The daily morning journal and courier., 1895-05-08
THAT HARTFORD BRIDGE
LENGTHY DEBATE IN THE SENATE
 ON THE SUBJECT YESTERDAY,

ply Considered the Bills Concerning the
 Taking of Land of the Agricultural Ex-
 pertinent Station and Other Matters.
 Hartford, May 7-In the senate to- \ day the Hartford bridge business came
 up for consideration. There was a
 large attendance. After the adjourn
 ment of the house most of the members
 came in to listen to the debate The
 three reports on this subject from the
 Judiciary committee were the special
 order. The report of the majority fla
 vored repeating the law of 1893 and
 placing the expense of building the
 bridge on Hartford and East Hartford
 and also required the Berlin Iron Bridge
 company to establish the validity of it's
 contract for the new bridge in the
 court, and the state to pay $20,000 to-
 wards the contract.
 Senator Coffey denied that there was
 any hasty legislation in 1893 in passing
 the original bill. There was on the
 contrary great many hearings and
 full opportunity was given to all who
 wished to be heard. Who were the
 disreputable men who voted for the
 bill? Cleveland of Hartford, Judge Hol-
 comb of Southington, (No one ever
 questioned that man) I will skip the
 man from Granby. There were also
 Fox of New Haven, Bartram of New
 London, Robertson, the present railroad
 commissioner, Dr. Jones, Ferris of Nor
 walk, Brooker of Torrington. Who
 can bring anything against these men?
 and yet they are coming here to-day
 and saying that they are being robbed.
 Then there was Phelps of Rockville. I
 want to dissuade you gentlemen from
 the belief that these gentlemen did
 not do their own thinking. In all that session I never saw a mean act done
 in all the senate e of 1893. The vote on
 the passage of the bill was 13 to q.
 MT. President, this is the most impor-
 tant bill of this session. But the com-
 mittee has been unable to agree upon a report and have sent in three or four.
 Will the committee repudiate her hon. est obligations? I think not. This is a bridge that connects the capital city with all the eastern part of the state. Should the two counties pay for this? No. The state should build this bridge, otherwise the towns should receive the entire tax from the electric roads, which would change the entire tax system of the state. Why does Litchfield county come here with her fighting clothes on? n am told there is an attorney up there who was rather out of business this. winter and he was sent down here on4 a retainer of $200 to try and saddle thiss 'bridge on the towns.
 40,. sJ c., I,1 mine years the bridge draw was not opened once and in fifteen years it was, opened three times The Norwalk bridge was opened every hour in the day and was maintained by that town. TIe opposed making one bridge a state bridge unless all were thus made. If this law was sustained then in three weeks the selectmen of every town in the state would condemn their bridges and petition for new ones to be built by the state. He believed in bridges between two coun- ties, county wise,
 Senator Marigold of Bridgeport said that they had some bridges down in and if the state was going into the bridge business there were plenty of them down there.
 Senator Dayton said it was better to maintain the law and carry out the contract the state had made. A delib- crate contract was made and it should be maintained. If there was legal contract there, then the state should stand by it. If the contract is not legal, then not even the $20000 named in the report should be paid. If you vote adversely, you will destroy the hon est policy of the state.
 Senator Warner--I am sorry to say, fellow senator's. that the report made by the committee over which ] have presided was not made a unanimous 'eport Some criticisms have been made here over the fact that our report lacked that unanimity. The one great 1 question presented to us is whether we l will retain on the statute books the law of 1893 or whether we will respect 1t. I Seven of the nine members of the 1 unhesitatingly say they are 1 In favor of repeating the law Of the ! Jeven unprejudiced members of the com | mittee it is their united appeal that 1 the present law should be abolished. ! The hearings have been many and | largely attended and great opporunti- | LltS llcINC OCGll GtNGL LO IGcil dli lilLSA- ested. The law and the policy of the I state ever since 1784 has been uniform | hat all the towns should maintain their I bridges. There has been no diversion rom that policy until the present time 1 Charters have been given to com oanies after companies couched in the same language. We were told that this grand old river stood alone and that t could be bridged only by the state. The claim was made that the state owned the river There is nothing in t. The town of Hartford has juris- fiction of the river along its water k ront. In obedience to the sentiment. .I Or a free bridge the law of 1887 was passed Was there any belief that the tate contemplated building this bridge? There was never the first bit of evil Ience in that direction.
 "Then we have the law of 1893 which l., vas put through so rapidly that the ridge commissioners were selected even efore the passage of the act We rave stated that the bill was hurried trough and not all who came to be li card before the committee were able o be heard. I say frankly and boldly hat it makes no difference whether l', ta Iauy of 1899 received InaninnOI1s eup |