Year: 1879

The Hartford papers are beginning to dis cuss the constitutional amendment providing for sessions of the Legislature every tw , years instead of annual sessions as heretofore. The Times and Courant oppose the amendment, while the Post seems to favor it. We think it is not unfair to say that the principal oppo

 sition comes from Hartford. Many of the States have adopted provisions of this kind into their constitutions and they seem to give genera satisfaction. There is no doubt we have too much legislation, too much tinkering with the laws and are governed too mucl

 Especially is there too much special legisla- ton. It is an evil that should be remedied, if g practical remedy can be devised consist satly with the interest of the people The amendment referred to will be submitted to the voters of this State the first Monday ol October, and as it will effect change, if adopt ed, in the organic law, it presents an import ant question which should be fully and fairly presented and considered. The principal ar guments, pro and con, which have thus far been developed, are, as near as we can gather them, as follows: Those who favor the amend ment say that it will do away with large expense and save a large sum annually to the tax payers of the State; that it will do away with much improvident and vicious legisla- tion and that the best interests of the people do not really require session every year. On the other hand it is objected to the amend ment: First, that it continues the legislature of 1879 in office another year-that they in fact voted themselves in office for another term and thus deprived the people of that right. Second, that it will not diminish the expense, because if the sessions are postponed two years they will bo so much the longer on &C., count of the increase or accumulation of the business. Third, that the varied interests of the State require session every year. h re- gard to the first objection it is but fair to say that the amendment was proposed by the leg islasnre of 1878, and that all the legislature of 1879 could do was to vote upon it as it came to them. They passed it almost unanimously, there being but one vote against it in the House, MT. Falvey, the Greenback member. 1t has been charged that they were influenced in their vote by the fact that they would be continued in office but it is simply ridiculous to suppose that the entire legislature of the State of Connecticut could be influenced in matter of such importance by such a paltry consideration. And in regard to the second objection it may be said that the length of the session of the legislature will not greatly in- crease the expense, because the members are paid so much for the session, whether it is longer or shorter.

 Hon. H. B. Graves of Litchfeld, who is veteran legislator and was member in 1878 and 1879, publishes letter favoring the amendment, as he did in the legislature, and Hon. N B. Stevens of Hartford, who was al- 90 member in 1878, is out in opposition We shall probably have'smore light" between this and election, when the ''dear people" will decide. We are almost tempted to say to them in the language of the kind-hearted Israelite, "My little dears, you pays your monish and you takes your choice.