Clipping:The Brotherhood and the $2,000 limit: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Hershberger Clippings Import) |
(Hershberger Clippings Import) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Clipping | {{Clipping | ||
|Type of Date=Day | |Type of Date=Day | ||
|Date=3/ | |Date=3/7/1888 | ||
|Title=the Brotherhood and the $2,000 limit | |Title=the Brotherhood and the $2,000 limit | ||
|Text=<p>[reporting the NL special meeting 3/2] As the $2,000 limit rule had long been a dead letter, the | |Text=<p>[reporting the NL special meeting 3/2] The next business of importance was the reception of the committees representing the League and Ball Players' Brotherhood. All of the League leaders withdrew from the room except Messrs. John B. Day, John I. Rogers and A. G. Spalding, who received the Brotherhood committee, which comprised Messrs. John M. Ward, Ned Hanlon, Dan Brouthers and Arthur Irwin. The very important matter of the salaries of the players was considered. As the $2,000 limit rule had long been a dead letter, the Brotherhood committee wanted it abolished entirely, in order that the salary of players could be written in full in the contract, as the League agreed to do at the annual meeting. The Brotherhood argued that this constitutional clause was generally violated and was, indeed, a “dead letter,” that the National Agreement had no jurisdiction in the new contract, and that the salary limit rule was but a subterfuge and shield. The League committee, however, squirmed out of the hole by insisting tat the National Agreement covered the case, and that salaries could not be written in full in the contract so long as the rule stood, which would be until the American Association consented to act with the League to eliminate the [illegible]... consumed in discussion, but the League committee was obstinate and the Brotherhood committee finally consented to a compromise, under which it was agreed that contracts should stand at $2,000, as heretofore, and that for extra compensation individual contracts with managers shall be made. The Sporting Life March 7, 1888</p> | ||
|Source= | <p></p> | ||
<p>rumored abolition of beer in the grandstand in St. Louis</p> | |||
<p></p> | |||
<p>[from Joe Pritchard's column] One of the greatest improvements to be made at Sportsman's Park, the coming season, will be the abolishment of the sale of beer in the grand stand. The custom is a Western one, and it has certainly been a nuisance at all the parks where it has been followed. I know of a great many people who will not attend places of amusement where beer is peddled promiscuously. This is their privilege; but I do not know of a person that will remain away from a ball game because the amber fluid is now hawked around in the crowd. The Sporting Life March 7, 1888</p> | |||
|Source=Sporting Life | |||
|Submitted by=Richard Hershberger | |Submitted by=Richard Hershberger | ||
|Origin=Initial Hershberger Clippings | |Origin=Initial Hershberger Clippings | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 19:26, 29 February 2020
 |
| Add a Clipping |
| Date | Wednesday, March 7, 1888 |
|---|---|
| Text | [reporting the NL special meeting 3/2] The next business of importance was the reception of the committees representing the League and Ball Players' Brotherhood. All of the League leaders withdrew from the room except Messrs. John B. Day, John I. Rogers and A. G. Spalding, who received the Brotherhood committee, which comprised Messrs. John M. Ward, Ned Hanlon, Dan Brouthers and Arthur Irwin. The very important matter of the salaries of the players was considered. As the $2,000 limit rule had long been a dead letter, the Brotherhood committee wanted it abolished entirely, in order that the salary of players could be written in full in the contract, as the League agreed to do at the annual meeting. The Brotherhood argued that this constitutional clause was generally violated and was, indeed, a “dead letter,” that the National Agreement had no jurisdiction in the new contract, and that the salary limit rule was but a subterfuge and shield. The League committee, however, squirmed out of the hole by insisting tat the National Agreement covered the case, and that salaries could not be written in full in the contract so long as the rule stood, which would be until the American Association consented to act with the League to eliminate the [illegible]... consumed in discussion, but the League committee was obstinate and the Brotherhood committee finally consented to a compromise, under which it was agreed that contracts should stand at $2,000, as heretofore, and that for extra compensation individual contracts with managers shall be made. The Sporting Life March 7, 1888 rumored abolition of beer in the grandstand in St. Louis [from Joe Pritchard's column] One of the greatest improvements to be made at Sportsman's Park, the coming season, will be the abolishment of the sale of beer in the grand stand. The custom is a Western one, and it has certainly been a nuisance at all the parks where it has been followed. I know of a great many people who will not attend places of amusement where beer is peddled promiscuously. This is their privilege; but I do not know of a person that will remain away from a ball game because the amber fluid is now hawked around in the crowd. The Sporting Life March 7, 1888 |
| Source | Sporting Life |
| 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" />