The Newtown bee. (Newtown, Conn.) 1877-current, 1902-05-09
have fixed a penalty of $25 for any
violation of the compact. A number
Of these dealers are shippers.

While the / to 60 proposition is
probably defeated as a basis of settle
ment Of the question of representa-
ton in the constitutional convention,
the city men have not been able to
successfully meet the arguments of it's
chief advocates. Hon John G. Brins-
made, Of the Gunnery school, Wash
ington, who has been sturdy and
vigorous defender OF the rights of the
towns, had the following interesting
article In recent issue of the Water
bury American:
fail to find in your editorials, in
your convention correspondence, or in
your quotation from other papers any
tation as it must be considered and de-
cided by the delegates who have been
chosen for the work in hand. There is
an abundance of ridicule and sarcasm,
but little. ifany argument. What IS the
situation? The district plan so con-
sistently and ably argued by Mr. Vance
never had chance of adoption; neith-
er had the Osborne plan, which would
give town or city one additional rep
resentative for every 10, 600 people, l
think that "a is the largest vote re-
corded, by the opposition to the LEO
plan-in favor of anything and among
these we're many who prefer the ,1-6O
plan and who believe in it as the pro-
per system for Connecticut, but who
voted for some mixed scheme simply
and solely because they were afraid
that the 1-6O would not be ratified by
the people. Judge Perry, for instance
makes no secret of his position that
while he heartily indorses the one-from-
a-town and Senate of As as the ideal
thing for Connecticut, he withholds
his vote from it because of his belief
that the people would not accept it..
II he and several other influential
members had stood out for their con-
victi0ns, this plan would have easily
obtained two-thirds vote in it's favor
and there could hardly have been a
doubt of its ratification by the people.
Although think it fair to say that
the Bennett plan has never had a
chance Of adoption by the convention,
let us compare it with the 1-6O. They
are alike in this, viz: That each town
would have one representative in the
, House. Under the Bennett plar
Marlborough, with less. than 400 people
would have the same representation al
/ any town of less than 5000 people
, Towns between 5000 and Is, 900 would
have two representatives; betweeI
$1,000 and $4,000, three; between q, 90.
and $4,000, four; between $4,000 ant
100, 200, five; over 100000, six. New
Haven, with over 200 times the popu
] lation of Marlborough, would have onl
six times the representation. Th
proportional argument, which you ar
so fond of using, holds, though o
= course in less degree, against tn
Bennett scheme. Under such circum
= stances, it seems hardly fair to de
e nounce in such extravaganza term
y those who conscientiously favor one
from-a-town, without at least attempt
}, ing to show how the Bennett pla
b would work better in actual practice
1 claim that among the PERFORMERS
Il and those who want the district sy
n to,,, tn ho ro10
would be considered a mere sop, e.
cept as it would be a stepping stone
r. the right direction. The Coural
urges the Bennett plan as a meal
. OF preserving township representatit
n for the next century, while Col O
y, born, in Il recent New York Herald a
ticle, expresses the idea that in ge
ed Grafton or so representation in tt
10 House could be placed on populate
basis solely. Massachusetts made
H. strong effort in 1858 to keep the mix
It's mot the equality system and lost tow
49, ship representation. Vermont al
''' Rhode Island each have townsf
be equality in one branch, and tOwnst
N representation is preserved in each
those states.
Gil The Bennett scheme and senate
ng SO would give New Haven 10 legis
Tho tors; the 1-6O plan would give that c
eight. The question for discussion
ere Under which scheme would the int
on ests of the towns, the cities, the VIII
state be better cared for?
I've Ex-Congressman Sperry has lin G.
md vention)expressed his belief that