New-York tribune., 1922-05-30
Baseball Not a
Trust, Highest
Court Decides
Ruling of Appeals Tribunal
Reversing Verdict Of
$24O,OOO for Baltimore
Federal League Sustained
Justices Are Unanimous
Interstate Trips of Clubs
Likened to Those of an
Attorney or a Lecturer

| From The Tribuncs WASHINGTON Bureau
WASHINGTON, May 29.-Organizcd
baseball is not commerce among the
states, according to decision of the
Supreme Court Of the United States
| to-day. The court affirmed the de-
clslon of the Court Of Appeals of the
District Of Columbia and took the view
that the conduct complained of bv the
Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore
against the National League, the Amer
lean League and others was not in vio-
latlon of the Sherman antitrust act.
Justice Holmes handed down the de-
| cislon, which was unanimous.
The view of the court was that organ.
! lzed baseball is not interstate com
| mcrce simply because the clubs and
players cross state lines in order to
do the playing.
The case is one which has attracted
wide attention both in baseball and
legal circles. 1t is that Of the Fede raj
Baseball Club Of Baltimore, incorpo-
rated, plaintiff in error vs.. the Nationa |
League of Professional Baseball Clubs
National Exhibition Company, the
Brook yn Baseball Club, ct al. 1t was
brought before the court on appeal
from the Court of Appeals Of the Dis
trict of Columbia.
National Commission Included
The suit was for threefod damages
and was brought by the plaintiff in
error under the antitrust laws. The
defendants, in addition to those men
toned in the title of the case, include
the American League. The presidents
of the two big leagues and the three
persons constituting what is known as
the National Comm issior, and three
other persons having authority in the
Federal League of Professional Base
ball Clubs
1t is alleged in the case that these
defendants conspired to monopolize the
baseball business. The plaintiff is a
baseball club incorporated in Mary
land and was member of the Federal
League, n corporation under the laws
of Indiana. 1t alleges that the defend
ants destroyed the Federal League by
buylng up some of the constituent
clubs and in one way or another in
duclng all these clubs except the plain
tiff to leave the league; also that the
president and two others connected
with the Federal League and named as
defendants took part in the conspir
acy Great damage to the plaintiff was
alleged. The plaintiff obtained YER
dict for $4,000 in the Supreme Court
of the District Of Columbia and a
judgment for treble the amount was
entered, but the Court of Appeals OF
the District of Columbia reversed this
and held the defendants were not with.
in the Sherman antitrust act
THE decision of the Court of An
peals went to the root of the case"
says Justice Holmes in his opinion.
and if correct makes it unnecessary
to consider other serious difficulties in
the way of the plaintiffs recovery,
Describing the business Of profes.
sional baseball, Justice Holmes sets
forth that the clubs play in different
cities, giving exhibition games for
money, the players often crossing state
lines. After one Of the league clubs
has won the pennant there is a cham
plonshlP series between the winning
teams of each league
eve are of the opinion that the Court
of Appeals was right" says the court
through Justice Holmes. THE business
is giving exhibitions of baseball, which
are purely state affairs. 1t is true that
IN order to attain for these exhibitions
the great popularity that they have
achieved competitions must be ar
ranged between clubs from different
cities and states. But TIE fact that in
order to give the exhibitions the leagues
must induce free persons to cross state
INES and must arrange and paw for
their doing so is not enough to change
the character of the business. Accord
ing to the distinction insisted upon in
Hooper vs. California, 1856 U. S., 64S. 655
the transport is mere incident, not