Baseball in 1856 was in the midst of rapid growth.1 The Knickerbockers, the senior baseball club, had been founded in 1845, but had inspired few imitators in the early years. As late as 1854 there were only a half-dozen clubs, in New York City and Brooklyn. Then 1855 was the breakout year, with about two dozen clubs. These doubled every year up to the outbreak of the Civil War.2 This growth changed the nature of how the game was played. The purpose of a club like the Knickerbockers was to provide a vehicle for young men in sedentary occupations to take their exercise together in a socially congenial setting. They met, usually twice a week during the season, to play a game among themselves. Two captains would be appointed, and they would divide up the members present into the two sides for the day.

A club could exist indefinitely with no competition with other clubs, since outside competition wasn’t the point. But boys will be boys. Where two clubs existed in proximity, they would inevitably seek to test their mettle against each other. The two clubs would each select their nine best players for a “match game.” Initially these were also grand social events, with one club the host and the other the guest, the host making grand displays of hospitality. This would, of course, be reciprocated, with the clubs reversing their roles for the return game.

The growth spurt beginning in 1855 changed the nature of the sport. The competitive aspects soon overtook the social. An early concession to competition was the addition of a third game, often on neutral ground, should the first two games be split.3 The more insidious effect was that clubs began looking for any edge. Even apart from this, the membership of the early clubs was small. Everyone knew everyone else, and oral traditions and social norms sufficed to fill in the gaps in the formal rules. As the game expanded this became less true, so the formal rules had to be expanded in response. Finally, the players got better with practice. Rules well adapted for poor players often prove unbalanced with adept players.

The early rules provided ample opportunity both for gamesmanship and confusion. The Knickerbockers’ rules had been drafted in 1845 for intramural play. They were slightly revised in 1848, and in 1854 the Knickerbockers had met with two other clubs, the Gothams and the Eagles, to draft another revision for match games. The 1854 meeting was necessary because the three clubs had slightly different rules, which needed to be reconciled. The competitive stew of 1855 made apparent the need for revisions. An attempt was made after the 1855 season to convene a convention to address the problem, but little seemed to come of it. A possible explanation was the conspicuous absence of the Knickerbockers.4 This changed a year later.

The reasons for the club’s change of heart are not recorded, but we can infer that the situation was increasingly untenable. In December of 1856, the clubs issued a call for a convention to be held the following January, and the 1857 convention met in two sessions, on January 22 and February 25. The first session appointed a rules committee, which met on January 28. Fourteen clubs sent three delegates each to the first session. Two additional clubs sent delegates to the second session. Some clubs’ delegations from the first session did not return, so the full 16 clubs never actually met together. The first order of business was for the convention to organize itself with the election of officers. The senior status of the Knickerbocker Club was recognized when its president, Daniel “Doc” Adams, was elected president of the convention. Other clubs were then recognized through the election of a superfluity of officers: two vice presidents, two secretaries, and a treasurer, each from a different club.5

The next item was the revision of the rules. The Knickerbockers had prepared a draft set, which they proposed to the convention. Any hope of pushing it through quickly and intact was soon dashed. The convention decided instead to form a committee to consider the proposals. This led in turn to a discussion of how to constitute the committee, with suggestions running from the convention appointing five members, to the convention meeting as a committee of the whole. They finally settled on each club choosing one delegate. This was the committee that met six days later.

The purpose of the convention was next expanded by a discussion of the desirability of a baseball ground in the new Central Park, and a committee of five was appointed to lobby the Central Park commission. (They were unsuccessful in the short term, but parts of the park were opened to junior clubs several years later.) Three balls of varying size and weight were presented, an assessment of $2 per club was voted to defray the expenses of the meeting, and the meeting adjourned.

The rules committee met six days later. The committee elected William H. Van Cott of the Gotham Club chairman, and considered the draft rules presented by the Knickerbockers. Some proposals survived intact, some were amended, and some nixed entirely. The committee prepared a final draft and presented it to the second session of the convention, which made some additional amendments proposed from the floor and finally adopted the rules of 1857.

Laws of Baseball, KBBC to Convention, January 22, 1857, page 1 (COURTESY OF JOHN THORN)

Some of the new rules were really clarification of existing practice. The bat was defined to be round. (The Knickerbockers proposed allowing one side to be flat, copying the cricket bat, but this idea did not make it out of the rules committee.) The dimensions of the diamond were more precisely defined. The previous rules had used the “pace” as the unit of measurement, but did not define its length. Plausible modern suggestions include 2½ feet, 3 feet, or the stride of a person actually pacing out the diamond. The new rule replaced the pace with the yard, removing the ambiguity. The pitcher was required to deliver the ball at least 15 yards from the batter, where previously no distance had been specified. The existing rules had included the balk, but had not defined what one was. The 1857 rules, however, stated, “Whenever the pitcher draws back his hand with the apparent purpose or pretension to deliver the ball, he shall so deliver it,” with a balk the penalty for failure to deliver the ball.

The 1857 rules specified that an uncaught foul ball was dead, and that it was live when returned to the hands of the pitcher. The placement of the batter was specified, and the requirement that runners run directly to the base, which hints at previous extreme attempts at evading a tag. One particularly interesting clarification was setting a team at nine players. This often receives a lot of attention today, but it wasn’t actually new. Nine on a side had been the standard for match games throughout the 1850s. Intramural club games varied wildly, but match games were standardized, in fact, long before this was put into the rules. The new rules also provided for two umpires and a referee. This too had been standard practice, with each club appointing an umpire. Should they be unable to resolve any dispute between themselves, they would refer the matter to the referee. (The umpires took on the role of advocates rather than arbiters, which role proved superfluous at best. The system was soon abandoned in favor of a single, theoretically impartial umpire.6)

The ball was standardized at 6 to 6½ ounces and 10 to 10¼ inches in circumference. This is noticeably larger than the modern ball. Curiously, the 1854 rules had set the ball at very close to the modern size. It would be gradually shrunk back to its modern size over the course of the 1860s.

The most truly innovative new rule — and arguably the centerpiece of the convention — was the change in how the game ended. The old system had the game over at the end of the inning once one side had 21 runs. (Scoring was generally higher in that era, and 21 runs was not an absurd number.) The convention adopted the modern rule of ending the game after nine innings. Why make this change? The key is that it also adopted the modern rule that the game was official after five innings, even if called for darkness or rain. (These are not exactly like the modern rule. The inning had to be completed, even if the side batting second had the higher score.)

This was quite brilliant, but for a reason that is obscure to the modern American: the distinction between a “tie” and a “draw.” These terms mean the same thing today, but did not at the time (and still don’t in British English). To understand the distinction, we must turn to cricket. A cricket match, in its full traditional form of international test match competition, lasts two innings over five days. If at the end of these two innings the two sides have the same score, the result is a tie. This is very rare. If, at the end of the five days allotted to the match, the two innings have not been completed, then the result is a draw. In either case the effect is that neither side won or lost.

The implication is that, should one side over the course of the match come to the unhappy conclusion that it isn’t going to win, it can stall out the remainder of the game in its turn at bat. This is a legitimate strategy in cricket, and works due to the nature of the game. The stalling side bats extremely conservatively, batting not to score runs but merely to avoid getting out. Consider that the batsman is not required to run on groundballs, and the possibility of stalling indefinitely becomes clear. But the defending side still has the ability to put batsmen out: The batsman might make a mistake and hit the ball in the air, or he might miss the ball entirely and have his wicket knocked down. Even while stalling, the game is still being played.

The early baseball players adopted the concept of the drawn game from cricket. It seems to have been assumed, without any mention in the rules one way or the other. The problem was that baseball, as it existed in 1856, allowed the batting side to stall by simply refusing to swing at pitches. There was not yet a called strike, so there was no mechanism to force the batter to make a good-faith effort. The fielding side could also stall, by refusing to put the batter or runners out. This would run up the score, but the whole point of stalling was that the one side knew they weren’t going to win anyway.

Worst of all, these strategies were boring for everyone, players and spectators alike. This was a major — even existential — problem. A list published in late 1856 of 55 games played the previous season shows nearly one in five ended in a draw.7 Something had to be done.

The answer to this problem, adopted at the 1857 convention, was the nine-inning game, with the game official after five innings. The idea was that a team was unlikely to despair of victory and go into stall mode before the game was half over. The five-inning portion of the rule was not the afterthought it might appear, but in fact a critical feature.

Changing the game to nine innings was largely successful, as seen in the 1857 season. There were still situations where a team might have an incentive to stall. Suppose it batted first, and led after eight innings. Should the opposing side take the lead in the bottom of the ninth inning, the fielding side might suddenly find itself uninterested in getting the final out before the game was called on account of darkness, and the score reverted to the last complete inning. Such circumstances were far less frequent, however. More common was the batting strategy of the “wait game,” where once a runner was on base, the batter would refuse to swing at any pitch, since eventually one would get past the catcher, allowing the runner to advance. The solution to this would come later in the form of strikes. In the meantime, the rule successfully converted the problem of stalling from an existential threat to the game to a marginal issue.

There are still two questions about the nine-innings rule: why nine, and why innings at all? The game could have been kept at 21 runs with the victory given to the side with the most runs, should play be ended prematurely. The switch to innings seems to have been to more nearly standardize the time of play. The time spent per inning was more constant than the time spent per run, so a standard number of innings would result in a roughly predictable game length. The reason why nine was chosen is more of a mystery. The Knickerbockers’ draft rules set it at seven, and this is what came out of the rules committee. The change to nine was one of the amendments from the floor of the second general session. To add to the mystery, the amendment was proposed by Louis Wadsworth, one of the Knickerbockers’ delegates. This seems to have been an internal club dispute made public, but the arguments for the two sides are not recorded.8

Finally, the convention enacted a set of what might be called administrative rules governing player eligibility and taking a first stab at controlling gambling. Clubs were already starting to bring in ringers for important matches. The new rules required that all players be members of the club, and prohibiting any player from holding membership in more than one club, as well as anyone involved in the match from betting on the game. The code ended with a rather unrealistic rule that a side would forfeit the match if more than 15 minutes late to the ground, which proved unrealistic in the face of the umpires’ unwillingness to enforce such a draconian measure.

In addition to the rules enacted, there was one important rule that was not: the fly game. The old rules gave an out to a fielder catching a batted ball either on the fly or on the first bounce. This was known as the “bound game.” The Knickerbockers’ draft rules proposed changing this to giving an out only for a batted ball caught on the fly: the “fly game.”9

The fly-game proposal was hugely controversial. On the one hand, most clubs opposed the idea. They were happy with the bound rule and saw no reason to change it. On the other hand, some of the most prestigious clubs were included in the minority favoring the fly game. The idea was to make fielding more difficult, and therefore manlier, and thus the game more suitable for adults.

The proposal could not be dismissed out of hand, but neither was the rules committee willing to endorse it. It instead attempted to strike a compromise. It retained the bound out, but made a fly out more valuable. The previous game allowed baserunners to advance freely on any fair ball. That is, a fly ball that was caught was treated the same as a groundball into the outfield. Baserunners could move up without having to first tag up. The compromise the committee devised was to leave this rule intact for bound catches while prohibiting the runners from advancing at all on fly catches. A ball caught on the fly, whether fair or foul, was defined as being a dead ball, just as was an uncaught foul ball. This rule would two years later evolve into the modern rule of the runner returning to his base and tagging up. In the meantime, its intent was to give fielders an incentive for the more difficult fly catch.

The convention of 1857 was a watershed moment in baseball history. Later observers would often identify it as the origin of modern, organized baseball. This depends on how we define our terms; baseball history does not always allow for origin stories that are both simple and accurate. But 1857 is as good a candidate as any.

Notes

1 The word “baseball” is used here to refer exclusively to the New York game, from which modern baseball descends. There were many other forms of baseball played at the time, but they are beyond the scope of this discussion.

2 Richard Hershberger, “The Antebellum Growth and Spread of the New York Game,” Base Ball: A Journal of the Early Game, v.8 (2014).

3 New York Herald, September 14, 1855; September 22, 1855.

4 New York Daily Tribune, December 10, 1855.

5 There are multiple newspaper accounts of the proceedings. The most useful are Porter’s Spirit of the Times, January 31, February 28, March 7, 1857; New York Herald, January 23, March 2, 1857; New York Evening Express, January 23 and 31, 1857.

6 Porter’s Spirit of the Times, January 2, 1858.

7 Porter’s Spirit of the Times, December 27, 1856.

8 The Porter’s and Herald accounts (probably written by the same person) state that Wadsworth was also the Knickerbockers’ delegate in the rules committee. This is most likely not true, and it was William Grenelle. The Express account names him, and records a self-deprecating speech from the committee meeting. The record of Wadsworth does not suggest that self-deprecation was among his personality traits.

9 This discussion was only with regard to fair balls. Foul balls caught on the bound were still outs under the Knickerbockers’ proposal. That discussion would come two decades later.

What emerged from this (1857) convention looked like a fairly thorough overhaul. The 17 playing rules expanded to 28 rules (plus seven others that related to umpiring and player eligibility), with fewer than half of the 1854 rules remaining essentially unchanged.1

Logically, the meeting before the 1858 season would concentrate on fine-tuning the 1857 changes after a season’s experience with them. Proposals not accepted in 1857 would resurface, among them the “fly rule,” called strikes and the use of flat bats. Also, contentiousness over which was the “champion club” had broken out in 1857, when the Gotham of New York came up with several excellent reasons why it could not play the “conquering match” of its best-of-three series with the Atlantic of Brooklyn, for which it was roundly criticized in Brooklyn. Complaints continued also about “playing off,” attempts by clubs to avoid defeat by preventing the completion of a game before darkness. Reports and correspondence in Porter’s Spirit of the Times in December 1857 detailed quarrels over umpiring, player eligibility, and ungentlemanly behavior among the rising number of junior clubs.

Porter’s, a Saturday weekly published in New York, was the publication providing the most extensive coverage of Knickerbocker Rules baseball, the ancestor of the modern game. Editor William T. Porter had covered the Greater New York sports scene for the original Spirit of the Times since 1838 before breaking away to start his own paper in 1856. The March-April 1858 convention would be his last; he died in July. The New York Sunday Mercury, another weekly, probably ranked with Porter’s in baseball coverage but has no known source for 1857. The New York Clipper, the third sports weekly covering the game at this time (before Henry Chadwick joined the staff), concentrated on reporting scores.

Prominent in Porter’s coverage of the game during the 1857-1858 offseason were the “X” letters, which their anonymous author hoped would “prove of some interest to your readers, as well as induce some prominent player to write or publish a book on the game.”2 The letters covered the origins of the game, commented on prominent clubs and players, provided a guide on playing the game and operating a club, discussed current issues, and advocated for improvements. Letter number 11, published on January 2, 1858, noted “considerable speculation” about whether to hold another convention, but insisted that:

It seems desirable that there should be one, if not to make any new laws, to amend or render a few points less obscure than they are at present; and a Convention of committees from all the Clubs, including all who have played under the rules now used, will tend to advance the game as much next season, as those adopted last Spring did for the season that has left us.

In the absence of a permanent organization, “X” suggested that a convention “will, perhaps, have to name what clubs shall send their delegates so that most of them will not interfere with the rules of the game.”

And further, in Letter number 13, published on January 16, 1858:

It is right that the clubs, who were represented at the last Convention, should constitute the body this year; and that the clubs since formed be admitted by ballot: this will not be any slur on the newly-organized clubs, but will give the Convention control over those who, not belonging to any of the well-founded clubs, may seek to enter, merely to make trouble.

“X” had several suggestions for improving the current rules, which were also published in Letter number 13, concluding that, “The game needs some few points to make it equal, if not superior, to all Summer out-door sports.”

SEC. 1 regulates the size of the ball and weight. While many are satisfied with the latter, they would prefer to have the ball from nine and three-quarters to ten inches in circumference, instead of the present size; it is a prettier ball to throw, pitch, or catch. SEC. 5 defines the position of the pitcher; some few players desire to have it three or four yards further from the home base, say eighteen, or place the pitcher exactly in the middle of the square. SEC. 6 needs many alterations and has always been unsatisfactory. The balk should be more clearly defined; for, as it stands now, on the referee’s good judgment, depends the correct rendering of the section. SEC. 8, on foul balls, says, that the umpires shall declare all foul balls unasked. Experience has shown that the referee should call them, instead of umpires; and at all matches, the clubs have been in the habit of making this regulation. SEC. 13 should be erased, and another introduced, compelling all fair balls to be caught on the fly. It would improve the game very much. It is also the wish of most players, that the section should be altered. SEC. 16 forces the player running the bases to return to his base, if a fair ball is held on the fly, or on a foul ball. In one case he has a right to the base he returns to; in the other, he is obliged to hurry back and run the risk of being put out. Should not the rules in both instances be the same, protecting the player back to the base he starts from?

SEC. 27 states, that “in playing matches, each player shall have been a regular member for thirty days.” While the observance of this rule will be correct, there should be some courtesy exhibited, when a club desires to play a member who has not been such for thirty days, but who is and will be, for the season a regular member, and where there is no trick or fraud intended. … All clubs play to win, if possible; but they should not force any to play second nine men in a first nine-match, any more than they would like them to introduce first-nine men in second-nine matches.

Appearing as they did in a major publication of the game in the hometown sporting press, and though authored anonymously, undoubtedly produced by a knowledgeable member of the local baseball community, the “X” letters’ influence was apparent as the convention was opened: As recommended, only the 14 clubs which had participated in the 1857 meeting were seated. The 1858 convention’s first session convened on Wednesday evening, March 10, at the venerable Gotham Inn, 298 Bowery, in Manhattan, which also housed the clubroom of the Gotham Base Ball Club. The honor of “calling” the convention had been shared by the oldest clubs, the Knickerbocker, Gotham, Eagle, and Empire. The convention was called to order by Dr. Daniel Lucius Adams of the Knickerbocker Club.3 The New York Herald’s report on the convention, which appeared on March 14, succinctly summarized the first session’s actions:

Dr. ADAMS, President of last year, called the convention to order and nominated A.J. Bixby of the Eagle Club for temporary President, who was accordingly chosen. W.A. Sears of the Baltic and T.J. Voorhis of the Empire were chosen secretaries. E.H. Brown of the Metropolitan, the treasurer of last year, was re-elected.

Dr. ADAMS stated the object of the convention to be to provide some fixed and permanent plan of representation and to amend the rules for playing if necessary.

On motion of Mr. JACKSON, a committee of five from the clubs represented last year was appointed to examine and report upon credentials, which was adopted. The Chair appointed the following gentlemen as members of that committee: — Messrs. Jackson, Adams, Spadone, Place, and Tassie.

The Committee on Credentials reported that the following clubs, which appeared to be regularly organized and composed of men of suitable age, have sent delegates to this Convention, and the committee respectfully recommended their admission (Columbia, Osceola, Oriental, Stuyvesant, Hamilton, Pastime, Metropolitan, Monument, Amity, St. Nicholas) …

That the following clubs appear to belong to the class commonly known as junior clubs, and the committee recommends that their credentials be returned, viz: — Star, Ashland, Lone Star, Live Oak, Resolute, and Enterprise.

A minority report was submitted by Dr. ADAMS, admitting all the delegates.

Considerable discussion, pro, and con took place about the propriety of admitting young men from 17 to 21 years of age, or those who represented clubs composed chiefly of mere boys.

Mr. KEITH, of the Ashland, protested against the exclusion of the delegates from what was called junior clubs. He thought that boys of eighteen were as well qualified as older persons to decide what should be the rules of the game. Mr. Wadsworth, of Gotham, as opposed to admitting children. At length, the question was taken by yeas and nays upon the motion to admit the younger members to a seat without a vote, which was carried. Yeas 34, nays 8.

A motion was now made by Mr. BARRY, to appoint a committee of five to nominate permanent officers of the Convention, which was amended by declaring the present officers permanent. The amendment was adopted.

On motion of Mr. JONES, a committee of five was appointed by the chair to draft a constitution and by-laws for the government of the Convention and to report the same at the next meeting. The chair appointed as members of the committee Messrs. Jones, Grenelle, Jackson, Van Cott, and Voorhis.

On motion of Mr. DAWSON, a committee of nine was appointed to revise the rules for the government of the game of baseball. The following gentlemen were appointed upon that committee: — Messrs. Dakin, Adams, Tassie, Place, Clark, Weeks, Barry, Leggett, and Brower.

Mr. BROWN, the treasurer, now moved to assess each member three dollars for expenses of the Convention. Adopted.

A DELEGATE stated the “Cricketers” had obtained the guarantee of a playground in the Central Park and moved the appointment of a committee of five to obtain the same permission for the Base Ball Club. Carried.

The Convention then adjourned to meet again in two weeks.

In all, 23 clubs of the 50 or so estimated to be in existence4 (perhaps including junior clubs) attended the first session. The plan to found a permanent organization had apparently emerged from pre-convention discussions among the clubs rather than from the convention itself, as it was not the subject of a motion, and was not debated. William Cauldwell, Sunday Mercury editor/publisher, and a convention delegate, evidently had voted in favor of admitting the juniors, as he sniffed in the Mercury’s report5 “that the ‘little boys’ might see and be seen, but not be heard,” but added that the juniors could trust the seniors to look after their interests. He also noted that the committee assigned to secure a playground in Central Park consisted of Messrs. Brown, Gregory, and Milliken (the latter, who did not live in Manhattan but in Morrisania, seems an odd choice). Besides feeling that much time had been wasted by the group, Cauldwell cautioned the rules committee:

… the less change they make in the present regulations the better. Simplify the rules as much as you please, but this business of altering and changing the rules every year is not very desirable.

