John I. Rogers

An accomplished but often self-interested and combative man, Philadelphia Phillies co-owner John I. Rogers was regularly at odds with fellow 19th-century National League magnates. Yet for 20 years, he was a significant force in league executive conclaves. A hard-nosed Philadelphia lawyer, Rogers was intimately involved in league governance, serving on the playing rules, arbitration, and constitution committees, and long held the post of legal counsel for the NL. As such, Rogers helped formulate the strategies utilized to combat challenges posed by the Players League (1890) and American League (1901). But after the turn of the last century, misadventures in National League politics, the fallout of player defections to the AL, and incessant criticism took their toll.  Disheartened, Rogers sold his interest in the Philadelphia ball club and left the game in late February 1903. He died seven years later, succumbing to heart failure while inspecting investment ventures in the Denver area. A baseball-centric account of his eventful life follows.

John Ignatius Rogers was born in Philadelphia on May 27, 1844,1 the oldest of seven children2 begat by carpenter Matthew M. Rogers (1816-1889) and his wife Catherine (nee Dimond, 1820-1885), both Irish Catholic immigrants. Our subject was educated in city public schools through graduation from Central High School. He matriculated to the University of Pennsylvania to study law, earning a LL. B degree in 1865.3 Thereafter, Rogers read law in the office of prominent Philadelphia attorney Charles J. Ingersoll4 and was subsequently admitted to the Pennsylvania bar. Rogers’ quickly thriving legal practice was exclusively civil in nature, with concentration on corporate, real property, and estate matters. He was also senior counsel to the Building Association League of Philadelphia from its inception in 1877 onward.

While baseball-related events generated much of the Rogers-related newsprint, the game was far from his only interest. Rogers was actively engaged in the political, business, civic, fraternal, and religious life of the City of Brotherly Love. As a younger man, he was a member of the Philadelphia Art Club, Pennsylvania Historical Society, Friendly Sons of St. Patrick, Clover Club, and Penn Club.5 An amateur poet and an eloquent and witty speaker, Rogers was elected first president of the Literary Union of Pennsylvania and was a frequently-engaged luncheon and after-dinner attraction. Religiously devout, Rogers was vice-president of the St. Francis De Sales Institute; treasurer, later president, of the Catholic Club of Philadelphia, and active in other faith organizations.

Although he did not see military duty during the Civil War, Rogers subsequently enlisted in Philadelphia’s First City Troop, a National Guard cavalry unit dispatched to suppress rioting in Pittsburgh during the Pennsylvania Railroad strike of 1877.6 He was later appointed Judge Advocate General of the Pennsylvania National Guard, a position which conferred upon Rogers the military rank of colonel. The honorific Colonel remained attached to Rogers for the remainder of his life. During his lengthy JAG tenure, Colonel Rogers founded the Pennsylvania Bureau of Military Justice, authored a new military code, and came to be recognized as an expert in martial law.7

A Democrat, Rogers was elected to the Pennsylvania House of Representatives from a Philadelphia district in November 1868,8 but declined to stand for reelection. Subsequent bids for elective office were unsuccessful; he was denied the party nomination for a Court of Common Pleas judgeship in 18769 and lost a State Senate race to his Republican opponent in 1880.10 Thereafter, Rogers became a member of the Committee of Thirty-One,11 an insurgent political movement instrumental in the election of reform Democrat Samuel G. King as Philadelphia mayor in 1881.12

In addition to his legal practice, Rogers invested in local businesses; owned rental properties; served as a power company president, bank director, and secretary for an oil exploration project; and had financial interest in far-flung mining companies.  Largely a self-made man, Rogers was a near millionaire by the time that he became associated with the fledgling Philadelphia Phillies. On the domestic front, he married Philadelphian Elizabeth Hunsicker Henkels in January 1876. The subsequent birth of children John I. Jr. (1882), Frank (1884), Karl (1886), Edmund (1887), and Katherine (1895) completed the Rogers family.13

There is no evidence that young John Rogers was a ball player or, indeed, an athlete of any kind. Yet his involvement in the game traces to the very beginnings of professional baseball.  By early 1871, he was a vice-president of the Athletic Base Ball Club, the amateur nine that soon transformed into the Philadelphia entry in the National Association, the game’s first professional circuit.14 A year later, Rogers lost an election to become a club director15 but remained actively involved in Athletics governance.16 This doubtless occasioned his acquaintance with Al Reach, the game’s first openly professional ballplayer then winding down an illustrious playing career with the NA Philadelphia Athletics.

As he prepared to hang up his uniform, Reach established a sporting goods business in Philadelphia and later had occasion to contact lawyer Rogers. But sources differ on the nature of their interaction. A Rogers obituary maintained that Reach consulted Rogers on product patent issues.17 According to Sporting Life editor Francis C. Richter, Rogers was Reach’s personal attorney.18 Whatever the relationship, neither Reach nor Rogers were connected to the short-lived National League Philadelphia Athletics, expelled from the loop for failure to take a late-1876 season road trip. Reach, however, returned to the game in 1882 as organizer of a Philadelphia team in the League Alliance, a minor league satellite of the National League.19 That same year the newly-arrived major league American Association placed a franchise in Philadelphia, and the NL had designs upon the city for 1883.

Given his wealth, legal and business acumen, prior experience in ball club administration, and connections to the local political scene, Rogers was a logical partner for Reach when he orchestrated the admission of his League Alliance club into the National League. Shrewdly, the two structured the venture in a way that assured their governance of the club while two other partners assumed most of the financial risk. Reach (20 shares/$2,000) and Rogers (10 shares/$1,000) were only minority investors in the Philadelphia Ball Club (Limited), the new team that came to be known as the Philadelphia Phillies.20 Local businessman Stephen Farrelly (a front for well-heeled Chicago baseball enthusiast John R. Walsh) was the Phillies’ primary financial backer (100 shares/$10,000) while pioneer era pitching star/Philadelphia businessman Tom Pratt (10 shares/$1,000) was the fourth investor in the franchise.21 But neither Farrelly nor Pratt was involved in the daily operation of the Phillies. That was the exclusive domain of club president Reach and secretary-treasurer Rogers.

