A Philadelphia scribe hits the nail on the head when, in commenting on the existing abuses of kicking and dirty ball playing in the League arena, he says: "If the club owners would take the initiative in enforcing decorum upon their players, upon pain of fine or suspension, instead of shifting the burden and onus upon the umpire, the problem of order at ball games would be solved at once. But the majority of magnates and managers, while openly, hypocritically, deploring dirty ball playing, secretly wink at it and rather enjoy it, especially if their particular club secures advantages from it. The players all know this, and so do the umpires; hence the former presume upon it, while the latter weaken in their intent and desire to strictly enforce the rules. When the duty of preserving order on the field and decorum among the players is devolved upon the clubs, who represent direct authority, power and responsibility, instead of irresponsible umpires, then, and not till then will the evils complained of cease, or at least be mitigated." Al Wright, the base ball editor of the New York Clipper, in its issue of February 15, 1895, had this noteworthy paragraph in its columns: "Frank C. Bancroft, the business manager of the Cincinnati club, in speaking about the equalization of the players of the major league teams, said: 'I am not a firm believer in the prevalent practice of selling the best men in a weak or tail-end team to one of the leading clubs, and register a vigorous kick against it. My plan is that the National League shall pass a rule forbidding the sale of a player from a club in the second division, to a club in the first division. I think this would, in a measure, prevent some of the hustling to dispose of a clever man for the sake of the cash that is in the trade. There is certainly some good arguments in the idea, and not one against it. The clubs of the second division have been too willing to dispose of their best men for a decent cash consideration, and the damage that has been done to the game is incalculable.'" A young Brooklyn writer, in commenting on the threatened war on the reserve rule which Messrs. Richter, Pfeffer, Buckenberger and Barnie were active in promoting, said: "Since the National League and American Association amalgamated at Indianapolis in 1892 the League has not been a glorious success." The reply to this is a statement of fact which contradicts the above assertion very flatly. The reorganized National League started its new career in the spring of 1892 with an indebtedness, resulting from the base ball war of 1891, of over $150,000. At the close of the season of 1892 it had partially redeemed its heavy indebtedness, and by the close of the season of 1893 it had paid the debt off in full, and it closed the season of 1894 with a majority of its clubs having a surplus in their treasuries, and that, too, despite the hardest kind of times of financial depression. If this is not a glorious success, pray what is?