The Waterbury Democrat., 1931-01-28
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 2s, 1881
Let The Charter Alone

he Democrat sincerely douDtS tne WlS- dom or legality, for that matter, of any action being taken in the legislature to revise Wa terburys present charter so as to give mayors the privilege of naming their own controllers and tax-colleetors. Such action to our way of thinking is far cry from the present sys- tenn under which Waterbury has fouriShed for so many years and is still prosperous to- day Every duly elected office holder or group oi office holders withdrawn from the voters privilege to pass upon only takes away that much more of the voters personal liberty to which his franchise entities him. And any such action upon any party In Wa tcrbury savers of just such policy to which the voter should be quick to react if he cares to preserve any semblance of his free in- hertance.
 Yet to-day gross materaism is in the sad dle. the general yard-stek for success being given in such terms as. how much IS be- she or 1t worth. The average person generally included in the oft-repeated idiom, pro bono publico, IS an idealist at heart and cares little whether the assets and liabilities get into the wrong column now and then. just so long as he has had the pleasure of at least having hand in the pie But to-day there has sprung up a super race of experts, accountants. sta- tistcians and the like, who. if every dollar is not spent according to Hoyle, are, if they can not put you in jail for it, at least going to tell the world about it.
 And that's just what has been going on in Waterbury for the past year or two. Com missions have been chosen, who in turn have chosen others again who in turn have hired experts who also in turn have hired o11.&.< breathe. Such imposition upon an unsus- peeting public is near we can judge only sitailar to the old song about the flea on the flea on the dog back. In plain words every body in Waterbury IS biting each other for the most part for no other reason than cke odium it will bring down upon city, as we pointed out previously, which need take off it's hat to no one. Yet the fact remains Wa terbury IS facing the result of all this-med- ding is the best word think for it, and ullless the public seriously considers the mat ter it will find that instead of being part and parcel of its government 1t will be lucky it's allowed to live here.
 In one breath we find small. select coterie of people in Waterbury clamorlng for the so-called city manager plan and on the other hand democratic party leaders advooat- ing the aboshing of the office of controller and tax x-collector In either instance the pub lie is denied the exercise of its franchise to just that extent. The Democrat is opposed as much to one of these actions as the other. It has agreed explicitly with Mayor Hayes that there should be no consideration of the city manager plan in Waterbury. Yet we can see no little difference under the proposed bills if certain elective offices are going 70 be denied the voters privilege in the present legislature. The Democrat is just as much opposed to any part of the city manager idea whether it originates in democratic or repub- lican circles. For under no circumstances IS it good for public welfare, regardless of its monetary recommendations. I here are more things, today-and that may be paint ing the lily more vivid hue than it's possl- bc for most people to see-better than finan- cial prestige namely personal liberty and free dom. which were originally intended every citizen. Take that away. be we as efficient and as successful as Croesus we have lost something which can never be reganed. Thus we conclude Waterbury should consider well before 1t barters or sells its present charter for any mess of pottage connected by who knows and for who knows what. That goes for city manager plan or any other lsms in the bag So called for the attention of the legislature at Hartford