The Waterbury Democrat., 1933-04-05
Present Beer Bill
 Not Satisfactory
(continued from Page 1)

(Continued from Page 1)
 dications following the hearing were that tho beer bill as made up by the governors commlHsion will Do practically scrapped. Little chance of the substitute bill of- fered by the Connecticut Fedora ton Of Labor passing is also hold out. Reports are that the leaders of tho legislature will offer T. bill which will give the power Of issuing licenses to tho county com misstoners. This system was in vogue before prohibition.
 Professor Ynndei Henderson Of Yale spoke for tho bill. John ]. Egap, president Of tho connec- ticut Federation of Labor, opposed many features Of the bill and of- fered q substitute measure. He criticised, mainly, the high taxes on beer and tho high licenses. others criticising tho governors bill were Aubrey Maddocks, repre- ssnting thc state association or real | estate boards, who criticised the b00~foot limitation from schools and churches, Attorney Francis Jones Of Hartford, who favored | having tho legislature rntify the com mission named by the governor | in the bill, Senator Joseph Co0ney l of Hartford, who criticised tho yb0 license fee for a tavern while y200 Is the fse for clubs, M. 4. Bickert of Stamford, who opposed the beer taxes ap too high, Eugene Trisber of New Haven, who also opposed the high taxes and license fees. c. '. Waiz of Hartford, who ops posed the b.0+fo0t restriction, Her. man Penn of West Haven, who opposed the taxes as proposed, Mft Morgan pease of tho W0men's Or gnnizntion for Prohibition Reform who favored tho bill hs 1t now is. Allan x. Smith. representing the Connecticut Daily Newspapers pnny. Nsv Fletcher D. Parker oi Hartford of tho Council of Twelve who favored the ttghteAt regula- tions possible, Willard Rogers 0l Hartford, representing the c0nee. ticut Hotel association, who op. posed tho bill and Senator Johf Lynch of West Haven, who urged control by the county commission OTIS.
 A. c. Jennings, manager Of th.
 Elton, this city, was present hnt registered in opposition to the bil
 because of the restrictions It put on hotels.
 newspapers. criticised the sectt0t
 of the bill which prohibits advsr
 Using Of beer in Connecticut pn'
 Dsrs, Connecticut, he said, is [ small state and ls .bgrdersd D! New York. Rhode Island and Mass achusetts, where such advertising l is not prohibited. It would no
 be fair, he said, to deny such
 privilege to Connecticut paper
 when those from the nsighbofini
 states will come flooding h fiIlet
 with such advertising. He als'
 pointed out that the bill prohibit Iradio advertising. Yet out-ofsstnt
 stations will have beer advertisinl
 on the air to Dc listened to D.
 Connecticut people.
 | MT Bickert of stamford a!so ss M
 pressed . similar opinion. No all
 Atiornsy Hummel stated tha under the provisions Of the bil only one club tn Waterbury w0til be abIs to sell beer and that woull be the Waterbury club as meal | are served there. He recommend
 sd that club licenses De given [
 duly organized clubs. lie eri ttcised the club licenses as set q
 too high. Some clubs mset onl
 once or twice q week, yet the
 would have Co pay q Tee or ezV
 while profeasioFiai beer handler
 seIIInx every day would only hay fo nay $50. He said that it woul bs possible to discriminate on n IeluE,s to receive licenses by settln a certain Humksf 0f years tha they must have been iH exlhteFia before they became eligible [
 Happily for . permit.