USA > Connecticut > History of Connecticut, Volume II > Part 34
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47
NOTES -CHAPTER XXXIV
1. Robinson, "Selective Service in Connecticut," pp. 169-83; Hartford Courant, August 8, 1945; Connecticut Industry, XXII, Nov., 1944, p. 14.
2. Robinson, "Selective Service in Connecticut," pp. 169-83; Hartford Courant, August 8, 1945; Connecticut Industry, XXII, Nov., 1944, p. 14, XXIV, June, 1946, p. 23.
3. Ibid., p. 14; Hartford Courant, Aug. 5, 23, Mar. 12, 1946.
4. New Britain Herald, Oct. 20, 1948; Digest of Connecticut Adminis- tive Reports to the Governor, 1947-48, II, pp. 88-89, 1948-49, p. 75; General Statutes of Connecticut, 1947 revision, pp. 967-78.
5. Connecticut Industry, XXI, Nov., 1945, p. 8; Hartfort Courant, Aug. 18, 1945.
6. Connecticut Industry, XXIV, 1946, p. 91, July, 1946, p. 16; Hartford Courant, Oct. 3, 18, 1944.
7. Connecticut Industry, XXIV, April, 1946; Connecticut Labor Depart- ment, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Connecticut Labor Statistics, (Hartford, 1954), Table A-3, Table B; Hartford Courant, Oct. 18, 28, Nov., 5, 1944, Aug. 15, 19, 21, 25, 1945.
8. Connecticut Industry, XXI, Oct., 1943, p. 5, XXIII, Nov. 1945, p. 25, Dec. 1945, p. 9, XXIV, Feb., 1946; Hartford Courant, Aug. 25, 1925.
9. Ewing "History of the Bigelow-Sanford Carpet Company," p. 239; Labor Statistics, 1954, Table F, 1; Connecticut Industry, XXIII, Nov.
CONNECTICUT AFTER THE WAR (47)
1945, p. 6, XXIV, Jan. 1946, p. 5, Feb. 1946, p. 5, Apr. 1946, p. 30, May, 1946, p. 34, June, 1946, p. 5.
10. Hartford Courant, Oct. 4, 9, 1944, Aug. 1, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 1945; Connecticut Industry, XXIV, Apr. 1946, pp. 5, 34; Elizabeth Donahue, "Chester Bowles in Politics," The New Republic, CXV, Aug. 12, 1945, p. 172.
11. Ibid .; Robert Bendiner, "Pre-Election U.S.A .; Along the Connecticut Valley," The Nation, CLXIII, Oct. 5, 1946; Hartford Courant, Sept. 2-17, 1946.
12. Hartford Courant, Sept. 10-18, Nov. 6-8, 1946; Bendiner, "Pre- Election U.S.A.," p. 373.
13. For the income, disbursements, and status of the fund see Reports of the Soldiers, Sailors, and Marine Fund, Digest of Administrative Reports, 1947-60.
14. General Statutes of the State of Connecticut, 1947 revision, p. 2601; Hartford Courant, June 1-8, 1947.
15. Ibid.
16. Ibid., Mar. 26, Apr. 1, 2, 3, 1931, Apr. 6, 1935, Aug. 8, 1939, Mar. 21, 23, 26, 27, 1940, May 10, June 3, 1942, Feb. 2, 1943.
17. Connecticut General Assembly, Notes of Public Hearings, Committee on Public Health and Safety, 1947, pp. 54-74; Hartford Courant, Jan. 22, Mar. 19, Apr. 8, 29, May 8, 15, 1947; The New Republic, May, 19, 1947, p. 8.
18. Middletown Press, 1961; Notes of Public Hearings, pp. 54-74; Public Acts, 1957, p. 814.
19. Ernest George Lake, "The Apportionment and the Distribution of the State School Grants in Connecticut," (Unpublished doctoral thesis, Harvard University, 1943), pp. 1-4; R. Daniel Chubbeck, "Boards of Finance and Educational Policy in Connecticut," (Unpublished doctoral thesis, Yale University, School of Education, 1951), pp. 1-10; General Statutes of Connecticut, 1949 revision (Hartford, 1948), p. 578; 1955 Supplement to the General Statutes (Hartford, 1955), p. 358; Digest of Connecticut Administrative Reports to the Governor, 1947-1961, see sections on education; Public Acts, 1957, p. 1012, 1961, p. 862.
20. General Statutes of Connecticut, 1949 revision, pp. 2704-9; Con- necticut Industry, XXV, July, 1947, p. 7, Nov. 1947, p. 9, Digest of Administrative Reports, 1947-48, pp. 73-75.
