thoroughly, and he entered immediately upon an active campaign against the President.  Between the presentation of the Boston resolutions and the close of the session he spoke on the bank, and the subjects necessarily connected with it, no less than sixty-four times.  He dealt entirely with financial topics,—­chiefly those relating to the currency, and with the constitutional questions raised by the extension of the executive authority.  This long series of speeches is one of the most remarkable exhibitions of intellectual power ever made by Mr. Webster, or indeed by any public man in our history.  In discussing one subject in all its bearings, involving of necessity a certain amount of repetition, he not only displayed an extraordinary grasp of complicated financial problems and a wide knowledge of their scientific meaning and history, but he showed an astonishing fertility in argument, coupled with great variety and clearness of statement and cogency of reasoning.  With the exception of Hamilton, Mr. Webster is the only statesman in our history who was capable of such a performance on such a subject, when a thorough knowledge had to be united with all the resources of debate and all the arts of the highest eloquence.

The most important speech of all was that delivered in answer to Jackson’s “Protest,” sent in as a reply to Mr. Clay’s resolutions which had been sustained by Mr. Webster as chairman of the Committee on Finance.  The “Protest” asserted, in brief, that the Legislature could not order a subordinate officer to perform certain duties free from the control of the President; that the President had the right to put his own conception of the law into execution; and, if the subordinate officer refused to obey, then to remove such officer; and that the Senate had therefore no right to censure his removal of the Secretary of the Treasury, in order to reach the government deposits.  To this doctrine Mr. Webster replied with great elaboration and ability.  The question was a very nice one.  There could be no doubt of the President’s power of removal, and it was necessary to show that this power did not extend to the point of depriving Congress of the right to confer by law specified and independent powers upon an inferior officer, or of regulating the tenure of office.  To establish this proposition, in such a way as to take it out of the thick and heated atmosphere of personal controversy, and put it in a shape to carry conviction to the popular understanding, was a delicate and difficult task, requiring, in the highest degree, lucidity and ingenuity of argument.  It is not too high praise to say that Mr. Webster succeeded entirely.  The real contest was for the possession of that debatable ground which lies between the defined limits of the executive and legislative departments.  The struggle consolidated and gave coherence to the Whig party as representing the opposition to executive encroachments.  At the time Jackson, by his imperious will and marvellous