Newspaper Page Text
What Trust Methods Are Doing to Baseball
David Fultz, Former Star Player, Revealing
the Inside Workings of < ‘Organized ,, Base
ball, Tells How “the Slavery” of the Play
ers Cripples the Sport.
A GROUP OF ORGANIZED BASEBALL OWNERS ANI) STOCKHOLDERS:
of II om ton: llerninn MrKrrNon. of, lloNton: Mr. HiikmIok. of Dill ml <>lnh In: >lr. Miller, of Phllndelnhln t Chnrle* Kblieltn. of Itrooklrn: Mr. MeKeever. of Brook*
l>n. Seated, from Irlt to rlulit—Sir. Loydi Mr. II eniiiji+ttiMi (new miner of “Ci Inntn" > j Mr*. Britton, of St. IjOhIm: (.itrry llerniniiu. of Clnelnniiti: ( linrlen
Murphy, of Clileiuro. un«i Mr. MoKeever. of Hrooki>
Copyright. 1018, by the Ster C
Vnnpeny. Great Britain Rigtita Kctervad.
By David Fultz
I N order that the public may form an intelli
gent. idea of the legal aspects of the base-
hall business, it is necessary to understand
the organization which conducts the game, as
^ ell as the legislation under which it operates.
Organized baseball has been in existence
s'nce the year 1875, and during most of that
time it has had practically a monopoly over
the sport as a profession On September 11,
1903, the National and the American Leagues,
which foi * 1 , several years previous had been at
war, adjusted their differences, and, with the
, National Association, entered into a compact
known as the National Agreement, under whic..
organized ball is now operated.
The National Association is composed of
forty leagues, practically every minor league
In the United States and Canada; so that It
can safely be said that the National Agree
ment has a complete monopoly over profes
sional baseball.
The National Agreement provides for the
creation of the National Commission, which
Is the court of last resort in baseball. This
body Is composed of the presidents of the two
major leagues, and a third member, elected by
them as chairman. At present this body is
made up as follows: August Herrmann, presi
dent of the Cincinnati Ball Club, chairman,
and Thomas J. Lynch and Byron Bancroft
Johnson, presidents of the National and the
American Leagues, respectively.
The player’s contract, which is a stipulat
ed form, and from which there is no depart
ure, except by special consent of the National
Commission, refers to, and makes a part of
itself, the National Agreement, the Rules and
Regulations of the National Commission and
the constitution of the league in which the
player is to play.
When a player signs a contract he binds
himself for the rest of his natural existence;
never again does he have the power of exer
cising that inviolable right, the freedom of con
tract; while the team is at no tjme bound for
more than ten days. Every Fall the player is
placed upon the reserve list, which means that
he is the property of the team with which he
last played, and that he must go where it sees
tit to send him. He may be sent to California,
’ Texas. Canada, or any place within the reaches
oT organized baseball, and that, too, without
even being consulted. Not only is the place
of his labor forced upon him, but also the sal
ary at which he is to play. The star sometimes
gets his price by threat of retirement, and be
cause the public demands that he be secured
at any price; the mediocre player as a rule has
no more to say about the terms of his contract
Gian he has about the tariff. Some of the mag
nates are high-class gentlemen, and are fair
and generous; others have had ail four feet in
the trough for years. Knowing that the player
is helpless, that no other team in the country
dare attempt to sign him. they use the harpoon
whenever it suits their fancy.
With such absolute power as this in its
hands, 1s it any wonder that organized ball
has become oppressive, domineering, arrogant,
and, in some cases, absolutely defiant of all
moral and civil law! Is it a wonder that some
of these men have grown hard, cruel and in
human until they now look upon the player as
their legitimate prey and regard any legal
stand taken by him in the enforcement of his
contractual rights as high treason, to be im
mediately dealt with by the black list! Is it
anv wonder that the players, goaded to the last
degree by the unfairness of some of the mag
nates, have formed themselves into an organi
zation known as the Baseball Players’ Frater
nity, for the protection of their rights, so that
they may do collectively that which they as in
dividuals would not dare attempt?
The public gets a very incorrect idea of the
players’ conditions on account of the large
salaries received by some of the stars. These
salaries are, however, no indication of what
the average player gets. Ty Cobb received
$9,500 last year; the contract of Charles L.
