RVvi

¦.,l!l.l! ¦

ms'

Ya\e

Universitv LibrarV

Watkins, V/illiam Henry
Refutation of R. S. tioxe's Assertions,
1853.

IS

Ji

YALE
UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

REFUTATION OF
R. S. COXE^'S ASSERTIONS.

The imperious duty of self-vindication, once more calls me
before the public. I am fully sensible of the immense disad
vantage, under which I must labour, in a "war of vv^ords" with
a Lawyer of acknowledged talents and ingenuity, whose pro
fession it is to endeavour to "make the worse appear the bet
ter reason," and whose long practice in it must have rendered
him an adept. But, shielded as I am by the protecting panoply
of truth, I should not fear to enter the lists against even still
greater odds.
Mr. Coxe's pamphlet, which purports to contain a refutation
of the statement I was compelled to lay before the public on
the 9th instant, is an eminent example of proficiency in the art
of " special pleading." It shows with what expertness.he can
handle the light arms of his profession, and how little a tyro
like myself could hope to gain, in controversy v/ith such a
master, did the merits of my cause depend on the management
of quirks and quibbles. To every thing in it, however, which
properly belongs to the subject at i,ssue between us, I shall en
deavour to give such a reply as the public may comprehend :
of the abuse so profusely scattered through its pages, whether
of myself or of the unfortunate and distressed family imder my
protection, I shall leave the author to the enjoyment of the full,
unenvied benefit.
It will be obvious to the most careless reader of the pamph
let, that it was chiefly designed to be circulated where my pre
vious publication had not been seen ; that the author has de
pended upon the effect of inferences, the fallacy of which would
be detected at once by all who had seen both statements ; that
he has laboured to divert the public attention from the true
points of dispute; and that he has sought to extricate himself
by endeavoring to involve me in a controversy with other in
dividuals. He shall not succeed, if I can help it, in any of
these designs.

2
In the very first paragraph of his pamphlet, Mr. Coxe has
adroitly forced upon the reader, as the necessary construction
of his language, two inferences which it would be impossible-
for prejudice itself to draw, with a knowledge of all the premi
ses. These are, that I challenged him, without previous cor
respondence or provocation, and that I did so, knowing his
principles "on the subject of duelling." In'refutation of the
first I refer to my former publication ; as to the second, I am
now informed for the first time, that Mr. Coxe has " long pub
licly professed on the subject of duelling " sentiments that re
quired him to submit the parties concerned "to the cognizance
of the laws." I never heard of any such profession., public or
private, and I am willing to let the world decide, whether the
" principles " here assumed could be inferred from the language
used by Mr. Coxe, in his reply to my first letter. But these
are trifles, compared to the enormities Avith which I stand
charged by Mr. Coxe. He asserts, and repeats in every form
and shape, that /have been, throughout, the unprovoked, cause
less aggressor ; that I have " invented and propagated slanders,"'
have "originated and disseminated atrocious calumnies" against
him, while he, all innocent and unconscious of wrong, has "iit
reality given no just ground for complaint in any part of" his
"conduct!" Were all this, or even any part of it, true, I
should indeed deserve the universal scorn, which Mr. Coxe
has laboured to fasten upon me ; I should be a monster, not
only unworthy to associate, as he admits that I do, " in families-
of the highest worth," but unfit to breathe the same atmosphere.
For a knowledge of the origin of this dispute, the public are
respectfully referred to my second letter to Mr. Coxe, to be
found in my publication of the 9th instant. Imperfect and.
scanty as the detail there is, it is enough to show upon whont
the aggression is chargeable. I now ask the reader's attentiom
to an examination of the assertions contained in Mr. Coxe's-
pamphlet. 1st assertion.
In p. 3, he asserts that William L. Brent, Esq. after repeating;
a story which I had related lo him not long preoiously, " observed,.
further, that he had at once stated to the individual in question,,
that he did not believe ihe story, nor would any one else wlw might
hear it." The following letter will show to the public the de
gree of faith due to this assertion,
Washington City, D. C. May 22, 1833..
"Sir: In reply to your note of yesterday, I send you the
following statement: —
"The statement of the manner of my holding a conversation
with Mr. Coxe, as made in his pamphlet, would convey the
idea that he was induced to be dissatisfied with what you. and-

