Norwich bulletin. [volume] (Norwich, Conn.) 1895-2011, 1910-05-31
NEW LONDON AS PORT OF EN-

If the measure to make New Lon
| don a port of entry fails it will not be
because Congressman Higgins has left
anything undone which should have
been done to have the bill introduced
by him become a law Tt has not all
been plain sailing, and his clear an
swers to all questions before the ways
and means committee and his show
| ing the necessity for the addition to
the 20 ports of entry in the country
under section 1 appears to have won
over the committee to a favorable re-
port upon the bill
Connecticut has none in section L,
and that is one reason why this bill
would be of great benefit to the state.
The following Connecticut places have
the benefits under section Z: Bridge
port. Enfield, Greenwich, Hartford
Middletown New Haven, Norwalk
South Manchester, Stamford and Yer
non. but of course most of the goods
are sent to New York or Boston and
from there shipped in bond to the
larger Connecticut cities. Under Mr..
Higgins bill. it is expected that goods
intended for Connecticut and other
eastern points will be sent to New
London and from there distributed in
bond.
The following is a partial report of
the hearing before the ways and means
committee:
Mr.. Higgins: I have drawn the bill
providing for both section 1 and sec
ton Z, and I feel that We ought at
least to have section 1.
Mr.. Hill: I suppose you would not
care to express an opinion as to the
propriety of consolidating Stonington
district and New London?
Mr.. Higgins: No, sir; do not think
that / would.
Mr.. Dafzell: You say that the treas
ury department is in favor of giving
you the privileges of section 1?
Mr.. Higgins: Yes, sir.
Mr.. Dalze1l: And not section Z?
Mr.. Higgins: And not section 7. al
we should have the privileges of sec
ton Z
Mr.. Dalzeu: Yes; I have a letter
here dated April 20 to that effect
Mr.. Higgins: I had this morning
assurances from the department that
they would send another letter say
ing that they should not want to have
section extended, but that we should
have section l. There has been a
good deal of confusion in the depart
ment, and misunderstanding about the
whole matter. They have made three
recommendations, [ think, and a care
of the commercial necessity
Mr.. DalzeIl: Yes. The first one
was adverse, and the second one in
favor of section 7, and third one is to
be in favor of section 1?
Mr.. Higgins: Yes, the third one is
to be in favor of section 1, and I
ought to say that day before yester-
day the secretary's assistant assured
me that he would recommend both
section and section 1.
Mr. Mccall: The fourth one might
be report from the committee ad-
verse to both?
Mr. Higgins: No. The fourth one,
I should say, ought to be a report from
this committee IN favor of both sec
lions l and Z.
mittee certain data compiled by the
New London board of trade, and, later
in the day. the report from the treas
ury department was received by the
committee. This report simply urges
the adoption of Mr.. Higgins bill un-
der section L but as the committee
had adjourned before the receipt of
this report. no action could be taken,
and the bill will come up again on
Tuesday.
It is confidently expected that the
committee will vote favorab1y for the
bill at that time.
Senator Brandegee who is greatly
interested in the measure with Mr.
Higgins, expects to get it through the
senate soon after it passes the house.