Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1833-03-29
RICHMOND, March 26

RICHMOND, March 70.
Rising Of the Hates There was from Wed.
nes'av TO Saturday last, considerable Fresh Of
the small rivers in this district Of country. The
rise OF the James river was not as remarkable as
it was in the small rivers, in consequence of the
rains not having extended very high to the noun
tainous country. Ii was in the smaller streams
that the fresh was principally seen. At this ci-
t. the James rose, il il true above Trents Bridge
but in the county Of Fiuvanns, the Little Bird
Creek, which makes into the James river, the
water rose so high as TO carry ntf the bridge on
the mail road, fifteen feet high For two OF
three days the water was rising in the Pamunkey
and Martapony, TO height which has not been
surpassed for the last ten years. The mail com
munication was partially interrupted land on
the borders Of the Pamunkey, the water rose so
high as to drown horse in wagon, that was
travelling the high road. Many Of the low
grounds and wheat fields were overlooked by
the inundatioh. The waters, however, began to
fail on Saturday, and they were almost odt in
the course Of Sunday Compiler.
Case of Dr. Watkins This case was brought
before the Circuit Court of this District, on Mon.
day last. the frs. day of the present term. by
Mr.. Brent, who moved for rule on the Dis.
trict Attorney Of the United States, to shew
cause why writ Of Habeas Corpus should not
issue. The District Attnrnev, Mr.. KEY,
inumated that in consequence Of the decision Of
the Supreme Court at their last term, in Wat.
kins' case, ne should deem il necessary to move
for his commitment; and suggested that the OBJ.
ject OF the petitioners counsel in APPLYING for
Habeas Corpus might be accomplished, if at all,
as we'll BY resisting his motion to commit, or by
mouing 10 quash the new writs of Ca. Sa. The
Court determined to hear the case argued yester.
day. when, accordingly, Mr.. BaENT moved TO
quash those writs.
The points taken bv Mr.. Brent in support Of
his motion, and which he argued at considerable
length, were, we understand, the following, viz:
|. That the arrest of Watkins under the for.
mer process, which the Supreme Court had de.
cided to be illegal, satisfied the judgments of the
United States against him.
9. That more than year and day had eIaps-
ed since the rendition Of the judgments. and since
the return. day Of the original executions, and
there was no scire facias.
5. That no second execution against Dr. Wat.
kins's body could issue, unless the first bad been
entered not called BY consent.
4. That Watkins last arrest was violation Of
privilege, having been made while he was obey.
ing mandate of the Supreme Court Of the
United States, requiring his presence before
them.
5. Thatit was no part Of the sentence of the
Court that Watkins should stand committed till
the pay mens Of the fines. for not paying which
he Is nawsheld IN imprisonment; that these fines
are ercessiue, being against the settled rule of
law forbidding the inAlction Of fine beyond the
Partys ability to pay it; against the Bill OF Rights
OF Maryland; and against the Constitution Of the
United States.
Mr.. KEY, on the part of the United States,
proceeded to answer Mr. BRENT, but had not
concluded his argument at haf past 8 O'Clock,
when the Court adjourned till this morning, a,
so'clOck.-Na. Int. ofyesterdoy.
BALTIMORE. March q.
Dedication -Agreeaby to announcement, the
new Wpslexan Chanel hniI, hr ,ha M.,,..a..