* * * * *
Here is something worthy of note by club managers who begin to get their teams together each spring, which we clipped from the St. Louis Sporting News of last December. The editor of the News said: "The player that is on the upward path is the man for success. He is playing for something far more than the salary he gets. He is looking forward to a place in the foremost ranks of the nation's ball players. Consequently he proves to be a hard worker at all times. He tries to land his club in the top notch, and his record, for the part he took, stands out as a recommendation to all the world. On the other hand, the older player, who has made his record and is going down again, has lost all his ambition. He can put no life into the club, his ginger has been expended in the days gone by, and the people look upon him as a back number. He sticks to the profession generally for a livelihood. He wants to play so as to hold his place, but he has lost the powers that he once had, and cannot do what he would like to accomplish. The old-timers had better get a hump on themselves this year, else will the youngsters drive them out of the business."
* * * * *
The well-known base ball writer, Mr. Pringle, was right when he said: "It is useless to get new rules until existing ones have been rigidly enforced and tested." It is an undeniable fact that the umpires of 1894, almost without exception, failed to properly enforce the rules governing the umpire's duties. In this regard Mr. Pringle said: "The rules relating to the duties of umpires are all right. They have power to stop all rowdy conduct on the field, but the trouble has been the lack of nerve on the part of umpires to enforce the rules." This, and the fact that the presidents and directors of clubs who governed the managers and captains of teams, were largely to blame in the matter for not backing up the umpires as they should have done. The latter have arduous duties enough to discharge as it is without their finding obstacles in their way in the partisan actions of club officials who control club managers and captains. When this class supports the umpires against the club teams it will be time enough to lay the whole onus of hoodlumism in the ranks on the umpires—not until then.
* * * * *
A Philadelphia scribe hits the nail on the head when, in commenting on the existing abuses of kicking and dirty ball playing in the League arena, he says: "If the club owners would take the initiative in enforcing decorum upon their players, upon pain of fine or suspension, instead of shifting the burden and onus upon the umpire, the problem of order at ball games would be solved at once. But the majority of magnates and managers, while openly, hypocritically, deploring dirty ball playing, secretly wink at it and rather enjoy it, especially if their particular club secures advantages from it. The players all know this, and so do the umpires; hence the former presume upon it, while the latter weaken in their intent and desire to strictly enforce the rules. When the duty of preserving order on the field and decorum among the players is devolved upon the clubs, who represent direct authority, power and responsibility, instead of irresponsible umpires, then, and not till then will the evils complained of cease, or at least be mitigated."
Al Wright, the base ball editor of the New York Clipper, in its issue of February 15, 1895, had this noteworthy paragraph in its columns: "Frank C. Bancroft, the business manager of the Cincinnati club, in speaking about the equalization of the players of the major league teams, said: 'I am not a firm believer in the prevalent practice of selling the best men in a weak or tail-end team to one of the leading clubs, and register a vigorous kick against it. My plan is that the National League shall pass a rule forbidding the sale of a player from a club in the second division, to a club in the first division. I think this would, in a measure, prevent some of the hustling to dispose of a clever man for the sake of the cash that is in the trade. There is certainly some good arguments in the idea, and not one against it. The clubs of the second division have been too willing to dispose of their best men for a decent cash consideration, and the damage that has been done to the game is incalculable.'"
A young Brooklyn writer, in commenting on the threatened war on the reserve rule which Messrs. Richter, Pfeffer, Buckenberger and Barnie were active in promoting, said: "Since the National League and American Association amalgamated at Indianapolis in 1892 the League has not been a glorious success." The reply to this is a statement of fact which contradicts the above assertion very flatly. The reorganized National League started its new career in the spring of 1892 with an indebtedness, resulting from the base ball war of 1891, of over $150,000. At the close of the season of 1892 it had partially redeemed its heavy indebtedness, and by the close of the season of 1893 it had paid the debt off in full, and it closed the season of 1894 with a majority of its clubs having a surplus in their treasuries, and that, too, despite the hardest kind of times of financial depression. If this is not a glorious success, pray what is?
A Pittsburgh scribe, in commenting on the dead failure of the scheme to organize a new American Association, one object of which was to levy war upon the now permanently established rule of the National Agreement clubs, very pointedly said last winter that "such a scheme would be folly of the maddest kind. There is not a good reason, theoretical or practical, sentimental or otherwise, in support of it. The success of base ball, to a very great extent, depends on public sentiment, and we have seen what a base ball war did to that sentiment four years ago. There is one solid basis for all base ball organizations, and that is the reserve rule. The proposed organization ignores this fundamental and necessary principle, and consequently can only be compared to that foolish man who built a house on sand."
During the decade of the eighties the League's code of rules had this special clause in it: