Philip Roth - Our Gang

What are we asking of Copenhagen, my fellow Americans? Neither more nor less than what we requested and received from the United Kingdom in 1968, when, according to the rules of international law and the custom of civilized nations, that country returned to our shores the fugitive from justice who was later convicted of the murder of Martin Luther King.

What are we asking of Copenhagen? Neither more nor less than what we would have requested of the Soviet Union in 1963, had President Charisma’s murderer attempted to take refuge for a second time in that country.

What are we asking of Copenhagen? Nothing more nor less than that they surrender to the proper American authorities the fugitive from the Washington Senators of the American League of Professional Baseball Clubs, the man who fled this country on April 27, 1971, exactly one week to the day before the uprising of the Boy Scouts in Washington — the man named Charles Curtis Flood.

Now events have moved so rapidly during these past twenty-four hours that in the interest of clarity I should like to review for you in all its pertinent details, the case of Charles Curtis Flood, who, previous to his disappearance, played baseball right here in Washington, under the alias “Curt Flood.” As always, I want to make everything as per perfectly clear to you as I can. That is why you hear me say over and over again, in my speeches and press conferences and interviews, that I want to make one thing very clear, or two things, or three things, or as many things as I have on my agenda to make very clear. To give you a little glimpse of the lighter side of the President’s life ( impish endearing smile ), my wife tells me that I even say it in my dreams. ( Back to business ) My fellow Americans, I am confident that you recognize as well as I do, that any man who says he wants to make things perfectly clear as often as I do, both awake and in his sleep, obviously does not have anything to hide.

Now who is this man who calls himself “Curt Flood”? To many Americans, particularly the wonderful mothers of our land, that name is probably as strange as the name Eric Starvo Galt, which, you may remember, was the alias taken by James Earl Ray, the convicted murderer of Martin Luther King.

Who is “Curt Flood”? Well, until a year or so ago, the answer would have been simple enough. Flood was a baseball player for the St. Louis Cardinals of the National League, a center fielder with a more than respectable lifetime batting average of.294. Not a Hall of Famer, not the best baseball player in the big leagues, but far from the worst. Many even believed that his finest years lay ahead of him. I am proud to say that I, as an avid fan of baseball as well as all manly sports, was among them.

Then tragedy struck. In 1970, with no more warning than the Japanese gave at Pearl Harbor, “Curt Flood,” as he then called himself, turned upon the very sport that had made him one of the highest-paid Negroes in the history of our country. In 1970, he announced — and this is an exact quotation from his own writings — “Somebody needs to go up against the system,” and proceeded to bring a legal action against Organized Baseball. According to the Commissioner of Baseball himself, this action would destroy the game of baseball as we know it, if Flood were to emerge victorious.

Now no one expects ordinary citizens, who earn their livelihoods outside the legal profession, to be able to wade through the intricacies of a legal suit such as this fugitive from justice has brought against our great national pastime for the purpose of destroying it. That’s why people hire lawyers in the first place. I know when I was a lawyer that was why people hired me, and I think without boasting, that I was able to help them. When I was a young, struggling lawyer, and Pitter and I were living on nine dollars a week out in Prissier, California, which is right here ( points ), I would read through my law books and study long into the night in order to help my clients, most of whom were wonderful 100.

young people just like Pitter and myself. At that time, by the way, I had the following debts outstanding:

—$1,000 on our neat little house.

—$200 to my dear parents.

—$110 to my loyal and devoted brother.

—$15 to our fine dentist, a warm-hearted Jewish man for whom we had the greatest respect.

—$4.35 to our kindly grocer, an old Italian who always had a good word for everybody. I still remember his name. Tony.

— 75 cents to our Chinese laundryman, a slightly built fellow who nonetheless worked long into the night over his shirts, just as I did over my law books, so that his children might one day attend the college of their choice. I am sure they have grown up to be fine and outstanding Chinese-Americans.

— 60 cents to the Polish man, or Polack, as the Vice President would affectionately call him, who delivered the ice for our old-fashioned icebox. He was a strong man with great pride in his native Poland.

We also owed moneys amounting to $2.90 to a wonderful Irish plumber, a wonderful Japanese — American handyman and a wonderful couple from the deep South who happened to be of the same race as we were, and whose children played with ours in perfect harmony, despite the fact that they were from another region. I am proud to say that every last dime that we owed to these wonderful people, I paid back through long hard hours of work in my law office. And the point I wish to make to you tonight, my fellow Americans, is that because of those long, hard hours of work, I believe myself qualified today to understand in all its cunning and clever intricacies the legal action that this fugitive has brought against the sport made famous by Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Ty Cobb, Tris Speaker, Roger Hornsby, Honus Wagner, Walter Johnson, Christy Mathewson and Ted Williams — Hall of Famers all, and men that America can well be proud of.

And let me tell you this: having studied this case in all its ramifications, I find I can only concur in the wise opinion of the Commissioner of Baseball when he says that a victory for this fugitive would inevitably lead to the death of the great game that has probably done more to make American boys into strong, decent and law-abiding men than any single institution in the land. Frankly, I do not know of a better way for our enemies to undermine the youth of this country, than to destroy this game of baseball and all it represents.

Now there is another question you may want to ask, and it is this: “Mr. President, if Curt Flood is out to undermine the youth of this country by destroying baseball, where could he possibly find a lawyer who would be willing to take his case to court?”

Now I am going to be as forthright as I know how in answering that question.

Scrupulous and honest and dedicated to the principles of justice as ninety-nine and ninetenths of the lawyers in this country are, there is in my profession, as in any other, I’m afraid, that tiny percentage who will do and say anything if the stakes are high enough or the price is right. In law school our professors used to call them “ambulance-chasers” and “shysters.” Unfortunately, these men cling not only to the bottom rungs of the profession, which would be bad enough, but on rare occasions manage to climb to the very top — yes, even to positions of great responsibility and power. Now I needn’t remind you of the scandal that took place here in Washington during the tenure of the last administration. You all remember that a lawyer appointed by my predecessor to the Supreme Court of the United States, the highest court in the entire land, had to resign as a justice of that court because of financial wrongdoing. Horrifying as that incident was to every decent American, there seems to me nothing to be gained now by reawakening the sense of moral outrage that swept the nation at that time. As some of you will be quick to point out, there were actually two men who found it necessary to resign from the Supreme Court, after they had been appointed justices of that court by my predecessor. But whether there was one, two, three, four or five, I simply do not believe it is in the interests of national unity to harp upon the errors, grievous though they were, of an administration that you voters, in your wisdom, repudiated three years ago. What is past is past; no one knows that better than I do. If I recall to you now the names of these two men who found it necessary to tender unprecedented resignations to the highest court in the land, it is only to answer, as forthrightly as I know how, your question, “What kind of lawyer would represent Curt Flood?”