The Bridgeport evening farmer. [volume] (Bridgeport, Conn.) 1866-1917, 1911-06-14
IA QUESTIONABLE CONTROVERSY

"a QUHSTIONABKE CONTROVERSY
@JcuszRl and Courfer.)
There - difference Of opinion be-
hween Mayor Buckingham Of the city
tof Bridgeport and the thirty-f1ve local
f1ninisters who have banded together
Ito fight him. They wish him to forbid
sunday baseball games on Steeple-
Ebor from thu city. The Mayor, as we
understand Il, contends that he has
mo Jurisdiction In the matter. Mani
Freshly the ministers think he has juris-
Edictdon and propose to make it uncofn-
PORTABLE for him until he seizes 1t and
Operates It to their satisfaction. Sum-
Hay they levehed thirty-hve pulpit
6ADrotests at him.
As the news spreads. here from
bridgeport, the ministers are willing
Mhat the game should be played by
hmateurs, and factory operatives who
Find Sunday their single day in the
kweek when they can indulge them
keelves in the great national game
EThey draw the line, however, at pro-
kfessional games at which an admis-
Seion fee is charged. The particular
Eevil at which they are striking is the
utilization of the game as CONNER
tcial proposition; to the employment Of
commercial practices on Sunday they
Eobject except where the service rem
kdered is of an essential character.
kThe Mayor in declining to act, as ask
Jed to, says that it is the business Of
Ahe police department to stop the game
ttf it is to be stopped. but it is obvious,
lat the same time, that in celebrating
npon the matter he knows that he is
Hoetween the devil and the deep sea.
kOn the one hand stands the over
Evhelming sentiment of the city that
Sunday baseball be permitted by all
hwho care to indulge in it, and on terms
hot ~ mr. fata fYh %ha nd
tder of the town, and on the other
hand stands a protest that lacks pub
bic support. Under these conditions
Mt Is not difficult to account for the
Mayors attitude on human grounds
I There is. however, a serious side to
Lee the intense conviction of the
tclergymen that professional baseball
ds In violation of tradition and the
qaw, but we are not sure that the
problem involved is best met by or
Eanized fighting. There is always the
fear, so far as the clergymen are con-
Ecerned, that their determination, ex-
terted as In this case with doubtful
usefulness. may weaken them in a
public estimation which is necessary
ITO their authority. 1t is the duty, we
fshould say. of the clergy to work with
F1he community rather than against
lthe community even where larger
principle than that of a liberal Sum
day is concerned They have done
lfhis in hundred ways with the liber-
lalization processes that have already
tovertaken that community. They to-
day acquiesce in a course of human
conduct on Sunday which is just as
tsnuch a violation of the law of the
Estate and tradition as professional
Baseball They do this because what
"a community will do, providing the
doing of 1t is not vicious and criminal
srannot intelligently be met with bit
i+~r opposition. 1t is public sentiment
in the last analysis that controls and
TO that tine clergy must bow as well
as the laymen.
organized opposition Of the clergy of
Bridgeport is to be questioned, that
of it's practical wisdom. 1t is admit
ted that one of the results of the con-
ttroversy has been to increase the at
tendance at the games on Sunday.
That is to say the resistance of the
'clergymen has not appealed to pub
1ic opinion, while the great publicity
given the controversy may have, and
probably has, weakened ecclesiastical
and political authority in this connec-
item. In other words the liberaliza-
fion Of Sunday, even to the extent of
admitting professional baseball, is not
ithe o1ftgrowth of an Indifference to
the sacredness of the day on the part
of the public. 1t is one Of the annoy
ing answers made to the new social
conditions of the hour growing out of