their innocent and defenceless worshipers, and the gutters of our streets made to flow with human gore? This is but a faint reality of what is shadowed forth in the gentleman's speech, but for the purpose of showing the country how ignorant he was of the facts, and how reckless he was in bold statement, he would read from a pamphlet he held in his hand, which was written by a Whig in the city of Nashville, Tenn., and dedicated to the Hon. John Bell:

"I am a member of a Protestant church and a citizen of Nashville, where there are but few Catholics, and where the citizens generally are somewhat prejudiced against them; I could, if I wished, with impunity speak derogatory of this sect. But let justice be done, though the heavens should fall. From whence or how was obtained the idea that Catholicism is hostile to liberty, political or religious? During the Reformation, the great mother of revolutions, when the foundations of powers and principalities were upheaved as by the eruptions of a volcano, did not the demon of persecution rage as fiercely among the Protestant sects as among the Catholics? Did not the Calvinists, Lutherans, and Arminians oft array themselves against each other? Did not the Protestants previous to the revolution in Great Britain persecute with dire vengeance each other? and have they not done so in Germany, France, and many other European powers, since? During our colonial state, when Protestants, Puritans and Quakers were disfranchising and waging a relentless war of persecution against each other through Pennsylvania and the New England colonies, did not Catholic Maryland open her free bosom to all, and declare in her domain that no man or sect should be persecuted for opinion's sake? And was she not from this fact the sanctuary of the oppressed and persecuted, not only of America but of Europe? And when the storm-cloud of a seven years' revolution burst with all its destructive wrath, were not Catholics seen fighting in the vans of our armies, and mingling their torrents of blood with those of Protestants in defence of American liberty and independence? Was there an ocean, a bay, or a stream, not impurpled by their blood? Was there a hill or a plain not whitened by their bones? And is Catholicism a foe to liberty? Is Ireland's Catholic isle the nursery of slaves, though her evergreen shamrock no longer wreathed the brows of her warriors, though her palaces are in ruins, her cities in tears, her people in chairs? No! thou didst never cradle a slave; and thy innocent convulsions are but the struggling throes of that unextinguished spirit of liberty which shall yet burst forth with irresistible impetuosity, and shake haughty England to her very anchor, though deep down in the main ! Was Catholic Poland the birthplace of slaves? Go ask Cracow and

Warsaw when they last beheld, against combined Russia, Austria and Prussia, in death arrayed, their patriot bands-few but undis mayed; or ask Freedom, too, as said the bard, Did she not shriek when Poland under Madalinski and Kosciusko fell? Were Lafayette, Pulaski, McNeill, De Kalb and O'Brien foes to liberty? Was Charles Carroll of Carrollton, the last survivor of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, a friend of despotism? Was Thomas Fitzsimmons, one of the immortal Revolutionary fathers that framed the Constitution, a foe to liberty? Have we forgotten what Washington, the great father of his country, said of the Catholics? He said: "I hope ever to see America foremost among the nations of the earth in examples of justice and liberality; and I presume my fellow-citizens will never forget the patriotic part which Catholics took in the accomplishment of their revolution and the establishment of their government, or the important assistance which they received from France, in which the Catholic religion is professed!"'

During this session, one of the Ohio delegation having alluded to General Jackson in an uncalled-for manner, Mr. Johnson gallantly defended the character of Jackson, then living in retirement in the forests of Tennessee, from the unkind allusions, which seemed to him strange, coming from the quarter whence they had emanated.

Thus have we seen the poor orphan-boy struggling through vicissitudes, the romance of which, when viewed from the stand-point of ultimate success, almost dispels their gloomier aspects. We have seen the triumph of his manly honesty, of his manual industry, and of his mental energy. We have seen him fill all the municipal and legislative offices in the gift of his townsmen and fellow-citizens within the State of Tennessee; and we have seen him representing his State in the national Congress of the Republic, taking his stand boldly, broadly and honorably on the most important questions of the time; vindicating the choice of those who sent him, and already accorded, in his first Congressional term, rank as a rising man—a notable man, one who had opinions, and a fervid method of expressing them.

CHAPTER III.

