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.