Only two journals of national influence, so far as have been able to learn, have devoted any of their space to any real editorial discussion of the new athletic regulations. Indeed, we may say that only one has in reality done so. The Advertiser has given them a superficial commendation, as also has the New York Times. Neither paper, however, has touched upon the real point of discussion involved in the matter. The Spirit of the Times also with a somewhat superfluous fervor shouts out its approval. "Their stated facts," it cries, "are indisputable; their arguments calm, clear, and concise; their conclusions unavoidable. The conference which suggested the ideas, and the man who clothed them with words, have equal reason to be proud of their work. An overwhelming majority of all those persons whose character and standing make their approval of value, will certainly extend to these regulations the full measure of their unconditional endorsement." If it be not considered a piece of undergraduate impertinence by the young lion of the Spirit who penned the above, we would like to suggest that his dictum here stated is unmitigated dogmatism. The familiar rhetorical and journalistic trick of assuming the concurrence of all good and wise men in one's own view of the question, thereby implying the utter folly of your opponent's, is unworthy a journal of the character of the Spirit.

The New York Post alone, we believe, has given an editorial discussion of the question worthy its importance to that large section of the community known as the college world. With all the conclusions of the Post, we are glad to say, we entirely concur. The idea that college faculties have no right of interference in athletics as we have already said is quite untenable. This opinion is also expressed by the Post. "But there is a wide difference," it continues, "between the exercise in each college of a general supervisory power over sports, and the attempt to establish an inter-collegiate code, as a glance at the resolutions themselves will show. They bring out very distinctly, the moment we examine them in detail, the fact that there is so great a dissimilarity, first, in the circumstances of the colleges, and second, in the character of the sports themselves, that any attempt to make up such a code will be attended with enormous if not insuperable difficulties."

The Post then discusses the resolutions in detail. We commend this discussion to any who may be still in doubt as to the resolutions. It concludes: "The fourth resolution provides for a standing committee of the colleges to supervise all contests and approve of all rules and regulations. This, of course, goes vastly further than all the others put together, and if they prove impracticable, it is much more so. It involves the transfer of the whole development of sports from the students to the faculty, and this not to the faculty of one college, but of several, different in circumstances and position and resources. This appears to imply a view of the right of faculties to interfere quite as extreme as the undergraduate notion that the students must be left altogether to themselves. If we are right in what we have been saying, the difficulty with the present movement lies in its having attempted too much, and points to the necessity of a revision of the regulations with a view to confining them to a much smaller field, and possibly to fewer colleges even than five."