by Al Stump
CHICAGO, Dec. 22—[Associated Press]—The attention of the base ball world centered today on a seven-year-old game, that between the Detroit and Cleveland American League teams on Sept. 25, 1919, around which charges of fixing, involving two of the greatest players known to the game, have been made.
The long smouldering bombshell, the subject of many recent rumors, broke yesterday and sent fragments into many places, but today those accused came back quickly with denials of wrongdoing.
Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker, idols of thousands of base ball fans, and holders of many base ball records, declared they were innocent of assertions that they were involved in a conspiracy to “throw” the ball game and to benefit by betting on the outcome of the contest.
DETROIT NEWS, Dec. 24—Fred O. West, Navin Field employee of the Detroit Tigers, mentioned in testimony before Kenesaw Mountain Landis, Commissioner of Base Ball, as the man who placed the alleged bets for Ty Cobb, Tris Speaker, Joe Wood and Hubert (Dutch) Leonard on Sept. 25, 1919, made the following statement to The Detroit News today:
“I took a sealed envelope from one place to another on the date mentioned. The following day I called at the second place, got another sealed envelope and delivered that.”
West refused to mention the name of the player who handed him the sealed envelope, although admitting it was one of the four involved in the scandal. He refused to say where he took the envelope that he picked up on the following day.
“I can’t say what was in the envelope,” said West. “It was sealed and I’m not in the habit of opening sealed envelopes.
“I was called to Chicago by Commissioner Landis. I saw him Monday. I told him what I have just told you. It’s all I have to say.”
Hughie Jennings, the manager under whom Cobb broke in at Detroit in 1905, and usually pro-Cobb in Cobb-versus-establishment clashes thereafter, worsened the crisis for the Peach—now facing possible expulsion from baseball—by speaking of how easy it would be to fix a game and issuing a “no comment” on the questioned game, played when Jennings was Detroit’s manager. His “no comment” sounded like he was avoiding the issue:
CHICAGO, Dec. 26—[United Press]—Hughie Jennings issued a statement yesterday on the base ball plot averred by Commissioner Landis. He said, “I have no knowledge of the matter whatever. My slate has been clean base ball for 35 years. This is the first inkling I have had of this case. Whatever I have done in base ball has been of such a nature that I would be ready any time to go before anyone and place my case before them. I do not feel that I should comment on the case. These things are all very well to bring out if you have the goods and can prove them.
“Judge Landis has probably been investigating for some time and would not make any such statement unless he had proof to back it up. As for the complicity of the game of base ball it would be an easy matter for players so inclined to throw a game without the manager having any knowledge of it. It would be a very easy matter to cover up. But if I had any inkling of the thing during my time as manager of Detroit, or since, I certainly would not have covered the matter up but would have given the facts no matter what the cost.”
One of the offshoots of the alleged plot was the disclosure of the longtime covert practice of teams playing “good fellowship” games in late season. Basic to this scheme was the bribe. If Team A, fighting to collect second- or third-place money, needed help, Team B, finishing out of the money, would provide it by trying extra hard against Team A’s chief rivals. Team B’s quid pro quo was the gift of a suit of clothes or cash from A for each of its regulars.
Cobb candidly told me in 1960 that he had shared in such secret subsidizing on occasion, when the Tigers “broke our backs” to help out a team after Detroit was eliminated from the World Series race. “Once I got a dozen shirts from the Boston Red Sox,” he said offhandedly. “It was just a thing we all did.”
But this time there could be no cover-up:
DETROIT NEWS, Dec. 27—“I am not surprised,” said “Bernie” Boland, former Tiger hurler, who pitched the “good fellowship” game of Sept. 25, 1919. Boland is a paving contractor, living at 11833 Wisconsin Avenue.