Boardman with the Pittsburg team called for
$800. Two players signed with the Chicago
Cubs for $900 each; less per month than they
got. in the Blue Grass League of Kentucky the
year before. When “King” Cole, of the Chi
cago Cubs, led the National League pitchers
three years ago and practically won the pen
nant for his team he was drawing $1,200.
, Wljat Happened to Andy Coakley.
As a matter of fact it may be noted that the
Commission has made no provision for an in
crease in salary to the player graduating from
a minor to a major league, hut when the sit-
>*alien is reversed, and the player is sent from
a major to a minor league, it compels him to
go at a cut in salary, and that, too, in violation
of Ms contract.
’ The player’s contracl calls for payment of a
/‘certain amount of money or Bis “unconditional
release.” When lie is sold to a minor league,
strange to sav, his contract is not assigned,
hut so far as he knows, it drops out of exist
ence. although it has not yet expired. He must
go to the minor league team and sign a new
contract at any figure that team sees fit to
nay. The player naturally thinks that he
should get the amount Ills original contract
culled for. or his unconditional release, as it
is by virtue of that contract that he is sent
Id (he minor league. Guy Zinn and Tommy
McMillan were victims of this sleight-of-hand
performance only a few months ago at the
hands .of the New York Americans, and Jack
Knight had a similar experience. Knight
signed a contract with the New York Amer
icans for 1011-12-13 for $4,000 per season; he
was sold to Washington, and during last sea
son W-S sold by Washington to Jersey City.
Jersey City, reduced his salary to $2,000 per
season. Knight took his case to the National
Commission, which decided that the Jersey
Citv club acted within its rights. Cyrus Bar
ger received tlie same treatment at the hands
of the Brooklyn team last season; in fact,
these cases could be enumerated almost in
definitely. , ...
In 1909 Andrew Coakley was sold by the
Chicago National League team to Louisville.
Louisville refused to give him the same salary
Chicago had been paying, and Andy refused to
report. About, a year later the writers firm
began an action against the Chicago team on
^Oakley’s contract. Coakley was immediately
declared an enemy to organized baseball, cer-
A tain big league teams which had contracts for
exhibition games with an independent team
Coakley was operating ill' Jersey, cancelled
these contracts, and Coakley was put out of
business. Later they “got to” Andy, and he
was induced, by promise of reinstatement, to
withdraw his action. He was signed by the
New York Americans, played for a few weeks
and was then released.
It is interesting to note the attitude of the
National Commission as a body on this point,
and it is best illustrated by their decision,
No. 865, rendered in the case of Lester W.
Wilson, who was released by the Boston
American League team to New Bedford, dur
ing the 1911 season. After the season, Bos
ton paid Wilson the amount his contract
called for, less $150 per month, the amount
he had received from New Bedford, and the
Commission, in commenting upon this fea
ture, says;
"The Commission considers the course
ef ex-Pres1dent Taylor In practically
carrying this player on the Boston
club's pay roll, while he was In the
service of a minor league club, and also
after the disbandonment of the latter
to the close of the American League
race, censurable, its ultimate result be
ing harmful alike to the minor league
club and the player.”
It is difficult for the uninitiated to follow
this bewildering logic and discover how the
player was injured by having his contract
iiveff up to
Three decisions recently handed down by
the National Commission, were in cases in
volving a rather intricate question of dam
ages, the correct solution to which the Com
mission got no closer to than did Dr. Cook
get to the trapped end of the earth. These
decisions were In the cases of player Edward
A. Manning vs. York club, Decision No. 996;
Raymond Whitcraft vs. Wilkes-Barre club,
Decision No. 1,001, and Percy L. Merritt vs.
Victoria club, Decision No. 1,019.
The principle involved in these cases is the
same, the facts differing only slightly. In
each case the player was injured on the
playing field, was paid full salary for a cer
tain length of time, half salary for another
period of time, and then suspended without
pay.
