Clipping:Questions about rain checks
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
 |
| Add a Clipping |
| Date | Saturday, June 17, 1871 |
|---|---|
| Text | To the B.B. Editor Evening City Item: SIR:–I want to know. For instance. Wife and self travel to the Athletics grounds to see a “championship” game of base ball. Entrance 50 cents a head. A shower comes up after the first inning, lasting about half an hour. Umpire calls game just about the time sunshine reappears. Wife and self have to walk out–no money returned at the gate. Is this sort of thing mutually satisfactory? B.S.G. Evening City Item June 17, 1871 On Thursday last, some four thousand people paid fifty cents each for admission to the Union base ball ground, to witness the match between the Mutuals and White Stockings, of Chicago. Having paid to see the game, the question remains, were they entitled to value for their money? Most reasonable persons would suppose they were, and would reply by remarking, “Why ask such a silly question?” One reason for asking what with most persons would be considered a silly question is, that Mr. Cammeyer, the proprietor of the ground, along with the Mutual and Chicago clubs, consider that they were not entitled to a proper consideration for the their money, and we will show how we arrive at such a conclusion. At the end of the first inning several peals of thunder were heard, and before the second inning was played out rain was falling heavily. A third inning was commenced and partly played during a perfect torrent of rain, when “time” was called by the umpire, and the game was suspended about twenty minutes, to see if the weather would clear up, but this satisfactory result did not follow, and the umpire called the game. So far this was all right and fair, but it certainly was most unfair to send those four thousand spectators away without either giving them their money back, or at least a check to admit them when the game would be played out. It is perfectly true there is a placard posted up in the ground signifying that “no money will be returned after the first inning. This proclamation, however, must be taken for what it is worth, as it is well known that one person cannot make a contract. The public in this matter have no voice whatever in this contract, they are compelled to accept the condition or retire, and there is very little doubt that if any one who was present and paid for admission would, if he sued for the recovery of his fifty cents, have a verdict awarded in his favor. Leaving the legality of the affair, however, altogether on one side, we ask if the public were treated with common honesty in this matter? ... those persons who paid for admission were entitled to their money or a ticket of readmission up to the end of the fifth inning, as it required that number of innings to constitute a game. Fifty cents is a large sum to demand for admission to a ball match, and surely when people pay that amount they are entitled to see more than one dry inning and one and a half wet ones played. The rules which govern other places of public amusements are surely applicable to base ball exhibitions. If any person pays for a seat in a theatre or opera house, and the performance is interrupted in such a manner as not to permit of its being concluded, he will have his money returned, or a check given to him for re-admission when the play is to be performed again, and this is what the public were entitled to on Thursday last. What makes this matter the more aggravating is that it was publicly announced that if the weather prevented the game coming off on Thursday, it would be played on the Friday following. It was evident, therefore, that both clubs had made arrangements for such a contingency, and need not have manifested such unseemly haste in getting out of town. An immense deal of dissatisfaction was expressed respecting this, to say the least, extremely shabby affair which we must say reflects discredit upon the parties concerned. Some persons growled because the game was not continued after the rain had cleared off, but this would have been absurd as the ground was not in a condition to play on, but the game could and ought to have been played on the following day. This principle of grabbing everything will do no good to the interest of base ball. New York Dispatch June 18, 1871 |
| Source | Evening City Item |
| 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" />