Waterbury evening Democrat., 1903-05-30

 nor, does it stand up and claim that he is a statesman of the first water. What. this paper believes in is fair play, and. this many of the papers of this state and many of the politicians of Bridge port have not extended to Mayor Mul- yfhill, when considering the circum- stances surrounding bis action at the time of the riots recently in that city. It is a disgrace to the journalism of Connecticut that it has become so biased, so mean, so outrageously preju- diced and so contenpttbly narrow minded that it cannot take up sub ject of this importance and do justice to the central figure therein, in other words give the man a show, a decent wholesome show. There isn't any question but that Mayor Mulvihill has made some mistakes as the chief mag istrate of the city of Bridgeport. No one has the self-assurance to claim that he is perfect. But where can you put your finger on a mayor in the state of Connecticut that han't blundered, and grievously too, at times during hls administration of the affairs of the city government? The Union isn't becom- ing personal in this matter and has no intention to. But for the purpose of throwing little sidelight by way of contrast it would like to ask of the horde of savage critics in Connecticut who has meroiIessly assailed Mayor Mulvihill just one question: Where IS the mayor in Connecticut who IS letter perfect? Who Is without his defects without his flaws?
 To read the editorial utterances of the distinguished generals and colonels and the deck bands of the press of Con- necticut, and to listen to the blather- skite politicians of Bridgeport, one would come to the conclusion that E Mayor Mulvihill was the liveliest sam pie of an anarchist outside of prison walls. This perverted judgment on Bridgeport's mayor has for it's basis his alleged misconduct during the strike disorder in that city a week ago Sunday His brutal critics charge that he deliberately contributed a large share to the Sunday outrages when a mob endeavored to run things in Bridgeport. Conservative and thinking citizens will take no stock In such wild cat allegations against the mayor of Bridgeport. Mayor Mulvihill related what took place on that eventful Sun- day to legislative committee a few days after the occurance and his statement was to the effect that he simply told an excited the point of committing murder, to put up his revolver. The mayor didn't know the officer. There was nothing on the man to indicate his authority or by which he could be identified from the hundreds in that excited, angry throng. Where was the sheriffs badge of authority? Was he ashamed to wear it? Why didn't he notify the mayor when the latter put his hand on him and told him to put away his gun by which he was the next moment ready to do murder, that he was one of the deputy sheriffs of the county? Why should he hide his identity from His Honor, the Mayor? What excuse has the sheriff to offer for this culpable oversight? Take Mayor Studley of New Haven or Mayor Sullivan of Hartford or any other sensible, vigor- ous mayor in Connecticut-wouldn't he have given that man a blow in the jaw or grab him at the throat to choke him into insensibility, if he had been in the place of Mayor Mulvihill and found a perfect stranger brandishing loaded revolver at a crowd ready to cause bloodshed? Unless we are great ly mistaken in our estimate of the. mayors just referred to and of others that we might mention in this list, about the very first thing these gen tlemen would have done under such exasperating and exciting moments would have been to knock the un- known deputy sheriff into the middle of next week and then relieve him of his revolver on the theory that he might kill some one. Mayor Mulvi- hill on the contrary put his hand on the half-fri ghtened to death deputy sheriff, who was apparently more scared than he was ambitious to sen- sibly discharge the responsible duties of his office, and ordered him to put away the murderous weapon. That act of the mayors prevented blood shed.
 This is substantially the statement which Mayor Mulvihill gave to the gentlemen of the Connecticut General Assembly within a few days after the riotous incidents that disgraced the
 
 city of Bridgeport. Right here let us ask the disinterested republican and democratic patriots of Bridgeport who have been attacking Mayor Mulvihill since this mob demonstration if any of them really down in his heart thinks Mayor Mulvihill is an anarchist or a general law breaker? Is there any one If them, unless he is anxious to per iure his soul, willing to go on the wit ness stand and swear that Mayor Denis Mulvihill would knowingly en- dourage mob demonstrations? Is there any of these shallow headed as- sailants of Mayor Mulvihill's political honor and and reputation prepared to take oath unless his heart is already enshrouded with lie, that Mayor Null vihill would deliberately break the peace of the community? Is that his record in Bridgeport in all the years that he has resided in and been tax payer of that town? In word, is he a law breaker or one who has the repu- tation of encouraging or fostering the snirit of lawIessness?