Handbill: The Case of the Heirs of Joseph Anderson vs James Adams 
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 certainPage 90 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 reside in Fulton county, came to Springfield, for the purpose, as they said, of selling a ten acrelot 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 one 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 finally discovered that in the deed from Thomas to Miller, although Miller's name stood in a sort of a marginal note on the record book, it was no where in the deed itself. I told the fact to Talbott,  the Recorder, and proposed to him that he should go to Gen. Adams' and get the original deed, and compare it withPage 91 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 judgement in the Circuit Court of Sangamon County from Joseph Anderson, the late husband of the widow above named, to James Adams, the judgement being in favor of said Anderson against one Joseph Miller.  Knowing that this judgement 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.
Judgement in Sangamon Circuit Court in favor of Joseph Anderson against Joseph Miller obtained on a note originally 25 dolls. and interest thereon accrued.
May 10th, 1827.
JOSEPH X ANDERSON.
As the copy shows, it bore date May 10th, 1827; although the judgement 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; andPage 92 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 judgement 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 enquire why the money due upon the judgment had not been sent to them, inasmuch as he, Gen. Adams, had no authority to deliver Thomas' 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 life time, 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 an 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,Page 93 it, and that at least one half of them will swear that IT WAS IN GENERAL ADAMS' 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 signed 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 authorise the editor of the Journal to give it up to any one that may call for it.
 Sangamo Journal, August 19, 1837. As reprinted in the Journal, this handbill carried the following editorial introduction:
TO THE PEOPLE
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.
In an adjacent column appeared the following statement by the editor of the Journal:
It having been stated this morning that the subscriber had refused to give the name of the author of the hand bill above referred to (which statement is not true): to save any farther remarks on this subject, I now state that A. Lincoln, Esq. is the author of the handbill in question. SIMEON FRANCIS.
August 7, 1837.
As in the instance of other pseudonymous and anonymous articles published in the Journal, the editors have excluded all but those which are incontrovertibly Lincoln's. Prior to the appearance of this handbill, there had appeared in the Journal, June 17, 24, and July 8, 15, 22, and 29, a series of six letters signed ``Sampson's Ghost,'' which in view of subsequent developments seem possibly to have been the work of Lincoln and his colleagues, Edward D. Baker, Stephen T. Logan, and John T. Stuart. James Adams, the accused, attributed the letters to a group rather than to one individual. Charges which are explicit in the handbill and the subsequent ``replies,'' were more veiled in the Sampson's Ghost letters, but it is obvious that only Lincoln and his associates as attorneys for the heirs of Joseph Anderson would have at that time been in possession of the evidence upon which the insinuations were based. Internal evidence in these letters, however, does not determine Lincoln's handiwork, and, as in the instance of a later series of pseudonymous letters in which Lincoln was one of several collaborators (see ``The `Rebecca' Letter,'' August 27, 1842, and footnote, infra), authorities have been somewhat precipitous in assigning Lincoln's authorship.
Subsequent to the appearance of the handbill and the ``replies'' to James Adams, there appeared in the Journal on September 30 and October 7 further communications signed ``An Old Settler,'' which present additional accusations. These also may, or may not, have emanated from Lincoln's office, but they have been excluded here for the same reason as the earlier letters.
 On August 7, Adams was elected over Dr. Anson G. Henry to the office of probate justice of the peace by a vote of 1,025 to 792.
 May is correct.
 Mrs. Mary Anderson and son Richard.
 Almost two miles from the Statehouse in the hills upon which Oak Ridge was subsequently located.
 John Dixon; entered November 17, 1823, Peoria County.
 Deeded November 29, 1825, to Joseph Thomas, Sangamon County ``Deed Book J.,'' 33-34.
 On September 17, 1825, Joseph Miller, Tazewell County, had given his promissory note for $27 to Anderson for this land. Anderson agreed to get Thomas to convey it to Miller, which was done November 1, 1826, ibid., 34-35.
 On October 1, 1832, ibid., 35-36. Miller conveyed the land to Adams in consideration of Anderson's judgment against him, which, Adams claimed, Anderson had assigned to Adams in discharge of a debt that Anderson owed Adams.
 Recorded June 18, 1836.
 Benjamin Talbott.
 Lucian Bonaparte Adams.
 Sangamon County Circuit Court records do not show any such judgment.
 The italicized words do not appear in the Journal on August 19, but were corrections in the September 30 issue.
 Sangamon County Circuit Court Records, Book A, 323.
 On October 6, 1827, ibid.
 July 5, 1837, Adams filed what he claimed to be the original assignment, to which Anderson's name is signed in writing, ibid., Book C, 421.
 Bill in chancery against Adams, filed by Lincoln & Stuart and Logan & Baker, attorneys for the heirs of Anderson, on June 22, 1837, ← makes no mention of either of these assignments, but charges fraudulent collusion between Adams and Miller. Joel Wright Admr. et al. vs Adams. MSS. Files, Clerk, Circuit Court, Sangamon County. Description of land (six and one-half lines) is only part of this eight-page bill written by Lincoln.
 Thomas M. Neale, Springfield lawyer and surveyor.