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