The Waterbury Democrat., 1939-03-03
not now in existence? A. That's right.
 o. For year 1892?

not now in existence?
 A. That's right.
 o. For year 1892?
 A. 1882.
 Then followed a few more ques- tions after which MT. Alcorn took up the matter of the dinner ten. dered to members of the senate by Governor Frank Hayes and which he alleges was paid fol by the city of Waterbury.
 MT. Alcorn remarked:
 A1cOrn:-
 Do you recall that the State offered in evidence the bill from the Hartford Club, accompanied by a check payable to Frank Hayes, in payment of dinner that was rendered by Frank Hayes at lieuetnant governor. MT. Mur- ray asked that he might be per- mitted to examine the witness with respect to the admissibility of the document, and his inquiry was not directed as to the admis- stability of the document, but was directed to the witness as to whether or not there was a fund provided by the city for official entertainment. It carried the im- plicatiOn that this expenditure of the city in entertainment by the lieutenant governor which the City of Waterbury paad for, came within the bounds of the fund provided by the city for the en- tertainment.
 Now I have before me here the resolution which I am now offer ing in order to meet that claim and collaboration of the claim that that expenditure by the City of Waterbury pay a bill of the lieutenant governor. The resolu- ton by the Senate was a resOlu- ti0n containing a dinner to the Senate by the lieutenant gOver- nor on the evening of March 4, 1887, two years ago, the bill for which was offered yesterday. Then follows a resolution that whereas it is a custom of long standing provides that the Senate of the State of Connecticut which ac- cepted the invitation of the lieu tenant governor to be his guest at the dinner, and whereas the lieu tenant governor does now request the members of the senate, the clerks, and the cabinet to be his guests at a dinner to be held at the Hartford Club Oli the evening of March 4, 1887. Therefore: Be it resolved that each of the above persons shall notify the said lieu tenant governor of his acceptance of his invitation to which the lieu tenant governor has affixed his hand and seal this 18th day of February, 1887. Frank Hayes, Lieutenant Governor.
 That was on invitation of tn City of Waterbury. That was tn invitation by the City of Waterbur, Likely, it was not an obligation c the City of Waterbury. So clair this admissibility for the purpos of charging that the lieutenant gov ernor under his own signature mad statement that it was his plac as lieutenant governor pursuant 8 custom of long standing, to giv the entertainment by him as lieu tenant governor in 1885 for whic the City of Waterbury paid. S to meet the claim of the gentlema which he made yesterday, to mee that claim. as well as to colloborat it under the signature of the ac cused, what that bill of 1895 was fo that it had no relation whatever the office of Mayor of the City ( Waterbury, no relation to any det of the City of Waterbury. It wa merely an entertainment by tn lieuetnant governor following a GUS tom of long standing, which h saw fit to charge to the City ( Waterbury. I submio upon tines grounds.
 Small Potato"
 MT. Murray:
 Right on the face of this chec which the States Attorney is oi fering appears the fact that tn was apparently a joke and hoa, It was not a valid resolution of tn Senate, because 1t contains tn