THE FRESHMAN RACE QUESTION.

AN editorial and article in the Advocate, adverse to the Crimson's position in regard to Freshman races, call for further remarks on the subject.

The Crimson's statement in an editorial, that Freshman races would not draw a large crowd, is one of the least of the objections to the races; and the statement of the Advocate, that there was a large crowd at Owasco Lake to witness the '81 race, does not apply in the least to New London, as few of those who witness a 'Varsity race would care enough for a minor race to remain there several days, or even one night, to see it. It has already been declared by those who have arranged several races that to have two races in one day would be very undesirable, if not impossible, so that "to establish the custom of an annual Freshman race, to be rowed at New London at the time of the 'Varsity," as suggested by the Advocate, would not be possible.

For a man to have rowed two races instead of one is undoubtedly an advantage to the 'Varsity, but there is a greater chance that more Sophomores will succeed in getting places in the 'Varsity boat if they have the better chance which a longer rest will give them to recuperate from their training and to grow, as most rowing men do in their first summer vacation. As for their not having rowed in a shell except for two weeks before the class races, if it were an understood thing that the class races were intended to prepare the Freshman oar for the 'Varsity, with such advice as the rowing authorities should not hesitate to give, the Freshman shell could be in use, in a year of average mildness, at least six weeks before the class races.

One of the upper classes would not care so much to prepare for an outside race as for a class race, for if they did, they would have upper class outside races; and therefore if Freshmen care more for an outside race, they only do so because they are unused to College ways, and do not understand the full value of class racing.

The author of the letter to the Advocate does not answer his question in objection No. 2, - "Did '83 gain more renown by winning the class race than by their victory over Columbia?" If an '83 man were to answer, he might say, "No, we did not;" but the spectators of any actions are the ones to judge in which most renown was gained, and the general opinion among upper class men is that '83 gained most by winning the class races. If the question were to be asked of men outside of Harvard, they would agree with '83, as they would consider that Harvard had added one more victory to her list. This very opinion itself should prevent Freshman races, as where the name of the College is at stake, even in the least degree, the BEST in the College should defend it. The name Harvard Freshman involves the name of the College to some extent, and often to outsiders to the full extent. Objection 3 admits that "the rustic dweller on the shores of Owasco Lake, or the respected citizen of Knox County, N. Y., may have taken the Freshman for the University Crew;" if, on the ground of the race, that opinion prevailed, there is every reason to suppose that the further off one got, - especially if at the same time further from Cambridge, - the more prevalent that opinion would have been found; the more so if one of the largest newspapers in that part of New York announced in large type, as one of the Crimson editors testifies, "CORNELL defeats HARVARD." In New York City, it is disagreeable to be chaffed by one's friends because Harvard has been beaten by such a little college as Cornell. This actually happened after '81's defeat.

In objection 4, the Crimson's statement is indorsed. Captain Bancroft was perfectly right in telling '81 that only by her rowing Cornell could the 'Varsity be kept up; there were no class races to rely upon then. He was right, again, in advising '82 to row Columbia, because he did not know how much the class races were going to amount to, as in that year they were rowed for the first time for a long while. When the Crimson said that a Freshman race clashes with the interests of the 'Varsity, it did not refer simply to such a direct act as refusing to give up a Freshman oar to be a substitute on the 'Varsity; the feeling that prompted that refusal is of far greater importance than the act itself; it indicates a division of interest and purpose which is in great measure the cause of our many recent failures, which are due more to the lack of centralization of our forces than any thing else. The Captain of our Crew complains of not being backed up sufficiently. A considerable part of this lack of interest is due to the much-written-of Harvard indifference, but a larger part than is generally supposed is caused by the lack of centralization of interest as well as energy.

If '82 had rowed Columbia, the only man who would have been of use to the 'Varsity was the man who was chosen last year as substitute. '82 had no other man who could have been of use to the 'Varsity last year. This was due more to the chance of having poor rowing material in the class than to the omission of the Columbia race.

The writer of the letter to the Advocate makes a miscalculation of three weeks and a half in the exact time during which a training table need be kept for the Freshman race, as it was seven weeks and a half from the class races to the Columbia race. It is not impossible, too, that a training table might be dispensed with for a part of the time before the class races if there were to be no outside race; but, even if it were not, the expense beyond the class race for keeping up the crew would be $300 while in Cambridge, and $500 in New London, making $800. Add to this the expenses of the coach, treasurer, & c., and the extra expense is, at a low estimate, $1000.

To the last question in the letter there may be said of '80 what has already been said of '82 '80 furnished fewer men because she did not happen to have the material of the other classes named, although four 'Varsity men to a class is not a bad average. To conclude, the Crimson does not think that as yet there is sufficient reason to abandon the ground which has been already taken.

G. E. W.