The daily morning journal and courier., 1902-02-28

at Length = Convention Adjourned Until Next Tuesday.
 The developments at the constitution al convention in Hartford yesterday was somewhat surprising to those who from the voting of Wednesday thought that the majority from the small towns were recedinE from their position in favor to the town equality plan Of rep resentation. The vote which led to this opinion of change being that on a mo tion by MT Bowen of Woodstock that the question of increased representa- ton for the large towns, including the several amendments be indefinitely postponed, the motion being carried by vote of S9 to GA, Delegate Waller changing his vote from negative to af- firmatlve in order that he might later move reconsideration.
 When the convention opened l43 of the 16S delegates were present. The motion of MT. Bowen to indefinitely postpone was offered immediately after prayer by the chaplain. Mir Waller of New London claimed that it was not in order to indehnltely postpone an amendment
 MT. Bowen said that he did not pro- nose this. but to indefinitely postpone the whole subject, including the Merrltt resolution. the Etheridge resolution ana the amendment giving NorWlch lhcreas- ed representation.
 The original resolution and amend- ments were read by the clerk. MT Waller demanded the yeas anu nays on the motion to indefinitely post pone, and they were ordered.
 Mr. Pierce of Bristol suggested a Straightforward examination of the law < nnder which the convention was called The law was passed in detefehce 'o 'he demand of the larger towns for increas- ed representation. There was lhcorpo rated in the law provisions for the pro lection of the smaller towns one ol which provided that no town shall have less than one representative The peo- nle have an inherent right to ask for the district system, but no delegate from the larger places has any right under the law. to ask for that system. No honorable man can disregard the provisions of the law. The vote or the larger cities of the convention was a n1adpe that the law should be observed. The cities had no idea that there would
 
 representation of the towns having two ranresenta lives The convention was voted for with the purpose of giving the larger places increased, not decreased Representation. This was solemn nIedee. As d matter of honor and jus flee to the people, it is incumbent upon inc convention to prepare constitu- ton.
 MT. Perry of Fairfield said that un- less some new reasons had arisen he hoped the convention would hold to it's decision of Wednesday against lndeh nite postponement
 Mir Vance of New Britain discussed inc enabling act and constitutional con- ventions of the past. The constitution of the United States was made contrary to instructions to the delegates. but the neople accepted it. He argued that the law creating the convention made no binding restrictions on it's action.
 MT. Warner of Salisbury said that while respecting the views of Delegate pierce he must refer to another proVl- sion of the law creating the convention, nrobibiting any provision whereby any town shall be deprived of representa- lion The committee of the whole has made such a provision. In giving only one representative to each town, no z nledge has been violated, Why again offer the motion to indefinitely post pone?
 He said that the convention had al ready decided on its plan. The motion was voted down, MT Warner said, put many delegates were 'confused.' MT. Warner said that he woudl again vote for indefinite postponement Of the pending resolution, leaving out the one- to-a-town plan. If any delegate was confused by yesterdays vote, every delegate should have opportunity to put himself on record to-day according to his real views.
 Mr. GuilfoiJe of Waterbury asked MT Warner whether the one-to-a-town nIan WAS not defeated in the last gen eral assembly.
 MT. Warner replied that by an over whelming vote the general assembly de- feated the Fyler plan for cumulative ronresentation. The one to-a-t town plan was also defeated and this convention was the outcome.
 Mr. Etheridge of Thomaston, author of compromise resolution giving ar bitrarv increased representation to the | tOuT IaTSeT tllltS bifSuHo'7SN SN'''~AS S-''" D rroceedings, and held that many of the voters, as alleged by MT. Warner, were under misapprehension. MT, Etheridge said that he had originally voted for the Merritt resolution, and afterward introduced his own compro- mise resolution
 MT. Waller of New London recalled the fact that the minroity report was signed by eleven of the twenty-four committee.
 MT. Griswold of Guilford made one of his characteristic pleas that the small towns stand together
 MT. Clark of Haddam, who had been referred to by MT Griswold as to his alleged New Haven conversation, said that he was with MT. GrisWold, until that gentleman voted to throw away seventy of the votes of the small towns by the one- to-a-town plan.
 MT. Griswold replied that he had al- ways favored that two-representattve towns continue their representation
 MT. Brinsmade of Washington said that he intended to change his vote of Wednesday, against indefinite postpone ment After discussing the needs of the cities for increased representation, he said that the delegates from the
 L,