In a relentlessly critical appraisal of John I. Rogers, Philadelphia baseball historian John Shiffert marshals a catalog of pejoratives – self-promoting, arrogant, mean-spirited, litigious, manipulative – to describe the Phillies co-owner,22 and declares that his entering into partnership with Rogers was “the only serious mistake of Al Reach’s career.”23 In the beginning, however, the collaboration appears to have worked well. Reach took care of the baseball end of franchise, attending to securing a field leader, playing grounds, and the other requisites for placing a team on the diamond. Rogers handled the club’s legal issues, conducted salary negotiations with the players, and used his influence at City Hall in the interest of the Phillies.24 Rogers, rather than Reach, also assumed the role of public spokesman for the club. Bill Shettsline, employed as a notary public by the Rogers law firm, was entrusted with the post of club business manager.25 For the ensuing two decades, club affairs were guided by the the Reach-Rogers-Shettsline triumvirate.

The Phillies got off to a rocky start on the field, going 17-81-1 (.173) under managers Bob Ferguson and Blondie Purcell and finishing dead last in its inaugural National League campaign. The club also drew poorly, with only 55,982 paid admissions to home games at Recreation Park. In sharp contrast was the performance of their neighborhood rival. The (66-32, .673) Philadelphia Athletics captured the American Association crown and drew more than five times as many fans (305,000) to the nearby Jefferson Street Grounds.

Despite the imbalance in performance and gate receipts, the Athletics did no great injury to the Phillies. To the contrary, exhibition games between the two clubs proved a great draw, fattening the bottom line of each.26 Perhaps more important from a financial standpoint, Phillies president Al Reach’s sporting goods company landed the contract to supply baseballs for American Association play and the right to publish the annual AA baseball guide.27 As a result, the Phillies-Athletics rivalry was a cordial one, and both Reach and Rogers remained proponents of having separate major leagues operate clubs in Philadelphia for most, if not all, of the following 20 years.

The Phillies sophomore season saw shake-ups in both on-field leadership and club ownership. Determined to become competitive, the Phillies brass engaged the esteemed Harry Wright to be manager. Wright, the organizer of the renowned Cincinnati Red Stockings of 1869-1870, also had National Association (Boston, 1872-1875) and National League (Boston 1877-1878) championships on his resume and had just completed leading the NL Providence Grays to a competitive third-place finish. To sweeten the contract, ten shares in Phillies club ownership was also awarded Wright. Such club stock became available due to the liquidation of the ownership interests of Tom Pratt who abandoned his stake in the Phillies to establish the Philadelphia Keystones, the hapless local entry in the newly-arrived Union Association,28 as well as relinquishment of the shares of majority club shareholder John Walsh (Farrelly). Although the details are murky, various segments of the available stock were acquired by Philadelphia saloonkeeper-bookmaker Billy Megonegal,29 Edward T. Grafly, a wealthy client of the Rogers law firm,30 and likely Rogers himself.

Despite a busy law practice and his duties as Judge Advocate General, Rogers quickly became immersed in National League administration. Seeking to benefit from his legal skills, fellow magnates elected Rogers to the National League Rules Committee (1884), Arbitration Committee (1885), and Joint NL-AA Rules Committee (1886). Far more than low key club partner Reach, Rogers was active at the winter meetings of NL club owners, making his points via perceptive but long-winded orations and skewering opposition, often via invective. Such deportment did not always endear Rogers to his peers. Meanwhile, the Phillies were making competitive progress under Wright’s direction and approaching the Athletics at the gate. By the close of the 1886 season, the (71-43-5, .623) Phillies had risen to third place and near equaled the A’s at the turnstiles.31

In 1887, the Phillies unveiled a new ballpark, sometimes called the Philadelphia Base Ball Grounds. Acquisition of the property was funded by Reach and Rogers personally rather than by the Philadelphia Ball Club (Limited), and they, rather than the team, were the ballpark owners.32 Thus, the $12,000 per season rental fee paid by the Phillies for use of the grounds went directly into the pockets of Reach and Rogers.33 Yet pursuant to a self-interested arrangement drafted by Rogers, the costs for annual maintenance and improvement of the Philadelphia Base Ball Grounds were borne by the Phillies, not the ballpark owners.

By now, Rogers was fully invested in management of the ball club, becoming an increasingly unpopular figure who regularly attended Phillies home games where he was often observed standing alone at the rear of the ballpark pavilion.34 Always a tight-fisted negotiator of player salaries, Rogers now intruded upon personnel decisions previously entrusted to field leader Wright. From a distance, a Boston newspaper observed that “Harry Wright is only the manager of the Phillies in name and … John I. Rogers rules the roost.”35 A year later and with Rogers away on JAG corps duty, Reach responded publicly to reports of turmoil in club management ranks. Dismissing rumors of in-house friction and ownership interference with manager prerogatives, Reach maintained that “there is not now, nor has there been in the past, any trouble between Messrs. Wright, Rogers or myself.” Nor had he or Rogers “ever impeded manager Wright from obtaining any ballplayer … nor has any player been released” without Wright’s approval.36

During the 1888-1889 NL winter meetings, Rogers was appointed to a committee charged with revising the league constitution and made chair of the NL-AA Joint Rules Committee. He was also designated legal counsel for the National League, a post that Rogers retained for the next 14 years. But the Colonel declined reappointment to the chairmanship of the Arbitration Committee.37

Before the coming season commenced, Reach and Rogers reportedly sank nearly $100,000 from Phillies coffers into improvements of the Philadelphia Base Ball Grounds.38 That May, it was Rogers’ turn to deny reports of imposition on manager Wright. “Mr. Wright has full and sole control of the team, and he can play the men just as he sees fit,” declared John I. “In fact, Mr. Reach or myself never know what players are to be on the nine until we see the score card when we get to the ground.”39 Nevertheless, Rogers’ impatience with Wright’s failure to bring home a pennant was becoming evident.

