvious that a minute reply cannot
be made in one column to everything that can be said in six; and,
consequently, I hope that expectation will be answered if I reply to
such parts of the General’s publication as are worth replying to.
It may not be improper to remind the reader that in his publication of
Sept. 6th General Adams said that the assignment charge was manufactured
just before the election; and that in reply I proved that statement to
be false by Keys, his own witness. Now, without attempting to explain,
he furnishes me with another witness (Tinsley) by which the same thing
is proved, to wit, that the assignment was not manufactured just before
the election; but that it was some weeks before. Let it be borne in mind
that Adams made this statement—has himself furnished two witnesses to
prove its falsehood, and does not attempt to deny or explain it. Before
going farther, let a pin be stuck here, labeled “One lie proved and
confessed.” On the 6th of September he said he had before stated in
the hand-bill that he held an assignment dated May 20th, 1828, which in
reply I pronounced to be false, and referred to the hand-bill for the
truth of what I said. This week he forgets to make any explanation of
this. Let another pin be stuck here, labelled as before. I mention these
things because, if, when I convict him in one falsehood, he is permitted
to shift his ground and pass it by in silence, there can be no end to
this controversy.
The first thing that attracts my attention in the General’s present
production is the information he is pleased to give to “those who are
made to suffer at his (my) hands.”
Under present circumstances, this cannot apply to me, for I am not
a widow nor an orphan: nor have I a wife or children who might by
possibility become such. Such, however, I have no doubt, have been,
and will again be made to suffer at his hands! Hands! Yes, they are
the mischievous agents. The next thing I shall notice is his favorite
expression, “not of lawyers, doctors and others,” which he is so fond of
applying to all who dare expose his rascality. Now, let it be remembered
that when he first came to this country he attempted to impose himself
upon the community as a lawyer, and actually carried the attempt so
far as to induce a man who was under a charge of murder to entrust the
defence of his life in his hands, and finally took his money and got
him hanged. Is this the man that is to raise a breeze in his favor by
abusing lawyers? If he is not himself a lawyer, it is for the lack of
sense, and not of inclination. If he is not a lawyer, he is a liar, for
he proclaimed himself a lawyer, and got a man hanged by depending on
him.
Passing over such parts of the article as have neither fact nor argument
in them, I come to the question asked by Adams whether any person ever
saw the assignment in his possession. This is an insult to common sense.
Talbott has sworn once and repeated time and again, that he got it out
of Adams’s possession and returned it into the same possession. Still,
as though he was addressing fools, he has assurance to ask if any person
ever saw it in his possession.
Next I quote a sentence, “Now my son Lucian swears that when Talbott
called for the deed, that he, Talbott, opened it and pointed out the
error.” True. His son Lucian did swear as he says; and in doing so, he
swore what I will prove by his own affidavit to be a falsehood. Turn to
Lucian’s affidavit, and you will there see that Talbott called for the
deed by which to correct an error on the record. Thus it appears that
the error in question was on the record, and not in the deed. How then
could Talbott open the deed and point out the error? Where a thing is
not, it cannot be pointed out. The error was not in the deed, and of
course could not be pointed out there. This does not merely prove that
the error could not be pointed out, as Lucian swore it was; but it
proves, too, that the deed was not opened in his presence with a special
view to the error, for if it had been, he could not have failed to see
that there was no error in it. It is easy enough to see why Lucian swore
this. His object was to prove that the assignment was not in the deed
when Talbott got it: but it was discovered he could not swear this
safely, without first swearing the deed was opened—and if he swore it
was opened, he must show a motive for opening it, and the conclusion
with him and his father was that the pointing out the error would appear
the most plausible.
For the purpose of showing that the assignment was not in the bundle
when Talbott got it, is the story introduced into Lucian’s affidavit
that the deeds were counted. It is a remarkable fact, and one that
should stand as a warning to all liars and fabricators, that in this
short affidavit of Lucian’s he only attempted to depart from the truth,
so far as I have the means of knowing, in two points, to wit, in the
opening the deed and pointing out the error and the counting of the
deeds,—and in both of these he caught himself. About the counting, he
caught himself thus—after saying the bundle contained five deeds and
a lease, he proceeds, “and I saw no other papers than the said deed and
lease.” First he has six papers, and then he saw none but two; for “my
son Lucian’s” benefit, let a pin be stuck here.
Adams again adduces the argument, that he could not have forged the
assignment, for the reason that he could have had no motive for it. With
those that know the facts there is no absence of motive. Admitting the
paper which he has filed in the suit to be genuine, it is clear that it
cannot answer the purpose for which he designs it. Hence his motive for
making one that he supposed would answer is obvious. His making the date
too old is also easily enough accounted for. The records were not in his
hands, and then, there being some considerable talk upon this particular
subject, he knew he could not examine the records to ascertain the
precise dates without subjecting himself to suspicion; and hence he
concluded to try it by guess, and, as it turned out, missed it a little.
About Miller’s deposition I have a word to say. In the first place,
Miller’s answer to the first question shows upon its face that he had
been tampered with, and the answer dictated to him. He was asked if he
knew Joel Wright and James Adams; and above three-fourths of his answer
consists of what he knew about Joseph Anderson, a man about whom nothing
had been asked, nor a word said in the question—a fact that can only be
accounted for upon the supposition that Adams had secretly told him what
he wished him to swear to.
Another of Miller’s answers I will prove both by common sense and the
Court of Record is untrue. To one question he answers, “Anderson brought
a suit against me before James Adams, then an acting justice of the
peace in Sangamon County, before whom he obtained a judgment.
“Q.—Did you remove the same by injunction to the Sangamon Circuit
Court? Ans.—I did remove it.”
