man. They show a warmth of heart, a tender recollection of past associations, that are invariably accompanied by sincerity, generosity, and truthfulness. No man who is a sincere votary at the altars of his household gods, can be a mean or bad man. Any man who loves sincerely the place where his children first saw the light, or who reveres the spot where sleep the ashes of his parents, although he may have infirmities, yet he may be trusted. And so in regard to the place of his nativity or the place of his adopted home. Patriotism, love of country, is only a more enlarged sentiment of that attachment, reverence, and devotion the heart feels for the home of childhood, or the adopted home, where the social relations and the domestic affections expand into full bloom. No man ever betrayed his country, over whose heart crept a feeling of melancholy tenderness when he thought of the old homestead where he spent the halcyon days of his youth, or whose eyes were involuntarily moistened when recurring to the scenes and events associated with the budding and blooming of his domestic affections. Whilst we admire and honor President Johnson for the manly and intellectual traits of his character-for the private and social virtues alluded to, we are bound to respect and love him.

CHAPTER VI.

Discussion on Resolutions of the Tennessee Legislature-Charge of Prejudice against Mr. Johnson unfounded.-Views on the Qualification of Voters under the Constitution-Views on Extravagant Appropriations-Predictions of the result of the Homestead Policy-Efforts for Retrenchment measures-Constitutional Objections to the Pacific Railroad Bill-Views on Presidential Conventions-Cost of a Pacific Railroad-The true philosophy of Mr. Johnson's Political Creed.

IN February, 1858, a most warm and exciting discussion took place in the Senate, running through the best part of three days, between Mr. Johnson and his colleague, Hon. John Bell. It grew out of the introduction of certain resolutions passed by the Legislature of Tennessee, instructing the Senators from that State to vote for the admission of Kansas as a State, etc. Inasmuch as the discussion related almost exclusively to the local politics of Tennessee, and to crimination and recrimination between. the parties, it is not deemed necessary to give extracts from Mr. Johnson's speeches on the occasion. Mr. Johnson never showed himself more powerful in debate. Many of his replies were impromptu. And when it is recollected that his adversary was the Hon. John Bell, one of the ablest men and most adroit debaters in this country -when it is further borne in mind that it was Mr. Johnson's first session in the Senate, to say that he fully sustained himself, that he met Mr. Bell on every point, and came out of the discussion with largely increased reputa

tion for intellectual and oratorical power, is the highest praise that can be awarded to him. The reader is referred to this debate, as reported in Vol. 36 of the "Congressional Globe," as one of the finest specimens of dialectical skill and oratorical dexterity in our Congressional annals. Mr. Bell showed himself unusually great. Each found in the other a foeman worthy of his steel. There is one short extract the author is disposed to give from Mr. Johnson's reply, in order to prove that he has had injustice done him in the charge, from certain quarters, that his party feelings were so bitter as to amount to prejudice. The passage alluded to is where Mr. Johnson refers incidentally to Mr. Clay, the great leader of the Whig party, to which Mr. Johnson had been uniformly opposed. Mr. Johnson said:

"We all remember the part taken by the distinguished statesman of Kentucky on that occasion-(the compromise measures of 1850). Notwithstanding it had been part of my teaching and education to oppose that distinguished man, yet I always looked on him as a gallant, talented, and daring leader. In 1850, when I witnessed his efforts here in the Senate, when he was struggling for what he believed to be for the peace and harmony of the country, when he threw himself into the breach, when he was standing here receiving assaults from all quarters, I came here to listen to him with delight and pleasure every day. The gallant bearing and the noble sentiments uttered by that great man during that contest, brought me up nearer to him, and removed many of the prejudices I had contracted in early life in reference to him."

In March, 1858, the bill for the admission of Minnesota as a State into the Union was before the Senate. During the debate on this bill, Mr. Johnson said:

“While I am up, I desire to enter my protest against a doctrine which may be supposed to be advanced here, in reference to the qualification of the voters of a State. This Government has no

power, under the Constitution of the United States, to fix the qualification of voters in any sovereign State of the Confederacy. I wish to enter my protest against the doctrine being indulged in, or cultivated to any extent, that this Government has power to go inside a sovereign State, and prescribe the qualification of her voters at the ballot-box. It is for the State and not for the Government to do that. If the doctrine be once conceded, that the Federal Government has the power to fix the qualification of voters in a a State, the idea of State sovereignty is Utopian. There is no such thing as State sovereignty, if the Government can fix the qualification for voters. We have no right to inquire into it. There are simply two things to be ascertained here: First, have we evidence that a State has been formed? Second, have we evidence that its constitution is republican in its character? These two things being ascertained, every thing else is for the State that applies for admission into the Union."

These opinions of Mr. Johnson are of great importance, in reference to the bearing they may have on the readjustment now going on. The author is not disposed to discuss the question, as to whether the foregoing position is right or wrong. It is enough that they were Mr. Johnson's views in 1858. His position is assumed, fairly, squarely, unequivocally, and unconditionally. It is expressed in language forcible and decided. It is an opinion expressed, not as a mere question of expedient policy, which may vary in its application according to circumstances; but it is laid down as a principle-a principle involved in the very structure of our system of government. Principles are lasting, they are permanent, they cannot change with the shifting blasts of opinion. How, then, can any one who is a friend of Mr. Johnson, wish him to abjure a deliberately expressed opinion upon an abstract principle of constitutional right? Did those who are preparing to assail him, in reference to the qualifications of voters in

the Southern states, expect him to renounce his opinions, as of record in the debates of the Senate? Did they expect to drive him to it? If so, they little know the man with whom they are dealing. Did they expect to wheedle and persuade him to it? If they could succeed in that, would they then have any respect for him? And, moreover, what hopes could they have for a Government that was in the hands of so unstable a man? Or was it, that having resolved on a breach with him, and knowing his firmness and consistency, they selected for an issue a question on which he had committed himself of record, and involving a principle on which they knew he would not retreat?

At this time, when the public mind is so anxious in regard to our heavy indebtedness, and the high taxes that we may have to meet, it is comforting to know that in Mr. Johnson we have a President whose influence will be exerted against extravagance in the appropriation and expenditure of the public money. On this subject, his uniform course in the Senate was in accord with his position when in the House of Representatives. In May, 1858, he made a speech in the Senate against the proposition to appropriate money from the public Treasury for the establishment of schools in the District of Columbia. He said, in referring to the constantly increasing expenses of the Government:

"It is in the power of Congress to prevent these enormous expenditures, and, if we do not interpose, we are responsible for them. This Government, but sixty-nine years of age, scarcely out of its swaddling-clothes, is making more corrupt uses of money, in proportion to the amount collected from the people, as I honestly believe, than any other Government on the face of the habitable globe. Just in proportion as you increase the amount collected and expended by the Federal Government, in the same proportion corruption goes along with it; and when you run the