The Waterbury Democrat., 1931-02-12

the Hartford city court had no bear ing on the method of appointing the common pleas court judges.
 The court of common pleas in Waterbury Is in q separate class by itself" he, said. It has unlimited jurisdiction, which the other courts of common pleas have not. It is the same as Q superior court, and, in fact, is a superior court. The law on the way judges of the court of common pleas are named does not violate or offend the constitution. The statute is one of 30 years standing.
 However, if it is the desire of some to change the law, I wish they would come out In the open and say so and not put it on high consti- tutional plane. The bill is brought here merely to retain the members of the Grand old Party in office.
 Attorney Larkin must have a wonderful claim on the republican party. He has been a lawyer 22 years and 21 years and II months of that time he has been on the payroll. think that the party has gone Q long way in discharging its obligations to him."
 Senator Frank Bergin of New Ha- ven, democratic leader in the senate, countered with Attorney Larkin when he raised the question of con- stitutionality. Attorney Bergin pointed out that in the decision cited by Attorney Larkin the court had ruled that the legislature could not give anybody else power to "ap- point" any inferior court judges. He said that the governor. under the law, merely nominates the judge and the legislature appoints him.
 Attorney Larkin still maintained that this was unconstitutional be- cause to nominate means to name, he contended.
 "The method now followed is un- constitutional and if tho general as- sembly doesn't approve of the gov ernor's nomination it can under the constitution substitute another name.
 He can unless there is a law to the contrary and there is one," re. torted Attorney Bergin.
 Attorney Larkin said that he knows there is such law but again said that 1t is unconstitutoinal. Attorney Bergin replied that all laws are assumed to be constitutions
 
 otherwise. The present statute has not been tested .n court.
 Attorney John D. Thoms of the iu- dietary committee asked Attorney Larkin what use there is of pass ing his bill if the present method is unconstitutional and Attoreny Lar kin declared that its passage is necessary to make the law conform to the constitution.
 In order to obtain additional SUD- port of his bill. Attorney Larkin, in opening his argument before the committee, declared that his meas ure was designed to apply to all courts of common pleas in the state instead of only 10 the Waterbury court. as was his original intention Brief comments in support of Att torney Larkin's bill were made by Attorney George Wilder of Bridge port and Senator Albert Lavery. Senator Joseph Lawlor opposed the Larkin measure.
 Yesterdays session before the ju- dietary committee was 0 lengthy one. At the hearing on the bill to substi- ute q district court system for the present city. town, borough and jus tice of the peace court. Judge w. F. Thoms of this city was among those who went on record in favor of the step.
 Others appearing in favor of the bill included States Attorney Arthur M. Brown of New London, Richard Phillips, secretary of the judicial council, Judge Shapiro of Shelton, a member of the judicial council, Sen ator Arthur Conroy of Hartford, Senator David Goldstein of Bridge port, Attorneys J. T. Hubbard and William M. Foord of Litchfield, Sen ator Fitzgerald and Lafayette Main | of North Stonington.
 Opposing the measure were Jus tice of the Peace William Hunger ford of Watertown, Attorney George Wilder of Bridgeport, Albert Cham. berlain of Meriden, Representative Bull of Old Lyme and Senator John Lynch of West Haven.
 It is understood that the republi. cans oppose the measure because il will wipe out the large force of S O. p. justices of the peace who now reap a handsome harvest in fees throughout Connecticut at the ex- pense of the people. At yesterdays hearings many cases of schemine justices and constables making money by prosecuting people were cited. .
 Several bills designed to take from the governor the power of appoint ing judges. commissioners and de- partment heads were heard. All of the bills are merely designed by the republicans to take the power away from tn chief executive which was enjoyed by the governor while E. O. D. chieftains were at the head of the state affairs. The bills were termed