The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1901-06-19
Reform In Connecticut.


The Nutmeg state has been wrest-
ling with the question of reforming its
Constitution. There, as in Vermont,
dirt is the basis of representation in the
House of Representatives. In some
respects Connecticut's way of consti-
tuting the larger body of its law making
body is grosser violation of the fun
damental principle of representation
than is the Vermont way. But in the
former State, as we understand the
matter, the subject may come up for
discussion at any regular session of the
Legislature. Here the Constitution
puts ten year gag on the representa-
tives of the people. The subject of
constitutional reform can be taken up by
them only at decennial periods, in the
years whose numerical expression ends
with a cipher, at the regular session of
the General Assembly in such years.
In practice this provision has been an
effective bar to reform. Some slight
alterations in the fundamental law of
the State have been made, under the
existing gag provision, but no reforms,
or a single step toward reform, has
been taken, though strenuous efforts
have sometimes been made to shake
off the incubus and intuse into the Con-
stitution the life and vgor of the true
republican principles OF representation,
and to secure for the State the advan-
tages that must inevitably follow.
AS to Connecticut: In its early Leg
islatures the House of Representatives
consisted of two members from each
town. In 1870 there we're II towns.
The Constitution of 1918 provided that
each town should have the representa-
ton it already had, but gave to each
new town only one Representative. In
the convention of that year an effort
was made to have representation follow
population, but the proposition was
voted down. No change has since
been made in the basis of representa-
ton. So that today, in country of Re-
publican State governments, the State
presents curious anomoly in it's law
for violating and suppressing the prin-
ciple of representation according to
population.
Ii every town had two members, or
the small towns one and the large
towns two, the anomaly might be de-
Tended, after fashion, but what can
be said of ga system" that embodies
and allows such Inconsistencies as
these? There are ~ towns having a
population exceeding 5000 each, which
have but one Representative each,
while Is towns with population rang
ing from 42S TO 1890, have two each.
The former are towns incorporated
since 1878, when the existing consti-
tutional provision affecting represent
alton was adopted, the latter were
founded before that time and retained
the two Representatives they had I'M
der the earlier constitutional provision.
In the Connecticut Senate an effort
was made to have that body represent
tative. The Constitution of 1918 pro-
vided for II Senators elected by the
people at large. In 1929 a district
system was instituted. The Senate
was to consist of not less than or
more than "a members, chosen by dis
tricts, "regard being had to popula-
ton" By the census of 1900 the
eighth senatorial district has a popula-
ton OF 108,027, the twenty-fourth,
II ,805. Yet the members of this body,
as in similar body in Vermont, are
said to represent the peoplel Connecti-
cut has been struggling to change it's
Constitution, 80 as to provide for rep
resentstion according to population,
but the small towns, having the power
in their hands, refuse to sanction the
proposition to change either to the
broad ground or to any compromise
looking toward equable representation.
The Connecticut and Vermont Con-
stitutions, in their several pro-
visions respecting representation in
their Legislatures, are twin relics Of
prehistoric, if not barbaric, customs.
As the Ne,os of Burlington said, in re-
ferring to this matter recently:
! They are the two States that stick to