New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1913-03-24
THE AMERICAS CUP
A Reader Bases a New Argument on
the Deed of Gift.


Cir. Within the past few days public
interest has been directed to the pending
negotiations for another lnterhatoi'"'
Yacht race between the koyai uIste,
Yacht Club and the New forK fa'"1
club. and much comment mas pee"
aroused. mostly referring 10 the eIeiheH.
of sportsmanship. as shown by the iooi'
club in declining the challenge.
We all know how ineXorably the courts
and financial institutions hold trustees
to the exact conditions. as stated In the
deeds of trust, by which they are gov
erned. The deed OF gift being III ies"'
form and language. II Is fair TO assume
that all the stated conditions must De
compiled with by the New York facht
club az being legally enforceable without
the substitution of any qualifying claims
before a match can oe arranged. In its
answers to Hptons challenge we llhd
tho following claim set iorth: me
Americas Cup held by he club as rus-
tee is a trophy which stands rre-einiheh'-
Is for speed. etc, and therefore 10 pe
sailed for by the fastest vessel etc
Note the statement is official and issued
bv the club as a trustee. Is there any
warrant I'm the deed of gift for such n
claim?
Consulting the document. the only defin-
ing clause reads az follows: '"The cup IS
donated. etc. (subject 20 certain condi-
tions) and that It shall be preserved as
a perpetual challenge cup for frlendIy
coupetition between foreign nations.
There IS not n word in the deed warrant
ing pre-emnent speed "a n qualifying
condition.
The next claim by the club is 10 the
following effect: Your vessel is proper
IL qualified TO challenge, under the deed
Of gift. but Il is our right. az trustees. 10
defend the cup with any vessel so long
as she is over sxty-hve feet and not
more than ninety feet i'm length. etc. We
decline 10 accede 10 your request That
She be limited 10 a length Of scventy-hve
feet"
This statement assumes that the length
qualification between aiXty-iive feet ana
ninety feet is the only one in the deed
of gift which refers TO the sizes OF the
competing vessels. And Sir Thomas LIP
ton partly agrees with this view. But II
we again examine the deed carefully. a
very startling proposition comes TO the
front. There are at least two other
clauses which are entitled t. considera-
ton I'm this one particular. Cd ANY or
gained yacht club. etc. shall be en-
titled 10 sail match. etc What - a
match? The dictionaries say that when
considered with reference 10 n compeu-
tive event n match is IAN cqua! contest
What does the deed 81 gift say? Here
again we meet with another surprise.
In case Ghe clause reads the parties
fail to agree upon the terms e the match
three races shall be sailed tunder rules
prescribed IN the clause). but without
time allowance" That is boat for boat
without handicap. a contest upon Il
footing ~ absolute cquality-an equal
contest.
Instead OF creating weapon for the
enforcement OF a defenders terms. 1t
would seem that the deed provides first,
FOR an equal match. then II sailing terms
could not be agreed upon by both parties
the conditions provided IN the deed were
10 Doe employed as giyins a fair field and
no favor 10 either party. n Is fair 10 as
sumo therefore that challenger IS en-
titled to the stipulation that a defending
vessel shall be- an equal match 10 the
challenging one.
Again the document says: Any organ
ICED yacht club. etc. shall be entitled 10
sail "A match" The word entitled In
wolves the possession of something by
virtue OF legal right Is II not fair
question 10 ask II the Royal Ulster Yacht
club has not here a cause for legal ac-
ton. such as would be entertained by n
court Of law. as complainant, that I'm
declining the challenge the New York
Yacht club has violated the terms of the
trust and ask for the enforcement Of Us
light To sail an equal match without be
'us handicapped for the possession of the
cup? FAIR PLAY.
New Rochelle. March TO- 1918.