The Waterbury Democrat., 1933-02-21
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1883
First To Ratify

Hardly has Connecticut slgnified her rat-
 feation of the 20th or lame duck amend
 ment to the Constitution of the United
 State than she is called upon again to take
 action on the 21st which will repeal the
 18th or prohibition amendment However,
 ratification or rejection of this repealer, con-
 tained in the Blaine resolution which yester-
 day passed the House after passing the
 senate last week, won't be as simple as the
 action taken on the Norris amendment In
 the first place the Blaine resolution specfi-
 cally says that state conventions and not
 state legislatures must act upon it.
 However. on Saturday Governor Cross
 issued this statement. Whenever I am
 notified that the repeal bill has been passed
 by congress I will bring the matter be-
 fore the general assembly of this state im- <. medately. Whether the general assem- :" ply will call the state convention to act
 on the prohibition repeal or whether the
 conventions in the various states will be
 called by the federal government officials,
 hasn't been determined yet That
 is in effect what is probably being echoed
 by the governors of the other states, es-
 pecially those where general assemblies are r eHoW III oeSSloH, loIty -t1Iee II WE dleH
 mistaken.
 Wyoming must go on record as the first
 state to prepare itself for action on the re-
 peal amendment. Saturday Governor Les
 lie A. Miller signed bill setting up the : necessary machinery for calling and estab-
 fishing a state convention. Unfortunately
 brief news dispatches have not yet contained
 vital information on this procedure. When .sthis is forthcoming 1t may stir up a storm 2 of protest, since nobody has really sound. z idsa as to the method of constituting such ! state conventions as must act on the amend ' ment. It would be wise plan for all < states to await word from Secretary of State | Henry L. Stimson in whose department it 7 lies to communicate the proposed amend : n.ent to the several states. He may have : recommendations to make to the various : states as to the manner in which they will ]. proceed to set up conventions.
 ' There seems to be a disposition in some {. states to take the easiest way out of the : situation by passing legislation which would \ set up the members of the legislature in , session right now as delegates to the state z convention. That certainly would simplify < matters and cut down the expense, but to : m1ny it would be simply ratification or |. rejection by legislatures and not by conven- z tions as is demanded. Massachusetts held a 2 state convention in 1917 to amend its state constitution It may follow the same ' scheme in dealing with the prohibition ques- : ton. Connecticut held constitutional : convention in 1902, electing delegate from !. each town.
 Suffice 1t to say that from the many {. plans being advanced by national and state . officials will come one that has universal 2 appeal and at the same time recommends !. itself upon its simplicity and economy of ' operation. Louis A. Cuvillier. New York ' assemblyman, believes that national con- ' stitutonal convention would solve all diff . culties. He proposes membership in it be }. prorated as are members of congress and @@ that both the federal and state governments z share in the cost. He estimates this at !. $1 100000 as compared to S5,OO0,OOO :. outlay if forty-eight state conventions are ' held. That will hardly appeal to the states. ' We think they are best qualified to deal with Y the subject each within its own limits. With . so many of them advancing ways and means \ of calling conventions, surely prompt and z reliable action is guaranteed And that's Y what we are asking for right now.