Baseball on Trial by Nathaniel Grow

Author:Nathaniel Grow
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: University of Illinois Press
Published: 2014-10-15T00:00:00+00:00

Justice Wendell P. Stafford presided over Baltimore’s trial in Washington, D.C. (Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division, LC-H25-105830-G, photograph by Harris & Ewing)

The trial opened on March 25 with a number of baseball luminaries in attendance, including all three members of the National Commission as well as representatives of at least five different major league teams. Following the selection of the (all-male) jury, William Marbury presented a two-hour-long opening statement on behalf of Baltimore. Marbury began by warning the jurors that they were likely in for a lengthy trial, but one that he hoped would be “not altogether uninteresting.” He then assured the jury that the plaintiff had no desire to steal Washington’s franchise or to hurt the national pastime in any way. Quite to the contrary, he praised baseball as developing the finest qualities in the nation’s youth, crediting the sport with having “made the American soldier almost invincible upon the [World War I] battlefields of Europe last year.”41

The Baltimore attorney then explained the legal basis for the lawsuit, describing the Sherman Act to the jury. In particular, he emphasized the antimonopoly provisions contained in Section 2 of the act, promising the jurors that he would prove that organized baseball was “the most complete, the most perfect, and the most ruthless monopoly that the American people ever had an opportunity to see.” From there, Marbury launched into an extended discussion of the history of organized baseball dating back to 1894. During his exposition, the attorney talked about the formation of the National Agreement in 1903, and the ways in which it constrained professional players through both the reserve clause and blacklist. He asserted that this control over the players enabled organized baseball to monopolize the industry.42

Marbury went on to describe the formation of the Federal League, praising its founders’ intentions of bringing major league ball to some of the large cities neglected by organized baseball. He noted that the Baltimore shareholders had invested upward of $240,000 in their franchise, and documented how the team had been forced to pay exorbitant salaries to players to persuade them to disregard the reserve clause and risk being blacklisted by the major leagues. He also discussed the peace agreement of December 1915, emphasizing that Baltimore had never been notified of the pending settlement until a tentative deal had already been reached. Although he acknowledged that Baltimore’s attorney Stuart Janney was present at the settlement conference and had inquired about obtaining a major league team for his city during the peace proceedings, Marbury stressed that the lawyer had never been authorized by the plaintiff corporation to negotiate on the team’s behalf. Nevertheless, he justified Janney’s actions by comparing him to “a man whose ship is being sunk by a pirate, and who tries to get on the pirate’s ship rather than drown,” arguing that “it does not lie in the mouth of the pirate to reproach him for doing it.”43

Finally, Marbury addressed some of organized baseball’s anticipated defenses in the case. He stressed

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.