The decision of the National Commission
in these particular cases, rendered long after
the season was over, was that the club
should pay the players’ salaries or give them
unconditional releases, a decision which is
manifestly unjust to the players. Had this
decision been given at the time the clubs
broke the contract it would have been fair,
according to baseball law, but being rendered
after the season was over and after the
players had been held in suspension without
pay during the weeks they should have been
free agents, to permit the owners now- to
retain the players’ money by giving them be
lated releases is a travesty on justice. The
Commission’s attention is called to the fact
that & party may not violate a contract, sit
idly and speculate on the outcome, and then
decide whether or not he wishes to continue
relations under it; and also to the principle
that it is never the party breaking a contract
who chooses what the measure of damages
shall be, but rather the party who has been
injured. Any other theory would put a prem
ium upon the violation of contracts.
It may be argued that these players, not
being physically able to play, were not dam
aged by not being allowed to sign with other
teams. The answer to this is that no mat
ter what the players’ physical condition was,
they had a right to be free from all obliga
tions under a violated contract. At any rate,
no individual has a right to restrain the
movements of others except through valid
contract obligations.
The release clause in the contract enables
the club to rid itself of all obligations to the
player at any time, upon ten days’ notice, but
needless to say, gives no such right to the
player. As harsh as this clause may seem,
th ® r ® has now been grafted into it a joker
which should stand as a monument to man’s
cupidity. The release clause reads as follows:
„ i« further understood and
agreed that the party of the first part
(the club) may, at any time after the
heginnlns and prior to the completion
of the period of this contract, give the
party of the second part (the player)
ten days written notice to end and de-
David Fultz, Former Star Ball Player and
President of the Baseball Players’
Fraternity.
termine all its liabilities and obliga
tions under this contract, in which event
all liabilities and obligations under
taken by said party of the first part,
in this ’ contract, shall at once cease
and determine at the expiration of said
ten days; the said party of the second
part shall thereupon be also freed and
discharged from obligation to render
services to said party of the first part.”
One would naturally suppose, therefore,
that when a player received ten days’ notice
of his unconditional release, he would have
the immediate right of disposing of his serv
ices to begin upon the expiration of the ten-
day period. Such, however, is not the case.
Tucked away in the National Agreement is a
provision reading as follows:
“Article VI., Section 3. * * *
When a major league club serves no
tice of unconditional release on a play
er, he shall be ineligible to contract
with a club of another league, if, dur
ing ten days after service of such no
tice of release, a club of the league in
which he is at the time playing shall
demand his services.”
The player is, therefore, deprived during
the ten days of the right to negotiate for his
future professional career unless w-ith one of ,
the other seven teams in the league in which
he has been playing. This ivould seem to
border very closely upon a private agreement
to prevent a man from procuring employment.
If, however, a magnate from another league
ignores baseball law and makes the player an
offer, as is sometimes done, the latter is pow
erless to accept; the offer may be at an in
creased salary, still the player cannot ne
gotiate; the offer may require an immediate
answer, as the magnate may have other men
in view; but even this does not avail the
player. And all this in spite of the fact that
the player has received his "unconditional re
lease,” and in spite of the fact, too, that no
team in his league is under any obligation to
employ him, or if it does, to pay him the
salary already offered or even Lhe salary he ‘
had been receiving, but can compel him to
play for any figure it sees fit to offer,
“A Cheap F’orin of Graft.”
This method of restricting the player who
is of so little consequence to his team as to
be released, in his right to obtain employ
ment at the risk of his having to remain idle,
is absolutely indefensible. If there is any
possible way such a provision aids baseball,
or if there is any conceivable reason these
other seven clubs should have a right to the
player’s services, the writer would like to
know it. It is simply a cheap form of graft,
and should be far beneath the dignity of the
gentlemen who have formulated the legisla
tion.
The principal legislation regarding the re
serve clause which is so often criticised is
contained in the National Agreement, Article
VI, Section I and Article VII, Section I.
These clauses read, respectively, as follows:
"All parties to this agreement pledge
AUGUST
The National
themselves to recognize the rlpht of
reservation and respect contracts be
tween players and clubs under its pro
tection.”
The other clause, after outlining a plan for
promulgating the list of reserve players, says:
... . . No player thus promul
gated as reserved shall be eligible to
contract or play with any National
Agreement club other than that on
whose list his name appears as a re
serve players until he is regularly re
leased by the reserving club, or is le
gally declared a free agent.”
