The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1902-04-24
VIEWS OF c. w. SOMERS.
Lajoie the Only Player Affected by
the Courts Ruling.

CLEVELAND, o., April 23.-Vice Presi-
dent c. w. Somers, of the American
League. authorized the following statement
to-day relative to the decision of the Penn
sylvania court in the Lajoie case:
LAS to Lajoie, have not consulted
with our attorneys on that point and do
not know whether the judgment of the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court is final on all
the defenses that might be made to an APP
plication for injunction, but, assuming the
case is final, the judgment affects Lajoie
only. The case of every other ball player
who left the National League will, of
course, stand upon its own merits, and all
the facts surrounding that particular case.
We do not intend to give up single ball
player without a fight, and fell confident
that we will win in the end.
Il am advised that whatever the tudg-
ment may be in the Pennsylvania courts
they cannot have any effect outside of that
State. In every other State where these
questions may arise IT has been determined
that an injunction of this character would
not lie. In great many cases where the
ball players left the National League and
came with us in 1900 the League clubs old
not take the necessary steps to maintain
their legal contract, if they had one. In
other words, the National League has no
contract now with the players, and so far
as the players who came from Chicago ana
St Louis are concerned L do not think they
were notified that their services would be
required for another year, and this was
necessary, according TO the League con-
tract, on or before Oct. 10.
1.-The United States Court of Western
Pennsylvania has already determined that
q contract of this kind is inequitable and
would not be enforced by am injunction.
Ohio courts could not grant Injunction
in such a case without going back on their
previous holdings. New York courts have
taken a similar view to Ohio; the courts
of the States of Illinois and Michigan
in accord with New York and Ohio. In
fact, there is no explanation for this de-
cision of the Supreme Court of Pennsyl-
vana except that the question was misun-
derstood, or not presented In its entirety.
For instance, the court did not seem to
discuss anything but the contract itself,
which four years on one side and ten
days on the other. The rules of the Ma
tional League and the national agreement
do not seem TO have been considered. They
were certainly material, for under them
the contract became substantially one for
life upon one side and only ten days on the
other. In Lajoie's case he was obliged to
sign with the Philadelphia National
League club or quit playing ball. as the
was the dominating power in baseball at
that time.
1.-The decision of the Pennsylvania court
holds that the ball player is benefited by
this contract. In Lajoie's case he received
81, 400 a year from the Philadelphia National
League club and. with a competitor in the
field, his salary is now $500. II the Penn
sylvania decision is good law then the
American League will have by far the bet
ter of it, because we have contracts now
with all of these players who came from the
National League and to almost all of
them the National League has failed TO
maintain even its legal right in its con-
tracts, even if such contracts existed"