The Princetonian, after long and careful consideration, is ready to denounce Yale's methods of play and to challenge Yale to a denial of grave charges of unfairness in play. Its criticisms are deliberately made and are of importance-of great importance and interest to the whole college world. We summarize its views:

"We make no statements at random," it says; "proofs are in our possession. Yale wins her games by systematic preconcerted evasions of the rules of play. Yaleism is this-an underhanded and constant evasion of the rules. This, kept up for an hour and a half, told on the matches with Harvard and Princeton, and won for our New Haven brothers the championship. We cannot offer them our sincere congratulations for such victories. We do not wish to charge Yale falsely, and are ready to hear what she has to say, but she must show stronger proofs than she has yet produced, to disprove the evidence that we possess. She must, at least, make an open denial of this system of umpire-play, by which referees have been systematically bulldozed. We do not believe she will deny it. Even professionals will expel from the B. B. league a catcher who deceives the umpire by snapping his fingers to imitate a foul tip. But our brothers in foot-ball concoct a more or less elaborate system, by which the referee is to be continually deceived. The only semblance of a defence that can be offered for such a method is that it is fair, because nothing can be done about it! We do not believe that Princeton wants Yale ruled out of the league, though her style of play deserves it; but the next convention should certainly devise some more stringent rules, to force those who won't play a square, gentlemanly game unless they are compelled."

Concerning Yale's claims as to her services to the game of foot-ball in this country the Princetonian is still more emphatic: It (the Courant) admits and deplores the fact that Yale is considered, by "the many," to win her games "by sheer force and systematic evasions of the rules." Vox populi, vox dei. "The many" have not been deceived. The editor goes on to state, that Yale has done more for foot-ball than any other college in the land. We always thought that Harvard introduced the game; but, perhaps, there has been some mistake. That Yale's rules for stopping the block game were adopted, is true. But Princeton presented precisely the same rules, with certain additions, which would have entirely prevented it.

We await Yale's reply to all this with interest. The entire spectacle of all this Yale vs. Princeton and Harvard imbroglio, is perhaps not altogether edifying. Neither is a criminal trial in a court room edifying. Both, perhaps, are equally important for the prevalence of justice, and the purification of society.