your family had said to me, when in fact this conversation never
took place between us until after Mr. Coxe had expressed to
me his feelings upon the subject, and informed me of his inten
tion to expose the entire transaction,, which he stated would re
sult in your disgrace. I then informed him that you had never
communicated these things to me, or spoken of him disrespect
fully, more than to say, that you had not the good opinion of
him that you had of Gen. Jones, until I had first made the in
quiry of you as to the cause of the displeasure of your father
with him, when you related to me all the causes you have
mentioned in your late publication, and detailed to me the
transaction about the transfer of property ostensibly in payment
of a fee.
" Mr. Coxe has not correctly stated my opinion of what you
then told me, as expressed to you. I stated to Mr. Coxe, that
I did not communicate, what you said,, to him, because it was
drawn from you by an inquiry of mine, and because I believed
there was a mistake in your understanding of the conversation
you had together, and I had so told you at the time, for I was
unwilling to believe him (Mr. Co:;e) capable of such a decep
tion and fraud, and I had advised you to say nothing about it,
which you promised nie you would not, and I believed you had
named it but to few, and then under circumstances which, you
assured me, you thought would justify you.
" A day or two after the first conversation, Mr. Coxe showed
me a letter to him from Benj. P. Smith, Esq. upon the subject
of the Furniture transaction, which I read and returned to him,
and observed, I regretted the course he had taken, and stated
.that I was persuaded, if properly understood, the affair could
be satisfactorily settled between you. His reply was that it
had gone too far, and he would pursue his own course. I then
determined to see you and try to have it amicably settled, and
upon that day I had a conversation with you and advised yon
,to endeavor to settle the affair in a peaceable and friendly man
ner, which you promised me you would, and expressed to me
a great desire it should take that turn, assuring me that since
-the release of your father, you felt no hostility to any one, and
would do any thing in your power, consistent with your honor,
to effect an arrangement ; and with this object in view, you
would address a letter to Mr. Coxe. This closed our interview,
in which, as well as in all my conversations, you must admit
that my entire course towards Mr. Coxe was that of one who
felt desirous to arrange an unfortunate affair between two men
who ought to be friends. How far I succeeded in this, subse
quent events have shown.
" I have not thought it necessary to detail all the remarks
made between Mr. Coxe and myself, as they are not embraced
within the inquiry contained iu your note, and could only tend

to acgravatc feelings already too much excited. I regret thasf
Mr.^Coxe should have made the statements he has, without
showino- them to me, or, as is more usual amongst gentlemen,
without^calling on me for a statement. Had he pursued eitfier
of these courses, I should not now have been under tfie very un
pleasant and painful necessity of correcting his version of out
conversation. 1 have nothing to do with Mr. Coxe's and your
disputes, and I know you will do me the justice to say, thaf^
situated as I have been for some time between you,. I have
done all in my power to heal the unfortunate difference. Act-
ino- as I have from the (then) most friendly feelings toward*
you both, and delicately situated as I have been and am be
tween you, I cannot refrain fi-om expressing my dissatisfaction
at the ustf which has been niade of my name, and which has
called forth this letter. Yours most respectfiilly,
Mr. Wm. Henry Watkins. WM. L. BEENT."^
Comment upon this letter would be superfluous ,' no reader
can compare it with Mr. Coxe's "version"^of the eonversafioHr
without immediately perceiving the utter variance of the two
statements. Before I dismiss it, I will take the occasion to say,
as an act of duty and justice to Col. Brent, that in every con
versation I have held with him on the subject, he has uniformly-
evinced the utmost delicacy of feeling towards Mr. Coxe, and
an anxious desire as he expresses it, "to heal the unfortunate
difference." In p. p. 3, 4, of the pamphlet, after an artful and laborious^
but unnecessary, argument, tending to show, that I, with the in
formation in my possession of the "decisive language" he had
used, had rested quiet under it fi-om the 25th to the 29th o-f
April ; and a quibble, quite worthy of its "paternity," upon
the "discrepancy" between my first letter, and the " explana
tory remarks" accompanying my publication of the correspon
dence; Mr. Coxe, why or to what end it would puzzle CEdipus
himself to divine, expresses his "confident belief," that I had
never heard from an "authentic source," the very information
which he previously insinuates I ought to have received four
days before I These are his words: "Who is meant by the
"authentic source," we are not informed; and in this state of
ignorance, I cannot refrain from the expression of my confi
dent belief, that it is another specimen of the entire freedoni
which the writer feels himself authorised to take with facts."
The reader will perceive by the letter just introduced, that
Col. Brent was the authentic source alluded to, and that he-
made his communication to me on the very day of the date of
my first letter to Mr. Coxe— a fact which the public will proba
bly think Mr. Coxe ought to have known, since he himself states,
(p. 2) tliat the communication was made to Col. Brent "as the
facnd ofthe family," and "with an assured confidence," that

