Clipping:The Barkley case: a player trade, bidding up his price; an undated contract controversy
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
 |
| Add a Clipping |
| Date | Wednesday, January 6, 1886 |
|---|---|
| Text | Baltimore and Pittsburg have had something of a tussle for Barkley and Barnie only succeeded in bagging his game after a sharp struggle. He had to hunt Barkley up in person and, after much trouble, induced him to sign an agreement to play in Balitmore if released from St. Louis. Barkley at the same time signed a contract all filled up except the date, so that the moment he was released by Von der Ahe the date could be supplied and the contract sent in for approval to President McKnight. … On Tuesday Barnie finally settled all matters with Von der Ahe, and the latter has by this time probably formally released Barkley to Baltimore. Horace Phillips expressed some disappointment when he learned the facts, as he was almost sure that Barkley would go to Pittsburg. He said that he and President Nimick had seen Barkley at Wheeling and he demanded $2,250. Pittsburg offered him the limit and Barkley as good as promised to accept the offer, accepting a railroad ticket to Pittsburg, where he was to have gone to sign. Barnie is very hot at Phillips, and at the meeting, last Monday ventilated himself freely in regard to what he calls his wrongs. He says that Pittsburg, by meddling with the matter, forced him (Barnie) to go to much trouble and an increased expense of several hundreds of dollars. … Barkley's release cost Barnie an even $1,000, his salary will be $2,000 and he will also receive an additional sum for captaining the team, so that he will stand Baltimore just about $3,300. The Sporting Life January 6, 1886 [See TSL 1/13/1886 for an account of how Barnie negotiated a contract with Barkley for $2,000 plus $500 to captain the team, Barkley signed an agreement promising to sign with Baltimore upon his release. The details of how the payment for release was executed, while in the meantime Barkley was persuaded, allegedly with McKnight's collusion, to instead go to Pittsburgh.] [the other side:] ...it was at once recognized that Barkley's signature to a regular form of Association agreement while he was still under contract with the St. Louis Club was not only void but was a direct violation of the American rule made to carry into effect section 5 of the National Agreement. It was specially provided by that legislation that all the binding acts of employee and employer should be subsequent to the player's release. That is the only key to the legal position, and Pittsburg seems to hold it and Baltimore does not. … [Barkley] stated that when he signed with Barnie it was in good faith, and he had no notion of playing with any other club. He had been approached by the Pittsburg manager previous to that time, and had signed for Baltimore in preference. Having been notified by telegraph from the president of the Association that his signature with Barnie was illegal, and having also been notified by Mr. Von der Ahe that Barnie had not posted the $1,000 [which was working its leisurely way to Von der Ahe], which was the condition of his release, he signed with Pittsburg. Afterward he learned that the money had been received from Barnie, but he was then pledged to Mr. Nimick. The Sporting Life January 13, 1886 [This is followed by editorial commentary that Barkley's defense “is very lame.”] Now, to thoroughly understand the situation on this first day of the new year, when Barkley is found in Pittsburg, one must put himself in the position of a player and strive to comprehend the situation from his standpoint. He was harassed and made uneasy by doubts. He was hedged in by a code of arbitrary rules and laws, some of them lately passed, and new to him even if he thoroughly comprehended them at all; and his advisers and counselors were those who desired his services. Fearful that he might violate some rule that would take from him the means of livelihood and “blacklist” him from receiving support from his chosen profession, and being already informed by the president of the Association that he had violated the rules and made himself liable by signing with Barnie, he wants to undo what he has done and try to rectify the illegal act. He is not satisfied with what even he knows may be the partisan advice of Messrs. Nimick and Phillips, and so they all go together to President McKnight and the whole case is told to him and his opinion asked. President McKnight tells him that he is on the lawful and correct course, and that he is “justified.” What more impartial or competent adviser can a player expect to have than the chief officer of the Association, whom the eight managers have selected and elected to watch over all their interests? In his troubles did not Barkley avail himself of the adviser that came to him with the patent of knowledge and impartiality stamped upon him by the managers who made the laws and selected him to see them executed? Is not the president, in the eyes of the player, the greatest authority he can appeal to? Who so well qualified to guide his steps safely and honorably through the intricacies of his illegal position as the highest officer in the organization, and placed there by the suffrages of the law-makers? No doubt Barkley felt that he and Mr. Barnie were in a delicate position. Mr. Barnie had offered him a regular form contract and he had signed it. Mr. Barnie had tendered $500 in advance and he had accepted it. … The Sporting Life January 20, 1886 |
| 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" />