The following editorial appeared in the "Daily Princetonian" on June 6:

"Owing to the fact that the Princetonian suspends publication during the period of examinations we have had no earlier opportunity to reply to the charges appearing in the HARVARD CRIMSON on June 1 in regard to Princeton's action during the Harvard-Princeton baseball game.

"We are glad that the CRIMSON finally published direct accusations. Considerable surprise was expressed on all sides that a paper of the CRIMSON'S standard should permit, in the account of a baseball game, such insinuations as appeared in that paper on May 31 in regard to Princeton's action and the decisions of the umpire. We prefer direct accusations--they may be answered.

"In all probability, both the CRIMSON and the author of the communication are laboring under a mistaken impression which has been gained from false reports of the game. The author of the communication is evidently in this position, if we may judge from his statements and from his reliance upon inauthentic information gained from 'one who saw the game.' We believe that the misunderstanding will be fully cleared up when once these mistaken impressions are removed.

"In the first place, the charge that the Princeton graduate coach was on the field is absolutely false and we trust that the CRIMSON will publish a correction of the statement. We have the most conclusive proof that Hillebrand, Princeton's only graduate coach, did not leave the players' bench at any time during the game.

"In the second place, the Princetonian asks upon what foundation were the statements made that 'Princeton ran men around behind the catcher' and 'allowed photographic apparatus to the manipulated in such a way as to annoy the visiting team.' All eye-witnesses will, we believe, corroborate in saying that the first statement has no basis whatsoever. In regard to the second, we would state that the photographer was driven off the field immediately after the request was made by the Harvard captain. And further, the photographer was allowed on the field contrary to the wishes of the Princeton coach and captain. Finally, we have yet to have proved to us the right by which the author of the communication asserts that 'Yale has submitted to the most extraordinary treatment at Princeton.'

"The above statements are not made for the defense of Princeton's action. We do not believe that this action needs any defense. We make the statements for the purpose of clearing up the misunderstanding which seems to have arisen at Harvard. Inasmuch, as the author of the communication quotes as his source of information 'one who saw the game.' we judge that he was not an eye-witness of the contest and we trust that this is the explanation of the incorrectness of his assertions. However, this can never be a justification of them.

"The CRIMSON in an editorial asks The Daily Princetonian to tell Princeton's view in regard to systematic attempts to berattle athletic opponents and to tell how far the belief is true that Princeton has tried to do this...' By 'systematic attempts to berattle opponents,' we judge is meant the 'continued cheering and organized noise-making' mentioned in the same editorial. Without entering here upon a lengthy discussion of cheering from the standpoint of the welfare of sport, we will say that cheering is a recognized means of supporting a team in the field; that by this means support is given at almost every university or college of which we have knowledge. Princeton has always believed in heartily supporting her representatives on the field. During the Harvard game, cheering and singing were the only methods used--both in a legitimate manner--and we cannot understand why the CRIMSON refers to them as 'systematic attempts to berattle opponents.' We do not believe in cheering as a means of berattling opponents nor is this the object in view. Cheering as a means of support, however, we firmly uphold, and we do not believe that anyone will deny its beneficial effects in encouraging contestants. Cheering with this purpose has in some cases had opposite effects upon the opposing players, especially at periods when excitement runs unusually high: but we cannot on this account refer to cheering as a systematic attempt to berattle opponents. In regard to organized noise-making,' we do not know to what the CRIMSON refers.

"We thoroughly approve of the CRIMSON'S plan of threshing out differences frankly and this reply is not made in any spirit of controversy. We believe the differences are at bottom only a misunderstanding of the circumstances. The statements published in the communication in the CRIMSON are extremely derogatory to Princeton and as a communication written by a Harvard graduate and published in a Harvard paper will necessarily carry weight, we have felt compelled to reply. If we have handled the statements with small delicacy, it is because incorrect statements cannot be handled with gloves. We sincerely hope and trust that the light which has been thrown upon the subject will clear away every suspicion that Princeton employs unsportsmanlike methods in any sport or is in any way pursuing a policy which would injure intercollegiate sport.