The statement in the Princetonian relative to Harvard-Yale game is interesting. Its editorial comment is still more so; a portion of it relative to the subject of umpires, we take the privilege of quoting:

"The article which was published in the HARVARD CRIMSON of May 31st, was partially incorrect and we are surprised to see the apparent ignorance, which is evinced, of the true state of affairs in several instances."

Princeton has stated her side of the question to be practically this: Mr. Murray was unsatisfactory and Captain King objected to him. Captain Frothingham agreed to the objection and hence Princeton's refusal to play at the last minute was perfectly fair and square, particularly as no reply had been received to the telegram sent on Saturday, asking for a change in umpires.

Now this sounds plausible and the CRIMSON is accused of misrepresentation and ignorance on the strength of it. Princeton does not realize that there is another side. The right or wrong of the question hinges about the point of the reception of Captain's King's oral protest. The Princetonian states that Captain Frothingham accepted it. We have the repeated assertions from Captain Frothingham himself that such a statement is entirely false. Captain King is certainly laboring under a misunderstanding. We do not accuse him of intentional misrepresentation but we feel perfect confidence in the word of our captain and think him capable of remembering any agreement he might have made. Moreover, Captain King has not yet explained his parting words to the effect that he would see Hopkins and requesting Frothingham to see Murray about the next game. He did not deny having made this statement when accused of it on the field and certainly it implies that the umpires would remain the same for the second game.

When Captain King proposed another person he would not mention as a substitute any of the three from whom he had originally agreed to choose, and for this reason also, Captain Frothingham claimed a right to persist in refusing to grant a change. It is hard to understand at any rate on what ground Princeton felt justified in trying to dictate, particularly when these dictations were contrary to all previous agreements. Harvard would have arbitrated, the question on the field, but nothing but downright submission would satisfy Captain King. Rather than disappoint the thousands who had gathered, Harvard made this submission and yet Princeton wonders why we should feel indignant at her conduct!