Norwich bulletin., 1915-05-15
Especial to The Bu1letin.)

Hartford May 14.-That there is
earnest effort On the part of the house
to complete business and adjourn next
Tuesday, was demonstrated by a quo
rum being present for a first time at
a Friday session Both Speaker Healey
and Leader Hyde declare that adjourn
ment will be reached at the time. speci-
fed provided the senate does not mark
time, while Senator Isbell, the senate
leader, says that the upper house will
not lag on behind.
Waterbury Armory Site.
The act to appropriate 100000 for
site for an armory in Waterbury
created some debate. Mr. Schultz of
New Britain, offered amendment to
reduce the amount to 100000 Mr.
Bronson said the present armory was
utterly unfit and that it would be a
waste of money to attempt to repair
the present delapidated armory, where
three companies are supposed to be
housed, and with inadequate accommo-
dations for one company.
Mr.. Bronson said the adjutant had
asked for the $50, 600 appropriation
as no less could serve the needed pur-
fered an amendment that appropria-
ton be made for an armory in New
Haven, which was ruled out of order
as not germane to the subject matter
according to official report the Sec
ond regiment, of which the Water
bury companies are a part, could re-
spond to active service within thirty
days. He said there sure was need for
this armory which had been asked for
at the last three legislative sessions.
Waterbury is a progressive and grow
ing city and the land valuation is on
the increase and now was the oppor-
tune time to secure site for the ar
mory, all that is asked for under the
| bill. We should be proud of our ma
| tiona1 guard, he said. and should make
the appropriation asked as a patriotic
motive.
New Havener Objects.
Mr.. Perry of New Haven favored in
| creasing the efficiency of the Connec-
ticut National Guard, but it ought TO
| be remembered that Waterbury was
not the only city in the in the state
| that needed an armory and New Ha-
| ven was in the list where seven COM
| panies are located. If Connecticut is
| too poor to furnish an armory for New
Haven, it cannot afford to build in
| Waterbury.
Accued of SeIfishness.
Mr.. Dillon of Huntington said the
| gentleman from New Haven had said
| that if New Haven could not have
| an armory Waterbury should not have
| one. That was not a fair stand and
| bordered on selfishness. The adjutant
| general knows the needs of the state
| and he favors the appropriation of
| 0,000 for the armory site.
| Mr.. PeaSley of Cheshire said there
| was scarcity of available building sites
| anywhere near the business centre of
| Waterbury and the longer the selec-
| ton of a site for an armOry is delayed
| the greater expense it will be to the
| state.
Major Babcock Favors.
Mr.. Babcock of Stonington favored
the adoption of the bill unamended,
| stating that while the adjutant general
says armOries are needed in Water
| bury and New Haven, that Waterbury
| is in the greater need and if there is
| to be preference it should be favorable
| to Waterbury.
The amendment to reduce the ap-
| preparation from 100000 to $4,000 was
lost by a vote of 121 to AZ.
Mr.. Isbell of Naugatuck said the
passage of this bill would ultimately
mean an expenditure of perhaps $780,
600 within the next four years for a
new armory.
Mr.. Stoddard, of Woodbridge. said
| it would be just as well to pass an
act for 100000 now as at any other
| time. The proposition is wrong at a
| time when economy is the watchword
He said the members had been in
formed that the Waterbury and New
Haven companies were the beSt-drilIed
| in the state and that these companies
had no drill room. If this be SO it
| would be best for these excellent COM
panies to be without armories.
Armory on Armory Site.
Mr.. Bronson of Waterbury said. of
course, the site would carry with it
| later on money for the armOry and one
properly equipped 1t must be assumed
| that the state would place an armory
On an armory site He had no objec-
| ton to New Haven getting an armory,
| but that did not give cause for object
| ing to an armory for Waterbury.
Mr.. House of Windsor Of the COM
| mittee on appropriations, said the best
military men in the state explained
to the committee the need of this ap-
| preparation and he favored the ac-
| ceptance Of the act under considera-
| ton.
Mr.. Foord of Stamford said this was
not a matter between New Haven and
Waterbury, but was for the interest
of the whole state.
Mr.. Eaton said it was openly ad-
mitted that this appropriation was a
starter and would mean additional ap-
preparations until the armory was
| completed. The bill was put upon its
passage and passed.
Promotion of Agriculture,
The committee on agriculture made
unfavorable report on the act which
provides for an appropriation of $16,-
900 for the promotion Of agriculture
in keeping with the federal action
along that line. Mr.. Jones of West
brook explained the bill and said that
the state would heceive by counties
double this sum from the federal gov
ernment In accordance with the vote
| of the committee, he moved that the
| report be accepted and the bill reject
ed. Messrs. King of Fairfield, Fem of
| Wethersf1eld, Shaw of Redding. Forbes
| of Manchester. Brakeman of Stratford,
Martin of Orange. Schultz of New BE-