Morning journal and courier., 1885-04-21
STATE HOUSE REMOVAL.

Shall the Question be Decided by
 Popular vOte-OpIniOns of Promi-
 nent Citizens-The Petitioners to be
 Given Leave to Withdraw.
 The special committee appointed by the
 Court of Common Council to hear parties in-
 terested in the petition asking that the re- moyal or retention of the old State House be submitted to vote of the people held a meeting last evening, Alderman Whitney presiding.
 Alderman Whitney stated the object of the | meeting, and asked those who favored the l petition to give expression to their senti- ments
 Eugene Bristol spoke in favor of the pe- tition. He said he would like an opportuni- l ty to vote on the question and he would vote | to have the old structure removed. It was an eyesore to him as it was to hundreds of | others.
 Ex-Governor Bigelow said: This question | has been before the citizens long enough and should be settled in some way. The people | had heard the whole matter discussed and there ought not to be any delay in deciding | it. It should be either repaired or removed,
 and not be allowed to stand longer on the l Green in it's present dilapidated condition. 1 Alderman J. J. Kennedy said he was in | favor of having the State House retained and ! was also in favor of submitting the question | to popular yote If it was to be retained | it should be so far repaired as to make It presentable.
 s. E. Baldwin said that New Haven has
 been governed by a city charter for a
 number of years. It had been
 decided long ago that city place to consider many matters. A Court of | Common Council has been provided for con | ducting the affairs of the city. have looked over the charter passed in 1881 and l ind | that there is no authority given for transact ! ing business at city meeting. The place for that is in the Common Council. The l legislature has not given the Common Coun- l cil power to throw their responsibilities on to anybody else. You cannot delegate your power to anyone else, because that power
 has not been given to you. When the legis- l lature gave that State House to the city they l supposed they were giving them something of value We thought the present was worth taking and the State gave it to us to keep. ! The Common Council can look over the building and repair it, but the
 citizens can't do it because they l have no power to do so. Under the charter | you can call city meeting to fill a vacancy l like that of mayor or city clerk, but you can
 not cali a meeting for this purpose. Joseph Sheldon said he agreed in the main l with the views of Professor Baldwin. Even l if you had the right, I think it would be very l foolish to do so. Ten or twelve thousand | voters cannot examine that building and de- l eide whether it ought to be pulled down or | not I submit that every committee who ! have examined into this question have re- l ported adversely to pulling down the build 1 ing. I concluded, after most thorough ex- | animation from roof to foundation, that it should not be pulled down. claim it is no l way gentlemen, for you to shirk sresponsi-
 bility by trying to shift it upon somebody l else.
 Charles L. Baldwin said that he had be- come interested in the State House question | from having something to do with 1t on com ! 1nittees while member of the Board of Al | dermen If there was no use for the build | ing perhaps it had better come down. Is 1t a | useful onea So far as its occupancy by the | Historical society is concerned, there can be no. question about it's usefulness. Again it l is to be occupied by the Grand Army, and l think they should be given permanent loca- 1 ton when the fact is considered that the as- sociation is 8 benevolent one and is taxed to | it's utmost in the care of sick and disabled soldiers. Again I don't think the Common Council have any right to peddle out their own duties or to delegate them to someone else I think there is light enough on the subject for an intelligent body of men like these to decide this matter at once. l would expend $1O, 900 or $12, ,000 to put the exterior in good repair and then you would hear no
 
 sance or an eyesore to look at, but it's archi-. lecture is of such a character that one does 1 not tire in looking upon it.
 Professor Timothy Dwight said he had great respect for the present Court of Com mon Council and before the question was referred to a vote of the people, intelligent men from each ward should go over the building and be prepared to inform the peo- pie in regard to it. While I think the popu- lar will would favor the retention of the
 building, yet I think the Common Council are perfectly competent to decide the ques- tion. Joel A. Sperry said he did not think it right for the Common Council to
 submit this question to the people. Those, or most of those, who favor tearing down
 the building have never examined it. If
 were you gentlemen, I would take the
 sponsibility in this matter and not delegate
 it to someone else. The building has not
 had thousand dollars expended upon it. in
 thirty years and it is no wonder that it
 looks shabby. It is wonder to me that it
 has not tumbled down from sheer neglect.
 The question is, Is the building wanted and we all know that it is. I would say, gentle men, in conclusion, by all means decide this matter yourselves.
 Thomas R. Trowbridge, jr., said that asido from the State House being of valne to two societies, it was of grest value to the city for the storage of tools. Why, if the Common Council should vote to refer this question to the people, would resign my position in that body in twelve hours. I would be ashamed to be associated with body of men that would acknowledge that they were afraid or not able to grapple with question so simple and plain as this is. will say
 however, that I firmly believe that if this question should be submitted to the people at least two thirds would be in favor of re- taining the building.
 James P Barker-At first ] thought I would say that am willing to trust the people on most questions that come before them, but in this question do not think the people are fully competent to decide with the information they have before them. Therefore should rather leave the question to a committee of the Court of Common Council,
 Mr. Beecher, of the firm of Beecher & Peck, as member of the Grand Army said he was opposed to referring the question to the people, although he believed the people would vote to retain it. The Grand Army had been permitted to occupy the building and he did not believe the people would vote to turn them out.
 Weigand Schlein thought the building should be retained and also repaired in good shape It belonged to the Common Council
 as representatives of the people to decide
 this question themselves.
 Chief Engineer Hendrick-If this question is submitted to the people it will be too late
 to get any estimate for repairs next year as these are made out in November. Alderman Graves-Ithink this is question which interests every citizen and the theory
 put forth here tonight that the people are
 not competent to decide the question is in
 my opinion erroneous. If there is no other
 way in which we can get at the sentiments of
 the people than by vote then let us have
 the vote There is aa honest difference of
 opinion among gentlemen of intelligence and
 learning in regard to this matter and know
 of no fairer way than to submit the question
 to vote of the people.
 Mir. Coston, an intelligent colored man,
 spoke in favor of retaining the old building
 and in opposition to submitting it to vote
 of the people.
 Birdsey Warner said that he had been on
 State House committees heretofore and he
 was in favor of submitting the question to a vote of the people as the best way of set ting the whole matter.
 Councilman Samuel H. Barnes thought l the building should be retained. He said ] also that he thought the Common Council l was fully able to cope with this question. I EI, 5o !; ,;a %o hor oin nod