the future course of the government. Elections have now, however, again taken place in 13 states, and in four of these there has been a federalist gain in members of Congress, while in the others there has either been no choice or no changes.

These ephemeral triumphs have, however, given an impetus to the opposition, and awakened hopes in party leaders, that the object for which the great battle of 1844 was fought and won, may now be defeated. Scarcely have the returns of the state elections assumed a definite shape when we find Mr. Webster, from Boston, Mr. Clayton, from Wilmington, and Mr. Clay, from Kentucky, fulminating decrees for a great federalist's rally, in an attack upon the measures ratified by the people at the elections of 1844. Mr. Webster, at Boston, points with triumph at the recent elections of NewYork, Pennsylvania and Ohio, as indicative of a renunciation, by the people of those states, of the principles established two years previously. The assumption is not borne out by the facts. That the three states mentioned, display a temporary federalist ascendancy is clear, but that the character of the election can in any way be supposed expressive of opinion upon national policy, is not the case. The state of New-York presents a condition of affairs not unlike that in which the Union found itself in the contest of 1840. A corrupt money power had produced numerous interests at war with a sound policy, and a regular government. The easy virtue of unscrupulous leaders, combined hordes of needy adventurers in one tumultuous mass, whose eager onslaught gave triumph, but not success. Victory was more fatal than defeat to the ill-assorted factions that achieved it. The hope of reward was an admirable stimulant in the struggle, but a dangerous substitute for principle, when possession brought with it its responsibilities. Disappointed was the charm which dissolved the party strength into its original elements, and 1844 witnessed the recognition of sound principles by the people. It is ever the case, that where federalism gains a hold, it plants those dragon teeth which, in after times, bear armed men to the jeopardy of public rights. In the state of New-York fed

eralist rulers began in 1838 that wasteful policy by which a large state debt, great injury to public credit, and direct taxation, were entailed upon the people of the state. Approaching insolvency was avoided only by a prompt change of policy. The projection of public works, involving an expenditure of $50,000,000 of public money, in addition to the then existing debt, could not, however, but enlist in favor of the projectors a numerous array of partisans. The owners of property, the contractors, brokers, builders and expectants of all classes, created naturally a formidable coalition in favor of the patronage of government as administered by federalists. The insolvency of surrounding states, and the immediate danger of New-York, with gross and growing corruption on all sides, afforded an opportunity to check the career and change the policy of the government. Although the policy of 1842 apparently fixed the future course of the state in relation to public works, it did not destroy the hopes of those who hankered after the "flesh pots." Their unseen, but effective influence, passed the bill in 1845 to revive partially those works, and it was vetoed by the firmness of the Governor; but the ramifications that produced it, remained as the channels through which federalism might form a coalition of all the discordant elements that had grown up in the state, as the fruits of a long season of prosperity. The evils which grew out of the continuance of feudal tenures, engrafted upon institutions incompatible with their existence, were skilfully exaggerated, and from antirentism the transition was easy to the denial of all individual right in real property. "Vote yourself a farm," was readily substituted for "vote yourself no rent," by those in possession of no property, leased or otherwise. The advocates of the abolition of rents, and of the community of property, were readily pledged to support him who should pawn to them the pardoning power, for the use of the violators of the law and the murderers of its officer while in the execution of his duty, in the defence of property. Influences the most unseemly conspired to produce nominations the least to be desired, and while federalism, backed by aggrarianism, anti-rentism, and all whom the hope

of reward drew to an adventurer's flag, furiously assaulted the polls; the evil influence of disappointed pensioners upon public money, ran like a leprosy through the state, paralyzing exertion, dissipating strength, dividing constituencies, and aiding the treacherous efforts of disappointed nominees. The result could not, under these circumstances, have been otherwise than it was. Amidst this mass of intrigue there was no great principle at stake, or important question of national policy to draw people to the polls; and the whole number of votes cast for Governor was 100,900 votes less than in 1844. The successful candidate of federalism and its allies, received 40,462 less than the defeated candidate of the federalist party in 1844. Of the congressional members, federalism gained 13, and these 13 successful candidates received 70,208 votes, while the defeated federalist candidates for the same districts in 1844 obtained 88,191. The democratic vote in these districts in 1844 was 98,536, and in 1846 but 69,686, a diminution of 28,850 votes by bolting and treachery. But say the federal leaders in their late edicts, these are the indications that the new tariff is unpopular. Then a majority of 13,000 for Gardiner indicates that it is popular. It appears, however, that even if the tariff could in any way have been connected as a test question, six members who voted against the new tariff, or in favor of that of 1842, were defeated by members of opposite politics. Three federalist allies, who voted against the new tariff, have been succeeded by democrats, and democrats who voted with the federalists on that question, have been superseded. this is expressive of public opinion, it is not in favor of the assumptions of federalist leaders.

