Sunday Bowling License Denied By Board On Legal Grounds After Hearing
An application for a Sunday bowling license for the Norwood bowling parlors on Route 1 was denied by a unanimous vote of the Norwood selectmen following a public hearing attended by about 50 voters on Wednesday night. The application was turned down on the basis of the statutes which provide for the granting of a Sunday bowling license only to amusement parks.
The hearing was held in Memorial Hall before the full board of selectmen. Atty. James J. Curran represented the bowling parlors and called on the proponents of the granting of the license. Referring to the petition in favor of the license signed by 685 citizens of the town he first called on Judge Frank B. Coughlin, a member of the corporation. Judge Coughlin argued that many people found their recreation in bowling to the exclusion of other sports and that it should be allowed on Sunday as much as baseball, golfing, etc. There was nothing in the sport he said to interfere with the observation of the Sabbath or that could be considered demoralizing. Admitting that the statutes required some sort of park where bowling licenses were granted, he said that if the license were granted, the corporation could be relied upon to install those things necessary for a park as soon as weather conditions and time permitted.
James Mead when questioned by Atty. Curran named the investment as $15,000 to $20,000, and stated that there were eight alleys in operation with two more to be built. Atty. Curran brought out that employees were all local people with four taken from from the WPA and one from the CCC.
Others In Favor
Representatives of the various leagues, Thomas J. Foley, Mr. Blasenak, secretary of the Norwood League, Ambrose Kelley, speaking for the Girls League, and for the South Norwood League, Edson Eckhardt and Florence Hennessey favored granting the license.
Charles Santoro connected with the roller skating rink at Rolland stated that of 600 names recorded as participants at the rink, 100 were from out of town, and suggested that the park drew in business for other local establishments. Thomas U. Mahoney speaking as a neighbor informed the selectmen that he had never seen any signs of disorderliness at the place.
Opponents to the motion were Mrs. H. B. C. Riemer, who said that she could not see how a license could be granted to one place and not others in justice; Mrs. Harold Alden, Mrs. Charles E. Houghton, Mrs. C. L. Hosier, speaking for the Women’s Community Committee, and Rev. William F. English who represented the Protestant clergy of the town who had already protested the granting of the license to the selectmen in writing.
Rev. English said that, while he did not wish to appear narrow-minded or bigoted, he objected to the commercialization of the Lord’s Day. It will be, he said, just like every other day, and it would seem that six days a week were not enough for money-making, it had to be carried into seven, “I know,” he said, “that this is an unpopular speech to make but my conscience won’t let me get away without it. The line must be drawn somewhere.”
Suggesting that an amusement park might develop to a midway. Rev. English said that this was the place to stop it. Consistently the bars cannot bo let down here and not in other places, he continued and it might well change the character of the town. There is plenty to do on Sunday without commercialization, he challenged, if people but have the brains to think it up. Furthermore he maintained that the petition was not a representative with G85 signatures as against the 7,000 voters of the town. The clergy he said felt that their petition represented the sentiment of their parishes, and he felt that there was a strong sentiment in the town opposed to the Sunday license.
The selectmen releasing their action through a letter to the applicants said that the proponents of the granting of the license had themselves admitted that the alleys were not located in a park and that the only provision governing Sunday bowling required that it be conducted at amusement parks or beach resorts. After due consideration, the letter continued, the board had unanimously agreed that said location was not a park and that they as the licensing board had not power or authority to grant the license. They therefore denied the application.
(All articles originally published in the Norwood Messenger)