EDITORS HARVARD HERALD: An editorial in the Yale Record of last week contains some assertions about the much-discussed Yale-Harvard foot-ball game, so surprising and so truly characteristic of their source, that it seems a pity not to bring them into general notice. It says: "Every one who saw the game knows how little ground there is for their reiterated charges of roughness, ungentlemanliness, to say nothing of stronger expressions which they have found convenient to use." Our Yale friend seems to have lost sight of an important fact, viz: that Harvard College represented not more than two-thirds of the spectators; and right here it would be well to remark that it is not the college which follows blindly whatever sentiment her papers chance to adopt, as the Record chooses to insinuate, but on the contrary, the papers represent, and that, too, most adequately the popular opinion of the college. The editorial goes on to state: "The result was a bitter disappointment, of course," alluding to Harvard, "but does that justify the conduct of their men among the spectators, hissing every fine play made by the Yale team?" We owe thanks to the Record for furnishing us with this truly Yaleistic idea of "fine playing." It is quits an innovation to regard intentional and repeated breaking of the established rules in the light of skill, and as if it deserved high credit in place of the well-merited condemnation it received. There is one way, and only one, by which our New Haven friends may escape all imputation of "muckerism," and as they seem so remarkably sensitive to "strong expressions," it is surprising that this way has not occurred to them before, especially as it is so simple - simple, that is, theoretically; if it is possible practically remains to be seen - it is this, let them cease to be muckers.

C.