Waterbury Democrat., 1902-01-23

Hartford as Individuals and estab- lished the state which afterWard in- corporated them as towns, and ere ated the other towns in Connecticut. Our supreme court has declared this to be the truth in the case of Web- ster vs Harwinton. In that case case Chief Justice Butler declares that these towns did not give up part of their corporate powers as they re- ceiyed them from the free-planters and retained the rest in absolute right, but that they received all the rights they had by being incorporated by the state. He also declares that the historian who has asserted the contrary spoke without sufficient reflection or exam ination, and their views are not cor rect in principle or sustained by our colonial record. He also says" That extraordinary document Fundamental ordeT) purports on it's face to be the work of the people. the residents and inhabitants and free-planters, them selves of the three towns.' such is the law of this state, and besides being good law it reads like sound common sense. The delegate from Fairfield says that this decision shocked the state. If so it must have been disa- greeable only to the despotism of the small minority, but welcome and pleasant to the people. In spite of this decision the same delegate says we feel that the town is sovereign. retort that those of the great ma jority who would be deprived of their rights if it were otherwise connot sym pahize with him. He also said We think of Thomas Hooker not as q cit izen of Connecticut but of Hartford and of Roger Ludlow likewise as a citizen of Fairf Id Does the delegate know that tn fst Governor Haynes travelled in | lows time to con firm or condeii i'll regard to his SUI pervision of the then plantation of Fairfield. Evidently the state was supreme over Fairfield at that time. My conclusion is that the people. alone are entitled to rule Connecticut without any limitations being placed upon them by the towns, and the towns arc mere creatures of the state, servants of the people to do their work, governmental agencies as we are won't i'll legal phrase to describe them. It seems singular to have TO assert the peoples rights to rule here | N
 What plan of representation is just ! in view of my conclusion? l know of only one-that of the delegate l from New Britain who proposes to l divide the state into equal districts. each district to have one represen- l tative in the house. By this plan one mans vote is equal to that of every other man. The senate ac- cortling to my conclusion, should also represent the people, but in larger districts, for political experience has l dictated that the senate should be small body and possibly senators should be elected for q longer term 1 than representatives. The present senate is not popular body as many would have us believe, nor under the l present provision of at least two sen ators from each county can it be d ' popular body, for some of our cities 1 contain more people, than there are in other counties outside of their own. To this plan it may be objected that the same interests would be repre- ! sented in both bodies Well. why l should not the interests of the people be represented in both bodies? The senate being elected as I have said Will not represent the interest of the |
 does, and if the further provision of electing senators for a longer period
 IS carried out. each house Wonld nor,
 fectly balance This is the system in most of our states, and I believe if
 works well.
 II may De urged that by the restric
 tons or the act calling this convention we nave no authority to propose renre sslltatloh Dy districts to the people
 y 5 are confronted by the question of 1 the power of q legislature to hind q constitutional convention? Tn his o,,.
 lllofatlve work on constitutional con. Neatlons Jameson has discussad this question thoroughly As great i,s stance III favor of the power of . con.
 Ion to disregard legislative con. sifuctlpn he cites the federal conva,, { .loll or liS4. when every delegata u-.s instructed to prepare simply q revisio,, or the existing articles of confalara 1 ton. Happily the delegates disobeved these instructions. and cast off ina 4 Molh out articles entirely Our ulti- ~ ln'te sithctloH Is the people If tba l people accept the constitution we nro. I pose our feTusal to be bound by tba ieglsiature will be ratified.
 si'.hy profess great fear that I, ' VI NolilecClcut would InSa
 tiielf splfit and independence under tha
 distflct system. The case of NIaSSa-
 chtsetts. however. which has ca,,sad
 the towns the troubles we have hoard oI' but tie method of doing businacs
 Dy counties. We will still retain in
 our Connecticut towns the same nIi1,i-
 leges which to-day they now .eniov Ohio whose early settlers were mostly
 the men from Connecticut thriyed uD- l on this district system and breeds mon
 that are equal to all the demands of
 citizenship and statesmenship. A ma terlal advantage would be gained by
 this system, for then adjacent towns
 would recognise the identity of inter-
 ests. My own town of Waterbury, for
 instance. has identical interests with
 it's surrounding small towns in Iitcil-
 field and in New Haven county. Of
 tentimes. however, we see the same
 towns allying themselves with small
 towns far distant from them against
 tie interests of Waterbury and their
 own real interests. 1 cannot under
 stand the statements of those who tell us that the cities would combine
 against the small towns in the legis-
 lature. It would not be natural fol.
 them to disregard those situated i'll the
 same commercial centers with them