June 4, 1910
Houston, TX
"Minneapolis Keystones vs Houstons June 4."
June 5, 1910
Houston, TX
"Minneapolis Keystones vs Houstons June 5."
June 6, 1910
Houston, TX
"Minneapolis Keystones vs Houstons June 6."
June 7, 1910
Houston, TX
"Minneapolis Keystones vs Houstons June 7."
June 11, 1910
San Antonio, TX
"Baseball Notes. - The Minneapolis baseball team is stationed at 236 E. Commerce Street, San Antonio, Texas, for the summer."
"Baseball Notes. - (The Minneapolis Keystones) will play Dallas team June 11"
Dallas, TX
"First game, Saturday: Keystones 5, Dallas 1; Jackson and Merida."
June 12, 1910
Dallas, TX
"Minneapolis Keystones vs Dallas June 12."
Dallas, TX
"Sunday, first game; Keystones 1, Dallas 3, Gatewood and Wills: second game: Keystones 3, Dallas 2, McNair and Merida."
June 13, 1910
Dallas, TX
"Minneapolis Keystones vs Dallas June 13."
Dallas, TX
"Monday, Keystones 3, Dallas 2, Jackson and Green."
June 14, 1910
Dallas, TX
"Minneapolis Keystones vs Dallas June 14."
Dallas, TX
"Tuesday, Keystones 3, Dallas 6. Gatewood and Wills."
June 25, 1910
Dallas, TX
"Tells How it Happened. - The Minneapolis Keystones Beat the Royal Giants. - Special to the Freeman. - Dallas, Texas. - Reading the Freeman several weeks ago, I see that Mr. Jack Johnson, one of the erstwhile managers of the Kansas City Royal Giants, claims that he beat the Minneapolis Keystones out of all the games they played, but I will send you the correct dope on them. The first game between the two clubs resulted: Keystones 8, Royal Giants 2, and the second game, Keystones 11, Royal Giants 4, and the third game, Keystones 11, Royal Giants 7. The batteries were: Jackson and Merida, Gatewood and Merida. Lytle and Merida. The last game was only five innings in the mud, and they beat us 7 to 3."
Dallas, TX
"Young Merida and Shauler are playing gilt-edge ball and there isn't a club in the Texas Colored League that is any better than the Minneapolis Keystones. Manager Mitchell is stationed in San Antonio, Texas, representing that city with his club. He has some open dates and desires to hear from all fast clubs at once, the St. Louis Giants, New Orleans, Shreveport, and Birmingham Giants preferred. Address all communications to Col. Edward F. Mitchell, 236 East Commerce Street, San Antonio, Texas."
Kansas City, KS
"More About That Mitchell-Smith Contract. - Sporting Editor The Freeman: In your issue of June 4, 1910, the following article appeared: "Kansas Giants Will Not Stand by Contract. - Sporting Editor the Freeman: I wish to state to the public that I had a contract with Tobe Smith, manager of the Kansas City, Kansas Giants to play a series of four games, namely: May 14, 15, 16 and 17. We played the first game and then it began to rain. I stayed with my men until my contract was out. When I demanded my money Mr. Smith abolutely refused to pay on account of not having good weather. Now, this is the kind of men that are hurting the game, and I thought it was my duty to let the public know what they can expect from a contract with this individual. He is the most unreliable man that I ever did business with. I also had a contract with the Royal Giants of Kansas City, Missouri for the following week. The weather was very bad and the gate receipts fell far below the guarantee, but the management paid us in full without a word. I simply make the statement to set the public right in regard to the baseball proposition in Kansas City (Signed) Col. Edward F. Mitchell, Manager and Owner Minneapolis Keystones. A careful analysis of the foregoing statement will show only two things. The one is that Mr. Mitchell was greatly displeased with the treatment which he received at my hands during the series of games above referred to, while he was evidently very highly pleased with that which was accorded him by the management of the Royal Giants. However, one man's pleasure of displeasure at the action of another is not always a safe criterion by which to judge of the merits or demerits of his controversy; but in order to judge a given contention intelligently it is necessary to know the facts upon which the disputants found their respective claims. And these facts can only become known to strangers to the controversy by being fully and accurately disclosed by those who know them. If, therefore, I have laid down the correct rule for guidance, Mr. Mitchell's statement is wholly devoid of everything which would enable its readers to know anything concerning the merits or demerits of our misunderstanding. Nor would I complain of this if his statement were not both false and defamatory so far as my treatment of him was concerned. And in order that my readers may know the truth I must be permitted to briefly state the facts, which were as follows: Mr. Mitchell and I had a written contract for a series of four baseball games between his club and mine. That contract provided that the games should be played, and that when they should be played he should receive at least fifty dollars for the palying of each of them. The first game of the series was played and the other three were not because it rained and Mr. Mitchell refused to require his men to paly baseball in the mud. There was no intention either expressed or implied on my part to pay any money to Mr. Mitchell unless the games were actually played. At the proper time I told Mr. Mitchell that there was fifty dollars due him under our contract and I offered to pay him forthwith. He declared that he was entitled to receive two hundred dollars from me, notwithstanding his failure to play the last three games of the series. Our entire agreement in regard to the series of games was in writing, and I invited him to read the contract. He did so, but still we could not agree upon the proper construction to be placed upon its terms. I submitted the contract to my personal attorney and then to another lawyer, an ex-judge, who is generally reputed to be one of the best civil lawyers in either of the Kansas Cities, and they both said that Mr. Mitchell was entitled to receive but $50 under the contract in view of the fact that only one game had been played. Mr. Mitchell still denied the correctness of my position, whereupon I asked him to take legal advice. He refused to do so. I then offered to submit the controversy to a commission of any five reputable lawyers that Mr. Mitchell might select in either of the two