In late 1889, one-time pitching star-turned-sporting goods manufacturer A.G. Spalding purchased A.J. Reach & Company from Reach and business partner Ben Shibe for $100,000.40 The availability of that cash helped the Philadelphia Phillies weather the chaos attending the arrival on scene of the Players League in 1890. Spalding, then also the majority owner of the NL Chicago Colts, New York Giants club boss John B. Day, and Rogers formed the spearhead of the league’s institutional response to the challenges posed by the upstart circuit. Rogers’ responsibility was defense of the reserve clause, the standard contract proviso that bound a ballplayer to the club that he signed with, seemingly in perpetuity. With the crème of National League playing talent declaring allegiance to the Players League, Rogers advocated reliance upon judicial enforcement of the reserve clause as the means to enjoin players from leaving their NL teams. As the parties geared up for courthouse battle, Rogers exuded optimism. “I have never been interested in a case in which I have felt more confident of winning than the one we are now to begin,” he informed the press.41

Rogers’ confidence was misplaced, his strategy a failure. National League applications for preliminary injunctions against players jumping to the PL were denied in Manhattan and Philadelphia courts. The crusher was thereafter delivered by a judicial ruling in Philadelphia which essentially invalidated the NL contract reserve clause.42 Deeply disappointed, Rogers conceded defeat, stating that the ruling “puts an end to all our cases against the players, as they will be abandoned.”43

As six years before, baseball fandom could not support three competing major leagues, and National League, American Association, and Players League clubs all hemorrhaged red ink. By year end, the PL had ceased operations, with its manpower returned to the NL and AA clubs whence they came. But anger over the allocation of two former Philadelphia Athletics to National League clubs subsequently prompted the AA to abrogate the National Agreement and shun cooperation with the NL. The inter-league atmosphere in Philadelphia was particularly fraught, as the PL Philadelphia Athletics assumed the vacancy in American Association ranks created by the bankruptcy of the old AA Athletics. The long-cordial rivalry between Philadelphia’s NL and AA franchises expired as well, as Reach and Rogers lent no quarter to the interlopers from the renegade Players League.

For most of the 1891 season, Rogers kept a low baseball profile, focusing his attentions on Democratic Party politics and his duties with the JAG corps, the Philadelphia Times proclaiming Colonel Rogers “probably one of the best versed authorities on military law in the United States.”44 Late in the year, however, Rogers resurfaced on the baseball scene, voicing skepticism about the advisability of major league consolidation into a single 12-club National League. Both he and Reach remained proponents of the two-league system.45 But their views did not prevail, and Rogers thereafter accepted the job of redrafting the National Agreement to accommodate the professional game’s new structure.46

Although the timing of underlying events is hazy, by this time Rogers was unmistakably the majority owner of the Philadelphia Phillies, having earlier acquired the Megonegal stock block.47 In May 1892, the Philadelphia Inquirer revealed that “the Philadelphia ball club is now controlled by Colonel John I. Rogers, who is said to own eight-fifteenths [or 53.3%] of the stock. President A.J. Reach is reported as owning four-fifteenths [or 26.7%] of the stock, and the remaining three-fifteenths [or 20%] is scattered, manager Harry Wright being among the small owners.”48

Notwithstanding the presence of five future Hall of Famers (outfielders Ed Delahanty, Billy Hamilton, and Sam Thompson, first baseman Roger Connor, and pitcher Tim Keefe) on the roster, the Phillies could do no better than a fourth-place finish in the bloated 12-club National League of 1892. As the year came near to a close it was reported that “Col. John I. Rogers and A.J. Reach … make no bones of their weariness of baseball, and openly declare that they would gladly sell out their Philadelphia holdings.”49 As it turned out, their stewardship of the club had only reached the halfway mark.

The offensive explosion that attended the pitching rule changes of the 1893 season50 did not improve the Phillies standing, as the club again placed fourth in the NL pennant chase. But the Philadelphia Base Ball Grounds’ 293,019 home attendance figure was the circuit’s highest. His patience exhausted by Harry Wright’s inability to bring home a championship, Rogers released the venerable field leader during the ensuing winter.51 The dismissal earned Rogers sharp criticism from the press, and “many fans were so [alienated] by the treatment of Wright that they threatened to boycott Philadelphia games.”52 The Colonel also found himself in an unseemly political imbroglio, having allowed a letter claiming Pennsylvania Governor Robert E. Pattison’s endorsement of his appointment to a Philadelphia Customs House sinecure to be published in the press. The missive’s disclosure discomforted the governor, and submission of Rogers’ resignation as National Guard Judge Advocate General followed swiftly thereafter.53

At the winter league meetings, Rogers resumed his long-running battle to retain the exemption that the Phillies enjoyed from the National League mandate of a $50 cents general admission fee. Since 1883, the club had been permitted to charge the $25 cents American Association rate, and the Phillies’ balance sheet had prospered.54 As he had before, Rogers prevailed on the issue55 but he had scant time to savor the triumph. On the morning of August 6, 1894, the Philadelphia Base Ball Grounds was consumed by fire, the ballpark reduced to ashen rubble. Losses to the Philadelphia Ball Club (Limited) were placed at $70,000, with only a fraction covered by insurance.56 In the aftermath of the disaster, Rogers negotiated a new gate receipts distribution formula with other club bosses that was “worth at least $100,000 to the Philadelphia club in the next four years.”57 He and Reach then set about building a modern-style replacement stadium, the ballpark later known as the Baker Bowl.