The Clipper, in a brief commentary on March 20, also criticized the exclusion from the participation of the juniors, calling it “inexplicable.”

Porter’s previewed on March 13 additional issues facing the new rules committee:

The first convention was … to devise a new set of Rules and Laws for baseball. The call originated with the old Knickerbocker Club; and, with the co-operation of the Juniors and Freshmen, formed a code which, we hear, has not given unqualified satisfaction, nor worked as well as we could have expected. Some of the rules are said to be especially unpopular with the tyros — that of giving more than one man out if the second man is not protected back to his base. This rule of the game has proven rather sharp practice, as the lawyers for the youngsters, and they don’t like it. Another, which is to be taken up for discussion, is, that a player can only be caught out by a fair ball on the fly. The rule which determines the game by innings works well, and will be retained, and a strong effort will be made to have eleven fielders on each side.

Porter’s then subsided, but, perhaps remembering the simplicity of the game before it became a matter for adult attention, grumbled:

It may, however, be doubted whether too much legislation, and the discussion thereby exerted, does not tend rather to the development of talk, than to active exertion outdoors.

Backlash over the convention’s decision to allow juniors only as observers, besides the unfavorable comments in the Sunday Mercury and the Clipper, reappeared in Porter’s on the 20th, which, after reprinting without attribution the New York Herald’s convention report of March 14, published a letter signed “INFANT BALL-PLAYER”:

… (T)he Junior Clubs was denied either voice or vote in the subsequent meetings, under the pretense that there were so many of them they would vote the old men down — a very palpable blunder; for if they were strong enough in votes to rule the meeting when in, they surely could not be voted out, and to try it would only show them their strength. I can only conclude that it was by an organized clique of men, who are old enough to know better than this to abuse the purposes of the Convention, which, I believe, was to have the rules amended by all Clubs, and for the benefit of all who are interested in this noble and popular game.

Another excuse was, that the boys did not understand enough about the game to see what was wanting in the rules. Let me tell the old folks that we boys want to have a voice in that Convention, not to hear ourselves talk, but to keep up those points in the game which require the utmost physical exertion, and the exercise of skill and strength combined. We are only afraid of the legislation of those “pseudo” Senior Clubs, which are composed of apologies for men, who, with plenty of money, and a proportionate lack of strength of body and energy of spirit, wish to make the game a means of showing off their figures in fancy dresses, and their wealth in fancy dinners; who are so lazy, that, in a short time, they will become worse than some cricket clubs, who hire professional players to do the work, and they do the blowing.

Another objection was, that the Juniors were disposed to quarrel, and would delay and thwart the meeting. I think the conduct of the men at that Convention is a sufficient reply to that. I have attended a number of Junior B.B. meetings, but never one where there was so much dispute, and so little work done as there was there. I should respectfully recommend Jefferson’s Manual to some of the delegates who made themselves ridiculous by their confused ideas of their own importance, and the rules of meetings.

Now, gentlemen of the Convention, let the boys have a say in regard to this game, which they have always played, and which most of you have only just now taken out of their hands — unless you have no other way of showing the world that you are not children, except by refusing to have anything to do with boys who do not sport a plug, and who you call, with a patronizing air, Bub, in which case there may be a little excuse for you.

Not to be drawn by such callow argumentation, editor Porter suggested that the Juniors “get up a Convention and organization of their own. It would, doubtless, have a good effect, and tend to enlarge the number of the ‘Infant’ clubs.” A National Association of Junior Base Ball Players was eventually formed, before the 1861 season, but promptly became a casualty of the Civil War. The “boys’” points do echo Porter’s complaint that rule-making distracted attention from developments on the field, and repercussions from the juniors’ exclusion came quickly. The course of the protracted argument over the adoption of the “fly rule” was doubtless affected, assuming, as seems reasonable, that the juniors would have favored it. And since the junior clubs were much more likely to be headed by players, their inclusion might have ameliorated the tendency that emerged in the next few seasons for rule-making to be influenced by senior players and “muffin” or nonplaying senior club officials (not to mention the soon-to-be-prominent reporter, Henry Chadwick), one result being gaps between the rules on paper and the conduct of clubs and umpires (who were all players) in the matches.

The same prompt, thorough reporting of the doings of the second session of the Convention, on Wednesday evening, March 24, again at the Gotham, was not forthcoming. Cauldwell explained in the Sunday Mercury on the 28th that he had not been able to attend or to get a copy of the report of the committee on constitution and by-laws. The New York Herald’s summary, on March 25 was the most extensive:

BASE BALL CONVENTION. — An adjourned meeting of this Convention was held last evening at the “Gotham,” Mr. Bixby in the chair. The following additional delegates presented credentials and were admitted: Nassau — W.P. Powell, E.B. Coombs; Mutual — Anson B. Taylor, Jas. J. Kelso. Dr. Jones, from the committee, appointed to draft a constitution and by-laws, reported the same. The constitution provides that the name of the association shall be “The National Association of Base Ball Players”; that it shall be composed of two delegates from each club, who shall hereafter be elected by a ballot of two-thirds; that a regular annual meeting shall be held on the second Wednesday of March of each year, and that each hereafter admitted shall pay $5 entrance fee and $5 annual dues.

The constitution was adopted after sundry amendments, and the by-laws, after having been adopted, were, upon motion, recommitted for the purpose of amending the same.

The association then proceeded to the election of officers. A motion to appoint a committee of five to nominate and report at the next meeting was amended by providing that the nominations be made now in an open meeting. The names of Mr. Jones, Dr. Adams, and Mr. Van Cott were proposed. Upon the first ballot, Mr. Jones received 16 votes, Van Cott 15, and Dr. Adams 8. Dr. Adams now declined the nomination and wished his friends to vote for Mr. Van Cott. On the second ballot, Mr. Van Cott received 20 votes, Mr. Jones 17, and Dr. Adams 1. Mr. Van Cott was accordingly declared elected.

After electing the remaining officers the association adjourned until next week when action will be had upon some important amendments relating to the rules of the game of baseball.

The presidential result was superficially a New York-Brooklyn split between William H. Van Cott of the Gotham, a judge, and Dr. Joseph B. Jones, a transplanted Manhattanite, and president of the Excelsior Club of Brooklyn. Without a breakdown of the voting and a list of the delegates in attendance (39 of the potential 50 delegates voted), this cannot be confirmed. The newspapers were already fond of setting New York’s clubs and supporters against those of Brooklyn — the Fashion Race Course games between the two cities were only months away, and “X” had called for such a matchup in the letters published in Porter’s over the winter, and so it may be reasonably suspected.

Porter’s, in finally reporting in its issue of April 3, added detail on the convention’s workings. Describing the opening of the March 24 session:

Considerable desultory discussion ensured, until, in order to get rapidly to work with important business of the evening, a five-minute rule of the oratorical display had to be adopted, which was conceded by the meeting, nomine contradicente. Dr. Jones then presented the report on the Constitution and the By-Laws. …

Porter’s also provided the names of the other officers: Dr. J.B. Jones, Excelsior, first vice president; T.S. Dakin, Putnam, second vice president; J.R. Postley, Metropolitan, recording secretary; T.F. Jackson, Putnam, corresponding secretary; and E.H. Brown, Metropolitan, treasurer. Porter’s also reprinted both the 12 articles of the new Constitution, which stated that the objects of the association were “to improve, foster, and perpetuate the American game of Base-Ball, and the cultivation of kindly feelings among the different members of Base-Ball Clubs,” and the report of the rules committee, under the heading, “RULES FOR MATCH GAMES, TO BE OBSERVED AT EXERCISE MEETINGS,” over the signature of Dakin, the committee chair. Of the 36 sections, amendments to 15 from 1857 were proposed, and one section was new. Of the 15 amended sections, four contained substantive changes:

16. No ace or base can be made upon a foul ball, nor when a fair ball has been caught without having touched the ground; and the ball shall, in both instances, be considered dead and not in play, until it first has been settled in the hands of the pitcher. When a fair ball has been caught without having touched the ground, the players running the bases shall have the privilege of returning to them.

Amendment — By striking out all the latter part of the section, commencing at the words (when a fair ball has been caught, etc.)

27. In playing all matches, nine players from each club shall constitute a full field; and they must have been regular members of the club which they represent, for thirty days prior to the match. No change or substitution shall be made after the game has been commenced, unless for reason of illness or injury. Position of players shall be determined by captains, previously appointed for that purpose by the respective clubs.

Amendment — By inserting after the words (position of players), (and choice of innings).

29. The umpires in all matches shall take care that the regulations respecting the ball, bats, bases, and the pitcher’s position, are strictly observed; they shall be the judges of fair and unfair play; and shall determine all differences which may occur during the game; they shall take especial care to declare all foul balls and baulks immediately on their occurrence. They shall together select a referee, from whose decision — in case of a disagreement between them — there shall be no appeal.

Amendment — The umpire shall take care that the regulations respecting the ball, bats, bases, and the pitcher’s and strikers’ positions, are strictly observed. He shall keep a record of the game in a book prepared for the purpose; he shall be the judge of fair and unfair play, and shall determine all disputes and differences which may occur during the game; he shall take especial care to declare all foul balls and baulks immediately on their occurrence, unasked, and in a distinct and audible manner.

30. The new section: In all matches the umpire shall be selected by the captains of the respective sides, and shall perform all the duties enumerated in Section 28 [actually Section 29], except recording the game, which shall be done by two scorers, one of whom shall be appointed by each of the contending clubs.

31. No person engaged in a match, either as umpire referee or player, shall be either directly or indirectly in any bet upon the game. Neither umpire, referee or player shall be changed during a match, unless with the consent of both parties, except for a violation of this law, and except as provided in Section 27, and then the referee may dismiss any transgressor.

Amendment — By striking out the word (referee) and inserting the word (scorer) in each place where the word referee occurs.

32. The umpires and referee in any match shall determine when play shall be suspended; and if the game cannot be concluded, it shall be decided by the last even innings, provided five innings have been played, and the greatest number of runs shall be declared the winner.

Amendment — By inserting (umpire) for umpires, and striking out the words (and referee).

Section 16 rescinded the privilege of runners to return to their bases without risk when a fair fly ball is caught in the air. Section 27 added the choice of innings at the beginning of a match to the duties of the captains, doubtless reflecting current practice. Section 29 added keeping a record of the game to the umpire’s duties (promptly reversed in the new Section 30!), and enjoined the umpire to call foul balls and balks unasked. The new Section 30 dealt with umpire selection and the duties of scorers. Section 31 (and others) added the scorers to the enumeration of game officials, at the same time dropping the position of referee, eliminated in Section 32 (and others). The number of umpires dropped from two to one.

The change in Section 16 may be seen as further encouragement to fielders to catch flies in the air, allowing the possibility of also retiring runners before they could return to their bases. The elimination of the umpire-and-referee system may reflect an alteration in the practical role of the referee; intended only to resolve occasional differences between the umpires appointed by their clubs, the referee by the close of the 1857 season, the most competitive to date, must presumably have become for practical purposes the sole arbiter.

Porter’s closed its article on the March 24 session with these remarks:

The party of base-ball or cricketers who failed to bring their regular players on the ground should be the losers, and no substitutes should be allowed, by consent or otherwise. Let this law be strictly enforced, and gentlemen who interest themselves in outdoor sports, or who feel any esprit de corps of the clubs they are attached to, will be on the ground to take a hand in case of a deficiency or of the absence of a crack player. Indeed, we should consider it more creditable for a club to have played a losing or uphill game with the loss of a crack player of their own club than to win one with the borrowed aid of an outsider. There is another point that we should wish to submit for the consideration of all lovers of outdoor sports, and it is this: whether there has not grown up of late years rather too much quibbling and special pleading, as to the construction of rules and laws, and the settlement of questions arising out of disputes between players, umpires, and referees. These nice distinctions do not promote that harmony and love of fair play which characterize all the amateurs and patrons of outdoor sports. It is very true that no flagrant departure from the settled rule and laws of any game should be submitted to; but we think it would be better in all cases to assume the referee to be ever in the right, and to bow to his decree whether it be right or wrong than to keep up a continuous series of wrangles, which cannot be made the basis of any satisfactory settlement to either, much less to both parties.

A third session had been scheduled for March 31, at which the rules committee’s report would be taken up for discussion. The New York Evening Express reported briefly on this session in its issue of April 1:

The Base Ball Convention held an adjourned meeting on Wednesday evening, at the Gotham, Bowery — Mr. Wm. H. Van Cott in the chair. A large attendance of delegates was present.

Two delegates (substitutes) were received from Osceola Club, and a vacancy was filled in the Excelsior Club.

The committee on by-laws reported that the code had been re-arranged, and they submitted the same. The report was adopted, and the committee was discharged.

The committee on selecting a place for playing on the Central Park grounds reported progress and was continued.

The chairman named the following committees:

On Rules: D.L. Adams, C. Place, Jr., T.G. Voorhis, G. Van Cott, T.F. Jackson, W.A. Sears, Francis Pidgeon, W. Cauldwell, A.B. Taylor.

On Nominations: A.J. Bixby, T. Tassie, C.W. Van Voorhis.

The report of the Committee on Rules for Match Games was taken from the table and considered by sections.

Dr. Adams amended the title of the report by inserting the name of the association.

Some discussion arose between members of Eckford, Metropolitan, Knickerbocker, Putnam, and Gotham Clubs, as to the propriety of the amendments, and considerable time was consumed upon Section 13, in relation to the science of catching the ball on the fly. The ayes and noes were called for in this case as to amendment to strike out the last clause and lost, and the section as read was adopted.

According to Porter’s, which did not report on the March 31 session until April 10, the convention battled its way through the rules sections only as far as Section 18, perhaps due to the controversy over Section 13, the fly rule. Porter’s reported also that attendance at the convention was down from previous sessions. The Sunday Mercury, which had merely reprinted (without attribution) the Evening Express’s report in its issue of April 4, had by April 11 learned that the vote against amending Section 13 to replace the bound rule with the fly rule had been closed, 18 votes to 15, and on reconsideration, 17 to 13. Its report of the 11th also briefly covered the fourth and final session, held on April 7:

An adjourned meeting of the Base Ball Convention was held at the Gotham, on Wednesday evening last, when the rules of the game, as reported by the committee, were taken up section by section, and adopted. The following additions were made to the rules; otherwise, there was very little change made from the (committee’s) report:

Sec. 37. No person that may be in arrears to any club that he may have belonged to previous to the one he is then a member of, shall be competent to play in a match until such arrears are paid.

The above amendment was proposed by Mr. Pidgeon [Francis Pidgeon, a well-known pitcher of the Eckford Club of Brooklyn, at some point, had become a delegate], as was also the following very excellent rule proposed by M. Voorhis.

Sec. 38. Should a striker stand at the bat without striking at good balls, repeatedly thrown to him, for the apparent purpose of delaying the game, or giving advantage to a player, the umpire, after warning him, shall call “one strike,” and, if he persists in such action, “two” and “three” strikes. When “three strikes” are called, he shall be subject to the same rules as if he had struck at three fair balls.

The rules as amended will be printed in pamphlet form, during the ensuing week, and each of the delegates will be supplied with copies for the use of their respective clubs. …

“M. Voorhis” is Thomas Griffen Voorhis, president of the Empire Club of New York, a non-player since 1856. Porter’s commented on April 17:

This rule (Section 38), although, doubtless, very necessary, is yet calculated to make some troubles, and excite disputes; what one umpire may deem to be “good balls,” another may only consider “from fair to middling,” and their decisions be continually excepted to.

Whether a “very excellent” rule or no, Section 38 was destined to be almost universally ignored by player-umpires. Reasons may perhaps be found in the rulemakers’ failure (until 1864) to provide a parallel penalty for pitchers who repeatedly pitched unfair balls and in the vagueness of this first hint of a “strike zone.”

By the time the Clipper published the new constitution, by-laws, and rules on May 8, further changes to those described in earlier reports appeared: In Section 16, the withdrawal of the privilege of runners to return to their bases after a fair fly was caught had been severely watered down: Runners could return without risk as long as they did so before the first pitch to the next striker. In Section 17, the striker was now considered the striker only until he reached first base, not until the ball was pitched to the next striker. Finally, the prohibition against playing for two clubs at the same time, Section 28 in the 1857 rules, was added to Section 27, returning the total number of sections to 37. The Constitution also had been altered: Three sections dealing with convention delegates were rolled into one, a new article concerning standing committees was added, and new sections were added to the articles governing dues and amendments. Unless both the Sunday Mercury and Porter’s simply ignored these alterations in earlier reports, which seems unlikely, they were inserted after the convention adjourned.

The Sunday Mercury on May 9 editorialized on all the new rule changes, and Porter’s reprinted its comments (again without attribution), with no further remarks, on May 15:

We had determined to publish this week the amended rules and regulations of the game, as adopted by the late base ball convention; but as there is so little difference between the new and the old rules, it is hardly necessary to reprint them in full. We shall merely glance at the amendments that have been made. …

(Section 16) The new rule, it will be seen, affords a possibility for a player running bases to be put out, which was not the case under the old rule; but he must be an “orful slow coach,” who could not return to his base before the ball pass through the operation necessary to render it of legal effect.

(Section 30) Under the old rules, each club engaged in a match had an umpire, whose business it was to be “judges of fair and unfair play, and determine all the differences which might occur during the game,” &c, and in addition to the umpires there was a referee, to decide points in case of a disagreement in opinion between the umpires.

The new rules make shorter work of it. The captains of the contending nines select one umpire only, who performs all the duties of the old referee and umpires combined, except recording the game, which falls upon the scorers appointed by the respective clubs. This is, perhaps, a more arbitrary method of doing the business; but upon the whole, we like it; it is more expeditious, and in the end quite as satisfactory. …

(Section 37) The last section is a very good one, and will, if strictly enforced by umpires, effect a desirable reform. It will do away with the system very much in vogue the last two seasons, of strikers refusing all balls thrown them until the second base is cleared.

The Sunday Mercury printed no wrap up comments on the meetings themselves (or may have on April 25; the issue is missing). Porter’s added to its comments on April 17:

We feel gratification in stating that throughout the discussions of the body the very best of feeling appeared to prevail among the delegates, and they seemed to be only desirous of framing such a set of rules as should tend to the encouragement and practice of a fair season of play at this invigorating and healthy out-door amusement.

At Number 30 Ann Street, where Frank Queen presided over the New York Clipper, they were far less amused:

BASE BALL … A convention of ball players assembled here a few weeks’ since (March 10), to take some action on matters connected with the game of base ball; that convention adjourned until the 24th of March, when 22 clubs were represented. There appears to have been some discussion concerning the junior clubs, and the proceedings were anything but harmonious. Among other business which engaged the attention of the convention, was the report of the committee on Constitution and By-Laws. This document proposes to call the organization “The National Association of Base Ball Players” — a misnomer, in our opinion, for the convention seems to be rather sectional and selfish in its proceedings, than otherwise, there having been no invitations sent to clubs in other States, and the Constitution permitting no one to be a member of the association who is under 21 years of age, as if our younger friends were in no wise interested in the enjoyment and furtherance of the game. National, indeed! Why the association is a mere local organization, bearing no State existence even — to say nothing of a National one. The truth of the matter is — that a few individuals have wormed themselves into this convention, who have been, and are endeavoring to mold men and things to suit their own views. If the real lovers of the beautiful and health-provoking game of base ball wish to see the sport diffuse itself over the country — as Cricket is fast doing — they must cut loose from those parties who wish to arrogate to themselves the right to act for, and dictate to all who participate in the game. These few dictators wish to ape the New York Yacht Club in their feelings of exclusiveness — we presume. Let the discontented, therefore, come out from among this party, and organize an association which shall be National — not only in name — but in reality. Let invitations be extended to base ball players everywhere to compete with them, and endeavor to make the game what it should be — a truly National one.6

The Clipper, of course, had a point, though during the 1857 season clubs outside Greater New York professing to play by New York’s rules were few — the Tri-Mountain Club in Boston (founded by a former Knickerbocker), the Niagara Club of Buffalo (founded by a former Excelsior), a group in distant Detroit, and an abortive beginning in even more distant Minnesota. Local papers in these locations apparently ignored the whole affair. The possibility, which occurs readily to modern observers accustomed to celebrating the joys of inclusiveness, that the NABBP could have been an umbrella organization for all the bat-and-ball games in other parts of the country calling themselves “base ball” — and which the nationally distributed New York Clipper, New York Sunday Mercury, and Porter’s Spirit of the Times all covered under that name — was apparently on no one’s horizon.

The ambition of the NABBP’s founders was to spread the New York code nationwide: the Massachusetts Game, the several forms of town ball, for instance in Philadelphia and Cincinnati, and other, less well-organized codes of play were, instead of being respected and assisted to develop, eclipsed in a short span of years, and relegated to baseball history’s dustbin.

It’s easy to be critical of the convention of 1858, and the press that took notice of it at the time certainly was. The convention was elitist: Opening with only the clubs that had met in 1857 is defensible as an organizational necessity, but the complete exclusion of the juniors, the apparent failure to make the minimal effort needed to reach the few New York Rules clubs outside Greater New York, and the tacit refusal to recognize as legitimate forms of “baseball” the other rule codes played around the country were not. It was secretive: it began with the significant step of forming a “national” association without motion or debate, and ended by apparently amending the new association’s constitution and its own rule changes after the convention had closed.

