The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1904-05-14

Editor ST. Paul Globe:
Dear Sir: / have noticed that your pa
per has called attention to the dangerous
condition of the grand stand at the new
ball park, and would like to have you in
form the fans of another wrong that of
compelling patrons to accept rain checks
when there IS no game played. The man
agement takes the money, but if the game
is not played all the fan gets in return
is rain check, which might or might not
be OF use to him. Travelling men and
a game one day, but not have another
chance to do so, and the custom of giving
rain checks instead of refunding the
money, should be abolished l would like
to know If the mana cement has a right
to compel patrons to accept rain checks.
Respectfully, Keith Burns,
ST. Paul, May 49,
Since the question raised by the author
of the above letter is one in which every
baseball fan in the city is Interested
G b has made an inquiry into
the matter and is informed by competent
legal talent that the management of a
ball club cannot compel a patron to ac-
cept a rain check in lieu of the cash when
the game is called off before it is a
game.
According to Attorney Herbert P. Keller,
former city prosecutor, member-eiect to
the assembly and a baseball fan himself,
any person who pays money to see a
game of baseball is entitled to receive
his money back if the game is not played.
MI. Keller says a patron of the game
cannot be compelled to accept a rain
check, much less one which is good only
for certain game.
Money Should Be Returned.
People have the same right to demand
and receive the return of their money paid
TO witness a game of ball that is not
played as they have to demand the return
OF money paid to see a show or any other
performance which is not produced, -
said Mr.. Keller, ''and a demand for the
return of the money could be followed
up In court with the result that the man
agement would have to refund the cash. %
The information furnished by Mr.. KEEL
Ter is OF much Importance to the fan, who
has been led to believe that he is com
PEELED to accept rain checks after paying
cash to witness a game of ball, and it is
believed that concerted demand for the
return OF the money when game is not
played would result in the adjustment
of the rain check system
4 would be glad to see T h G O b e
disclose the facts In this matter in order
that the patrons of the game may know
their rights said an employee of the court
house, who is a steady patron of the
game here in st. Paul. 81 have often Won
aered why the abuse was permitted to eX-
1st, but l presume it is because each in
dlvidlal sum is SO small that no one cares
to make a fight. However. when a fan
pays TO see q game of ball he certainly
has right to see the game or else get
his money back.
Many Rain Checks Wasted.
What right has the management "a
take persons money for ball game
ana then If the game is not played give
MIN rain check instead of the so cents
he has paid? Suppose he would not have
another opportunity to get out to a game
Tor some time, as is often the case: then
he is out his money and gets nothing for
It. How many people who go out to a
Sunday or Saturday game can get
away to witness a game on Monday az
Tuesday? 1t looks to me as if the pa
irons OF the game had been imposed upon
LONG, enough in this regard, and since it
mas been made clear that the mana cement
can be compelled to refund the money.
would like TO see the custom adopted.
1t Is nothing more than Just that we
should have our money back if there is
no Gle. We like baseball, and are will
ing to go out and pay our money to see
the games, but to be compelled to nav
for something we don't get is going a lit
tie too strong
The baseball management contends that
it has right to keep the money and
issue rain checks but Mr. Keller. after
looking up the law in the matter, saws
any patron who pays to see game has
right to his money back if the game is
not played. and baseball game is not 4
game until five full innings have been
played.