To be absolutely fair to present baseball
legislation, we wish to say that it is imper
ative that a reserve clause of some kind should
exist. Its abolition would mean that most of
the stars would congregate upon the richer
teams, the league races would be without in
terest, and the player and the game would
ultimately suffer.
Contracts That Bind Only the Players
That the clause should, however, exist with
its present rigidity, is absolutely indefensible.
It requires no legal turn^of mind to realize
that wiien a contract calls for a renewal, it
can mean nothing other than that the parties
bind themselves to enter into another con
tract embodying similar term3. It cannot
mean that one party may do away with or
change the obligation resting upon himself at
his pleasure and still compel strict perform
ance of the other party. This, however, is
what organized ball has put over on the play
ers for years, and that, too, with the express
consent and assistance of the National Com
mission.
Now suppose you, my reader, are a skilled
electrician, and have spent years perfecting
yourself in your craft. You sign a year’s con
tract at $3,000, containing a clause which pro
vides for a renewal. The next year your
employer hands you a contract which calls
for $2,000, and tells you if you do not sign, no
other electrical establishment will employ
you. You are indignant and take your com
plaint to a tribunal elected by yotir employer,
which sits as a final arbiter in all such mat
ters. They sustain your employer. You are
incensed and determined to maintain your
rights; you find a half-mast concern which
will employ you. You work for a while, but
you can’t make your cakes; the big fellows
have all the business; you feel the inexorable
HERRMANN. T, J. LYNCH.
Commission, Who Are the “Last Word”
Organized Baseball.
grip of the system; you realize your helpless
ness, and so you come back as meekly as the
cows come to the bars for salt, to eat out of
your former employer’s hand; you are willing
to take anything he will give, but he says,
“No, you were suspended for not signing your
contract, and by working for a concern not
in our agreement, you have committed an of
fense which prevents our even acting upon
your application for reinstatement for at least
three years. Discipline must- be maintained.
What right have you to dictate the salary you
shall get for your services!” You hear the
measured tread of soldiery, the dragging,
clanking chains of exile, and for a momeut
you think yourself in Siberia.
Yet this is exactly the hall players’ situ
ation. Listen! Last Winter the National
Commission passed a salary limit in Class
AA leagues. Hundreds of salaries were ar
bitrarily cut; the players naturally demurred,
and those in the International League re
ceived the following letter from its president:
“To international League Players,
“Gentlemen: — According to rule
passed by the National Association, at
its annual meeting in Milwaukee last
November, any player who does not
sign and return his contract on or be
fore March 1 Is liable to indefinite
suspension, and will not be allowed to
report at training camp for Spring
practise. Respectfully,
"BDW. G. BARLOW.
“President.”
Audiences Lose by System.
And the result is a league full of dissatis
fied players, who, no matter how hard they
may try, cannot give that high degree of
efficiency which comes only with enthusiasm.
The spectator pays for the best that can be
procured. The player gives about what he is
paid for. The magnate pockets the difference
and the public is the goat.
Last year club owners made over $300,000
through the barter and sale of their players.
Suppose one of these players, being unable
to get a proper renewal of his contract, goes
to an “outlaw” team; he immediately falls
under the ban of Rule 20 of the Rules and
Regulations of the National Commission, and
is deprived for the period of three years of
the right to make his living In his chosen
profession. This rule reads in part as fol
lows:
B. B. JOHNSON,
in Everything Connected with
“In all cases of failure to report or
desertion the offender may be rein
stated with or without a line, in the
discretion of the tribunal having jur
isdiction, provided, however, that if
the player shall have joined an out
law team, ills application for the re
moval of his disability shall not be
acted on within three years after the
commission of the offense.”
You ask why the player doesn’t go to law!
He doesn’t dare or he will be driven out of
his profession; so he bares his back and takes
his lashing.
Many more instances of oppressive legisla
tion and violations of contract could be men
tioned did time and space permit. The Base
ball Players’ Fraternity, which is composed of
over 300 big league players, has made several
applications this Winter to the powers regard
ing certain changes in the conduct of the game.
