Social legislation in Connecticut, 1919-1939: A case study in the relations between business, labor, politics, federalism, and reform

Reformers interested in improving the conditions of the wage earners by legislative acts expected the twenties to be a continuation of the Progressive period. In Connecticut a number of major obstacles stood in the way of further Progressive acts: the widespread and only partially valid belief that the country was prosperous; the less rapid rate of growth of Connecticut's economy compared to the economies of other States; the dominance in the House of Representatives of members not well informed about the problems of the urban wage earners; the absence of wage earners in the Assembly; and, the existence of what was virtually one-party government, run by Republican businessmen whose philosophy was laissez-faire.;The depression was the catalytic agent in effecting change. Because of it and dissatisfaction with the Republican machine, Wilbur L. Cross, a Democrat, was elected Governor in 1930. Although Connecticut had tried to be independent of the Federal government on certain occasions in the twenties, it passed enabling legislation so that the cities could obtain federal funds. During the remainder of the decade the Assembly enacted substantially all of the reformers' major demands.;If Connecticut's case was typical the Federal government in becoming more active, had not usurped any power. On the contrary, the State had demonstrated that it was both unwilling and unable in many cases to deal with the economic and social needs of the wage earners. The Federal government had only moved in to fill a vacuum that had been created years before when the economy became national. (Abstract shortened with permission of author.).;The Manufacturers' Association of Connecticut and the State Chamber of Commerce opposed the attempts of the reformers for several reasons: there was no need for the proposed laws because the employers treated their employees well; such laws would seriously hamper the manufacturers in interstate competition; and, the State should leave business alone because natural economic laws ultimately governed its operations. A number of employers added that only national laws could meet the need without ruining Connecticut's economy, but when the Assembly considered the Federal child labor amendment, the business groups opposed its ratification.