Finally, it was ineffective: The new called-strike rule would not be enforced by the new single umpires, whose enhanced responsibility for regulating the game on the field was left supported by nothing more than a gentleman’s agreement. The 1858 proceedings left much to be accomplished if the new association was to be successful in its mission to “improve, foster, and perpetuate” the game.

Notes

1. Eric Miklich, “Nine Innings, Nine Players, and Ninety Feet, and Other Changes: The Recodification of Baseball Rules in 1857,” Base Ball 5, no. 1 (Spring 2011): 118-121.
2. Porter’s Spirit of the Times, October 24, 1857.
3. New York Sunday Mercury, March 14, 1858.
4. New York Herald, March 14, 1858.
5. New York Sunday Mercury, op. cit.
6. New York Clipper, April 3, 1858.

The notice included a reminder of the requirements for membership and admission of delegates, and added that suggestions to the NABBP Committee on Rules and Regulations should be submitted immediately, since the committee would meet before the convention to draft its recommendations. The notice was repeated on February 27, and it noted that the convention would take place in “Room 23 (first floor) of the Cooper Institute, corner of Eighth street and Bowery, at 7½ o’clock.” Notices also appeared on March 8 in the New York Times and the New York Herald.

The Cooper would become better known to history as the site 12 months later of the Eastern coming-out speech of an obscure Western contender for the Republican nomination for president in 1860.

Cauldwell’s Rules Committee membership enabled him to print in the Sunday Mercury on March 6 insider information about the committee’s pre-convention deliberations:

It was suggested that Article 13 should be amended, so as to make it imperative that a ball should be caught on the fly (instead of on the bound, as at present), in order to put a striker out. In reference to this matter, the committee was equally divided in opinion, the argument against the proposed alteration being that while it might add to what is called the “science” of the game, it would tend to destroy the interest and spirit, by making batting less hazardous.

Much discussion was had in reference to Section 16, which it was proposed to alter so as to do away with the necessity of the ball being passed from “the pitcher to the striker,” before it is in play. The committee will recommend some alteration of this section, such as substituting the word “catcher,” in place of “striker.”

The committee will also recommend an addition to Section 36, which will prevent any one from playing in a match who shall, either directly or indirectly, receive compensation for his services by the club for which he appears.

It is also proposed that hereafter all matches shall be decided by one game instead of three, which, it is thought, will be a decided improvement, and will enable a great many more matches to be played during the season.

Rules changes aside, the Sunday Mercury had other expectations for the convention, chiefly dealing with the many clubs expected to apply for admission. New clubs had mushroomed during 1858, especially after the public attention generated by the Brooklyn vs. New York all-star games at the Fashion Race Course, which attracted up to 10,000 spectators.

The 1859 convention opened in the presence of delegates from 21 of the 25 member clubs. There were what might be described as growing pains — parliamentary chaos concerning the admission of new members, described by the Sunday Mercury, the only paper to publish the complete proceedings, on March 13:

… (T)he Committee on Nominations … reported that nineteen applications had been made to them for admission; but that only eleven of these had made their applications in due form. … The Constitution provided that all applications from clubs for admission must be left in writing with the recording secretary — at least one month before the annual meeting — setting forth the name of the club, date of its organization, days and place of playing, number of members comprising it, and the names of its officers and delegates. As the provisions of this section were not generally known, and as it was represented to the Committee on Rules that several worthy clubs would be necessarily excluded on account of trifling informalities in the applications, referred to in the above report, that the committee had resolved to recommend an amendment to the Constitution which would remove the obstacles in the way of their admission. And, to facilitate this object, a motion was made by one of the committee … to suspend the Rules of Order, so that the report of the Committee on Rules might first be read and acted upon. The object of the motion was not generally understood, it was lost, and a great waste of time was the consequence. …

The report of the Nominating Committee was received, in regular order, and the eleven clubs reported upon favorably were admitted without a dissenting voice, and by a unanimous vote — this part of the business was done up brown.

A very natural desire was then exhibited to open the door of admission to the eight clubs reported by the committee as having been informal in their application. Without amending the Constitution, this was impossible; and to secure the end in the view, a motion was made to lay the further consideration of the subject on the table, till after the Committee on Rules had reported. But again, the object being misunderstood — or misinterpreted as an election dodge — this motion was lost, and full half an hour was lost in idle debate and parliamentary skirmishing, succeeded by a renewal of the motion to lay on the table, and to suspend sections 4 and 5 of the Rules of Order, which, this time, was carried; and that which might have been done in one half the time, and saved a great deal of bother, was finally accomplished. The report of the Committee of Rules was then read. …

The Rules Committee (Dr. D.L. Adams [the chair], T.G. Voorhis, T.F. Jackson, W.A. Sears, F. Pidgeon, and Cauldwell; three others were absent), dealing first with the association’s Constitution, recommended that:

… (T)he adoption of the following amendment to Section 2 of Article 3 of the constitution, viz: to add to said section the words: “Any informality or irregularity in the form or substance of the application, may be waved (sic) by a two-thirds vote of the members present at the annual meeting.” To Article 11 of the constitution, viz: to amend Section 1 of said article by inserting after the words “By Laws,” the words “or Rules and Regulations”; and after the words “on rules,” the words “at least one month”; to strike out “thereof,” and add the words “of such alteration, addition, or amendment to the Constitution and By-Laws, and a majority in favor of alterations or amendments to the Rules and Regulations.” Also to strike out Section 2 of said Article. [the latter because the changes added its contents to Section 1.1

The Sunday Mercury noted that the final change was made to “prevent hasty and unconsidered alterations from being passed,” a judgment, surely, on the temperament of the delegates, and then summarized the committee’s submission to the convention:

The committee then discussed certain proposed alterations of the Rules and Regulations, without arriving at a unanimous conclusion as to their propriety; and determined to submit their proceedings to the association, that such action might be had as should accord with the views of the majority.

A motion was made that committee report in favor of the adoption of the following amendment to Rule 13, viz: To strike out the word “either” and all after the word “ground” [this covered the fly rule].

Upon the adoption of this motion, the members of the committee present were equally divided, and therefore leave it to the association to decide the question.

An amendment was proposed to Rule 16 [instructions to the pitcher to pitch good balls, as follows: To strike out the words “to the striker,” and insert instead, the words “over the home-base”; and by a vote of 4 to 2, it was determined to recommend its adoption.

An amendment was proposed to Rule 20 [governing obstruction by base runners], viz: to insert after the word “player,” the words “running the bases”; and by a vote of 5 to 1, its adoption was recommended.

The committee unanimously recommend the adoption of the following amendment or substitute to Rule 36, viz:

“Sec. 36. No person who shall be in arrears to any other club, or who shall at any time receive compensation for his services as a player, shall be competent to play in any match.”

The committee also unanimously recommended the adoption of the following new section:

“Sec. 38. Every match hereafter made shall be decided by a single game, unless otherwise mutually agreed upon by the contesting clubs.” The committee would also mention that it will be necessary to make certain alterations or amendments to others of the Rules, in case the amendment to Rule 13 should be adopted, in order to make them conform to the change in the character of the game — which alterations or amendments are, however, merely verbal — for which purpose they ask leave to make a further report, in case of such change.2

Several other applications for membership not submitted in time for consideration by the Committee on Nominations were then presented, and set aside until the committee could review them. Judge Van Cott was then re-elected as president. Sixty-three votes were cast by the 36 clubs now admitted to membership.

Next, still per the Sunday Mercury on March 13, the meeting had to move:

It is the rule at the Cooper Institute to “turn off the gas,” precisely at half-past ten o’clock, and as that time had very nearly arrived, and the building had to be vacated, a recess was taken to the “Gotham” [the Gotham Inn, site of the 1858 convention, was a five-minute walk to the south along the Bowery] to finish the business of election, which the Constitution requires shall be accomplished “on the night of the second Wednesday in March.” The election of officers was completed at the Gotham; all the remaining incumbent officers were re-elected.

Cauldwell closed by expressing his opposition to the “fly rule”:

Strenuous efforts will be made to alter section 13 of the Rules and Regulations, so as to make it imperative that the ball from the bat shall be caught on the fly, to put the striker out; and if this be adopted, then will follow an increase in the number of fielders in a match, an extension of the distance between the bases, and so forth and so on. We doubt much whether the contemplated alteration will be made. It may be an improvement, but we think not. The Rules are “pretty good” as they stand, and they should be touched tenderly, and tinkered as little as possible. No vital change should be attempted, unless good and sufficient grounds for it can be presented.

The convention reconvened on Tuesday evening, March 15, again at the Cooper Institute, with 63 delegates in attendance. After a second report by the Committee on Nominations, the eight clubs not admitted on March 9 because of “informalities” in their applications were seated, including the first club from outside Greater New York City, the Niagara Club of Buffalo. Members of the Standing Committees on Rules and Regulations and Nominations were announced. Joining the Rules committee were N.B. Law of the Continental Club and Louis Wadsworth of the Gotham Club. Consideration then began on the report of the Committee on Rules, as the Sunday Mercury reported on March 20:

… (R)ead by the chairman of the committee, Dr. Adams, who moved to amend Rule 1st, so that the ball used in the game shall weigh not less than five and a half, or more than six ounces, avoirdupois; and to measure not less than nine and three quarters, or more than ten inches in circumference. Mr. Voorhis moved as an amendment to the amendment, that the ball shall weigh not less than five and three-quarters, nor more than six ounces, which amendment was accepted by the mover, and the amendment, as amended, was adopted, by a vote of 38 to 17.

A lengthy discussion ensued upon a proposition to amend Rule 13, by striking out the word “either,” and also “or upon the first bound,” thus making it imperative that balls from the bat should be caught on the fly, in order to put out the striker. The debate was brought to a close by a call for the previous question, which prevailed; and the proposed amendment was lost by the following decisive vote: [the vote of each delegate was listed. There were 47 noes and 15 ayes; Cauldwell’s name was not listed among the voters]

… A motion was made (by way of a clincher) to reconsider the vote, and that motion was laid upon the table.

Mr. Pidgeon then moved that Rule 13 be amended by striking out the words “with or without having touched the ground, or,” with the view of doing away altogether with catching the ball on the fly.” But the motion was made without any idea of its being adopted, and was quickly tabled.

The amendment to Rule 16, proposed by the Committee on Rules, was then submitted, and Mr. Dawson moved as an amendment to the amendment, that after the word “ground,” be inserted the words: “And the ball shall in the former instance be considered dead and not in play until it shall first have been settled in the hands of the pitcher. In either case the players running the bases shall return to them.”

Another lengthy discussion ensued, which was cut off by a call for the previous question; and the rule, as amended, was adopted. … It will be seen that this amendment to Rule 16 does away with the necessity of the ball being “first pitched to the striker” before it is in play. And a ball which has been caught on the fly, will not (as heretofore) have to be settled in the pitcher’s hands, before it is in play. The new Rule will, we think, make the game more lively, and the players more spry.

In terms of its immediate effect on the game on the field, the adjustment to Rule 16 was easily the most significant of 1859. It may be viewed as a sop to the disappointed hopes of fly-rule supporters, as it increased the benefit of catching flies in the air instead of on the bound. It produced immense confusion among baserunners. The first triple plays were recorded during the 1859 season, as baserunners were caught off base on fair caught flies. The Sunday Mercury, which answered correspondence in its columns, was inundated over the course of the season with inquiries about the proper application of Rule 16. With regard to the downsizing of the ball, the New York Clipper had commented on March 19 that the present ball “is too heavy and too large for the hands, hence the number of fingers knocked out of joint” — with which the convention apparently agreed.

Review of the committee’s recommendations continued:

The proposition to amend Rule 20, by adding, after the word “player,” “running the bases,” was then considered. And the amendment was lost.

The amendment, or substitute for Rule 36 [forbidding the compensation of players], was then considered, and adopted.3

Significant for the embryonic “business of baseball,” the new language in Rule 36 — “or who shall at any time receive compensation for his services as a player” — did not include the phrase “directly or indirectly,” which Cauldwell had earlier reported would appear in the Rules Committee’s recommendation. The omission evidently was interpreted by the clubs that compensated players indirectly by waiving their dues or providing them with a “situation” (that is, employment) to mean that they could continue to do so, and that only payment of a direct wage was enjoined. Over the next several years, clubs seeking to enroll expert players who did not otherwise fit a club’s social status continued the practice. This even included the clubs regarded as of the most gentlemanly integrity, for example the Knickerbocker and Gotham of New York and the Excelsior of Brooklyn. After the Civil War, at least as early as the season of 1865, the line between direct and indirect compensation began to be crossed with impunity. By then the press was differentiating openly between amateur and professional players.

Finally, a new rule, Section 38, was added, replacing the standard two-out-of-three-game matches with single matches unless the clubs specified otherwise. In practice, all matches for the annual informal (but much prized) championship continued to be two out of three, it doubtless being felt that a team recognized as champion should not be dethroned by a single loss. After passing the constitutional amendments recommended by the committee without alteration, the convention turned to routine business, accepting the treasurer’s report and voting necessary expenditures, including a gift to the recording secretary, who was viewed as having devoted the greatest time, effort, and personal expenditure to the performance of his duties. A final resolution, proposed by Dr. Adams of the Knickerbocker, was adopted, recommending “the entire abolition of the custom of furnishing refreshments on the occasion of matches.” As Cauldwell commented, “A similar one was adopted last year, and broken on almost every occasion, and we fear this one will be also.” The convention then adjourned.

The Sunday Mercury closed its comments by listing the “Old Clubs” and “New Clubs” now in the Association. It had precisely doubled its membership, from 25 clubs to 50, which meant that some of the applications received too late for consideration by the Committee on Nominations before the convention were also acted upon at some point, presumably before the proceedings closed.

The New York Clipper weighed in on the convention in its issue of March 26:

The vexed question of catching the ball “on the fly” instead of “first bound” was also settled for the present in a most positive manner by a majority of 32 votes out of 62 cast. We should hardly suppose, however, that it will remain so permanently, since when the majority of players have attained that perfection in fielding, which many have already, it will reduce the “batting” part of the game to a nonentity, making an innings rather too short to be interesting. Rule 36 was also amended, and provides that “no party shall be competent to play in a match who received compensation for his services.” Hasn’t that rather an aristocratic odor, and does it not exhibit a rather uncharitable disposition towards poor players? …

A very necessary reduction in the size and weight of the ball was also determined upon: formerly it was not less than six, or more than six and one-quarter ounces in weight, and not less than ten or more than ten and one-quarter inches in circumference; but hereafter, it is not to weigh less than five and three-quarters or more than six ounces avoirdupois; its measurement is not to be less than nine and three-quarters, nor to exceed ten inches in circumference. Altogether it was an enthusiastic meeting. …

Porter’s Spirit of the Times had carried on, despite the death of publisher-editor William T. Porter in July of 1858, and in its comments on the convention on March 19 continued to express its concern about the effects of regulation that it had voiced after the 1858 convention:

We are unable to give, in this number of the SPIRIT, any extended report of the discussions which ensued; but, of course, they were very animated, and must tend to keep alive the spirit which we hope will ever animate the clubs of this vicinity. At the same time, there may be too much legislation, and the love for the exercise may, in the end, be trammeled by rules and regulations, as to catching “balls on the fly” or “on the bound.” If gentlemen and amateurs would endeavor to simplify the rules and regulations, they will find their exertions, in the end, tend more for the encouragement of all out-door exercises — and for this reason, among many others that might be cited, that the mind, when disposed to relaxation, or the enjoyment of physical exercise, does not desire to be trammeled with forms and ceremonials. It is true, that for the preservation of order, and the carrying out of what may be termed the continuity of all games, the players must be subject to certain fixed laws; but these should be as simple as is consistent with the end to always be had in view, viz., the development of the physique of the rising generation, and the relief from the ennui and tedium which are the invariable accompaniment of the sedentary pursuits of business, or professional avocations.

… For instance, what can it matter in the long run whether a person in a match shall receive directly or indirectly any compensation for his services from the club for which he appears. … If, from any circumstances, personal or pecuniary, a lover of the sport cannot afford a day to travel from his home to play a match of cricket or base ball, and his brother members of the club are able and willing to remunerate him for his time and expenses, why should they not be permitted to do so? It is a good democratic rule, and tends to level the artificial distinctions between wealth and poverty. In the “Old Country,” the peer and the peasant are on a level on the cricket ground.

In the same report, by the way, there is another profound specimen of snobbism, as to “arrears.” How, forsooth, shall it be discovered, when gentlemen come upon the ground of a club to play a friendly game of ball, who or who is not in arrears? We presume there are some legal gents on the Committee on “Rules”; would they advise the filing of a “Bill of Discovery” the day before the match is to be played, in order to come at the fact? Or suppose that Mr. Hardup should be in that terrible plight of arrears, which barred him from taking the part of pitcher or catcher, would it be legal for Mr. Jollie Green to advance the needful? We presume not, because Mr. Hardup would be paid for playing; such dodges we pronounce most unsportsmanlike and ungentlemanly.

Fortunately for the inquisitive historian, Porter’s on March 26 printed the reply of Rules Committee member Pidgeon, who, calling himself the “parent of the bantling,” detailed the convention’s avowed reasoning in adopting the arrears and compensation rules:

(I) am still unable to see anything ungentlemanly or unsportsmanlike, in expecting every person to pay his dues, and play ball for pleasure, not profit.

I suppose you will admit that a man who does not pay his obligations, and has it in his power to do so, is a knave, and not fit to be trusted in a game of ball or anywhere else; and if he has not this money, his time would be much better spent in earning the same, rather than playing ball — business first, pleasure afterwards — this is all that need be said on that subject. …

As to compensation: you mistake the object of the rule entirely, when you attribute the passing of it to snobbish inclinations; “on the contrary, quite the reverse.” We will suppose, sir, you belonged to a club composed mostly of mechanics; that you had taken great interest in helping to build it up; had shared their victories and defeats, and become attached to them, and they to you, by these friendly ties, the existence of which is one of the charms of ball play; how would you like to see those you depended upon to uphold the name and fame of the club bought up like cattle; or if not bought, would you like to see the bribe repeatedly offered to them, to desert their colors? These have occurred, and it was thought best to nip them in the bud, and it was done without one dissenting voice.

You say you do not want to depreciate or throw cold water upon our intentions. I believe, sir, you do not; but could anyone be more unjust or unkind than to attribute snobbishness to us, when this rule was passed to protect ourselves against the influence of money, and give “honest poverty” a fair chance, and in a struggle for supremacy between clubs to let skill, courage, and endurance decide who shall be the victors.

The primary sources available for the 1859 NABBP convention offer the opportunity to examine the currents of opinion swirling around the baseball community before the Civil War. The “fly rule” controversy of 1858 returned, and the primary sources reveal that “fly rule” vs. “bound rule” was seen by “fly” opponents as not merely a matter of encouraging or discouraging “manly” play or athleticism, but as a change that would require additional changes to maintain a balance between batting and fielding.

The charges of elitism leveled in 1858 returned also, in reaction to the Association’s strictures against players in arrears on club dues or compensated for playing. The action against players in arrears on their club dues presumably reflects some difficulty in collecting dues from players. With an unknowable number of players having their dues waived in return for their services, a tendency by other players to avoid dues payment can be reasonably assumed. The final language prohibiting player compensation, not specifically forbidding indirect forms, seems to preserve a status quo.

The proponents of compensation, arguing on “equal opportunity” grounds, both for individuals and clubs, were nonetheless not advocating direct payment for play. In an era when gambling was endemic, it was considered deleterious to the integrity of the game, and was not a part of professionalism in cricket, from which baseball still took its cue in many respects. Direct pay as a common practice, legally or otherwise, would enter baseball after the Civil War, when enclosed fields, paid admissions, and payment of gate receipts to clubs had changed the business.

Notes

1. New York Sunday Mercury, March 13, 1859.
2. Ibid.
3. New York Sunday Mercury, March 20, 1859.

Many new clubs had been formed in 1859, so many that it was becoming difficult to find a place to play, particularly in Manhattan, where recently opened Central Park was not available to baseball clubs. The venerable Knickerbockers, who began their existence in Manhattan, had been forced to move across the Hudson to Hoboken’s Elysian Fields when the building boom overtook them. In its March 11, 1860, edition, the Sunday Mercury urged owners of vacant land to consider leasing their sites to baseball clubs.

A letter written to the Sunday Mercury on February 29 urged the city to grant players use of public grounds. It suggested that if local rail companies were to lease grounds to baseball clubs, they could generate significant revenue not only from the lease but also from the fares of spectators who would come to watch the games.

Most of the delegates at the Cooper Union were from the New York City area, but there were several from upstate, one each from Baltimore and Washington, and one outlier from Detroit. “We especially allude to those clubs at a distance, and in other states,” the New York Clipper noted in a column a couple of weeks before the convention, “for it must not be forgotten that this association is national in every respect, and is intended to include delegates from every club in the Union.”1 The 1860 gathering was a small step toward making baseball a national game, but it was a step nonetheless. The 14 clubs that had formed the NA two years earlier were all from New York City or Brooklyn.

The NA was typically a parliamentary organization, but in a departure from its usual formal procedure, it was agreed that clubs that had come a good distance to present their credentials should not be rejected on technical grounds.

