[Note: Spelling and punctuation as they appeared in the original.]
“The Origin of the Game of Base Ball”
By A. G. Spalding
Nineteen hundred and five completes the 60th year of the life of base ball for it dates its birth from the organization of the original Knickerbocker Base Ball club of New York city, September 23, 1845, at which time the first playing rules of the game were formulated and published by that club.
There seems to be a conflict of opinion as to the origin of base ball. I think the game has arrived at an age and at a point in its development when this mooted question should be settled in some comprehensive and authoritative way and for all time.
Some authorities, notably Henry Chadwick, claim that base ball is of English origin and was a direct descendant of the old English juvenile pastime called “Rounders,” while others claim that it was of entirely American origin and had nothing whatever to do with rounders or any other foreign game.
While I concede that Mr. Chadwick’s rounder theory is entitled to much weight because of his long connection with base ball and the magnificent work he has done in the upbuilding of the game for upward of 50 years, yet I am unwilling longer to accept his rounder theory without something more convincing than his oft-repeated assertion that “base ball did originate from rounders.”
For the purpose of settling this question I hereby challenge the Grand Old Man of Base Ball to produce his proofs and demonstrate in some tangible way, if he can, that our national game derived its origins from rounders.
Mr. Chadwick, who, by the way, is of English birth, and was probably rocked in a “rounders” cradle, says, in support of his theory, that “there is but one field game now in vogue on this continent which is strictly American in its origin, and that one is the old Indian game of lacrosse, now known as the Canadian national game. Base ball originated from the old English schoolboy game of rounders, as plainly shown by the fact that the basic principle of both games is the field use of a bat, a ball and bases.”
I have been fed on this kind of “rounder pap” for upward of 40 years and I refuse to swallow any more of it without some substantial proof sauce with it.
In 1874 I visited England with the Boston and Philadelphia Athletic Base Ball clubs and while these clubs were playing exhibition games before English audiences it was not uncommon to hear expressions like this: “Why, it’s nothing but our old game of rounders that we used to play with the gals when we were byes.”
Again, during our base ball trip around the world in 1888-’89 we heard similar expressions in the English countries of New Zealand, Australia, India and in Great Britain. I made many inquiries of many people about this game of rounders, but never could get a very intelligent explanation of it and seldom could find any one that would admit that they had ever played the game.
After I had seen and played in a game of rounders I could quite understand why it had been so difficult to find anybody that would admit that they had ever played rounders and for a good deal of the same reason that a grownup man might be unwilling to admit that he had ever played “Drop the Handkerchief,” “Copenhagen,” “Ring Around the Rosy,” or any other of rounders’ sister pastimes.
It come about in this way: When our around-the-world base ball party arrived in England in 1889 we were again taunted with the similarity of our game to rounders, generally spoken in derision and intended to belittle base ball, and finally becoming desperate I issued a public challenge in behalf of our Chicago and All-American base ball teams to play a match game of Rounders with any rounder club in Great Britain if there really was such a club or such a game.
This challenge was accepted, and a game of rounders was arranged and played in Liverpool in March 1889, between the champion Rounder club of England and a picked team of our American “base ballers,” as they called us. I was the “feeder” for our team of 11 men.
A one-inning rounder match (two innings constitute a full game), to be played under regular rounder rules, was arranged on condition that afterward we would play them a five-innings base ball match, under regular base ball rules.
Rounder rules permit (what we would call) the base runner to be put out by “soaking” him with the ball while running between the four boundary poles or posts, and this attractive feature was about the only rule of the game our players seemed to take any special interest in.
The game opened with the American eleven in the field, and as “feeder” I was handed a ball about the size of a golf ball covered with leather and comparatively soft, and the longed-for game of Rounders was ready to commence.
The first rounder batsman took his position with a sort of miniature cricket bat, or paddle—a cross between a potato masher and a pen holder. With his left hand behind his back and his right grasping this so-called bat, he struck a sort of John Hancock-signing-the-Declaration-of-Independence attitude, and the referee announced that the game was on. As a shoulder-high ball came over the plate he stuck out his flattened bat or paddle with about the same effort you would hand a friend a cigar, and the ball glanced off his bat over the catcher’s head and out of the grounds. We insisted it was foul, but the referee said it was a good hit, and the batsman ran around the four boundary posts, which were about three feet high and the diameter of a broom handle, with a tiny blue flag on the top of each, and when he had completed the circuit the scorer announced that he had made four runs—a run being counted on each post was passed—and the audience applauded. The next batsman did the same thing, and the Englishmen had scored eight runs. I then had a conference with our catcher, and we decided that low balls close to the body might tend to make these dainty, but effective over-the-fence hits less frequent.
It worked well, for after that they only made three runs, and that was caused by one of our American players trying to “soak” a rounder base runner, but missed his target. Their eleven players were all put out, which closed their first innings. Then the Americans took their innings and tried to hit the ball out as we would in base ball, but as it was permissible to use only one hand it was found impossible to hit the ball any distance, but we finally succeeded in making eight runs before our eleven men were all put out. We were very desirous of playing a full game of two innings, for we were just getting the hang of it, but the Englishmen objected and insisted that the five-inning game of baseball be played as previously arranged.
