Davenport, Hooker, and those heroes who laid the foundations of this favored Commonwealth, never dreamed that the day would come when four hundred and thirty-one inhabitants in the town of Union would have an equal voice with eighty-six thousand inhabitants in the town of New Haven, in making laws, in spending money, and in governing the State. If that doctrine had been proclaimed three hundred years ago, you would have no Commonwealth of Connecticut to-day, but every town would have remained an independency. Those old Puritans would have torn King Charles's Charter into a thousand fragments if it had contained any such vicious doctrine, for they were men cast in a heroic mould, and made no compromises with their intelligence or their conscience.

I ask the opponents of this bill: What do you propose to do with this question? Do you propose to fight the inevitable, to oppose the spirit of the age, to contend like the Tories of England against an outraged people, to trample upon the doctrines proclaimed in the cabin of the Mayflower, and which have made the name of the Puritan immortal in history?

All arguments drawn from the formation of the national government are not in this question. It is a compromise. It is based upon no just principles, and is the one weak thing in your government, that may - that will, some day—wreck it, if it be not changed.

That the rotten mining-camp of Nevada with its sixty thousand inhabitants has an equal voice in the Senate of the United States with the great Empire State of New York with its five millions of inhabitants and its untold aggregate of wealth and of commercial importance, almost makes the bronze statue of the Goddess of Freedom which crowns the dome of the Capitol at Washington weep; yea, it makes respectable the most tyrannical monarchy on the face of the earth to-day; for all this is done in America, hypocritically, under the name of Liberty, Equality, and Freedom.

no

This is a question purely and simply for the State of Connecticut, for Rhode Island, for Massachusetts, for Virginia, for South Carolina, for California: Shall not the people have an equal voice in the management of their State affairs, representatives from rotten boroughs, no shoestring districts, but representatives elected by equal population and contiguous territory? Any other claim is the merest twaddle, and any other position is the repudiation of the principles upon which your government is founded. It cannot stand the test of reason, or the approval of the good men of all parties.

Some selfish political plotters are all the time appealing to the small towns to beware of the growing power of the cities, yet they are not able to point to a single instance since the formation of the State when the cities have tried to legislate

against the interests of the small towns. The interests of the towns of Hartford and New Haven are identical with those of Union and Prospect, and the legislation of the State affects each alike; the laws that are good for one are good for the other. Other claims are the specious arguments of demagogues; they have no warrant in fact.

In every State in the Union, except Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New Hampshire, the idea of town representatives has been long since abandoned, and the members of the House of Representatives are elected by districts of equal population and adjacent territory, and these same demagogues who are opposed to this change will be the most blatant of reformers if the Democrats should happen to get permanent control in these three States. Consistency is a jewel of which they know nothing, and statesmanship they reduce to political trickery.

Now, I am not strenuous about this convention bill. I have read and re-read the arguments of Hon. Henry C. Robinson. The first time I read them I admired their beautiful diction, and the second time, their powerful logic. The constitution of this State is practically correct, except so far as it relates to the election of State officers, and the election and composition of the Senate and the House of Representatives. But if you put me in the alternative of nothing or a constitutional convention, I shall vote for a constitutional

convention; and so I hope, and so I believe, will a large majority of this House.

A single word more, and I have done: The political advantages to be gained or lost by an amendment to the Constitution of this State are not of a feather's weight. Connecticut has been a close State, politically, for one hundred years, and will continue to be close for one hundred years longer. No man can prophesy two years ahead what will be the political complexion of this State. The result of the election (I own it with shame) is determined frequently, as every sensible man knows, by the size of the bank account of the several State committees.

Nothing has done so much to make this State corrupt as those small towns where a few hundred dollars determines the election of a United States senator or the State officers, and the control of the political patronage of the State.

I have one appeal to make to the members of this House. To most of the members it does not make a straw's difference who carries this State politically two years from now. The sun will shine, the grass will grow, and business will go on the same whichever political party triumphs. This country is lost and saved regularly every four years. Let us do right, let us make a record that we can live by and dje by, that merits the approval of our own consciences, and of the intelligent future historian who will some day write up

the record of this General Assembly. No party has permanently triumphed politically in this country. The party that is down to-day is up to-morrow. The political caldron of American politics is like the ebb and the flow of the ocean; but there is one thing it is always safe to do, and then, whether success or defeat awaits you, you have the consciousness of having done the right thing, and in the end history will vindicate your action.

The best men of both parties are practically agreed in this matter, and there can be but one issue to this contest. "The mills of God grind slowly, yet they grind exceeding small."

No man and no combination of men is powerful enough to lead successfully any political party against this mighty reform movement. The intelligent young Republican voters in the great cities of New Haven, Hartford, Meriden, New Britain, Bridgeport, Middletown, Waterbury, Rockville, New London, feel the injustice of this present system as much, if not more, than the Democratic party, for it disfranchises them for a lifetime from any part or voice in the management of the State affairs. I know full well that if this General Assembly fails in its duty, another General Assembly will assemble in these courtly legislative halls, on January, 1895, which will do the people's bidding, and right the crying shame of the hour.

At the opening session of this General Assembly I introduced a constitutional amendment that