Morning journal and courier., 1885-04-11
HARTFORD, April 10.


 eur With The Senate :In the Dy- namite Bill-DisagreeIng Votes and Conference Committees.
 HARTFORD, April 10. Especial to the JOURNAL AND CoUR1ER.l
 When the House came together this morn ing there was no quorum, but business pro- ceeded in quiet way until the requisite number had arrived, when the members be- gan to wake up and settle down to work There were only thirty-four matters on the calender this morning and the outlook for an early final adjournment was very fattering.
 The bill relating to the manufacture and use of dynamite came from the Senate with amendments providing that the law should not apply to miners and manufacturers SO far as obtaining permit every time they make a purchase of Explosives other than gunpowder." This amendment was made at the instance of Senator Richard son, who is interested in theLitchfeld county iron mines, and who stated that it would be impossible for miners to comply with the law without detriment to their business. The House, however, could not see it in this light and so refused to concur. A committee of conference was appointed on motion of MT. Carter, of Waterbury.
 The license bill prohibiting the issue of license to any person convicted within year of a violation of the liquor law came from the Senate rejected, and on motion of MT. Phelps, of Vernon, the House concurred
 The House insisted on a committee of con- ference in regard to the bill relating to of lenses against the person, defeated in the Senate.
 The bill appointing travelling agent for the State Reform school was passed in the Senate after being rejected in the House. MT. Carter moved that the House adhere MT. Gum wanted the bill looked into furth- CT, and after some debate moved to table, which was done. Immediately after MT. Gum called it up and asked to adhere, as it seemed no one wanted it except the Commit tee on Humane Institutions. MT. Troup said the measure was only intended to pro- vide soft berth for some man already pick ed out.
 MT. Hawley of the committee said he acted entirely on the Governors recommendation as laid down in his message. As to supply ing soft place for some favorite, he knew nothing about the little differences among the trustees of the school. He said it had been rejected without consideration and he was convinced it would be a wise step to pass this bill for the welfare of the State.
 MT. Carter controverted the statements of MT. Hawley. He (Mr. Carter) said it only differed from existing law in the one point that formerly the boys themselves must con sent to their own indenture, but now it is proposed to take away the free agency. The one point. though, was the creation of an office and the man intended for it had last year sought his influence for the office The $5 day and expenses was the lodestone.
 MT. Colyer, of Darien, said the gentleman seeking the office had solicited the board of trustees for the appointment, but after care ful consideration the board refused to create the office. He felt it 8 very disagreeable duty to oppose fellow trustee. Mir. Corbin moved the previous question and the com mittee of conference was ordered. MT. Col yer was named and some opposition was lected-S2 to 42 Mr. Gum, of Milford was chosen as the other member.
 MT. Newton, of Durham, called up the bill, tabled early in the session, paying the widow of the lats Judge Culver his salary up to the time of the appointment of his successor The main point of the argument was that this salary had been drawn by no one and would go either to the widow or to the treas ury The resolution was passed
 The bill for the stronger enforcement of the liquor laws was explained by Mr. New ton clearly and at great length. The bill provides for the abolition of prosecuting agents fees and the substitution of salaries regulated according to population and to have the laws enforced with the rigor of the United States revenue laws. Messrs. Gum, Frisbie and Pelton spoke in favor of the bill, and Messrs. Swartwout, Slade, Phelan and Goodwin opposed the change. The argu- ments covered every phase of the liquor question. The friends of the bill claimed that under the salary system the entire cost to the State would be $21, 800, as opposed to $51, ,00O in fees last year.