EDITORS DAILY CRIMSON: -There is it seems to me, a very serious slip in the Athletic Committee's argument in favor of prohibiting intercollegiate foot ball. The premises of the argument are these: 1-"foot ball as at present played by college teams, is brutal, demoralizing to players and spectators, and extremely dangerous;" (2) "and we do not believe that at the present time and with the prevailing spirit, any revision of the rules made by the Intercollegiate Association would be effective in removing these objectionable features." From these premises they draw the conclusion that inter college foot ball (as far as Harvard is concerned) should be prohibited.

If the two premises are borne out by facts, then the conclusion ought certainly to hold good. But one of the premises is false, or at best a mere assumption. Granting the first premise for the sake of argument, yet I claim that the Committee offer almost no proof at all to support the second premise, viz., that the objectionable features of the game can not be removed by any revision of the rules by the Intercollegiate Association. This last statement is almost a pure assumption on the Committee's part. The only arguments they offer in support of their belief is that the changes adopted last year did not take away all objectionable features of the game. The Committee must grant that these changes did take away or lessen some objectionable features; they must also grant, therefore, that further changes in the same direction would take away more objectionable features, and that if sweeping enough changes could be made, all objections to the game would be removed. The Committee assert that such changes can not or will not be made. How does the Committee know this? They do not know it; they merely think it, and they do not support their bare opinion with arguments.

On the other hand men among the students who have played foot ball and who understand the game, claim that changes can be made whereby the "brutal" and "demoralizing" features, and also much of the danger of the game can be done away with. It is also claimed that the "prevailing spirit" among the students is in favor of such changes, and that there is a very strong chance that such changes can be carried through the Intercollegiate foot ball convention. These opinions, as will be seen, are directly opposed to the assertion of the Committee. Who, I ask, is more likely to form a correct opinion of the "prevailing spirit" of the students and of the chances of carrying certain changes through the Intercollegiate convention, -the Athletic Committee, or the students themselves?

The Committee say that they would "deprecate the permanent loss" of the game. If so, why do they not allow us a chance to remedy the objectionable features of the game? Would not this be a more reasonable course for them to pursue than to prohibit it?

The argument that suitable and sufficient changes cannot be made, now, or in future, because the changes made last year did not accomplish all that was hoped for, -this argument, I say, is childish and worthless. For, in the first place, the students now are much better able to judge what changes are needed, and, secondly, changes which last year were almost universally opposed by the students, would this year meet with almost unanimous approval. Let it be remembered, however, that the reason of this opposition last year was not so much because we were unwilling to see changes made in the rules, as because we were unwilling to submit to what seemed to us an arrogant and high-handed proceeding on the part of the committee, in springing changes on us just before the Yale game, and thus trying to force us to accept them. These conditions, happily, are now changed, and this opposition has changed to a spirit of co-operation.

Let the committee, instead of trying to prohibit the game, consult with those among us who understand the game of foot ball, as to what changes in the rules will do away with the "brutal" part of the game, (for, as Prof. Byerly has said, and he probably voices the opinion of the other members of the Committee, the dangerous element of the game is the least objectionable, especially since that would be greatly done away with, if the "brutal" element were eliminated.) Let us then have a chance to make the necessary changes in the rules at the convention of the Intercollegiate Association, and then let the game be played next fall under the new rules. When it has been found that the objectionable features of the game can not be done away with, then it is time enough to think of prohibiting the game. Something more, however, than the bare assumption of the committee is needed to prove that suitable and sufficient changes cannot be made. Any action by the Committee or by the Faculty which shall prohibit intercollegiate foot ball, without allowing us the chance to remove the objectionable features of the game, will be an inexcusable act of injustice towards the students.

B.