The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1911-07-19
General Assembly
 May Annex Town
Opinion by Attorney General John H. Light = Question Raised Before Legislative Committee

Attorney General John H. Light is of the opinion that the General As- sembly of this State has the power to annex the whole town of Waterford to New London, and thereby abolish the town of Waterford. He gave this opinion yesterday to the joint stand- ing committee on new towns and pro- bate districts of the Legislature. 50 far as he has been able to ascertain, no town in Connecticut has ever been entirely abolished, or annexed to am other town, and there is no reported question in which that case was rals- ed. The opinion follows:
 To the Joint Standing Committee on
 New Towns and Probate Districts
 Gentlemen-You may ask my opln- ion as to whether the General Assem- bly, has the power to annex the whole town of Waterford to the town or New. London and by so doing abolish the town of Waterford.
 The General Assembly has absolute power to Iegislate on all subjects not prohibited by the state or United States constitutions. The constitution is a limitation of the powers of the General Assembly in all cases cover ed by it's provisions, but in all other respects the legislative powers are un- impaired.
 Starr V. Peace Conn. 547;
 Pratt V. Allen 13 Conn. lI9;
 Lowrey V. Gridley 30 Conn. 45S;
 Booth V. Town of Woodbury, S2 Conn. 126;
 White V. Town of Stamford, s7 Conn. 57S;
 State. ex rel, Morris V. Bulkeley, 61 Conn. 366:
 The General Assembly of this state his imm emorially exercised the power of creating and dividing towns at it's oJo edly recognized it's right to do so.
 Willimantic School society V. First School society in Windham, IA Conn. 469;
 Hartford Bridge Go. ". East Hart ford, 16 Conn. 172;
 Town of Granby V. Thurston, ct al, 23 Conn. AIS;
 Webster y Town of Harwinton, g Conn. 131.
 So far as I have been able to as- certain, no town in Connecticut has ever been entirely abolished or annex ed to another town. and there is no reported case in which that question was raised. However, in the case of Farrel V. Town of Derby, 5S Conn. 246, in passing upon and approving of the right of a town to appear before the General Assembly and oppose the granting of petition for a divison Of it's territory, the court say:
 Ut will be observed that the queS- tion we are considering is not whether the town has a right to resist the sovereignty of the state in an at- tempt to change the territorial limits of the town. Had the state, of it's own motion. for reasons of public poll ries of the town, or abolished it al- together, the case presented would have been a very different one. But the attack was not made by the state from motives of policy and in the in- terest of good government, but was made by certain parties who sought thereby to promote their own inter- ests.''
 The language of the court contains an obvious intimation that the state of its own motion, for reasons of public policy, could abolish a town. A town is
 Merely an agency, instituted by the sovereign for the purpose of car- rying out in detail the objects of government, essentially revocable agency having no vested right to any of it's powers or franchises, the chart CT or act of erection being in no sense a contract with the state, and there fore fully subject to the control of the Legislature, who may enlarge or diminish it's territorial extent or it's functions, may change or modify its internal arrangements, or destroy its very existence with the mere breath of arbitrary discretion. Sic volo. sic jubeo. that is all the sovereign au- thority need say"
 City of Philadelphia V. Fox, GA Pa. 169; Girard V. City of Philadelphia, "A U. S. c WalD l; Mount Pleasant V. Beckwith, 100 US. 702; CoOey Const. Linn. 4 ed 232.
 In the case of Weymouth & Brain tree Fire District V. County Commis- sioners, 108 Mass. IA, the court say:
 There can be no doubt that the power to create, change and destroy municipal corporations is in the leg islature. This power has been so long