Clipping:The AA and the NL reserved men
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
 |
| Add a Clipping |
| Date | Sunday, January 1, 1882 |
|---|---|
| Text | [McKnight describing correspondence between him and Hulbert] The main feature of our correspondence, however, was this: In one of my letters explaining that we did not propose to engage any of their black-listed players, I had said we had no idea of engaging any players who had been expelled or black-listed for good reasons, which, I explained to him in a following letter, meant that if any players held by League Clubs under the five men reserve rule, but not yet signed, should sign with any of our Clubs, and be therefor expelled by the League, we would certainly not observe the expulsion. In that connection Mr. Hulbert writes, November 17th: “Now, just so sure as your Association picks up one of the men we have disqualified, just so sure no League team will visit your grounds. This declaration is not a threat. Our laws are thoroughly well known throughout the world of base-ball.” Cincinnati Enquirer January 1, 1882 Early squabbling between the NL and AA; a plan for a baseball war The Cincinnati Enquirer publishes an interview with Hurlburt, in which that worthy says: “The League does not recognize the existence of any association of Base Ball clubs excepting itself and the Alliance. If the Athletic club should expel Troy, I don't see what the League would have to do with it.” Here we have a showing of the League's hand. The Philadelphia Item January 1, 1882 In order to make sure of the position of the League in the Troy case, Manager Simmons, of the Athletic club, wrote to W. G. Thompson, President of the Detroit, concerning the engagement of John Troy, who has broken his engagement with the Athletics, and received the following reply: Detroit, Mich., Dec. 22, 1881. Mr. Lew Simmons—Sir: I am in receipt of your favor of the 18th inst., and would say that Mr. Troy has very correctly informed you that he had signed to play ball with the Detroit Base Ball Club, and I will add he will so play the forthcoming season. I do not know anything about your association, or about your claim that Mr. Troy had previously signed with you: if he has wronged you in any respect, of course, as you say, you can expel him, and have the courts open to you for redress. I request that in any proceedings you will take against him you will make this club a party to the proceeding. Very truly yours, W. G. Thompson. This reply bears the impress of Hurlburt all over it, and was evidently dictated by this burly personage, who , in his mind, imagin3ed he owns the entire right of base ball playing in this country, and establishes beyond a doubt the League's policy, as foreshadowed in The Item, viz: First—To ignore the American Association clubs, as such. Second—Weaken its clubs by stealing players. Third—To play such clubs only when there are no other clubs to play. Fourth—To hold such clubs strictly accountable to rules that the League will not enforce on its own clubs. In this connection it is our intention this week to show the weakness of the League's position on these points. As to the first, ignorance as to the existence of the American Association. In the eyes of the law the Association is in all intents and purpose a legal organization, amenable to and under the protection of the law. Players making contracts with any of its clubs can be enjoined from playing with other clubs, by the simple legal process of an injunction. It is an old legal maxim that no one can plead ignorance of the law as a defense. Secondly, the weakening of association clubs by the stealing of its best players. This will prove a two edged sword in which the League is bound to get as much punishment as it gives. For trivial offenses, in fact to put it in a player light, as the League well understands it, to lessen the number of ball players and thereby increase salaries of favorites, a large number of excellent players have been prescribed and placed upon the black-list. All of these men are superior players, and if th4e League persists in its action, they will be engaged by the Association clubs and become greater attractions tha any of the players now in League clubs. When it comes to a test as to who will get the best by the stealing, the Association as a big advantage. Thirdly, the playing of such clubs of the Association, only when there are no other clubs to play. The Association can squelch this at once by refusing to allow any of its clubs to play with the League unless all the clubs of the Association are placed on the same footing. Let it be a case of play all or none. The League clubs will have to make their expenses out of outside games, and it will have to bend or break in this connection. Fourthly, violation of rules enforced on other clubs. If the League is weak in any respect, it is in the violation of its own rules. Instance after instance could be named, but it will suit our purpose sufficiently at this time to call attention to the fact that the Chicago Club is playing base ball in New Orleans every Sunday, and under the name of the Chicago Club—vide New Orleans papers. Puritanical, Pharisaical Hurlburt to the contrary, notwithstanding. The League may break the rules but the outside clubs must not. Let the American Association live up to its own rules and let the League take care of its own. These are a few suggestions we offer to the Association, and by a firm stand on principle and for its rights, there can hardly be a question of its success. All honest lovers of the game will endorse it, leaving the League to the gamblers and the few men who follow its fortune as a means of a precarious livelihood. The Philadelphia Item January 1, 1882 [See also PCI 01/08/1882 for a long letter from Denny McKnight discussing the history of NL-AA relations.] Hurlburt has answered in an indirect and very unsatisfactory manner, the open letter of President McKnight, of the American Association, in an interview with a reporter of the Chicago Times. Huirlburt complains because his letters to Mr. McKnight were published, and says that Troy's engagement by the Detroit club is legal because the Athletic club did not notify the League's Secretary of his engagement. This is entirely too thin, and Hurlburt would have made a better defense by not saying anything. The Philadelphia Item January 15, 1882 |
| 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" />