The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1898-08-25
A COMEDY OF ERRORS.
Impartial Review of the Now Fa-
nous Holmes Case,

nous Holmes Case.
The Holmes case is fast assuming grave
proportions, and just what will be the
outcome of that little incident" at the
Polo Grounds cannot be accurately fore
told at this writing Public opinion is
pronounced in the belief that the board of
directors exceeded their authority when
they assumed 10 discipline Holmes for an
offense committed on ball field, which
is entirely outside the pale of their ju-
risdiction, and comes solely within the
province of the umpire and the board of
discipline.
Furthermore, Holmes was not given an
opportunity TO state his side of the case,
and hence the judgment given was rem
dered solely on ex parte testimony. A
man may be indicted on charge, but
nevertheless, until proven guilty he is
presumed to be innocent. This protection
and right is guaranteed to him by the
Constitution of the United States, and
all the constitutions, bylaws, rules, reg
ulations, and Brush agreements, passed
by the National League and American
Association of Baseball Clubs cannot de-
prive him of the right to a fair trial by
jury.
The review of the findings of the board
of directors in the Holmes-Freedman
case published in The Times of August
II, was technically and legally correct in
all its conclusions, and upon further con-
sideration no reason is known TO exist
why n cinpIa ctatament cont aimed in tne
article should be retracted.
The whole trouble really began when
Hanlon did not remove Holmes from the
game at Freedmans request. This the
Baltimore manager should have done, as
Freedman, under the Brush agreement,
had perfect right 10 demand Holiness
removal. Had Hanlon acquiesced there
would have been no further trouble, and
the matter not laid open for public dis
cussion. The case could have been easily
settled during an executive session of the
league in a manner satisfactory to all
parties concerned.
1t is therefore, unfortunate that the
board of directors, in its zeal to punish
everyone suspected of an offense, took
under consideration matters outside its
jurisdiction and rendered a decision that
would not stand in any court of equity
and which has been denounced by the
league itself, as is shown by the call
for another meeting of the board of di-
rectors TO be held ''to reconsider the
illegal suspension of Holmes
Therefore, the position taken by The
Times in the matter is not only sus-
tanned by every precedent of law, but has
been Endorsed by the league itself The
Times does not charge the board of di-
rectors with Intentional wrong-doing.
Far from ii. 1t simply insists that the
board erred in judgment when it under
took to prescribe a punishment for
Holmes
In a nutshell, the whole affair has been
one continuous comedy of errors
First If Holmes had a grievance
against a spectator from whom he had
received abuse, he should have appealed
Tor redress to the umpires. who could
nave compelled the removal of the person
OFFENDING Holmes did not do so. but in
duiged in personal insult 10 the pres
loent or the New York Club. for which
he should have been removed from the
grounds.
second. Hanlon should have removed
holmes from the grounds, upon the re-
quest OF freedman, under the terms of
the Brush agreement, without stopping
to consider the guilt or Innocence of
Holmes.
Ihird. freedman made a serious mis-
take IN Withdrawing his club from the
held upon Hanlon's refusal to remove
Holmes, thereby depriving the public of
witnessing an exhibition for which they
had paid their money; LAYING his clnb
liable TO a fine of one thousand dollars.
and mourning personal fine of one hun
dred dollars; Freedman should have play
ed the game under protest and taken the
matter to the proper league tribunal for
settlement.
And then, to cap the climax. comes the
decision of the board of directors. which
has resulted in the case being taken into
civil court all of which is bad for the
game.