Kansas Cities and to pay for the opinion if it chanced to be against me - he to pay for it if it chanced to be in my favor. He refused this offer also. While doubting the sincerity of his claim and acting in open disregard of the advice of my personal attorney, I offered to pay Mr. Mitchell $100, so that I might retain his friendship, as I thought. He accepted the $100 in payment of the games and I thought he was entirely satisfied until he sued me for another one hundred dollars and attached money to pay the claim in Kansas City, Missouri on May 29, 1910. I met the issue promptly by filing a forth-coming bond for the release of my money and prepared for trial. In order to begin his action Mr. Mitchell employed two of the best young attorneys in Kansas City, Missouri. He was fighting me on neutral ground. He had sufficient assurance that a judgement against me would be promptly paid. And yet when he was required by order of court to give security for costs on account of being a non-resident of Missouri, and to give a gilt-edged attachment bond, he promptly dismissed his suit. The action of Mr. Mitchell in discontinuing a fight so bravely(?) begun can indicate but one of two things, namely: His lawyers either construed the contract between us as my attorneys did, or else he was afraid of his cause of action despite their advice. But to me it makes little difference what it was that caused Mr. Mitchell to desist from his efforts to have his contention upheld. Indeed, for my part he need not have desisted, for if I thought that I had not already overpaid him a full $50 I would voluntarily pay another $100 to Mr. Mitchell on the theory that his construction of the contract was correct. But until I am conviced that I have been unfair in my dealings with my accuser I shall leave it to an unbiased public to say whether it is men of my stripe or that of Brother Mitchell's that are hurting the great national pastime. Nor shall I hesitate to intrust that same public with the decision of the question of my reliability in the face of the Colonel's unfounded insinuation that I will not do to trust. And our good friend adds: "And I thought it was my duty to let the public know what they can expect from a contract with this individual." In commenting on the foregoing extract from Mr Mitchell's statement I cannot refrain from expressing the thought that the person or persons who study the facts herin set out will be irresistibly impelled to the conclusion that the Colonel not only secured a square deal from me, but received $50 more than he was entitled to receive from me under the contract. And if the gentleman will only remember that I am conducting a business organization for profit, instead of a charitable institution for the distribution of alms, he would doubtless find cause for pride and congratulation, instead of vexation and complaint, in the outcome of his dealings with me. I am respectfully, Tobe Smith. - 430 Washington Boulevard, Kansas City, Kansas."
June 30, 1910
Minneapolis, MN
"Sports - A. Card. - There has been no reflection against the Keystones in these columns. A mistake was made by stating that they won 5 games out of a series of four. Should have been 5 games out of (8) two series of 4 each. They are all right, but their manager takes offense at the fact that the Gophers are favored through these columns. I own this paper, and am responsible for all insertions, and that column is a great help if properly quoted, but I will not publish any and everything sent. So keep cool. I know it (the weather) is hot. C.S. Smith."
"The Keystones are still making good in Texas. Stay with them!"
July 2, 1910
Galveston, TX
"Minneapolis in Texas. - Playing Good Ball, But Manager Hard to Please. - Fort Worth Special to Freeman. - The Minneapolis Colored Keystones are here in Texas playing great ball; doing all they can to please Mr. K.F. Mitchell, the manager. Mr. Mitchell does not treat his men right; he treats us as if we were a lot of dumb brutes. He does it here because we are away from home and cannot get back, because he won't pay off on due time. All the boys are sore on him, yet they play good ball on account of Mr. Gatewood. Even he is disgusted, and everyone knows that he is one of the best colored pitchers known. He is the speediest and best spit-ball pitchers in the game today. Mr. James Shawlin has made himself famous with his great hitting. John Merida is also a great slugger. Frank Young is the Texas favorite at second base. Pitcher Jackson is the coming pitcher. McNair, our little southpaw, is a fine hitter. Davis is a great drawing card down here. He is a great fielder at shortstop. When the team reaches Chicago, just watch them go some. McCune is the coming third baseman; watch him in a couple of years. Don't know who will play the manager next season, because he does not know how to treat a baseball team right. James A. Coleman, Galveston, Texas."
July 23, 1910
San Antonio, TX
"Keystones, of San Antonio, Texas, Coming North. - Special to the Freeman. - The Keystones are the coming club. When the Chicago club was here some of the players said that William Gatewood couldn't pitch ball. He is the best colored pitcher in the baseball game today. None of them can pitch like him. James Shawles knocks home runs whenever the fans ask for one. Eugene Barton makes all kinds of crazy catches out in center field. Fans are wild about him. John Wlbe, another Petway, throws like him, and the Texas players won't run on him. Gatewood got him from out of the sticks. The fans nearly cried Sunday when little Davis hurt his ankle. He will be out of the game for a week or two. The Keystones leave here August 15, bound for Minneapolis. The first stop will be at Kansas City, Missouri and from there to St. Louis, Missouri, Memphis, Tennessee, Louisville, Indianapolis, Chicago and Minneapolis."
Chicago, IL
"On Monday of this week the Chicago Baseball League passed a rule barring games between its members and all visiting colored ball clubs from now on, the rule being made to include the Cuban clubs that have been playing around the circuit the past two years. The rule will work very badly against the Stars of Cuba, who figured on playing on the Chicago League Circuit after the Cuban Stars left the city. This action means that the Chicago Leaguers will not play visiting colored teams any more in the future."