Baltimore Evening Sun (26 February 1912): 6.


Only 33 days more of anemocracy at Annapolis! And then the renaissance of civilization and 21 months of peace!


The boys entered the ring at 8.16. Anderson was attended by Dave Carroll and Gene Levering, and Young Cleveland by Jake Hook, Bob Lee and Aristides Sophocles Goldsborough. Anderson weighed in at 190 and Young Cleveland at 280, but the advantage of superior reach was obviously the former’s. Anderson wore white satin trunks. Young Cleveland’s were made of the American and Confederate flags, with fragments from the flags of Ireland, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Lithuania, Bohemia, Palestine and other voting nations. No time was lost in getting into the gloves. At 8.27 the gong sounded.

Round 1. The boys shook hands and squared off. Anderson made a sudden rush and carried Young Cleveland near the ropes. Young Cleveland, recovering, came back with right straight to the neck, stopping his opponent. Anderson landed, in rapid succession, two left hooks to the ear, drawing a few drops of blood. A moment or two of ineffective sparring. Then Anderson rushed again and the boys clinched. In the breakaway Young Cleveland called to the referee that he had been bitten, but the referee refused to take notice of it. A rapid exchange of blows followed, with Young Cleveland getting a shade the worst of it. Then came a second clinch, during which Young Cleveland got in three effective smashes to the ribs. A third clinch was ended by the gong. Both boys somewhat winded. Anybody’s round.

Meanwhile, the Hon. Mr. Anderson’s accusation that the Hon. Young Cleveland is responsible for the legislative pirouettings and legerdemains of the Hon. James McC. Trippe raises an interesting legal question. My own solicitors tell me that they are inclined to agree with the Hon. Mr. Anderson, on the broad ground that the Hon. Mr. Cleveland, as the author of the Hon. Mr. Trippe—or, in legal language, his master—is responsible for all his acts. Thus the doctrine is stated in Andrews vs. Clark, 72 Maryland, 526:

A party who appoints an agent and puts him in a position of trust to transact business with third parties cannot be relieved of liability for the doings of such agent unless it be shown that the loss sustained, as a result of such doings, would not have occurred but for the negligence and want of ordinary care on the part of the party seeking to hold the principal liable; nor can the principal be relieved in such case, if by the exercise of due and reasonable care in respect to the duties of the agent the loss would not have occurred.

In other words, the principal is liable for all the acts of his agent, whether those acts be expressly commanded or only inferentially commanded—i. e., by the general terms of the agent’s employment. But if they be altogether outside the scope of the agent’s authority, the principal is not liable. (Barabass vs. Kabat, 83 Md., 34.) The question thus arises whether the Hon. Mr. Trippe, in making his attack upon the Hon. Mr. Anderson, acted as the agent of the Hon. Mr. Cleveland or purely on his own responsibility. This question can be settled only by a judicial examination of the actual facts. (Smith va. McGinnis, 48 Md., 39.) If it can be established, by correlative acts of the principal, that he approved any given act of his agent, though only after a long interval of time, then his responsibility for that act is to be assumed. (Johnson vs. Del., L. & W. R. R. C., 64 Ohio, 8.)

In the present case, so my solicitors inform me, it will not be necessary for the Hon. Mr. Anderson to prove that the Hon. Mr. Cleveland expressly ordered or requested the Hon. Mr. Trippe to make his memorable attack upon the Hon. Mr. Anderson. All that he need prove is that the terms of the Hon. Mr. Trippe’s appointment permitted him to make such an attack, and laid upon him a general duty to do so. (Sweeney et al. vs. the Anheuser-Busch Permanent Buildings and Loan Association, 83 New York, 138.) In other words, if he can prove that his (Anderson’s) antecedent charges against the political camorra at Annapolis were also charges, at least by inference, against the Hon. Young Cleveland, and that it was the duty of the Hon. Mr. Trippe, as agent of the Hon. Mr. Cleveland, to refute and denounce such charges, and that, as a matter of fact, he did so refute and denounce them, then the presumption must follow that he did so in obedience to the general terms of his commission, and that, in consequence, his principal is to be held responsible. (Cohen vs. United Railways and Electric Company, 93 Md., 20; Pennington vs. Schultz, 90 W. Va., 54; Jones vs. Jones, 56 Ga., 29; U. P. R. R. Co. vs. Billingsgate, 67 Vt., 61; Poe on Pleading and Practice at Law, bk. II, cap. 483, verse 16; Snodgrass on Master and Servant, cap. 67; Moriarity on Agency, lib. IV, cap. 1875, strophe 54563.)

But, as I have said, the question is full of complexities, and so it would be easy to find solicitors to oppose and flabbergast mine. As a layman it seems to me that the effort to prove that the Hon. Mr. Trippe, as speaker of the House of Delegates, is wholly the agent of the Hon. Mr. Cleveland, will meet with considerable difficulties. That he is the agent in part no one seems to deny. And that he owes his exulted office to the Hon. Mr. Cleveland seems to be also beyond dispute. But it must be obvious that A may represent B in certain ways and yet not represent him in other ways—i. e., that agency may be strictly limited, if only by inference.

For example, I may go to the Police Board and by threats and cajolorles procure the appointment of a certain John Doe to the police force, and then I may have the said John Doe assigned to the beat on which my house is situate, and then I may specifically engage and appoint the said John Doe to keep a sharp lockout for the blackmoors who steal my pullets, and even give him a box of cigars once a mouth for his assiduity and watchfuluses, or promise to have him promoted to a sergeantcy, or hold out to him some other valuable honor or reward—and yet it may remain obviously ridiculous to hold me responsible for his imprudent raids upon the saloonkeeper on the corner.

Thus it appears that the question at issue between the Hon. Messrs. Anderson and Young Cleveland remains open. Meanwhile every connoisseur of grappling will get stimulation and delight out of their homeric rushes and bumps and their profound and seismic bellowings.