he would "procure from the family an immediate disavowal ! "
I bttve not chosen to number this " discrepancy " among Mr.
Coxe's refuted "assertions," preferring to let the public decide
vltat difference there is between assertion and the expression
of a confident belief. They may add it to the number if they
Ifhink proper. 2d assertion.
After quoting that portion of my 2d letter, in which I state the
conversation held with him on the subject ofthe property, Mr.
Coxe adds : " The absurdity and improbability of this story, for
the truth of every part of which the writer has had the temeitity
to vouch, must be manifest. How, if the verdict should be '/or"
hia father, the United States could issue an execution, is be
yond my comprehension ; and, had I been disposed to exer
cise my inventive powers, it never would have occurred to my
imagination. How the United States, in such a case, would
have been entitled to • a preference over other creditors, is
equally inconceivable. I must disclaim the paternity of such
absurdities." p. 8. The following letter will enable the pub
lic to determine, how far Mr. Coxe has a right to disclaim the
paternity of such absurdities.
"Dear Sir: The jury will retire this morning finally to de
liberate upon the case of your father. What will be the issue
God only knows. One thing however came out in evidence
yesterday of which you ought to be apprised — that your father
stands charged upon the books of the Treasury with the whole
amount of money paid by the Navy Agents. Whatever there
fore may be the issue of these trials the Government has the
power of proceeding as they have done in Nourse's case and
levying upon every article in the house, and I should not be
surprised at their resorting to this measure at once. Under
these circumstances I cannot but feel myself bound to urge up
on the family to make some immediate provision for Mr. Jones
and myself. We have made exertions and I may add sacrifi
ces of no trifling magnitude. All our business has been ne
glected for this.
" If there was any possibility of preserving this property for
the family I should not accept any thing, but with the imminent
dano-er which cannot be averted of having every thing taken
by the government I feel that I should do injustice to you as
well as to myself were I not to urge an immediate attention to
this matter. Tomorrow it may be too late.
Yrs. in haste,
R. S. COXE."
" Mr. WitLiAM Watkin,s. August 7."
It is proper to observe, that tliere is an anachronism in the
date of this note, occasioned probably by the " haste" in which

it was written, which, however, the first line of the note itself
will enable the reader to correct— "The jury will'lretire this
morningJ' By reference to Mr. Coxe's pamphlet, p. 9., or to
the records of the Court, it will be seen that it was " on the 5th
August" the jury alluded to, retired, " for no other did retire
about the beginning of August." The importance of fixing
its proper date to this note, will be seen hereafter. It was
written on the very day that Mr. Coxe had the interview in the
prison, from which he retired with a wound upon his vanity
and selfconceit, which has rankled from that moment to this.
The offence, it will be acknowledged, was tvell timed; for
vihose interest, let the public judge. " Whatever therefore may
be the issue of these trials," says Mr. Coxe, on the 5th August,
1829, " the Government has the power of proceeding as they
have done in Nourse's case and levying upon every article in the
house." — " I must disclaim the paternity of such absurdities,"
says Mr. Coxe, on the I6th May, 1833.
3d assertion.
In p. 9. there is an attempt, by Mr. Coxe, to disprove, by
argument as well as assertion, the " possibility" of my having
held any conversation with him, because it could not have oc
curred " the day previous to the delivery ofthe goods." When
I stated that the conversation with Mr. Coxe " took place the
day before the delivery of the property," I was under the im
pression, that the delivery had been made on the day of the re
ceipt of Mr. Coxe's letter making the demand. This impres
sion was produced by recurring to the date of my father's order
to deliver the property, and by the following words in Mr.
Coxe's letter, "tomorrow it may be too late." I have since as
certained, that the property was not actually put into the hands
of Mr. Coxe's agent, until the sixth of August. It was late
in the afternoon of that day, before any of the carts, employed
to convey the property to the Auction rooms, left the dwel
ling of the family, and when the last delivered its load, it must
have been too late "to advertise" on the following morning.
The advertisement therefore did not appear until the Sth as
stated. This will readily account.for Mr. Mauro's " departure
in this instance, from "his uniform practice." It was on the
4th of August, then, that the conversation took place, which
Mr. Coxe denies to have occured at that " or at any other time,"
and he reasons thus : "Admittiiig, however, some inaccuracy
in these minutia;, it is apparent that wc are compelled to fix
upon the interval of one hour and twenty minutes, during
which the jury were absent from the Court on the Sth August,
as the period of the alleged conversation. That very day is
fixed upon as the date of the interview behveen Mrs. W. and
myself, to which reference is made in the pamphlet — and such