“I hope everything comes out about it. I was a pick and shovel pitcher, working like a miner, taking the games as they came. Dutch Leonard was a star, wasn’t he? But he picked the soft spots. If he had to pitch against Walter Johnson he was sick or something. He never showed up in the spring and I and others had to pitch these small town games where they lay the diamond out the night before. I got tired of it and then when I tried to get in shape too quickly I hurt my arm. They ran me out of the American League.
“There are a lot of these friendship games at the tail end of the season, when they give the boys hits to fatten their batting averages and help them get good salaries. I do not remember this particular game, but you can bet I had nothing to do with the matter. This is all news to me. The only player I ever gave a hit to was ‘Stuffy’ McInnis. He used to plead so hard so he could make a .300 average. In that newspaper report of the game in question they say I gave Speaker three triples. That is not so. I never gave Speaker anything in my life.
“The way I figure it, about one in every 300 games is crooked, and those at the tail end of the season.
“This is bad for baseball, for practically all of the players are honest, but I am glad some of them are getting justice at last. It’s mighty hard to keep going when the boys quit behind you.”
One corrupt game in every three hundred? Club owners blanched at that news. They had covered up the rewards systems, allowing it to pervade a game believed by millions of Americans to be on the square. Now the outcome was a shameful disclosure. Landis called players of past and present to his Chicago office to be grilled. Swede Risberg, one of the exiled Black Sox of six years earlier, swore to God that a whole series of games between Detroit and the Chicago White Sox—two straight doubleheaders of September 2 and 3, 1917—had been “greased” to aid Chicago in its struggle for first place. Risberg said Detroit helped Chicago win all four crucial games and the pennant. According to him, each White Sox player put up forty-five dollars toward purses of one hundred dollars as a bribe for Detroit pitchers and others.
But Cobb testified that he had no part of the 1917 dirty work and Risberg verified that. Landis cleared Cobb of any wrongdoing in 1917.
Landis possessed an embarrassment of riches. He paraded forty witnesses at a January 5, 1927, board of inquiry session, and everyone wished he had not done so. Disillusionment grew as players confessed to fixed games arranged by the idolized New York Giants of John McGraw, whose infielders had a habit of sidling up to opponents and whispering, “You wanna kick one today?” A few years earlier, Landis had warned, “If I catch any crook, the rest of his life will be a hot period!” At the moment, in early 1927, with a new scandal arising, Landis became more moderate, telling the press, “Team pools or incentive money offered others is an act of high impropriety, reprehensible and censurable, but it is not criminal.”
The infamous letter written by Cobb to Leonard, offered retroactively as evidence, read:
Augusta, Ga., Oct. 23, ’19
Dear Dutch:
Well, old boy, guess you are out in old California by this time and enjoying life.
I arrived home and found Mrs. Cobb only fair, but the baby girl was fine, and at this time Mrs. Cobb is very well, but I have been very busy getting acquainted with my family and have not tried to do any correspondence, hence my delay.
Wood and myself are considerably disappointed in our business proposition, as we had $2,000 to put into it and the other side quoted us $1,400 and when we finally secured that much it was about two o’clock and they refused to deal with us, as they had men in Chicago to take the matter up with and they had no time, so we completely fell down and of course we felt badly about it.
Everything was open to Wood and he can tell you about it when we get together. It was quite a responsibility and I don’t care for it again, I can assure you.
With kindest regards to Mrs. Leonard, I remain, sincerely,
Ty Cobb
These rather vague references would not have identified Cobb as a gambling man and possible fixer, had he not mentioned two thousand dollars and Joe Wood as partner in a “business proposition.” Wood’s letter to Leonard was more specific, reading:
Cleveland, O., Friday
Enclosed find certified check for sixteen hundred and thirty dollars ($1,630).
Dear Friend “Dutch”:
The only bet West could get up was $600 against $420 (10 to 7). Cobb did not get up a cent. He told us that and I believed him. Could have put some at 5 to 2 on Detroit, but did not, as that would make us put up $1,000 to win $400.