Rogers was gratified by the presence of Philadelphia Mayor Charles F. Warwick at the inauguration of the new ballpark in early May 1895, the first time such a municipal dignitary had attended a Phillies Opening Day game.58 But the club, now under the field direction of longtime NL infielder Arthur Irwin, disappointed Rogers once again, completing the campaign with a third-place finish. Nevertheless, Rogers superintended expensive ballpark upgrades that included a new clubhouse surrounded by stone fencing, a bicycle track around the perimeter of the playing field, and a handball court and bicycle storage room under the grandstand.59

Former manager Harry Wright died in October 1895, and sometime thereafter Rogers purchased his share of Phillies stock from the Wright heirs. This fortified Rogers’ status as majority club owner and, while Al Reach remained club president, further enabled the Colonel60 to exercise the powers of a modern-day general manager.61 Under his command, club fortunes plummeted. The first of Rogers’ strategic blunders was the trade of Billy Hamilton (.389 BA and the NL leader in runs scored, stolen bases, and walks) for Boston third baseman Billy Nash. Installed as the latest Phillies manager for the 1896 season, Nash led the club to a dreary eighth-place finish and was thereafter relieved of duty. Meanwhile, criticism of Rogers’ leadership mounted in the press, the Philadelphia Times sneering “outside of building grand stands and misfit club houses, Rogers knows as much about base ball as a cat knows about its grandmother.”62 Later, the Times added, “the sooner [Rogers] retires from base ball the better will it be for the game.”63

Phillies fortunes continued to decline under the next manager chosen by Rogers, George Stallings. After guiding the Phillies to a tenth-place finish in 1897, Stallings was let go the following June, replaced by club treasurer Bill Shettsline, a man without professional playing or managing experience. Rogers, however, did not confine himself to moves that fomented unease in the Philadelphia press and with the club faithful. Fellow club owners were also often upset with him. Following Rogers’ legalistic obstruction of magnate attempts to undo an impasse in the operation of the troubled St. Louis franchise, exasperated Chicago club president Jim Hart exclaimed that “if he were to offer the Lord’s Prayer at a NL meeting, Rogers would object on legal grounds and move to amend the phraseology.”64

Despite oft-testy relations with other club owners, Rogers remained influential, serving on important committees and working closely with National League president Nick Young and Cincinnati club boss John T. Brush on a host of thorny problems confronting the league. But Rogers’ involvement was often counterproductive. With the 12-club National League a competitive and financial disappointment, Rogers drafted the legal framework for contraction to an eight-club circuit for the 1900 season.65 Long champion of the two-league format, the Colonel was also at the forefront of a follow-up initiative to revive the American Association.66 But thereafter, he sabotaged the project through self-interested demands placed upon the AA franchise designated for Philadelphia. The demise of the nascent circuit embarrassed and angered Brush who publicly placed the blame entirely on Rogers.67 Rogers reacted furiously, branding Brush “a liar, marplot and a coward.”68

Far more enervating than censure by the likes of Brush was the arrival in town of the Philadelphia Athletics of the newly-declared major American League for the 1901 season. To stock the club roster, the A’s spirited away National League veterans including and frontline Phillies pitchers Bill Bernhard, Chick Fraser, and Wiley Piatt. The really devastating blow, however, was the defection of superstar Nap Lajoie. As “father of the option clause” of player contracts formulated in the aftermath of courtroom reversals some 11 years previous, Rogers declared himself willing to “stake his reputation as a lawyer upon the binding effect” of the provision69 and instituted legal action. But applications for injunctive relief were denied by a Philadelphia court70 and the erstwhile Phillies played the season in Athletics livery.

Paced by the offensive performance of holdover outfielders Ed Delahanty (.354), Elmer Flick (.333) and Roy Thomas (.309, with a league-leading 100 walks) and under the genial guidance of manager Shettsline, the Phillies surged to a second-place (83-57, .593) finish in 1901. But the club remained in turmoil. Then at the ensuing winter league meeting, Rogers pitched the entire National League into chaos. With four club delegations absenting themselves from proceedings to prevent establishment of the requisite quorum, Rogers chaired a tumultuous marathon rump session of owners favoring the ouster of league president Young in favor of A.G. Spalding. Spotting New York Giants club secretary Fred Knowles standing in the doorway, Rogers declared the Giants “present,” the needed quorum therefore established, and Spalding elected league president. Spalding thereupon seized the NL books and proclaimed himself league president, notwithstanding the refusal of half the club owners to recognize his election.71 An injunction obtained by Giants boss Andrew Freedman restrained Spalding from taking any official action, and the NL remained locked in administrative deadlock for months. Eventually Spalding yielded and Young returned to office, ending an episode that reflected little credit upon Rogers.

