TO THE EDITORS OF THE CRIMSON: -

WILL you kindly allow me space in your columns to endeavor to correct a misunderstanding arising from the occupation of a portion of Holmes Field by the Lacrosse Association?

In regard to the manner in which a grant to the ground was obtained, it is hardly fair to accuse the Association of injustice or discourtesy; certainly nothing unjust or discourteous was intended.

I think it was generally understood that the tennis courts were not held over during the vacation, but were reclaimed every fall, so that until they were reclaimed the ground was practically vacant. As of late years it has been a vexed question as to who is the proper authority to whom should be referred points relating to the distribution of the grounds, the Lacrosse Association applied to the President, whom they recognized as having sufficient authority in the matter. Arrangements were also made with the Cricket Club, so that the Lacrosse practice would not interfere with the practice of the cricketers. This was done at the close of last year in order that the arrangements might take effect this fall.

In order to play Lacrosse successfully a properly kept ground is as necessary as in the case of tennis. And it was the purpose of the Association to improve the ground considerably by removing several trees and by filling in and grading behind the backstop. They were told by the President, however, not to go to any expense in the matter, as the portion of field near Oxford Street was about to be occupied by the new Physical Laboratory.

The object of the Association in securing the ground was not to obtain the exclusive interest, but the controlling interest in the regulation and care of the ground. If the Lacrosse Association controlled the ground, the occupants of the tennis courts would have the use of the field except between the hours of four and six in the afternoon; by this means both games could be played on the same ground, and any outlay or expenditure could be shared proportionally.

The Association wished to introduce by its own efforts into our college sports a thoroughly gentlemanly, healthful game, and as such the game is entitled to a fair trial. The language of the Advocate in this matter seems unnecessarily severe, and is calculated to raise antagonistic feelings which should never exist among fellow-students.

If the Advocate wishes to discourage an institution like the Lacrosse Association, a more courteous tone would certainly be more becoming, and would have greater effect than an attempt to brand an organization of fellow-students with epithets as unjust as they are uncalled for.

C. F. SQUIBB.