The University of Chicago Weekly contains a statement which for a frank and plain-spoken exposition of the condition of athletics in at least one western college, rivals in interest the recent utterances of Harper's Weekly on the same subject. The item in question reads as follows:

"Casper Whitney reiterates his charges against Western athletics in the current number of Harper's Weekly, giving most of his attention to Minnesota. He seems to think Michigan too far gone for reform. It is a relief to find Whitneys definition of an amateur accurately stated, and to feel that one can honestly differ with him and still consistently advocate purity in athletics. He says an amateur is one who plays purely for love of the sport; a professional, one who plays in part for gain. This, as has so often been said, confines amateurism to the wealthy, and makes 'athletics' simply a pastime of the rich. Undoubtedly from his standpoint Whitney is right and fair in his anthems; but it is also right and fair to admit the existence of another standpoint."

If Mr. Whitney needed anything to be said in his behalf it might be pointed out that he does "admit the existence of another standpoint" and has taken some pains to prove it. What he objects to in the present instance is not the standpoint but the fact that it is maintained in violation of the accepted code of intercollegiate ethics. Every college is at liberty to choose whatever standpoint it prefers on the amateur question, but must be careful to have it understood before entering into athletic relations with other colleges.

But on other grounds it is a matter for great concern that a college of prominence should by its own admission go on the principle-to state it at its best-that so long as a man is a bona fide student, it is no objection to his eligibility to play on his college team that he has played on a professional team for money. It would be needless to point out how easily the admission of such a principle would afford a cover for corruption of the worst sort. The experience of sportsmen the world over is that the only safe rule is that which precludes the possibility of a man's engaging in athletics for pecuniary profit and still retaining his amateur standing, even though it may work hard in some cases against men who are undoubtedly sportsmen and gentlemen.

As the CRIMSON urged not long ago, it is the duty of the influential universities of the country now, of all times, to let their sound position on the amateur question be known, and that in no equivocal terms.