There are times in the course of journalistic events, which come seldom perhaps to a metropolitan newspaper, more often to an undergraduate daily such as the Crimson, when it becomes an unpleasant duty to print all the news. The appearance of the latest recriminating statement by a former Harvard football player, substantiating and adding further to the previous charges against Princeton football, is just one such instance. Again the plea for this latest and most unsavory outburst is "it will help clear the air". The Crimson firmly believes that the air has already become decidedly murky and will become increasingly offensive as long as individual and not entirely accurate recriminations are broadcasted to the press.

It is doubtful if the matter could ever have been thrashed out satisfactorily to both Harvard and Princeton even if the officials of both universities and the players involved had been called together around a table when it first became known that the Hubbard charges were to be published. "Dirty football" cannot be proved or disproved by conferences and discussions. But at least the charges and defenses could have been made within earshot of those involved. The Crimson has already voiced the opinion that the only judge who is competent to accuse a player or a team of "dirty football" is the referee. Nothing could be more futile, however, than a signed statement after a gain by a referee as proof that the game was clean. The record of practices inflicted during the game is the only record of a referee worthy of consideration. Until the entire matter is definitely closed it is the province of the newspaper, no less the Crimson, to print charges and rebuttals even when they betray a lack of intelligence and good taste.