Norwich bulletin., 1913-03-27
House Strongly
 Against Repeal
M'NEIL BILL OVERWHELMING
 VOTED DOWN.
HAD FEW SUPPORTERS
Only Two Voices Heard in Affirmative -HaI of Wilmington Wants Groton
 and Waterford to Share in Money.
Special to The Bulletin )

I1dFl1OFQ, MaTCn Zb--DeSplt0 El46 persistent opposition on the part of Senator McNeilI of Bridgeport, aided in the house by Representative Hall of Wilmington, to the appropria tion made two years ago for the development of New London harbor as a steamship terminal, the proposed repeal act and all that went with it was killed and buried beyond resurrection in the house of representatives Wednesday, The measure was made the order Of the day and attracted under the gilded dome many citizens from New London Norwich and nearly all sections of the state.
 Hall of WiIIinston Starts Proceedings.
 The measure came before the house on majority report of the committee on roads. bridges and rivers, and also or a minority report from the same committee, the majority report being against repeal and the minority report, signed by Senator Peck alone, being in favor of the repeal according to the McNeill act, o-called.
 Promptly at 12 o'clock Speaker Webster announced the order. MT Hall of Wilmington arose and said that as a matter of parliamentary tactics and in order to get the business be- fore the mem bers he would move that the minority report be substituted fJr the majority report. Speaker Webster immediately ruled the motion out of order, as the rules of the house did not allow the substitution of reports.
 Macdonald of Putnam Speaks for Ma
 jority.
 Mir. Macdonald of Putnam, houss chairman of the committee on roads, bridges and rivers, explained briefly the bills under consideration He said that at the hearing on the repeal bill only three appeared in opposition, and | they were Senators McNeil1 and Keeney and Representative Hall The
  decided to report against the repeal, the committee vote being Il to l, the only dissenter being Senator Peck. who makes the minority report.
 Mir. HaII's Objection.
 Mir Maltbie of Granbys asked If the Perry amendment was also under con- 1 sideration. The speaker said there 1 was no amendment before the house 1 at the time and the only matter is the l acceptance or rejection of the commit l tee report.
 MT Hall then said it was easier to remain silent in his seat than to per 1 form what he considered to be- his | duty. He said he was an eastern Con- | necticut resident and that he believed he was loyal. He reminded his as sociates that when they took the oath of office they had certain duties to perform. He said they were here to legislate in behalf of the state. He did not care how much the state ap- propriated so long as provision was made to provide means to raise rev'>- nue to meet the appropriations State Running Behind Each Year. Mir. Hall referred to the finances ''t the state, showing an Indebtedness o1 $11 100000, and said that at the end O. the next two fiscal years, unless a state tax is levied, will be $16,000, 00G, and the state is going behind each year. It is easy for the legislature to make appropriations and not provide fJ +n 2 l. tions He said that obligation was up to us to do our part and that thls IS the time when it ought to be done and should not shift responsibility on those who are to follow.
 Hall Proposes Amendment.
 MT. Hall said he had an amendment that he would like to make to the minority report if given the opportun- ity. He said his amendment did not require New London to put up S250,- 900 as an evidence of good faith, but also included the towns-of Groton and Waterford. He wanted to offer the amendment in good faith and give these towns equal opportunity to share the benefits with New London lie was not to criticise the project at New London. If it was as it's adyo cates claimed, a good investment Tor the state, he would allow the three towns to share in the investment. MT Hall said the same care should De eX- ercised as if spending ones own mon- ey. An honest man would not contract a bill and make no provision for pay ment, but that's what the majority bill does.
 Groton and Waterford to Share in It.
 The Hall amendment would not re qutre New London to contribute one quarter of the amount, but one-tentn, $10O, 900, instead of S25000o, and Groton and Waterford would be permitted to come in The investment was so good 6ox n those have a share in it. New London ceT- tainly could not object to take part of a paying investment. Further, he said his amendment provided for ra1s- ing the revenue. If his proposition prevailed, and it is to be a paying in vestment as represented, the three towns will have all the revenue until they are paid back what they paid in This is a fair proposition. He could not see why New London should dodge any part of the appropriation.
 New London Should Contribute.
 Mr Maltbie of Granby also spoke in opposition to acceptance of the major ity report and stated that as there were no plans and specifications the state did not know for what purpose the money was to be expended. He did not consider the Perry bill i'm proper. The grand list of New Lon- don is s16.oO0,000 and that city should pay in $250,000, which would mea q only one and two-tenths mills to meet the expenditure, and would be no hardship to that city. Towns are re- quired to pay a part of the highway Improvements and why not in a. project of this kind. He hoped to have the majority report rejected and the mi- nority report accepted as amended.
 A God Given Resource.
 MT. Evarts of Milford was the first to speak in favor of acceptance of the majority report. He said it was a preposterous proposition to ask the city of New London to contribute S250, 1000 to the state, which meant a per capita of from SIP to S15. or even S100, 900. with proportionate per capita. New London Is place of God-given re- sources that have not been developed, with its -harbor and the beautiful Thames river extending to the city of Norwich. rightly named the Rose of New England. Anyone who ever sail- ed down the Thames and into the har-