Year: 1879



 notice the press ofthe state are producing

 the different claims favoring or opposing the constitutional amendment that will come be-

 fore the people of the state during the coming

 two months. Any ordinary observer can dis cover that the arguments advanced are to a | certain degree more or less covered in their statements. We learn from the able lawyer 1 from Litchf1eld that the amendment was

 matched out by the celebrated so called 're-

 form' committee (after his conception of it in

 l876) of 1877. It is well known they recom-

 ended it for the Legislature Of 1878 to consid- CT, though we believe tho suggestion of the re- duction of expense came from a governor that afterwards drew an increased salary. And the fact that most of the reductions were next year repeated and some of the officers of to-day are drawing increased salaries, is an answer that the purpose of curtailing expen- ses is the real interest ofthe supporters of the amendment It is plain to ordinary minds that one other purpose than retrenchment was intended by the supporters of this bill from 1876 to 1879 session, with the howl of reform. Looking over the facts we find the first key note of this amendment came from the Democrats in 1876, the session when they were last in majority and felt in doubt of ever holding majority rule again. The next year, 1877, Democratic governor spread it on, re- form (bread) message, but it failed of a two- thirds vote, and was shrewdly reported on by the reform committee as it subject for a play thing of 1878, where the monied interests engaged sufficiently to create the present amendment and carried it to the general as- sembly of 1879, That the cry of reform was the one alike with both parties, can be easily seen. It was with reform cry that it was in troduced and recommended, continued and passed by the several assemblies Each par ty in turn advocating it as the best interests demanded then supported and pushed by the particular ones it favored, and the cry of re- form never forgotten. That the Republicans were as loud in bowling reform, no one can doubt When the next Legislature furnished the source of U. s, Senator for party reward, to say nothing of the numerous sweet bits of party distribution. It can plainly be seen that ''bennial session" was to prove an issue to quarrel over with-the party that was in the minority. That would not do, certainly not without gain. The talented advocate from Litchfeld says with truth this is not party question. He is right. Of course the party in power did not care to take any or phan questions like this for issue, and beside the ren fact is this, which the opposers do not as yet disclose either from ignorance or from purpose-as some of them are evidently aware. The remark of a prominent lobbiest who is interested in several corporations in the State explains, what is the true situs of this biennial session act. "It costs so much to look after the Legislature each year, for fear they will over legislate against the corpora. tions that if they didn't sit but once in five years, it would be enough for our company" Is not this the fact that moneyed corpora tions only wish a Legislature when their in terests call for some bills? In saying that the corporations have used money for the con- trol of members of every House for the past ten years-That every committee on incorpo- rations, railroads and even other committees have been formed by the influence of attor- neys and lobbyists with the presiding officers of each House-That every railroad bill or act of incorporation has not had filthy lucre to influence supporters-That it is fact that