The Waterbury Democrat., 1935-03-20

democrat, of Torrington, was op. posed to the bill while Represen. tative Edward Hogan. democrat also of Torrington voted in It's favor. In fact, there were enly two democratic votes cast in Litch. field county for the bill and one oi those was that of Representative Joe Garner Estlll of Salisbury who voted in support of the bill merel! so that he could make @ motior later to reconsider. His motion tC reconsider was defeated. Eighteen republicans in Litchfield county voted for the bill and a similar number of republicans opposed it Three democrats of 1itchfield were listed as being against the bill.
 Representative Harry B. Russell republican, of Watertown, sup ported the measure. Representa-. tive Eugene Lamphier, republican of the same town voted against 1t Representative Frederick l.. White of Thomaston was opposed to le. ga1izing betting.
 In New Haven county sixteen republicans and thirteen demo. crats voted for the bill. Ten re- publicans and one democrat voted against the measure.
 Exciting Debate
 The three-hour debate which preceded the passage of the bill furnished much excitement, espe. cially when a letter, reputedly sent out by the Council of Churches to all the representatives was dis. owned by that organization. The letter urged defeat of the bill.
 Referring to the letter, Represen- tative John D. Thoms4 of Water bury declared that he was in favoi of the bill despite threats the let ter contained. T hope the man who wrote that letter will come tc Waterbury and try to beat me-" he declared. "As a Protestant take special exception to the letter. Ii people are falling away from the churches as some say it is due~to the attitude of some typified by this writer and their narrow mindedness.
 County Vote
 The roll call of New Haven and Litchfield counties showed the fol lowing vote:
 New Haven County
 For. Republicans - Bradley, Beacon Falls; Downs, Bethany; Reynolds, Branford; Boyntor Cheshire; Gerrish, East Haven; Ely and Hindinger, Hamden; Hol- brook, Madison, Field. Milford Wright, North Branford; Blakeslee, North Haven: Hine and Smith, Orange; Peck, Oxford. Cornforth, Seymour; Badger, Wolcott; total, 16.
 For. Democrats-Hamre, Bran ford; McEnerney and Woods Derby; Bowling and Tonkonow, Meriden: Jackson and McDer- mott, Naugatuck; Pastore and Walsh, New Haven; Leonard and Hall, Wallingford; Mahaney and Thoms, Waterbury; total, 13.
 Against. Republicans = Jeynes, Ansonia; Jackson, Cheshire; Brad ley, East Haven; Loper and Norton. Guilford; Benson. Middlebury; Guyott, Milford; Cowdell, Prospect; Beecher, Seymour; Baldwin, Wood- bridge; total, 10.
 Against. Democrat = Platt, Southbury.
 Absent = Mccarthy. R. Ansonia,
 Litchfield County
 For. Republicans - Smith, Bethlehem; Stotts and Seymour Colebrook; Chamberlain, Cornwall; Hutchings, Harwinton; Howe and Morse, Litchfieid; Turkington, Mor- ris. Gates, New Hartford; Hum phrey and Schenherr, Norfolk: Trowbridge. Roxbury; Wilcox and Middlebrook, Sharon; Ashman, Warren; Anson, Washington; Russell, Watertown; Lynch, Win chester; total, IS.
 For. Democrats Estill, Salts- bury (for reconsideration; Ho- gan, Torrington; total, 2.
 Against. Republicans z Kan som, Barkhamsted; Curtis. Bridge water: Bartle. Canaan; Kugeman' Cornwall; Breakall and Perre- gaux, Harwinton; Bentley, liar winton; Dickinson, New HartIorI; Marsh and Wenzer, New Milford Casey, North Canaan; Bell, sans- bury; White, Thomaston; Carl son, Washington, Lamphier, Wa tertown; Clark, Winchester; Mt chell and Judson, Woodbury; total, IS.
 Agains: Democrats - Austin and Seymour, Plymouth; Telesca' Torrington; total, 3.
 Absent = Honold. R. Barkham- sted; Chase, R. Kent; total, ?.