With Rogers resisting the pressure to raise player salaries to AL-competitive levels, the Phillies lost more talent during the off-season, including Cooperstown-bound mainstays Delahanty and Flick. Yet for once, his strategy of resort to judicial intervention seemed to pay off. Contrary to the holdings of other tribunals, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld the option (reserve) clause claim placed upon Nap Lajoie and directed the Athletics’ reigning AL triple-crown winner to return to the Phillies.72 Days later, permanent restraining orders barring Lajoie and the other defectors for playing with the Philadelphia Athletics were entered by the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas.73

Rogers was exultant. “I am vindicated at last,” he crowed. “Perhaps the ball players will now admit that I knew what I was talking about when I warned them against jumping their contracts. We have ordered all 13 of the players who jumped from our club to return at once. … Should they play in any other state with any other club they would be in contempt of court and punished upon their return to Pennsylvania.”74

Rogers’ self-congratulation soon rang hollow. Rather than acquiesce to the judicial mandate, the American League granted Lajoie, Flick, and the other ex-Phillies free agency – confident that as long as they remained outside of Pennsylvania, the court’s order was essentially unenforceable. And so it soon proved to be.75

While Lajoie briefly contemplated his future from the sidelines, club president Reach urged Rogers to match the AL salary that Nap had left the Phillies for. But Rogers was obstinate, insisting that Lajoie was obliged to return and play for the $2,600 wage that he had received in 1901 (rather than the $7,000 that the A’s had paid Lajoie for jumping).76 The ensuing loss of Lajoie to the AL Cleveland Bronchos placed the already-frayed Reach-Rogers relationship beyond repair and constituted, in the estimation of Sporting Life editor (and steadfast Rogers friend) Frank Richter, the “one grave mistake” of Rogers’ tenure as Phillies honcho.77 The Cleveland signing of Flick and the AL retention of Delahanty and Bernhard further estranged Reach from Rogers.

Rogers’ standing with the sporting press and Phillies fans hit rock bottom in 1902. While the Athletics fielded an (83-53-1, .610) American League champion and led all major league clubs in home attendance (420,078), the (56-81-1, .409) Phillies slunk home in seventh place, drawing only a fraction at the gate of their local rival (112,066). As the dismal campaign wore down, Rogers issued half-hearted denials that the club was up for sale.78 After the season was over, however, it became clear that the only sticking point was meeting the Rogers asking price, reportedly in the neighborhood of $200,000.79

As negotiations for peace between the National and American Leagues heated up in December, Rogers, in an uncharacteristic gesture of magnanimity, released all club claims upon Lajoie, Flick, Delahanty, and the other Phillies refugees.80 Less than three months later, the franchise was sold to a consortium of mostly local interests headed by wealthy Philadelphia socialite James Potter.81 The sale price was not officially provided but press guesstimates placed it between $170,000 and $200,000. But in a move that they soon had cause to regret, Reach and Rogers retained ownership of the Phillies ballpark which was then rented to the Potter group.

Upon officially retiring, Reach and Rogers were feted by fellow club owners and unanimously accorded honorary lifetime membership in the National League.82 Not all, however, were so charitably disposed. Accompanying the farewells was a withering wire service blast that castigated Rogers as “arbitrary, quick-tempered, tactless and undiplomatic. He has rubbed against more hard corners in his career than the whole crowd of base ball leaders who have come and gone in the past two decades.”83

Once he withdrew from club ownership, Rogers seemingly abandoned baseball, not even attending an occasional Phillies game. But calamity soon compelled Rogers to refocus attention on his former interest. During the second game of a home doubleheader against the Boston Beaneaters on August 8, 1903, patrons crowded onto a high left field balcony walkway to get a better look at an off-field disturbance. The walkway suddenly collapsed under their weight, sending hundreds to the pavement below.84 In all, 12 deaths and over 200 spectator injuries were ultimately attributed to the incident.85 A slew of lawsuits alleging negligent ballpark maintenance followed, with grounds owners Rogers and Reach being the principal defendants. The litigation dragged on for years until the test case was dismissed in 1909, the improbable defense that the event causing the tragedy was unforeseeable (and therefore non-actionable) being accepted by the court.86

John Ignatius Rogers spent his remaining years engaged in the practice of law, interspersed with extended vacations with his wife and daughter. In March 1910, he journeyed to Denver to inspect mining investments that he had in the area. A grueling horseback ride left him complaining of gout and he thereafter retired to his room in a Denver hotel. On the morning of March 13, 1910, Rogers was discovered dead in his bed, the victim of heart failure.87 He was 65.

After the body was returned to Philadelphia, a Solemn Requiem Mass for the deceased was said at the Cathedral Basilica of Saints Peter and Paul, Pennsylvania’s largest Roman Catholic Church. Dignitaries from the world of Philadelphia law, politics, and industry attended, but neither longtime Phillies co-owner Al Reach nor anyone else connected to major league baseball was reported to be present.88 Interment was at Holy Sepulchre Cemetery in nearby Cheltenham, Pennsylvania. Survivors included widow Elizabeth and five adult children.

In a fond and flowery Sporting Life memoriam, Rogers was eulogized for “his services to base ball [that] were many and varied. … In everything that made for the betterment and the elevation of the sport he left the imprint of his powerful intellect and his keen sense of right and justice.”89 A century later, commentators on early Philadelphia baseball have not been so kind, customarily portraying Rogers in a negative light. In the final analysis, aspects of his time with the Phillies doubtless lend themselves to criticism. But his service to the game was tireless, and for 20 years John I. Rogers was a force to be reckoned with, for both good and bad.

Sources

Sources for the biographical info imparted above include the John I. Rogers file maintained at the Giamatti Research Center, National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum, Cooperstown, New York; the Rogers profiles contained in an unidentified piece included in the Rogers GRC file, John Shiffert, Base Ball in Philadelphia: A History of the Early Game, 1831-1900 (Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland, 2006), and Major League Baseball Profiles, 1871-1900, Vol. 2, David Nemec, ed. (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2011); US Census and other government records accessed via Ancestry.com; and certain of the newspaper articles cited in the endnotes. Statistics have been taken from Baseball-Reference, ballpark attendance figures from Robert L. Tiemann, “Major League Attendance,” Total Baseball (Kingston, New York: Total Sports Publishing, 7th ed., 2007).

Notes

1 As inscribed on his cemetery headstone. Baseball-Reference, however, gives Rogers’ birth year as 1843.

2 The other Rogers offspring were Katharine (born 1846), Francis (1847), Rosanna (1849), Elinor (1856), Mathew (1859), and Mary (1860).

