Clipping:League violation of the Brotherhood contract

19C Clippings
	Clippings in 1853 Clippings in 1854 Clippings in 1855 Clippings in 1856 Clippings in 1857 Clippings in 1858 Clippings in 1859 Clippings in 1860 Clippings in 1861 Clippings in 1862 Clippings in 1863 Clippings in 1864 Clippings in 1865 Clippings in 1866 Clippings in 1867 Clippings in 1868 Clippings in 1869 Clippings in 1870 Clippings in 1871 Clippings in 1872 Clippings in 1873 Clippings in 1874 Clippings in 1875 Clippings in 1876 Clippings in 1877 Clippings in 1878 Clippings in 1879 Clippings in 1880 Clippings in 1881 Clippings in 1882 Clippings in 1883 Clippings in 1884 Clippings in 1885 Clippings in 1886 Clippings in 1887 Clippings in 1888 Clippings in 1889 Clippings in 1890
	Add a Clipping

Date	Wednesday, July 17, 1889
Text	[from W. I. Harris's column]”It has been asserted, Mr. Ward, that there has been no violation of the letter of the agreement made by the League with the Brotherhood when it accepted the contract prepared by the Brotherhood and amended by the League. Is that a fact?” “No, it is not. There have been instances where it was not observed.” “Well, for instance?” “Why, there is the case of Sutcliffe of the Cleveland Club. Sutcliffe was reserved and transferred without his consent, and was then classified at a figure less than that contained in paragraph twenty of the 1888 contract, when in the contract it especially provides that the salary of Sutcliffe, if he was reserved, should not be less than the amount named in paragraph 20. This was not only a violation of the spirit, but of the very letter of the agreement with him. Sutcliffe assented, of course, but he did not assent willingly. He did so because there was nothing else for him to do. He had to assent or quit ball playing.
Source	The 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