If

Pennsylvania was not exempt from the disorganising influence of local politics, where there was no absorbing national question to take precedence. A diminution in the aggregate vote, however, there, as in other states, marks the apathy of the electors. From the singular results of the returns of the congressional members, it would appear, however, that the tariff question did influence the votes, and the effects of that influence are seen in the almost universal condemnation of those democrats who voted against the

new tariff. There were 12 democratic members, and of these but 4 were re elected; one of these voted for the new tariff, and he is the only one of the number reelected by an enhanced majority. Mr. Wilmot, of the 12th district, composed of Tioga, Bradford and Susquehanna counties, received 5.599 votes, and his opponent 4,857. The federal member of the 3d district, who voted against the new tariff, has been superseded by a democrat. If these results grew out of the tariff, it could only have been in consequence of the wilful misrepresentations of the people, and not the iron-masters of Pennsylvania; and those who voted against the new tariff, have met their rebuke at the ballot box.

In Ohio, similar causes have produced like results; and the federal majority, which was 24,000 for Harrison, and reduced to 5,940 for Clay in 1844, has not been brought lower than 2000 for the Governor. This grew out of divisions in Pickaway, Starke and Wayne; and the absence of 2,500 patriots with the army in Mexico, giving a practical support with their blood and treasure to that war which the absence of their votes is supposed to condemn.

These are the triumphs that have called forth loud vauntings on the part of the federalist leaders, and induced them to rally under the cry of the repeal of the new tariff, ere its beneficent operation in promoting trade shall have too firmly fixed it in the affections of the people. The federalist party, in relation to the tariff, are precisely now where they stood in relation to a national bank in March, 1841.. It will be remembered that when the late national bank resumed its payments for the last time, in January, 1841, most of the banking institutions at the south and west were in a state of suspension, and therefore, the internal exchanges, as expressed in their depreciated paper promises, used as local currencies, exhibited great confusion and very high rates. The revolution of 1840 was to bring back federalist patronage to the United States Bank; and a strenuous effort was made to whitewash its dilapidated credit, in order that, on the advent of the new government to power in March, the federal deposites might be restored to its vaults, and the credit and means thus bestowed upon it by government patronage, were to be

its affiliated federalist schemes; and Mr. Webster, at Boston, has propounded a problem in relation to the former, difficult of solution, as follows:

"Mr. Webster said, that he had been at some trouble to ascertain, from correct

sources, the expenses of the war, and he read a paper on which was written a statement of the resources and the expenditures of the government for the last five mouths, by which it appeared that the expenditures were about sixty millions of dollars per year, or double the resources, without taking into account the outstand ing claims. And this immense debt must be met. He asked how? And showed that by the operation of the Sub-Treasury, a government measure, the treasury will be cramped, and the treasurer will be in a situation of great distress. The operation of the new law will draw all the specie out of circulation, and leave nothing for the public use. He said that by the old mode of doing business, allowing the Secretary of the Treasury to draw his money when he wanted it, there would have been less trouble."

The expenses of the government are taken, probably, from the official report for the quarter, ending September 30, which gives an aggregate expenditure of $14,088,661 for the quarter, which is nearly at the rate of 60 millions per annum, including the war and the public debt. For the six months, ending Sept. 30, 1846, $23,469,400; and for the three quarters, ending Sept. 30, 1846, the whole expenditures of the United States government, war and debt included, is $27,953,297, and for the same three quarters of 1841, when Mr. Webster was Secretary of the Treasury, and during the retrenchment and reform fever of the newly installed government, they were $24,734,346. That is to say, the war with Mexico has been supported four months, the victories of Palo Alto, Resaca de la Palma and Monterey achieved, and California, Chihuahua, and Santa Fe, three large empires, added to the Union, and the whole expense, in addition to the regular disbursements of the government, have exceeded those of the same period of 1841, but $3,718.953. Both periods, viz: the 1st three quarters of 1841, and the 1st three quarters of 1846, were periods of border difficulties. In the former case, a powerful neighbor was dealt with, and the results were a surrender of large

