The Waterbury Democrat., 1933-04-05
Politicians Always

That the liquor control bill is going to become political football seems likely. judg- ing by the hectic hearing held by the judi ciary committee yesterday afternoon. So far as we can see there were only two speakers who gave unqualified support to the control system advanced by Governor Cross board of five men. The remainder of the speak CTS ruthlcssly picked to pieces every section of the proposal. But we can't say that their criticism was constructive. From the mouths of very few of them came sugges- tions that were as good as the points they criticized. It was too evident that politics was playing quite part in fashloning their remarks.
 We do think that it is a good idea to postpone temporarily action on the bill. But we don't think, as did Senator Cooney, that such action should be delayed until May l. That will be almost one month after the manufateure. transportation, and sale ot beer and wine of 3.2 per cent alcoholic con- tent is legalized. That is too long for Con- necticut to remain in doubt. We think that the judiciary committee should be required to report at least not later than April 2O on system of rules and regulations to govern the sale of these alcoholic beverages in Connecticut. A report on control of distilled liquors should follow in May.
 If necessary the early report on beer and wine might be of temporary nature to cover merely the carly stages of beer and wine manufacture and sale, leaving for later date the ultimate finding on the plan of liquor control that this state will follow in the event of prohibition repeal. In this way we will have had time for more reflec- ton and perhaps our first hasty thoughts will be somewhat changed by maturer judgment. It would be foolish move for Connecticut to jump at the first liquor system offered it. It would be just as foolish to subscribe to all the changes that are now being proposed iH that plan.
 For one thing we think that the state should demand that d liqu uor commission be created in whom will be entrusted all the powers of licensing and controlling. We have no desire to return 10 the former scheme of allowing county commissioners this pre- roeative We are not desrous of returning 10 the point where we left off in 1920. We are SettlnR q UeW uedl dIl dIOuHu III Iie United States. That should certainly in- cludc liquor manufacture and sale. Judging by remarks made at Tuesdays hearing peo- pie of Connecticut are asking for return of the saloon. We don't think that is so. Peo- pie want to be able to do as they please or as their sense of the fitness of things dictates in regard to purchasing and drinking alco- holic beverages. whether they be beers, wines or distilled liquors
 Too many people have the idea that over throw of prohibition means financial inde pendence for them. We cant help them thinking this. It's natural for man to have ambitions, but we mustn't lose sight of the fact that in the United States we have swung from one end of the pendulum to the other in less than 20 years. Why swing all the way back again, when it obviously will result in just another full swing? Gov ernment control of liquor is apt to resul; from the present upheaval, which IS noth- ing more than the result of politicians fear ing they won't share in new profitable undertaking We certainly hope they won't We don't care to sec liquor return with an orgy of graft. That would be playing right into the hand of prohibitonlsts.