The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1908-10-31
QU|GLEY'S REPLY.
st. Mary's Coach Takes Excep-
ton to Washburn's Attitude.
Criticises Local Schools Efforts
to Leave Conference.
IN THE CASEOF M'VEY.
HaIfbAck Is Ineligible to Play
He Says.
Also Speaks in Defense Of His
Own Team.

peared in your edition of Wednesday,
October 2Sth, certain statements were
made concerning the irregular meth
DDS by which one, McVey was de-
clared ineligible to play on the Wash
burn team, together with other state
ments relative to the standard of re-
quired credits for athletes, using of
| professionals, freshmen, etc, which l
wish to brand as maliciously untrue.
If the person who wrote the article
would but acquaint himself with the
rules and bylaws of the Kansas col
lege athletic conference and be close
enough to Professor H. I. Woods that
he might know how different con-
ference arguments are disposed OF
officially he would readily see that
the methods used whereby McVey was
declared ineligible were strictly speak
ing according to both the letter and
the spirit of the rules.
AS to the history of the case, it
schools interested, Cooper college of
Sterling, Kan. and Washburn college
of Topeka, together with st. Marys
college are all members of the Kan
sas college athletic conference. Nc
Vey, before going to Washburn. was
student at Cooper college and during
the football seasons of 1906 and 1907
represented Cooper college as a player
on the football teams of these two
years-he might have been playing
previous to that time, this 1 do not
know, but 1 do know that he played
during the seasons OF 1906 and 1907,
as Cooper college played both those
years against st. Mary's college.
The grounds for the protest of Nc
Vey are not understood generally,
neither are they set forth In the
article referred to. McVey's eligibility
during the present season against col
leges of the Topeka conference, was
protested because his playing was in
direct violation of part of Article l
of the Kansas conference rules which
reads: mo student, who has par
ticipated in any intercollegiate game
as a member of the college team shall
be permitted to play on the team of
any other college during the succeed
ing season devoted to that sport, un-
less he has obtained a college
academic degree or has completed the
course in the preparatory department
of a college"
1t is contended that McVey, having
last year represented Cooper college
was not this year eligible to represent
Washburn college.
In former years. one of the most
crying needs for reform in college
athletics, was the practice of one
school PROSECUTING the athletes of an
other school and this law was made
to fill that need.
The article in the State Journal
condemning the 'underhanded" meth
DDS used in making this protest active
states among other things that "ac-
cording to the rules of the Topeka
conference there is an executive COM
mittee composed of four men who
are elected annually. These four men
pass on every question of eligibility
and if they are unable to arrive at any
decision, then and only then an
arbiter IS selected who is not con-
nected with any school in the con-
ference
This statement is incorrect in its en-
tirety. In the first place the executive
committee. which consists of five men
instead of four, has not the power to
decide on the eligibility of any one, but
among other powers which are invested
In 1t according to section five of the by
laws of the Kansas College Athletic
Conference it appoints an arbiter, not
resident of the state of Kansas, TO
whom all cases of dispute shall be re-
ferred and whose decision shall be
final" The arbiter of the conference Is
a permanent official, not one appointed
for each specific case, and the position
has been held for some time by Clark
B. Hetherington of Missouri university.
Columbia, Mo.
Lilo NCSiSACii III Tic N1CIll case. Inel
With the disapproval of some of the
members of the conference on account
of which, he very reluctantly re-accept-
ed the authorship of the Topeka con-
| ference. On June 14th, 1906. in a letter
to H. q. WILDER, Emporia, Kansas, who
was at that time secretary of the con-
ference. he did accept the arbitership
having, however in. a correspondence
with WILDER dated yune 5th, 1906, JUS
nine days previous to his acceptance,
refused to act as arbiter unless he was
unanimously chosen by the executive
committee. That he did accept shows
that he was the unanimous choice of
the committee. There is also on-file in
the secretary's office in Emporia dated
Topeka, Kansas April 16, 1906 and
signed by Professor H. l. Woods. stat
ing that CLARK B. Hetherington would
be acceptable to Washburn as arbiter
for the conference"
Washburn claims that the proceed
ings by which McVey was barred from
playing in the st. Marys game to have
been irregular. also that they had not
and have not been advised of the pro-
test on McVey, neither had they any
opportunity for stating their side of
he case. This is also untrue in every
particular because / took up the cues
ion as provided for in the bylaws and
hled my protest against McVey Oct
18th. 1908, ten days previous to the
NdSHourn-St. MaryS game, with p. q.
, z. Sampson. secretary of the confer
ence, who in turn communicated the
protest to Professor Woods, faculty
representative of Washburn Prof
Woods made his answer stating Wash
| burns side of the case to Sampson,
who then forwarded protest an an
swer to Hetherington. Hetherington'y
decision wired the morning of the
| Washburn-St. Marys game to Woods
| or Topeka, Sampson at Emporia and
myself at St. Marys was "Mcvey case
under rule 1 ineligible"
Since that time Hetherington has for
warded to each of the schools interest
ed a copy of his decision together with
an explanation of same, dated Oct,
22nd 1908
Wasnourn's contention was that Nc
| Ney was eligible under rule 4 which
states, No student shall participate
IN particular sport upon the teams
OF any college or colleges for more
than four years in the aggregate. and
any member of the COLLEGE who niavs