These requests have been absolutely fair and
equitable, yet they have beBn summarily
turned down. We expected nothing else— '
this has always been their method of organized
ball, but how long will the player and the pub
lic stand for such faithlessness, tyranny and
oppression! Not always, surely!
We expect the support of the public and even
those in no way interested In baseball, because
the great American people have always stood
for the square deal and against the faction
that plays the game with loaded dice.
A Federal Investigation of the baseball busi
ness, rumors of which are rife, is in no way
unlikely, we regret Ri say, and had the powers
paused for a few moments from their money
getting, they, with their shrewdness, would
have long ago discerned the trend of the times.
As long as baseball kept reasonably close to
the realm of sport slight infractions of Fed
eral law, if there were such, were condoned;
hut now that it has become commercialized,
players less than living wages, baseball must
obey the laws just as all other businesses.
Should this investigation materialize and
should Congress, in its zeal, go further than Is
necessary, as sometimes is the case, organized
baseball will have only itself to blame; it will
simply be paying the penalty suffered by many
another faction which has deemed itself su
perior to government and lias ridden roughshod
over tlie rights of those unable to protect
themselves, until at last the law has stepped
In and called it to account.
The Lesson in the Popular Attacks on the Supreme Court
By Supreme Court Justice
OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES
(IN AN INTERVIEW)
I X that visible court,^ to which for ten years it
has been my opportunity to belong, we are
very quiet. But it is the quiet of a storm centre.
Silence has taught the world skepticism and has
made it legitimate to put everything to the test
of proof. Many beautiful and noble reverences
are impaired, but In these days no one can com
plain if any institution or system of belief is call
ed on to justify its continuance in life. Of course
we are not excepted and have not escaped
Doubts are expressed that go to our very being
Not only are we told that when Marshall pro
nounced an act of Congress unconstitutional he
usurped a power that the Constitution did not
give, but we are told that we are the repre
sentatives of a class—a l tool of the money power,
I get letters, not always anonymous, intimating
that we are corrupt. I admit that it makes my
heart ache. It is very painful, when one spends
all the energies of one’s soul in trying to do
good work, with no thought but th^t of solving
the problem according to the rules by which one
is hound, to know that many see sinister mo
tives and would be glad of evidence that one was
consciously bad.
The attacks upon the Court are merely an ex
pression of the unrest that seems to wonder
vaguely whether law and ordenrpay. When the
ignorant are taught to doubt, they do not know
what they safely may believe. And it seems to
uie that at this time we need education in the
obvious more than investigation of the obscure.
1 do not see so much immediate use in commit
tees on the high cost of living, and inquiries hoV
far it is due to the increased production of gold,
how far to the narrowing cattle ranges and the
growth of population, how far to the bugaboo, as
I do in bringing home to people a few social and
economic truths.
Most men think dramatically, not quanti
tatively—a fact that the rich would be wise to
remember more than they do. We are apt to
contrast the palace with the hovel, the dinner at
Sherry’s with the workingman's dinner pail, and
never ask how much or realize how little is
withdrawn to make the prizes of success. We
are apt to think of ow nership as a terminus, not
as a gateway—and not to realize that except
the tax levied for personal consumption, large
ownership means investment, and investment
means the direction of labor toward the pro
duction of the greatest return, returns that so
far as they are great show by the very fact that
they are consumed by the many, not alone by
the few. We need to think things instead of
words—to drop ownership, money, and to think
of the stream, of products;' of wheat and cloth
and railway travel. When we do, it is obvious
that the many consume them; that they how as
truly have substantially all there is as if the
title were in the. United States; that the great
body of property is socially administered now,
and that the function of private ownership is to
define and advance the equilibrium of social de
sire— whicli socialism equally would have to
define, but which, under the i.iusion of self-
seeking, is more shrewdly foreseen
I should like to see it brought home to the
public that the question of fair prices is due to
the fact that none of us can have as much as
we want of at! the things we want.
As less will be produced than the public
wants, the question arises as to how much of
each product it will have and how much it can
go without. Thus the final competition is be
tween the objects of desire, and therefore be
tween the producers of those objects. When we
oppose labor and capital, labor means the group
that is selling its product and capital all the
other groups that are buying it. The hated cap
italist is simply the mediator, the prophet, the
adjuster, according to his divination of the fu
ture desire. If one could get that believed, the
body of the people would have no doubt as to
the value of law.
