EDITORS DAILY CRIMSON: -Leaving to be discussed by others, the question of the justice, right or expediency of the recent action of the Athletic Committee in dismissing Col. Bancroft from the position of coach of the crews, I wish to call attention to what seems to me to be strange inconsistency on the part of the Committee. Last year, when the question of having a paid director of field athletic sports was under discussion, the Athletic Committee of the Faculty announced, as I understand the matter, that if only a man like Col. Bancroft could be found to take charge of our field athletics, the faculty would be only too glad to appoint such a man. Thus, a year ago, Col. Bancroft was held up to us by the Athletic Committee as almost an ideal instructor in athletics; no charge of "professionalism" was then made against him, hut just the contrary; and further, the thought of objecting to the coach of the crew on the ground of too great expense, seems never to have entered the minds of the Committee a year ago. These facts seem to me to be somewhat inconsistent with the view of the question which the Committee take now, for notice-the only grounds for dismissing Col. Bancroft, given either in the letter of the Graduate Committee or in that of the Athletic Committee, are that (to quote the words of the letter of the Graduate Committee) "the practise of having a paid coach is inexpedient and detrimental to the best interests of rowing at Harvard" That is, the only objections urged are either professionalism or expense, or both together. And upon this advice of the Graduate Committee, it must be remembered, the action of the Faculty Athletic Committee was based.

But in judging the action of the Athletic Committee, let us keep constantly in mind the great truth that "consistency is a vice of small minds." I confess that this seems to me to be the only way to get over the difficulty of trying to reconcile the present action of the Committee with their action towards col. Bancroft last year.

B.