One of the first items on the agenda was the admission of new clubs, and 21 were added, as follows:

Each new entry was required to pay a $5 admission fee and agree to pay annual dues of $5. Of the new clubs, 13 were from New York state, but the presence of eight from other states was encouraging. One club was denied admission. A gentleman on crutches indicated that he was from the Bunker Hill Club, but his club’s application was incomplete and was denied. At least one other application was withdrawn. The Forrest Club of New York had sent in an application prior to the meeting, but subsequently decided they were not ready and asked that it be withdrawn.2

After the business of admitting new clubs was disposed of, the delegates moved to the election of officers. After an inconclusive first ballot for president, Judge William Van Cott, who had served in the office for the organization’s first two years, withdrew his name from consideration, stating that he was honored to have served for two years but did not desire a third term. With Van Cott eliminated, Dr. Joseph B. Jones of the Excelsior Club received 54 votes, Thomas Dakin of the Putnam Club 35, and David Milliken of Morrisania 12. Dakin moved to make the vote unanimous, and Jones became the new president of the association.

Dakin was elected first vice president, Henry Shriver of Baltimore second vice president, J. Ross Postley recording secretary, Theodore F. Jackson corresponding secretary, and E.H. Brown of the Metropolitan Club treasurer. Postley, Jackson, and Brown had served in the same positions the previous year.

The next report came from the rules committee. Baseball was a relatively new game, and the rules evolved rapidly from year to year. The biggest controversy in 1860, as it was for several years, was whether to stay with the bound game, in which a ball caught on the first bounce was an out, or whether to change the rules to require that a fair ball be caught on the fly.

Before the convention, Henry Chadwick of the Clipper wrote, “[I]t is absolutely necessary that a few important alterations be made, prominent among which is the abolition of the catch on the bound, except in case of foul balls. We trust that there will be a large majority in favor of it, as it is the one thing needful to place the game on an equal footing with cricket.”3

The top teams generally favored the fly game, which required a greater degree of skill, while the less talented teams usually preferred the bound game. Many of the best teams, by mutual consent, played the fly game among themselves, but the standard rules of the game still allowed for an out if the ball was captured cleanly on the first bound.

The Rules Committee, chaired by Dr. Daniel Adams of the Knickerbockers, had met in February to make recommendations to the convention on rule changes, and Adams reported that the committee was unanimously in favor of the fly game. A debate then ensued, with Judge Van Cott supporting the bound version and Dakin and Frank Pidgeon of the Eckfords arguing in favor of the fly game. Thirty-seven delegates voted for the fly game while 55 voted against it. For another year, at least as far as the official rules were concerned, the bound game would be the game of National Association clubs.

There was much dissatisfaction with the result. The press was surprised, for they, particularly Chadwick, considered the fly game superior, “manly” versus the “childish” bound version.4“That it will ultimately be the rule of the game,” Chadwick wrote afterward, “we have not the slightest doubt, for the poor players cannot always be in the majority in the Convention.”5

Adams, a staunch champion of the fly game, was disappointed. One of the chief complaints of Adams and others was that the delegates who voted on the rules were not representative of the men who actually played the game. “One of our best ball players remarked,” reported the Spirit of the Times, “that if the clubs would send players to the convention instead the rules of the game would be made more satisfactory to the members of the Base Ball fraternity.”6

The battle over the fly game would rage for several years, as more and more clubs played it unofficially. The NA ruled by majority vote, and most of the delegates represented clubs that were not that skilled. They preferred the bound game, which was easier to play. If baseball was to become a more serious endeavor, however, its rules needed to require greater skill, and an organization consisting primarily of clubs that played for recreation was not going to bring the game to that level. It was not until 1865 that the fly game became the official standard for all NA clubs.

One of the recommendations of the Rules Committee, moving the date of the annual convention from March to December, was accepted. The committees were then populated, with the Rules Committee to consist of Adams, Dr. Jones, A.J. Bixby, T.G. Voorhis, and Pidgeon. The members of the Nominating Committee would be John W. Mott of the Eagle Club, J.H. Hill, W. Nicholas, and Milliken. After that final piece of business, the meeting was adjourned.

Despite the press of new clubs, the business had been conducted briskly. Apparently, the delegates had learned their lesson the previous year, when at 10 o’clock sharp, the gas in the Cooper Union had been turned off and the convention had to be adjourned with unfinished business still pending.

The delegates had done their duty and the meeting was over, but the entertainment was just beginning. Between 50 and 60 of the party went to Venn’s Racket Court in the Bowery, where they listened to speeches and drank champagne. Then Joe Leggett, star catcher of the Excelsior Club, took the group to the establishment of the Knickerbocker’s Mr. Welling, where they drank more champagne and heard more speeches, which were undoubtedly, by that point, much more interesting and tolerable.

Finally, at a late hour, the New York delegates escorted their Baltimore comrades to their hotel and brought the evening to an end. By that time, the animosity over the fly game had long been forgotten, and the only thought was of the great 1860 season that loomed on the horizon. That year was to be the most exciting in the brief history of baseball, but it was to be the last season before the Civil War, which put a serious damper on baseball activity; the number of delegates who attended the 1860 convention would not be equaled until after the war. The North and South were as divided over slavery and states’ rights as the National Association was over the fly game, and their rupture was to produce the bloodiest war in American history. The fly game would have to wait.

Sources

In addition to the sources cited in the Notes, the author also consulted numerous issues of the Sunday Mercury.

Notes

1 New York Clipper, March 3, 1860.
2 There were far more than 60 clubs in existence, but not all were members of the National Association. A number were junior clubs, comprised of youngsters, which did not send delegates.
3 New York Clipper, March 3, 1860.
4 The headline in the Clipper read “Re-Adoption of the Boy’s Rule of the Catch on the Bound!” (New York Clipper, March 24, 1860).
5 New York Clipper, March 24, 1860.
6 Spirit of the Times, March 24, 1860.

But even before the delegates of the NABBP headed for New York City, another part of the base ball community gathered to begin organizing for their common advantage. Still seeking acceptability and respectability in antebellum America, the NABBP clubs emphasized base ball’s “manly” characteristics and denied any suggestion of similarities to “boyish” games like rounders. According to historian Warren Goldstein, this at least partly explains the decision of the 1858 NABBP Convention to mandate that all delegates had to be at least 21 years old. By definition this prevented junior clubs from joining the Association and sent a message to the larger world that the NABBP was about grown-up business, not children’s games.3 Seeing no indication that these barriers would come down in the near future, some junior clubs, primarily in Brooklyn, took the initiative to form their own association. At the invitation of the Powhatan Club of Brooklyn, delegates from some 32 clubs gathered on October 5, 1860, at the club’s rooms at Joralemon and Court Streets. Not surprisingly, given the ages of the participants, the meeting was a very local affair with all but one club coming from New York state, primarily Brooklyn. In fact, almost 75 percent of the delegates came from the City of Churches or its neighboring Long Island communities with all but one other club crossing the East River from Manhattan. The sole representative from outside New York state was the Resolute Club of Greenville, New Jersey.4

While the junior clubs may have been less skilled on the base ball field, they apparently more than held their own in using parliamentary procedure. The conduct of the delegates even met the high standards of the New York Clipper, presumably, Henry Chadwick, who gushed, “Our councilmen, and even the legislature might have learned a lesson” from the “order and decorum,” not to mention the “degree of parliamentary correctness.” The delegates spent their first meeting electing officers and appointing a committee to draft a constitution and bylaws for presentation at a second meeting a week later. Not surprisingly, given the Powhatan Club’s leadership role in getting the process started, one of its members, Thomas J. Irwin, was elected president with George Dick appointed to the committee preparing the constitution and bylaws. Wisely seeing no reason to re-invent the wheel, a week later, again at the Powhatan Club rooms, the committee simply recommended adopting the NABBP constitution and bylaws with some minor modifications.5 Surprisingly after this good start, things apparently didn’t go very smoothly. Although the dues were only $1, by the first annual meeting in January of 1861, only 16 clubs had paid and, of those, the Powhatan Club had withdrawn after taking the lead in forming the organization.6 Since the Brooklyn club was also represented at the NABBP meeting in December, the most likely explanation is that the Powhatans had decided to become a senior club and had enough members over 21 to do so. (Technically, they only needed one to be an NABBP delegate.)7

Once the junior clubs wrapped up their affairs on October 12, attention turned to the meeting of the supposedly more “manly” group. The Clipper’s Henry Chadwick complained somewhat peevishly about his inability to answer questions regarding the location of the upcoming meeting. Never short of opinions, he found the Cooper Institute’s room “altogether too small,” and “too far up town” for delegates from Brooklyn, not to mention sportswriters, since Chadwick himself had the same commute.8 In the end, the delegates had to adjust not just to a different time of year, but also a new venue, the Mercantile Library at Clinton Hall, not terribly far from the previous meeting place at the supposedly too small and inconvenient Cooper Institute.9 Previously the home of the Astor Place Opera House, the building had been renovated only six years earlier to, among other things, serve as the new home of the New York Mercantile Library, founded in 1821 for the benefits of “clerks and business owners.” Anyone concerned with omens might have had some concern over the location’s history as the site of an unlikely riot between the supporters of two Shakespearean actors, American Edwin Forrest and William Macready from England.10 

Although the number of clubs present had increased slightly, the New York Clipper focused on the 27 member clubs not in attendance, a situation Chadwick felt might be caused by “the peculiar state of the times,” but which the writer thought was more likely due to what he felt was a mistake in changing the meeting date from March to December. Spring, he suggested, was a better time because players were more “on the qui vive” to begin play again than would be the case “at the close of a long season’s play.”11 Regardless of whether or not that was correct, absence from a March meeting just before the season began was a more likely indication that the club in question might have gone out of existence than missing a December gathering would be. An analysis of the missing clubs confirms that almost without exception, none took the field (or at least the base ball field) in 1861. It’s impossible to know to what degree this was due to the war or whether there was some other reason for abandoning competitive play.12

The reference to the “times” combined with the claim by the paper that cities from “Southern, Western and Eastern states” had attended the March 1860 convention, might suggest that among the missing in December were Southern ballclubs more focused on secession than the national game. However, a detailed look at the March attendees indicates only one “Western” club (Detroit) and only two (Washington and Baltimore) from south of the Mason-Dixon Line.13 In fact, both the March and December 1860 conventions were still very much Brooklyn and New York affairs. Fully 30 percent of the 55 clubs in attendance in December didn’t even have to leave Manhattan Island to travel to Clinton Hall, with a similar percentage needing only to take the East River ferry and some kind of horse-drawn conveyance. While there was no Western representative in attendance at the December meeting, the troubled times or the change in the meeting date didn’t seem to inhibit others with long journeys; Boston, Baltimore, and Washington were all represented, although not necessarily by the same clubs as in March. 

One significant new addition was the initial participation by Philadelphia clubs with the Athletic, Equity, Benedict, United, and Winona Clubs all in attendance.14 Before the New York game had even gotten started, the Olympic Club in Philadelphia was formed to play Philadelphia town ball.  They had been joined by other clubs from the city of Brotherly Love in playing this local bat-and-ball game, but those who traveled to Clinton Hall had by December 1860 seen the error of their ways and converted to the New York game. Their journey to New York was solid evidence that base ball would ultimately prevail in the Philadelphia area, ending town ball’s days as the game of choice. Enthusiasm about the attendance of the Philadelphia clubs may have waned somewhat when the Clipper’s Philadelphia correspondent reported that unless the local clubs chose cricketers as delegates “the sentiment” among Philadelphia players was “most assuredly to oppose the abolishing of the present rule,” [the bound game.15

Nor were the delegates from Philadelphia the only teams attending for the first time; 13 other clubs were making their maiden voyage to the convention. The roster of other first-time attendees was further evidence of some broadening of association membership beyond New York and Brooklyn. New Jersey had five new clubs at Clinton Hall, which were joined by three other “provincial clubs” from as close as New Rochelle and as far away as Rochester, New York. Some of the new members’ participation may have been at least partly based on an impending reduction in the cost of membership, since almost immediately after the roll was called the rules were suspended to amend Article Eight of the constitution to reduce the annual dues from $5 to $2. Not surprisingly, the proposal passed and immediately thereafter all of the new clubs’ membership applications were approved.16 With the new members in place, the convention proceeded to elect its officers for the coming year. It was probably no shock that the incumbent treasurer (E.H. Brown of the Metropolitan Club of New York) and the recording and corresponding secretaries (J. Ross Postley of the Manhattan Club and Theodore F. Jackson of the Putnam Club) were re-elected unanimously on a single ballot. Given the work involved in these positions, so long as these gentlemen were willing serve, it was unlikely anyone else was going to challenge them.17

These elections by acclamation followed what was apparently the only seriously contested election, the choice of a new president. Here the delegates had three choices: the incumbent, Dr. Joseph Jones of the Excelsior Club; Thomas Dakin of the Putnam Club of Brooklyn; and David Milliken of the Union Club from “provincial” Morrisania. There was no drama as Milliken received 55 votes to 33 for Dakin with Jones mustering only 10 for a second term. In accepting his election, Milliken modestly indicated he had arrived at the meeting with “no thought, or desire” to seek the post and promised to do his best to follow Jones’s example. Mindful as perhaps all of the attendees were of the threatening clouds on the national horizon, the new president stated that “he was gratified to find so sound a Union sentiment” at the convention. Having chosen a president from outside of Brooklyn and New York City, although not by much, the delegates followed suit with the vice president’s positions, selecting Colonel Dewitt C. Moore of the Athletic Club of Philadelphia and Burr Porter of the Newark Club.18

As with past elections, on-the-field performance was not an important criterion for election to an officer’s position in the NABBP. After coming close to the presidency only nine months earlier, Dakin, described as a “competent strategic pitcher,” was easily defeated by Milliken, who appears to have played in only one match for a 3-7 Morrisania Club.19 A 37-year-old merchant from West Farms in Westchester, wealthy enough to afford three servants,20 Milliken apparently offered a degree of dignity or respectability to the still relatively new association. A founding member of the Athletic Club of Philadelphia, the 35-year-old Moore was a colonel in the Pennsylvania State Guard and like many of the club’s founders a member of the Philadelphia’s Handel and Haydn Society.21 The Philadelphian was most likely chosen in recognition and support of the presence of the five Philadelphia clubs and their transition from town ball to the New York game. Like Milliken, new second vice president Burr Porter of the Newark Club, New Jersey’s oldest team, had made very few appearances in the club’s games in 1860. Also over 30, Porter was a college graduate and lawyer who, like his peers, brought added respectability to the Association, not to mention legal skills, if they should be needed.22 Both Moore and Porter won contested elections with the corresponding secretary, Theodore Jackson of the Putnam Club, finishing second both times. Like Porter, Jackson was a lawyer in his early 30s.23

Although leadership positions are always important, it seems unlikely that the choice of one candidate over another would have a significant difference in how the game was played in 1861. Far more important in that regard were decisions about the rules, which took up the bulk of the convention’s time. As a result, membership on the rules committee may have been even more important than elected office. With one exception, all nine positions on the committee were held by members of Brooklyn and New York clubs, with the City of Churches holding a majority.  While Manhattan clubs held only three slots, one was that of chairman, filled once again by the venerable Daniel “Doc” Adams of the Knickerbocker Club. While the only non-Brooklyn-Manhattan member didn’t get on the field himself, he had a voice far beyond the convention itself. William Cauldwell, a nonplaying member of the Union Club of Morrisania, was more importantly editor of the Sunday Mercury and most likely the author of the detailed convention coverage that appeared in that publication.24

All told the committee reported seven possible rule changes to the convention, all, but one of which it recommended the full body approve. The sole negative recommendation concerned Section 16, which covered situations when runners had to return to their base and/or could not advance, including when the striker hit a foul ball. The existing rule stipulated that runners could not advance on a foul ball and could also be put out before they returned to their current base. However, the same section offered some protection to the runner in requiring that the ball could not be used to retire the runner “until first settled in the hands of the pitcher.” Someone had proposed an addition to the rule providing for some unstated reason that on foul balls, runners had to return after the ball was put in play, in other words in the hands of the pitcher. Preferring to keep things simple, the committee emphasized that there was no point in establishing the exact moment that the runner had to return so long as it was before the ball arrived or he was tagged out. Perhaps more importantly, the new proposal would require umpires to watch “two points at the same time,” the pitcher and the baserunner. Probably trying to let the proposer down gently, the committee suggested that this problem “undoubtedly” had not occurred to him.25

Of the six remaining positive recommendations, one was the major issue of the bound/fly game while the other five appear to be adjustments drawn from practical experience. A recommended change to Section 1 that affected every player at every level was the weight and size of the ball. Based on the recommendations and perhaps pleas of “many old and experienced players,” the committee proposed to reduce the weight of the ball by a quarter of an ounce and the size by a half-inch to a weight between 5½ and 5¾ ounces and a circumference between 9½ and 9¾ inches.26 The so-called veteran players felt that considering the number of times the ball was thrown and caught, this perhaps seemingly minor adjustment could lessen the likelihood of major finger injuries, which the committee considered “the only painful reminiscences of ball-playing.”27 Based doubtless on the natural human instinct for self-preservation, the recommendation was adopted.28 The action marked the second reduction in the size of the ball from the 6-to-6¼-ounce, 10-to-10¼-inch sphere adopted in 1857, a process that continued until the final adjustment to a 5-to-5¼-ounce and 9-to-9¼-inch ball in 1872.29

Proposed changes to Sections 4 and 8 appear also to be drawn from practical experience and a desire to make fair/foul calls easier for players and especially for the umpire. The proposed addition to Section 4 would make mandatory a practice that a number of clubs had begun during the 1860 season and which the committee considered “not absolutely essential” but one that could provide “important assistance” to the umpire. If adopted, the amendment would require marking a fair/foul line between home and both first and third bases with “chalk, or other suitable material.” Establishing a fixed reference point would not only make the umpire’s job easier, but also would prevent some arguments before they even began.30 

While the visual assistance provided in the Section 4 amendment helped the umpire make the fair or foul call, the proposed change to Section 8 would eliminate one source of confusion about the exact definition of a fair ball. Previously if a batted ball hit a fielder’s hands in fair territory and then bounced foul, it was considered a foul ball.31 This obviously forced the umpire to delay his decision until it was clear that the fielder had made the catch. While for the batter such delay at most meant the wasted effort of an unnecessary trip toward first, the delayed decision could have fatal implications for baserunners. Required to advance on a fair ball that hit the ground, but prohibited from doing so on a foul ball, the runner had to strike a happy medium between going too far or not far enough. With the proposed rule change, batted balls hitting a player, the ground or “any other object” in fair territory were automatically fair and the baserunners would have a much clearer sense of where they literally stood. Given the condition of many of the fields of the day, the “other object” question was probably not academic but an indication that the committee wanted to deal with all the possibilities in one amendment.32

If simplification was the spirit behind the fair/foul amendments, clarification was most likely behind two other proposed changes. One was a proposed change to Section 19 spelling out the sequence to be followed in running the bases, not just in advancing, but also retreating. While not even the rankest muffin needed to be told how to move from first to home, some more creative players seem to have developed the strategy of skipping a base or two on the return journey after a foul ball. The proposed amendment eliminated the alibi that the silence of the rules on the subject could be construed as permitting such action or at least not forbidding it, something the Sunday Mercury insisted “was never allowed by the rules.” No explanation was offered for the proposed clarifying amendment to Section 28, which required the umpire to announce the winning club and sign both scorebooks before leaving the grounds. In the days before scoreboards, even manual wooden scoreboards, an official statement of the result was definitely a good idea. The proposal was almost certainly based to some degree on the famous or infamous August 23, 1860, Excelsior-Atlantic match, which was stopped because of the rowdy behavior of the crowd. The umpire in that contest, B. Thorn of the Empire Club, failed to announce a winner, sign the scorebooks or in any way declare a final decision, making a bad situation worse. He didn’t help the situation afterward by writing to the Sunday Mercury that in his opinion neither team won the game, but since one team didn’t want to continue (the Excelsiors) and one did (the Atlantics), under the rules the game was forfeited to the Atlantics.  Not surprisingly, all of these proposals received the approval of the assembled delegates.33

In describing the March convention, the Clipper praised the “commendable dignity and decorum” of the delegates. Whether it was the growing contention over the national crisis or the change in the meeting date of the convention from March to December, the paper reported decidedly more “animus” at the December meeting. While either or both of these possibilities could have contributed to the more tense atmosphere, it is more likely that discussing base ball’s most contentious issue for the second time in nine months explained some lack of “dignity and decorum.” In fact, at the end of the March meeting, Chadwick himself fanned the flames by not only lamenting the failure of the delegates to adopt the fly game, but also taking a clear shot at its opponents. Expressing his regret at the action or inaction, he wrote, “That it will ultimately be the rule of the game, we have not the slightest doubt, for the poor players cannot always be in the majority,” a position further endorsed by his paper with a headline describing the “Re-adoption of the Boy’s Rule.”34

As in 1859, the 1860 season saw at least one “experimental” match by the Knickerbockers and Excelsior Club played by the fly rule.35 Like the 1859 experiments, the game changed neither the hearts nor minds of either the pro-fly-rule Clipper or the opposing Sunday Mercury. However, further “on the field” experience did at least modify the Clipper/Chadwick’s enthusiasm for the proposed change. Writing in the November 10 issue of the paper just a month before the convention, Chadwick noted that while he had previously “warmly advocated” the fly game, his 1860 experience watching cricket matches in the New York area and Philadelphia had somewhat changed his mind. Apparently, the participants in the New York City area matches included some base ball players whose fielding was “conspicuous for its excellence,” especially compared to what he saw in Philadelphia cricket contests. Wracking his brain for an explanation for the smooth transition from one game to another, Chadwick concluded that it could only be that “base ball is a superior school for fielding to cricket.” By that, Chadwick meant that the two possible means of catching any batted ball in base ball required additional effort so the player could more easily handle the lesser responsibilities in cricket. Although he still thought it inappropriate to catch a ball on the bound when it could be caught on the fly, Chadwick now doubted that the proposed rule change would “improve the character of the fielding” as so “many suppose it will.”36

In spite of this modification in position by one of the leading advocates of the fly game and a March vote where the “poor players” prevailed by 55 to 37, the rules committee apparently felt the question was so clear that it wasn’t necessary to “recapitulate” the case for the change. They did, however, modestly and respectfully suggest that the change “would prove the crowning step in the progress and final perfection of the game we cherish.” A look at the makeup of the nine-member rules committee and their subsequent vote suggests something like a 7-to-2 vote in favor of the fly game. Further support for the committee’s recommendation came from a distinguished former opponent, Judge Van Cott of the Gotham Club, who not only changed his mind, but actually moved the approval of the amendment. Van Cott’s change of mind was apparently not so much due to a change in opinion as a feeling that the fly game should be given a chance “out of courtesy” to those who so fervently believed it would improve the game. In spite of all this, nine months consideration didn’t prove to be enough time to change a sufficient number of opinions of the supposedly less proficient; the proposal again failed, this time by a narrower 51-to-42 vote. In an attempt at accommodation that was a worthy example for those debating far greater national issues, the convention did approve a resolution offered by Thomas Dakin of the Putnam Club, allowing clubs that preferred to play the fly game the “privilege of doing so.”37

Given the importance of the issue and also, doubtless, the result, the Sunday Mercury provided a full recapitulation of the delegates’ votes, which Henry Chadwick also printed in the 1861 Beadle Guide. The New York clubs present at both 1860 conventions were against the fly game with the December vote 12 to 10 against. Of far greater importance were the Manhattan clubs present in March but absent in December, when a net loss of 10 negative votes advanced the fly game’s cause. Brooklyn clubs were decidedly for the new rule by almost 4 to 1, representing a major change from March, with the absent negative votes also helping the fly game. Of the provincial or non-New York clubs, only 10 were present in both March and December and they broke down almost equally on both sides of the question, only a slight change from March. All told, the clubs represented at both 1860 conventions favored the fly rule by a 10-vote margin, due primarily to the absence of the delegates who voted against the proposal in March. 

