Clipping:Players added to the PL conference committee
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
 |
| Add a Clipping |
| Date | Saturday, October 25, 1890 |
|---|---|
| Text | [reporting on the PL special meeting 10/21] The first business was the reception of the report of the conference committee. … When the committee had finished its report Mr. Addison, of Chicago, opened the battle by moving “that the report of the committee bet accepted and the committee be continued with the addition of three player-stockholders thereto.” This motion was seconded and then debate upon it began. Colonel McAlpin called Mr. Addition to the chair and took the floor. He spoke for half an hour, mainly in opposition to Mr. Addison's resolution. The gist of his remarks was that, owing to the deplorable condition of base ball, it was essential that some arrangement should be made for its perpetuation by means of an agreement with the other antagonistic base ball leagues. He contended that this was a critical period in the negotiations and that any step which would lead to a cessation of the negotiations should be carefully considered. He believed that a change of the committee at this period, and against the known position of the other conferees on this point, would be injudicious and perhaps fatal. He then reviewed the condition of the Players' League as he saw it, and plainly intimated that the capitalists should, in justice to themselves and the players, protect their interests without regard to sentiment. Colonel McAlpin's address was eloquent, his words well chosen and the views expressed conservative to a degree. He plainly showed though that New York was opposed to the addition of a player to the committee or to any breaking off of consolidation negotiations. … [Ward's argument] “Gentlemen, do I understand that it is a crime to be a ball player? On the committee appointed by the League and Association you will find the name of A. G. Spalding and William Barnie, both retired ball players. Are they any better than the men who take active part in the game? I am a stockholder of the Brooklyn Club, and have the right to protect her interest. I claim that it is ability, and the fact that a man is an honest player, that should entitle him to a place on any board looking to the advancement of the national game. I consider it an insult to the Players' League and hope they will so consider it.” … With these speeches the debate closed, the opposition to the Addison resolution having been confined to the New York Club, which stood alone. When the motion was put to vote it was carried almost unanimously, and Messrs. Ward, Hanlon and Irwin were named as the additional members of the committee. The Sporting Life October 25, 1890 the PL on consolidation versus compromise [reporting on the PL special meeting 10/21] Mr. Linton then moved “that the committee be instructed to confine its deliberations in the joint conference committee to an effort to compromise and not consolidate.” Mr. Addition moved to amend, “except when it was found to be for the best interests of base ball to consolidate.” Mr. Addition's amendment provoked quite a lengthy discussion, which was finally settled by Ward's amendment, who moved to strike out “for the good of base ball” and substitute “for the good of the Players' League.” This was adopted almost unanimously. The Sporting Life October 25, 1890 |
| 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" />