y name; but I hereby
authorize the editor of the Journal to give it up to any one that may
call for it.

LINCOLN AND TALBOTT IN REPLY TO GEN. ADAMS.

"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 sai