Constitutional Whig

WEDNESDAY MORNING. AUGUST 20, 1828.

Dr. Thos. G. Watkins.-This gentleman undertook in a letter to the Editor of the Charlottesville Advocate, to prop the character of Gen. Jackson.

Who will prop that of the Doctor's?

A correspondent in Charlottesville says:

Charlottesville, Aug. 16, 1828.

Sir: You have no doubt seen, in the Virginia Advocate of the 2d inst. a letter from a certain Dr. Thomas G. Watkins of Tennessee, addressed to one of the editors of that paper, in relation to the case of Jackson and Burr.-This letter has been published for the purpose of disproving a statement made by Judge Williams, and has been relied on by the editors of the Advocate. The publication of that letter has been viewed with indignant feelings by men of both parties in this county who are at all acquainted with one author. I have myself not much personal acquaintance with him, but the public sentiment of both parties seems to be almost unanimous here, that such evidence ought not to have been introduced, and the editors themselves have avowed sentiments in conversation equally unfavorable to their witness. Why was this evidence used? Certainly to make an impression abroad, which is acknowledged it could not possibly do here. This letter was obtained from Watkins I believe in May last, after a full conversation of one of the editors with him on this subject. and when that editor was fully under the impression that the letter to Mr Kerr contained the statement relative to the Nashville ball, &c. The letter seems designed to suit what was then believed to be the charges; but as Judge Williams has since come out, the letter does not so well answer the purpose. At the same time they obtained a letter from Gen. Jackson to this same Dr. Watkins, written I think in 1822 while the Doctor was in this county, which was published in the Advocate some time last spring, to prove the General could spell. It is but just that the public should be apprised of the character of this Dr. Watkins, that they may not be deceived by the contents of his letter, or by the manner in
which he has been spoken of by the editors of the Advocate. He is represented by those who know him as having been for many years an itinerant Doctor never living longer than from 2 to 4 years at any one place, that time being sufficient to enable the community among whom he resides to discover his true character and principles.

When that development took place, the indignation of his neighbors drove him to a new settlement.

Dr. Watkins it seems, is seeking a divorce, and we have received a number of depositions taken by his wife in Albemarle, and intended to bear upon the question of divorce, now depending in one of the Tennessee courts. These have been sent us to publish, for the purpose of showing that the Doctor is unworthy of belief. They utterly annihilate his claim to credibility.

The deponents are citizens of well known standing in and out of Albemarle. We publish one of the depositions, by way of sample. They are all equally strong and unequivocal.

Deposition of H. B. of Charlottesville.

Question.-What was the general character of Dr. Watkins while he resided in the county of Albemarle?

Answer.-When Dr. Watkins first settled in this county, whilst his character was unknown, and concealed under the most plausible disguise, he was highly esteemed both as a gentleman and physician--being a man of the most plausible and engaging manners, he soon found means to insinuate himself into the good opinion of all classes of society-he was at that time thought to be, as he seemed, a man of correct, honorable feelings and conduct-he was esteemed a gentleman and enjoyed the high respect of most persons in the county, whom he took particular pains to please. He enjoyed the confidence and respect of the people for about two years, during which time he was engaged in an extensive and lucrative practice as physician; but he could no longer disguise his real character; first one trait and then another developed itself till the public discovered that there were left scarcely any of those qualities which they were at first led to suppose he possessed and which they had admired in him. The consequence was that he began rapidly to decline in every respect, and before he left the county he had forfeited the good opinion and respect of all who knew him and his character was entirely prostrated. If there be a single individual now residing in the county of Albemarle who entertains any respect for him I am ignorant of it. It is but justice that I should state there are still many persons in the county who believe him to be a skillful physician, and I believe so myself. I have always spoken of him as eminent in his profession, but since the year 1823, have as uniformly denounced him as a man.

We are sorry our friends of the Advocate, for whom we have unfeigned respect, should have thought the Hero, in such desperate straits, as to require the white washing brush from Dr. Watkins. Verily, we have seen no symptom so demonstrative of desperation.

As the evidence of Dr. Watkins has been relied upon to convict Judge Williams of falsehood, we presume the most fastidious will not blame us for proving the Doctor himself to stand in need of vouchers. We must express our surprise, that so well knowing his want of character, as the Editors of the Advocate are alleged to have known, they should volunteer his letter as testimony worthy of public confidence. Party spirit will sometimes transport the most honourable, beyond the bounds of discretion. We hope their other witness, Mr. Joshua Baker of Louisiana, does more credit to their sagacity.