The article in the last Crimson on the college fields seems to point to a gloomy future for our athletics. "When all the fields except Jarvis are taken up for building purposes," bewails the Crimson, "there will be no class nines, no cricket, no lacrosse, very little tennis" and "a handful of good athletes will play base-ball in the spring and foot-ball in the autumn, and that will be all." This is certainly a gloomy prospect. But even at the worst we should hardly be reduced to this, as a large part of Holmes field is unfit for building purposes on account of a deep quick-sand. But any such encroachments on the fields now devoted to athletics are indeed "in strange contrast with the enthusiastic indorsement of home athletics given by the athletic committee and by the president in his annual report." The athletic committee recognizing that the erection of the new Physical Laboratory on Holmes field would seriously injure our athletics, have, as is well known, had plans drawn up for the laying of a quarter mile track at the north end of Holmes field. Within this track there would be ample room for base-ball and foot-ball. If this plan is carried out, the ground available for athletics will be increased, even though a large part of Holmes field is taken up by the Physical Laboratory. We presume that the athletic committee with this plan in view offered no special objection to the erection of the building on Holmes, else they could not have acquiesced in a decision that would confine base-ball and foot-ball to Jarvis field. If the Physical Laboratory is to be built on Holmes field, all who have the true interests of the university at heart will use their influence in forwarding the project of the new athletic grounds.