Unfortunately for the rules committee and Judge Van Cott, not to mention Henry Chadwick, the first-time attendees weren’t convinced by reason, “courtesy,” or any other rationale. As happy as the convention may have been to welcome the Philadelphia delegates, seven of the eight voted against the proposed amendment as did seven of the 10 new delegates from New Jersey, accounting for more than 70 percent of the 19-negative-vote margin from the new clubs. The net result was a nine-vote defeat, much closer than in March but probably of little satisfaction to the fly game’s advocates.38

In the minority on the rules committee but not the final vote was William Cauldwell, who, writing in the Sunday Mercury, didn’t find any “animus” in the fly-game debate, claiming instead that “the advocates of the fly game quietly acquiesced in the wishes of the majority.” He was, however, a realist and had “little doubt it will be adopted” at the next convention, especially if playing it more frequently proved to enhance the game. Cauldwell also suggested that some of the delegates who actually favored the fly game voted against it because their clubs had directed them to do so. In spite of all this, the sportswriter and Morrisania Club member remained unconvinced of the superiority of the fly game. Rather he believed that bound rule or no bound rule, players would catch the ball on the fly when possible, but that the incentive for recording an out “inspires players to make extraordinary exertions to take the ball on the bound.” Without the potential reward, Cauldwell doubted the same effort would be expended.39

By failing to eliminate the bound out, the 1861 convention ensured that it had no distinctive place in base ball history. The rule changes it did adopt clarified and improved the game, but marked no significant changes in direction. More noteworthy from a historical perspective was the participation of the Philadelphia clubs, which meant the New York game now covered most of the East Coast to at least Washington. In reporting on the missing clubs, the Clipper confirmed that a number had disbanded or merged into other clubs, while some simply hadn’t sent delegates. Among the latter group was the Hamilton Club of Jersey City, which about four months later held its organizational meeting for the 1861 season. It was literally the last entry in the club’s minute book as the meeting took place on April 11, 1861. The next day, the Confederates attacked Fort Sumter and the Civil War was under way.40 The 1861 season and the next four NABBP conventions would take place under very different circumstances.

Notes

1 New York Clipper, March 24, 1860: 387.

2 Allen Nevins, The Emergence of Lincoln: Prologue to Civil War, 1859-1861 (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1950), 322, 337-38.

3 Warren Goldstein, Playing for Keeps: A History of Early Base Ball (Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1989), 43-45.

4 Sunday Mercury, October 7, 1860: 5; Henry Chadwick, Beadles Dime Base-Ball Player for 1861 (New York: Beadle and Company), 16. Greenville is now part of Jersey City.

5 Chadwick, 1861, 16-18.

6 Sunday Mercury, January 20, 1861: 8.

7 Sunday Mercury, December 16, 1860: 8.

8 New York Clipper, November 10, 1860: 234.

9 Sunday Mercury, December 16, 1860: 8.

10 New York Times, March 2, 2003.

11 New York Clipper, December 22, 1860: 284.

12 protoball.org.

13 New York Clipper, March 24, 1860: 387.

14 New York Clipper, December 22, 1860: 285.

15 New York Clipper, November 24, 1860: 250.

16 New York Clipper, December 22, 1860: 284.

17 Chadwick, 1861, 9.

18 Sunday Mercury, December 16, 1860: 8.

19 Peter Morris, William J. Ryczek, Jan Finkel, Leonard Levin, and Richard Malatzky, eds., Baseball Founders: The Clubs, Players and Cities of the Northeast That Established the Game, (Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Co., 2013), 113, 115; Marshall O. Wright, The National Association of Baseball Players, 1857-1870 (Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Co, 2000), 50.

20 1860 US Census.

21 Morris et al., Baseball Founders, 234, 239.

22 Newark Daily Advertiser, March 15, 1871: 2.

23 Morris et al., Baseball Founders, 115; Sunday Mercury, December 16, 1860: 8.

24 Henry Chadwick, Beadle’s Dime Base Ball Player for 1860 (New York: Irwin P. Beadle & Co., 1860), 24.

25 Chadwick, 1861, 6, 12.

26 Chadwick, 1861, 11; Brooklyn Daily Eagle, December 13, 1860: 3.

27 Chadwick, 1861, 11.

28 Sunday Mercury, December 16, 1860: 8.

29 Peter Morris, A Game of Inches: The Story Behind the Innovations that Shaped Base Ball, (Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2006), 273.

30 Sunday Mercury, December 16, 1860: 8.

31 Wilkes Spirit of the Times, December 22, 1860.

32 Sunday Mercury, December 16, 1860: 8.

33 Sunday Mercury, August 26, 1860: 5.

34 New York Clipper, March 24, 1860: 387; December 22, 1860: 284.

35 New York Clipper, September 8, 1860: 165; Sunday Mercury, August 26, 1860: 5.

36 New York Clipper, November 10, 1860: 234.

37 Sunday Mercury, December 16, 1860: 8.

38 New York Clipper, March 24, 1860: 387; Sunday Mercury, December 16, 1860: 8; Chadwick, 1861, 12-14.

39 Sunday Mercury, December 16, 1860: 8.

40 New York Clipper, December 22, 1860: 284, Hamilton Club of Jersey City Minute Book, A. Bartlett Giamatti Research Center, National Baseball Hall of Fame and Library, Cooperstown, New York.

Although the Civil War may have had contributed to the lack of attendance of clubs from outside the New York/New Jersey area, the weakness of the NABBP was the main contributor. Without a presence in the parts of the country that produced large numbers of clubs, the effectiveness of the association regarding the implementation of rules and customs had no teeth, and as a result, clubs that wanted to be included in the NABBP felt there was no value to their admission. A national feel was not at all what clubs outside of New York and New Jersey felt.

The proceedings were convened at 8:00 p.m. at Clinton Hall in New York, the usual place and starting time for the gathering, by President D.E. Milliken of the Union Club of Morrisania.2 The first order of the night was to read the minutes from the previous year’s meeting, which were adopted, and then the treasurer’s report was disbursed and accepted. The amount in the treasury was $398.37.3 The collection of dues was then discussed. An impost of $2 for existing clubs and $7 for new clubs was collected. What did member clubs receive for the dues they submitted? That question must have been asked of the NABBP since it was born.

New club applications were the next order of business. The Favorita, Constellation, and Resolute, all from Brooklyn, were accepted as senior clubs after some discussion.

The election of officers produced excitement, to say the least, among the delegates. Mr. Milliken, the president of the 1860 convention, was re-elected, becoming the first president of the NABBP to win consecutive terms. He defeated Joe Leggett of the Excelsior Club by 32 votes to 20. Leggett was synonymous with the Excelsiors. He was their catcher and perhaps best all-around player. He was responsible for “recruiting” Jim Creighton, one of the game’s best pitchers. Leggett had a reputation for being a highly respected figure; however, this convention would test that reputation.

Leggett did have issues with other clubs. For example, the dearth of Excelsiors included in the final match of the 1858 All-Star series, pitting the best Brooklyn and New York (Manhattan today) players against each other in a best-of-three meeting, angered Leggett so much that he avoided scheduling matches against the powerful Eckfords of Brooklyn. The Brooklyn roster contained eight combined Atlantic and Eckford members, while he filled the role of the Brooklyn scorekeeper. More likely, Leggett used this excuse to avoid the Eckfords and Mutuals, far more talented clubs.

Leggett pulled his club off the field in the third and deciding match against the Atlantic club in 1860, after he warned the Atlantics that the crowd needed to be better controlled. The match was declared a draw, and Leggett announced that he would never schedule a meeting against the Atlantics again. He kept his word. Leggett made sure the Excelsior opponents were as beatable as possible. A careful review of the club’s opponents during his tenure would strengthen that point.

Joseph Bowne Leggett was born in Saratoga, New York, on January 14, 1828. He began his playing career with the Wayne Club in 1856 at the late age of 28, then became an Excelsior the following year when the two clubs merged.4 Leggett was the vice president of the Wayne Club and continued in that role with the Excelsior Club through 1861. He became the Excelsior’s regular catcher in 1859 and their best all-round player. After an Excelsior loss to the Star Club, 17-12 at the hands of Jim Creighton on September 3, 1859, Leggett set his sights on procuring the young pitcher. Creighton held the Excelsiors scoreless in five of their nine innings. Once Creighton and his teammate George Flanly were “induced” to join the Excelsiors, in the winter of 1859, Leggett added to his legend by suggested that Creighton practice by throwing an iron ball to increase his arm strength as well as the speed of his pitches. Leggett’s athletic ability allowed him to handle Creighton’s deliveries, which in turn allowed the young pitcher to begin his ascent to the top of the pitching class. Leggett enlisted in the Union Army in 1861. The 37-year-old returned to Brooklyn in 1862, played sparingly that year and the following year, and became the Excelsiors’ president in 1864, before formally retiring in 1865. He took up employment with the Bureau of Excise in Brooklyn as a chief clerk in charge of receiving money paid for liquor licenses.5 This job came on the heels of Leggett’s working in the fire department in which “he has proven unworthy of the confidence of his friends.”6 Despite the fact that Leggett was known for his honesty and the expectations of fair play by his players during baseball matches, he was accused of embezzlement in 1877 and fled Brooklyn with cash “somewhere among the thousands…”7 He died in Galveston, Texas, in 1894.

Leggett’s anger would rise again in 1862 and be directed at the Eckford Club. As Jimmy Wood recalled, “We want­ed to play them, issuing repeated challenges. But their Captain, Joe Leggett, refused for the sole reason that he had become angered during the summer of 1862 when our Cap­tain, who was captain of a picked nine on which Leggett played, was presented with a souvenir ball. Leg­gett thought he was entitled to it and vowed afterward that so long as he was leader of the Excelsiors he never would permit them to play the Eckfords. He kept his word.”8

Leggett was next defeated in his run for the position of first vice president. There were four candidates for the position. Round one resulted in W.H. Hegeman, (Victory Club of Troy, New York) receiving 20 votes; Leggett, 19; Z. Voorhies (Brooklyn Club), 8; and K.M. Kellogg (New York Club), 3. Voorhies and Kellogg withdrew before the second round of voting, in which Hegeman soundly defeated Leggett, 41 votes to 17.9 Upon receiving the nomination, Hegeman stood and acknowledged the membership, as he was an unknown.10

Leggett finally won an election, that for second vice president, by defeating J.W. Dawson (Eureka Club, New Jersey), 38 votes to 26, but not without controversy. When Leggett’s nomination was announced, it was put forth that he be elected by one vote (without opposition). C. Thomas (Eureka) objected and asked that Dawson run against Leggett.11

The elected slate:

• President — D.E. Milliken, Union of Morrisannia, re-elected.
• First vice president — W. Hegeman, Victory Club, Troy, New York.
• Second vice president — J.B. Leggett, Excelsior Club, Brooklyn.
• Recording secretary — J.R. Postley, Jefferson Club, New York, unanimously re-elected by one vote.
• Corresponding secretary — Z. Voorhies, Brooklyn Club (Jackson, the corresponding secretary in 1860, was not a delegate).
• Treasurer — E.H. Brown, Metropolitan Club, New York, re-elected.

The report from the Committee on Rules and Regulations was asked for next. No recommendation for changes was reported by Chairman D.L. Adams (Knickerbocker).12 “A member of the Eckford Club proposed an amendment in section 31, by which the clubs would be in a measure restricted from ‘playing off,’ or delaying the game. Laid over.”13 According to Wilkes’ Spirit of the Times, this was a common practice in the recently concluded season.14

The new rule was proposed to read as follows.

Sec. 31. The umpire in any match shall determine when play shall be suspended; and if the game cannot be concluded, it shall be decided by the last even innings, provided five innings have been played, and the party having the greatest numbers of runs, shall be declared the winner, except as provided in the annexed subdivisions, if an innings is entered upon, and both parties have been at the bat, and those last at the bat have the greatest number of runs when the play is suspended, they shall be declared the winners.

The new rule created a group discussion. Judge Van Cott (Gotham), P. O’Brien (Atlantic), and T. Vanderhoef (Charter Oak) were the most vocal. Van Cott was for acceptance of the new rule since the intent was to eliminate “playing a club into the dark.”15 Vanderhoef was against the rule and made it clear that he felt the rule was not an improvement. Instead he suggested that a winner should be declared after nine innings and not five.16 A delegate from Newark suggested that the time of the sunset be known prior to the start of the game and no inning should commence after that time.17

Adams endorsed Vanderhoef’s proposal.18 Cauldwell (Union) favored any proposal to curb the growing issue; however, he stressed that the umpire of each match should be the person responsible for controlling the delaying of the game.19 Jones (Excelsior) and E.H. Brown (Metropolitan) concurred with Cauldwell.20

Finally, J. Mott (Eagle) proposed that Rule 31 remain unchanged, and this was approved.21 The 1861 rule would be used for the 1862 season. It read as follows:

Sec. 31. The umpire in any match shall determine when play shall be suspended; and if the game cannot be concluded, it shall be decided by the last even innings, provided five innings have been played, and the party having the greatest number of runs shall be declared the winner.

Selmes (Alpine) asked for the opinions of the committee on when a fair ball is in play, as defined in Sec. 16.22 Adams replied that “a fair ball is in play the moment it is caught; and although a player running a base is compelled to return, when a fair ball is caught, he is not compelled to remain on the base after having returned to it, if he has a chance to make another.23 Although not specified, Adams was referring to a fair batted ball caught on the fly.

In the end, no changes were made to the playing rules; it would not be the only time in the 1860s.

E.H. Brown (Metropolitan) made a motion that 500 copies of the rules be printed, including the proceedings of the 1861 meeting, to which Selmes (Alpine) added that the expense should not be more than $50. The motion was carried.24

Dr. Joseph B. Jones of the Excelsior Club proposed the following regarding the size of the National Association treasury:

“Resolved, That the President of this Association ascertain from the Presidents of the various clubs in good standing, members of this Association, the names of such and the regiments to which they belong, now engaged in supporting the Constitution and Laws of our Country, and distribute in the name of this Association, such surplus funds belonging to this Association, pro rata to each volunteer referred to. The amount to be drawn from such fund, to be determined by the President.”25 The treasury contained $400.26

Loud discussions followed and led to other suggestions. It was suggested that the families of the deceased should receive compensation.27 An unidentified member argued that those receiving money would feel insulted. Dr. Jones immediately defended his suggestion: “… [I]f he did feel insulted, he was no true Ball Player; that he should consider it an honor — it proving that he was not only thought of but also respected by the Association of which he was a member.28 A motion was made to defer any money to the “Widows and Orphans of the Ball Players killed in the war.”29 Initially the motion was accepted by the majority; however, the amount of money was relatively small, prompting new arguments. Cauldwell (Union) and Voorhies (Brooklyn) suggested that an entertainment benefit be organized for the soldiers’ families.30 A member of the Eureka Club of Newark announced that ballplayers belonging to Newark would be looked after by the Newark clubs. More heated discussion took place, resulting in all proposals to aid ballplayers and/or their families being rejected.

Editorially, the Eagle urged the Brooklyn clubs to do as the Newark clubs stated they were doing, and proposed a match or matches played on ice to raise money.31 By a vote of 30 to 25, the matter was defeated.32

An unnamed member asked for further enforcement of Rule 27. He was concerned about players who played for a club while members of another. The current rule stated that a 30-day period must elapse before a player could make an appearance for a new club once he left his original club.33 The rule was not changed. The membership was reminded that if violations of this rule were brought before the convention, the club found guilty would be expelled from the fraternity.34

The following committee and members were announced by the chairman.

• On Rules and Regulations — A.L. Adams, Knickerbockers; A.J. Bixby, Eagle; H.B. Taylor, Mutual; J.B. Jones, Excelsior; M.P. Masters, Putnam; W. Cauldwell, Union; P. O’Brien, Atlantic; J.W. Dawson, Eureka; W.A. Brown, Eckford.
• On Nominations — Wm. H. Van Cott, Gotham; Wm H. Bell, Eckford; J.E. Bloomfield, Empire.
• On Printing — E.R. Wilbur, Hamilton; W.H. Grenelle, Knickerbocker; J.R. Postley, Jefferson.
• Committee on Rules — A.J. Bixby, Eagle.

Roll Call

New York Clubs

• Knickerbocker — D.L. Adams, Wm. H. Grenelle
• Gotham — Wm. H. Van Cott, Jas. B. Mingay
• Eagle — A.J. Bixby, John W. Mott
• Empire — Thos Miller, John J. Bloomfield
• Metropolitan — John P. Lecoure, E.H. Brown
• Mutual — James McConnell, Anson B. Taylor
• Social — Wm. H. Wiltie, Clement J. Durgin
• Jefferson — C. Wright Kirby, J. Ross Postley
• Henry Eckford — Dr. W.H. Bell, H. Dalton
• Alpine — Reeves E. Selmes, James H. Pelton
• New York — Dr. K.M. Kellogg, J.H. Jacquelin
• Independent — Wm. Steele, Wm. D. Byrne35
• Union (Morrisania) — David Milliken, W. Cauldwell36
• Adriatic — Chas H. Thomas, Jas S. Clarke37

Brooklyn Clubs

• Excelsior — Dr. J.B. Jones, J.B. Leggett
• Atlantic — Peter O’Brien, F.K. Boughton
• Eckford — W.A. Brown, E.T. Jenkins
• Hamilton — E.R. Wilbur, C.J. Bergen
• Star — Frank Blydenburgh, W.W. Skaats
• Continental — J.E. Winans, W.L. Wood38
• Charter Oak — John O. Oswell, T.H. Vanderhoef
• Exercise — George Hardy, George J. Rhodes
• Brooklyn — F. Tappan, Z. Voorhies39
• Powhatan — A.V. Bergen, Geo. N. Dick
• Favorita — C.W. Cooper, Wm. B. Allen
• Resolute — R.S. Canfield, S.L. Beard
• Constellation — M.L. Sutton, J.L. Smith
• Olympic (South Brooklyn) – B. Vanbleak, Charles Condit
• Putnam — J. Pierce, M.P. Masten

New Jersey Clubs

• Newark — G.K. Coleman, O.R. Woodruff
• Eureka (Newark) — J.W. Dawson, C. Thomas
• Union (Elizabeth) — Wm. H. Woodruff, J. Ball

Other Clubs

• Good Intent (New Utrecht, L.I.) — W. Hedgeman, J.E. Dubois40
• Victory Club (Troy) — A.L. Hodgkin, W.H. Hegeman41

The following clubs were announced as no longer holding membership in the Association due to being in arrears for over one year.42

• Stuyvesant
• Monument
• Ashland
• Katydid
• Esculapain
• Hiawatha
• E Pluribus Unum
• Columbian
• Neosho (New Utrecht)
• Astoria
• Niagara of Buffalo
• Hoboken
• Vigilant
• Potomac of Washington
• Independent of South Brooklyn
• Poughkeepsie
• Detroit of Detroit
• Morphy of Brooklyn
• Champion of Albany

It was announced that the following clubs would be in arrears when the 1862 convention was called.43

• Baltic
• Harlem
• Pastime
• St. Nicholas
• Liberty of New Brunswick
• Lexington
• Chelsea
• Hudson River of Newburgh
• Enterprise
• Marion
• Excelsior of Baltimore
• Quinnipiac of New Haven
• Bowdoin of Boston
• National of Washington
• United
• Equity
• Athletic
• Benedict
• Winona
• Olympic of Philadelphia
• New Rochelle
• Malta
• Quickstep
• Baltic of Belvidere
• Continental of Jersey City
• Englewood of New Jersey
• Flour City of Rochester

The number of clubs that failed to maintain their membership and the clubs identified as being in arrears, 46 in this case, faced no penalties. They were still able to schedule matches against NABBP clubs; however, they were required to play by the rules put forth by the NABBP during those matches. As the Civil War continued, the number of clubs attending baseball conventions would slowly increase, but most would continue to be from the New York/New Jersey area.

