Morning journal and courier., 1883-04-05

gone no change of mind as to whether the decision may or may not safely be left in the hands of the commissioners.
 MT. Andrews, of New Britain, did not see any necessity for the law at all; the general railroad law sufficiently covered the ground.
 The amendments endorsed by the commit tee were adopted and Mir. Simonds explained the precise nature of the bill as amended. The railroad commissioners should have the responsibility of determining whether 8 road is public necessity before mans land is taken from him for the purpose of building it. He thought it safe measure He ba- lievei the railroad commissioners capable and honorable men, and if they are not, then the State of Connecticut can furnish others who are.
 MT. Robbins, of Wethersfeld, wanted to know whether the railroad commissioners
 were to be trusted to decide whether a par allel road was for the interest of tho State
 MT. Simonds believed the commissioners could justly decide questions of this nature
 MT. Middleton, of Enfield, did not favor
 putting so much power in the hands of the commissioners.
 Mr. Robbins asked MT. Simonds if the commissioners would decide that a parallel road was needed. MT. Simonds said that if
 they acted on the evidence he had heard and maintained his views, they would so decide. But he could not anticipate decision of the commissioners.
 Mr. Lockwood, of Bridgeport, spoke in ia,
 vor of the bill. He thought the board of railroad commissioners perfectly safe trlo- unal.
 MT. Carter, of Waterbury, said the bill ought to pass. Its provisions ought to have been originally incorporated in the general railroad law, but as it was not done then il should be done now. MT. Carter spoke at some length against taking private lands fo1
 highways or other purposes unless there were urgent reasons for it, and the protect. ion of common rights.
 Mir Robbins, of Wethersfeld, said that he did not believe that parallel railroad was 6 thing of public convenience and necessity. He would vote for repeal of the general railroad law He preferred to do this open ly and not covertly. Under this bill the first association coming before the railroad con- missioners would get a certificate, If any new railroad could get it. Three eem- peting roads are certainly not for the public convenience and necessity. second certlh cate would therefore be refused the first as- sociation, which never meant to lay rail, and would have a monopoly of the privilege of building a new road, which they could sell out either to the old road or to some bona fide enterprise. It would be far better to repeal the general railroad law openly than to do it covertly and create this mis chief.
 An amendment offered by Mir. Rogers, of alruelQ, dlueu Lo PEOtoCG tA0 I"O P~AoAA0A projects, was rejected.
 Mir Law, of New Haven, thought that if the House voted for the bill as it stood it would vote against the interests of the two new parallel projects MT. Hubbell, of Will ton, thought the bill should be voted down 'by large majority" Mir. Sumner, of Mansfield, spoke against the bill. MT. Perry, of Hartford, argued in favor of it and pro- tecting the law of the people. No legitimate enterprise that is really needed can suffer from the bill
 After little more general debate Mir. Sim. onds again got the floor, and answered in dc tail the several objections brought against the bill. The committee reported it because they thought it right. Under the general railroad law it is impossible to build paral Tel road, and the Consolidated road people laugh in their sleeves at all efforts to do 1t But this bill should be voted upon without regard to parallel schemes.
 At the conclusion of MT. Simonds' re marks vote was taken and the bill rejected by vote of 96 to 62.
 At ? o'clock the House adjourned til Thursday at 10.