3 The LL. B (Legum Baccalaureus) is an undergraduate degree conferred for the study of law. The post-graduate degree awarded those successfully completing law school is the J.D. (Juris Doctor). Rogers studied law as an undergraduate at the University of Pennsylvania. He did not attend law school.

4 Studying under the proctorship of an experienced attorney (called reading law) was long an alternative to law school for aspiring lawyers.

5 Per Francis C. Richter, “Rogers at Rest,” Sporting Life, March 19, 1910: 5, and reportage in Philadelphia dailies, March 14-15, 1910.

6 As noted in “The Dead of 1910: John I. Rogers,” 1911 Spalding Official Base Ball Guide, 150; and elsewhere.

7 Per Richter, “Rogers at Rest,” above.

8 As reported in the Harrisburg (Pennsylvania) Weekly Patriot, Philadelphia Inquirer, and elsewhere, November 5, 1868.

9 Per “Democratic Extremes,” Philadelphia Times, August 31, 1876: 4.

10 Republican John E. Reyburn won the election handily, capturing 5,501 votes compared to 4,136 for Rogers. See “The Official Count,” Philadelphia Inquirer, November 8, 1880: 2.

11 See “Samuel G. King Nominated,” Philadelphia Times, January 28, 1881: 1. See also, “The Thirty-One,” Philadelphia Times, February 17, 1881: 1.

12 Rogers placed King’s name in nomination for the Democratic Party primary in 1881, per “The City Campaign,” Philadelphia Times, January 20, 1884: 2. Three years later, he seconded King’s renomination. See “Democratic Conventions,” Philadelphia Times, January 24, 1884: 1.

13 A sixth Rogers child, name and date of birth unknown, did not survive infancy.

14 Per “Base Ball,” Philadelphia Inquirer, January 10, 1871: 7. Roger’s interest in baseball may have stemmed from his membership in the Bachelor’s Club, another of the fraternal organizations that he was active in as a young man. The baseball team fielded by the Bachelor’s morphed into the amateur Philadelphia Athletics, per Christopher Devine, Harry Wright: The Father of Professional Baseball (Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland, 2003), 149.

15 As reported in “The Athletic Base Ball Club,” Philadelphia Inquirer, May 15, 1872: 2. Rogers resigned as Athletics vice-president before entering the contest for club director.

16 See “The Athletics,” Philadelphia Inquirer, September 9, 1873: 3. At the club meeting, “Mr. John I. Rogers, by request of the president, then announced that the following players had been engaged upon unconditional contracts for the season of 1874.” Those signed included Dick McBride, Adrian Anson, and Ezra Sutton.

17 “Colonel John I. Rogers, A Notable Baseball Figure,” Pittsburg Press, March 15, 1910: 14. See also, “Col. Rogers Was Baseball Sponsor for 20 Years,” Denver Post, March 19, 1910: 2.

18 Per Richter, “Rogers at Rest,” above.

19 For an illuminating exposition on the Philadelphia League Alliance club, see Robert D. Warrington, “Philadelphia in the 1882 League Alliance,” Baseball Research Journal, Fall 2019.

20 See Robert D. Warrington, “Entering the National League, The Phillies’ Bumpy Journey,” Baseball Research Journal, Fall 2022. Although the early National League club is often identified as the Philadelphia Quakers, that team nickname is suspect. For purposes of clarity, the club will be referred to as the Phillies throughout this essay.

21 The partnership agreement of the Philadelphia Ball Club (Limited) was later reproduced verbatim in the Philadelphia Inquirer, March 29, 1901: 6. See also, Warrington, “Entering the National League,” above. Windy City businessman Walsh was already a major investor in the National League Chicago White Stockings. Farrelly and Rogers had close-by center city offices and were leaders of the Catholic Club of Philadelphia.

22 Warrington, “Entering the National League,” above. See also, John Shiffert, Base Ball in Philadelphia: A History of the Early Game, 1831-1900 (Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland, 2006), 244.

23 Shiffert, 240.

24 Warrington, “Entering the National League,” above.

25 As subsequently noted in “Phillies Elect Officers and Are Ready to Hustle,” Philadelphia Inquirer, December 4, 1904: 10. Shettsline assumed the duties of club treasurer in 1889.

26 Following the March 1883 ratification of a new National Agreement that included the American Association, AA president Denny McKnight withdrew the AA ban on games against NL rivals.

27 The contract to supply the AA with baseballs was later valued at $25,000 per season. See “From Philadelphia,” Chicago Inter Ocean, December 20, 1891: 6.

28 The Philadelphia Keystones posted a dismal 21-46 (.313) record and folded in mid-August. The Union Association itself ceased operations after its lone 1884 season.

29 According to Philadelphia Inquirer sportswriter Frank L. Hough. See “The Old Sport’s Musings,” Philadelphia Inquirer, November 23, 1909: 6.

30 Grafly’s interest in the club came to light in March 1902 when he complained that he had went years without receiving a dividend on his Phillies stock. See Hough, “The Old Sport’s Musings,” Philadelphia Inquirer, March 17, 1902: 6 and March 24, 1902: 6, and “Colonel Rogers on Grafly Case,” Philadelphia Times, March 18, 1902: 10.

31 The 1886 Phillies home attendance figure of 175,623 came within 3,400 of the season attendance posted by the AA Athletics.

32 See “The Phillies’ Ball Park,” Philadelphia Times, January 17, 1888: 3. To secure the grounds, Reach and Rogers put down $50,000 cash and assumed a $50,000 mortgage. See also, Jerrold Casway, “Philadelphia Baseball’s Unappreciated Founders: Al Reach and Ben Shibe,” The National Pastime, Vol. 23 (2003) which puts the Reach and Rogers outlay for the Phillies new ballpark at $80,000.

