Norwich bulletin., 1911-06-17
NEW lONDON'S AMUSEMENT BROIL A Majority of One Holds Up the Open Air
 N Picture Shows  FIRE ORDINANCE PROHIBITS PLAN
Protests Being Signed by Adjacent Property Holders Petition Probably From the Citizens Asking for the Open-Air Shows-Mrs. Allyn Trans 49 Acres for Womans College-Alderman Small Asks Perti= nent Questions

The members of the New London court of common council or, rather, nine of the members, stubbornly insist rhat the moving picture monopoly of New London will be protected to the extent that there will be no opposition. This was demonstrated when the coGii- Gil by a vote of 3 to voted against permitting petitioners to go into the business i'll the same neighborhoOd with the two that are now doing the exclusive business in that line and who have gained control of the Law renee for the evident purpose of the farther protection of their business from competition. Of course. the peti- tion was not opposed on the ground that it would interfere with the busi- ness of the others, but it was openly stated that there is already two well conducted picture houses in the vicin- ity and that their business should not be hampered by a local concern thIt intended to do business during the summer months only. The pretext for opposition was that the permit could not be granted, the proposed open air show would be violation of the ordinance regulating buildings within the fire limits, and the nine aldermen stuck to the opposition mainly on that ground. although one of the promoters stated in open council meeting that the ordinance would be strictly com piled with.
 The petitioners asked for permission to erect a small fireproof building to be used as a ticket office and fire
 proof small structure for the moving picture machine and the operator. It was the intention to have 8 fly of canvas that could be spread over the audience in case of rainstorms and to be rolled to .one side on other occa- sions; the petition also cited the in tent to build high board fence. The council had nothing to do with the fence feature, and according to the or dinance nothing to do with anything except insistence that buildings with in the fire district must not be of in fammable material. Some Of the aI- dermen, nine of them. claimed that the canvas covering in emergencies const- tuted a building and that therefore the petition could not be granted as it was violation of the ordinance, and stated that the corporation counsel had given verbal opinion to that effect. For what seemed to be g very small, a minor matter it created 9 bitter feeling in the aldermanic body and the mayor did not take kindly to the action of the lajority by one when the decisive vote was taken While he was opposed to moving picture shows, personally and on general principles, he argued that such exhibitions were 1aealized and that there should be no discrinnina ton for personal reasons as to who should conduct the business ill the city.
 Then someone raised objection that such q performance in the open might be a nuisance and in this nearby property owner coincided, but the mayor explained that the council had power to abate nuisance, but that the case should not be prejudged- Another objector spoke of the disturbance that would be created by the applause siv- +Ia y1io h1Jf a failed tO state just when and where any New Lon don audience was ever known 10 boisterously applaud a moving picture sor really meritorious legitimate per formance for that matter. as New London audiences are classed as the coldest this side of Greenland.
 The petition caused considerable de- bate in the council, much more than is occasioned by matters of vital snPor- tance to the best interests Of the city, and unveiled interest from some sources that was really surprising. One alderman declared that the tolerance of such a place would be setback to the earnest efforts being made for the City Beautiful. yet this same aldermen went before the legislative commitcee in Hartford in opposition to the plan to give to the city decent sidewalks, thus making a display of inconsistency for the sake of protecting monopoly.
 Alderman James y. O'Leary was one of the members who was in favor of granting the petition and said he was somewhat surprised to see some of the so vigorously in the oppos1- tion on the ground that this picture show might prove nuisance for the want of a better reason. He struck the spike with heavy sledge when he said that some of these same men were members of the c ourt of common council when a gang Of Indian medi- cine men were permitted to erect tents not far from the location specified iri the petition and to conduct open air performances with discordant noisy musical accompaniment. and the main fea ture being the strong -lunged shout ing Of the professional haWkers. which was more disturbing to the neighbors. yes. thousand fold more, than would be & piano and violin. or other soft toned Instruments, in an open air ple- tire show. There was no howl Of in- dignation over that noisy nightly demonstration, yet some of these same members are now arrayed against the petition bv reason of the noise there is in it, according to their say-so.
 At the close of the session Mayor MaF,an said that if the parties came to him with the petition, that he. as mayor, would grant the same. This remark has actually started some of the opponents out on q still hunt to strengthen their position, Although the matter was introduced at prior meeting and was postponed for action with other matters for three days, there was no protest against the peti- tion except such as was made by the opposing aldermen. It is ROW ar ranged to have formal protest sign ed by property owners in the vicinity- of the proposed show ground and oth- CTS. It is not much trouble to drum up such protest. But there is no valid reason why people have not the right to conduct legitimate business even if it is not to the liking to some b1- ,s.i