New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1914-04-05
DOUBTS STRENGTH
OF RESERVE CLAUSE
FuItz Defends Attitude of
Baseball Players
Fraternity.
ALLEGES DEFECTS IN
LEAGUE CONTRACTS
Failure to Specify Salary, He
Says. Would Make Agree.
meuts Unenforceablc.

mentS Unenforceaoic.
In answer TO the charges that the
Baseball Players Fraternity was not
oSservins It's obligations 20 organized
baseball in refusing to advise It's mem
bers to respect the reserve clause OF
their contracts. David L. Fultz, presi-
dent Of the organization. issued the fol-
lowing statement yesterday;
The fraternity has been more or less
severely criticised for not compelling its
members to regard the so-ealled reserve
rule contained in contracts Of organized
ball. We aave refused 10 do this for
one reason. because We have felt that We
would be putting ourselves in q very
questionable light by disciplining our
Numbers Tor not doing something the
Ia a miSht later decide they were not
bound to do Had We taken this step
we would have run the risk of not only
being unfair 10 our members, but Of SUBJ
SSctinr ourselves TO actions at law for
unjust disciplinary measures.
III this very troublesome clause is
tested AS now seems likely. We believe
the result viii prove that we have been
wise in the stand we have taken.
Whether or not this clause is bind
ing in law Is question which has often
been discussed with various lines or
reasoning and with results which can IN
no way be reconciled.
Many persons apparently think OF the
clause as q fixed quantity, whereas until
very recently there were almost as many
different forms Of il as there were
leagues IN existence. AS some Of these
clauses are undoubtedly without force
ant others possibly good. no blanket
opinion can be an intelligent one. and
those which have teen rendered without
giving the text of the particular clause
passed upon are it seems to me. value
less
The reserve clauses as set forth in
the two major lueague contracts for the
season Of 1913, and under which play
ers who have jumped TO the Federal
League must be held il at all. are iden-
teal and to my mind are unQuesuonaoly
uuenfcrceable-
There are two alleged defects in the
provision-First, its ineQuitable nature
in that il binds the player for his en-
tire career. while the club is bound for
only ten days, and, second. its neglect 10
state what salary shall be paid under
the contract 10 be entered into. The
first objection is somewhat involved and
does not need TO De considered here, as
the second is sufficiently vital 10 rob the
clause of any binding force.
This clause reads in part as follows:
e. In consideration OF the compensation
paid TO the party Of the second part, By
tie party of the first part, as recited In
clause l hereof. the party of the second
part agrees and obligates himself 10 con-
tract with and continue in the service OF
SAID party of the first part for the sue
ceeding season at a salary 10 be de-
termined BY the parties of such contract
1T can be easily seen that one Of the
vital elements of the contract, namely, the
salary. has been left TO future negotia-
tons There is. therefore, no meeting OF
the minds Of the parties and no contract
agreed upon for the courts to enforce.
The leading New York case on the
point is the Metropolitan Exhibition Com
pany. at one time operating the New
York ball club. against John NJ Ward,
the present business manager Of the
Brooklyn Federal League club and sue
cessful New York attorney.
The New York ball club attempted by
q preliminary injunction to restrain Ward
from PLAYING with one of the Brother
hood teams during the war of 1890. The
0nf Ne &
stronger than the one of to-day as 1t
provided that the salary for the succeed
ing year should not be less than 5000.
while the present one provides no mini
mum whatsoever, leaving the matter en-
tirely with the owners.
The court, however, refused 10 grant
the Injunction for the reason, among
others. that the terms were too 1ndeh-
mite. II said That a court of equity will
not make contract which the parties
themselves have not made and that II
will not enforce an indefinite one are ele-
mentary propositions that need no cita-
ton of authorities TO support them
"In the case of the Philadelphia ball club
against Lajoie, a Pennsylvania case
which is looked upon as upholding the
reserve clause, the contract provided
that the salary under the renewals should
be the same, thus doing away with the
objection of want Of dehniteness.
1T also provided that it could be re-
newed for a period Of three years, thus
ovoiding. TO a slight extent at least, the
.-ssectlon of want OF mutually now
ised against the present contracts,
hich have no Limitation TO the renewal
eriod.
1T can readily be seen, therefore, that
his case can be Of little value in up