From Two Graduates.

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:--

To the majority of those whose knowledge of the rowing situation has been at all intimate the recent agitation over the supposed inadequacy of the present system has come as a complete surprise. The issue developed by the editorial of April 5 and subsequent communications is one that most rowing men were congratulating themselves on having been finally and successfully disposed of by the inauguration of the new administration. To have it stirred up again by those least qualified to do so, and by those who have assumed, unjustifiably it seems to us, to represent undergraduate opinion, is at this time not only unfortunate but unnecessary.

The importance which the whole question has assumed is, in view of the actual situation, entirely out of proportion to the results which it is supposed would be accomplished by its solution. An essential element in the successful running of any branch of college athletics is complete harmony and co-operation between coach and captain. That this has been established at the University boathouse is no longer open to question. In view of this, the merely formal designation of either coach or captain as nominal head can add absolutely nothing to the efficiency of the system now in force.

The position taken by the CRIMSON, however, is by far the least objectionable feature of the controversy. One would suppose that in undertaking a discussion of the merits of a question to which it attaches such importance, the CRIMSON would at least take pains to verify the facts advanced by it to support its arguments. When it states that "last year Captain Murray . . . was generally blamed by the rowing authorities for the defeat of the University crew at the hands of Yale" it makes a statement that is as unjust as it is untrue. As a matter of fact no other captain in the past few years has received such whole-hearted support and confidence from the rowing authorities, and no thought was further from their minds than to lay the blame for the defeat upon him. It is just such misstatements which when published by sensation-loving daily papers give to the public an entirely erroneous conception of existing conditions at the University. And by making an assertion of this sort the CRIMSON places itself in a class with those sheets from which it has apparently derived its information.

The CRIMSON professes to have the "utmost confidence in Coach Herrick as a teacher of oarsmen." Unless it feels itself justified by its "extensive investigation into prevailing conditions" we fail to see how it can consistently maintain a position so diametrically opposed to his expressed views. C. T. ABELES '13.   B. HARWOOD '15.