To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

All undergraduate subscriptions for athletics should be abolished. The reasons are: (1) They are unnecessary for the financial success of our athletics. (2) They are unevenly distributed upon the students. (3) The amount they add to the surplus fund is trivial as compared to the inconvenience of the subscribers.

That they are unnecessary for the financial success of our athletics is shown by the Graduate Treasurer's report for 1904. Credit balance $33,057.51. Subscriptions, $5,013.58.

Thus it is evident that after deducting the subscriptions, there is still left a considerable sum for permanent improvements.

That the subscriptions are unevenly distributed in proportion to the students financial conditions I know from personal experience; and I think that any man who has collected money from the students will support this statement. Many men on account of their college spirit, shyness, or inability to say "no" give much more liberally than they should; while many others, who can well afford to give, give nothing, because they appreciate the large credit balance or have less enthusiasm, or know how to put off the collector. Thus to some men, and especially Freshmen, this matter of subscriptions becomes a serious problem in their College lives.

It is natural that each Graduate Manager and each Athletic Committee should desire to have as big a surplus as possible, to make as many permanent improvements as possible, and to pay off the debt upon the stadium s soon as possible. But should they seriously inconvenience the students to satisfy this desire, when they can accomplish practically as much with a little less surplus without taxing the students severely? Why should the present classes strain to pay for these improvements and the Stadium, when the advantages of them should last generations? Is it not fairer to the present classes for the debts to be paid on more gradually, and for the improvements to be made under borrowed money, it necessary, which can be paid on gradually, or made gradually as at present. In the way all those benefited would be contributing some part of the expense. It may be suggested that the Stadium was built by the present classes, and the expense should be stood by them. This is rather a mean argument, and if used, the answer is that the students did not decide to build the Stadium, but those higher in authority.

To make the minor sports self supporting is practically the same as continuing the need of undergraduate subscriptions. The object of college athletics is to help along the physical development of the students. The minor sports certainly offer such an opportunity to a great number of men. The gross expenses for the cricket club, lacrosse team, hockey club, and fencing team, for 1901-1902 (I take this year as it is the only one for which I have figures) were $1,331.67. Tennis yields a surplus. If now $1,500 is added as expense for basketball and increases in the expenses of these other minor sports and this sum with the subscriptions is subtracted from last year's credit balance, there is still a surplus of over $25,000. Now does it seem justifiable to force subscriptions for the minor sports upon the students to raise a surplus of about $25,000 to $28,000, especially since that subscription will fall unevenly?

If, without subscriptions and with the additional expense of the minor sports added on, a credit balance of $25,000 is possible, why should the price of H. A. A. tickets be raised? Is not that a sufficient sum to expend each year upon permanent improvements, and the debt on the Stadium?  CHANNING FROTHINGHAM, JR., '02