The Waterbury Democrat., 1937-07-20

MtnOf.
 Passing Buck
 Argument on passing the buck" and the accusation that the bromide "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet" this by the Rev. MT. Smith, occupied the meeting briefly.
 We feel that there is a funda- mental principle at stake in this case. Will the law be violated be- cause of threats of violence, or will it be enforced. giving its rights to a minority, popular or otherwise. We feel that it is necessary to take the courageous course of enforcing the law instead of the alternate course of yielding to violence and threats of disorder. We would maintain the same thing for group that believed oppositely to us.
 We think that this is the essence of the true American spirit. In a day when the world is being swept on toward dictatorshipS, we must guard the individual rights of propa- ganda, the rights of freedom of speech. Only as such rights are preserved can the freedom we cher ish be preserved.
 He admitted that the films showing had been denied in Ohio and some other places. The main issue of the present appeal to have the film shown here, he said, was included in the statement which he read to the board, as follows:
 Finally, the question to be de- cided in Waterbury is whether the police are ready to enforce the law and protect the rights of all par ties or whether they will suppress the enjoyment of individual rights when violence or disorder are threatened. If the latter is their position, then we are to be gov- erned by mobs rather than by law. and government by mobs inevitably means loss of liberty which our world can i'll afford under present conditions. It is not question of whether the Loyalists or whether the Rebels in Spain are right, but question of whether American citizens have the right to express their sympathies for this or any other cause, popular or unpopular, tn any way that is legitimate.
 Because we so believe we appeal to you, police commissioners of the City of Waterbury, to request the superintendent of police to issue the license for which we are ready to tender the stated fee."
 Freedom of Speech
 Proponents of the film maintained the stand that the rights of propa- ganda" and freedom of speech were impaired by the police superin- terdentis ban of the film, scheduled originally to be shown here July 2eth at a meeting of Spanish suf- ferers. They claimed that the super intendent had exceeded his rights and that the state police have juris- diction over such matetrs.
 Superintendent Roach had refused to allow the film to be shown on the grounds that 1t would tend to cause disorder among various groups op- r,osed to the tenets of the Spanish faction The committee here took the matter to. law and action on mandarnus upholding their position will come up at the September term of the superior court, too late for the 1ilm's appearance here.
 Voted Down
 Joined with the two ministers in the appeal, finally voted down unanimously by the police board, was Joe Flach, l7 Summer street, e delegate from the German Sick and Death Benefit Fund, which, he said, suunts l05 members in Waterbury saGiH Naugatuck. He claimed his membership is HOO per cent for the showing of the filrn.v The organiza- sinn Is opposed to Nazism. he ex- plained.
 charles Crasrktski Of 4e East Porter street, mppeareo in behalf of