The Waterbury Democrat., 1934-03-29

Highway should be paid for by the people who are to derive the most benefit from it. We believe Fairfield county will be the direct beneficiary. However, we are just aware of the fact that Fairfield county contributes it's fair share when a road is built away up in Windham or Holland county.
 The Telegram says that "The people of Fairfield county are taxed for every road that is built in the State of Connecticut. They contribute, in points of fact, up- wards of 9 per cent of all the road build ing money spent in the State of Connec- ticut. And we don't know any highways in Connecticut so generally used by those from outside the county, because of the fact that these roads form the main con- meeting link between New England and the rest of the United States"
 We're not arguing this because it's too true However, it recalls to us very viv- idly the terrible time that Waterbury has had during the last ten years in having the State Highway Department take over maintenance of section of road, to be sure lying within the city limits, but very much an integral part of the main trunk line running north and south of the Nau- gatuck valley. We refer to Thomson avenue now about to be repaved under state highway department auspices. u was never intended that so important link of main state route should be city. maintained. Yet it was so ordained.
 That's why we say perhaps we're preJ- udced in the matter of the Merritt High way in wanting it to be paid for not by every single motorist in the state, when half of them may never even venture on one mile of it's length, but by those who use the route We think that the state must abandon it's policy of paying -as-lt- goes if it intends to construct $15,OOO,OO parkways. We're not opposed to such fine rights of way across the state we like motoring under such ideal conditions. But we do oppose increasing the motor ists' taxes And that's what we're doing when we go in for such expensive hlgh- ways, for the Merritt Highway can only be the forerunner of similar ones not just in Fairfield county, but in other counties.
 Federal Judge William Clark of the District Court of New Jersey is author of plan that would abolish the present constitution of his state and establish one based on different theory of govern ment Inere would De no pollIlCdl pdI Cico under his ideas but simply managershlp government, similar, we presume, to the city manager form attempted in many American cities. Voters would be re- quired to have at least grammar school education and any man or woman who failed to vote at two successive elections would be disqualified. There would be no real estate tax, all local and state levles being based on mans income. It was Judge Clark who in December, 193O, de- clared that the 18th Amendment had not been adopted constitutionally. His plan for constitutional convention has been bumped rather hard on previous efforts to get the Legislature to call one. He now declares that legislative action is not necessary The governor, he asserts, can legally call such convention. Abolishing our party system even in one state, is a tremendous undertaking. We don't think Judge Clark will sudcceed in having New Jersey become the first state to do this, although he may be able to persuade nec- essary constitutional changes.