The Waterbury Democrat., 1941-10-29
Monagan Charges COP.
 With "FIip-Fopping''
Aldermanic President Points Out Change of Sentiment Among Leaders for Perriello
 = Administration Asks to Be
 Judged on Its Own Merits"

past-its issues are not pertinent to the present campaign and serve only to raise prejudices and diver siOns which have no place in 1941.
 A vote for Vincent Scully is 8 vote for the man and his adminis- tration-fOr no one else and for no other policies. His name has been emphasized in the campaign be- cause we have felt that his record deserves emphasis and we are proud of him. Certainly we should be permitted to call attention to our strong points without having our claims pointed to as an admis- sion of hidden weakness. This is not cam0uflage. We are headlin- ing our achievements so that no citizen can be ignorant of what we claim to have accomplished.
 Scully Leadership
 Regardless of the Pape- Upson smOke-screen, there stands forth the salient fact that the Demo- cratic leadership is the Scully leadership. In fact, it has changed almost as much as the Republican leadership which two years ago, under MT. UpSon's chairmanship, repudiated its present candidate. At that time Mir. PerriellO, the sole candidate, was refused the Or- ganizatiOn support and lost a primary in which he was the only candidate. The machine was con- tent merely with opposing him.
 MT. UpsOn then said of MT. Per- riell0 = "his policies are those which the party repudiated and cannot tOlerate"-and again-"The Republican party will not tolerate as Mayor anyone whose methods and policies approach those of the Hayes administration and, there- fore, we are opposed to the candi- dacy of MT. PerriellO".
 We are now informed that these conclusions were based on inSuf- ficient information. When they were made MT. Perriello had been Mayor for only one month. After three months, however, he proved c0nclusively to possess the sterling qualities and noble character now claimed for him.
 Now we are told that he should be supported because of his record and yet in 1889, because he had record, Mir. Upson REFUSED to support him.
 This Is p-flopping with ven- geance.
 Change Of Face
 In 1889 MT. Upson said "Mr. Per- riellO's election to the presidency of the Board of Aldermen was on Democratic votes dictated by the Hayes-Leary machine and Perf.iel- los elevation to that office came as Sclose as can be to an appoint ment by Frank Hayes"
 Yet now he supports MT. Perriel- To and asks you to reject Mayor Scully who has actually demon strated his ability to rehabilitate this city, politically and financial ly.
 Further, in the same statement. MT. Upson said of Mir. Portfolios record as MayOr-"We feel that It was not as good, and certainly no better than any other man would have achieved under the circum- stances.
 We have no desire to criticize MT. PerriellO nor to argue about his record. We have constantly and persiStently asserted that the only real issue Is the administra- tiOn of Mayor Scully.
 We tell you what the Republican leadership said about MT. Perriel- To to expose the complete dishOn. esty of their present position. They would have you forget the past as it applies to their candi- date and forget the present as 1t applies to our Democratic Admin iStratiOn.
 We who advocate the election of Mayor Scully are certain that he will receive the vote of all regular Democrats. We are also confident that his record has earned for him a staunch support of many who are normally Republicans. We warn these independently minded people not to be drawn from the local issue by appeals for party solidarity in state and national elections in future years. It has been subtly suggested that every Republican vote for Mayor Scully will injure that party's chances for success in 1942.
 Two Not Related
 Of course, this is untrue-there is no connection between the two. A vote for good government in Waterbury in 1941 does not ip- vOlve an endorsement of the state or national policies of the Demo- cratic party nor does it prevent a person so voting from supporting the candidates of his own party In the next year-if they prove wOr- thy of his support.
 This argument has scant regard for the sensibilities of such uncOn- trOlled voters. 1t imputes to them a stupidity and lack of judgment which is far from complimentary. It implies that they must be herd ed and c0ralled-lest they stray from che reservation. Above all, 1t compeIs them to hew to the straight party line without regard to the merits of the controversy before them. When such . voter is asked to vote against cur ad- mlnlstratiOn he 6 told in effect sOf course, you will be voting