Sources

In addition to the sources cited in the Notes, the author also relied on Beadle’s Dime Base-Ball Player Guide, 1861 and 1862.

Notes

1 Brooklyn Daily Eagle, December 12, 1861: 11.

2 Mears Base Ball Scrapbooks, Vol. 4; 1856-1868.

3 Sunday Mercury, December 15, 1861: 5.

4 William J. Ryczek, Baseball’s First Inning (Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland, 2009), 76.

5 Brooklyn Daily Eagle, December 20, 1877: 4.

6 Brooklyn Daily Eagle, December 22, 1877: 2.

7 Brooklyn Daily Eagle, February 9, 1878: 4.

8 Baseball of the Bygone Days; A Memoir by Jimmy Wood, ourgame/mlblogs.com.

9 Mears Base Ball Scrapbooks, Vol. 4; 1856-1868.

10 Ibid.

11 Ibid.

12 Sunday Mercury, December 15, 1861: 5.

13 Brooklyn Daily Eagle, December 12, 1861: 11.

14 Wilkes’ Spirit of the Times, December 21, 1861.

15 Mears Base Ball Scrapbooks, Vol. 4; 1856-1868.

16 Ibid.

17 Sunday Mercury, December 15, 1861: 5.

18 Ibid.

19 Ibid.

20 Ibid.

21 Ibid.

22 Ibid.

23 Ibid.

24 Ibid.

25 Brooklyn Daily Eagle, December 12, 1861: 11.

26 Porter’s Spirit of the Times, December 21, 1861.

27 Mears Base Ball Scrapbooks, Vol. 4; 1856-1868.

28 Brooklyn Daily Eagle, December 13, 1861: 11.

29 Ibid.

30 Porter’s Spirit of the Times, December 21, 1861.

31 Brooklyn Daily Eagle, December 13, 1861: 11.

32 Porter’s Spirit of the Times, December 21, 1861.

33 Mears Base Ball Scrapbooks, Vol. 4; 1856-1868.

34 Ibid.

35 As per the Brooklyn Daily Eagle, December 12, 1861: 11, and the Sunday Mercury, December 15, 1861: 7, this club was listed as hailing from Brooklyn. The New York Clipper, December 21, 1861: 283, and Wilkes’ Spirit of the Times, December 21, 1861, list Independent as a New York club.

36 Identified by the New York Clipper and Wilkes’ Spirit of the Times, December 21, 1861, not by the Brooklyn Daily Eagle, December 12, 1861: 11.

37 Listed as a New Jersey club in the New York Clipper, December 21, 1861: 283, Wilkes’ Spirit of the Times, December 21, 1861, and Sunday Mercury, December 15, 1861: 5 (Printed as the Adriatic Club). Listed as a New York club in the Wilkes’ Spirit of the Times, December 21, 1861. Thomas also listed as Thorne, Sunday Mercury, December 15, 1861: 7, and Mears Base Ball Scrapbooks, Vol. 4, 1856-1868.

38 Identified as a New York Club in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle, December 21, 1861: 11.

39 Tappan listed an N. Tappan and H. Tappan.

40 Only S. Morris listed as a representative in Wilkes’ Spirit of the Times, December 12, 1861.

41 Not listed in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle, December 12, 1861: 11. Only Hegeman identified in Wilkes’ Spirit of the Times, December 21, 1861.

42 Sunday Mercury, December 15, 1861: 5.

43 Ibid.

The 1863 meeting of the National Association of Base Ball Players (NABBP) was unique. The convention produced the first elected president not from a New York or Brooklyn club, introduced no changes in the playing rules for the only time in the NABBP’s existence, and paid homage to one of the first legends of pioneering baseball.

Blustery, cold winds filled the streets of New York on Wednesday, December 10, 1862. Inside the Lecture Room of the Mercantile Library Association at Clinton Hall, the sweet smell of cigar smoke, low murmurs, and occasional outbursts of laughter filled the air. Since 1860, the former Opera House on the corner of Astor Place and Eighth Streets had been the venue for the yearly meeting of the NABBP. The delegates, most wearing their best suits, exchanged stories about their clubs for the season just concluded. Some spoke lightly about the possibilities of meeting on the field in 1863 and others spoke about the meeting that was to soon take place, “the seventh of the National Association of Base-Ball Players.”3

President D. Milliken, esq., of the Union Club (Morrisania, New York) called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. and “after the minutes from the previous year’s meetings were read aloud,”4 the attending clubs and their representatives were announced. Those included the following.

New York

• Knickerbocker — Dr. Adams, W.H. Grenelle
• Gotham — W.H. Van Cott, J.P. Dupignac
• Eagle — W.M. Pease, J.W. Mott
• Empire — T. Miller, W. Caylor
• Baltic — E. Kingsland, J. Martin
• Metropolitan — E.H. Brown, J.P. Lacour
• Mutual — P. Smith, J. McConnell
• Independent — W.V. Bryne, W. Steel
• Henry Eckford — Dr. Bell, H. Dalton
• Jefferson — J.R. Postley, E.W. Kirby
• New York — W. Brower, G.T. Hewlet5
• Harlem — G.W. Thomson, A.G. Armour6

Brooklyn

• Eckford — W.A. Brown, R. Ketchum
• Excelsior — Dr. Jones, J.B. Leggett
• Atlantic — F.R. Boughton, S.A. Smith
• Star — J. Mitchell, T. F Jones
• Charter Oak — J.O. Oswald, T.H. Vanderhoef
• Continental — N.B. Law, J. Silsby
• Olympic — L. Fenn, H.K. Hotchkiss
• Resolute — F. Cowperthwaite, R.S. Canfield
• Constellation — J.L. Smith, J. Foster
• Brooklyn — A. Robbins
• Favorita — C.W. Cooper

Other Clubs

• Hamilton — C.J. Bergen, E.L. Wilbur
• Morrisania, N.Y. — (Union) — D. Milliken, W. Cauldwell
• Newark, N.J. — (Eureka) — J.W. Dawson, C.J. Thomas
• Newark, N.J. — (Newark) — H.T. Dusenberry, E.H. Dawson
• Newburgh — N.Y. — (Hudson River) — J.C. Adams, S.W. Miller
• Troy, N.Y. — (Victory) — R. Green, J. Adams
• Philadelphia, Pa. — (Athletic) — T. Fitzgerald, D.W.C. Moore

Wilkes’ printed the following on the attendance of the 1863 convention. “We were a little surprised that the Bowdoin and Tri-Mountain clubs of Boston, the Pioneer of Springfield, the Olympic and Adriatic of Philadelphia, the Poughkeepsie and Kingston clubs, together with those of Rochester and Detroit were not represented. But a moment’s reflection taught us that many of their members were performing patriotic duty in the Union army, and, in consequence, many of the clubs enumerated were temporarily disbanded.”7 Although the war may have provided a hurdle for clubs not in the immediate region, no club outside that area, except one from Michigan in 1859, had attended any convention to that point.

A fair number of ballplayers enlisted in the Union army. It was understood that if a player lived in the New York-Brooklyn-New Jersey area, for example, the North was the army that should be joined. That was not the case with Andrew T. Pearsall, who was the regular first baseman for the Excelsior Club of Brooklyn in 1859-1860. He graduated from Columbia’s medical school in 1861 and since the Excelsior Club did not play any matches in 1861 — reportedly 91 of its members had joined the Union army8 — Pearsall became a physician in Brooklyn. He disappeared during the winter of 1862, without leaving a forwarding address to friends or his former baseball club. Mr. Pearsall turned up as a brigade surgeon on Confederate General John Hunt Morgan’s staff. “While leading Union prisoners through the streets of Richmond, Va., he reportedly recognized one of the prisoners as a former member of the Excelsiors.9 The two spoke and Pearsall asked about Leggett, Flanley, Creighton, and Brainard.”10 Pearsall’s whereabouts made its way to back to the Excelsiors and he was immediately and unanimously expelled from the club.

E.H. Brown (Metropolitan) was called on to provide the Treasury report and announced a balance of $314.97,11 after expenses of $179.40.12 Annual dues for registration to the NABBP was $2 per club. New clubs were required to pay a $5 initiation fee.13

Three amendments to the rules were proposed and received by Dr. Jones (Excelsior), the chairman of the Rules Committee; however, because the committee did not present these to the convention committee prior to the 1862 meeting, no changes to the playing rules could officially be made. Two events had resulted in the Rules Committee being unable to forward its recommended changes before the convention. In March of 1862, Dr. Adams (Knickerbocker) resigned from the Knickerbocker Club as well as the Rules Committee, married, and moved to Connecticut. Judge William Van Cott (Gotham) traveled to Centerville, Virginia, in the middle of November to be with his 18-year-old son, Leonard, who had contracted typhoid fever 2½ months after enlisting in the 119th New York Regiment. Leonard died on December 3.14 Both Adams and Van Cott were important to the growth of baseball during its infancy.

Daniel “Doc” Adams joined the Knickerbockers in October of 1845, one month after they officially formed, and quickly became respected not only with the Knickerbockers, but with the baseball-playing community. He was elected vice president of the Knickerbockers seven months after joining. On June 5, 1846, he and two others were appointed to organize a match with the New York Base Ball Club.15 Adams was elected president of the Knickerbockers in April of 1847 and re-elected in 1848 and 1849. He is credited, initially by his own admission, with creating the position of shortstop. He recalled that he did not position himself there to plug a hole in the infield but to aid the outfield in getting the ball back into the infield. Adams made the baseballs that the Knicks used in the late 1840s and early 1850s.

On November 19, 1853, Adams, Duncan Curry, and William Tucker were appointed to codify a set of playing rules at the invitation of the Eagle Club.16 Adams was a director of the Knickerbockers in 1854 and 1855 and returned as the elected president in 1856 and 1857. At a Knickerbocker meeting in 1856, Adams and Louis F. Wadsworth proposed that nonmembers be allowed to participate in Knickerbocker intramural games.17 Their motion was defeated, but the event showed that some players wanted to explore other avenues of membership possibilities. During that 1856 meeting, Adams was appointed to chair a committee to organize a baseball convention for New York and surrounding clubs.18

Adams represented the Knickerbockers at the first meeting of the amateur clubs in January 1857 and was the chairman of the Committee on Rules and Regulations. At this meeting the distance between bases was standardized to 30 yards and the distance from the pitcher’s line to the center of home base was set at 45 feet. Adams also proposed that the “fly game” (fair hit batted balls required to be caught before hitting the ground to retire the batter) be used for all matches; however, that was rejected.

Adams umpired the third and deciding match of the New York vs. Brooklyn All-Star series, held at the Fashion Race Course in Queens, and called three batters out on strikes, the first year umpires were empowered to do so.

He returned as the Knickerbockers president in 1861 and left the club in March of 1862 after getting married and moving to Connecticut.

William H. Van Cott began in 1845 with the Washington Club of New York, one of the first organized clubs in the area. He became the founder and first president of the Gotham Club of New York in 1850. He remained president until 186019 and was elected the first president of the NABBP in March of 1858. He played in the first two historic Fashion Race Course matches in 1858, in Queens. Van Cott was highly respected by the New York/Brooklyn baseball fraternity. He was a lawyer and a New York City judge, serving 16 years. Three of his sons served in the Union army.

This was the only time in the 19th century that the playing rules were not altered. As a result, Beadle’s Dime Base Ball Player, the yearly baseball publication, was not printed for the only time in its history. The publication enjoyed a run from 1860 through 1881.

On recommendation of the Committee on Nominations, three new clubs be admitted to the Association:

• Keystone of Philadelphia, Pa. — J. Duffy, F.A. Frazer
• Knickerbocker of Albany, N.Y. — W.V.B. Wynne, C. Corey
• Mystic of Yorkville, N.Y. — C.W. Glover, W.H. Kelly20

It was announced that the Favorita Club and the Brooklyn Club, both from Brooklyn, had merged and become the Union Club. They would be recognized as such by the Association from 1863 on; however, they were required to pay dues for the 1862 convention as single clubs.21

Roll call was asked for a second time; the New York Times listed only 27 clubs and their delegates as responding.22 This was clearly a misprint due to the number of clubs that voted for the vice president’s seat. The number of votes, two per club except the Favorita Club and Brooklyn Club, which had one delegate each, is short by three votes. The following clubs, and their number of votes, were not reported by the Times as responding to the second roll call:  Mutual (2), Harlem (2), Brooklyn (1), Hamilton (2), Morrisania (2), and Eureka (2). No initial roll-call roster was printed by the Times.

Officer elections were held next. Col. Thomas Fitzgerald of the Athletic of Philadelphia Club, the editor of the City Item, was unanimously elected president.23 He was nominated by W.A. Brown (Eckford) and no one was put forth to oppose him. Fitzgerald was brought to the chair by Jones (Excelsior) and Milliken (Union), where he received a resounding applause and made a well-received speech.24 This was the first time the president-elect was not from either a Brooklyn or New York club, demonstrating the popularity of baseball, at least from an East Coast standpoint. 

Officers elected for 1863

• President — T. Fitzgerald (Athletic, Pa.)
• First Vice President — J.W. Dawson (Eureka, N.J.)
• Second Vice President — F.R. Boughton (Atlantic)
• Corresponding Secretary — J.W. Willet (Eagle)
• Recording Secretary — J.R. Postley (Jefferson) re-elected. (Postley was not only re-elected for 1863, he was reinstated to the position he had held since the inception of the NABBP.25)
• Treasurer — E.H. Brown (Metropolitan) re-elected

Two vice presidents were elected after three votes. The first run-off between Dawson and Boughton resulted in 28 votes for each. The second produced 27 votes each. Boughton won the third election 30 to 27, with J.C. Adams (Hudson River) receiving a vote.26

The Printing Committee retained its membership.27

The following were elected to the Committee on Rules and Regulations:

• J.B. Jones (Excelsior); W. Cauldwell (Morrisania); W.A. Brown (Eckford); W.H. Grenelle (Knickerbocker); W.H. Bell (Henry Eckford); T. Miller (Empire); H.J. Dusenberry (Newark); J.S. Mitchell (Star); and W.H. Van Cott (Gotham).28

Delegates of the Empire Club presented a protest against the Mutual Club, accusing the Mutuals of violating the rules of the game by using ineligible players during the 1861 season.29 It was decided that E.H. Brown (Metropolitan), J.B. Jones (Excelsior), and J.W. Mott (Eagle) would render a decision.30

The players in question, Ward and Dewey, were formerly of the Empire Club and joined the Mutuals for the 1862 season. The only reason for the Empire Club’s assertion, since no club was able to claim ownership over any player, was that these two players must have been in arrears regarding fine money owed to the Empire Club. Ward played for the Empire Club from 1857 through 1861. Dewey started with the Hoboken Club in 1859, then joined the Empire Club in 1860 and continued until the conclusion of the 1861 season. Ward appeared in six of the 11 matches for the Mutuals’ first nine and Dewey appeared in seven. Newspaper accounts of the games each appeared in never made any mention that they were ineligible, nor was any protest reported by any of the Mutuals’ opponents. Both players made the trip to Philadelphia in August.31

According to the Mercury, the committee met on December 17 at the Eagles room on Wooster Street,32 and “after a full hearing of the statements made by both clubs, finally deciding that the charges preferred having been proved, the games wherein Messes. Ward and Dewey took part are null and void, and consequently the balls lost or won must be returned.”33 No further evidence indicating that the Mutuals actually complied with the ruling was published, and it is doubtful that they did. Neither Ward nor Dewey played, at least under those names, in 1863.  Ward continued with the Empire Club in 1864 until he “retired” in 1866.  Dewey’s name never turned up again.

• Committee on Nominations: J. McConnell (Mutual); E. Kingsland (Baltic); J.P. Dupignac (Gotham).34

The business of the rules was addressed for a second time. “A communication received by the Committee on Rules was read by the Secretary, the Chairman of the Committee, Dr. Jones, previously stating that, though the suggestions made were indorsed by the Committee, owing to their not being received in time, and no meeting having been held, no official action could be taken in reference in the matter.”35

The first suggested amendment was to remove the words “or moves” from Section 6, changing the definition of how the pitcher balks, solely basing the infraction on his arm movement and eliminating body movement.36 The second referred to Sections 17, 18, 19, and 21. The words “touch,” “touched,” and “touching,” would replace “made,” “make,” and “making” regarding the bases. The reasoning was that in order to make a “base,” it must be “touched.”37 The final proposal concerned how runners might advance after a foul ball was struck. The phrase “and shall remain upon them” was to follow “and shall return to them” in Section 16.38 Now after a foul ball was struck and the pitcher held the ball anywhere on the playing grounds and the baserunner or runners were touching their original base, the ball and play was considered live, allowing all runners the chance to advance, at their own risk. Specifically, the proposal stated, “(I)n order that players running bases on foul balls shall not be allowed to move off their bases after returning to them, until the ball is settled in the hands of the pitcher, as they do in the cases of fly-catches, when a player can leave his base — if on it at the time — the moment the ball is caught, or immediately after he has return to it, provided the base is touched after the ball is caught.”39

Even though the amendments could not be officially accepted and implemented, the Mercury reported differently: “Every match next season will be played according to the above amendments, as the same having been endorsed by the Committee, only required the mere formalities of the by-laws, in relation to their reception, to have been gone through with to make them legal.”40 Wilkes’ reported that, even though the rules were approved, “it is optional with clubs to be governed by them.”41

The convention voted to have its proceedings published in the New York Sunday Mercury and the City Item (Philadelphia) among the numerous “obscure and unimportant papers” proposed by those in attendance.42

A mention of the death of Jim Creighton of the Excelsior Club seven weeks earlier was made and, on a motion from W.A. Brown (Eckford), the delegates voted to have a letter expressing the Association’s feelings sent to the Creighton family.43 Dr. Jones (Excelsior) spoke and denied that Creighton suffered his fatal injury during a baseball match. He said it was during a cricket match.44

The initial issue of the New York Clipper in 1863 printed a synopsis of Creighton’s career accompanied by statistical charts of his yearly baseball and cricket performances. Although he was listed as a regular member of the St. George Cricket Club, the Clipper reported, “We regret to say that not only was there not a solitary member of that club present at his funeral, save their worthy professional, Harry Wright, but to our knowledge, not the least action has been taken by the club, in reference to his death, in the way of resolutions of condolence to his relatives.”45 The Clipper continued, “The least that could have been done in the case was to hold a special meeting, as the Excelsior Club did, and adopt some resolutions in regard to the sudden loss of so valuable a member of their club.”46

One of the first legends of baseball, Jim Creighton died on October 22, 1862, about seven weeks before the Association’s meeting. His skill as a baseball pitcher and cricket bowler, coupled with his youth, vaulted him to iconic status. He appeared for three clubs in two seasons, Niagara Club and Star Club in 1859 and the Excelsior Club in 1860, almost certainly making him one of the first paid baseball players, if not the first.

The death of catcher Guysbert Vandenbroeck Holt (Henry Eckford) was announced. It was reported that he was accidentally killed while on duty with the Union Army.47 According to the Clipper, he “was shot while on picket duty in Virginia, while attached to the 18th Regt. of Brooklyn.”48 Holt was 21 years and 5 months old. He played for the Pastime Club of Brooklyn in 1858 and 1859, the Hamilton Club of Brooklyn in 1860, and the Henry Eckford Club of New York in 1861.49 He played his last baseball game on July 20 for the 13th Regiment, New York State Militia, against the 4th Regiment, New York State Volunteers. Holt played second base in the 13th Regiment’s 16-11 victory at Camp Crooke in Suffolk, Virginia.50 Holt was accidentally shot August 11 by the same 4th Regiment while returning to camp after a 24-hour guard-duty stint.51

The National Association of Base Ball Players was anything but when compared with the number of clubs existing in 1862. It served the East Coast and only a limited number of clubs at that. The East Coast, specifically New York, Brooklyn, and New Jersey, continued to be the heart of baseball’s pulse. The most heavily attended matches, the most print coverage and the best players all were from this area. Changes in playing rules originated in the area and were taken up by clubs elsewhere in the country.

Notes

1 Sunday Mercury; December 14, 1862.

2 Wilkes’ Spirit of the Times, December 20, 1862.

3 Sunday Mercury, December 14, 1862, Wilkes’ Spirit of the Times, December 20, 1862.

4 Sunday Mercury, December 14, 1862.

5 According to Wilkes’ Spirit of the Times, December 20, 1862. These clubs were not reported in other sources.

6 Ibid.

7 Wilkes’ Spirit of the Times, December 20, 1862.

8 William J. Ryczek, When Johnny Came Sliding Home (Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland, 1998).

9 Mears Base Ball Scrapbooks, Vol. 4, 1856-1868.

10 Ibid.

11 Sunday Mercury, December 14, 1862.

12 Brooklyn Daily Eagle, December 11, 1862.

13 Mears Base Ball Scrapbooks Vol. 4, 1856-1868.

14 green-wood.com/2015/civil-war-biographies-vail-walsh/.