21. See the Reports of the Inter-Racial Commission and its successor, the Civil Rights Commission in Digest of Administrative Reports, 1948- 1959.
22. Ibid .; Henry G. Stetler, "Racial Integration in Private Residental Neighborhoods in Connecticut," Hartford, 1947.
23. Ibid., VI-IX; Hartford Courant, April 14, 1962.
24. Inaugural Address, Governor McConaughy (Hartford, 1947), p. 5; Paul Mason Taylor, "The Connecticut Sales Tax" (Unpublished doctoral thesis, Boston University, 1951) pp. 1-52.
25. Ibid .; Stenographic notes of Public Hearings, General Assembly, (Hart-
(48)
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
ford, 1947) ; Hartford Times, May 27, 1947; Hartford Courant, May 27, 28, 29, 1947.
26. Ibid., May 30, 1947; Hartford Times, May 28, 1947; "Embarrassment of Riches," Business Week, Nov. 1947, p. 30; Taylor, pp. 30-72.
28. Ibid., pp. 92-108.
29. Digest of Administrative Reports, 1947, pp. 88-89, 1948-49, p. 75.
30. The New Republic, CXIX, Oct. 4, 1948, p. 7; Hartford Courant, Aug. 14, 15, Sept. 14, 15, 19, 20, 1948.
31. Taylor, "Connecticut Sales Tax," p. 92; The New Republic, CXIX, Oct. 4, 1948, p. 7; Hartford Times, Sept. 8, 9, Oct. 8, 1948; New Britain Herald, Oct. 16, 25, 1948.
32. Hartford Times, Sept. 1, 24, Oct. 2, 1948; New Britain Herald, Oct. 15, 20, 22, 1948.
33. New Britain Herald, Oct. 25, 1949; Register and Manual, 1954, pp. 393-401; Hartford Courant, Oct. 19, 24, 28, 29, 1948.
34. Connecticut Industry, XXVI, Nov. 1948, p. 7.
Chapter XXXV The Challenge at Mid-Century
T HE BITTERNESS of the campaign carried over into the session of the General Assembly and characterized the entire Bowles administration. It may be conjectured if the Republicans were not more angry with themselves for losing the election than they were with Bowles for winning it, but it appears that in their attacks on the Gover- nor they found something of a catharsis for their own failures. The Hart- ford Courant, even before the session opened in 1949, reminded the pub- lic of the Governor Elect's political indebtedness to the large cities. The majority leader of the House, George Conway, in referring to a phase of the Governor's program as "merely . .. a token gift which would attract pressure groups' support," struck a note which became a full con- certo before the session was concluded. For special effects, Clarence Bald- win, the Chairman of the Republican party, joined in, portraying the Grand Old Party as saving the state from bankruptcy. The new Governor, on the other hand, did little to avoid partisanship. His address to the Legislature, at a time when it was no longer honorific to be called a liberal, was anathema to Republican members who had taken pride in being regarded as the bulwark of conservatism. He deleted, with the care of a copy reader, all references to Democrats or Republicans, identified mem- bers of the assembly as liberals and conservatives, and in the manner of a school master instructed them as to the relative virtues of each. The prob- lem of the conservatives, the Governor volunteered, was "not in any lack of humanity and good will," but in their tendency to "feel that public problems, if left alone, will eventually solve themselves." In addition, John Bailey, the Chairman of the Democratic Party, exclaimed, "Republicans are living in the nineteenth century and are at least 50 years behind the
(49)
(50)
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
times." The scope of the program and the speed with which it was to be accomplished, not only challenged steady habits, but came to be regarded as dangerous to the well being of the state itself. In an effort to force through legislation the Democratic Senate placed "pet bills" of the Republicans at the foot of the calendar. Conway asked Bowles to "go on a vacation so that the Assembly could come to some agreement." 1
Housing
One week after the Assembly convened, Governor Bowles, in a special message recommended that 10,000 housing units be built in addition to the 3,000 authorized in the special session of the Assembly the previous Fall. It was recommended that one-half of the total be constructed in accord with the established plan and rent for $55 and the other half rent for from $20 to $55, depending on income, or, at an average rent of $35. The lower rent was to be made possible by a state subsidy. The Repub- licans quickly warned that they would not accept the subsidy idea and translated their threat into a reality on March 25 by burying the Gover- nor's proposal in committee. A basis for compromise was provided by the Governor's dropping his subsidy plan and suggesting a new plan of financing. Instead of merely guaranteeing the loans to local housing author- ities, as provided in previous legislation, he recommended that the state borrow money and lend it to the local authorities. The savings which would accrue as a result of the state's greater borrowing power would be reflected in lower rents. The Republicans accepted the method of financing, but the rent for a unit was fixed at forty dollars a month rather than the $35 as Bowles had hoped. The additional $20,000,000 provided brought the total for moderate rental housing to $65,000,000.2 An additional $50,000,000 was authorized in 1951. In all, provision was thus made for 10,000 units, or for 37,000 persons. The last of the rental projects were in the process of con- struction in 1956. At the end of June, 1958, 8,945 rental homes were com- pleted and occupied, 234 were under construction and 569 were in various stages of planning. The average gross rent from rental homes was at that time $59.90.3 In addition, a home ownership program was introduced for moderate income families. The state was authorized to issue short term notes and bonds to the amount of $30,000,000 to provide mortgage funds at
