Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1907-05-04

| would come to them This course destroyed
Stahl,s market value and prevented trade
bid, that club naturally did not bid high.
The Washington club, however, continued
its efforts to trade Stahl until he took hii
case before the commission, whereupon all
efforts ceased until II was determined
whether the club had title to the player
or not
"The commission heard the case on Aprn
9. five days before the opening of the
season, and an immediate decision was
promised, and yet 1t is received on the
closing day of the fourth week of the play
ing season. During the entire time Of the
controversy Stahl has made his headquar-
tiers at the office of Mr.. johnson. one of the
members of the commission. and his entire
case has been prepared at those head.
quarters.
with these basic facts before them, the
commission after this long. penalizng de-
lay, comes out with its remarkable de-
cision, that the Washington club owns
Stahl, but it does not own him; that 1t
can trade him, but cannot play him; that
If 1t does not dispose OF him within week.
and this after the commission has out
rageously held the case up for five weeks.
the commission will put price upon the
player to be paid by some unknown person,
II at all.
1.-The commission has this to say as its
excuse:
I'm this case however. it is admitted
by the Washington club that they agreed
with the player to have him leave that
desired to go to- provided a fair deal or
exchange could be made, but not doing
this they have conceded to the player GER
tain rights which they cannot recall with
out his consent even with the proviso above
referred to-
1.-The national commission absolutely ig-
nores the only written statement of the
whole promise made to Stahl, which con-
tanned in exact terms the Washington
clubs position in the matter. This was in
a letter from Manager Cantillon to Stahl.
+" But they dhe owners) are all anxious
that you return to your position at first
base, but in case that you do not care to
return to Washington they suggest to mo
to treat your fairly and to allow you to go
to any club you select, provided can make
a trade satisfactory to myself.
"There does not seem to be much mine
ing of words in this letter. which was be-
fore the commission. and which states
plainly. IL anybody but Constable Dogberry
or his descendants were considering the
case, that the trade must be satisfactory
to Cantillon. The commission takes the
absurd and ridiculous grounds that because
the club says saat 1t will trade a man. if
satisfactory proposition is presented. that
1t thereby loses title. This is about as
ridiculous and crazy ruling can pos
sibly be conceived
IF A owns a house and asks him il he
will sell it and says, Yes. I will sell IL
if satisfactory offer is made and B
thereupon presents certain offers for the
property which are all rejected by A as not
satisfactory, does A thereupon lose title
to his property If the national commits
sion had the say. according to this Stahl
decision, A would be compelled by the
courts to dispose of his house on one of the
propositions made by B. The commission
would have sat on some BENCH with the
solemnity of owls. and, with the Stahl
precedent before them, and following its
language, would have said: b contends
that the propositions submitted by y.
and 2 to A for his property were just and
fair A. on the other hand. contends that
they were not. But A having conceded GER
tain rights to B-that is, that we would sell
his property provided a satisfactory offer
was made-A cannot alone be the judge
of whether the offers are fair and reason
able, because IL he alone were to be the
judge he may be arbitrary in his views
and in such case BIS rights would certainly
be infringed upon. Therefore must accept
one of the propositions or this court will
condemn and seize the property ITSELF "