15 Charles A. Peverelly, The Book of American Pastimes (1866).

16 Ibid.

17 John Thorn, Baseball In the Garden of Eden (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2011).

18 William J. Ryczek, Baseball’s First Innings (Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland, 2009).

19 Peverelly.

20 Information printed in Wilkes’ Spirit of the Times, December 20, 1862.

21 Sunday Mercury, December 14, 1862.

22 New York Times, December 12, 1862.

23 Wilkes’ Spirit of the Times, December 20, 1862.

24 Sunday Mercury, December 14, 1862.

25 Wilkes’ Spirit of the Times, December 20, 1862.

26 Sunday Mercury, December 14, 1862; Wilkes’ Spirit of the Times, December 20, 1862. Mears Base Ball Scrapbook, Vol. 4, 1856-1868 reported that Adams (Hudson River) was the person who opposed Boughton.

27 Sunday Mercury, December 14, 1862.

28 Ibid.; Mears Base Ball Scrapbook, Vol 4, 1856-1868.

29 New York Times, December 12, 1862.

30 Sunday Mercury, December 14, 1862; Wilkes’ Spirit of the Times, December 20, 1862. New York Times,, December 12, 1862, listed only Jones and Mott as being on the committee.

31 The statistical information in for this paragraph is derived from multiple sources. Marshall D. Wright, The National Association of Base Ball Players, 1857-1870 (Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland, 2000), seems to be the standard many authors refer to when listing club’s seasonal records and playing members. But the more I research total club matches per year and the players appearing in matches for a club, the less I consider this book as even marginally accurate. In this instance, the 1862 Mutuals are reported by Wright to have compiled an 8-5 record.  The July 19 match against the Gotham Club and the July 28 match against the Jefferson Club, both wins, were actually second-nine matches. The Mutuals’ first-nine record for 1862 should be 6-5.  Of the 13 matches Wright lists, he footnotes that in eight of those matches the box scores were not available. All are in fact available. Wright also states that Ward played in three matches and Dewey in five. I found contrary information and report so in this paragraph.

32 Sunday Mercury, December 21, 1862.

33 Ibid.

34 Sunday Mercury, December 14, 1862; Mears Base Ball Scrapbook, Vol 4, 1856-1868.

35 Sunday Mercury, December 14, 1862.

36 Ibid.

37 Ibid.

38 Ibid.

39 Ibid.

40 Ibid.

41 Wilkes’ Spirit of the Times, December 20, 1862.

42 Sunday Mercury, December 14, 1862.

43 Ibid.; Wilkes’ Spirit of the Times, December 20, 1862.

44 New York Times, December 12, 1862.

45 New York Clipper, January 3, 1863.

46 Ibid.

47 Sunday Mercury, December 14, 1862; Wilkes’ Spirit of the Times, December 20, 1862.

48 New York Clipper, December 12, 1862. Holt was actually with the 13th Regiment, New York State Militia.

49 This information was extracted from Mears Base Ball Scrapbooks, Vol. 1a, 1853-1859, Mears Base Ball Scrapbooks Vol. 1, 1860-1861, Mears Base Ball Scrapbooks Vol. 1, 1862-1863.

50 Mears Base Ball Scrapbooks Vol. 1, 1862-1863.

51 werelate.org/wiki/Person:Guysbert_Holt (1).

“I have the tabulations of the voting for the clubs belonging to the National Association of Base Ball Players to officially adopt the fly game,” he said in a loud and strong voice. Looking at his notes again, he could sense both eager and desperate stares from delegates urging him to reveal the results. “By a vote of 25 to 22,” Dr. Jones said, pausing briefly for effect, “the noes have it.”

There was an instant of silence, then the room exploded with cheers, jeers, groans, yeas, sighs, claps and boos. Immediately numerous discussions of the announcement overtook the attendees. Jones, understanding he was no longer in demand, exited the platform to join one of the verbal scrimmages.

The annual NABBP meeting was held in New York on Wednesday, December 9, 1863. The Lecture Room of the Mercantile Library Association at Clinton Hall remained the venue, as it had since 1860. Fifty-five delegates from 28 clubs attended.1 The highlight of the meeting was the discussion and voting on the adoption of the fly game; however, three changes specifically aimed at hindering the pitcher were added to the playing rules. Those did not receive the attention they should have.

According to the Brooklyn Daily Eagle and the Mears Baseball Scrapbooks, the following clubs and delegates attended. Emphasis of the printed roll call was placed on the acceptance or rejection of the fly game. The symbols designating ballots cast were as follows:

* Against the fly game

+ For the fly game

New York Clubs

• Active: J.S. Page*, H.A. Rogers*
• Eagle: P.J. Cozans*, S.F. Baker*
• Empire: R.E Selmes+, Thomas Miller+
• Gotham: W.H. Van Cott+, A.J. Dupignac+
• Henry Eckford: Dr. Bell+, W. Dalton+
• Jefferson: J. Ross Postley+, E.W. Kirby
• Metropolitan: E.H. Brown*, J.P. Lacour
• Mutual: S. Burns*, A.H. Williams*
• Mystic: C.H. Glover*, W. H. Kelly*
• New York: G.T. Hewlett*, W. Browner*

7 in favor, 11 against, 2 not voting

Brooklyn Clubs

• Atlantic: P. O’Brien*, F.J. Boughton+
• Constellation: E.W. Richardson*, W.L. Foster*
• Eckford: F. Pidgeon+, W.A. Brown*
• Enterprise; W.H. Murtha*, W. Dick*
• Excelsior: Dr. Jones+, J.B. Leggett+
• Hamilton: E.R. Wilbur+, C.J. Bergen+
• Olympic: L. Fern*, A. Melville*
• Resolute: A.A. Rogers*, F.H. Cowperthwaite*
• Star: M.M. Kelly+, H. Chadwick+

8 in favor, 10 against

Other Clubs

• Athletic of Philadelphia: Col. Fitzgerald+, E.H. Hayhurst*
• Eureka of Newark (New Jersey): J.B. Dawson+, C.E. Thomas+
• Hudson River of Newburg (New York): J.W. Miller Jr+
• Keystone of Philadelphia: J. Duffy*, H.D. Mullholland*
• Knickerbocker of Albany: G.H. Turner+, R. Headlam+
• Monitor of Goshen: B.R. Champion+, E. Dikeman*
• National of Washington (DC): C.C. Walden+, A.P. Gorman+
• Newark of Newark (New Jersey): E.H. Dawson+, F. Pell*
• Union of Morrisania (New York): W. Cauldwell+, D. Milliken+

12 in favor, 5 against

The fly game, requiring that a fair ball be caught before hitting the ground for the batter to be retired, was a concept initially proposed by one of the oldest clubs in New York, the Knickerbocker Club, at the first baseball convention, on February 25, 1857. The Knickerbockers regularly used the rule when they played intrasquad matches. Other area clubs also experimented with this alternative style of play. The Knickerbockers felt that the rule would require sharper talent, and thus elevate the overall skill level in baseball matches; however, the idea was voted down in 1857. No Knickerbocker delegates attended the 1863 convention, the first time ever that the club failed to appear at a baseball convention in New York. Although the two were not associated, the Knickerbockers were acutely aware of the change in the “gentlemanly” approach and the evolution of the game.

Matches between the top clubs, most of them from Brooklyn and New York, drew large crowds and could be more competitive than the Knickerbockers preferred. Player movement between clubs suggested “endorsements,” while the grandfather club favored amateurism. Ironically, the Knickerbockers may have been the first club to lure a player. Louis F. Wadsworth, regarded as the finest first baseman in the game, began with the Gotham club in 1852. As the Gotham club consistently lost, Wadsworth turned up with the Knickerbockers. He returned to the Gotham club in 1858, partly because of internal conflicts between old and new Knickerbocker philosophies and partly because the Knickerbockers were becoming less competitive. Did the Knicks pave the way for the Excelsiors’ approach in procuring Jim Creighton or George Flanly, the Atlantics’ promises to Joe Start or the Eckfords’ in capturing Joe Sprague? Baseball would move forward with or without the patriarch of the fraternity.

The Eagle reported, “When the question of the adoption of the fly game came up for action it elicited considerable discussion. In which Messrs. Cozans, Kelly, Page and Judge Van Cott took prominent part.”2 P.J. Cozans (Eagle) and J.S. Page (Active) argued against including the rule. M.M. Kelly (Star), perhaps urged by Henry Chadwick (Star) and Judge Van Cott (Gotham), were for the fly game.

The clubs in favor of adopting the fly game were Union of Morrisania, Excelsior, Empire, Eureka of Newark, Knickerbocker of Albany, Jefferson, Henry Eckford, Star, Hamilton, and Gotham.3

Clubs whose votes were split were Atlantic, Eckford, Newark, Constellation, and Athletic. “Messrs. P. O’Brien, Pidgeon, Col. Fitzgerald, Dawson and Foster, being in favor of it,”4 the Eagle noted, adding, “There were four absentees who would have voted for the fly game had they been present, and had Messrs. Boughton, Brown, Hayhurst, Pell and Richardson joined their brother delegates, the fly game would have been adopted.”5 According to the Eagle, almost all of the clubs opposed to the fly game “belonged to the muffin fraternity, whose fun the fly game would put a stop to altogether.”6 Could the adoption of the fly game have meant that a further separation between the top clubs and the rest of the clubs would widen? Absolutely, since the best clubs to this point held a superior talent advantage.  

As per Mears, “Of the above (referring to those attending the convention) five were absent at the taking of the vote on the fly, the vote being 25 against to 22 in favor.”7 That may have been the case; however, those absent are not identified. No indication of why Kirby (Jefferson) and Lacour (Metropolitan) did not vote was given in any of the sources used.

There were no reasons why the two top clubs in America, Eckford and Atlantic, should have been internally split in their feelings toward permanently adopting the fly game. Another top club, the Mutual, was staunchly against it. The talent these nines possessed was certainly capable of adopting to the style of play. Already clubs periodically agreed to play matches under the rule. Reports of their games had been sprinkled in the New York and Brooklyn newspapers since 1860.

While the voting officially shelved the fly game in NABBP games for the 1864 season, three rules handicapping the pitchers were added, in an effort to curb the trend of speed pitching and close the gap between pitching and hitting. Wrote the Sunday Mercury, “All present were convinced of the absolute necessity of putting a stop to the swift and wild pitching in vogue, and substituting in its place a delivery in which, imparting a bias or twist to the ball, and giving more scope to the judgement of the pitcher, are made the prominent objects in the view, rather than the speed of the ball, and the unfair method of trying to intimidate the batsman by pitching the ball at him rather than for him.”8 Speed pitching, not necessarily accurate pitching, was becoming more common. Players like Dick Thorn (Gotham), Bernard Hannegan (Union of Morrisania), and the game’s best pitcher, Joe Sprague (Eckford), continued to lead the way. Sprague was the most successful, leading his club to a 10-0 record and a second consecutive Silver Ball Championship in 1863. When the Eckfords faced the Unions on July 30, 1863, Sprague outdueled Hannegan, 8-4, striking out nine batters to Hannegan’s one, in one of the season’s lowest-scoring matches.

In another rule change, a second 12-foot pitching line was added to the playing field one yard behind the line instituted during the 1857 convention. (That line was 45 feet from the center of home base.) The pitcher was to wholly start and end between the lines. As the narrative of this rule reveals, it was to slow down those who were emulating Jim Creighton. This was the first instance of the rules directly changed due to the style and influence of a specific player. Creighton, who had died late in the 1862 season, was a pioneer in the art of speed and control pitching. The rule change could also be viewed as an attempt to curtail the Eckford club, which had won 20 straight matches from 1862 through 1863, and its pitcher, Joe Sprague, who had built a 19-game personal winning streak. Both accomplishments were unmatched in baseball history through the 1863 season.

The 1864 season would also be the first to officially empower umpires to call balls on pitchers who repeatedly delivered unhittable balls to the batters. As with called strikes on batters, pitchers first received a warning from the umpire. Umpires were instructed to call balls on a pitcher when he repeatedly delivered balls not within a batter’s striking zone. A batter received first base after the pitcher was issued a warning and three called balls. Since each umpire had a different interpretation of how many unfair balls pitched in a row constituted “repeatedly,” there was no standard in the number of pitches it took to announce a ball on a pitcher or a base on called balls to a batter. When this mark was attained, all baserunners were allowed to advance to the next base whether or not they were forced to.

These three rules were certainly important in the development of baseball; however, the language that allowed baserunners to advance one base after the batter received first base on called balls was intended to make pitchers be more accurate. Giving a batter first base on called balls and awarding all runners another base would be effective only if umpires actually called balls regularly. Batters received their bases on balls at relatively minuscule rates thought the 1860s.

Beginning in 1864, a pitcher would be required to have both feet on the ground at the time he delivered the ball to the batter. This change was another measure in line with slowing the speed of a pitched ball. Previously, some pitchers hurled themselves at the batter in an attempt to gain velocity.

The importance of the pitcher as a weapon was not fully understood nor was it accepted. Henry Chadwick, the pre-eminent baseball reporter, preferred that the pitcher’s role be reduced to feeding the ball to the batter. At various times newspapers agreed with Chadwick (perhaps simply because he wrote the articles) that the pitcher should deliver the ball to the preference of the batter in spite of the rules agreed upon for the 1864 season.

Efforts for a call to reduce the effectiveness of the pitcher can be seen in this article from the Brooklyn Daily Eagle:

The main question is, what is a fair ball? According to the rule, as it now reads, a fair ball is one pitched as near as possible over the home base and for the striker. The sentence “for the striker,” however, includes a variety of balls greatly differing from each other. Thus for instance, a fair ball for one striker would be one pitched about six or eight inches above the base, while a fair ball for another striker would be one as high as the hip or even the shoulder. In cases like these, when the batsman has indicated where he wants the ball-and this he should be made to do the moment he takes the bat- due allowance should be made for accidental inaccuracy of delivery. It is in cases like these that the words “repeatedly” and “after warning” contained in the rule specially apply, and not to balls which under no circumstances can be fair, such as ball pitched over the head of the striker, out of the reach of his bat; or on the ground before reaching the home base; or on the side opposite that he strikes from; or beyond the reach of his bat in front of him, or so close to him as to cause him to move to avoid being hit, provided, in this latter case, that the strikers stand sufficiently to the right or left of the home base as to allow balls to be pitched over the base without hitting him. Every ball included in this last catalogue is unquestionably an unfair ball, and should be so considered, and the penalty inflicted every time the rule is thus infringed.

Pitchers can avoid the delivery of these unfair balls whenever they choose to sacrifice their efforts for speed to that of the accuracy of delivery and also by attending to their pitching more and watches the base less. In reference to this latter point of play, all pitchers should follow example of the Excelsior players in 1860. The pitcher and catchers of the Excelsiors had regular signals whoseby the pitcher knew when to throw to the bases. This is the only right plan to pursue in playing this point of the game.

— Brooklyn Daily Eagle, July 13, 1864

With interpretation comes controversy, and this opinion piece was no exception. The author details the striking zone based on where a batter calls for the pitcher to deliver the ball. This is a very specific description from a period when only 40 rules were defined. This stipulation was not an NABBP rule and would not become a written rule until 1871, when the National Association of Professional Base Ball Players commenced its first season. Based on the rules agreed upon at the 1863 conference, this interpretation was not to be used by NABBP member clubs; however, it may have been used by many of the hundreds of clubs throughout America.

The article continued to attack a trend that grew each season since 1859. The author called for the pitcher to devote more attention to delivering the ball to where the batter preferred as opposed to trying to retire him, and to reduce his attention to what went on around him.

Clearly what was accepted or identified in the article as effective pitching was not the same as would be defined today.  Attempting to actually force batters to hit the ball where the pitcher (and, subsequently, the defending club) wanted was not the purpose of the pitcher, according to the mindset of early baseball men.

There were some section movements as a new rule was inserted. Section 16 in the 1862 rules became Section 17 in the 1864 rules. Sections 17 and 18 in the 1862 rules became Sections 19 and 20 in the 1864 book.  A new rule was added as Section 18 in 1864, paired with Section 17, which addressed how baserunners could advance on fair and foul batted balls. Prior to the 1863 convention, the playing rules stated that runners were to return to their original base after a foul ball, although the ball was considered live once settled in the hands of the pitcher, regardless of where he was on the field. A 21st century observer could surmise that once the pitcher held the ball and the runners were touching their base, they could advance at their own risk, which may well have been the case through the 1863 season. The delegation approved a more specific wording for foul balls. The 1864 rules stated that baserunners were allowed to advance on foul balls if they were touching their original base when the ball was settled in the hands of the pitcher anywhere on the playing field. These two acts needed to occur simultaneously. A thinking pitcher, running after a foul ball, needed to decide if he should catch the ball (on the fly or the first bounce) when a runner or runners were on base, because of where he would be in relation to the baserunner’s next base of advancement. He would also have to decide, if a teammate attempted to make a play on a foul ball, when he would accept the ball.

As for the convention, it was called to order at 8 P.M. by Colonel Fitzgerald, the outgoing president. He revealed that he had declined re-election of “the honor that was to be offered to him, as he was in favor of rotation in office.”9

After the reading of the minutes from the 1862 convention, the treasurer’s report disclosed a positive balance of $159.44.10 Next, the Committee on Nominations recommended admitting the Active Club of New York and the Monitor Club of Goshen.11 The Mercury reported that the Monitor Club did not submit credentials within the required time.12 The Association, which in seeking to build up its numbers almost never rejected a request for membership, deferred to past practice and ruled: “According to the previous action of the Convention in such cases, the error was overlooked and the club admitted to membership.”13

The outcome of a dispute between the Empire and Mutual clubs, first addressed at the 1862 convention, was announced. The matches that Messrs. Dewey and Ward participated in for the Mutual Club were declared null and void. Both had played for the Empire Club on 1861 and it was determined that they were ineligible to become members of the Mutual Club. The report was submitted and placed on file.14 (See the article on the 1862 NABBP convention for a more detailed explanation.) 

Besides submitting its proposed changes, the Committee on Rules and Regulations also endorsed the scoring system appearing in Beadle’s Dime Book of Base Ball.15 The committee was commended for the way it handled its duties for the 1863 convention.16 A single scoring system was proposed, the intention being to formulate a more accurate yearly tabulation for Beadle’s publications.17

The Association also updated its constitution. When a complaint was made against a player or club within the required three days of and incident, it now had to be done in writing and sent to the recording secretary as well as the player or club in question.18

In another change, the recording secretary was required to forward all charges to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. The committee was to issue a decision within 15 days. The secretary was then required to publish the results of the Judiciary Committee one time in two leading newspapers, the Sunday following the decision.19 A two-thirds majority vote was necessary to overturn a decision at the next annual meeting.20

Changes in wording were implemented to give the Judiciary Committee jurisdiction over disputes like the one between the Mutual and Empire clubs the previous convention, and that had to be settled by a specially appointed committee. Article 10 was changed from “on nominations” to “and a Judiciary Committee of five members…”21

Turning to the election of officers for 1864, the delegates approved the following:

• President: E.H. Dawson (Newark)
• First vice president, F. Pidgeon (Eckford)
• Second vice president, A.J. Dupignac (Gotham)
• Recording secretary, J. Ross Postley (Jefferson)
• Corresponding secretary, J. Seaver Page (Active)
• Treasurer, P.J. Cozans (Eagle)

The vote to elect Dawson, Pidgeon, and Page was unanimous. In the election for second vice president, Dupignac defeated J.W. Mr. Miller of the Newburg club, and in the election for treasurer, Cozans defeated E.H. Brown of Metropolitan.22

A number of clubs were in default of membership fees and were removed from membership. “Most of them have ceased to exist, the majority being merged into other organizations,” the Eagle reported.

The Eagle’s list: “Putnam, Exercise and Powhattan of Brooklyn; Social and Alpine of New York; Liberty of New Brunswick; Adriatic of Newark; Equity, Winona, Benedict, United and Olympic of Philadelphia; Quickstep of Bergen, N.J., the New Rochelle Club, Baltic of Bellville, Continental of Jersey City, the Eaglewood Club, Union of Elizabeth, Bowdoin of Boston. Excelsior of Baltimore, and Flour City of Rochester. The Baltic, Charter Oak, Continental, Harlem, Independent, Knickerbocker, Union of Brooklyn, and Victory of Troy, all of which were represented at the last convention, failed to send delegates this time.

“Unless they are represented next year, they will cease to be members of the Association, and therefore not eligible to play in matches with Clubs that are,” the Eagle wrote.23

According to Mears, the following clubs identified as being in arrears were reported as playing matches in 1862: Powhattan of Brooklyn, Alpine of New York, Olympic of Philadelphia and Bowdoin of Boston. As for those failing to send delegates to the convention, the Charter Oak, Harlem, Independent and Knickerbocker all played matches in 1862. 

It was reported in Mears that the Jefferson, Metropolitan, and Hamilton of Brooklyn had not played in matches for one or two years and it was not known if they were still in existence.24 It is extremely odd that such remarks were made, as all three clubs had representatives at the 1863 convention. In addition, Postley (Jefferson) was re-elected recording secretary, and Brown (Metropolitan) and Wilbur (Hamilton) were appointed by the president to the Judiciary Committee and the Printing Committee respectively. In fact, box scores for the Hamilton club in 1861 appear in Mears. The publication listed results for the Jefferson club in 1861 and 1862; however, no results for the Metropolitan club were found in 1861 or 1862.

The lack of attention on the part of the active clubs failing to pay their dues and the inaccuracies in the NABBP’s inactive list bring into question the importance of the “ruling body” and their awareness of their membership. Perhaps clubs felt it was not necessary to pay dues to a third party in order to schedule their own matches.

The president made appointments to the following committees.

