THE WILLIAMS MATTER AGAIN.

EDITORS DAILY CRIMSON: - The judgement pronounced by the CRIMSON Wednesday upon the charges against Williams seems to have been rather hasty, even if the facts as stated by Mr. Allen are viewed in the light most unfavorable for Williams. Mr. Allen's communication refers to the second of the charges only, and as no evidence has yet been brought forward to support the first charge, it would seem strange that the CRIMSON should consider it sustained. It is true that the statement in Tuesday's issue proves nothing, but it is no less true that Williams is not called upon to do more than deny the charges until something more than assertions are brought against her. The maxim that one is to be presumed innocent until proved guilty applies as well to colleges as to individuals. Mr. Allen's communication overthrows the most serious part of the second charge against Williams, - that of delaying until only three days before the date of the game before giving notice to Harvard that she would not play, thus preventing Har-from making other arrangements for that day, - by stating that the telegram from Williams was received October 7th., sixteen days before the day agreed upon. The charge as Mr. Allen leaves it, is however, still a serious one and needs an explanation.

The misunderstanding evidently arose from a misinterpretion of the letter received by Harvard from Williams on September 30. The Williams manager, having two dates disengaged wrote this letter to Harvard, and a similar one to Yale, asking if they could play on either of the dates mentioned, and if so, what financial terms they would offer. These letters were not intended as offers to play on the days mentioned, but when the answers were received, stating the terms, Williams was at liberty to reject the offer of either or both of the colleges. 30th Harvard and Yale offered to play on the 23rd, Harvard stating as her terms, one hundred dollars, and asking how much Williams would pay if unwilling to pay that sum. The offer from Yale was preferred, and having accepted this, the Williams manager declined the one from Harvard. The 27th, the second date mentioned by Williams had mean while been taken by Trinity, and in reply to Harvard's request for a later date Williams sent the telegram of October 11th, mentioned in my former communication.

If the letter to Harvard of Sept. 30, was so loosely worded as to convey the impression that it was a positive offer to play on the dates mentioned, the Williams manager was careless. Carelessness is, however, a very different fault from that with which Williams was charged at the base-ball meeting.

In reference to the charge made against Williams of employing professionals, it may be said that the proceedings of the Intercollegiate Association were not correctly reported in the newspapers Williams was not admitted to the association on condition that she should prove that there were no professionals on her nine, but was admitted unconditionally on her argueing that Wilson and Clark should be disqualified unless it should be proved to the satisfaction of the judiciary committee that they received no compensation for their services.

WILLIAMS.