is the truth. Oppressed and exhausted by the fatio-ue of a
three day's arduous contest,I had left the Courtroom almost con
temporaneously with the jury, gone to my residence, then in the
immediate vicinity, and thrown myself upon my bed to en
joy some repose, of which I was in great need. From this sit
uation I was aroused by the information that the jury had re
turned with their verdict, and by a request to see Dr. Watkins
in the jail. During this interval, therefore, I neither saw W.
H. W. nor had I any conversation with him upon any subject
whatever. It was scarcely within the compass of possibility
that what is related should then have transpired — in point of
fact, nothing of the kind did transpire — then, or at any other
time." p. 9.
If the logic of this argument be worth any thing, to prove
that the 5th of August was too busy a day with Mr. Coxe, that
he was too much " oppressed and exhausted," too much in
need of "repose," to bring it " within the compass of possi
bility" that he could have held any conversation with me, it
must be equally good to prove, that he could neither have had time,
strength, nor spirits to have written the letter, which fixes upon
him the "paternity" of so many "absurdities:" — and yet, "in
point of fact," he did write the letter on that day, did hold
conversations, with several individuals, whom he enumerates
p. 11., and mightf without stretching very wide " the compass
of possibillity," have also held one with me. But the whole
argument is' thrown away ; and the assertion will be thought
to deserve the same fate, if the reader will turn to p. 7. of the
pamphlet, where he will find, in the quotation from my letter,
that, after stating the substance of the conversation, I add,
" you told me you would address me, on the following morning,
such a note as you deemed best for the purpose." Such a note
came to me on the Sth ; it was therefore on the 4th that "what
is related" actually " did transpire." Other evidence will be
given in the sequel. 4th assertion.
" I can, therefore, unhesitatingly assert that I never did pro
pose any plan to the individual who now asserts it, by which I
waste receive or cover his father's property. — Such a proposi
tion would in itself have involved the guilt of fraud, and in
order to render it effective, must have been followed up by
perjury, if questioned or denied." p. 10.
Mr. Coxe has certainly a right to put what construction he
pleases on his own proposition ; the motion was his, not mine;
for, as I have elsewhere said, my mind was too much engross
ed at the time by feelings of a far different character to have,
spontaneously, admitted a thought of saving property. But I
saw no fraud in the transaction then, nor do I perceive now, ^
how any such " guilt" could have been " involved" in it. If

8
Mr. Coxe had a legal right to demand the property as a fee, be
must have had a legal right to dispose of that fee as he thought
proper: either there could have been no "fraud" inhis return
ing a fee legally paid to him, or there must have been " fraud"
in the claim by which he demanded it. If his assertion be
worth any thing, then is he "involved" in " the guilt of fraud:"
if he be not involved in the guilt of fraud, then is his assertion
worth nothing. Sth assertion.
"I can also distinctly deny that I ever made a proposition
to the accuser that he should assign or make over his father's
property to me. The most childish fatuity could not have sug
gested a scheme so preposterous as that one invested with no
legal control over the subject, should thus exercise acts of own
ership over his father's property. Had I been knave enough to
hare sought to accomplish the object, I am not so low in intel
lect, or so grossly ignorant of my own profession, as to have
indicated the course which has been stated." p. 10.
The following order will show, how I was "invested " with
"legal control over the subject."
"To Mr. William H. Watkins :
"1 hereby authorise and require you to deliver to Richard
S. Coxe, Esq. or his agent, the articles enumerated below, in
trust for himself and Walter Jones, Esq. as a remuneration to
them for their services in my behalf as my Counsel. .
T. WATKINS.
Washington Jail, Sth August, 1829.
*' List of articles referred to above, viz : One Drawing-room
Carpet and suit of Curtains, two sets Fire-irons, two Mahoga
ny Card Tables, one ditto Centre Table, two large Mantle
Glasses, two Hearth Rugs, two dozen Cane-bottom Chairs, one
Tripod Lamp, one .Mahogany Sideboard, ten framed engrav
ings, one pair large Brass Branch Lamps, one Chandelier, one
Mantle Glass, two Mahogany Cabinets, one ditto Secretary and
Bookcase, one ditto Wardrobe, six Mantle Lamps, one" half
pipe and six demijohns Madeira Wine, four gilt Brackets, four
pair Plated Candlestick.^, and three Bronze Candlesticks, and
one hair covered Sofa.
T. WATKINS."
But, if Mr. Coxe believed, that I was " inrcsted withno legal
control over the subject," how came he to address his claims to
me ? There is no intimation in his letter, of my want of autho
rity to "make over" my "father's properly" to him. He must
either have thought, that i could h-gctlly " assis:n or make over "
the property, or his letter wa.s an attempt to obtain ])osscssion
Of It illegally. If it iudicatcl " //«- most childish fatuity " to
suppose that Mr. Coxe might gcncrouslv restore what he could

