Waterbury evening Democrat., 1908-10-03
bHOG DHEE THE GAME IS
 CALLED A TIE President PulIiam Decides the Dis. putsd Game Between New
 York and Chicago.

taken. If such is the case and either of the two teams involved becomes tue champion there will be need Of prompt action by the directors to settle which one Is to meet the American league champion. MT Put liam went over all the documents III the case thoroughly and his findings are as follows:
 '.1n the matter of the protested New York Chicago game of Septem- Der 23, 1908:
 This game was played at the Polo grounds. New York, and was de- clared d drawn contest by the um- pires; in charge.
 Against this decision both the Chicago and New York clubs filed protests, as follows:
 September 23, 10 D.. m.--Chicago appealed from decision. declaring q draw and claimed forfeiture, alleging violation of section 4, rule 26, of the playing rules by the New York club.
 September "A, II a. .m.-Chicago club serves notice that 1t does not protest decision.
 September 25-Chicago claims a forfeiture by g to 0 for failure of New York club to play of September "A the tie game of previous day.
 September 25--New York club gives notice of appeal from decis- ion of umpires and at expiration of time limit files briefs, together with documentary evidence.
 | September 30-Chicago formally valves It's right to five days in which to reply to New York, resting its case on the report of the umpires and claiming thereby a forfeited game on September "A.
 The contentious of the Chicago club for a forfeiture on September 24 will be disposed of first. When the Chicago club filed its original claim on the night of the game in question 1t tied the hands of the president of the league in his en- deavor to reach speedy adjudica- tion. Under the constitution the fil- ing of this claim precluded the pres ident from taking any steps looking toward the immediate playing of of the game. There was nothing to do but to serve notice of claim On New York and wait five days for reply. When, the next morning, the Chi- cago club filed its second communi- cation 1t was entirely too late, from any angle of equity or baseball law, for the Chicago club to insist on the playing off of the game on a few hours notice.
 It will be seen from the above that the last and final claim for a forfeiture filed by Chicago September 25 on the ground of the alleged vio- lation of sections 45 and 55 of the constitution cannot be entertained, and same is hereby dismissed.
 Before going into the merits of the protest filed by the New York club against the decision of the um- pires declaring the game of Septem- Der 23 tie desire to quote the rule of governing the scoring of runs:
 Rule 59--One run shall be scored every time base runner, after hay ing legally touched the first three bases, shall legally touch the home base before three men are put out, provided, however, that if he reach home on or during a play in which the third man be forced out or be put out before reaching first base a run shall not count. A force out. can be made only when a base runner legally loses the right to the base he occupies and is thereby obliged to advance as the result of fair hit ball not caught on the fly.
 The play: Bridwell at bat, Me Cormick on third. Merkle on first, and two out. Bridwell hits the ball. which results in fair hit not caught on the fly. What is necessary here to score this run? Bridwell must reach first in safety, as must Merkle reach second, he being forced to ad- vance on Bridwell's hit.
 Under the rules the umpire is tlfe sole judge of play, and on this play both ruled that Merkle was forced out for failure to touch second O'Day on his personal observation of Merkle and Emslie by information received from O'Day. The latter be- ing umpire in chief, consequently ruled that Mccormick did not score.
 This left the game tie, and O'Day in his report gives the reason why the game was not continued. He says: ""The people ran out on the field. I did not ask to have the field cleared as it was too dark to con- tinue play"
 The New York club in support of its claim for the game contends: First, that neither O'Day nor Emslie saw the play in question; second, that as proof of this claim the fact is cited of the umpire's failure to order the field cleared for the pur- pose of continuing the game; third, that no decision was rendered on the field to the effect that the run did not score.
 No claim is made that Merkle touched second base. it being held by inference that this requirement was a technicality Numerous affi- davits by players and spectators are submitted In support of the conten- ton of the New York club. Among the afiidavits of the players are those of Bridwell, who made the hit, and of Mccormick, who scored the run; but none from Merkle. who also figured in the play.
 The question now 10 be decided 10. Shall the decision of the umpires be upheld. or shall 1t be set aside on the evidence submitted by players and spectatorsy
 In similar case. covering the