The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1870-01-01

this report
was undoubtedly the chastisement, at the Man
haitian Club, of one of the Managing Committee
OF That institution by an irate and revengetnl
member The circumstances, which are sulli-
eiently entertaining in one sense, are likely to
produce a more serious effect in calling atten-
ton to the manner in which club discipline
should properly be maintained, and in deter
mining the precise relations between officers
and members, which mt present are TOO Ire"
quently forgotten or disregarded.
We learn that the difficulty originated in
circumstance which, apparently, would be con-
4 sidered trivial among ordinary associations of
Dgentlemen, but which, by the hasty indlscretlon
of committee man, was in this instance IN
Dereased to somewhat portentous dimensions.
ItappearL that Mr.. H. l.. Bateman well known
as an operate manager, committed the mistake,
a few nights ago, of inviting some guests to
dine in a room which is reserved exclusively Tor
members. Having been connected with the
Manhattan Club but very short time Mr..
Bateman was wholly unconscious of this reser-
: walton, and was only made aware OF 1t after his
party were seated Mt table, and the dinner nad
been ordered, by the abrupt announcement that
he copld not be served-an announcement made
by order of Mr.. Hiram Cranston member OF
the House Committee.
Deeply indignant at the manner in which this
intelligence was conveyed, and smarting under
the insult not only to himself, rs he states In
the letter below, but also to those he had IN
vited, he sought an explanation from Mr. Grams
ton; but was repulsed with the extraordinary in
sinuation that, in violating club regulation, he
- had proved himself no gentleman and was not
entitled to the consideration due gentleman:
IL is almost needless to say that the usage In all
civilized clubs, in similar cases, is to abstain
from calling attention to the transgression until
a private opportunity offers ITSELF both for the
sake of the member, of whom 1t Is to be pre-
sumed in the absence of evidence, that he has
erred in ignorance, and of his guests, VINO GER
tainly can have no share in the business. Mr.
Cranston, however, chose to proceed in diff
ferent manner, and the first result OF his action
xuaa hn following addressed
Bateman on the same evening"
NEW YORK HOTEL, Dec. 27, 1S6o.-Sir:-Thls even
ing requested hes men to dine wta m me t az
club the other two considered mad tne privilege
lam but new member of the club and may un-
= consciously have violated some rule. Had been
} Informed Of any breach of the laws in gentle,
manly manner should at once have accepted ana
ard Of the he club to refuse, witho any explanation
the presence Of other gentlemen, offered an insult
to ME- and, what feel Tar more to the guests had
Insult by asking, when sought an explanation, If
was a gentleman. Under these circumstances, it
becomes duty owe myself to demand of you an
z apology for what deem most unwarranted insult
10 member Of the same club as yourself.
ITemain your obedient servant,
II. L. BATEMAN.
To this no answer was vouchsafed until the
kfollowing Wednesday afternoon, when the sub
9oined missive was received by Mr. Bateman:-
Nkw YokK, Dec. 2S, 1s6s.-H. l.. Bateman, Esq,
New York Hotel,-Sir:-I have your note of yester-
day In our conversation OF last evening addressed
You as a member OF The House Committee of this
Club. If you are aggrteved (Sic) your remedy is an
appeal to the Managing Committee, by whom the
House Committee is appointed. They I;eet the first
Friday In January. My remarks may have been
% sas wfGe m he r e @ aO
tAe presence OF one of your guests, which is to be
egretted You sate that tnen ASKED you u you
Icould have asked no such useless question. Your
obedient servant. HIRAM CRANsToN.
n 4 Al r.,
Non suddenly left the city, called away, it was
Understood, by the illness of relative. Upon
Rnis return, yesterday afternoon, the following
reionder was handed him at the clubs
NEW YORK HOTEL, Dec. %, le69.-Hiram Cranston
-Sir:YouTs of this date, in answer to my note OF
last night, demanding an explanation OF your con
duct and language at the Manhattan Club, is re.
You state that you addressed me as a member Of
the House Committee of the club and that my
remedy, if aggricyed is an appeal to the Managing
Committee. You also deny having asked the olfen-
In reply have M to say h to the conreoas en-
f0rcement of q rule which 1t appears i had uncOn-
3 m maNner n Wha To Ye
your authOrity--a manner unparalleled in any club
of fgentlemenIcompeled me, both on my own ac-
nsuted by your action, to protest, on meeting you,
against so grave an anront.
ation was heard by others beside myself, and that
lecline to accept your denial.
S>Ipur note is wholly evasiVe and unsatisfactory,
ID Nan only be considered as an aggrayation OF the
aue dAal insult
Bkow insist on an immediate and unconditional
Dlogy. Your obedient servant,
H. L. BATEMAN.
After carefully reading this epistle, Mr..
Cranston stated that he declined receiving any
further communications from Mr.. Bateman,
and, upon being asked il he refused to receive
this particular note, answered that he did.
This decision having been reported to Mr.. Bstc-
Wan, that gentleman preGee1ed alsEe te \ ,
Manhattan Club, and fndihg hf. QTaIsna { !
dinner in the restaurant, with parry OF hiende,
informed him that since he (Cranston) had de-
clned to explain, apologize, or receive his note,
his adversary light blow on the face, and
withdrew from the room. Mr.. Cranston cried
loudly for the police, and walters were despatched
in various directions in quest of officers; but
none appeared in time to participate in the
action.
Having accomplished his purpose, Mr.. Bate
man serenely and smilingly departed from the
club, which was, throughout the evening, the
scene of the greatest agitation and excitement.
Nothing, however, of further interest occarred
beyond the circulation of areport that Mr. Grams
ton had sent challenge to his indignant assail-
ant Club opinion was, as may be imagined,
widely divided as to the merits of the case, but
the general judgment appeared to be that, while
Mr.. Bateman had unquestlonably violated posi-
tive regulation, he had done So in ignorance. and
that Mr.. Cranstons s manner of calling his atten-
ton to it was indecorous and unjustilabe
Upon the question of the infection of personal
4 punishment there appeared TO be but one YER
dct--that ii was matter to be deeply regretted
but that Mr. Cranston's repeated refusals to eX.
plain his conduct or offer redress made il impe-
rative for Mr.. Bateman to take some such de-
cisiye step in his own behalf.