Clipping:No judgement against Martin's 'twisters'
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
 |
| Add a Clipping |
| Date | Saturday, November 2, 1867 |
|---|---|
| Text | [National of Washington vs. Mutual 10/23/1867] Two things were now plainly evident, firstly, that the Nationals did not use judgment in batting Martins “twisters,” and secondly, that they were not fielding up to their mark. New York Clipper November 2, 1867 litigating the Athletics-Atlantics dispute The last case on the docket was the charge brought before the Committee by the Athletic Club against the Atlantic, to the effect that on the occasion of the return-game of the last series between the two clubs, the Atlantics had failed to present their nine on the field prepared to play, according to the agreement, and that, in consequence thereof they had forfeited the ball to the Athletic Club. Testimony was then presented by the Athletics in support of their allegations, and by the Atlantics in defence; the counsel of the Atlantics moving for a dismissal of the case on the grounds that the Atlantics not only had nine players present ready to play the game, but had also offered the Athletics a ball–this latter offer is new to us–and that, consequently, if any party had forfeited the game, the Athletics had. The substance of the Athletic statements in support of their case was, that the Atlantics had presented an amateur nine instead of the first-nine of the club. After the presentation of the testimony in the case, and when the subject came up before the Committee for deliberation in regard to a decision, Messrs. Tassie and Colonel Moore temporarily resigned their positions on the Committee, the decision rendered being that by Messrs. Herring, Bache, Yates, and Kelly, and it was to the effect that the Atlantic Club had not complied with the rules in not presenting their first-nine, and that they must do so within fifteen days of date of the decision, and the party failing to appear to forfeit the game. The whole question appears to us as plain as day itself. The Committee have the letter of the law before them, which says: “their players” – “within thirty minutes thereafter”–viz: the appointed time–“the party so failing shall admit a defeat”. The Atlantic Club most assuredly did so present “their players” ready to play the game, and moreover, when the Athletics refused to play with the players so presented, the Atlantics then proffered them a ball–so the witness stated–which was refused. Now, in the face of this testimony, how the committee could decide that the Atlantics had failed to obey the letter of the law–and that is all they had to decide upon–is something beyond our present comprehension, and we, in common with a host of others, would like to be enlightened on the subject. Either the Atlantics failed to produce “their players” in the meaning of the law, or they did not; if they failed to do so, then they forfeited the ball; if they obeyed the law, then the case should have been dismissed. New York Sunday Mercury November 3, 1867 The Athletics alleging that the Atlantics intended to play a muffin nine, Mr. Davenport, one of the said nine, was called upon to testify as to his ability and that of his associates. Upon being questioned as to whether he considered himself a muffin, he said most decidedly not; that he had caught in a club for six years, and would face McBride, or any other man, to-morrow. He also spoke well of his companions, remarking that they were terrific batters, and expressed the opinion that the Athletics would have had a tough job to win a ball from them. New York Dispatch November 3, 1867 |
| Source | New York Clipper |
| Tags | |
| Warning | |
| Comment | Edit with form to add a comment |
| Query | Edit with form to add a query |
| Submitted by | Richard Hershberger |
| Origin | Initial Hershberger Clippings |
Comments
<comments voting="Plus" />