Not the battle of Lepanto but one of pants has been unhappily revived by an esteemed contemporary, the Harvard CRIMSON. We had thought this subject out of the way and disposed of, instead of which it more than smoulders. Let us recite the facts in orderly fashion certain Princetonians waited on President Coolidge, who with the eye of good-natured criticism remarked on the dimensions of their trousers, how they seemed to hover towards baggy descent, and upon the supposed absence of braces for the said two-legged petticoats. The words were taken as they were uttered, and the young Princetonians received the chaff in the spirit in which it was given them, as gentlemen. They returned to Princeton, a college in New Jersey, and spread the news. It might have had; indeed was having its effect in Jonathan Edwards's brief home when the CRIMSON emitted an incendiary editorial which has caused confusion at Princeton and upset its academic life. It has implied that the Princeton men's pants were perfectly proper.

Why sow the seeds of civil discord, why involve the whole United States in a controversy through these innocent Princetonians at a time when peace is ensured on every hand? Besides, this ill-advised action gives excuse to the more irresponsible portion of the press for a facetious excitement. "Harvard rushes to support baggy pants of old Nassau," headlines the New York Evening Post, a singularly careless statement and one showing that these breeks did need braces if a venerable and sister institution of learning really had to do this. But what proofs are there of this support on Harvard's part? Has President Lowell been interviewed on the subject? Has the board of overseers done anything about it? Has the corporation, statelier than Betelgeuse, moved in the premises? Has President Emeritus Eliot said anything about it? The progressive conservatism of Harvard is proof enough that the CRIMSON spoke carelessly.

One more observation and we have done. The CRIMSON, arguing for these tunic trousers intimates that they are the heritage of seagoing ancestors. Trousers are certainly worn wide in the Navy, although a whilom secretary did contemplate restraining them, and they are sometimes worn that way in the merchant service, but they are not turned up at the bottoms. Now these offending bags are turnd up and there by rendered sloppier. Thus the analogy falls, the argument crumbles and wide pants walk in sackcloth and ashes. --Boston Transcript