We wish to call attention to the statement from the 'Varsity team on our first page which we think will commend itself to all men here, at Yale, or anywhere else. Harvard and Harvard men have had no part in the newspaper statements of the last two or three days, nearly all of which were written by men so ignorant of the matter that they even imagined the referee to have been Mr. Cook, and the umpire Mr. Hancock! These misstatements have made necessary this declaration of the 'Varsity's intentions which we print to day.

When we say that the newspaper statements have been, as usual, sensational and incorrect, we certainly do not mean that we are satisfied with the result of the game. We do not like to dispute the result of a game, and we don't do it often; but in this case we feel we must, in duty to the college, protest in Harvard's name against the referees decisions on Thanksgiving Day. If the team itself does not protest at the convention, we shall be very sorry, and we shall consider it a great mistake. The referee's decisions that will naturally be protested are: 1st, the decision allowing Corbin to put the ball in play and rush with it, losing Harvard six points, if not eleven; 2nd, the premature calling of the first three quarters, losing Harvard four points, if not six. In other words, the two decisions giving the game to Yale.

The first point was a glaring defiance to all rule and precedent, to the rulings of Fiske, Camp and all other referees for three years past; the second was a vast piece of carelessness, if nothing worse, and was the subject of comment everywhere on the field where it occurred. We believe that these decisions lost us a game, won by superior team play. We believe that there is ground for winning a protest if properly presented. We do not like to believe that the referee had any other reasons for his decisions than carelessness and ignorance-at any rate till we have definite proofs of such accusations. We do not wish to accuse the Yale team of any unfairness in profiting by these decisions-they played their trick and profited by the referee's ignorance; but deference to their feelings ought not to deter us from challenging decisions which were so fatal to us, no matter how unpleasant it may be for us, for the referee, for Yale, or for anybody.