The time has come when a fair discussion of the athletic regulations and the question raised by their adoption can be had. Both sides of the discussion have already been presented more or less completely. Student opinion is already beginning to form itself on the justice and expediency of the resolutions. Many have questioned the right of the faculty to interfere in the matter at all. But on this point there ought to be no doubt. The faculty have a right to act upon anything which pertains to the college or the government of the students under their charge. The real question is whether or not interference at the present time is expedient. Although we do not doubt that the authorities were actuated by the best motives, and thought that their decision would be for the good of the college and its athletic interests, we do not think that any interference at the present time was necessary. This is not the time for any such action. The whole proceeding was rushed through without taking the requisite amount of care in such an important matter. In a matter like athletics which so nearly concerns the students and so little concerns the faculty, we think that the former body should have been consulted. The single conference which was held with a committee of students several weeks ago was far from being all that was necessary to determine a preliminary policy before the New York conference and after the conference not a word was said by our faculty until the text of the resolutions were disclosed by another college, when their confirmation was made known. We were given to understand that the matter was private and that nothing was to be said about it until all had been decided; but such does not seem to be the construction put upon it by the other college faculties. At Princeton the students were consulted before the faculty took any action. Such should have been the case here. That it was not so leads us to believe that the measure was forced through the faculty meeting without giving the members of that body a sufficient chance for discussion or any chance to learn what the students, graduates and others interested in Harvard had to say upon the subject. This savors too much of political wire-pulling and gag law methods, and hardly reflects credit on those having the matter directly in charge before and at the meeting. Therefore, for these reasons, in the first place, that the present action was too hasty and that the students were not consulted, we think that the matter was ill advised.

Nor is the trouble alone with the manner and time of action. Several of the resolutions seem to be extremely objectionable, some on the score of impropriety, others as being very damaging to the interests of athletics at Harvard. The first and second resolutions are not particularly harmful and may do good, but the third seems to us to be the most pernicious to the interest of athletics here. It would seem as if it must be a concession to some other college, (such, in fact, is reported to be the case) as we can see no reason why such a measure can benefit us. The number of games will be so limited that interest in football, baseball, lacrosse and cricket will be down to a very low ebb. Even if this interest should increase, as its projectors hope, there is no opportunity for more men to play than do at present on account of the very limited extent of the Harvard athletic grounds. If the faculty desire so much that athletics should become more general, only let them purchase or level a few more acres of ground anywhere near the college and they will find that the desired expansion will take place at once. By this resolution the standard which Harvard is to maintain in the future will be decidedly lowered. By force of circumstances we happen to be isolated from all the other colleges where athletic games are indulged in. For this reason we are dependent upon the various athletic organizations in the neighborhood for that practice, without which we cannot compete with other colleges on equal terms.

Another obnoxious resolution is that numbered five. This seems to us to be a matter in which the faculties are not called upon to interfere. If any man in any one of the schools belonging to the university wishes to play ball or row, the faculty have no right to say that he shall not. It is a matter for the students to decide whether there is any objection to a man's playing longer than four years. More, it seems to us to be a direct attack upon Harvard as a university. As such, it is right that all men connected with any department should have as much right to play on one of the teams as a man in the academical department.

The sixth resolve, though not as objectionable as the third, is yet needless and harmful. Often deciding games are unfair when played upon the grounds of one of the competing teams, as the home team has all the advantages of knowledge of the grounds and heartier support. Often by playing on grounds mid-way time is saved.

The seventh resolution is very objectionable and unjust. Many famous boating men who have graduated, and leading physicians declare that a four mile is far better than a three-mile race. A majority of our graduate committee on boating are reported as being in favor of a four-mile race, and their opinion is thus entirely ignored despite the fact that their appointment was endorsed by the faculty.

The eighth resolution seems' necessary if the other resolutions are to be carried out; but such are the objections to the others as a whole that we consider it our duty to express our emphatic protest against their adoption by the Harvard faculty as ill-timed, inexpedient and unjust.