Clipping:The AA and blacklisted and expelled players
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
 |
| Add a Clipping |
| Date | Tuesday, March 14, 1882 |
|---|---|
| Text | [reporting on the AA meeting] It was soon evident from the sentiments of those present that the black sheep of the League had but little show in the meeting. Devlin and Bill Crowley (the latter black-listed by the Bostons) had been in the hotel corridors this evening with the delegates in regard to their cases, and it is quite sure they had one or two men in their favor. The article was thoroughly viewed by the delegates. One, Mr. Thorner, believed that the Association could not afford to resolve itself into a court of appeals and listen to all the old and well-worn testimony. The men had been punished by the League, and it was for it to remove the disabilities imposed. Although he knew as well as any body else that some of the men were not deserving of the punishment they had received, still the Association had been placed before the public in such a position that it could not afford to take any steps that meant so much paramount injury to its future as would the recognition of the castaways of the old institution. Mr. Von der Ahe believed that if any cases were to be examined, the old as well as the new ought to be taken up. If not, they ought to pass a motion to the effect that if the League did no6t hear anew the stories of its disfranchised players, the American would investigate them. He moved to have the date cut out, not leaving it obligatory with the Association as to what cases they should review. Mr. Simmons supported Mr. Thorner's expressions, stating that he knew very well most of the men who had been barred by the League, some of whom were very clever. They had been dropped by that organization before theirs was a reality, and he did not favor going behind the returns. The amendment to strike out the date was lost, St. Louis and Pittsburg along voting for it. The original motion was adopted. The Cincinnati delegate was asked if his opposition to the hiring of these black-listed men was not, in the main, guided by the fact that he had booked games with League Clubs in April that would net him $2,000. This brought the representative of the Paris of America to his feet, and he denied most emphatically the soft impeachment. He had, he said, hired an expelled player on the condition that he was reinstated, and he would not be so quick to let go of him if he did not see the ruin such a policy was sure to bring upon them. For games with League Clubs, he would second a motion that would prevent the American teams contesting with the former. He did not care a scrap for the April games. Eh felt that such initiatory battles would put his men in better shape for the real camapign. The passage of this constitutional amendment settles the cases of Jones, Baker and the other men who have been put under ban by the League. They will never be acceptable to the Americans until the originator of their trouble restores them to their rights. In quite a number of instances this will never be as long as Hulbert lives, as he has often said so. Jones will now be released as a player by the Cincinnatis, and a new fielder will be secured in his stead. |
| Source | Cincinnati Enquirer |
| 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" />