The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1911-09-13

tiOns of Congressman Hill. Yet he believed that Fairfield county with Hill running will still be a Republican stronghold He pointed out that four years ago Hills majority in Fairfield county was over 5000, although last election he had only 1,400 He said proportAonately Hill was stronger in Fairfield county than he was dn Litch- field county He seconded Senator Judsons remarks on the importance of observing the platform pledge. He trusted the minority bill would pre- vail.
 Senator Fenn of Wethersield made a hard and effective speech in favor of the minority bill. Senator Wright said he preferred to have time before voting, that he might consult the lead ing politicians of his party in his dis trict. Senator Holloran, Democrat, of New Britain, said in his opinion it did not matter much which report was adopted from a Democratic view point, yet he thought the Democratic Senators would favor the minority re- port because the House had already passed it. In his judgment three of the next five Congressmen of Connec- lieut. will be Democrats. He urged the Senate to "act today"
 Senator McNeiI of Bridgeport, spoke as follows:
 Mr. President: assume that the sound and just principles of represen- tative government require that candi- dates for membership in the same rep- resentative body shall represent as nearly as possible equal constituent cieS.
 I have here a bulletin of the Gen. sus Bureau, relating to the Census of the United States. taken in 1910 which shows the number of inhabitants in Connecticut by Counties and minor civil divisions.
 It appears that the present census population of the First Congressional District, consisting of Hartford and Holland Counties, is 276.641.
 That the census population of the Second District, New London and Windham Counties is 139,604.
 That the census population of the Third District, New Haven and Mid dlesex Counties. is SsS, ,s19.
 That the census population of the Fourth District, Fairfield and Litch- field Counties, is 315,582.
 Here are great inequalities. The Second District contains hardly more than one third of the population of the Third District and scarcely more than half of the population of the other districts.
 Doubtless it was a contemplation of these gross inequalities that led the ldSl TVtpuDllcdil convention to WflC0 into it's platform a pledge for redis- tricting. I shall hold that this pledge was sincerely made, and, since it re- 1ates to a manifest evil I shall be- lieve, until I have evidence to the contrary, that it is a pledge made to be kept, especially since the proper committee, a majority of which is Re- publican, has come in here with two reports, each in favor of dividing the state into five substantially equal dis trictS.
 The fundamental difference between the two reports seems to be that the Minority report preserves to a very great extent county lines, while the Majority report does not.
 1t seems to me that if County hines can be preserved and the sta;e divided into congressional districts nearly equal, that this would be preferable. Therefore, I prefer the Minority report to that of the Majority. But so far as the Fourth Congressional district is concerned. either plan would be re- garded by the people as a great and needed improvement
 Now, I have been credita.bly inform ed that it is the intention of certain men to favor the Majority report in the hope that in these the dying days of the session disa agreeing action may be brought about between the two houses, thereby killing all hope of re- districting.
 It is said that the distinguished Con- gressman from the Fourth District and his friends will oppose any re- districting and particularly the Min ority report as the Minority report would leave Congressman Hill to the tender mercies of Fairfield County alone. It is said that his chances of being reelected would not be so bright in Fairfield County, but regard less of whether this is so Or not. would it be proper to maintain congressional districts highly unequal in population merely to increase the chances of cleo tion of one single office holder
 In 1908 Fairfield County alone gave MT. Hill something like eight thousand plurality, while LitchfieId County gave him more than four thousand
 In 1910 his plurality in Fairfield County fell away to less than fifteen hundred, while his plurality in Litch- field County was more than cut in two
 Now the point I desire to bring out is that the distinguished Congressman from the Fourth Congressional Dis trict lost thousands of votes in his own party. Why he lost these votes I do not know. Evidently the popularity which he has enjoyed for so many years is leaving him. Even in his home district in his own town. which