legally- recewe, what did it indicate to demand of me that I
should "exercise acts of oicnership " over another's property so
far as to give it to him in fee? I was no Lawyer, and might
therefore be readily excused for believing, that what a lawyer
required me to do, might be legally done. Mr. Coxe -is a law
yer: and is therefore entitled to no excuse, if he required me-
to do that which might not be legally done.
6tii assertion.
" About the termination ofthe trial of Dr. W." &c. &c. "it
was suggested to me by a highly valued friend, of unsuspected
probity, and who has tendered his statement in corroboration
of my own, that under these circumstances the counsel of Dr.
W. had a strong claim to a remuneration for services," &c.
&;c. " I concurred in the suggestion and availed myself of an
early opportunity to mention the subject to my colleague. General
Jones, who gave to the proposition his hearty approbation." —
pp. 10, 11.
Mr. John A. Smith, the gentleman whose statement is re
ferred to above, says :
" I have a distinct recollection of having after the verdict of
the Jury which convicted Dr. Watkins in the summer of 1829,
suggested to Richard S. Coxe, Esq." &c. &c. p. 17.
That Mr. Smith made this suggestion to Mr. Coxe, I am
willing to .believe, because he states that he has a distinct recol
lection of it, and because I believe him to be incapable^of stat
ing that which he does not believe to be true. 1 have as little
wish, as I have need, to deny that he made the suggestion
stated ; but I do deny, that Mr. Coxe acted under that sugges
tion, and prove my denial from his own words. Mr. Smiih
states that his suggestion was made " after the verdict of the
Jury." — Mr. Coxe, in his letter to me, demanding the " com
pensation," begins with saying, "the jury will retire this morn.-
ing;" it is not, therefore, "within the compass of possibility,"
that his "claim to a remuneration " arose out of the suggestion
of Mr. Smith; the claim was made before, the suggestion after,
the verdict. And the intelligent reader will not fail to perceive,
in the whole of Mr. Coxe's remarks about this suggested
"claim to a remuneration," strong presumptive evidence of
the conversation with me previous to his demand of the properly.
7tii assertion.
" I concurred in the suggestion and availed myself of an early
opportunity to mention the subject to my colleague, General Jones,
who gave to the proposition his hearty approbation." p. 11.
It is notorious, that, at this period. General Jones was ab
sent, on professional duty, al Annapolis. Mr. Coxe himself
says, p. 2, that "for several weeks" he " was opposed, singly,
to the eminent counsel who prosecuted " &c. It is notorious.

10
that he was singly opposed only during the latter weeks ofthe
trial. General Jones, therefore, was not in Washington, either
on the day that Mr. Coxe made his demand for the property, or
on the day that he " concurred in the suggestion" of Mr. Smith.
If he did " mention the subject" to his " colleague," and that
colleague " gave to the proposition his hearty approbation,"
both must necessarily have been done by letter. I assert that
no such letter was written. General Jones was not here ; —
he never gave his " hearty approbation," and he knew nothing of
the circumstances until after his return home.
8th assertion.
" Before Mr. B. P. Smith gave me a statement of what he
had done in the case, which I forthwith exhibited to Mr. Brent,
/ have not been able to learn that my accuser ever had stated the
circumstances upon which he now appears mainly to rely, of the
/conversation with me the day preceding the delivery ofthe prop-
jerty. It was, if I am correctly informed, ^rs< brought out after
ythe parly had been told by Mr. Brent that his story was contradic
ted by Mr. Smiih." p. 11.
By referring to p.p. 6, 7, of the pamphlet, the reader will find
'" the variety of shapes," in v/hich rumor conveyed to the ears
of Mr. Coxe what I had said. To say nothing ofthe bound
less charity, which could thus gratuitously endow me with the
attributes of" this Proteus, in all its mutations," how did Mr.
.Coxe imagine, taking any one of " the changes in the details,"
that the transaction, spoken of in them all, could have taken
¦place, without some previous letter, or "conversation"? That
my " narrative," whether true or false, necessarily presupposed
one or the other mode of arrangement, the most fatuous of my
Jiearers and reporters could hardly have failed to entertain a
consciousness. That I never intimated, that the arrangement
was made by letter, must have been evident to Mr. Coxe, from
the simple fact that I am not reported as having mentioned it to
^ single one of his many " informants" — and it is " scarcely
within the compass of possibility," that I would have omitted
to do so, had such been the ground of my statement. The un
avoidable conclusion, then, which must have suggested itself
at once to a mind so acute as Mr. Coxe's, was, that, frcmi the
beginning, I had nothing else upon which " to rely" but " the
conoersation." But there is still more positive proof, that Mr. Coxe was " cor
rectly informed" that I " had. stated the circumstance" ofthe
" conversation" some time "before Mr. B. P. Smith gave" him
" a statement." For this irrefragable proof, the reader is re
quested to refer to the following passage in Col. Brent's letter
to me : "I stated to Mr. Co.rc, that I did not communicate,
what you said, to him, because it was drawn from you by an

