Communication.

Editors Daily Crimson:

My Dear Sirs:- I have talked with many of the New York Harvard graduates over the suggested Dual League with Yale and have not found one who did not favor the proposition.

Our knowledge of the situation is, of course, second hand; for in spite of the large number of Harvard graduates in this city who have shown deep interest in this matter, and who have exceptional opportunities for knowing most of the influential Yale men, the New York Alumni of Harvard were not represented on the Conference Committee. But as we understand it, Yale now offers to concede one of the two points in dispute by making, as Harvard insists, Special Students, eligible for places on the nine, crew, etc., provided Harvard will consent to a single football game annually, and that at New York.

Why not accept this proposition, and put an end to the ever recurring discussions, conference and diplomatics which have already given the athletic question a fictitious importance out of all proportion to its true relation to college life?

Granting, as you have suggested editorially, that the Harvard men here are biased by their wish to have the football game played in this city, is not the wish entirely proper and commendable? Surely the Boston men ought not to object, for under the proposed arrangement they will still have half the ball games played in their vicinity every year, and every other year the track athletics; while we at this end will lose the latter, at present the only contest in which we have a chance, without taking a day's journey, to see a Harvard team compete.

If it can be granted without harm, as Harvard's offer to play two games, one here, seems to imply, a single concession to the wishes of so large, influential and interested a body of graduates ought not to be refused. Harvard started the dual league idea with the alleged main purpose of putting college athletics where they belong, on the basis of recreations confined strictly to student amateurs. As to the wisdom of throwing open the doors to "Special Students," and especially as to the propriety of Harvard's pressing this point after all that has been said or done, there are certainly grave doubts. But now that Yale has met us, at least half way, it seems to me the Harvard representatives will be doubly wrong if, through their unwillingness to yield a point which touches both sides equally, or because of the demand of some of the Boston men to get something more and to give up nothing, we break down an attempt at reform which we started ourselves.

Faithfully yours, GEORGE WALTON GREEN, (H. U. '76.) G. R. C.