We won the $420. I gave West $30, leaving $390, or $130 for each of us. Would not have cashed your check at all, but West thought he could get it up to 10–7, and I was going to put it all up at those odds. We would have won $1,750 for the $2,500 if we could have placed it.
If we ever get another chance like this we will know enough to try to get down early.
Let me hear from you, “Dutch.”
With all good wishes to yourself and Mrs. Leonard, I am, always,
Joe Wood
When Cobb was summoned to explain himself, he appeared at Landis’s office with two costly Detroit and Chicago lawyers. But Landis did not allow them to interrupt his rapid-fire interrogation. A transcript of the Cobb questioning, in main part, reads as follows:
Q. What is your full name?
A. Tyrus Raymond Cobb.
Q. And your residence?
A. Augusta, Georgia.
Q. And you were connected with the Detroit club in 1919?
A. Yes, sir; I was.
Q. In what capacity?
A. As a player.
Q. Who was manager of Detroit through 1919?
A. Hughie Jennings.
Q. You became manager?
A. 1921.
Q. You managed the team from 1921 to 1926, inclusive?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Mr. Cobb, I hand you a document, dated Augusta, Ga., Oct. 23, 1919, addressed to “Dear Dutch” and signed, “Sincerely, Ty,” which will be marked Exhibit One. And I ask you to look at that document and tell me if you wrote that letter.
A. It is my letter.
Q. I call your attention to the letter which you have just identified as having been written by you and ask you if you recall the occasion of having written that letter.
A. Yes, I wrote the letter.
Q. And what was it about?
A. It was in response to a request by Leonard that I ascertain from Wood [Joe Wood] the amount of money that was wagered on this game in question.
Q. The amount of money that was wagered on what?
A. On the game in question.
Q. That is the game of Sept. 25, 1919?
A. Yes, sir. He stated—you want me to relate what he said?
Q. Yes.
A. He stated that he was leaving and wanted to check up on the amount that had been wagered.
……
Q. Give me the conversation, as near as you can remember it, just what was said.
A. Well, he was leaving, could not be there after the game, and he wanted to find out as quickly after the game as possible—he wanted me to ascertain from Wood, the amount that was paid. That is, to the best of my knowledge.
Q. When did you first hear that a bet was to be put on the ball game?
A. Leonard came to me and wanted to know who would be a man they could trust, and that is where I figured that the—
Q. What was your answer to him?
A. I told him I would get a man for him.
Q. And what did you do along that line?
A. I pointed out West, a man that was employed at the park.
Q. Where was West at the time you pointed him to Leonard?
A. Well, to the best of my knowledge, he was either close to the edge of the playing field or was inside the field.
……
Q. What did you understand Leonard to mean when he asked you the name of somebody he could trust, or you could trust, whichever it was?
A. Well, I figured that he wanted to bet on the game.
Q. What made you think so?
A. Well, that is the only inference that I could gather from what he said.
Q. Had you any conversations with him before about betting on ball games?
A. No, sir.
Q. Was there anything else in his inquiry to you that you have not mentioned here that would indicate to you the kind of trust he wished to repose in somebody?
A. Well, there might have been other conversations. I am only relating what I can remember—away back there. And there might have been other things. For instance, he talked about ascertaining what amount of money would be put up by Wood, see? He wanted me to inquire.
Q. Did you have any conversation with Wood about this bet?
A. I did not. I did not until after the game. That is—wait a minute. I did not until I asked him concerning the amount of money bet.
Q. Did you have any conversation with Speaker about this game?
A. None whatever.
Q. Betting on the game?
A. No.
Q. Did you bet any money on the game?
A. Positively did not.
Q. Did you intend to?
A. I did not.
Q. Did you have any conversation with anybody whatever about betting on the game?
A. I did not.
Q. You played in that game?
A. I must have. I have never seen the box score yet.
Q. I now hand you the box score, taken from a paper of Sept. 26. Does that box score refresh your memory as to whether you played in that game?
