The Waterbury Democrat., 1931-05-02
SATURDAY, MAY 2 1881
All Serene m In Waterbury

Action of the legislative committee on cities and boroughs in reporting favorably Mayor Hayes proposed charter for this city should promptly squeleh all such utteranees as the Waterbury Republiean. made yesterday meaning. Some of the remarks that were levelled at Congfessmsn E. w. Cos and the above committee were quite damaging They were entirely unmerited to our way of think ing. And while we don't think it is necessary for us to eomesto the support of. Mir Goss or the committee on cities and boroughs we do think that that portion of Wsterbury's popu. lace which failed to rally to the city manager standard deserves to be berated as severely as were Mr Goss and the committee. Why not implieate all of us who opposed the city man agef plan in the denuneiation!
 The Waterbury Republican claims that IT Mr Goss had put loyalty to Waterbury ahead of machine politics if he had consulted the interest of thousands of Waterbury business men and workers who are staggering under high taxes and rents instead of consulting only the interest of his next candidacy for congress, he would have put his demand for referendum on the counel-managcr charter m away that would not have been refused. ~. Tn short MT Goss is accused of winking as he advised holding special referendum in Water bury next year on the question of city manager government Rational individuals would re- uuire more than mere say-so to swallow this story.
 Personally we don't think Mir Goss is as diabolical as he is painted by the Waterbury Republican. He did manage to instill some spirit into the local republican organization while he was town chairman and that without much aid from the party organs. True the democratic administrations of the last few years have been bombarded. but 1t was patent that the attack was merely barrage to cover up the appearance of the city manager plan The committee on cities and boroushs. how ever. refused to be stampeded by display of sentiment in which few hundred voices seek to speak for a city of 100000. That is probably why House Chairman Sparks felt the need of declaring yesterday that his com mittee had not taken sides in the Waterbury charter question. 1,s14 ~
 There seems to be one point on which city manager advocates err. They sre enthusiastic. They are whole -heartedly behind their pro- posal But they completely overlook the fact that for each person they can produce who will back their scheme. two can be brought forward who desire retention of our present form of government. A majority of the voters of Waterbury never declared themselves in favor of city manager plan. And don't over look the fact that there are Waterbury busi- ness men and workers staggering under high taxes and rents who prefer to do so with mayor at the head rather than a city mana gef. There are just as many large taxpayers opposed to the city manager as there are in favor of it. In fact. we'd say there are more of the former.
 Had there been any weight behind the de- mands from Waterbury for city manager form of government republican legislative committee certainly would have hearkened to the plea. A commission. named by re- publican governor. to investigate demoeratie city's charter and to make such changes as were necessary. certainly would have had its report listened.to with more respect and atten- tion than that accorded the volunninous and expensive one given by the Waterbury Char ter Commission. Politics isn't playing the important part in this question that the Wa terbury Republican imputes. Even though it may infiet ripper bills upon cities the Legis- lature would hesitate before handing any municipality over to small group who want to- experiment with civic government. It's too dangerous an experiment.