Norwich bulletin., 1917-03-07
Especial to The Bulletin.} }

! <SPSCl6l 70 1no N6u1leIlu-y
 Hartford. March s--rhe legislature reached where measures are discuss | ed, and much time was devoted Tues | day. to the unfayorable reports on the election of the" county commissioners | by the people and to remove the pulp I lie utilities commission. After a mo- ton for the previous question prevail ed. and a member asked to be heard, Speaker Healey showed his customary fairness, stating that it was not in tended to bottle up any member, and if there was no objection, he would consider the motion withdrawn. There was no objection. County Commissioners. The judiciary committee reported unfavorably the act which would per- init the election of county commis- sioners by the people, and it was passed to the calendar week ago. When taken from the calendar, Mon day, MT. Peasley, for the committee, opposed any change in the system, where the representatives of every town elect these officials direct MT. Fenton favored the new project, and declared the argument against was in effect the same as prevailed against the election of United States senators.
 In his county, Windham, the commits sionerS were a fine type of men, but he believed the time was near when
 the county should elect it's officers. MT. Peasley said if the change came the city of Hartford could name the commissioners for the county, and
 MT. Fenton replied that it should be
 so, as the city was more interested
 than all the rest of the county com
 bined. MT. Taylor, of Danbury, spoke
 in favor of the bill. and stated that
 the business of commissioners was
 countywise and not townwise. It is a
 county duty for the county to elect
 county officers, but now it is done by combination of counties. The peo-
 pie in the county should select their own county officers, and there would not be government of the matter by any city. Mir. F'oord, Of Stamford
 said the tendency was to decrease ra.- ther than increase the number of cleo toral officers. He said the appoint ment by the legislature was the best plan and every town had a voice in the selection of county commission CTS. Mir. Higgins of Coventry, moved the previous question. MT. Fox of New London objected and asked to be heard, and. unanimous consent was given He favored the election by the people and believed it was the popu- lar idea and declared there was gen. era1 feeling for the election of presi- dent, and that if this project was put to the people, it would be favored by the people. MT. Corbett of Hartford declared that a community should have the right to elect it's own officers, and | counties should choose their own com |
 
 ridiculous for the gentleman from Stamford to say that better officers could be had by appointment rather 1 than by election.
 When the viva voce vote was takenj on the acceptance of the report and | rejection of the bill, the speaker statedl that in his opinion the motion pre- vailed. MT. Fox of New London doubt l ed. and a standing vote resulted as follows: Yes. IF; No SS.
 E;sb1,a ;, Mo.sna p,.Is
 The fish and game committee re- ported favorably an act which pro- vides that mo person shall take. fish from Moosup Pond, in the town of 1917. The penalty is $50 or irnprison- ment not more than thirty days. or both.
 Public Service Board.
 The act concerning a public service board was reported unfavorabIy by succeed the public utilities con1mis- sion, and would not include any mem Der Of the commission. MT. Moore house spoke in support of the bill. only covered but broadened the scope 1 of the commission. There is general l he said, with the pres snt utilities commissioner, and he challenged a case where the commits sion had taken the initiative since 1911 l pr since it's creation. 4Mr. Moore house clted cases to snow the lack l of efficiency of the public utilities commission, and had left many things Indone that ought to be done in the natter of trolley operation, gas and electricity and the like. He believed he committees were controlled by a ew outside people and that a small minority of members really acted up- ,n the measure. No one appeared against this proposed act. This com mission spends some S40,000 a year, lnd wastes much of it in the pubIi- ;atfon of useless reports
 MT. Rogers, of Manchester, stated hat the public utilities commission lad no friend before the committee when this bill was given hearing. The ,nblic has no confidence in the com mission, but representatives of the New York, New Haven and HarSod md Connecticut companies, did appear or member of the commission at mother hearing. Public service cor ,orations are operating. nnder rules hat cannot be observed, and the re- ult is railroad wrecks. He said he lad nothing against the commission ITS, personally, but as a commission ( hey are failure.
 MT. Peasley said in reply to the as- ertion that there were railroad laws { hat could not be respected and if l hat were so he suggested repeal of ' uch laws. This proposed new com aission would be paid ss,0o0 more han te the members of the present J 4 omn1ission.s He said the farming out J f legislative measures was essential :. Q successful legislative work, for if ! hey were to be considered by the ' 1ho1e body there would be continuous '