Norwich bulletin., 1917-03-29
Especial to The Bulletin9

 success. which means constructive legislation. A feature of the morning session was the discussion of the fa- vorable report of the committee on put the cost of maintaining the bridge over Salmon river. connecting the town of East Colchester and East Hampton. upon the counties Of New London and Midd1esex. The bill was rejected, but through courtesy the re- port was accepted
 Excise Matter.
 The act which would permit whole sale liquor dealers to sell or retail goods not to be drunk on the premises, was rejected in concurrence with the senate.
 Trunk Line Bridges
 The act in regard to maintenance and construction of trunk line bridges, was amended, so that the town shall cost, while towns with a grand list not in excess of S30O.000. shall pay one-quarter.
 Salmon River Bridge.
 The act was taken from the calen- dar, which concerns the maintenance of the bridge over Salmon river be- tween the towns of East Hampton and Colchester, and which was reported favorably by the committee on roads and bridges. Mir Waitt, the house chairman, explained the several hear fngs given the matter. and the travel of action. which showed that both counties were opposed to the bill, and that it's maintenance should re- main between the towns of East Hampton and Colchester.
 MT. Hagen. of Hampton. favored the bill and did not think it fair to saddle the expense on the counties of New London and Middlesex. If the state wanted the condition changed, the state ought to pay the cost. This bridge was not on the main highway meeting towns and the counties as a whole.
 The bill reads: The counties of Mid dleseX and New London shall main tain, control and operate the bridge over Salmon river between the towns of East Hampton and Colchester. The expense of maintaining. opera ting and repairing said bridge. including the af5utn1ents and approachments, shall be paid in equal portions by each of said counties upon orders drawn by tho board nf county commissioners of said counties upon their respective treasurers.
 MT. Russell. of Middlesex. spoke in opposition to the rejection of the bill as 1t esta hlished bad precedent. The Salmon River bridge is hut very little used excep. by the residents of the two connecting towns.
 Mir Gates. of Old Savbrook. also spoke in favor of the bill, and said the Salmon River bridge was a pure 1v local bridce. and expense to Mid dleseN and New Haven counties.
 Mf Powers of Manchester. asked piled tha+ the bridge was formerly a pert of the old turnpike
 Mir. Corbett, of Hartford. represent Ing the gentlemen from East Hampton, spoke in opposition of the bill. The hTi rrn nf fa &J7e,i town of East Hampton.
 Mir. Geary. of Waterford. moved that the question be divided.
 Mir Eleart. of Colchester. spoke in the game he had the support of the large ma iority of the members from N%w London county. but some how nr other there has been a change. Con trary to remarks made, Mir EIEart said the bridge was quite generally used.
 MT. Rogers. of Manchester. asked as to the length of the bridge and it's He was told it was 126 feet long and was in good condition for state highway and would not be taken over by the state.
 MT. Curry. of Lebanon, said that the county of New London first favored he proposition, that the towns bear 1 he expense, but subsequently chang ad position.
 MT. Rose. of Essex opposed the bill 1 and did not believe the county should l pay for a bridge between the two owns in question any more than be- 1 .ween New Haven and Middlesex
 MT Southworth, of Saybrook spoke n opposition, and did Mir. Hall of ! he state should pay for bridges of this ;lass. Mfr. Coe. of Cromwell favored | he bill
 Mir Babcocl. of Stonington, spoke n favor of the bill. by reason of the l danger of precedent.
 MT. Cowles. of Farmin gton said 1 many did not know where the bridge 1 vas located. The towns or counties l lid not want to pay for it. and who | he deuce did. He favored the bill | against the bill. while NIT. Hender- Ien favored the bill and was very much against saddling this bridge ex- | 1ense. Mir Durham, of East Hampton, fa- yored the passage of the bill, and said | hat bridge was considerably used 1 ,y the public and there was no good | eason why those two towns should | 0unham, by the way. is the dean of | he house having served in the ses- l ion of 1877. and famous dead lock ses- ion of 1901.
 ,e divided prevailed, and the report | if the committee accepted He then | moved that the bill be rejected MT. | seary said that only four votes fa- l Fored the proposition in joint ses- ;ion and required no detective to as- | certain these votes as Colchester and | East Hampton has two representa- | ives each. He said it was an e1e- | nent of modernism to make the other | ellow pay the freight, and the bridge | s located so that it could not be | ound without the aid of a guide and | compass,
 MT. Hagen moved the previous ques- ion, which prevailed The conclud- 1 ng remarks were made by Mir. Waitt | 'f the committee. New London county | s asking much relief from their bur- 1 len by the state. and he hoped the 1 pill would pass.
 The bill was lost by a vote of 100 | o 92. A motion to reconsider was a1- | 70 lost.
 Cubic Yard of Sand.
 An act passed specifies that a cubic | 7ard of sand shall contain 2600 l pounds and a cubic yard of gravel | 1900 pounds.
 Motinn R;~k.rn EiInoe