That is my outside thought on the present
discontents. As to the truth embodied in them,
in part it cannot be helped. it cannot be
helped, it is as it should be. that the law is be
hind the times. I told a labor leader once that
what they ask was a favor, and if a decision
was against them, if the favor was denied,
they called it wicked. Tlie same might be said
of their opponents. The taw is growing. As.a11
law embodies beliefs that have triumphed In
the battle of ideas and then have translated
themselves into action; while there still is
doubt, while opposite conditions still keep a
battle front against each other, the time for law
has not come; the notion destined to prevail is
not yet entitled to the field.
It is a misfortune if a judge reads his con
scious or unconscious sympathy with one side
or the other prematurely into the law and for
gets that what seem to him to bp the first prin
ciples are believed by half bis fellow men to be
wrong. I think that we have suffered from this
misfortune, in State courts at. least, and that
this is another and very important truth to be
extracted from the popular discontent.
When, twenty years ago. a vague terror went
over the earth and the word Socialism began to
be heard, I thought and still think that fear was
translated into doctrines that had no proper
place in the Constitution or the common law.
Judges are apt to be naive, simple-minded men,
and they need something of Mephistopheles. We,
too, need education in the obvious—to learn to
transcend our own convictions and to leave
room for much that we hold dear to be done
away with short of revolution by the orderly
change of law. .
1 have no belief in panaceas and almost none
in sudden ruin, I believe with Montesquieu that
if the chance of a battle—1 may add, the pas
sage of a law—has ruined a State, there was a
general cause at work that made the State
ready to perish by a single law. Hence I am not
much interested one way or the other in the
nostrums now so strenuously urged.
I do not think the United States would come
to an end if we lost our power to declare an act
of Congress void. I do think the Union
would be imperilled if we could not make that
declaration as to the laws of the several States.
One in my place sees how often a local policy
prevails with those who are not trained to na
tional views: and how often action is taken that
embodies what the commerce clause was meant
to end. For most of the things that properly
can be called evils in the present state of the
law, [ think the main remedy, as for the evils of
public opinion, is for us to grow more civilized.
1 surmise it will be a slow business for our
people to reach national views, assuming that
we are allowed to work peaceably to that end.
My apprehension is that, competition from new
races will cut deeper than working men’s dis
putes, and will test whether we can hang to
gether and can fight. However, though f fear
that we are running through the world s re
sources at. a pace that we cannot keep. I do not
lose my hopes. 1 do not pin my dreams for
the future to my country or even to my race.
I think it probable that civilization somehow
will last as long as I care to look ahead—per
haps the smaller numbers, hut perhaps also
bred to greatness and splendor of silence. I
think it not Improbable that man—like the grub
that prepares a chamber for the winged thing
it never has seen but is to be that man may
have cosmic destiny that he does not under
stand. And so beyond the vision of battling
races and an impoverished earth I catch a gleam
ing glimpse of peace.
If a man's ambition is the thirst for a power
that comes not from office but from within, he
never can he sure that any happiness is not a
fool's paradise—be never can be sure that he sits
on that other bench reserved for the masters of
those who know'. Until one draws near seventy,
one is less likely to hear the trumpets than the
rolling fire of the front. 1 have passed that age
and I still am on the firing line, only in rare
moments there comes a pause, and for half an
hour one feels a trembling hope. They are the
rew ards of a lifetime's work.
I was walking homeward one evening on Penn
sylvania Avenue near the Treasury in Washing
ton- and a dream was pictured to my mind. As
I looked beyond Sherman's statue to the west
the sky was aflame with scarlet and crimson
from the setting sun. But, like the noted down
fall In Wagner's opera, below the skyline there
came from little globes the pallid discord of the
electric lights. And I thought to myself the
Gotterdammerung will end, and from those
globes clustered like evil eggs will come the
new masters of the sky. It is like the time in
which we live. But then I remembered the
faith that I partly have expressed, faith in a
universe not measured by our fears, a universe
that has thought and more than thought Inside
of it, and as 1 gazed after the sunset and above
the electric lights—there shone the stars’.