11
inquiry of mine, and because / believed there was a mistake n»
your understanding of tlie conversation you had together."
9th assertion.
'" Again — if these things were to be taken charge of by me
for the family, how happens it" &.c. &c. that, " nearly four
years should elapse without his ever intimating to me that an
improper application had been made of this property 1" p. 12.
The following notes will, probably, impress the public with
a belief, that a pretty strong intimation was given to Mr. Coxe,
that I, at least, felt myself authorised to inquire into the " apr
plication" which " had been made of this property," an inquir
ry which I could never have presumed to make, had I not ha4
some reason to expect a different " application" of it.
October 13, 1829.
"Dear Sir — Will you have the goodness to inform ma
whether you have yet made any settlement with the auction-
¦eers for the property placed in their possession some time since
— and if so, the amount of the proceeds, and what disposition
has been made of it.
" An early reply, containing the desired information, will
much oblige Very respectfully, Yr .obt. svt.
^'R. S. Coxe, Esq." W. H. WATKINS."
" October 19, 1829,
" Dear Sir — I wrote to you about a week since, requesting
to know whether you had yet had any settlement with the.
auctioneers for the property I delivered to them, but not hav-
ign heard from you upon the subject, presume that my note
could not have been received.
" Will you oblige me by saying whether you have yet had
such settlement, and if so, the amount for which the property
was sold, and what disposition was made of the proceeds ?
I am very respectfully, yr. obt. svt."
" R. S. Coxe, Esq." W. H. WATKINS."
" Dear Sir — Yourformer note was handed to me by Mr. Smith
a day or two since.
I have not been able to obtain from Mr. Mauro an account
of the proceeds of the sales of the articles referred to. They
were placed in his hands with directions to pay half the pro
ceeds to Mr. Jones and half to me. No settlement has taken
place yet nor have I been able to see Mr. Jones on the sub
ject, though during his absence every thing that was done waa
with the knowledge and approbation of Mr. Lee his partner.
Very respectfully,
RICHARD S. COXE."
" Mr. Wm. H. Watkins." October 19, 1829.

12
These notes, the reader perceives, were written and inter
changed in October 1829, a little more than two months after the
transaction occurred, and a few days after Mr. Coxe's return
to the city, from a visit of several weeks' duration somewhera
in the north. And yet Mr. Coxe avers, by a new mode of i«-
terrogative assertion, that " nearly four years" elapsed, without
my " ever intimating" to him " that an improper application
had been made of this property" ! The fact that Mr. Coxe an-
stoered my notes, shows that he considered me as having some
right to make the inquiry — what right could I have had, but
such as had been derived from a previous understanding, on my
part, at least, that something would be generously restored to a
family reduced to the extremest destitution ?
Mr. Coxe's note will go far to establish another point, before
noticed, that it was not the "hearty approbation" of his "col
league, General Jones" which he declares he received, but the
mere " approbation" of " Mr. Lee, his partner."
IOtii assertion.
" Mr. Brent never offered me the option of participating with
him as an act of professional courtesy." p. 13.
In his note to Mr. Coxe ofthe 17th instant, to be found p.p.
19, 20 of Mr. Coxe's pamphlet, Iilr. Brentsays — " When I first
undertook Doctor Watkins' case, I felt a reluctance to embark
in it, from professional delicacy, without consulting you and
General Jones, who had been his original counsel." Not a
word need be added to point out the difference between the two
statements. 11th assertion.
"In the most unequivocal manner I pronounce the assertion
that every, or indeed any, apology was ever made or tendered
to me by Mrs. W. to be without the shadow of foundation." p. 14.
To show this unequivocal assertion in its true light, I am com
pelled, very reluctantly, to resort to my father's private Journal,
in which he has been,formany years, in the habit of preserving
copies of his letters. There I find the two following notes ad
dressed to Mr. COxe, on the days'of their respective dates —
1st.
" My dear Sir: — I shall be very unhappy until I can see you.
Can you notsparemeamomentthiseveiiing about eight o'clock
when I shall be alone ? or, if more convenient to you, tomorrow
morning at any hour before Ten,'' Your compliance will greatly
ohlige Yr. grateful client.
" .Monday afi;ernoon, (10th August.) "
"R. S. Coxe, Esq." 2d.
Washington Jail, 11th August 1S29,
" My dear Sir, — Disappointed in the hope of seeing you last ni.?ht or
this inorning, and too uneasy to be silent at the information communicated
to me yesterday, that Mrs, W, and myself had unconsciously expi-essed

