The Daily Herald

The following communication is from a distinguished and old school democrat, who has for many years stood high in the esteem and confidence of all who have been honored with his acquaintance. Coming from such a source, it merits, and should receive, the candid attention of the public.

VESTED RIGHTS.

It frequently happens that much is both said and written on subjects little understood, and that terms and forms of language are used, with no adequate apprehension of their real import. Of late much has been said of vested Rights, and these rights are represented as obnoxious to the pure spirit of democracy; and one editor when alluding to them says "prelly democracy this." Now I am very confident that such representations will never be made where the subject is understood. As one man who verily believes he has learned democracy aright, the writer of this article boldly says, that where there is no vested rights, there is no liberty.

In the eastern despotisms, and in the European monarchies, with one or two exceptions, there are no vested rights; but every thing is dependent upon the will of the rulers. To avoid this evil, and to secure rights, or in other words, to render our most fundamental rights permanent and vested, our fathers adopted constitutional governments--and they had no earthly object in doing this but to constitute vested rights.

Is there any democrat who will say that he has no vested rights to the farm he has paid for and the title to which he has perfected? There is no such right in Constantinople. Is there any democrat who will say that he has no vested right to speak and write on any subject he pleases? There is no such right in Prussia. And will not every democrat say, that if he is to be tried for the forfeiture of any of these rights, he has a further and additional vested right of being tried by a Jury of his fellow citizens, instead of the legislature or any of its committees?

To be more explicit, a vested right is nothing more or less than a right secured by the constitution. And if neither the national nor our state constitution has secured us no rights, then we have none which are vested; but if any rights are thus secured, this very fact establishes vested rights, and such as no legislature can take away. And he who contends that we have no vested rights will concede that the Legislature may take away every man's farm at its pleasure and subject every citizen to be tried by itself instead of a Jury. But one thing is certain, no democrat will concede it.

I do not now suggest the idea that a charter of Incorporation creates a vested right. That is a question of law and not of politics. I only enter my solemn protest as a democrat, to the principle, that under a constitutional form of Government there are no vested rights.

Any man who contends for this principle must at least be a very young democrat, and so young as never to have heard that the GREAT QUESTION which formerly distinguished federalists from democrats in Connecticut was, whether we should have vested rights secured from legislative interference by a Constitution, or whether all our rights and privileges should be dependant upon the accidental will and caprice of a naked majority of the legislature, uncontrolled by constitutional restraints.

I have said that whether a charter of incorporation constitute a vested right or not, is only a question of law growing out of the construction of the constitution of the United States, and is not a question of politics. And this question can only ultimately be settled, if it has not been already, by the Supreme Court of the United States, which has appellate jurisdiction from State Courts in cases involving the constitutionality of state laws supposed to conflict with the Constitution of the United States.

Nor am I the apologist of the veto of Governor Edwards, but I hesitate not to say that the gross attacks made upon his motives, if not anti-democratic are very anti-christian.

CANDOR.