Mr Editor—After an abrupt leave, I am in again, and having been for many years what is called a constitutional man, and feeling a deep interest in the common welfare of all, so far as the rights of “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” are concerned, you will pardon me as a legul advocate of vested Rights, (not your religious tenets, or any other’s, for I consider them as a matter connected with the soul) for once more offering you a little “Bee Bread.”

I am much pleased with the liberal powers of the charter of the goodly city of . The Vested Rights, in that public document, are sufficient for all necessary purposes of a people whose greatest object appears to be to benefit mankind in this world, and happily them in the next. It is evident on the face of the instrument in question, that the Legislature of , or more properly the people of , through their representatives, have vested in the corporate body of , over a certain district of Territory which may be increased in size at pleasure, all the rights, privileges and powers, which the said possessed in her constitutional capacity, or could claim under the broad folds of the Constitution of the .

When I first read the charter, I supposed it was circumscribed by the Statutes of the ; but upon a second reading, I saw the beauty of that “Magna Charta.” I saw that the Legislature of had ceded to the City Council of the city of , the power to legislate for the common weal of . For a part of the 11th section of that Act, reads as follows:—

Now, if words mean any thing, here certainly are vested rights, as sacred, as substantial, and, according to the terms of the Charter (perpetual succession,) as durable as those of the , or the , for the “benefit and convenience” of the citizens of , and her posterity, ad infinitum. It is a wise, liberal and substantial foundation for those who may be so fortunate as to share the salutary effects of its ordinances, and partake of its growing blessings. If has power to enact laws for the “benefit,” and “convenince” of her inhabitants, [s]o has for her citizens. If the Constitution of the protects in her vested rights, has the same claim, and the same power to control it. And if the City Council of , should pass an unconstitutional act or ordinance, literally repugnant to the Constitution of the or of this , all that could be done would be to declare it void by some court having competent jurisdiction, and there the matter ends, without any recourse upon the charter any more than there is recourse upon the constitution of the for unconstitutional acts that so frequently disgrace the statutes of the several States.

When I heard that the Legislature, last winters, was laboring to repeal or modify the said charter, it put me in mind of a father and son, who owned a horse which they were too lazy to prove, and bring out his good qualities; but a gentlemen observing him, purchased and in a few days passed by with the noble animal in full mounted harness attached to an elegant carriage, attracting the attention of all that saw him. The son immediately besought his father to sue and get the horse back, but the old man drily replied—’It takes two to make a bargaing.’ So if the Legislature should repeal or alter the charter of without the consent of the citizens, they have only to put a quietus on the act, through the Supreme Court of the , as many other cases have been, according to her Reports.

Reserved rights and Vested rights are very different, and had the Legislature reserved any important point in the charter, and the city council used it, without the consent, mutually, of both parties, they would have been held amenable to the supreme court for the usurpation of that power. But when the “benefit and convenience” of , demands ordinances no broader than the Constitution of the , and that of justifies, no matter whether there is uny law on that subject or not, the city council has only to show their wisdom by their ordinances, and ther power by their virtues, and how beautifully the world will behold emperium in emperio.

Recenty there has been much said about the powers of the Municipal Court of said , because that court had the right to issue writs of under “their own ordinances.” Any man that objects to this power of the Municipal Court, is ignorant of the vested rights of the Constitution of the , for “the privilege of the writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless, when in cases of rebellion and invasion, the public safety may require it.” The highest obligation is, that the writ according [t]o the charter, must be confined to cases ar[i]sing from the ordinances. Just so. If the writ was not issued upon the direction and [ru]les of ordinances, what would govern it? Do the Circuit and Supreme Courts of the [i]ssue writs of Habeas Corpus on the laws of the [S]tate, or upon the laws of Spain, Portugal, [o]r the ? Does the Supreme Court of the , exercise the right [o]f Habeas Corpus upon the , or [u]pon the several States, or upon an Ukase [o]f the Emperor Nicholas, of Russia?

Again the Municipal Court of consists of several persons, whereas the Circuit Court is one man only; and the world has yet to learn that a “a little brief authority,” is as judiciously exercised, by one man, as by six—why, the good old Law Book says “in the midst of counsellors there is safety.”

, of late, made a most desperate and illegal attempt to force the Mormon prophet into her bosom, but met with a most sublime failure.—After having once been thrust from her warm embrace by pointed steel and burning Sulphur, he seems not anxious to throw himself again upon their renewed offers of hospitality and “pretended justice;” yet Gen. Smith treated the agent of the State of with all due respect; introdcing him to his family, and seating him at the head of his table. All is quiet at .

, July 17, 1843. [p. [2]]