Waterbury Democrat., 1902-01-23

destiny or our DelOEeu state IuTOuSn one-tenth of the population. Past events have shown that it is compara
 lively easy for them to control this small minority for their own purposes, to the dishonor of true democracy. Tn our busy commercial life q despot- ism has gradually grown up, and if it has not as yet proven injurious the time may come If we do not here take measures to break it's power when it will operate to wrest from the indi- vidual citizen that liberty and equality
 which was bought at a great price.
 In spite of these political truths, 1
 now ask is there actually existing in
 Connecticut such limitation upon popular sovereignty as this town the
 ory would imply? The question put by one of the delegates ill his desire to clarify the discussion why should
 we have more than one house as our legislature if the people as people are to be represented only. And further if we are to have two branches are
 we to recognize the same elements as the basis of either. Then answering the latter part of his question he sug-
 gests that the congress of the United
 States is the analogue of the legisla- ture of Connecticut, asserting that in teresting, that frequently exploded
 proposition that the United States congress is the result of the Connecti- cut system, drafted upon the old arti- cles of the confederation, the states corresponding to our towns. If this be a true analogy then it is a fact that here in Connecticut the people are not supreme entirely. but their supremacy
 is limited by that of the town. To the first part of this question answer that political experience has proven the ne- cessity of two branches. the one to be | the check upon the other. This was q matter of argument at the time our national government was founded but now the case has been settled. In re- gard to the same element being the basis of representation in either house I will speak hereafter That congress is the result of our Connecticut system
 grafted on the old confederation, I do not admit It has been denied during
 this discussion to often for me to con- 1 cern myself much with it. Professor l Fiske of Harvard, recently deceased, | is responsible for q great deal Of mis- conception upon this point. Johnston l has also made this statement. 1 had l the pleasure during the last session of | the general assembly to hear that dis
 tingrished citizen of Hartford, James
 O. Patterson, criticise and successfully | contrOyert this proposition. Mir. Johns l ton, when the falsity of his position
 was brought to his attention promised | to correct the error in his later work. l Professor Fiske in q letter written dur l ing the pendency of the debate which
 resulted in the calling of this conven- l tion. although he still clung to this
 opinion stated that he intended to look l deeper into the history of early Con-
 necticut towns admitting thereby that
 his information upon this subject was l incomplete.
 In asking his question the delegate
 assumed that town sovereignty was
 proved fact He must first show his
 authority. The burden is upon him. l In the national convention of 1IS1 the
 part Connecticut played through her
 delegates was to suggest g compro' I mise, known now as the "Connecticuf 1 Compromise. and it was the "Connec- | ticut Compromise not the "Comectl- 1 cut system,'' which was finally adopted l as the idea Of our national congress l One party representing the large states 1 wished representation to be according l to the population of the whole country That was the national idea. The other l naltv representative of the small states l desired that the states be represented I as sovereign bodies as they undoubted- l k, in most respects were then soyere- 1 ion A single house was contemplated l hy them at first. The Connecticut dele | oatas nroposed a combination of both l ideas in two separate branches of q l congress-a senate to represent Ihe I Soyerign states. q house Of represents
 lives to stand for population. Here
 would call the attention of those Whe 1 would declare that the Connecticut house of representatives should not DC
 the popular branch of our legislature 1 that all the precedents, national ano
 state. support the principle that the 1 house of representatives is the popular I body and stands nearest to the people 1 By long association the people have j come to regard it as such, and it VII 1 not be easy to convince them that they
 mistake the fact. The ''Connectictlt compromise was necessary, as the
 states being actually sovereign were entitled to have that sovereignty recognized In our discussion here the
 fact of state sovereignty is forgotten
 oftentimes by delegates who contrast 1 the large and small states of the na l tiona1 senate Tn the attempt to prove
 that system no more just than thf present Connecticut system. the dele
 gates forgot. that no comparison caI | exist between q dependent town and [ l sovereign state Even if the Connec
 ticut delegates in the national conven
 tion of 11SI did have in mind theil
 Connecticut system. it would not neces-
 sarily prove that they believed onl towns to be the same as the states
 And the constitution of the United l States today is simply grant o1 I power from those states and the wholt
 people, and the constitution of Con
 necticllt is a limitation of the powers
 of the legislature by which the people
 and not the towns control those tC
 whom governmental duty is entrusted
 The history of the early towns bean out this view The delegate iron
 Bridgeport has sufficiently showl
 that at all times the towns were mere
 subdivisions, servants of the state we may say to do the states work
 Their representation being merely ; l gift We talk much about Connecti
 cuts contribution to free government
 the first written constitution of
 people. the Fundamental order It i, acknowledged that the impetus whicl
 started tile men of the three origina