33 Per “Comment on Sports,” Philadelphia Inquirer, May 1, 1892: 2.

34 See “The Players Have Their Admirers,” Philadelphia Times, August 27, 1887: 6.

35 “The Bostons Abroad,” Boston Globe, June 6, 1887: 3. The Globe, however, hardly endorsed the situation, opining that Rogers “ought to let Harry Wright run the Phillies because he has forgotten four times as much about managing a club as Rogers ever knew.”

36 “Philadelphia Pointers,” Sporting Life, August 8, 1888: 5.

37 Per “Arbitrators,” Sporting Life, December 5, 1888: 1; “New Base Ball Laws,” Philadelphia Times, November 25, 1888: 14; “Base Ball Rules Amended,” Philadelphia Times, November 22, 1888: 1.

38 See “The Phillies’ Grounds Are Safe,” Philadelphia Inquirer, March 21, 1889: 6.

39 “Col. Rogers for Irwin,” Philadelphia Inquirer, May 10, 1889: 6.

40 Per Casway, “Philadelphia Baseball’s Unappreciated Founders,” above. See also, “The Spaldings Make Their Bow,” Philadelphia Inquirer, November 21, 1889: 6. After the acquisition, Spalding continued the manufacture of baseballs and other sports equipment under the Reach aegis.

41 “The League Preparing,” Philadelphia Times, December 11, 1889: 4.

42 As reported in “Players Win,” Boston Globe, March 16, 1890: 1; “For the Players,” Philadelphia Times, March 16, 1890: 3; and elsewhere. For an overview of Players League War courtroom proceedings, see John Bauer, “Legal Battles Over the Reserve Clause and the Legality of Players’ Contracts,” Base Ball’s 19th Century Winter Meetings, Jeremy K. Hodges and Bill Nowlin, eds. (Phoenix: SABR, 2018), 277-279.

43 “Talk about the Decision,” Philadelphia Times, March 16, 1890: 3.

44 “The National Guard,” Philadelphia Times, November 15, 1891: 7. Two months earlier, Rogers had chaired the treasurers’ convention of the Philadelphia Democratic Party. See “The Democratic Ticket,” Philadelphia Times, September 25, 1891: 1.

45 As reported in “Comment on Sports,” Philadelphia Inquirer, December 6, 1891: 3; “The League All Right,” Philadelphia Inquirer, November 15, 1891: 3; and elsewhere. See also, “The Sport,” Evansville (Indiana) Courier, December 22, 1891: 1.

46 As reported in “A New National Agreement,” New York Tribune, January 25, 1892: 3; “The New Agreement,” Philadelphia Inquirer, January 24, 1892: 3; and elsewhere.

47 See again, Hough, “The Old Sport’s Musings,” Philadelphia Inquirer, November 23, 1909: 6.

48 Per “Comment on Sports,” May 1, 1892, above. The other minority Phillies stockholder was silent club backer Edward T. Grafly. The comprehensive Philadelphia Phillies team ownership history authored by Rick Westcott states that Reach and Rogers both controlled 43% of club ownership shares, “with a few friends of theirs holding the remaining shares.” That share distribution, however, does not accord with the contemporary sources relied upon herein and is not accepted by the writer.

49 Per “Baseball Notes,” Wichita Eagle, December 10, 1892: 8. A similar report had appeared earlier in “Why Jump to Conclusions?” Sporting Life, November 5, 1892: 2.

50 The principal rule changes elongated the pitching distance to the modern-day 60’6” and eliminated the pitcher’s box. Hurlers were now required to anchor their back foot on a slab until the ball was released.

51 As reported in “Wright Released by the Phillies,” Philadelphia Inquirer, November 26, 1893: 3; “Harry Wright Retires,” Philadelphia Times, November 26, 1893: 9; and elsewhere. Wright was not fired. Rather, he was not reengaged as Phillies manager once the three-year pact that he had signed in February 1891.

52 Devine, Harry Wright, above, 163.

53 See “Rogers Resignation Accepted,” Pittsburgh Post, October 8, 1893: 7; “Colonel Rogers Resigns,” Harrisburg Patriot, October 7, 1893: 4; “Rogers Resigns,” Lancaster (Pennsylvania) Daily Intelligencer, October 7, 1893: 4.

54 See “League Magnates Likely to Clash,” Philadelphia Inquirer, February 24, 1894: 3. For more, see Bauer, “Philadelphia and the Division of Receipts,” Base Ball’s 19th Century Winter Meetings, above at 327-328.

55 As noted in “Personal and Pertinent,” Sporting Life, March 10, 1894: 2: “The happiest man in the league today is Colonel Rogers. He regards the settlement of the Philadelphia gate receipts question as a personal victory and vindication although he had to make some sacrifice to secure it.”  

56 As reported in “The Ball Park a Heap of Ashes,” Philadelphia Inquirer, August 7, 1894: 1; “Ball Park in Ashes,” Philadelphia Times, August 1, 1894: 1. The Phillies insurance policy covered only $25,000 of the loss.

57 “Rogers Gains a Great Victory,” Philadelphia Inquirer, November 17, 1894: 2.

58 See “The Mayor and the Reformers,” Philadelphia Times, May 3, 1895: 6.

59 Per “Philadelphia Pointers,” Sporting Life, February 8, 1896: 2. In courtroom proceedings some years later, club treasurer Bill Shettsline testified that over $200,000 was invested in ballpark improvements. See “Details of the Legal Upper-Cuts at the Bar,” Philadelphia Inquirer, April 21, 1901: 14.

60 His placement on the voluntarily retired list authorized Rogers to retain the title of Colonel. Military protocol aside, acquaintances, fellow club owners, and the press called him Colonel Rogers for the duration of his life.

