The vote of the Athletic Committee which we print this morning is obviously a measure of vital importance to Harvard athletics and as such is bound to be subjected to a deal of conflicting criticism. Before discussing, however, the probable effect of the committee's vote or the immediate bearing which the present condition of our athletics may have had upon their action, we wish for a moment to call the attention of our readers to the historical aspect of the question, believing that a large minority of Harvard men are, to say the least, very imperfectly informed in regard to this. Early in April, 1888, a committee of the Overseers was appointed to consider the question of intercollegiate athletics; this committee reported in favor of the complete abolition of all intercollegiate contests in which Harvard was to be a competitor. The report as made, however, was not accepted by the Overseers, but in its place a vote was passed as follows:

May 2, 1888, Whereas in the opinion of this board an undue prominence is now given to athletic contests in the college, and excesses and abuses attending the same and mainly incidental to intercollegiate contests should be checked and guarded against for the future, Therefore.

Voted,-That in the opinion of this board intercollegiate contests should take place only in Cambridge, New Haven, or such other New England city or town as the Committee on Athletics may from time to time designate, that University teams alone should be permitted to take part in intercollegiate contests, and that students should be prohibited from taking part in contests with organizations not belonging to the University, except on Saturdays and holidays.

This vote was referred to the corporation, and by the corporation to the faculty, with the request that they examine the whole subject and make a report thereon to the corporation. In accordance with this request Professors, J. W. White, Chaplain and Hart were chosen a committee of investigation May 15. The report of this committee was made June 12, and in accordance with its recommendation the faculty voted that the proposed committee on the Regulation of Athletic Sports be constituted as it now exists. This vote of the faculty as to the nature of the Athletic committee was accepted by the corporation and overseers, but it was voted in addition, October 17, That the faculty and committee be informed that the corporation and board of overseers are of the opinion that further restrictions should be placed upon intercollegiate contests, in regard to the places where and the days when they should be played, and the teams that shall take part therein. Thus it will be seen that the question of restricting Harvard athletics to New England is not a new question, that in fact, the project has been uppermost in the minds of our ultimate governing board, the overseers, during the last two years, and that in their recommendation to the committee just now quoted they had plainly not abandoned their purpose but simply left its consummation to the Athletic committee. It is obvious, therefore, that the passage of the new regulation has been in the eyes of our governing body merely a matter of time.

But it is the effects of the committee's action which will be mainly criticized. Let us, then, for a moment, consider these. The direct result of the new regulation will be that Harvard will withdraw from the base ball league this year and from the Mott Haven games next season. Unless a dual league is formed, therefore, we will be out of all systematized intercollegiate athletics, since in view of the new regulation Princeton will hardly propose a triple league. But after all, what of this? Hardly such dire results, we believe, as some fear. Harvard certainly has never been in so favorable a position for restricting her athletics as she is today. It is absurd, too, to suppose that she will lack contestants, even though she be a member of no league. Her position is such before the public that league or no league the interest of the country will centre on her athletics as much as on the athletics of any other college. Yale, too, will recognize this fact and act accordingly. Yale cannot, although she so wish, decline a challenge from Harvard in any branch of athletics, and thus Harvard and Yale will be as heretofore the leading athletic colleges of America, although the high pressure policy of some other college may now and then bring out a team capable of defeating either Yale or Harvard.

It is of course impossible thus early to predict the effect of the new regulation upon the chances of a dual league. This much is certain, however, that it cannot by any possibility become a barrier to the desired result. It seems to us clear, therefore, that the ultimate effect of the recent vote of the Athletic committee will simply be to free our intercollegiate athletics from many disagreeable complications such as those which have come into prominence this college year, and to tighten the bonds already existing between Harvard and Yale until they are at last drawn together into a dual league.

To the remainder of the committee's vote, that is, to the recommendation that "No one should be a member of any university team who is not a candidate for the A. B. or B. S. degrees, or a special student in the college or the Scientific school," there can be no possible objection. It is a reform which must come ultimately, the sooner the better.

It must be said of the regulations in general, however, that that they seem without sufficient consideration to cut cricket off entirely as an intercollegiate sports, although it is plain that the case of cricket is distinctly different from that of any other branch of intercollegiate athletics. It is to be hoped that some further regulation may be made to cover cricket.