The Petition against the Athletic Resolutions.

At a meeting of the Executive Committees of the different Athletic Associations, held Feb. 25th, it was decided to publish the following petition, which was handed in to the Faculty at their last meeting. This petition was not published at the time because the Faculty wished to keep the affair quiet, and it was thought best, in order to gain the desired end, to work with the Faculty as far as possible; but seeing that such a course would to accomplish the wished for result it has been determined to make the petition known to the whole body of students. This petition was written very hastily, and is given below just as it was handed in to the Faculty:

The recent action of the Faculty in passing a series of resolutions bearing on athletics has occasions fillings of surprise and regret, not only among the students, but among many graduates and others who take an interest in the welfare of the college. In consequence of these feelings it has been deemed advisable to draw up, and present to the Faculty, a inexpediency of these resolutions, in hope that it may cause the immediate revocation of, or a radical change in, the resolutions in question.

The drawing up of this statement has been entrusted to a committee, appointed by the various athletic organizations of the college, all of which are more or less affected by the action of the Faculty; it has been duly ratified by the executive committees of each of these organizations.

In submitting this statement, we would not wish to be understood as impugning, in the least, the motives of the Faculty in passing these resolutions, as we are convinced that they have at heart the best interests of athletics in particular, and of the students in general. The difference between the Faculty and the students on this question is not so much one of kind as of degree, and as the practical experience of the latter in athletics is apt to be greater than that of the former, we think their opinions ought to be considered before any final action is taken.

Both Faculty and students are anxious to elevate the standard of athletics in college, and anything having this tendency, which shall be proposed by the faculty, cannot but meet with the hearty approbation and co-operation of the students.

Do the resolutions recently passed have this tendency? We think not, and in order to show wherein they fail, we shall first consider them separately, and then set forth their effect on the various athletic sports in college.

Our attention will be confined entirely to the resolutions, it being understood that the preambles are neither fully endorsed nor supported by the Faculty.

The first resolution provides:

"That every director or instructor in physical exercises or athletic sports must be appointed by the college authorities, and announced as such in the catalogue."

Believing that the management of athletics, which are a means of recreation, and form no part of the regular college curriculum, belongs principally to the students, we object to the appointment by the college authorities of instructors in athletics, without giving the students a voice in such appointment. For the appointment of unsatisfactory instructors might lead to the seeking, on the part of individuals, of outside instruction, thus tending to defeat the general purpose of the resolutions against professionalism.

In case the college authorities are determined to appoint such instructors, we take it for granted that their salaries must come out of the college funds; for it would be manifestly unfair to call upon the students to subscribe money for instructors who might be personally unsatisfactory, and in whose choice they had had no voice. But if the students should refuse to subscribe, as they might do, unnecessary inroads would thus be made on the already oyer-taxed finances of the college.

Finally, this rule, if allowed to stand, would tend to defeat one of the very purposes or which those who drew it up are supposed to be stiving-the placing of all athletic contests between the various colleges on a footing as nearly equal as possible. For the larger and richer colleges could afford to pay more for athletic instructors, and would consequently be able to get better men, than the smaller and poorer colleges.

The second resolution provides:

"That no professional athlete, oarsman, or hall-player shall be employed, either for instruction or practice, in preparation for any intercollegiate contest."

While there may be an honest difference of opinion as to be the expediency of rules, excluding all professional aid from college sports, the number in favor of such rules, both in an out of college, is probably so large, that any reasonable measures proposed by the college authorities, with the view of abolishing professionalism, would meet with but little opposition among the students. In view of this, although we are not prepared to admit the expediency of this rule, we waive all objection to it for the present, and will willingly unite with the Faculty in giving it a fair trial. We do not believe it wise, however, to endanger this fair trial of an experiment, in which we are all interested, by loading it down with other and foreign restrictions, which we believe to be opposed to the best interests of athletics.

It may not be out of place here to point out that even this rule is incomplete, and needs many additions to render it useful and binding. In order that each college may not decide for itself, who is a professional, and who is not, a definition of the meaning of the word, as here employed, would be both advantageous and necessary.

