The Bridgeport times and evening farmer., 1919-02-05
THE VOTE ON PROHIBITION

s THERE anybody who believes Connecticut would vote dry the question were submitted? Is it not settled opnon based upon irresistible evidence, that Connec tcut would vote wet?
 then the function purpose of a representative body? Is not to do given case what the people would do? There is doubt regarding this point If the principle that the legislature represents the people is Overhrown, the American system falls to the ground It IS not the system taught the schools the system of popular orators the system of Fourth of July sermons.
 The senators who voted yesterday against the constlu ona amendment voting accordance with their oaths office and according to their duty to their people, The people against the amendment
 Senator Clark one the three senators from Bridgeport, voted against the amendment He voted in accordance with his public declarations openly made while he candidate for office and in accordance with he platform of his party which declares that the question should be submitted to ref erendum of the party.
 Those who assert that this was bad vote or who claim that Senator Clark should have voted otherwise, must also assert claim by implication, that senator should not present his constituents they constitute majority of the made by his party, which he has accepted,
 be good enough to justify such perfidy upon the part of a representative of the people.
 As to the two other senators who voted for the amend they noorousy personally opposed to the amend ment They did not believe in it. They not bound to by their party platform This platform evasion of inc question prohibition They silent while the election being held They elected largely byI the votes of those who in favor of the sale of ntoxcant
 Are the of these senators entitled commenda- ton? Is any legislation holy that in its interest senators should sacrifice their opinions and the opinions of ory of the people living in the districts that elect them.
 What force in the background impeed these senators so to vote? What who is the motive power? Assuming that force not the minds and conscences of the senator's and not he people mpelled Senators Bartlett and Delaney vote oany did, that healthy force? In Connecticut the government presumed to be government of the people, not govern 1nent by mysterious influences unnamed and unknown
 There states many of them, in which the majority de- sres prohibition The majority entitled to what it wants The majority of the people of Connecticut do not want proh bOn they have the right to expect their representatives to vote with the popular will.
 The Times Farmer is not among those who that the doctrine of state rights applies where the alleged invasion ssts in the attempt to amend the Federal constitution the established The Times Farmer does deny right of hreefourLh of the states to impose their will upon the other fourth since this is in the compact
 The Times Farmer does assert that when constitutional amendment is in process that Connecticut and every other state has the right to demand that members of the legislature shall vote to express the will of the people, Senator Clark voted to express the will of the people, Senators Bartlett Delaney voted against the will of the people, got their votes indeed Representatives Bakesee and Chew did by silence
 Is there any who believes that Senator Bartlett Delaney Representative Chew Representative Bakeee would have been elected ill Bridgeport last fall if they "We going to vote for the dry amendment frankly Senator Clark said T going against the dry ment?"