In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

7 Baltimore Goes to Trial, Again June 1917 to April 1919 Despite the press reports heralding the end of all Federal League–related litigation, the major leagues quickly learned that they had not heard the last of the Baltimore Federals. Indeed, the very same day that the team terminated its lawsuit in Philadelphia, Baltimore’s counsel sent a letter to organized baseball’s attorneys, George Pepper and Frank Prichard, notifying them that the plaintiff continued to believe that the peace agreement was signed “in prejudice of [its] rights,” and demanding that no settlement payments be made to the other former Federal League clubs “until the rights of the Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore . . . have been properly adjusted.” “Should payments be made,” the letter warned, Baltimore would “hold all the parties thereto to their full legal responsibility for any such acts.”1 The letter was prompted by a conversation that Baltimore’s counsel, Stuart Janney, had had with Pepper and Prichard shortly before notifying the court of his decision to dismiss the Philadelphia case. After Janney informed his opposing counsel that he was withdrawing the suit, Pepper mentioned that he anticipated the other former Federal League teams would begin pushing for their promised settlement payments under the peace agreement. Therefore , Pepper suggested, Baltimore should notify his clients if it objected to the major leagues abiding by the settlement terms. Pepper in fact believed that Baltimore had a potential legal claim to a portion of the settlement proceeds. In a letter he wrote summarizing the events of the Philadelphia trial, Pepper said that “[t]he facts brought out at trial [had] disclose[d] a rather curious situation.” Specifically, he believed that former Federal League executives Jim Gilmore, Charles Weeghman, and Harry Sinclair had owed the league’s shareholders—including the BaltFeds—a fiduciary duty requiring them to place the interests of each of the organization’s teams ahead of their own personal self-interests. By Grow_text.indd 135 12/20/13 11:37 AM 136 chapter seven agreeing to a settlement that did not provide any relief to Baltimore, the three executives arguably breached this fiduciary duty to the club. Thus, Pepper thought, the BaltFeds might be able to prevail in a lawsuit against the three men personally. He remained convinced, however, that Baltimore could not successfully sue organized baseball because the stenographic notes of the December 1915 settlement conference revealed that the major leagues had proceeded in good faith on the understanding that the Federal League executives had full authority to act for the entire league.2 Although the initial press reports suggested that Baltimore would follow Pepper’s suggested course of action and file a lawsuit against its former Federal League colleagues,3 the team quickly decided to continue to pursue its potential legal remedies against organized baseball instead. In early July 1917, the team’s counsel notified baseball’s attorneys that it intended “to re-institute proceedings under the Sherman Act”against the major leagues.4 The announcement spurred another round of settlement talks between organized baseball and Baltimore, with the parties meeting several times in late July and early August. Most notably, several Baltimore executives and their legal counsel met with the three members of the National Commission at the Waldorf-Astoria in New York on August 6, 1917. Though there is no record of the potential settlement terms discussed at the meeting, National League president John Tener reportedly announced after the conference that he believed the parties “would soon come to a satisfactory adjustment” of the dispute.5 Nevertheless, by the end of August no settlement had been reached. As a result, Baltimore’s attorneys once again sent a letter to the major leagues warning that the team would soon be refiling its suit, and inquiring“whether it is worth while to talk settlement before any further step is taken.”6 This time, however, organized baseball declined to pursue further negotiations. National Commission chairman August Herrmann had become dubious of the BaltFeds’ litigation threats, arguing to John Tener “that the Baltimore people are simply bluffing.They are referring to a settlement before another suit is brought. I do not believe that they are entitled to a dollar. If another suit is instituted it will have to be defended by us along the same lines that we defended the last suit.”7 Contrary to Herrmann’s intuition, though, Baltimore followed through with its threat by formally filing suit against organized baseball on September 20, 1917, in Washington, D...

Share