Waterbury Democrat., 1901-05-09
A FoRLoRN HOPE.
Senator Kennedy Fought to the Last
 Against Consolidation.

-d SutASl
 The marriage of the town and city governments of Waterbury which took place yesterday in the senate cham Der of the general assembly at Hart ford was rather solemn affair. While the champion of those opposed to the bill, Senator Kennedy, was talking, not a sound was heard but his voice, and toward the close of his most inn passioned speech the greatest attention was paid to him. Every eye i'll the large room was centered on him and watched his dramatic gestures, and after xfhe bill was passed and the mar ria1e of the two governments was an acEomplished fact, except the admins tering of the blessing by Governor Me Loan, the senators gathered around tXeir colleague from thel fifth district / and congratulated him upon the elo- quent speech and the gallant fight he had made against the marriage.
 The senate convened at lilo o'clock, and after a few minor matters were disposed of the bill providing for con- solidation as it came from the house was taken up. Senator Kennedy handed in an amendment providing TOT n referendum of those living outside the city limits so that they could be hoard upon the matter before the sen ate should take it up. After some oD- 1ective remarks from other senators upon the amendment, and aIter tne customary preliminaries by Sena.ol Kennedy, he spoke as follows TOT the  amendment:
 sThis amendment simply gives those living without the city limits chance to vote upon this most import ant matter to them, and say whether or not they favor government unuer consolidation as it is framed in tnis bin. There are reasons why it should pass I always believe the people can be trusted. True, they err some times, hut they can always be relied upon to rscfffv that error themselves" Then he went into the early form of govern ments of the community from the time 1t was town.
 ssWhen the city government was es- fablished. the townspeople did not object and the town government mas nraxafled since. Is there any good reason why the people who saw flt to establish town government and SUD- seouently a city government should not now be heard upon this other pro 1,osed form of government? IS there snv reason why those in the city shouid corace those living in the town u accept this form of government WHICH ,rou gentlemen seem determined to put ,,non them? Why should any member of this assembly object to the people voting upon this bill? Have they not maid the taxes? Do they not pay the bIllsg Is there precedent for thls reouest I make of giving this bill to fhe people to ascertain their opinion of it. There is. and recent one .oo' Then he referred to the means taken to consolidate the town ana city gov arnrnents of New Haven. In this case the people were allowed to vote upon fhe bill and they voted in the negatlye- ssWhat was good for the people or the city of New Haven is good for the peo- ple of Waterbury. There are other precedents, too.
 In ,93 the senate voted that if any community wanted municipal ightlng' the matter should be first referred 10 fhe people of that community before 1sgisIafiye action should be taken upon if This same action was taken Ill .referenca to free text books. If that ts 60 in such matters, ought it not to appfv to this bill when you consider inc destruction of government. The 1ar leaves it to the people to select their choice of government. It rests with them whether or not liquor shall be sold in the State; why should thls Ynatfer not be left with the people or Naterbury? The question is: Has the town outgrown its system of govern- ment. and if it is economical aud petter to adopt the measure.
 ssSome have said the town officials bavefacted unreasonably in admins terfng the affairs of their office. That is no reason for destroying govern menf, it is no argument for this bill. Rnt when it has been stated that the officfaIs of Waterbury were corrupt. l say MT Speaker, in my of1clai capaefty that it is not so. Waterbury bonds sell as high as any in the mar ket. and those who seek to islander It's neoDle are wandering from the path of 4rnft1 in search of an argument. The peoule of Waterbury are proud of thelr town and their city, proud of .ther officials. and it is but right and Ialr That they should be heard on this bili. It is centemptible to decent people 10 be compelled to listen to such ealumny' 1t is degrading to those who make such statements.
 ~Is see the committee has provided TOT n referendum for the school districts. If q referendum is good for the future ought it not be good now. What IS to be lost by it? Nothing that l can see. Is it any injustice to the taxpay- CTS? Not a bit of it. The farmers on the hillside and the mechanic i'll the factories who would like to make shis home on the hillside would like to be heard on this bill. It is not the rabbie if there is such an element. 1t is not the rabbIe, but those who have built I'D the city who have made 1t what lt ia asks to be heard on this bill heard the taxpayers testify before the committee and have heard taxpayers since then say they want referendum and that the bill be submitted to the people. Such q request was never de
 Ina