Clipping:Mills on the Mullane case
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
 |
| Add a Clipping |
| Date | Wednesday, December 10, 1884 |
|---|---|
| Text | [from a letter from A. G. Mills dated 11/21] I have always held that in nine cases out of ten where a player has signed two contract, or has committed some irregularity in connection with making an engagement for his services, the fault is directly traceable to the club managers or officials upon whose representations the player is persuaded to make an engagement for services. Now, in this case, it appears he made a promise to the St. Louis Club, induced thereto by certain representations made by that club, and he also made a promise to the Cincinnati Club, induced thereto by certain representations made thereto by that club. If the representations made on behalf of the St. Louis Club were justified by the state of the laws governing players’ engagements which are binding upon that club, then his contract with the St. Louis Club is binding, and that with the Cincinnati is illegal; and, of course, the converse of this proposition is true–i.e., if the representations made by the Cincinnati Club, upon which he was induced to contract with that club, were within the letter of the law governing players’ engagements, which are binding upon that club, then his contract with the Cincinnati Club is binding and legal, and any other engagements or promises made upon the representations not justified by the laws, are absolutely null and void. Now, if it be true that his engagement with St. Louis was made at a time when he was ineligible to make such an engagement under the rules, such engagement is absolutely null and void, and the fault, if any there be, is manifestly chargeable to the club which persuaded the player to make an unlawful engagement; and, of course, if the Cincinnati Club signed him after he became eligible, and before he had signed with any other club after thus becoming eligible, it is clear that such is alone valid and binding, and must be respected by all clubs and associations identified with the National Agreement. Now, I do not see any room for discussion over so plain a proposition as this, and yet it is physically possible for an association, where a club has persuaded a player to make an illegal engagement, to punish the player instead of the club that has committed the offense. Yet I am not willing to believe that the American Association would stultify itself in any such way, or that I could write to any gentlemen identified with that association urging him to vindicate the laws as they stand, without seeming to impugn either his intelligence or good faith to such laws. |
| Source | Sporting Life |
| 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" />