Now mark—it is said he removed it by injunction. The word “injunction”
in common language imports a command that some person or thing shall
not move or be removed; in law it has the same meaning. An injunction
issuing out of chancery to a justice of the peace is a command to him to
stop all proceedings in a named case until further orders. It is not an
order to remove but to stop or stay something that is already moving.
Besides this, the records of the Sangamon Circuit Court show that the
judgment of which Miller swore was never removed into said Court by
injunction or otherwise.
I have now to take notice of a part of Adams’s address which in the
order of time should have been noticed before. It is in these words:
“I have now shown, in the opinion of two competent judges, that the
handwriting of the forged assignment differed from mine, and by one of
them that it could not be mistaken for mine.” That is false. Tinsley no
doubt is the judge referred to; and by reference to his certificate it
will be seen that he did not say the handwriting of the assignment
could not be mistaken for Adams’s—nor did he use any other expression
substantially, or anything near substantially, the same. But if Tinsley
had said the handwriting could not be mistaken for Adams’s, it would
have been equally unfortunate for Adams: for it then would have
contradicted Keys, who says, “I looked at the writing and judged it the
said Adams’s or a good imitation.”
Adams speaks with much apparent confidence of his success on attending
lawsuits, and the ultimate maintenance of his title to the land in
question. Without wishing to disturb the pleasure of his dream, I would
say to him that it is not impossible that he may yet be taught to sing a
different song in relation to the matter.
At the end of Miller’s deposition, Adams asks, “Will Mr. Lincoln now say
that he is almost convinced my title to this ten acre tract of land
is founded in fraud?” I answer, I will not. I will now change the
phraseology so as to make it run—I am quite convinced, &c. I cannot
pass in silence Adams’s assertion that he has proved that the forged
assignment was not in the deed when it came from his house by Talbott,
the recorder. In this, although Talbott has sworn that the assignment
was in the bundle of deeds when it came from his house, Adams has
the unaccountable assurance to say that he has proved the contrary by
Talbott. Let him or his friends attempt to show wherein he proved any
such thing by Talbott.
In his publication of the 6th of September he hinted to Talbott, that
he might be mistaken. In his present, speaking of Talbott and me he says
“They may have been imposed upon.” Can any man of the least penetration
fail to see the object of this? After he has stormed and raged till he
hopes and imagines he has got us a little scared he wishes to softly
whisper in our ears, “If you’ll quit I will.” If he could get us to say
that some unknown, undefined being had slipped the assignment into
our hands without our knowledge, not a doubt remains but that he would
immediately discover that we were the purest men on earth. This is the
ground he evidently wishes us to understand he is willing to compromise
upon. But we ask no such charity at his hands. We are neither mistaken
nor imposed upon. We have made the statements we have because we know
them to be true and we choose to live or die by them.
Esq. Carter, who is Adams’s friend, personal and political, will
recollect, that, on the 5th of this month, he (Adams), with a great
affectation of modesty, declared that he would never introduce his own
child as a witness. Notwithstanding this affectation of modesty, he has
in his present publication introduced his child as witness; and as if to
show with how much contempt he could treat his own declaration, he
has had this same Esq. Carter to administer the oath to him. And so
important a witness does he consider him, and so entirely does the whole
of his entire present production depend upon the testimony of his child,
that in it he has mentioned “my son,” “my son Lucian,” “Lucian, my son,”
and the like expressions no less than fifteen different times. Let it
be remembered here, that I have shown the affidavit of “my darling son
Lucian” to be false by the evidence apparent on its own face; and I now
ask if that affidavit be taken away what foundation will the fabric have
left to stand upon?
General Adams’s publications and out-door maneuvering, taken in
connection with the editorial articles of the Republican, are not more
foolish and contradictory than they are ludicrous and amusing. One
week the Republican notifies the public that Gen. Adams is preparing
an instrument that will tear, rend, split, rive, blow up, confound,
overwhelm, annihilate, extinguish, exterminate, burst asunder, and grind
to powder all its slanderers, and particularly Talbott and Lincoln—all
of which is to be done in due time.
Then for two or three weeks all is calm—not a word said. Again the
Republican comes forth with a mere passing remark that “public” opinion
has decided in favor of Gen. Adams, and intimates that he will give
himself no more trouble about the matter. In the meantime Adams himself
is prowling about and, as Burns says of the devil, “For prey, and holes
and corners tryin’,” and in one instance goes so far as to take an old
acquaintance of mine several steps from a crowd and, apparently weighed
down with the importance of his business, gravely and solemnly asks him
if “he ever heard Lincoln say he was a deist.”
Anon the Republican comes again. “We invite the attention of the public
to General Adams’s communication,” &c. “The victory is a great one, the
triumph is overwhelming.” I really believe the editor of the Illinois
Republican is fool enough to think General Adams leads off—“Authors
most egregiously mistaken &c. Most woefully shall their presumption be
punished,” &c. (Lord have mercy on us.) “The hour is yet to come, yea,
nigh at hand—(how long first do you reckon?)—when the Journal and its
junto shall say, I have appeared too early.” “Their infamy shall be laid
bare to the public gaze.” Suddenly the General appears to relent at the
severity with which he is treating us and he exclaims: “The condemnation
of my enemies is the inevitable result of my own defense.” For your
health’s sake, dear Gen., do not permit your tenderness of heart to
afflict you so much on our account. For some reason (perhaps because we
are killed so quickly) we shall never be sensible of our suffering.
Farewell, General. I will see you again at court if not before—when and
where we will settle the question whether you or the widow shall have
the land.
A. LINCOLN. October 18, 1837.
1838