Clipping:Scurrilous personal anecdotes about Fitzgerald
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
 |
| Add a Clipping |
| Date | Sunday, August 26, 1866 |
|---|---|
| Text | The incorruptible Fitzitem has been, and is still, engaged in defaming his betters. He has never recovered from the disappointment of having his resignation accepted by the Athletic Club, which, by the way, was the most sensible thing we ever knew that club to do; as, per consequence, it ideprived him of the only particle of social status he ever had–his political character being summed up in a few words, and which consists in being the most obsequious “dorg” that ever licked the Dead Duck’s boots. As contemptibly low as Forney is in the estimation of this public, and of that of Washington City, he is infinitely superior to the D.B., who does his bidding. The Fitzitem has long wanted a biography, and we propose, in the course of a few weeks, to furnish it, with letters, graphic interviews, and a full exposure of the history of blackmailism and dead-beatism, as practiced by the great expounder. Burton, when managing the National Theatre, Walnut street, above Eighth, a few years ago, had the following notice appended to the bills of the day: “The editor of a city weekly is requested to note this item. When he visited New York in the spring, and sent a demand to Burton’s Theatre, in that city, for twelve free tickets and a private box, the bearer of the refusal was told by the angry editor that when Mr. Burton came to Philadelphia he would give him fits. Mr. B has visited Philadelphia, and he finds that “Fitz means blackguardism. Fitz can go on, but can’t come in.” But we have full and interesting particulars concerning the modus operandi, by which these things are “did,” and in which storekeepers and tradesmen, actors, and even actresses, feel and interest. Together with the number of free carriage rides that the great D.B. indulged in, and which the Board of Control are respectfully asked to verify. Unrecognized by his associates, and with a circulation confined to a few dead heads, this man has managed to exist, and impress the people and the representatives of the press in other cities with a sense of importance, which was never heard of here. His assumptions abroad have been reprobated by us in person. ... The Athletic Club–composed of gentlemen–was ever the subject of attack while this fellow was their President. They were frequently made acquainted with his manner of doing things, and were made to blush more than once by a knowledge of his contemptible meanness, as practised upon those whom they recognized as friends. The recent action of the Camden Club, in unanimously expelling him from the roll of membership, is sufficient of itself to place his character in its true light. The Camden’s judgment was the result of deliberation, and should he dare to deny over his own signature, or in his worthless sheet, the truth of this assertion, they will minister to his carcase a decoction of boot leather. Admitted at no place where gentlemen assemble, and shunned and spurned everywhere, he has attempted to decry those whose only fault has been that they too long gave him position, which enable him to riot and indulge, ad libitum, in pleasure that can no longer be gratified. Philadelphia Sunday Mercury August 26, 1866 arguing a called strike [Eckford vs. Active 8/22/1866] We regret having to censure, and in no measured terms, the discreditable conduct of one of the Eckford players, whom we were not aware was one of the growling fraternity. The circumstances were as follows: Previous to the game, Beach and Kelly, the two captains, walked round the ground looking for an umpire, and seeing Mr. A. H. Rogers, of the Resolute Club among the spectators, they pounced upon him as umpire and he reluctantly consented to act, to oblige the two clubs. Mr. Rogers being the gentlemanly Secretary of the National Association, and well read in the rules, and moreover, being determined to observe them to the strict letter of the law, informed the two clubs that he should keep them down to the rules, and the game had not progressed through the first inning before it was seen that he was following the excellent example of Mr. Lowell, in the Star and Excelsior match. Balls were first called on Walker, accurately as he pitched generally; and though Walker did not, of course, fancy this strict interpretation, he quietly submitted to it. When it became Southworth’s turn to go through the ordeal, the inaccurate delivery of the Eckford pitcher soon became costly, and yet, strange to say, the Eckford Captain retained him in his position, instead of at once putting in a more accurate pitcher and depending upon the fine field they had to support slow pitching. Things went on favorably enough, however, as long as the Eckfords had the lead, but when, toward the latter part of the game, it became evident that the Actives would win, affairs assumed a different appearance, the outside betting influence beginning to show itself in more ways than one. In the ninth inning, when Klein went to the bat, three runs had been scored, thereby making the score a tie, and Beach was on the first-base. Klein had previously struck out twice, and was “kinder riled” at his ill-luck. Being over particular in selecting a ball to strike at, and having struck once without effect, and refusing to strike at a good ball, the umpire–as he had impartially done with one of the Actives the previous inning–called a “strike” on him, whereupon Klein turned round to the umpire and remarked to him that he “wasn’t going to stand any of his nonsense any more!” Not being willing to submit to this kind of talk, Mr. Rogers called “Time!” asked who was the Eckford Captain, and at once inquired of him whether he was satisfied with his decision–“because, if you are not,” said Mr. Rogers, “I want you to get another umpire.” Beach asked him what the trouble was, and Klein answering, said, “I want a ball here, and he calls strikes when they are there,” both times indicating the spot where he wanted a ball. Beach, instead of telling Klein to keep silent, as should have done, countenanced him [in questioning the] decision of the umpire by telling him to wait until he got a good ball to hit. Mr. Rogers, not content with this, against asked Beach whether he was satisfied with his decisions or not, Beach replaying to the effect that he had not seen any one disputing them. Finally, the crowd sustaining the umpire, he retained his position; and the next ball Klein struck out, the crowd greeting his being put out with applause. This is the first time in our recollection that we ever knew a decision of an umpire disputed by an Eckford player, and for the credit of a club having such a good name as the Eckfords, we trust never to see it occur again. The excuse that Klein is a man who “doesn’t know better” is valid to a certain extent; but Beech, who partly countenanced him, is too old a player not to know that a dozen victories would not offset the discredit of disputing the decision of an umpire in the way in which Klein did. Here was a club which, knowing that they could not proceed in their game without a referee, and who, after asking a man whom they knew to be a thoroughly impartial player and one holding an honorable position in the National Association, to oblige them by acting as umpire, returned his kindness by disputing his decision, and rating him all the way home–as one of the Eckfords did–for his “lack of judgment” and “partiality”. Why, the thing is simply disgraceful, and if it is s allowed to go unrebuked by the club whose member thus disgraced it, it will soon be difficult to get any man to serve as umpire in a match in which the Eckfords play. New York Sunday Mercury August 26, 1866 |
| Source | Philadelphia Sunday Mercury |
| 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" />