• Nominations — Dr. Bell (Henry Eckford), C.E. Thomas (Eureka of Newark), and W.H. Murtha (Enterprise).25
• Rules and Regulations — Dr. Jones (Excelsior), P. O’Brien (Atlantic), F. Pidgeon (Eckford), W.A. Cauldwell (Union), H. Chadwick (Star), S. Burns (Mutual), A. Rogers (Resolute), J.S. Page (Active), and C.C. Walden (National of Washington).26
• Judiciary — Judge Van Cott (Gotham), Dr. Bell (Henry Eckford), D. Milliken (Union), T. Miller (Empire), and E. H. Brown (Metropolitan).27
• Printing — P.J. Cozans (Eagle), E.R. Wilbur (Hamilton), and J. Ross Postley (Jefferson).28

Fifty dollars was allocated for the printing of 500 copies of the rules and regulations. After it was mentioned that some clubs did not receive the books due them,29 recording secretary Postley replied that the Association had not received the addresses of some clubs’ secretaries.30 Clubs that did not receiving guide books were promised a refund.31 Fifty dollars was agreed upon as the salary for the recording secretary.32

The convention was adjourned and the 1864 convention was scheduled for the second Wednesday in December.33

The 1864 membership of the National Association of Base Ball Players remained anything but national. Relatively few states had representative clubs and all of the clubs were from the East Coast. Without at least establishing satellite outposts in the more active parts of the country, the NABBP could never become the governing body initially hoped for. The 1864 season would have been an ideal year to begin expanding as clubs from the East Coast began to tour more often, led by the Athletics of Philadelphia.

The Association’s clubs padded their schedules by continuing to play non-Association clubs without the fear of penalties, and the NABBP did not discourage it. Other than being the center of rules discussions for their membership, what was the purpose of the NABBP?

Sources

Brooklyn Daily Eagle

Mears Baseball Scrapbooks — Vol 4; 1856-1868

The Sunday Mercury

Wilkes’ Spirit of the Times

Notes

1 Brooklyn Daily Eagle, December 10, 1863.

2 Ibid.

3 Ibid.

4 Ibid.

5 Ibid.

6 Ibid.

7 Mears Baseball Scrapbooks — Vol 4, 1856-1868.

8 The Sunday Mercury, December 13, 1863.

9 Mears Baseball Scrapbooks — Vol 4, 1856-1868.

10 Brooklyn Daily Eagle, December 10, 1863.

11 Ibid.

12 The Sunday Mercury, December 13, 1863.

13 Ibid.

14 Ibid.

15 Brooklyn Daily Eagle, December 10, 1863.

16 Ibid.

17 Wilkes’ Spirit of the Times, 12-19-1863.

18 Brooklyn Daily Eagle, December 10, 1863.

19 The Sunday Mercury, December 13, 1863.

20 Brooklyn Daily Eagle, December 10, 1863.

21 The Sunday Mercury, December 13, 1863.

22 Brooklyn Daily Eagle, December 10, 1863.

23 Ibid.

24 Mears Baseball Scrapbooks — Vol 4, 1856-1868.

25 Brooklyn Daily Eagle, December 10, 1863.

26 Ibid.

27 Ibid.

28 Ibid.

29 Ibid.

30 Mears Baseball Scrapbooks — Vol 4, 1856-1868.

31 Ibid.

32 Brooklyn Daily Eagle, December 10, 1863.

33 Mears Baseball Scrapbooks — Vol 4, 1856-1868.

As the December 14, 1864, meeting date approached, however, there was at least some reason for hope, if not optimism. Although the Confederacy had not yet surrendered, Union armies were on the offensive everywhere and Abraham Lincoln’s re-election, only a month earlier, ensured that the war would go on and the Confederacy would ultimately be defeated. More specific reasons for optimism were available to any delegate who took the time on the day of the meeting to read the New York newspapers, which reported that Sherman’s army had completed its march across Georgia and was closing in on the gates of Savannah. Although previous hopes for peace had come cruelly crashing down to earth, here at last seemed some basis to hope that at least part of the 1865 season would be played in a peaceful and reunited country.1

By 1864 the NABBP had held a sufficient number of annual meetings for the participants not just to consider the issues, but also to evaluate the process itself. Some apparently believed, or at least suggested, that too many rule changes and amendments were being proposed and debated.  Perhaps not surprisingly, the New York Clipper (presumably Henry Chadwick) didn’t agree, expounding on Chadwick’s opposition at some length. Implicitly recognizing that while the game of base ball had been around for a long time, but that organized competition “can scarcely be said to have been in existence ten years,” Chadwick felt there was still more than ample room for improvement.  If, Chadwick argued, competitive cricket had been around for over a century and was still making changes, it was unreasonable to believe base ball in less than 10 years could have “been brought to that point of excellence which it is requisite such a national pastime should reach.” More specifically, the “Father of Base Ball” seemed to understand that significant rule changes, such as the introduction of walks for the 1864 season, would always require further clarification, especially for those he sarcastically derided as having “the most obtuse understanding.”2

Agreeing with Chadwick was the Sunday Mercury, presumably William Cauldwell, Chadwick’s sometime adversary on the fly/bound game issue and also a fellow member of the rules committee itself. Cauldwell’s belief in the importance of an effective process to develop rules was tangibly demonstrated in the amount of space he devoted in the Mercury to a detailed report of the rules committee recommendations and the supporting rationales. In case anyone missed the reason for going into things in such detail, Cauldwell emphatically declared that the goal was to have “more voting than talking on the night of Convention.” Clearly the committee also took the process quite seriously as it devoted four hours of “somewhat tedious work” to going through both the constitution and the rules section by section to come up with recommendations which they then made available to the delegates for their advance consideration.3 Cauldwell went even further on the importance of action over talk on the fly/bound game issue, saying the question should be put to a vote “at once” since everyone’s minds were already made up. In order to further expedite the proceedings, delegates were asked to be in room 5 on the second floor of Clinton Hall on Astor Place by 7:00 P.M. so the meeting could begin at 7:30 and adjourn by 10:00.4

Cauldwell may have been somewhat overly optimistic about the potential attendance at the convention, since he reported that over 50 clubs might send delegates.5 The actual result was far more modest with some 30 clubs in attendance, two more than in 1863, but reportedly the highest number since the last peacetime meeting, in 1860.6 An analysis of the clubs sending delegates shows that the convention was still a very local affair, most likely because wartime conditions limited travel from almost any place outside the New York — Washington D.C. corridor. All told, Brooklyn and New York City clubs made up almost half of the attendees with another seven from other parts of New York state. Only eight clubs came from outside of the Empire State, with the largest contingent from nearby Newark, New Jersey (4), followed by Philadelphia (2) and a lone club from the embattled nation’s capital.

The aptly named National Club from Washington and the Utica Club from upstate New York had the longest journey to attend the one-night meeting. Something else that stands out about the attendees at the 1864 convention is the high level of consistency in the clubs sending delegates in both 1863 and 1864. Just six clubs that were represented in 1863 (three each from New York City and Brooklyn) failed to send delegates in 1864. There were replacements for two of the New York City clubs, but none for the Brooklyn teams so that Brooklyn had only six clubs representing the City of Churches, a far cry from the last antebellum convention, when 13 clubs crossed the East River to attend. It was especially appropriate that the Knickerbockers were once again in attendance for what would prove to be a historic convention.7

If how the game was played on the field had evolved gradually during the Association’s relatively brief existence, so had issues about the makeup of clubs and the governance of the Association itself. One danger, real or perceived, was that a handful of players could form a club and have the same number of votes as clubs with 100 members, presumably the more established Brooklyn and New York clubs.8 Some of the blame or responsibility for the failure to win approval of the fly game at previous conventions might have been attributed by delegates to the problem of too loose a definition of what constituted a base ball club.  In the 1864 edition of the Beadle Guide, Chadwick claimed that “all, or nearly all, of those opposed to [the fly game] belong to the muffin fraternity”9 and this was presumably even truer of clubs with only token membership. The extent of the risk was probably exaggerated, but there was sufficient concern that the rules committee proposed a constitutional amendment requiring clubs to have a minimum of nine active players. The proposal clearly struck a responsive chord with the larger body, since the delegates apparently felt the committee hadn’t gone far enough, and the convention raised the number to 18. Perhaps related to this action was a further committee proposal to raise the annual dues from $2 to $5, which was also approved. Although the amount seems inconsequential today, it was another way to try to limit the participation in Association affairs by clubs that existed in name only.10

While the December 14, 1864, meeting dealt with major issues of pitching and the fly game, like most base ball meetings it also did some fine-tuning of other rules. One proposed rule change, which may have seemed minor, generated apparently almost universal strong feelings among the delegates and was also something of a constitutional issue. As baseball became increasingly competitive, the temptation for players to switch to a better team and for clubs to encourage or at least allow such behavior became far greater. To try to control the problem, at least to some degree, Section 29 of the NABBP rules required a player to be a member of a club for 30 days before playing in a match. Trying to tighten things up even further, the rules committee proposed that the rule also apply to players playing for clubs “either in or out of the convention.” The modification was apparently directed to some degree at junior clubs as well as other teams that weren’t members of the Association. The committee’s proposal was emphatically supported by Colonel Moore of the Athletic Club of Philadelphia and his speech was reportedly received with applause. Moore’s strong feelings on the subject were apparently due to his own practical experience with some clubs in the City of Brotherly Love. According to Chadwick, the applause “was palpably indicative” that base ball players wanted no part of what was apparently a common practice in cricket. Generously and perhaps hoping to attract converts, the new rule didn’t apply to cricket clubs allowing participation by what were probably a relatively small number of cricket players who occasionally wanted to play base ball, but weren’t interested in joining a club.11

Two other proposed changes apparently generated less feeling, but clearly dealt with practical issues based on actual experience. Although by rule bases were attached to base posts, an obvious practical question was what happened when the base became detached in one way or another during an attempt at a tag or a force out. The committee’s solution was to modify Section 16 so the key was not the base itself, but the place where the base had been located at the beginning of the game. If adopted, runners would be required to have some part of their body remain in contact with that spot regardless of where the base itself went. However, the delegates, almost all of whom presumably had practical experience as players, apparently didn’t care for this solution to the problem and rejected the proposal so the base was still the base, no matter where it ended up. No record survives of the content of the debate, but the existing rule was not an ideal solution since it required the runner to both reach and maintain contact with a moving target. The weakness of this and other possible solutions doubtless led to the future decision (and current practice) to fix the base in the ground.12

The other experience-generated change was a proposed addition to Section 24 that continued to be more important as the game itself grew more popular, attracting larger crowds sitting or standing behind first base and third base. It was then only a question of time before fan interference increasingly became an issue, not just in the case of inadvertent contact with the ball but also in the case of a spectator intentionally intervening to help the team in the field. Section 24 already provided that if a fielder stopped the ball with his hat or took it from the hands of a nonplayer, no play could be made on the baserunners until after the ball had “been settled in the hands of the pitcher.” The proposed addition added the same requirement where the ball was “stopped” by a nonplayer, which obviously gave the fielders an unfair advantage even if they had to retrieve the ball. The basic premise continued to be to give baserunners back some of the time or advantage gained by the ball getting past the fielder. Cauldwell, hoped, however that the change would also give teams incentive to keep the area behind both bases clear of all spectators, thereby eliminating the potential risk of interference, intentional or otherwise. Since almost every club was at risk to the potential problem, it’s no great surprise that the change was approved.13

While the proposals related to fan interference and the movable base were attempts to deal with issues that had likely been around for at least a while, proposed additional rule modifications related to pitching came after major rule changes introduced in the prior season. Reportedly responding to “the swift and wild pitching in vogue,” the December 1863 convention had introduced bases on balls as a penalty for wildness or an incentive for better control. After a year of practical experience, the rules committee proposed some further clarification of Sections 6 and 8 which was accomplished by changing only a few words in the rules. In outlining the penalty of a walk for throwing three balls, Section 6 stated the batter was “entitled” to first base and all other baserunners were similarly “entitled” to one base. Hard as it may be to believe (this may be the “obtuse understanding” Chadwick was talking about), some apparently interpreted “entitled to” as making going to first or advancing optional for the strikers or baserunners. All such interpretations were eliminated by the new wording, which left no doubt that the base must be taken. The proposed amendment to Section 8 provided similar clarification of what happened in case of a balk, but also stipulated that the striker did not go to first base.14

The logic of these further modifications on pitching and walks must have been obvious, because both proposals appear to have passed without difficulty. Further clarification of some other pitching-related issues was apparently not so crystal-clear to the delegates and the committee’s proposals didn’t fare as well as the prior amendments. One proposal was to make two changes to Section 7 with the goal of more clearly defining when the pitcher had to deliver the ball or be called for a balk. As approved by prior conventions, the rule mandated the pitcher must deliver the ball either when he “draws back his hand” or “moves with the apparent purpose or pretension” of pitching the ball.15 The first part of the committee’s proposed change was to eliminate the “draws back his hand” requirement, and the convention agreed.

Apparently not satisfied with this change, the committee tried to take things a step further and define “the time of delivery” as “any movement necessarily made to pitch a ball from the first motion of the pitcher’s body until the ball leaves his hand.” Chadwick favored this change, but suggested that the phrase “the pitcher’s body” should have read “the pitcher’s arm.”16 Cauldwell also agreed with the change and believed the proposed rule would somehow stop “the useless custom” of throwing to first base unless a pickoff play had been called.17 The Sunday Mercury writer’s concern about unnecessary throws to first seems to put him well ahead of his time and shows how long the practice has been an annoyance to at least some fans. Regardless of what the two influential commentators thought, however, the convention felt otherwise, rejecting the idea because of, at least as far as Chadwick was concerned, the mistaken belief that it “still further limited the movements of the pitcher.”18

The final pitching-related proposal was of far greater consequence than the issue of time of delivery and was a direct result of the 1863 amendment introducing called “balls” into the game (effective in 1864) for the first time. As originally passed, the new rule stated only that pitchers had to throw the ball “as near as possible over the centre of the home base” with the repeated failure to do so leading to a warning from the umpire, followed by calling three balls and the awarding of first base to the striker.19 It’s not clear if those who had introduced that amendment and/or those who voted for it in 1863 completely understood how hopelessly vague the term “as near as possible” to middle of the plate would prove in practice. Not surprisingly both Cauldwell and Chadwick recognized the problem and didn’t hesitate to chime in. Chadwick claimed that “No two umpires last season agreed upon what constituted a fair ball” (a hittable pitch), while Cauldwell claimed the rule as it stood was open to the “caprice of an umpire,” permitting him to favor one club over another, and predicted the proposal’s unanimous approval.20

Most likely the other members of the rules committee recognized the problem without the two men’s rhetoric and made an attempt to define a hittable pitch. Under the proposal a “fair” ball had to be pitched “within four feet of the hip of the striker,” could not hit the ground to the striker’s front or be pitched to the opposite side of his striking zone and also not “touch or come within one foot of his body.” Apparently either not as concerned as the two commentators or having some difficulty understanding the proposed definition of a “fair” pitch, the convention rejected the proposal. Not surprisingly, Chadwick found the action “strange” and claimed the voice vote was close. Considering both reporters saw many more games than the average delegate in the course of the season, this was at least one case where the convention would have been wise to heed their counsel.21

While it’s not stated in any of the newspaper accounts, it’s hard not to believe that all of the prior debate, as important as it might have been, was just a preliminary to the main event, the vote on the fly game. Having come so close a year earlier, the proponents had to have been optimistic while the opponents may very well have been gradually preparing themselves for the inevitable.  It’s also very likely both sides agreed with Cauldwell’s assertion that no more debate was necessary. Even if Cauldwell felt that way about convention debate, however, he wasn’t about to withhold his final thoughts on the subject. In December of 1860 he had been opposed to the elimination of the bound out because it provided the incentive for very athletic attempts by fielders to catch a batted ball on the bounce.  Four years later, the sports editor of the Sunday Mercury was in the unenviable position of arguing against himself as he was now a convert to the fly game. In explaining his change of opinion, he offered multiple explanations, including the supposed “fact” that most well-played bound outs were on foul balls that would not be affected by the change and that fielding a hard-hit ball on the ground in the outfield was as difficult as some of the athletic bound catches he had admired so much in 1860. Cauldwell also acknowledged his desire to eliminate the dozen or so bound catches per game taken in an “unworthy” fashion rather than try for a fly catch in the more “worthy” — and one presumes manly — manner. Chadwick no doubt took great satisfaction that his fellow writer and rules-committee member had been converted to his viewpoint.22

Perhaps not surprisingly, the vote itself was anticlimactic. The fly game at last prevailed by a 32-to-19 count, a margin that Chadwick suggested would have been even higher if some clubs such as the Atlantics of Brooklyn and Eureka of Newark hadn’t been directed to vote for the bound game when presumably their hearts and minds went in a different direction.23 An analysis of the voting suggests that the primary reason for the decisive margin was dramatic swings in the votes of Brooklyn and Philadelphia clubs, especially the former. At the 1863 convention, the Brooklyn delegates’ vote was 10 to 8 for the bound game, but a year later, it had swung almost 180 degrees to 10 to 2 for the fly version, with the supposedly instructed Atlantics accounting for the only negative votes from Brooklyn delegates. Part of the change was due to the Resolute and Enterprise Clubs switching into the fly game column, and the cause was also helped by the absence of the Constellation and Olympic Clubs, which were on the bound side in 1863.

While the numbers weren’t as great, the Philadelphia clubs had also seen the light, going from 4 to 0 against the fly game to 3 to 1 in favor. Also extremely important was the vote of the upstate New York clubs, which went from 6 to 1 for the fly game in 1863 to 14 to 0 in 1864, driven primarily by the votes of the three clubs that weren’t represented at the 1863 vote. Ironically, Manhattan, where the New York game got its start, remained the most sharply divided on the question.  From an 11-to-7 vote against the prior year, there had been a modest shift to 10 to 8 in favor in 1864, due largely to a shift by the Mutuals and the presence of the pathfinding Knickerbockers, who were absent in 1863. If there was any debate it wasn’t reported, but the Brooklyn Daily Eagle (most likely Chadwick) wrote that the announcement of the vote was greeted with “deafening applause.”24

None of the contemporary accounts mention the length of the meeting, but after the contention over some of the pitching rules and at least some tension over the fly game vote, it’s unlikely the delegates had much energy or time left for further business. Still, the convention needed to elect officers for the coming year, which apparently happened without controversy. In a continuation of the pattern of choosing officers from a broad base of clubs, Thomas G. Voorhis of the Empire Club of New York was elected president with D.A. Scott of the Hudson River Club of Newburgh as first vice president and M.G. Thompson of the Utica Club as second vice president. Understandably both secretarial positions and that of the treasurer stayed local with treasurer P.J. Cozans of the Eagle Club of New York continuing in that position with J. Seaver Page of the Active Club as recording secretary and A.H. Rogers of the Resolutes of Brooklyn handling the corresponding position.25

As the delegates left Clinton Hall for their hotels or began their journey home, they had completed some important historic work, more significant than they perhaps may have realized. As Chadwick noted in previewing the convention, some level of fine-tuning would be necessary almost every year. The December 1864 meeting had done that and gone beyond in two important ways. First the delegates had resolved once and for all what must have seemed like the interminable fly game/bound game debate. William Cauldwell’s point about eliminating the “unworthy” bound catch was well taken, especially as the game became more competitive and less social. Presented with the temptation to take the easy “out,” there was little question that it would be abused and cheapen the game. Similarly, even though it failed to take action, the convention considered the definition of what would eventually be called the strike zone, an issue that has been and likely always will be debated in base ball bodies. Even more favorably for the game’s development, by the time the convention’s actions, historic and routine, could be put to test on the field, the war was over and the national pastime was set for a new and much more extensive period of expansion. 

Notes

1 New York Tribune, December 14, 1864:1.

2 New York Clipper, December 17, 1864: 284. The article was clearly written before the December 1864 convention met.

3 Sunday Mercury, December 4, 1864.

4 Sunday Mercury, December 11, 1864.

5 Ibid.

6 New York Clipper, December 24, 1864: 290; Sunday Mercury, December 13, 1863.

7 New York Clipper, December 22, 1860, 285; December 24, 1864: 290. Henry Chadwick, Beadle’s Dime Base Ball Player for 1864 (New York: Beadle and Company, 1864), 33.

8 Sunday Mercury, December 4, 1864.

9 Beadle’s, 1864, 35.

10 New York Clipper, December 17, 1864: 284, December 24, 1864: 290.

11 New York Clipper, December 24, 1864: 290.

12 New York Clipper, December 24, 1864: 290.

13 New York Clipper, December 24, 1864: 290; Sunday Mercury, December 4, 1864; Beadle’s, 1864, 16.

14 Sunday Mercury, December 4, 1864.

15 Beadle’s, 1864, 13.

16 New York Clipper, December 24, 1864: 290.

17 Sunday Mercury, December 4, 1864.

18 New York Clipper, December 24, 1864: 290.

19 Sunday Mercury, December 13, 1863.

20 Sunday Mercury, December 4, 1864, New York Clipper, December 17, 1864: 284.

21 New York Clipper, December 24, 1864: 290.

22 Sunday Mercury, December 11, 1864.

23 New York Clipper, December 24, 1864: 290.

24 Beadle’s, 1864, 33; Henry Chadwick, Beadle’s Dime Base Ball Player for 1865 (New York: Beadle and Company, 1865), 35-36; Brooklyn Daily Eagle, December 15, 1864: 2.

25 Beadle’s, 1865, 36.