Tlie one who sits on figurative college fences in the columns of the Boston Evening Transcript has recently pointed to the dangers which are contained in "battle of the goal posts". So far the rightful title to this equipment has been left undecided by the Judicial bodies of the nation and weekly it is necessary to resort to force to decide this matter. The theory that the victorious institution deserves the goal posts of the opposition has the apparent support of a physically aggressive minority, but traditional precedent and established property rights do not support this view. Only within the present decade has vandalism followed victory. Even in the days of mass plays and bloody flying wedges, the material constituents of the game were left unscathed.

Obviously an opinion from some source must be had on this matter. The indecision of which is leading to some-what barbaric methods of establishing title. If the victors really need and deserve a tangible reward for their triumph, well and good but let no man interfere with their efforts to lay hands upon it. If on the other had a majority hold that victory is but an abstraction more sweet because of its very lack of material symbols, let the first man who throws his weight against an upright suffer the consequences of an outraged public opinion. A spineless vacillation and willingness to let circumstances rule is daily proving insufficient. Were a hypothetical straw vote to be taken on the merits of this question, certain poignant memories should combine with more sober considerations to range Harvard men with those opposing a Visigothic sack of the city as an appropriate mode of celebrating victory.