With a view to examining the validity or legality of the "suspension" notices dealing with amateurs that have been so freely issued of late by the Billiard Association, The Billiard Monthly has taken the opinion of its legal contributor— a barrister-at-law—on this subject, and is not surprised to find that such notices, whatever may be their effectiveness or ineffectiveness in other directions, are in law libellous alike as regards the Association that issues them and the newspapers that publish them.
Our legal contributor writes to us:— The ex-amateur champion having resigned his membership of the Billiard Association, that Association had no longer any jurisdiction over him. That Association merely arrogated to itself a monopoly and jurisdiction which it could not arrogate legally. Monopolies were abolished in 1621 and the billiard business (unlike the accountants' business) has not yet had conferred upon it a charter enabling its members to dictate terms of membership to new seekers after membership or to dictate ostracism towards those who ignore it.
The executive members of this Billiard Association are therefore liable to be arrested for criminal libel in issuing notices that the ex-amateur champion's amateur status was suspended, so also are the proprietors, editors, managers, and publishers of any newspapers that repeat the libel.
In addition there is also a civil action against the Billiard Association for "Black Listing." The law with regard to this matter was repealed so far as trade unions were concerned by the Trade Disputes Act, 1906, on December 21. 1906, but the Billiard Association is not a Trade Union and the law with regard to Black Listing therefore remains applicable to it.
The leading case on this subject was decided in the House of Lords on August 5th, 1901 (Quinn v. Leatham, 1901 A.C., 495) wherein it was decided that:—"A combination of two or more, without justification or excuse, to injure a man in his trade by inducing his customers or servants to break their contracts with him or not to deal with him or continue in his employment is, if it results in damage to him, actionable."
The same law applies to an ex-amateur billiard champion as applies to an employer, who in this case was a flesher (butcher) at Lisburn, Ireland.
The same law also applies to the proprietor or recipients of the monies which would have been received for the charity as the result of the exhibition match between the professional and amateur champions. Their case is the stronger as the ex-amateur champion was not playing for profit, but even he could sue for libel and get damages for a defamation of character implying a dishonourable course of conduct which necessitated a degradation which the Association had no power to decree.
The only attempt at justification of the action of the Billiard Association that we have come across is contained in some notes in The Illustrated Sporting and Dramatic News of May 20 by "Ranger," who says:— So much discussion has recently taken place as to the suspension of two or three more or less prominent amateurs by the committee of the Billiard Association, and so little seems to be known by the public generally as to the rule under which this penalty was imposed, that an explanation of the matter may not prove uninteresting.
A good many years ago several of the leading professional players began to complain bitterly that amateurs were getting into the habit of taking part in exhibition games in public, and thereby frequently deprived a professional of a much-needed engagement. This complaint was felt to be just and well founded, and matters were brought to a climax when a well-known amateur, since deceased, arranged to play for a week with Stevenson at the Grand Hall, Leicester Square. The amateur championship, for which this gentleman had entered, was arranged to take place in the same hall the week after this exhibition game had been decided, and it was so manifestly unfair that he should have a week's practice on exactly the same type of table upon which he was to contest the championship, and should have every opportunity of getting thoroughly accustomed to the room and surroundings, that something had to be done.
Accordingly a meeting of the committee was called, the subject was fully discussed, and the following rule was passed:—"No amateur shall play in public without previously obtaining a permit from the Committee of the Association. Violation of this rule may involve the forfeiture of his amateur status. ' Playing in public ' means any advertised match, or where admission is charged."
This rule has been rigidly enforced with the happiest results. It goes without writing that the committee have never attempted to interfere with what might be done in a private house, or in a club or institute, fully realizing that they had no right to interfere with the liberty of any man to do as he liked when playing at home or at a friend's house or club. Nor has a permit ever been refused to any amateur wishing to play in public, when the whole of the profits were to be devoted to a benefit or charity. Were, however, amateurs to be allowed to play promiscuously in public, the line of demarcation between them and professionals, which, in some cases, is very faintly defined even under present conditions, would speedily disappear altogether. The question of expenses would soon creep in, and directly an amateur begins to accept these in any shape or form, the sooner he acts honestly, and boldly joins the ranks of the professionals, the better.
These paragraphs are interesting, but they do not go very far towards justifying the Billiard Association's recent "black-listing" notices, even from the ethical point of view.
A line should undoubtedly be drawn between professionalism and amateurism, but the proved making of profit, apart from prize-winning, out of billiard exhibitions, should constitute that line, and even then the matter should be dealt with privately by resignation being required from any billiard organization whose rules forbid the making of profit out of match-playing and to whose rules the offending member has formally subscribed.
For the rest, it is the opinion of The Billiard Monthly— as fully expressed in its first issue of November last—that the more leading amateurs play in public, either together or with professionals, the better it will be for their game and for the interests of billiards at large.