13
OUr;cWcs in a manner to offend, or wound your feelings, I am obliged to
resort to tliig mode of appealing to yoer heart for forgiveness, The mo
ment at which you saw us, was one of inconceivable niisery and affliction —
my poor wife had but just entered, for the first time, the prison of her hus
band, who, whatever n.ay be thought of him by others, will never be guil
ty in her eyes. — Scarcely recovered from the first shock which the new
scenes around her produced, she was thrown into agony at the abrupt
and unexpected communication ofthe Verdict — her first desire was to see
you, as the only being who could briiig her comfort — to keep her from
sinking, I was obliged to assume a courage and deportment at war with all
my feelings ; and when you came in, neither of us was far removed from
a state of mental derangement. Under such circumstances, we may have
said much, of which we were unconscious ; we may have spoken without
thought, without knowledge, but most certainly also without intention to
wound or offend the only person to whom we could look for consolation
under the afflicting blow. No, my good,sir, suffer me to assure you, that
egregious and manifold as may be my sins, that of ingratitude for kindness
is not among the number. Your labors, your sacrifices, and your zeal in
my behalf, have been as disinterested as they have been unprecedented;
and were you even now to abandon me without doing more, I should still
feel that my debt of gratitude to you was eternal. My wife has scarcely
enjoyed a moment of peace since she heard the "cruel ingratitude" of our
treatment to you spoken of, and has only been restrained from making a
personal appeal to your generosity, by the hope that I would see you, and
solicit your oblivion of all that we may have said unpleasant to your feel
ings, " May God bless and prosper you. Sir, shall be the daily prayer of
" Your grateful and obt, svt,
"To RicHAED S, Coxe, Esq,"  ."
It might possibly be said, by one so disposed to quibble as
the author of the pamphlet under consideration has showa
himself to be, that the apology made by my father was not an
apology " tendered" " by Mrs. W." But Mr. Coxe has preclu
ded himself from resort to this subterfuge, by the acknowledg
ment contained iu his answer, which follows, that he received
it, not only on the part of my father, but " that of Mrs. W."
" Dear Sir: — Had I not entertained the belief that it would
have been in my power to gratify your wish to see me I should
earlier have replied to your notes. But circumstances have
¦from time to time disappointed that intention and I cannot lon
ger leave you in pain at the idea of having offended me after
you have expressed on your part and that of Mrs. W. that no
thing was farther from your intentions.
I was deeply mortified and hurt not only with various expres
sions used by her but by her entire manner. It may perhaps
in part be attributed to the state in which my feelings v/ere at
the time. Altogether I was very seriou.sly indisposed, and an
ticipated a violent attack of sickness. This apprehension is
almost entirely removed but I still feel much indisposed, and
have been compelled to be more exposed and more fatigued
than in the same circumstances was desirable.
Rest assured Sir that no feelings of mine could for a moment
have induced me to think of abandoning your case at this stage
of it. I consider myself as having a great public as well as pro
fessional duty to perform, in which not only you but every cit-

14
izen of this nation has a deep interest. So long as the power
is given me I shall continue to enter my solemn protest against
the monstrous principles which it has been attempted to engraft
on the law for the purpose of bringing you to punishment.
I shall probably be .again called upon today to proceed in
the case, and it requires the exertion of all my energies —
Yrs. respectfully
R. S. COXE.
Aug. I2th."
Besides the " unequivocal" contradiction, which these let
ters afford to Mr. Coxe's uneqtiivocal assertion on the subject of
them, the reader will hardly fail to perceive another point in
them, tending strongly to confirm my statement as to the prop
erty. It will be observed that Mr. Coxe's services are spoken
of as "disinterested" — at that time the property had been given
up to Mr. Coxe ; it must have been the impression ofthe family,
therefore, that Mr. Coxe did not design to profit by the sale of
it, or, however highly they might have estimated his labors,
they could never have applied to them the additional merit of
disinterestedness: I2tii assertion.
Speaking of a note received from my mother, "requesting an
interview," Mr. Coxe says: "This interview I, in the most res
pectful terms, declined."
Some individuals, perhaps, of high-minded and honorable
feelings, may think that the mere fact of declining tho request
ed interview, all circumstances considered, is sufficient evidence
that it could jioJ have been done "in the most respectful terms;"
others may require different testimony, and for the satisfaction
of these, I submit the "terms" in which the interview was "de
clined." Madam: — Since my return home I have learned to my
great surprise that remarks and strictures have been made upon
my conduct by yourself and others of your family as unjust as
they are ungenerous. Under such circumstances I can anti
cipate no other consequences of an interview than such as
would be mutually disagreeable. I must therefore be permit
ted to decline it. If my professional services can be of any
avail to Dr. Watkins they may be commanded.
" Very respectfully " RICH'D. S. COXE.
"Mrs. AVatkins." Oct. lOth, 1829.'"
I3th assertion.
As a part ofhis "unequivocal" disavowal, that any apology
had been made to him by my mother, he admits with equal
infelicity, that "Dr. Watkins, about the time of the application
for his release in January 1830 — did express the regret which
he and Mrs. W. felt," &c. &c. p. 11.

