Daily press. [volume] (Newport News, Va.) 1896-current, 1908-10-07

Ikle did not touch second base. Ems-
lie stated that he did not see the
Iplay, and then went - his colleague
To-Day and asked him whether ne
had seen the play.
umpires Consulted.
To-Day answered, in the affirma.
tive, and then Emslie asked him
whether Merkle had run to second,
and being Informed that he had not,
Emslie declared Merkle out which
under the rule quoted above. he not
only had a right TO do. but was re-
quired to do. I
I'VE therefore ind that the ruling
as made by the umpires was In &C.
cordance with the playing rules and
IN conformity with what happened on
the field at the time. To set aside
an umpire's decision on judgment
OF play. by evidence from the per-
sons in attendance at any game
would. in our mind, be establishing
a bad and dangerous precedant, and
one that the baseball public would
condemn in a very short time. In
this case. however, there Is not
single line or word of testimony of
fered by the New York club that
could even by inference be construed
10 mean that ,Merkle reached second
base at any time. except from the
affidavit of the player himself which
however. was not mada until after
Mr.. Pulliam had passed on the case.
No Other Ground Tenable.
I've can, therefore. come to no
other conclusion than that the New
York club lost a well earned victory
as the result of stupid play Of one
of its members. We sustain the
president In upholding the report OF
the umpires with reference to this
game"
The directors state that they do
not think any consideration should
have been given to the protest OF
the Chicago club. 1t is stated that
the evidence shows that on the
night Of the game in question the
Chicago club filed a claim with Mr..
Pulliam for forfeiture of the game.
This claim on their part tied the
hands OF the president and prevented
the playing OF Of the tie game on
the following day. The evidence
also shows that Oh the day following
the game in question. the New York
club conferred with Mr.. Pulliam and
inquired OF him whether they would
DO required to play OF the tie game.
and were informed by him that they
would not be requested to do SO. To-
make an award OF the game against
the New York club under these con-
ditions would be absurd We there
fore sustain the finding Of the presi.
dent with reference to the appeal
fled by the Chicago club.
Chicago Tied PulIiam's Hands.
Our Judgment and finding Is. that
the New York club cannot be depriv.
ed OF their rights under the circum.
stances. As We have already stated.
the evidences shows that the game
. was not played on. on account OF the
estopal of the Chicago club under
the constitutional operation Of their
!, first claim. The evidence. We re-
peat. also indicates. in our judgment.
that the New York club would have
played of this game on the only day
possible. had they not been informed
by Mr.. Pulliam that they would not
be required to do 50. This action on
Mr.. Pulliam's part cannot be criti-
cised by anyone. because his hands
were tied by the attitude Of the Chi
cago club. We. therefore. hold that
the New Works should, in all justice
and fairness under these conditions,
be given an opportunity to play on
the game in question. For that rea-
son we order that the game be play
ed OF On the Polo grounds on Thurs
day. October s. or as soon thereafter
as the weather conditions will per.
nit and both clubs are directed to
govern themselves accordingly.
I'VE also require that the rules
governing the worlds series In 30
far as they apply to the playing