New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1910-09-12
.GL|DDEN TROPHY AWAR
Court Refuses to Alter Oeeisi.
of Contest Board.
CUP GOES TO CHALMEs
Opinion Says That Any Su.
Governing Body Is Supren.
in It's Own Field.

BY the decision OF Justice Putnam
award OF the Cilidden Trophy FOR N.
the Chalmers Motor Company oy the
test board Of tho American Autons.
Association is confirmed.
Following the decision % the es~.
board Of the A. 4. 4. IN sustaininz
appeal OF the Chalmers Motor COM.
from the decision OF Referee WA.
awarding the Glidden Trophy for IN
the Premier Entry No. J. and dee.,-
the Chalmers Entry No. ; the wine.
the contest on July =, suit was brcu.
by RI. o. Smith, the president Of tbs
rnier company and the entrant Of tie
rnier car. for perpetual injunctisr
straining the delivery Of the cuu IA /
Chalmers entry and seeking 70 hsy.
award of the referee 20 the Premier So
reinstated by the courts The Ans-.
Automobile Association, The various ~ss
bers of it's contest board. tha Chsir-
Motor Company and George " Du1s-
the entrant Of the Chalmers car. !.
named as defendants.
a temporary restraining order 7as n.
ed on the application Of the plaiuHr
Justice Kappar. of Brooklyn. and a.
rnent was had before Justice Putnam
August IS to continue the injunction \,
ing the final trial Of the plaintiffs
1-pon the argument M Smith uas -.
sented by George g. La and Siinss
Gorham- Of Chicago. Charles T. Terri
resented the American Automobile Asys
ton and job Z. Hedges the Chafmers n
pany and Mr. Durham.
An opinion was handed down b. JasS
Putnam vacatinS the injunction ard
fusing to interfere with The decision Q,
contest board on the question at tssus-
terday. The opinion passed on the ~
tions raised by counsel for Mr.. Smith 10
follows
1t Is primary principle Of ali spa-1
contests that rules must he made hy &
bodies conducting them. and that n
regularly appointed mus decide Who =
The entrants in suCl competition, I.
matter of fairness agree TO abide N
decisions Of the umpiTes. referees or 6sz
having jurisdiction. as the rules nay a
vide Especially is il true in c0s
where the points Of eligibility are hF
technical and the association IS coruvz
of experts, who themselves are wei I'd.
10 judge
Before dissatisfied entTaut can asa
courts 20 interfere and set aside the r1.s
of a sport governing body there must
nariIy be evfnced a fraud either By al
petitor or by the official making he
cision Tha track Judges. Umpirss. refer
executive committees and governing bar.
Of such associations are supreme w
themselves when acting under their rs-
nized authority
If they give the parties concerned = :
opportunity TO De heard. and there -
dence on which their findings can Be aaz
their decisions, in the absence Of frau g
not subject 70 judicial review
These principles nave been ssasa
recognized. The fact that this tropsE !
OF large value. and that. although ~
form of a sporting contest. the tour rs
affords a test of the endurance OF Ire e {.
from which important financial eHs
quences enSue. does not change the Tss
Such consequences fow from many nos
sporting contests. buy these results 70
give the court jurisdiction.
In the present case the objections . -
form of the appeal and % tfa process
before the contest board are larssy
meal While in some respects mf97' z.
such proceedings do not appear 10 iacs
substantial protection 70 al conrsz
The high standing Of the parties lsS
the suggestion o. fraud; in fact. upes
argument il was Acknowledged that =
was no fraud as 10 any one involves.
In the absence Of fraud he qussie.
the court is not whether. passing pFi111
upon the evidence, IL would have re7l
the same conclusion as that OF the COB
board. OF whether their concluslen
reasonable or unreasonable, bdt slHpe
wholly whether the case before thsn
so bare of evidence 70 sustain me ds
that no honest mind could reach ths