61 In his SABR history of club ownership, Rick Westcott states that “ultimately, [Rogers] and Reach became the principal owners of the [Phillies], each holding 43 percent of the stock.” Other ball club historians sometimes allege that the reputed equipoise in Reach and Rogers holdings of club stock was upset when Rogers privately acquired the Phillies stock held by the Wright estate, giving Rogers 53% of club stock compared to Reach’s 43%. See e.g., Casway, “Philadelphia Baseball’s Unappreciated Founders,” above. See also, Shiffert, Base Ball in Philadelphia, 245. The contemporaneous authority noted herein, however, establish (1) that Rogers and Reach never held identical amounts of Phillies club stock, and (2) that Rogers amassed a majority interest in the club stock no later than early 1892, or about four years before he acquired the Wright stock. Indeed, Rogers’ “controlling interest” in the Philadelphia franchise was noted while Harry Wright was still the Phillies manager. See e.g., “Comment about Various Sports,” Philadelphia Inquirer, July 9, 1893: 16.

62 “Between the Innings,” Philadelphia Times, June 19, 1896: 10.

63 “Blue Monday Two Defeats,” Philadelphia Times, August 18, 1896: 8.

64 Per the Hart bio in Major League Player Profiles, 1871-1900, Vol. 2, David Nemec, ed. (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2011), 127. Hart’s observation came during a March 1899 club owners meeting and prompted an exchange of personal insults followed by a scuffle that required Reach and other attendees to separate Hart and Rogers.

65 Liquidated were the National League franchises in Louisville, Cleveland, Baltimore, and Washington.

66 For more detail on the complicated events attending the AA revival movement, see Bill Lamb, “Thrice Stillborn: Turn-of-the-Century Attempts to Resurrect the Once-Major League American Association,” Base Ball: New Research on the Early Game, Vol. 11 (2019), 155-161.

67 See “John T. Lays Blame to John I.,” Detroit Free Press, March 8, 1901: 7; “John Brush’s Statement,” Indianapolis News, March 7, 1901: 8; “Baseball Baby Dead: Col. John I. Rogers Blamed,” Baltimore Sun, March 1, 1901: 6.

68 Per the headline “Colonel Rogers Brands John T. Brush as a Liar, Marplot and a Coward,” Philadelphia Inquirer, March 9, 1901: 6. See also, “Says Brush Wears Large Hat,” Detroit Free Press, March 12, 1901: 7; “Harsh Words by Rogers,” Louisville Courier-Journal, March 10, 1901: 28.

69 “The Big League,” Sporting Life, January 20, 1900: 5.

70 As reported in “Lajoie Scores First in Big Fight to Restrain Him from Playing for Mack,” Philadelphia Inquirer, April 21, 1901: 14; “National League Fails to Secure Injunction,” Philadelphia Times, April 21, 1901: 12; and elsewhere.

71 See “Old League Is Split,” Baltimore Sun, December 15, 1901: 6; “A.J. (sic) Spalding’s Election Causes Fierce Rumpus. Each Side Unwilling to Recognize the Other,” Philadelphia Inquirer, December 15, 1901: 12; “League Magnates Still Divided,” Philadelphia Times, December 15, 1901: 8.

72 Per “Stunning Surprise,” Sporting Life, April 26, 1902: 1; “Lajoie Ordered Not to Play Ball with American League,” Philadelphia Times, April 22, 1902: 1; “Reserve Clauses Held to Be Valid,” St. Louis Republic, April 22, 1902: 4.

73 As reported in the Brooklyn Times, April 29, 1902: 8.

74 “Adverse to Lajoie,” The Sporting News, April 26, 1902: 1.

75 Subsequent application to enjoin former Phillies from playing for American League clubs and/or to hold players in contempt of a judicial order were denied by a federal court. See “Home Club Wins Cases,” Cleveland Leader, July 10, 1902: 3.

76 See “Lajoie May Play Here,” Philadelphia Times, June 27, 1902: 6.

77 See again, Richter, “Rogers at Rest,” above.

78 See e.g., “Denial by Colonel Rogers,” Philadelphia Inquirer, August 12, 1902: 10.

79 Per “Col. Rogers Now Ready to Sell Out,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, November 6, 1902: 14; “Col. John I. Rogers Will Sell Out,” Chicago Inter Ocean, November 5, 1902: 4.

80 See “Waiving Rights to the Players,” Philadelphia Inquirer, December 9, 1902: 10.

81 As reported in “Phillies Sold at Last,” Baltimore Sun, March 1, 1903: 9; “The Phillies Pass Out of Reach and Rogers Control,” Philadelphia Inquirer, March 1, 1903: 14; and elsewhere.

82 “National League Ready for 1903,” The Sporting News, March 7, 1903: 4.

83 “No Tears for Colonel Rogers,” San Diego Sun, April 14, 1903: 6.

84 As reported in “Nearly Two Hundred Hurt, Three Dead Following a Crash at Base Ball Park,” Philadelphia Inquirer, August 9, 1903: 1; “Frightful Accident on a Ball Field,” Trenton Sunday Advertiser, August 9, 1903: 1; and elsewhere.

85 A thorough account of the tragedy and its aftermath is provided by Robert D. Warrington, “Baseball’s Deadliest Disaster: Black Saturday in Philadelphia,” The National Pastime (2013).

86 Same as above.

87 Per “Outing Kills Former Ball Magnate,” Denver Rocky Mountain News, March 14, 1910: 1; “Former Phillie Owner Dies Suddenly in Denver,” St. Louis Globe-Democrat, March 14, 1910: 11.

88 See “Col. Rogers’ Funeral,” Philadelphia Inquirer, March 20, 1910: 4.

89 Richter, “Rogers at Rest,” above.