New Britain herald. [microfilm reel] (New Britain, Conn.) 1890-1976, 1928-08-21

Another group of bills related to
the subject of liquor tax certifi-
Gates. Bill Introductory Number
| 1915 or 1910 sought to give to the
! holder of d liquor tax certificate the
same benefit that the Court Of APP
peals gave to violators of other laws
when that Court in an opinion said
that suspension of sentence sus-
pended all operation of the law
| against the convicted person.
voted against this bill because I
thought it was harsh. unjust and
unreasona ble.
Bill 1862 of 1911 was an unim-
portant one, reducing the time
from two years to one year when
an application to renew certificate
might be made by one who had been
previously deprived of it through
the misconduct Of a servant or
agent. and not of the owner him.
self The fairness Of this bill is
best attested by the fact that only
"A men out of $50 in the Assembly
voted against it.
Bill l247 OF 1911 was designed to
cure defect in the law with re-
spect to the transfer OF certificates.
leader Of the Assembly and only II
men out of $50 voted against it,
Even more striking is the criticism
Of HE for voting for Assembly Bill
1119 Of 1911 which was technical
amendment 10 the Excise Law with
relation to the surrender and can
collation. of tax certificates. 1t was
departmental measure requested
by the Commissioner of Excise. Not
a single member of the Assembly
voted against 1t.
l am criticised for voting against
a large number of local option bills:
Introductory Number 625 Of 1904
Introductory Number 141 of 1905.
Introductory Number 466 or 1906,
in two different forms.
Introductory Number 1874 of 1910.
Introductory Number 1929 or
1911.
Introductory Number BAT of 1911.
Introductory Number 617 of 1911.
In the same class are bills Num-
bers 1928 of 1911, 722 of 1907, md
rs of 1906.
Most of these bills are duplicates
of one another. The popular opin-
ion of this State at that time on the
subject can best been seen by look
ing at the vote on Bill Number 1874
Of 1910, In that year the Assembly
was strongly Republican and yet
only 50 men out of 80 voted for
this bill; 81 men. Democrats and
Republicans alike. voted against it.
There was a strong sentiment at
that time against the extension of
local prohibition by the local option
method because of the inability of
officials to enforce the law in the
dry sections. the substitution of So
called clubs for places licensed by
the State and the loss by the State
Of the license fees and tax which
came to it where sale was made in
the normal legal way. Practically
every assemblyman from the cities
and in thus casting their votes they
We're undoubtedly representing the
will of their constituents.
Assembly Bill Introductory Num-
Der SIS of 1913 permitted a private
school, not a public school, to con-
sent that liquor tax certificate
might issue for premises within 200
feet OF it. l was speaker of the as
one way or the other on that bill.
Assembly Bill Introductory Num-
Der 436 of 1915 sought to prohibit
the sale of liquor in a city adjacent
to a college or university support
ed wholly or partly by the State
There were grave constitutional OBJ
jections raised to the bill and dras-
tic criticism of the technical fea-
lures of its provisions, In an over
Whelmingly Republican Assembly
only Al out of $50 members voted
for it.
Similarly. Assembly Bill Intro.
ductory Number 81 of 1915 was at
tackled on constitutional grounds.
The Speaker OF the Assembly that
year was a well-known prohibition
list. Even he opposed the bill. In
voting against the bill, I was in the
company of the Republican Speak
er. the Republican Chairman of the
Committee Oil Rules and the Re