The Waterbury Democrat., 1940-01-11
Hypocrisy of La10"
Raid on Bngo Party Evokes Comment From
His Honor, Judge Downs-Criticizes lnconsis-
tency Of Lawmakers.

Sunday baseball, but there was o
law against II. But we played
II OIL the old rye lots down In tho
South End; thousands attended
until one Sunday deputy Sherrifs
arrived and temporarily put o ban
on II.
Protest Voiced
, But The people "hollored"; the
newspapers were favorable TO the
game, and practically drove 10
cover the so-ealled church people
who were yelling for the enforce
ment OF the law. Public opinion
beeaine 10 ineenSed that eventual
iy professional ball was played on
Sunday Oh the old Reidville
grounds: Waterbury was tho only
city In the state that dare do ".
But we did II, and the people en-
joyed ". Since then, Sunday ball
has been logaliZed.
New York city, however, 10
against Bingo In any and oil
forms. The Grand Jury indicted
various ones, and tho court upheld
its action.
In NO doing, however, Judge
Downs OF the Queens county court
sharply criticized what no called
"the stupidity and hypocricy" OF
the state laws against gambling.
Read what the Judge said In
holding the accused for trial
1T IN evident" no said, review.
Ing the police raid Oh tho hall at
343 81. Nicholas Avenue, Ridge
wood, whore the game was played,
that the cause was u worthy one.
u appears that between 1000 and
1900 people, apparently decent
residents OF Our county, parti-
cipated In O pastine from which
they derived pleasure, aS millions
OF others have enjoyed this sim
liar pleasure throughout the year
In our State, city and county"
None OF II appears TO have been
harmful TO any participant and
II does not appear TO have de-
prived anybody OF the necessities
OF life. A pleasant evening was
enjoyed for 20 cents Or slightly
more. II appears 10 this court
that they had O right 10 enjoy
pleasant evening"
Useful Ends
Admitting that he, himself,
never had played the game, Judge
Downs pointed out that bingo eve
nings had been held for tho ben.
eft OF many church, fraternal
and veterans organizations, with
the profits applied TO useful ends.
Aren't We inconsistent when we
attempt TO characterize aS GRIM
inals people who participate IN
the operation OF O game from
which millions derive pleasure at
q very limited expenditure OF
money and permit restrained
gambling Oh the result of horse
races, II we confine ourselves TO
attendance 10 the races, and the
payment Of % for the opportunity
TO gamble on the result9" he
asked.
isn't II astounding to contem-
plate that the Jurors who will be
called upon to pass judgment upon
their peers and determine wheth-
or they shall be criminals or not
are themselves sitting as Jurors
as result Of the drawing Of their
names from O receptacle contain
ing many thousands OF names?
Doesn't 1t present O stupid, hypo-
crital picture that the twelve men
and women drawn by lot and
chance themselves shall determine
whether or not these three de-
PENDANTS shall be stigmatized the
rest Of their lives as criminals
because they participated In a
game of bingo?"
The words Of Judge Downs APP
pear more liberal than those ut
tered by the Conn. Supreme court
in the decision that had Its effects
upon Bingo and all other forms Of
gambling.