The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1902-05-07
CONTRACTS NOT VALID
DECISION AGAINST THE NATIONAL
BASEBALL LEAGUE.
InjunctiOns Denied at st. Louis in the
Cases of Wallace, Harper and
Heidrick.

ST. LOUIS. May Gin Circuit Court,
rooms Nos. 6 and I. presided over respect
lively by Judges Fisher and Tally, the ap-
p~lication for al injunction made by the Ma
tionaI League to restrain Shortstop Wal
lace, Pitcher Harper and Center-felder
Heidrick from playing with the St. Louis
American League team, was denied in all
three cases to-day. The decision of each
judge is based on a lack of mutually of
the contract, its abrogation Of personal lib
erty, which, 1t is declared, may not be bar
tered away; its opposition to public policy
and it's showing of the existence of a COM
bination in violation of the antitrust law.
This last showing is stated by the decision
as sufficient bar to the enforcement of the
contract, were it valid, which it is not.
Judge Lally, in deciding the case of Har-
per, covered the points on which the de-
cision In the two cases rests. He said in
part: we are referred to a recent decision
in a case similar 10 this against one La
Jole in Pennsylvania, where the writ of in
junction issued. Decisions of the courts of
other States are persuasive, but we are
not bound to follow them. And, further
more, it is sufficient to say that it is appar-
ent from a reading of that decision that the
PLAINTIFFS evidence there was quite differ
ent, much stronger than that adduced at
the hearing of this case.
Again., IL Is CODl6DQcQ, ana we are Ol
opinion that the contract is lacking in
mutually. Defendant is bound as with
bands of steel for the entire contractual
period. while Section 4 gives the plaintiff
power, at its option, to eXpel defendant,
which means TO cancel the contract, for
certain enumerated acts or reasons, all of
which the plaintiff is made the exclusive
and arbitrary Judge, and Section IA gives
him the right TO end and determine all its
liabilities and obligations hereunder by
simply giving the defendant ten days no
tice of its intention to do so. Numerous
cases expressly hold that courts of equity
will never interfere to enforce a contract
where the power to revoke or terminate
the same is given to either party to the
agreement, the reason being that such con-
tract might be terminated by the party
holding the option after decree of per-
Torrance in his favor was rendered, and
the decree thus made nugdtory.
I'VE will pass from defendants conten-
ton that the provisions of the contract
are not as a whole-which includes the
League constitution. rules and regulation,
which by Paragraph IA are made a part
of the agreement-lacking in uniformity,
and are SO unfair and uncomfortable as
to make IL inequitable for a court of equity
to enforce the same, the point made that
the contract is against policy. Now even
if it does not come within the prohibition
of the antitrust statute, the evidence
shows that plaintiff was, during the life
of the contract in suit, in league or combi-
nation with other clubs TO fix and control
the salary of players, the price of admis-
SION 10 De cndIStu at tne games playeu
by member of the combination and 20
control the employment of players. The
contract was made in furtherance Of this
combination and If. as urged by defendants,
ii was an unlawful one, ii is against pub
lie policy and bars plaintiff from obtain
ing the relief sought in the court of equity.
personal liberty, which is guaranteed to
every citizen under our Constitution and
laws, consists in the right TO go where one
pleases and when, and to do that which
may lead to ones business or pleasure, only
so far restricting it as the rights of others
make necessary"