Rule three provides:

"That no college organizations shall row, or play base-ball, foot-ball, lacrosse, or cricket, except with similar organizations from their own or other institutions of learning."

In regard to this rule, we must object strongly to a limitation, which, if enforced, would deprive our crew of the right of rowing an amateur race with such crews as that of the Union Boat Club of Boston, or the Narragansetts: which would deprive our foot-ball eleven of the privilege of playing games with amateur elevens from Canada, or even with a picked eleven composed of graduates from this college; our base-ball nine from playing with the Beacons, (with whom an annual series has been played in past years), our cricket eleven from playing with the amateur elevens from Philadelphia, etc., etc.

The fourth resolution provides:

"That there will be a standing committee, composed of one member from the faculty of each of the colleges adopting these regulations, whose duty it shall be to supervise all contests in which students of their respective colleges may engage, and approve all rules and regulations under which such contests may be held,"

Either the committee which it is proposed to form would be an unmeaning nonentity, having little or no power, or it would be possessed of powers whose exercise could not but be detrimental to all interest in athletics on the part of the students.

One of the purposes in organizing such a committee, would probably be to decide all questions arising between the athletic organizations of the different colleges; as these questions could not always be settled to the satisfaction of all parties, just as much ill-feeling and rancor would result as under existing methods of settlement.

As the smaller colleges, being in a large majority, would hold the balance of power, the decisions of the committee would probably tend to favor the smaller colleges at the expense of the larger ones. We believe that the undergraduates are entirely competent to make all necessary rules, to settle all disputes, either directly or by arbitration, and to exercise a general supervision over all necessary measures in their particular departments. Controversies are as likely to arise between members of a committee composed of older men as between undergraduates, as the experience of the past has shown.

All disputes which the students have attempted to settle for themselves have been amicably arranged, and no lasting ill feeling has resulted. Could a committee composed of members from various faculties do better? We think not. No committee containing human elements can be infallible, and we believe that instead of lessening the friction between athletic rivals, the committee proposed above will only change its direction.

Rule five provides:

"That no student shall be allowed to take part in any intercollegiate contest as a member of any club, team, or crew for more than four years."

The general objection to this rule is that it deals with a matter of detail, and is principally of concern to the students themselves. Its enforcement might debar bona-fide students in the Law or Medical schools, for instance, from rowing with the crew, playing on baseball, or football teams, and in general indulging in sports which are intended as a recreation. Thus a principle which is well meant, and is intended to prevent objectionable features in athletics, is vicious in its tendencies, and its advantages are outweighed by its objectionable results.

Rule six provides:

"That all inter-collegiate games of base-ball, foot-ball, lacrosse, and cricket shall take place on the home grounds of one or other or the competing colleges."

By thus limiting the grounds to be used the general participation of the students in these games is limited. Our grounds are now so small that every absence by the regular team is eagerly seized upon by the students to get up games between classes, societies, club tables, etc. In the spring and fall there is scarcely a foot of available ground which is not taken up for some sort of athletic sport, and everything which tends to prevent the overflow to other grounds limits the pursuit of the sport.

We should probably be prevented, by this rule, from playing some games with distant colleges, whose teams we could meet on grounds mid-way between both colleges. Deciding games, played on neutral grounds, would be contested under conditions more equal to both sides, and much time might be saved by shortening the distance to be traveled. Again, the grounds of some colleges-Brown University, for instance-are very poor, and we can see no objection to the use of other grounds near at hand, when available.

The seventh resolution provides:

"That no intercollegiate boat-race shall be for a longer distance than three miles."

We find this resolution, like number five, objectionable, as dealing with details which might better be left to the students or to their advisers, the graduate committee of the graduate committee of the boat-club, whose high standing and long experience in rowing, better fit them to decide all such matters.

Apart from the judiciousness of any detailed rule of this nature, we also object to this particular rule as it stands. Many old rowing men, and medical men, who have been consulted, and who are prepared to express any opinion, say that a three-mile race is apt to be more injurious to the members of the crew than a four-mile race would be. The reason for this is that although the strain lasts a shorter time, it is of a much more violent nature in a three-mile, than in a four-mile race,