Editors Daily Crimson:

So many of the men that I have spoken to about athletics have expressed themselves as rather opposed to a dual league that I suspect the presence of a large class who believe in no league at all. I am so impressed by their arguments (which I think have not appeared in print) that I venture to ask a few lines of your space to recapitulate them in. Without any agreement or any red tape we have a league de facto. Whatever contests we undertake now will be simply matters of sport. The colleges will be (or ought to be) gentlemenly enough to conduct games like gentlemen: that is without professionals on their teams and without the miserable disputes incident to leagues. The only argument I can see in favor of a dual league is that it will define eligible players and make rules. Some people think Yale and Harvard too young to carry on games simply by precedent and a spirit of fair play. If thirty years of experience is not enough for them, how much do they need? I have talked with several prominent Yale men who appeared to be quite sick and tired of these incessant bickerings about games. I am sure that every man in Yale and Harvard wants to see fair play in every game. Why not trust to their sense of honor and let each organization arrange its contests as it wants them? Let the beaten party challenge the winner by a confidential letter, and if there is any dispute let it be private.

It may seem a small matter at best, but I see no advantage in a dual league except a trifling assurance that gentlemen ought not need nor ask for. If Yale and Harvard cannot hold games without red tape and cumbrous regulations they ought to "quit." The example of the English universities ought to put us to shame. Every feeling but a desire for good sport and fair play ought to be banished from our athletic fields. Since one conference has resulted in a majestic secret, I repeat, I believe more than half the college would favor no league but a tacit agreement.