THE CHALLENGE AT MID-CENTURY (51)
one-half of one per cent more than the interest paid by the state for qualified moderate income families. The actual interest rate was one and one-half per cent. These houses were designed for families with incomes of less than $2,500 plus $600 for each dependent and whose net cash worth was $3,000.4 An additional $30,000,000 was provided in 1950, and the limits for qualification were raised to $3000 and $3500 respectively. Six thousand moderate income families were assisted in buying homes under this plan. By 1958, 167 of the mortgages had been completely retired and approximately one per cent of the mortgages outstanding were in default as a result of the economic decline.5 To expedite the solution of the hous- ing problem there was established a number of regional housing authorities and a more stringent eviction law was proposed. The last session of the General Assembly had refused to act on such a law, and in the interim tenants had been evicted at an ever increasing rate. The belief that the situation was only temporary was evidenced by the establishment of May 1, 1951 as the expiration date of the new provisions which pre- vented any landlord from bringing action for the recovery of any place used as a dwelling except in the event the tenant was a nuisance or failed to pay rent, or if the quarters were to be used for residence for him- self or for his immediate family.6
A Legislative Breach
The stridence of the legislative session was matched by the uproar which came in Republican ranks when Governor Bowles announced that Senator Baldwin had been appointed an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. It was generally concluded that this was quite a coup for Bowles and Bailey. Thus, Baldwin was eliminated as a political factor; the Gover- nor was free to name his former business associate, William Benton, to the Senate for the unexpired term; and the Republicans were embarrassed that one of their own Party had made a deal with the enemy. Though it did little to soothe the troubled waters of the legislative session, it was for Baldwin an opportunity to serve the state in still another capacity.7
As economic conditions dropped sharply, a measure of assistance was extended to the unemployed. The general business activity of the state dropped for the first time to a pre-war level. Some believed that the
(52)
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
recession was temporary and due to inventory adjustments; others thought the economy was making a permanent adjustment to pre-war production levels after the large backlog of orders had been filled. The latter inter- pretation was especially applied to the light metal manufacturers where the decline was the most severe. The number of the jobless reached a 12 year high as the total increased from 25,000 in mid-October, 1948, to 106,200 in July, 1949. Moreover, thousands of those employed were working less than full time. The total number of hours worked dropped from 13.9 million in 1948 to 10.5 million in June, 1949. The General Assembly responded somewhat grudgingly, it seems, to organized labor's demand that the period of unemployment payments be increased from 22 to 26 weeks. Factory employment began to improve by mid-Summer, and although the recovery was uneven, the economy took a definite turn for the better in the Fall of 1949.8
After five months and hundreds of invectives, the session came to an end without a budget with which to operate the government. It had been the custom for Governors to present to the General Assembly only an accounting of general fund operations. The receipts and expenditures of the highway fund, for example, were not included, nor were the receipts from the Federal Government. Although such methods kept the electorate in something of a paradisiac ignorance of the cost of government, there was merit in Bowles' contention that the people should be fully informed. The "complete" budget including the recommended expenditures from all funds amounted to approximately $300,000,000. This appeared to be a 100 per cent increase over the budget of the previous biennium, but it actually represented only a 12 per cent increase in state expenditures. To arrive at this apparently reasonable increase, however, the Governor was utilizing a $20,000,000 reserve which Republican administration had saved, and was recommending that capital expenditures be financed by bond issues, the latter was contrary to Republican doctrine, despite the fact the Party had succumbed to it as necessary to provide bonuses for World War II veterans. The GOP now stuck to their "pay-as-you-go" principle and insisted that aid to education and buildings for vocational schools and for the University of Connecticut be financed out of current income. They then sought to engage in their own sleight of hand by attempting to divert $11,000,000 in sales tax that had been earmarked to pay install-
(53)
THE CHALLENGE AT MID-CENTURY
ments on the Veterans Bonus Bonds. While the politicians played at their game of building a record which would attract voters in the next elec- tion, the hour of adjournment approached. In the last minutes "the air was filled with budgets of all kinds," but agreement had been reached on none. The Governor reminded the General Assembly of its failures when it assembled in special session on June 14 and submitted that the only way to provide the necessary services, and concurrently to balance the budget, was by financing capital expenditures by bond issues. Agreement was quickly reached on bond issues totaling $4,250,000 for the teacher colleges and $7,000,000 for the vocational school. The operating budget was approved on the first day of the special session. A bitter dispute arose, however, on aid for public school buildings, and, on June 16, the House recessed until recalled by its speaker on the last day of the month. Agreement had not been achieved and the issue remained for future special sessions.9
