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

9 The Appeal and Final Decision May 1919 to October 1922 While organized baseball continued to lick its wounds following the verdict in Washington, its attorneys set to work preparing the appeal.The American League’s counsel, Benjamin Minor, began to draft a Bill of Exceptions—a required step in the appellate process at the time—in which the defense formally identified all of its grounds for appeal. Owing to several extensions and delays, this process would consume the rest of 1919, with the major leagues eventually finalizing their appeal in February 1920. In total, the defendants identified thirty-five alleged legal errors committed by Justice Stafford during the trial, ranging from various evidentiary rulings—such as the judge’s refusal to allow organized baseball to introduce the stenographic minutes from the Waldorf-Astoria peace conference in their entirety—to the court’s determination of the interstate commerce issue and its instructions to the jury.1 Meanwhile, as Minor worked to perfect the appeal, George Pepper was preparing the brief that organized baseball would present to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.2 For Pepper, the fight was almost personal. As National League president John Heydler recounted, Pepper was “deeply interested in securing a reversal in the upper court of what he deems more or less a miscarriage of justice.”Nevertheless, Heydler reported, Pepper remained “extremely hopeful” regarding the “general prospects of our case on appeal,” and “intended to ‘make the effort of his life’ to win out” in the remaining stages of the lawsuit.3 As organized baseball’s attorneys worked on the appeal, the press reported that Congress was considering whether to provide some relief to the major leagues. According to an August 1919 report in the Washington Post, Congress was contemplating adding baseball to a list of industries that would receive special protection from the antitrust laws in a pending piece Grow_text.indd 188 12/20/13 11:37 AM the appeal and final decision 189 of legislation.4 While such an exemption would have shielded the major leagues from future antitrust challenges, the bill would not have had any direct, retroactive effect on Baltimore’s lawsuit. However, no such legislation ultimately passed. As Congress weighed a potential legislative remedy, a more immediate solution presented itself to the major leagues several months later when the BaltFeds approached organized baseball to discuss a possible settlement of the lawsuit. In November 1919, two of Baltimore’s co-counsel in the case, William Rawls and L. Edwin Goldman, visited George Pepper in his Philadelphia office to inquire whether the major leagues would be willing to settle the case out of court. During the meeting, Baltimore’s attorneys admitted that the club “was anxious to realize on its recovery,” giving Pepper “the impression that they would be willing to scale down the amount of their recovery very considerably.” Although Pepper did not completely rule out the possibility of settlement, he nevertheless suggested to his opposing counsel that “a charge of conspiracy under the Sherman Act could not properly be made the subject of compromise.”5 Privately, however, Pepper informed Heydler that organized baseball’s lawyers were split regarding whether to resolve the lawsuit amicably.Though the National League’s counsel, Samuel Clement, thought that the case should be settled, Pepper still believed that the defendants “can ultimately prevail” in the appeal, although he conceded that“several of the questions are novel and it may ultimately turn out that my view is mistaken.” Should the major leagues decide to negotiate, Pepper suggested a starting point for the discussions: “Looking at the case judicially it seems to me that there is a good deal to be said in favor of regarding the actual [$80,000] verdict of the jury as a reliable estimate by impartial people of what ought to be paid to Baltimore in order to give them a square deal.” Moreover, by basing any settlement on the actual damages awarded by the jury, as opposed to the trebled judgment as a whole, Pepper noted that organized baseball could continue to insist that the Sherman Act had not been violated in the case, insofar as it had refused to acknowledge the treble damages award.6 Upon receiving word of Baltimore’s settlement inquiry, both the American and National Leagues initially appeared amenable to a possible resolution of the dispute. American League president Ban Johnson reported that five of his owners had expressed an inclination to settle the case “if...

Share