Whatever heresies of doctrine have crept into our public policy since those days, the responsibility for them will not rest with him. In all the papers and speeches with which from time to time he has endeavored to enlighten his countrymen, it will be difficult to find a line or a thought not in harmony with the teachings of the eminent statesmen who, during the first fifty years of our national history, traced the limits and defined the functions of constitutional Democracy in America. From that epoch to this there has been scarcely a <iuestion of public concern having its roots in the Constitution which Mr. Tilden has not carefulh' considered and more or less thoroughly treated. He was a champion of the Union and of President Jackson against the Nullifiers and Mr. Calhoun. He denounced the American system of Mr. Clay as unconstitutional, inequitable and sectional. He vindicated the removal of the government deposits from the United States Bank by President Jackson, and exploded the sophistical doctrine of its lawyers that the Treasury is not an executive department. He vindicated President Van Buren from the charge made by William Leggett of unbecoming subserviency to the Slaveholding States in his Inaugural Address. He was among the first to insist upon free banking under general laws, thus opening the business equally to all, and abolisliing the monopoly which was a nearly universal superstition. He exposed the perils of banking upon public funds. He advocated the divorce of bank and State, and the establish, ment of a sub-treasury. He asserted the supervisory control of the Legislature over corporations of its own creation. He exposed the enormities of Mr. Webster's scheme to pledge the public lands for the payment of the debts of the States. He drew and vindicated in a profoundly learned and able report the Act which put an end to the discontentH of the New York 'Anti-renters.' He wrote the protest of the Democracy of New York against making the nationalization of slavery a test of party fealty.