The correspondence between Harvard and Yale relative to a third game is published in another column. A careful reading of the letters brings out prominently three main points. In the first place Yale is unwilling to arrange for a tie game unless it can be played before there is any reason to believe that it is necessary. Moreover, she shows no intention or wish whatever to meet Harvard half-way to effect a compromise. Her policy is clearly independent, if not indifrent. Opposed to Yale's position is Harvard's request that a third game, if necessary, shall be played, when tie games are generally supposed to be played, that is, when it is evident that the superiority of one team over the other must be proved by another contest. We never heard of any other college beside Yale which objected to this order. The third point that stands out conspicuously is Harvard's sincere desire to make every possible concession to Yale, except that one which is manifestly so unreasonable. On the other hand, it is noticeable that Yale does not make any sportsmanlike effort to ease the way to a settlement of the difficulty.

Now what is all the discussion about? Why is it important? We take it for granted that Yale will agree in saying that it is to avoid a repetition of last year's experience, a season ended with each team even in honors and their comparative merits not fully tested. There is no satisfaction in such a state of affairs. It is opposed to the idea of athletics; it is something which every true lover of manly sports cannot brook. Thus far we suppose that Yale also agrees with us, for if not, she would be truly inconsistent with "Yale spirit" as we have formerly known it. But if this is true, why is it that she will obstinately, uncompromisingly insist on a rule when she sees that it must inevitably lead to just such an unsettled condition at the end of the season, providing each team wins on its home grounds? Or at least, if she chooses to insist, it is strange that she should seem content to let things stand as they are. Her reasons are not tenable; at least they apply to her no more strongly than to us. They are not true to her previous conditions and this, we think, is conclusively shown in Harvard's last letter.

In spite of all this, Harvard has made a last attempt. It is to refer the whole matter to an arbitration committee, whose selection is provided for in the fairest possible manner. By the decision of this committee she will abide. Yale is now called upon either to accept or decline this proposition. If she accepts we can readily forgive her unwillingness before to meet us fairly and squarely. If she declines, she will condemn herself in the eyes of every just and reasonable person, and expose herself to a suspicion which we cannot, at least would not, lay to the charge of our "dearest enemy."