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 compromise 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

posed will ere long sink into petty corporations-the cring ing footstools of the Federal Power, the mendicant recipients of the bounties of the Federal Government; and this Federal Government itself will become a great consolidated Power, around which the States will revolve as mere satel lites; receiving from its scorching rays their light, heat and motion. Are we prepared for such a state of things? Is the Congress of the United States, I ask, ready to adopt a system which will inevitably bring along with it such a crushing calamity, such overwhelming and disastrous ruin ?"

In the second session Mr. Johnson supported with great ability the raising of men and money for the prosecution of the war with Mexico. On the bill providing for the levying of an additional military force to sustain it he declared his position, and unfalteringly maintained it during the fierce and bitter conflicts that agitated both Congress and the nation, until the news of victory after victory crowned our arms with glory and created a popular enthusiasm which was speedily taken advantage of by the politicians. In a most forcible and eloquent speech, made in the House of Representatives in 1847, he took occasion to severely rebuke the large party then in Congress, who were denouncing the war as "unconstitutional, unholy and damnable." He pointed out their incessant opposition to the war. On the one hand they voted men and money to carry it on; while on the other, they denounced it as "unjust" and "unholy," thereby encouraging the enemy to protract it, for no other purpose than, in their own language, of welcoming our heroic countrymen "with bloody hands to hospitable graves." In this memorable speech he said:

"If the war is in violation of the Constitution it cannot be repaired by widening the breach. If it is damnable it can never be made honorable. If it is unholy it can never be made righteous. There is but one true position to take upon this question in sound morals. If the nation is wrong and has inflicted injury on Mexico, as an honorable people and Christian nation we are bound to with

draw our troops and indemnify Mexico for all the injury we have done. If this war is such an one as it is represented to be, what an awful end for our officers and soldiers who have fallen in such a contest. He that has the proper standard of morals set up in his mind, must be horror-struck at the very contemplation. To think of men going from time to eternity as a mere miserable set of pirates! What an awful reflection this must be in the hour of death! To die though, as Captain Taggart of Indiana died upon the plains of Buena Vista, is inspiring to the patriot and Christian. In that bloody and fearful conflict, after being stricken down, weltering in his blood beneath the gory crimson spear, when in the very last throes of death, he rises upon his side and unbuckles his sword that he had so gallantly wielded in his country's rights, hands it to his companions, and with his eyes fixed upon the Stars and Stripes, the dying words of his lips are, 'Take this, I can use it no longer! Press on! Our cause is just and victory will ere long perch upon our country's standard.' What a striking contrast is this, and in what a short time were his predictions fulfilled!

"Conviction forces itself upon my mind that this war was just, or it never could have been crowned with such unparalleled success. Our country must have been in the right or the God of battles would sometimes have been against us. Mexico must have been in the wrong-she is a doomed nation! The right red arm of an angry God has been suspended over her, and the Anglo-Saxon race has been selected as the rod of her retribution."

On the 27th of January, 1847, Mr. Johnson introduced a resolution, addressed to the Secretary of the Treasury, making certain inquiries regarding the fund bequeathed by James Smithson to the United States, and closing the resolution by requesting the Secretary

"To make suggestions in relation to retrenching the expenditures of the Government in any or all of the departments, and particularly in relation to the reduction of salaries of officers, when the salary is over one thousand dollars per annum; and that he further report to this House his opinion of the propriety and practicability of levying and collecting an ad valorem tax of twenty per cent., or any other rate that may be assumed, on gold and silver plate, gold watches, jewelry, pleasure carriages, etc., and the probable amount of revenue which may be raised from the same. He will further make any sug

gestions where, in his opinion, the pruning-knife of retrenchment can be applied with safety and propriety at this time."

Mr. Johnson was re-elected to Congress (the Thirtieth) by an overwhelming majority this year.

Among his efforts of this period is one which, apart from its political bearing, has a peculiar interest. It is an argument in favor of the Veto power.* He gave an historical outline of the veto power, which runs back to the times of the Roman Republic; the tribunes of the people having had the right to approve or disapprove any law passed by the Senate, inscribing upon the parchment, in case they resolved to adopt the latter alternative, the word "veto." He traced this power, through the various stages of its progress, from the days of Augustus, and showed that since the establishment of this Government to the time at which he spoke, the veto power had been exercised twenty-five times, thus by Washington, twice; by Madison, six times; by Monroe, once; by Jackson, nine times; by Tyler, four times; by Polk, thrice."

"It will be seen," said Mr. Johnson, "from the origin of the Government to the present time, this power has been exercised twentyfive times. The whole number of laws passed from the organization of the Government and approved is about seven thousand, which would make one veto to every two hundred and eighty-a very small proportion; and I think I may appeal with confidence to all those who are conversant with legislation here, whether it would not have been better for the people and the country if five thousand out of the seven thousand had been vetoed. I have been thus particular in giving the origin and exercise of the veto power, to prove that whenever it has been exercised in compliance with the popular will by a tribune or president, or any other name you may think proper to call him, so that he is immediately responsible to the people, it opeates well."

.....

Again he said:

"The veto, as exercised by the Executive, is conservative, and enables the people through their tribunician officer, the President, to *August 2, 1848.