CAMBRIDGE, NOV. 26, 1889.

Editors Daily Crimson:

GENTLEMEN-Will you kindly inform a graduate, former editor, lover of foot ball, and present reader of your paper, what ground you have for the assertion you make in your issue of the 26th inst., that "for years it (a dual league) has been talked of and considered the final solution of all difficulties? " Has not this talk been confined to Harvard, and if so is it not worse than useless? Yale has complete control in the matter, as she is wanted by all parties. When she submits to us a proposition for a dual league, it will be well enough to consider the matter. But to do so now surely puts us in an attitude undignified and cowardly, gives Princeton an undeserved snub, and secures for us her enmity and absolutely nothing else whatever. We seem to forget that so long as the Yale-Princeton game occurs in New York on Thanksgiving day, it will remain the great event of the year, the one that brings in most money to the athletic associations of the colleges competing, the one the great athletes who compete or look on will look forward to with keenest expectation. Until we win, therefore, and earn a place in that game, our efforts toward a dual league will result practically in a dual league between Yale and Princeton, with Harvard "outside the breastworks." It seems to me much like saying to Princeton, "We cannot beat you, but we consider you the scum of the earth, and we will shove you out if we can." To which Princeton naturally answers. "shove ahead, and we'll see who goes out! " For we must remember, we cannot play in New York, and that it would lose Yale thousands of dollars if we got the Thanksgiving day game. The fact is, as Mr. Codman says, Yale has been using us this year as a cat's paw to pull her chestnuts out of the fire. I think you are right in saying that "Mr. Codman's charge of hypocrisy in these matters is most unjust," but Mr. Codman only voices the convictions of many graduates and undergraduates as well as to this one-sided agitation for a dual league. How about that Yale mass meeting which was to follow our lead? We graduates have a profound distrust of Yale in these matters, and we do not like to see our college put in so undignified a light before the world. Moreover, we have watched these matters for years, and we know that on the average Princeton is going to be far more fair and gentlemanly in these matters than Yale. Princeton had a number of available graduate players this year, and she did what she is firmly convinced Yale and Harvard have been doing for many years-persuaded them to come back and play. If it had not been for the smaller colleges-who have no business in the league at all, as the scores this year show.- Ames would have been disqualified, and with a decent amount of daily practice instead of the forty minutes of this autumn we should have beaten Princeton and the Thanksgiving day game would have been ours. We can beat them next year, and then talk about a dual league!

I must say I think Mr. Codman was most unjust to the college in attributing our agitation against semi-professional graduate players to our defeat. He shows that he is not up in the facts. The movement was well under way, as your readers most of them know, long before the Princeton game. The credit of it belongs to Harvard, and I fancy if we here at Cambridge were to inquire into its beginnings, we should have to admit that our faculty and their committee started the movement in the strictures they imposed on the members of our team and those wishing to be members. Now we are going to put this reform through, and the reform is going in the long run to benefit Princeton most and cripple Yale most. But don't let us be undignified. and don't let us make an enemy of our old ally when there is nothing to gain there by and much to loose. W. B. N., '84.