TWENTY-NINTH Congress

1845 To 1857.

Contention between England and the United States -The Oregon Boundary - How the Discussion was Adjusted Polk and Pakenham - Mr. Johnson's Position - Taxes Opposes Internal Improvements of Local Nature and Indiscriminate Expenditure - The States and the Federal Government - The War with Mexico; was it "Unholy?". The Veto Power His Congressional Career Plan to Defeat him Elected Governor of Tennessee - Speech against "Know-Nothingism' Re-elected Governor. - The Canvass Anecdotes of his Personal Courage - Elected United States Senator.

MR. JOHNSON was re-elected to the national House of. Representatives in the summer of 1845.

The Twenty-ninth Congress was for many reasons one of the most important in the political history of the country up to that period. A bitter contention existed between the United States and Great Britain in regard to the line which divided the possessions of the two Powers in Oregon. Eminent and sagacious statesmen in both countries predicted war. While many political leaders in America looked hopefully forward to any cause which would breed a rupture with England, against which the popular sentiment of the Democratic party was settled, there were others in England who thought the opportunity favorable for striking a blow at and waylaying the expanding pride and pretensions of the Great Republic. England had not entirely outgrown the humiliation "eceived at the hands of Barney, Lawrence, Macdonough, Perry, Reid, and others, on sea; and from Scott, Wool, and their comrades, on land; and

which culminated in Andrew Jackson's brilliant and crushing operations at New Orleans. Irritating causes of dissension, of greater or less magnitude, had been increasing between the Governments and people for several years; and an open rupture was an event which, on both sides of the Atlantic, was regarded as not only imminent, but as scarcely possible of postponement for any length of time. The Oregon Boundary was looked upon as the approaching opportunity to wipe out old scores on both sides.

Mr. Johnson took a decided stand in support of our right to the line of 54° 40', but at the same time, he then, and ever, insisted that the real contest was for the territory between 46° and 49°, as that embraced the Columbia River, which Great Britain was anxious to acquire on account of the invaluable advantages it afforded for both military and commercial purposes. Tyler's Administration, through Daniel Webster, then Secretary of State, had offered to adjust the difficulty on the line of 49°; and the Polk Administration, in the words of its first protocol to Mr. Pakenham, the British Minister, "had determined to pursue the present negotiation to its conclusion upon the principle of comproImise in which it was commenced, and to make one more effort to adjust this long-standing controversy." Although "54° 40', or fight," had been a potent rallying election cry, still, in the position of affairs, it was a matter of national courtesy and self-respect that President Polk should renew the proposition of his predecessor. The British Minister, however, declined the offer without consulting his Government. The President then directed the withdrawal of the offer, declaring, through the Secretary of State (Mr. Buchanan), that such a proposition would never have been made had the question been a new one and not a pending negotiation. But the British Government quickly rebuked its Minister's haste, and made an offer of adjustment on the very line rejected by Mr. Pakenham, declaring it, at the same

time, as its ultimatum. Here was a turning of diplomatic tables. It was not in accordance with Polk's views to accept it; and yet, in the eyes of the world, its rejection would have appeared simply as a willful and wanton desire for war. It was accepted. To pursue a different course would, in the opinion of Mr. Johnson, be abandoning the substance and running after the shadow; he therefore, firmly and frequently, sustained President Polk in his settlement of the question.

In this session Mr. Johnson denounced as oppressive the proposed contingent tax of ten per cent. on tea and coffee, laying it down as a fundamental principle that the expenses of Government, especially those incurred in time of war, should be defrayed by those who enjoyed the largest share of its protection. He thought it a great injustice that the poor man should not only shed his blood in defense of the rights and honor of his country, but also be overburdened with taxes. Having aided in demolishing the proposed tax, he introduced and carried through a bill providing a tax to a certain amount of per centage upon all bank, State and Government stock, and other capital. He also, in the debate on the River and Harbor Improvement bill, took general grounds against the insane policy of expending the public money on internal improvements not in their character national but entirely local. In this speech Mr. Johnson portrayed with a masterly hand the evil consequences which would flow from such an indiscriminate expenditure; and demonstrated that national bankruptcy, crime and peculation must follow in the train of such legislation. He proceeded to show that it would break down the rights of the States, and ultimately terminate in a great central power, too weak and too corrupt to meet any of the legiti mate objects of the Government. "Let the States thus become dependent," said he, " on the Federal Government, and the sovereignties of which this glorious Union is com