Harvard, 58, Brown, 0.

Saturday chronicled the first meeting of Harvard and Brown in foothall. In many ways it was the most satisfactory game of the season, not because Harvard made her this year's record in number of points won, but because the eleven was given an excellent test of its defensive work. Brown displayed strong aggressive qualities, stronger, perhaps, than that shown by any other of the visiting teams. This unexpected strength was a surprise, and Harvard was not fully prepared to meet it. Brown started with the ball and chiefly through the telling work of Millard, pushed it quickly down to the 25 yard line. At this point Harvard awakened to the fact that the situation was becoming serious, and successfully stopped further gains. Again in the second half Brown went from the middle of the field to the 8 yard line. In these plays, Millard as before was the principal actor. It was Lewis's alertness which saved Millard's pretty run of 22 yards from ending with a touchdown. Again, too, Harvard braced and did what might just as well have been done before her goal was seriously threatened. It is undoubtedly true that Newell's absence was largely the cause of this weakness. And yet this very fact shows that defensive team play has not by any means been fully developed Such narrow escapes from being scored against are valuable experiences, providing they occur not too often. In by far the greater part of the game, however, the defence was strong, giving one the right to draw the inference that this weakness in play is the exception rather than the rule with the eleven.

It is hard to estimate the real strength of Harvard's interference, and aggressive playing. For the purpose in hand it was certainly all that one conld wish. But Brown's tackling was strikingly deficient. She had no knowledge of how to break up mass plays or to force a way into the interference, consequently the Harvard backs did brilliant work. For this they deserve all the credit that is given them, but their performances should not be taken as a criterion of what is to happen in the Yale game. Neither should the students draw the conclusion that the eleven is treading on the downward way if, when they line up against a stronger team than Brown in defensive work, the interference seems to be less effective. The team has given just cause for the thorough confidence of the University and as the critical time approaches they should be made more and more to feel this.

Brewer played a magniflcent game, scoring from the 15 yard line on the first rush for Harvard, and making a remarkable run of 95 yards. Fine interference contributed not a little to his feat. The rest of his work was of a superior kind, but he was finally hurt, and gave way to Hoag. Wrightington and Gonterman also showed up brilliantly, each of them repeatedly making long runs. Waters and Gonterman did clever work also in the rush line. The best part of Fairchild's playing was his interference; his passing was often at fault, both in speed and accuracy. In the line, Lewis was a host in himself. His cool, steady work was all that could be desired. Acton and Mackie interferred unusually well and both filled their places with great credit. The same can be said of Manahan and Emmons. Connor and Beal were less effieient than the others and Stevenson at times was also outplayed.

For Brown, Millard, Hopkins, McCarthy, Robinson, Coombs and Dennison did by far the best work. The touchdowns were made as follows: Wrightington six, Brewer two, Gonterman and Hoag one each. Fairchild kicked nine of the goals, making the final score 58 to 0.

The elevens lined up as follows:

HARVARD. BROWN.

Emmons, left end, Dennison.

Manahan, left tackle, Lancey.

Acton, left guard, Hastings.

Lewis, centre, Coombs.

Mackie, right guard, Smith.

Connor, right tackle, Nott.

Beale, right tackle, Aldrich.

Stevenson, right end, Colby.