Clipping:Jones expelled by the Bostons
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
 |
| Add a Clipping |
| Date | Saturday, September 11, 1880 |
|---|---|
| Text | Jones, the left-fielder of the Boston Club, has got into trouble with the management of that organization, and has been suspended. It appears to have been a dispute about the non-payment of salary, and as usual there are two sides to the story. Jones has returned to Cincinnati. New York Clipper September 11, 1880 Charles Jones of the Boston Club, having refused to play at Cleveland, O., on Sept. 3, unless he was paid what he claimed was due him, was suspended, and in addition was fined $100 for “poor play and insubordination.” Jones then returned to his home in Cincinnati, O., and on Sept. 7 was expelled by the Boston Club for leaving its service without consent. In reference to the above, The Cincinnati Enquirer, which is championing Jones’ case, has the following: The case as it stands is this: counting all sums paid to Jones, including orders given by him, the Boston Club owed him, Sept. 1, $378. Because he demanded to be paid according to the stipulation of his contract, he was, in the presence of witnesses, suspended for the season without salary. Left penniless in Cleveland by the Boston Club, who went East, he had to telegraph to friends for money to come home to Cincinnati. After his arrival here, he is notified that the Bostons have fined him $100 for poor play and insubordination. Next comes news that they have expelled him. Jones was suspended by the Bostons last Friday in Cleveland; by that act they deprived themselves of his service, as well as every other club, and stopped his salary for the rest of the season (barring it was not running very fast, and was easily stopped). They would not have paid his traveling expenses to Boston had he gone with them. Had he been there–were he there now–they would not have nay more demand on his services or right to ask him to remain in Boston than they would to make the same request of the Prince of Wales. Why, if Jones can be expelled for such action, then why not expelled for such action, then why not expel Brown, who was suspended by the Boston Club at the beginning of the season? For nobody has seen Brown tagging round the country at the tail of the Boston Club this Summer.” The Boston side of the story is as follows: The Boston Baseball Club has expelled Jones for breaking his contract, which did not run out until next Fall. Under that contract his salary was payable on the 1 st of the month, but the custom of the League clubs is, when away from home, to defer payment until their return, the players in the meantime being given money to meet their personal expenses. When at Cleveland, on the 2d inst., according to newspaper telegrams, Jones demanded his pay from the manager, who declined to give it to him, whereupon, “having no hope of getting his back pay,” he declared his contract void, and left the service of the club. Treasurer Long testifies that ll the players were paid their salaries to Aug. 1 before starting on their Western trip, and that the Association is not in arrears to any of them. In view of this, Jones has been expelled, as stated, the warrant for his expulsion being Sec. 5 of Art. V of the League Constitution. No club pays its players their salaries when on the road or away from home, and Jones, knowing this to be the invariable practice, must have expected a refusal when he demanded of Harry Wright his salary in full, and must have acted as he did with the express intention of leaving the team. He had been paid in full up to Aug. 1, and was certain to be paid thereafter, as the Boston Club officers are solvent, responsible men. It is known that Jones was anxious to leave Boston and go to cincinnati, and it is probable he took this means of bringing about a rupture. His action was at once unnecessary and unwise, for a player who has cause of complaint against his club for an alleged breach of contract, or who has been expelled or suspended, has an appeal to the Board of Directors of the League; but Jones, by taking the bit in his own teeth, and acting on his own judgment in the premises, has undoubtedly deprived himself even of this right. Jones has forwarded to the League secretary a written statement of his defense, asking that an appeal be allowed him, and his version of the affair contains these particulars: He had been promised what was due should be paid him when the club got to Cleveland, but that he was there again denied, and he notified Manager Wright that until the Boston club fulfilled their part of the contract he would refuse to continue his part. Thereupon, in the presence of P. J. Hotalling, Herman Doscher, Foley and others, Manager Wright notified him that, by direction of the president of the Boston Club, he suspended him (Jones), with all the disabilities attached, as provided by the League Constitution. Being thus disabled from furnishing any further services to the Boston Club, and being without money or salary, he considered it his right to return home, and not his duty to follow the Boston Club while resting under these disabilities. Moreover, the Boston Club made no demand for him to follow them from Cleveland, nor demurred when they went to Troy becuase he did not accompany. He reutnred to his home in Cincinnati, where he was first surprised to receive a letter from Manager Wright, written at Troy, notifying him that, by authority of the boston Club, he (Wrigh) thereby fined him (Jones) $100 for poor play and insubordination. He next received a letter from Treasurer Long, asking for a statement of what the club owed him in order that a settlement could be made. The next was a ntoice that he had been expelled by the Boston Club for leaving the service of the club without permission. He urges that he did not quite the Boston Club until after his suspension, and that by the suspension the Boston Club, under the League Constitution, deprived itself of his services, according to the last clause of Section 6, Article V, which says: “And during the period of said suspension such player shall be disqualified from playing in or against any League club.” He accordingly appeals to the League against the expulsion, upon the grounds that when he left the club he was, by the Bostons’ own act, cut off from all means of support as a baseball-player, and also deprived of the power to do any service under his contract to the Boston Club, and accordingly, they, by this act of suspension, forfeited all right to his services or further obedience while such disability remained. He further appeals to the League to make null and void the act of suspension, because he did not refuse to comply with his part of the contract until they (the club) had utterly refused to comply with their part, and pay him the money past due, namely, $378. New York Clipper September 18, 1880 Jones has his case in the hands of an attorney, who purposes to bring suit immediately against the Boston Club. New York Clipper October 2, 1880 |
| Source | New York Clipper |
| Tags | |
| Warning | |
| Comment | Edit with form to add a comment |
| Query | Edit with form to add a query |
| Submitted by | Richard Hershberger |
| Origin | Initial Hershberger Clippings |
Comments
<comments voting="Plus" />