tracts of land belonging to the state of Maine, but no actual warfare existed. The army and navy afforded no aid in the settlement, nor were military expenses increased. In 1846, an invasion of the southern frontier of the United States involved a war, which has been conducted, if we take into view the extent of territory and its vast resources overrun and annexed to the Union, with a success greater than ever before attained in so short a time for so little have shown, the actual expenditure for expense of blood and treasure. As we the three quarters is but $3,217,957 more than in the same period of 1841. The expenditures of the army proper were $8,143,659 for the last quarter, and 5,041,762 for the previous one, being together ten millions more than the usual peace expenditure for the same length of time. Yet Mr. Webthe annual expenditures are vastly exster's speech leaves the inference that travagant, even for a time of war; but while making this display of what the government must expend, he asserts that the "Independent Treasury will draw all the specie out of circulation." We apprehend, if the government pays out sixty millions per annum, and pays in specie, according to the Independent Treasury law, that very considerable sums of specie must be put into circulation. If the government receives $60,000,000 in specie, and retains it on hand, it will, of course, draw it out of circulation; and this is the only view of the case taken by the federalist leaders. Unfortunately, however, the other side presents an egress of specie from the treasury vaults, rather more rapid than the ingress. The difference is, that the people are receiving on one side, and banks are paying on the other, an operation by no means agreeable either to corporate institutions, or their speculative borrowers.

The chief attack is, however, made on the war itself, a war that doubtless emanated from the over confidence of the Mexican leaders in European aid, and in the encouragement they received from the tone of federal papers throughout the Union. As an indication of the manner in which the war is to be attacked at the coming session, we quote from the speech of Mr. Webster:

"The first that was heard of it was from

the assertion of the President that the war existed. Texas had become a part of the United States, and the boundary that had been claimed up to that time was the river Nueces; all beyond that was actually in possession of Mexico, had never even been claimed by Texas. But the President had, by a great violation of duty, ordered the United States army to push forward beyond it, and in so doing he had committed what Mr. Webster considered as an impeachable offence. The President had it in his power to do such a thing, but had no right to do it. By the constitution he was authorized to repel invasion, but he was not authorized to go beyond the territory, and invade another country."

The first that was heard of it"

was the attack by the Mexican invading army on the troops of the United States. The only pretence of opposition to the war is the shallow one in relation to the boundary, and to make that pretence, the river Nueces is assumed as the true boundary. Why it is so assumed cannot be shown, unless that it was because the United States troops having occupied it unmolested for a length of time, that circumstance coustituted it a boundary. In no manner was the river Nueces ever mentioned or assigned as the limits of Texas. On the other hand, all the intercourse which took place between Mexico and Texas recognized the Rio Grande as the boundary; as thus, a specific condition of the articles after the battle of San Jacinto, was the evacuation of Texas to a region beyond the Rio Grande. The Legislature of Texas always impliedly and often specifically embraces the district between the Nueces and the Rio Grande. In 1842 the Hon. Ashbell Smith, acting as Secretary of State, made two Empresario contracts for the settlement of the country, on the Rio Grande, including its immediate banks. One contract was with a British subject and the other with a citizen of France. By the act of annexation the United States adopted the position and relations of Texas towards Mexico. If, then, we examine what those relations were, we find that a preliminary treaty of peace had been signed by the Texan Secretary of State, and by the Mexican Minister for foreign affairs, under the express sanction of the Mexican Congress, and it was then waiting the action of the Texan Congress. It was in itself a treaty of peace, based on the

Independence of Texas, leaving the boundary open for future arrangement. At this point the United States assuming the place of Texas, sent a Minister to treat for the boundary. Mexico refused to receive him! and for the very novel reason that he had "too much authority," viz. that he was empowered not only to treat of the boundary but of all other matters. Mexican wisdom, however, decided that unless his other powers were taken from him, they would not treat about the boundary. Now, the boundary on the At

of

lantic was never other than the natural one, the Rio Grande. We have seen an atlas published in London, in 1843, by Arrowsmith, whose reputation as a geographer entitles him to respect, notwithstanding the propensity the English to make "red lines," not only where they control, but where they intend to dictate, assigning the Rio Grande as the boundary of Texas, and the northern limit of Mexico. Moreover, M'Culloch's Geographical Dictionary, which enjoys deservedly a large reputation, describes Texas as follows:

lic of North America, between the United "TEXAS, a new and independent repub States and Mexico, extending from 26 to 40 deg. N. lat., and from 90 to 108 deg. W. long. It is separated from Mexico on the W. and S. by the Rio Grande, or Bravo del Norte, &c. &c."

Again, the Nueces is but a small stream, extending only to the 30th deg. North latitude, while the Rio Grande runs 10 degrees further, continuing to form that western boundary described by M'Culloch, and which would not exist if the Nueces only were the boundary.

The United States having annexed Texas, proceeded to legislate for the district between the Nueces and the Rio Grande. It became a Congressional district, and was represented in Congress when news of its invasion arrived. It was a collection district of the United States, which was bound to defend it. But, say the federalists, Mexico never acknowledged Texas south of the Nueces! Did she ever acknowledge Texas north of the Nueces? No doubt was ever raised as to the perfect title of both Texas and the United