Norwich bulletin., 1917-04-19
HaddaIn.
Hennon Consistent.

Hennen Consistent.
 Mfr. Hennon. of Griswold, referred to the party platform and he could not understand why the blanks were not adhered to by the party representa- tfves. There was no argument up to the minute against woman suffrage and he favored these privileges for won1en.
 Tammany Tired.
 Mir. Tammany, of Easton, after the matter had been discussed for three hours. said the alleged arguments had become repitions. and he moved the previous question The motion did not prevail.
 Not Consistent.
 Mir. Minor. of Plymouth. said the at inconsistent, and was an attack on democracy. Like others. he said. no argument had been made against suf- frage as yet and he would vote suf- frage.
 HammersIey's Hit.
 Mr. Hammersley. of Hartford. said these bills under consideration ought to be rejected. as they were intended to get into the statutes under false pretenses so to speak, rather than to submit the matter to the people under constitutional amendment.
 Goddard and Fish, Too.
 NIT. Goddard. of Wallingford, spoke along the regulative lines at consid- erable longth in favor of the suffrage privileges, and as did also MT. Fish of Newington, and Mrs. Wilcox of
 Legislator With Baby.
 Mir. Kingsbury, of Coventry. a mem Der of the committee. said he had not heard before the committee any arggu- ment in favor of suffrage. If woman is given the right of vote, and elected to the legislature. would she come to the capitol with her nursing babe Wo- men insulted the committee in hear ing and he wondered what they would do if elected legislators.
 The Previous Question.
 Mir. Peasley moved the previous question which prevailed and Mir. Coe in favor of the minority report and in favor of suffrage.
 Roll Call Vote.
 Before the vote was taken the speak CT explained that the vote was on the unfavorab1e majority report, and therefore those who favored accept ance of report should not yes and those VITO favored suffrage no. Those voting yes in New London county were: Dc Wolf, Date, Femuste q. Ho%ie. Graham. Raymond, Hot, Fox. Henderson, Rogers, Butesu, ChatfeId. 13; no, Sweeney, Gillette, E1Rart, Hem non. Williams, Harding Stone, Lew is. Bailey. Bates, Hollo-eI1. Wilcox. Isabcock, Geary. 15. Absent or not voting. Curry, Allyn, Bradford and Pierson.
 Windham county-Thosn voting yes, were: KnowIton, Miller, Russ. Mills. Sheldon, Swain, Paine, Rrodcn. Back 1s. Paine; !; A. Bonar 11. votins no. Kent. Moffit, Mowry. Hiscoz. Fenton, ]. Absent, Wright and Lawrence. Whole number voting ....2z4
 Necessary to prevail ...11s aFN0 Those voting nay ................ s5
 The report was accepted and bill re- tected. motion to reconsider did not prevail.
 were: F'rink, Woodward, Higgins. Ranesbrry. Miller, Keefe. Kecney, Fuller, wIohtnan. Desrden, Martin, Jorsrran. TaIcott, Yosth 14, No. Buebee and Tucker. 6. Absent, HaIIock and Towne.
 Vote on Liquor Question.
 Tine next suffrage matter was the bill to allow women to vote on the IT, cense question, acting being on the motion to accept the majority unfa- vorabIe report and rejection of the bill. Messrs. Hagen. Bowers, CO,. CowIes. Martin, Smith, Blakleslee, Nelson and Shaw spoke for the minority r6t,ort.
 Mrs. Peasiey advocated the accept ance of the committee majority report which carried with 1t the rejection of the bill and fo rtbe same reasons that defeated the other suffrage bill. Mir. Back favored suffrage but was op- posed to this bill and in favor of the majority unfavorabIe report.
 The report of the majority commit tee was accepted and the bill rejected by vote of 130 to 69. A motion to re- consider did not prevail
 At 4.15 after a continuous session of nearly five hours the house adjourned to 11.3o Thursday morning.