Aid to School Building Construction
After almost a year of bickering, agreement was reached on a work- able plan for extending state aid for the construction of public school buildings. In an effort to resolve the issue which had failed of solution amidst the snarling and wrangling of the regular session, Governor Bowles called the General Assembly to meet in November for its third special session of the year. The idea of aid for public school buildings was not new and the experiences had been supplemented during the regular ses- sion with reams of testimony by lay and professional groups.1ยบ Bowles confused the issue and laid himself open to charges of political favoritism by combining the one question with an extension of state aid for opera- tional expenses of schools and an alteration in the method of distributing aid. The state aid formula discriminated against the cities and Bowles recommended the correction of this inequity by basing the allocation of funds on the ability of a school district to pay after an equalized grand list had been established. This not only hit at the self-interest of the small towns, but was immediately seized upon as an effort of the Governor to "pay off" the cities for the pluralities they returned for him in the election.
(54
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
The monies required for the programs recommended by the Gov- ernor were such as to make education the focus of bitter political debate.
The Democrats were unwilling for the needed monies to come from the general fund, which would have forced increased taxes, an anathema to most Connecticut politicians, and recommended a bond issue to cover the costs. The Republicans were equally insistent that if the Governor were to gain the political advantage for extended services, he should bear the political responsibility for increased taxes, and opposed the bond issue. After the two parties had failed to reach agreement in the regular ses- sion, the Democratic Senate, in a last desperate effort passed the Republican sponsored bill calling for $9,000,000 in aid for the construction of public school buildings, but Bowles vetoed the measure.11 Subsequently a report of a study sponsored by the school boards of the state revealed that 116 of the 171 boards stated that their communities must have state aid, leaving only seven which stated positively that no aid was required. One-fourth of the school buildings of the state, it was stated, had been built in the nineteenth century and that little or no building had been done during the thirties and the forties. There remained 55 one room school buildings in the state. As the Governor addressed the special session in November, he referred frequently to this report and warned the law makers that the people of Connecticut "do not expect us to exploit this vital public problem as a sounding board for political ad- vantage. . . ." This was too much to expect. The Democrats repeated the bonding proposal and the Republicans eventually agreed to accept it if the Governor would accept full responsibility. The Governor was not inclined to usurp from the Republican House this legislative pre- rogative. He was weary and perhaps a bit chagrined at the public reac- tion. On November 20, the question was referred to final arbiters of legislative disputes-the bipartisan caucus of the leaders of both parties. A total of $1,500,000 was appropriated from the general fund for aid to school building construction, up to one-third of the total cost. Although the principle of the bond issue was rejected, something of the same effect was achieved by spreading the state's payments over a period of twenty years. Although by such an arrangement the state would not bear directly the interest costs, the practical difference between that plan finally passed, and that originally suggested by Bowles, was slight indeed.12 Of equal if
THE CHALLENGE AT MID-CENTURY (55)
not greater importance in solving the school building problem was the authorization to permit local communities to issue bonds for school build- ing construction in excess of the previous statutory limitation of five per cent by another five per cent.13
Government Organization
The recommendations of the Commission on State Government Organ- ization, which had been authorized a year previously by the regular session of the General Assembly, were far reaching. In recognition of the desirability of maintaining the relative balance of the executive, judicial, and legislative branches of government it was recommended that they be reorganized and strengthened concurrently. By the application of executive management techniques in personnel and fiscal affairs and through the centralization of executive functions, the Commission held that the business of the State could be discharged more efficiently and economically. On the premise that the Governor was the elective official of the state most responsible and most responsive to the will of the people, all executive officers other than he and the Lieutenant Governor were to be appointed, to secure a greater coordination of state services and centralization of executive functions, it was provided that the 200 separate agencies be reduced to fourteen, and that the counties be eliminated as administrative units of government.