15
The reader has seen, that it was in August 1929, immediate
ly after the unconscious offence given, that he "did express the
regret," &c.
I might extend this enumeration of refuted assertions to an
equality with the sum of pages in the pamphlet, but I fear ta
trespass upon the public patience, and must hasten to a con
clusion, even, though many important points may be omitted.
Mr. Coxe has sneeringly observed, that, as a compensation
for his unexampled labors, sacrifices, and services, he has "re
ceived about $300 in money, a few gallons of ordinary wine,,
an invitation to the field, and finally, an attempt publicly
to degrade" his "character." I aver, on the contrary, that I.
delivered to his agent, for him, property to the value of more
than $2000. If he chose to throw that property into the mar
ket, to be sold without restriction, at any sacrifice, it was his
own fault. It is not the amount for which Mr. Coxe thought
proper to sacrifice the property, that constitutes what he receiv
ed ; but it is the amount and real value delivered over to him.
His "few gallons of ordinary wine" are scarcely worth a word
— there is no disputing about tastes, according to the proverb
— ^but I sent him six demijohns, containing thirty gallons, and
a half pipe, which I believed to contain fifty gallons (Messrs.
Mauro &¦ Son say " about 40 gallons " ) of Madeira wine, the
importation price of which was $3.44 a gallon. Of this I had
said, that General Jones only received a. small portion: from
the statement of Messrs. Mauro & Son, it would appear, that.
he did not receive any portion — they say "the whole ofthe
wine both in cask and demijohns was sent" to Mr. Coxe. It
would appear, too, from Mr. Coxe's statement, that I had got
back part ofthe property delivered to him, being "a purchaser"
without having ever paid my "bill of purchases." I was not
at the sale; but at my request, the auctioneers bid in for me '
" a sideboard and sundry books," as they express it in their
note to Mr. Coxe. The books were an edition of Don Quixote
and an edition of Gil Bias, both in Spanish. The sideboard
was struck off at $31, and the books at $1.95, making the
amount of my "bill of purchases" $32.95. I did not feel my
self under any obligation to pay this bill, because in addition
to the list of articles contained in my father's order, I had de
livered to Mr. Coxe's agent upwards of 300 volumes of books, '
the value of which was certainly more than sufficient to cover
my "bill of purchases," and to have saved me from this sneer.
Mr. Coxe, with the haughty and triumphantflourish ofonewho;
stood upon a height to which Idared not even lift my vision,
leaves the issue between us to be decided by his reputation for
"honor," "veracity," and "integrity." ijis name, he proud
ly exclaims "has not been ordinarily linked with falsehood."
Ordinarily ! No ! And the reader will no doubt be ready to
admit, that the link between them has been most ea;«raordinary.

16
I am willino- to take the issue where. he leaves it — I fearnotto
trust my cb.aracter for honor, veracity, or integrity, to the scru
tiny ofthe world. In those attributes, at least, if not in " com
mon sense", I hold myself equal to Mr. Coxe, or to any man.
My name has never been " linked with falsehood", and I defy
malignity itself to point to a sirgle passage of my life where 1
have descended from the level of a gentleman.
Before I conclude, I must bo permitted to say a few words
in relation to the manner in which M-r. Coxe has chosen to in
troduce the name of my father. He has nothing to do with this
dispute — it is mine, not his ; and I trust the motive of Mr.
Coxe will be correctly understood by the public. If he can
reconcile it to his professed "principles," it is well ; but lean-
not think the act will gain him honor among his fellow men. My
father, unhappily for us all, is still in a state of mental suffer
ing and depression, which shuts him up from the world, per
haps even more entirely than when locked within the walls of.
his prison. To drag him again before the tribunal of public
opinion, after all that he has experienced, and in the state of
mind to which obloquy has reduced him, may, perhaps, be grat
ifying to a few individuals who, in the scale of being, hang be
tween the human and the brute, but I cannot think so ill of
man in general as to believe, that there are many, even of those
who may think they have most cause to be his enemies, who
can take pleasure in such an exhibition of him. Whatever
may have been his failings, his imprudences, his errors, I be
lieve him to have sincerely repen:.Td them ; and his family, who
know him best, know, that, even in his least defensible acts,
his heart never for a moment admitted a criminal intention. To
others, the consequences ofhis faults have been trivial — at most,
the loss of a little money ; — to his family, they have been almost
ovcrw^ielming ; that they have not. been altogether fatal, will
perhaps be taken by the public as. some evidence, that they at
least are not wholly undeserving ofthe respect iu which they
are still held by a few " families ofthe highest worth," and that
/, who have been their only suppcfrt a^nd stay, cannot be the
infamous character Mi'. Coxe' depicts me. But ho\vever the
public may differ from his family, iu their estimate of my father's
character, ofthe atonement he haS already made for his faults,
ofhis future intentions, and ofthe claims which these give him
to the forbearance and forgiveness of a christian community ;
still, we live in a country where neither honors nor dishonors
are hereditary — where his family have a right to demand, that
they be judged, not by his pretensions to respect and esteem,
but by their oivn. And, while I hold to them the relation which
I do, so help me the God in whom I firmly trust ! they shall
be so judged, whatever may be the efforts of Mr. Coxe to the
contrary. WM- HENRY WATKINS.
25/ft. May, 1833.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 01761 0982

.1 Ti!'