Clipping:Nick Young's defense of the reinstatement; his inconsistency
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
 |
| Add a Clipping |
| Date | Wednesday, May 6, 1885 |
|---|---|
| Text | [from a letter from Young to Wikoff] The National Agreement bound the different association to respect the reserve lists promulgated by each other. It provided (sec.3) that the reservation shall continue (presumably forever) unless the player shall sign a contract with his club, or he is released, or his club disbands, resigns, or is expelled from its association. Hence, when certain players of League clubs refused to recognize their reservation and signed contracts with hostile clubs, the League, at its special meeting held March 4, 1884, adopted what has since been known as the “Day resolution,” as follows:--”That no League club shall, at any time, employ or enter into contract with any of its reserved players who shall, while reserved to such club, play with any other club.” Prior to this a reserved player could contract and play with any club not a party to the National Agreement, and, his reserve still continuing, he could, when he pleased, sign with his original club with all his privileges unimpaired. The “Day resolution” merely prevented this, and it applied only to League clubs. It was never incorporated in the National Agreement. It was unnecessary so to do, as the National Agreement prohibited the clubs of the other associations from interfering with reserved League players. It is true that the substance of the “Day resolution” was adopted by the American Association, for the purpose of affecting its players who had also disregarded the reserve rule. The Arbitration Committee, by an order passed April 19, 1884, promulgated the action of the League and American Association, but they were careful to recite it as “enacted legislation” and not as part of the National Agreement. Said order provided that if any club violated this law all the other clubs under the National Agreement would be notified of the fact and refuse to play with the offending club. I presume this order is the law of the Arbitration Committee to which you refer, but it is not a law. It is a mere declaration of what has been enacted and how its violations shall be promulgated from one association to another. Any other construction of this order would be ridiculous, because it would imply a usurpation of legislative power by the committee. The Sporting Life May 6, 1885 [from a letter from McKnight in which he quotes a letter from Young to McKnight dated 2/26/85] I notice what you say about the Association's having control over the players expelled by clubs for breaking contracts, etc. I quite agree with you that such men deserve greater punishment than the reserve-deserters, while under our laws, as they stand, it is possible for each association to reinstate the players expelled by its club members in the case of the former, while they have, in my judgment, no jurisdiction over the latter. The Sporting Life May 13, 1885 |
| 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" />