A unified court system was suggested wherein the Chief Justice, with the assistance of an Office of Judicial Services, would exercise adminis- trative direction over the other courts. The suggested system would con- tinue the Supreme and the Superior Courts unchanged, a Common Pleas Division to replace the existent Municipal Courts and Justices of the Peace, a Family Court Division, and a Probate Court Division. All judges were to be nominated by the Governor and confirmed by the General Assembly for periods of eight years, but with the implied suggestion that they would be for life.
To provide for a stronger and more independent legislature it was recommended that the Senate be redistricted, that the House be reduced to one from each town, or to a total of 169, that candidates for the state legislature be nominated by direct primary, that compensation for its
(56)
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
members be increased, that they not be permitted to hold appointive positions concurrently with the terms of their elected offices, and that there be established an office of legislative services which would provide research assistance as well as perform the usual house-keeping functions.
To guarantee to the people the right to alter their form of govern- ment, the initiative and referendum were recommended. While urging the necessity of greater centralization of those necessary functions of state government, the commission sought to keep this concentration of power within bounds by suggesting that local governments be constitu- tionally authorized to act on local matters, broadly defined in accordance with general laws as defined by the General Assembly, and through the constitutional prohibition of special legislation for cities and towns. It was clear to the members of the Commission that until constitutional changes were made "in several important particulars ... the prospects of getting materially better management in our State Government are remote." The historical failures of conventions as a method of resolving such issues did not commend this procedure to the commission, and the sense of urgency for reform dictated against the methodical, but slow process provided by the constitution. On the constitutional basis that the people "have at all times an undeniable right to alter their forms of government in such manner as they may think expedient" the commission recommended that the constitutional changes be drafted and submitted directly to the voters.14
When the report was made available February 27, 1950, it caused a ripple on Connecticut's political sea. The Democrats were quite willing for the Republicans to do the talking, but initially they did not take a completely negative position. It is true that the Republican Central Com- mittee requested, "more light" which was interpreted by the Courant as taking "dim view of the whole thing." Charles Conway, Republican leader in the House, believed that the legislature would support anything which would promote efficiency and economy, but was disappointed that the report did not provide specific indication that any money could be saved. Charles House, Republican leader in the Senate, was not ready to sign on the dotted line and believed that certain parts of the report needed "a looking over," but that "it would be unfortunate" if the report were "not substantially adopted." Bowles had sought to lessen the possibilities of partisan strife when in the regular session he requested the Assembly
THE CHALLENGE AT MID-CENTURY (57)
to create the Commission by resolution rather than his doing so by executive order. The temper of the regular and special session, however, was such that it would have been miraculous in an election year if each party did not seek to gain political advantage at any opportunity. It was clear that such a miracle was not in the making when on the opening day of the special session wrangling broke out on the organization of the committee to hear the report. It was becoming evident that the strong support of the electorate would be necessary if there were to be any significant changes in the organization of state government.15
The practical difficulties of inaugurating the plan were revealed as active opposition developed. There were many who doubted the legality of submitting the constitutional changes directly to the people as the com- mission suggested, and others who refused to support a bill asking the Supreme Court for an advisory opinion for fear that such action would in effect support revision of the constitution. Fear was expressed of the centralization of authority and the Governor was portrayed as being insin- cere. Opposition was voiced to the suggestion that department heads be appointed without confirmation and that the highway fund be merged with the general fund. There was adequate support for the general prin- ciples of reorganization, but there was no support for the specific proposals. Everyone favored reorganization except as it applied to him, it seemed. It was whispered in the corridors that if the initiative were granted, the first bills which would be introduced would be those legalizing horse rac- ing and pari-mutuel betting and the dissemination of birth control information. Group after group voiced their protest: the State Grange, the State Farm Bureau, the Association of School Superintendents, the Connecticut Manufacturers Association. On the first day of public hear- ings, March 21, not one of the 200 present spoke in favor of authorizing a commission to draft the constitutional changes. When the hearings opened 41 of the legislative committee named to conduct the hearings were in their seats, but in the afternoon session there were only 12. The Courant prophesied that the plan would follow others to the scrap heap.16
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.