The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1911-03-11
VOTERS MUST
 SWALLOW ALL BONDS OR NONE
Some Disadvantages that Attach to Plan of Includ- ing All Projects for Bond ing in One Bill with B1an- ket Referendum.

Talk in political circles this morn ing hinged upon the bonding hearing, which took place in Hartford, Thurs | day. The general impression of well informed men seemed to be that the city has failed to state its case clear ly to the finance committee of the General Assembly. and that the whole matter is in confusion and bad form. Said g. gentleman. who discussed the matter this morning: While a time comes in the history of a growing city when bonds are necessary. and while there is doubtless much merit in each of Inc propositions for which it is now proposed to issue bonds. yet the total issue is large. and the people are naturally desirous of having a voice in the matter, since it is their property that will be affected, and they who must pay tl1e bills.
 'The attitude of those who went from Bridgeport to favor the bonding g the ordinary voter would desire. wes probably such as to insure referen- dunn, since the council has asked for one. and since it is the custom of the Legislature to grant one in such cases.
 ting all of the measures together, so that citizens desiring to vote will have to consider the bill as whole. Thus man who favors bonding for East Washington avenue bridge may be opposed toea High School. He should have the privilege of a. vote upon both questions.
 .'Such a bill does not permit the voter to express himself upon any thing. He can merely decide. as among all the propositions involved, whether he will stomach what he does
 l,4% 1,A ar,f
 "It is much like offering a hungry
 man hash made of meat and potatoes, which he likes. and of garlic and cav enne pepper which he does not like In order to appease his hunger he must swallow the whole mess. or. con- to the garbage can.''
 Continued the speaker: There is no special objection to the, Taxpayers League plan for a referendum. except ing that it would establish a bad pre- cedent.
 s"Ihe effect would be the same as with usual referendum. The league plan requires a vote amounting to one third of the registered o,ers against bonding, before the bonds shall fail. If majority of the persons voting favored bonding. well and good. The bonds would issue. But if major ity of the persons voting were against bonding. it is a hundred to one that they would never issue. An appoint i've body like the Tax Board might be willing to fly in the face of a ma tority decision officially made at the polls, but an elective board. like the Common Council responsible directly to the voters. never would.
 .sThe principle of majority rule is too well established in this country to be over hrown in any way. All of the business of the people Is done in this way. If it should happen that the $500 coo bonding plan was submit ted under the Tax League plan of referendum. as a matter of State law the bonds could issue unless six thou sand persons voted no. But let us assume that a total of 5000 votes wera cast for the measure of which 4000 were against and 2.O00 for. If I am correct in my theory the bonds would never issue. because no Common Council would ever face the indigna- tfon that would follow their action, thoreh nerfectlv legal. in opposition to the will of 4,ooo voters. a majority of those voting.''