view raw text
I $ « j , i t 1 ] ] t i i j | ] i j i i | , ; j i i | ; J ! 1 ; I I : ; i , t - Joseph A. Murphy Gives Views on Merritt Case Recalls Similar Instances in Wide Experience as Steward MIAMI, Fla., April 14.— Joseph A. Murphy, who is to serve in the stewards stand at Suffolk Downs, was interviewed by a Daily Racing Form correspondent who sought a veteran turf officials reaction to the "Merritt case." Speaking in his Coral Gables home, Murphy called upon his retentive memory for the following comments : "The Merritt case and the Church-Fitzgerald case, which preceded it by some years, should be a warning to my fellow officials in the United States and Canada. While the Supreme Court, in the Marrone case, and the court in the Scully case in Canada, following the line of reasoning in the fundamental case of Wood vs. Leedbit-ter, laid down by the highest court in England still earlier, have unquestionably given officials the power to take jurisdiction over those who voluntarily place themselves under their control and to enforce the established rules of racing — even to barring from the grounds those who violate them — there are still certain inalienable rights enjoyed by individuals under the basic principles of the English common law which is the foundation of our jurisprudence and by the Constitution and Bill of Rights which cannot be vacated or abridged. The courts have shown that they will jealously guard such rights." "I have discussed this matter with Herman Conkling and will discuss it further with William Almy, Jr., and Charles F. Adams when I reach Suffolk Downs. I shall suggest that each racing day the stewards meet at a specified hour when horsemen ,and jockeys will be welcome to air their grievances and that no ruling for previous days infractions of the rules will be made until the offending party has had ample opportunity to be heard, represented by counsel should he so desire." Delving some 35 years into the store of his recollections, Murphy proceeded to recount the Marrone case. "I was in the stand at Benning at the time, in 1909," he said. "Marrone. a wealthy New York contractor, was found guilty of stimulating the horse St. Joseph and was denied all privileges of the race track, including admission to the grounds. The next day he paid his way into the grounds but was ejected. Marrone sued, and after losing in the court of appeals he carried the case to the Supreme Court. He lost again. Justice Holmes handed down the decision, affirming that the Benning track was within its rights in barring Marrone and that a ticket of admission is a revokable license. "I am also familiar with the Scully case, as I was the steward of the Canadian Rac- ing Associations at the time. Scully, a bookmaker, used offensive language toward the officials of the Fort Erie race track. He was ordered to apologize, and refusing, was barred from all tracks of the Canadian Rac-ing Associations, a voluntary, unincorpor-; ated association composed of representatives from the various racing clubs. Justice Clute dismissed the case and clearly defined the powers of officials in the following language: " A complaint is made that the commit-1 tee went beyond their powers in dealing with plaintiffs case. I do not think so. They can deal with any matter relating to racing and I do not read this as referring to the actual racing of horses, but to all matters relating to racing in the broad sense in which it is used for the purpose of elevating racing to a higher plane. "
