Connecticut Legislature.

Monday EUening June 5.
{"character_count": 6757, "word_count": 1141, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9424999952316284], "ccnet_perplexity": [2249.800048828125], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
 such bills as they deem necessary, and asked to be discharged granted.

 Committee upon the franking privilege reported that it ought to be restricted, with resolution that the said privilege ought to be confined to public doc uments and letters relating to public matters, Nc; resolution passed and report accepted, u

 Committee on taxation rec recommending that the oIll and petitions upon the subject as referred to n inc message, he cOntn ued to the next session, and that the Secretary be directed to furnish copies to the sev era towns.

 like the plan proposed of continuing the sulJect.- There was too much of a disposition to dodge.

 Mir Niles opposed the b' and Mr ,; Strong moved moved pass. MT, Lippt wished it might be referred to the next session. Mr Allyn (from Hartford thought the bill would operate unequal. Mr Foster hoped the bill would be acted upon though he he dId not wish imperfect. MT Stiles said there were strong ob- jections to the bill. 1t reduces the tax money two per cent and raises that real estate one per cent cate the income of real estate MT. Kellogg did not like the bill.

 MT. Perkins said the question was not whether will bring into the bill kinds of property not hereto fore included in our system oftaxation-but whether we will make distinction in kinds of property. For himselfhe saw reason for this feature in our law oftaxaton. It is utterly unequal for men who invest their means in different methods. We cannot say the people unprepared for the passage ot the bill It has been reported to by the people, passed upon indirectly in sending us here to act upon IT, Is the

 

 We do not wish to say we will pay mana premium for investing his means in property of particular klnd No will openly contend for principle of this sort, and yet such is the practical effect ot our present laws of taxation and it is grosely wronged. There has been much dissasfa cton with the la as It now ls.- We not only put property in at different rates of tax, aton but real estate is put in at two thirds ot Its value. The whole system is exceedingly wrong and unequal in it's operation and omethng must be done to equaliZe it's provision.

 After some discussion, previous question called and sustained bill rejected and report and resolution re- jected

 Committee on taxation, on bill for an act provi- ding for the collection of taxes, reported adversely bill rejected and report of the committee accepted

 Tuesday Morning, May 30.

 House assembled at 9 o'clock.

 Report of committee on the public money, with resolution the same G Feod ,d osfos

 Previous question ordered on the original resolution, taken by yeas and nays

 YEAsooMessrs. Anderson, Andrews, Averil IT, D. }; Brooks, Gable, Carter Chafee. Clark. Clark, Close, Cole, Coley, Converse. Dmmock, A Doolittle, P Ferris, Frnk Fr;be, ] Gillet, Griffin, Gunn' Hekock H hnd%n M",s hbodge M%ae Naw comb, D B Niles, Palmer. W Phelps, Pond, E Rug; gles, Seymour, Sheldon, Smith, l. D Smith, M Smith, SPery, stedman, Steel, Thompson I, Thrall' Todd' Trowbrdge, Tryon, J Warren "elch' Welles, Walker, Wheeer-62.

 NAYs-Messrs. Abel Adams, R Allen, T M Allyn, Baker A Barber, Barnard, B Bortram, Bar.ram, Brush Bull, But Ter, Case, Cavalry, A Clark Cowles, Crowe, D Curtss, II Curtiss, Darrow, R A Doolttle, Douglass, Everitt, Farnham, Fish, Foster, Fowler B French s French, Gallup, GaIpinG Gardner, G!Iett' ley. Henderson, P Hill, Holcomb, Humphrey, Jen. nings, Kellogg, Kelley, Kelsey, 0 H King, Kinney, Lahr1m, w ,r lewis @ Lipptt Lyman, Miller, Mi Olmsted, Osborn, Patchen, Peck, Perkins, Perry, C Phelps. Pratt Richmond, A Robinson, Rowe, s Rug. gles, F Smith, V Smith, Somers, Spencer, c T Stan sooe 5 sloSs s,r s?s sw sa bo3 Thompson. Tibbos, Tracy. Turner, Warner, B Warren, Waterbury, We!ion, Warren, Wheeler. E White. s White, Wilcox, Wiley, Winchester, Wood ford, Woodward, Wright-lll.

 So the resolution rejected, report of the mnlori- ty rejected, report of the minority accepted, and mon ey received.

 money, (not exceeding Slo,0OOj from the School E4nd passed.

 Bill for public act, relative to " the asscssment of taxes, read second and third time previous question ordered, and bill passed.

 B for public act " in addition to an act to divide the city of New Haven into wards It proposed that the act heretofore passed should not become a law until il shoufa be accepted by the city, ant re. corded in the Secretary 8 office.

 MT. Galpin said that he introduced the bill to pro. vide for case which so far as he could determine could not be reached in any other way. This House yesterday passed resolution requesting the Cover nor to return the bill passed upon this subject. It would not be proper for him to state that that resou tion had slept upon the table Of the Senate 10 thus hour. II that be the fact he knew other method of providing for case hitherto unknown.

 MT. Palmer thought the amendment not in order

 The Speaker decided it to be in order.

 MT. Foster remarked upon the subject. and sns and lost

 Bill concerning crimes and punishmen's continued to the next session.

 Caroline Mumford divorced from her husband Mat. thew MuElford.

 Housatonic Rail Road Bill being, upon it's third reading, MT Perkins moved to amend the bill by re. ducing the amount of the bond required from the adopted, and bill on motion of MT. Ruggles, of Brook. held, indefinitely postponed.

 Bill for an ac. regulating proceedings in equity, read third time and rejected-do bill for act regua- ting civll actions.

 Bill 10 abolish imprisonment for debt. came from the Senate amended and rejected.

 MT. Seymour moved that the House adhere to it's former vote carried unanimously.

 Commlttee on judiciary on bill for the suppress sion of houses of ill tame, &c. reported adversely bill read third time. and the other gentlemen of the committee, that they knew very little upon the subject of the bil and they regretted to differ with the gentleman from New Ha ven who introduced it.

 Mr. Foster ntroducel the bill not because the present law is not sufficient for the citizens of New Haven, built was intended to reach cases ot those who had come in from the country bill rejected, and report accepted.

 The following bills were taken up and rejected bill concerning no,ares puhlic-hl in relation to electors meetings-bil to admit parties and others interested 10 testfy-bl in relation set off in civil actons-bil relating to interest on usury-bih re- lating to mortgages-bill concerning fraudulent con- veyances-do. concerning common schools.

 The following bills were passed-bll restoring char ter to Norwich Manufacturing Company-bill prov ding for the establishment of boundry ines-bill tendngiprocess of foreign at,achmentbill nrelation