The English rounder players were quite as green, if not more so, at our game than we had been at theirs, for they made no runs in the first inning of base ball; in fact, all their men struck out, and the Americans made 85 runs, with nobody out, and the match was called off on account of physical exhaustion all around, and the first inning of base ball was never finished.
Having read from boyhood, principally, the writings of Henry Chadwick that our American game of base ball originated from rounders, and having been taunted with this statement around the world, generally spoken in derision of our game, and having actually played in a game of rounders, I am now convinced that base ball did not originate from rounders any more than cricket originated from that asinine pastime. About the only tangible argument that I ever heard advanced by Mr. Chadwick or another authority tending to prove that base ball did originate from rounders is the following:
In a recent letter to me Mr. Chadwick says: “You cannot go back on that base ball derived its origin from the old English game of rounders because the basic principle of both games is the field use of a bat, ball and bases.”
Just imagine the argument you would get into and the touchiness an Englishman would show if you told him that his favorite game of cricket derived its origin from rounders; or the Scotchman’s indescribable flow of words if you stated that his ancient game of golf originated from rounders; or the American Indian’s grunt if it was explained to him that his game of lacrosse originated from rounders.
Now, boil down together the Englishman’s indignation, the Scotchman’s huff and the Indian’s grunt into one composite mass and you have my feelings and that of every lover of base ball when a claim is made that our great American national game of base ball originated from rounders.
My investigation and research so far inclines me to the opinion that base ball did have its origin in the old colonial game of “One Old Cat.” “One Old Cat” was played by three boys—a thrower, catcher and batsman. The latter, after striking the ball, ran to a goal about 30 feet distant, and by returning to the batsman’s position without being put out, counted one run or “tally.” “Two Old Cat” was played by four or more boys with two batsmen placed about 40 feet apart. “Three Old Cat” was played by six or more boys with three batsmen, the ground being laid out in shape of a triangle. “Four Old Cat” was played by eight or more boys with grounds laid out in shape of a square. “Four Old Cat” required four throwers, alternating as catchers, and four batsmen, the ball being passed from one corner to the next around the square field. Individual scores or tallies were credited to the batsmen making the hit and running from one corner to the next.
Some ingenious American lad naturally suggested that one thrower be placed in the center of the square, which brought nine players into the game, and which also made it possible to change the game into teams or sides, one side fielding and the other side batting. This was for many years known as the old game of “town ball,” from which the present game of base ball may have had its origin.
One prominent baseball writer claims that he can prove that one of the founders of the old Knickerbocker club came onto the field one day in the early ’40s with the original game of base ball worked out and described on a sheet of paper, and that this game was tried and liked so well that the game was adopted then and there, and the Knickerbocker club was organized to put it into effect.
If such ancestry can be established for base ball every American friend of the game will be delighted.
While “one old cat,” or “town ball” may not rank much higher in the ancestral scale than “rounders,” yet they strongly appeal to the lover of our national sport as distinctively American games.
In looking over the early history of base ball I find the names of 11 New York gentlemen who were the founders of the original Knickerbocker club, names that should be honored and remembered as the founders of our national game by the million base ball players of the present day. They are as follows: Colonel James Lee, Dr. Ransom, Abraham Tucker, James Fisher, W. Vail, Alexander J. Cartwright, William R. Wheaton, Duncan F. Curry, E. R. Dupignac, Jr., William H. Tucker and Daniel I. [sic] Adams.
Are not some of these gentlemen still living? Or possibly some of their heirs might throw some light on the early history and especially the origin of base ball.
In order to gather this information, I would suggest, and hereby respectfully request, that James E. Sullivan, president of the America Sports Publishing company, 15 Warren street, New York city, take the initiative in the work of collecting all possible facts, proofs, interviews, etc., calculated to throw light on this subject, and when collected submit same to a special board of base ball commissioners or judges, with the understanding that this board will impartially examine all the evidence of whatever nature and promulgate their decision as to the origin of base ball.
I would nominate for that board: Ex-Governor Morgan G. Buckley [sic], now United States senator from Connecticut, and the first president of the National league; Hon. Arthur P. Gorman, United States senator from Maryland, and old ball player and ex-president of the famous old National Base Ball club of Washington, D. C.; A. G. Mills of New York, an enthusiastic ball player before and during the Civil war and the third president of the National league; N. E. Young of Washington, D. C., a veteran ball player and the first secretary and afterward the fourth president of the National league; Alfred J. Reach of Philadelphia, and George Wright of Boston, both well known and two of the most famous ball players in their day, and such additional names as Mr. Sullivan or the above named board may deem it advisable to add. Mr. Sullivan to act as secretary of this commission.
As all of these gentlemen are interested in base ball I feel quite sure they will be willing to act in this capacity, and I am certain that their decision as to the origin of our national sport will be accepted by everyone as final and conclusive.
I would strongly urge that everyone interested in this subject tranmit [sic] as soon as possible to Mr. Sullivan, 19 Warren street, New York, any proof, data or information he may possess or can secure bearing on this matter, with the hope that before another year rolls around this vexed question as to the actual origin and early history of the great American national game of base ball may be settled for all time.