A. It indicates I must have played in the game.
Q. Well, after this conversation with Leonard, if you had not played in the game, you probably would remember you had not been in the game, wouldn’t you?
A. At this time, I would not. I don’t know anything about it; I don’t remember any of the details concerning the game.
Q. You have no recollection of the game?
A. No.
Q. How it was played?
A. No.
Q. It appears from this box score that Detroit won, 9 to 5.
A. Yes.
Q. I wish you would look at your letter, and, calling your attention to the language of that part of the letter starting with “Wood and I.”
A. Yes, “Wood and myself.”
Q. Now, make any statement you desire to make respecting the language which you used in that letter to Leonard.
A. In writing this letter to Leonard, it is apparent that I, in a way, tried to veil the betting end of it as a betting proposition. I stated to Leonard just what Wood had told me. The amounts of $2,000 to $1,400 quoted by the other side was entirely different from the information that Wood conveyed to Leonard in his letter, which indicated I was not in on the betting proposition, that Wood merely put me off by giving me the wrong information and a fictitious amount.
Q. Now, in this statement that Leonard made to me in California and which I have read into this record, he tells of a conversation under the stands after the game played the preceding day. Was there any such conversation between you, Wood, Speaker and Leonard?
A. Positively no. If such a frameup were true, why should we stop for a few minutes under the stands and arrange such an important matter? The players—both sides—come to the field through a dugout from their respective club houses. Where would we have the time and where could we go for just a few minutes, as Leonard has stated, to frame up such an important matter?
Q. Do you remember what the position of the Detroit club in the pennant race was at the time?
A. From memory, no. Indications were that it was in third place.
Q. That is, you were fighting for third place?
A. Yes, that is the indication. I don’t remember the details.
&nb
sp; Q. Why was it you mentioned West to Leonard as a man he could trust?
A. He is the only man that I knew of that was handy, and I figured he could be trusted.
Q. What made you think West was familiar with this sort of thing?
A. No other reason in the world except as I have stated.
Q. Had you ever had West place any bets for you on anything?
A. No, sir.
Examination of Joe Wood, by then the head baseball coach at Yale University, brought out the admission that he had written the letter dated “Cleveland, O., Friday,” addressed to “Dear Friend ‘Dutch’” and signed “Joe Wood.”
Q. Now just tell me all about that bet.
A. The day before the ball game Leonard came to me and said, “Boland is going to pitch against you fellows tomorrow; we are fighting for third place; you fellows’ position in the race is settled; you can’t move up or down. Now the Detroit ball club is fighting for third place money, and it looks like a good bet. You want to go in on a bet with me?”
I thought it over and I asked him how much he wanted to bet. He said he wanted to bet about $2,500. I told him I didn’t feel as if I wanted to put up that much money, but I said: “I have a friend here. I will mention it to him. If we can split that bet three ways, I would be willing to go in that way.”
Q. Did you have any conversation with Speaker about a bet on this ball game?
A. I never had any conversation with Speaker about a bet on this game. I had a little conversation with Cobb about this ball game when he stopped me and asked, “How much did you bet on this game today?” I didn’t think it was any of his business, I gave him an anonymous reply. I said I had an opportunity to put up $2,000 against $1,400 but didn’t get it up in time.
Landis then questioned Cobb further:
Q. Mr. Cobb, have you in mind any possible reason why Leonard should have made this statement to me about you and Wood and Speaker and Leonard being together under the stands and framing up this ball game?
A. I cannot imagine a human being with any sort of honor or ideals having the spleen that Leonard has for me. The fact of the matter is, when I became manager of the Detroit ball club, I believe at that time he was under suspension; either then or later he was under suspension and I did everything I could with Mr. Navin to have that suspension lifted; I got him back to the Detroit ball club because its pitchers were very weak and we needed all the help we could get.