In the mean time, Mr. Stewart, a Yale man in Boston, by invitation of a Harvard graduate, had met Captain Brewer and Dr. Conant at a dinner at the Puritan Club, and discussed with them the football situation. It was suggested that letters might be passed between Captain Thorne and Captain Brewer, which would meet the views of both sides, and the substance of what should be said was agreed upon. Captain Thorne was first to write to Captain Brewer with reference to a game and Captain Brewer was then to reply. These negotiations were delayed by information of the New York agreement. When that agreement failed, the negotiations were taken up again between Mr. Stewart, Dr. Brooks, and Dr. Conant. The names are given because they have already been mentioned by the Harvard Committee. After repeated conferences, the terms of the two letters were fully agreed upon, and they are as follows:

CAPT. THORNE TO CAPT. BREWER.

"It has been repeatedly intimated to me of late that Harvard men have been in doubt as to the meaning of a letter sent by me to you last spring in reference to football. I wish Yale's position to be clearly understood, and now address this letter to you in order that no possible ambiguity may remain. There is a price Yale will not pay for college sports. She considers them worth preserving only with competitors in whose sportsmanship she has confidence and who have reciprocal confidence in her sportsmanship. This word means to her clean, honorable, forbearing rivalry on every field. She was led to doubt whether Harvard still extended that confidence in her. If

that these old struggles would lead to constant disagreement - she believed they should cease. It was to settle this question that my letter was written. If Harvard's position has been misinterpreted, I saw no reason and now see no reason why we should not meet and arrange a football game,1 and I am ready to do so."

CAPT. BREWER TO CAPT. THORNE. "Your favor of the inst. received. It would seem that Yale and Harvard have been unnecessarily held apart by reason of a failure on the part of each to clearly understand the position taken by the other under the conditions which arose last spring. Permit me to assure you, speaking for myself, and I believe for Harvard supporters, we have not questioned and do not question the genuine sportsmanship and the sportsmanlike spirit of Yale teams. I write this in simple justice to the feelings of Harvard men who heartily deprecated the exaggerated newspaper assaults upon the Yale team as manifested in the winter and spring.2 Dr. W. A. Brooks and Dr. W. M. Conant authorize me to speak for them as I have spoken above for myself. I shall be happy to meet you and arrange for a football game this fall."

It was believed that this plan would meet the requirement that Yale should write first, and these letters were then submitted to the Chairman of the Harvard Athletic Committee. He desired, after full conference, a day to consider

them and to confer with certain persons, and the next evening refused to allow the compromise to be effected in this manner. This result was reached on Tuesday evening of last week.

At the last moment certain prominent Harvard alumni in New York offered to write Captain Thorne a letter urging him to write some form of a letter to Captain Brewer, but this project was vetoed by the Chairman of the Harvard Athletic Committee in a letter saying that he resented any interference by Harvard graduates, and that any arrangement for a game thus made would not be ratified. There the negotiations stopped.

It is fair to say that the Harvard alumni interested in athletics have acted in a thoroughly handsome and conciliatory spirit, and that, so far as they are concerned, or as the terms are concerned, there was no reason why a game should not have been arranged. Yale Football Management, S. B. THORNE, Capt. ARTHUR E. FOOTE, Pres.

NEW HAVEN, Oct. 14, 1895.

HARVARD'S OFFICIAL STATEMENT. After it was definitely settled that there was to be a cessation of athletic relations between the two universities, the following statement was given to the College papers by the Chairman of the Harvard Athletic Committee.1

On May 30, about thirty prominent graduates and undergraduates met in Boston, and were unanimously of opinion that the question was not one of football merely, but of the general athletic relations between Harvard and Yale; that if a break occurred in the football games, there must also be a

1 At the chairman's request the wording has been modified in a few places for the sake of greater clearness. - ED.

break in all athletic contests between the two universities. This position was fully explained to Mr. Adee at a casual meeting in Cambridge June 18; to Mr. Cowles, who came to Castine, Me., Aug. 29, for the purpose of learning Harvard's attitude; and to Mr. Stewart, who came to Cambridge Oct. 1 to lay a proposition before the Harvard Athletic Committee. Harvard has, at all times, throughout the present controversy, up to and including Oct. 5, been ready to let bygones be bygones, and accept an invitation from Yale to meet her in football or in all sports, either for one year or for a term of years. This also has been fully understood at New Haven.

Harvard, as the defeated party, opened negotiations for a football game in April. Yale officially terminated these negotiations by Captain Thorne's letter of May 11. In common courtesy, it was Yale's part to reopen negotiations if they were to be renewed at all. It was Harvard's part to maintain a dignified silence until an invitation should come from Yale. The plan by which certain Harvard graduates, who neither had nor claimed to have authority to make agreements, should unite with certain Yale graduates in inviting Captains Thorne and Brewer to a conference, and by which Yale should send no invitation was, therefore, disapproved when submitted to the Harvard Athletic Committee — the body intrusted by the University authorities with the entire supervision and control of Harvard athletics. The committee has insisted, also, that inasmuch as there has been a public difference between the two universities, the settlement of that difference should be public also.

Yale has been unwilling to send an invitation in the customary form for a

game of football. Mr. Stewart did, however, on Oct. 1, submit a proposition to the Harvard committee for its approval in the form of two letters which, as he said, had been prepared after consultation with Captain Thorne and his advisers. Mr. Stewart assured us that Captain Thorne would send one of these letters if Captain Brewer would send the other in reply. This proposed correspondence seemed to the committee to be in substance a repetition of the request in Captain Thorne's letter of May 11 and a compliance with that request, which was as impossible in October as it had been in May. Captain Brewer had never seen and would never have consented to sign the proposed reply, and thereby put himself in the false attitude of contradicting for himself, for Harvard supporters, and for Dr. Brooks, the published statements of the latter. The proposition was necessarily declined the same day.

AN OUTSIDE CRITICISM.

The following comments are quoted from a long review of the controversy by Mr. Caspar W. Whitney, in Harper's Weekly for Oct. 10.-ED. H. G. M.

"After Harvard's unofficial explosion in the newspapers Yale ostentatiously fêted the player against whom the burden of this newspaper criticism had been directed, and some of whose work on the football field had received and deserved the unqualified censure of unprejudiced spectators. Winter passed, with football at Harvard hanging in the balance for its very life until President Eliot's return, and his sound and unanswerable argument swayed faculty decision and saved the game for that university. So soon as this decision was made known, Captain Brewer, of Harvard, wrote Captain

Thorne, of Yale, asking a meeting in Springfield to discuss the football game of '95. Whereupon the now famous Thorne letter, which was not written by Thorne at all, but represented the combined effort of Professor Richards, Judge Howland, and Mr. Elder, startled the collegiate world. It asked official retraction of statements it cited as unofficial, and was neither diplomatic nor logical in the demand for retraction before Yale would arrange for a game with Harvard. It was a remarkable effusion, the more so because of the distinguished source whence it came.

"To this demand Harvard made the only reply she could naturally and consistently,- inability officially to retract what had never been officially uttered, and regret that Yale's declination to play football would follow such inability. Later, at a general meeting of Harvard's captains and Athletic Committee, it was agreed to support the football captain, and that should Yale persist in her attitude it must affect all sports between the two universities—that there must, in other words, be a meeting in all sports or in This also was eminently con

none.

sistent.

...

"Harvard has been ready at any time within the past four months to let the dead past bury its dead immediately on receipt of a mere invitation from Thorne to Brewer to meet him

for a talk over a game this year. Such a letter would have been manly and altogether proper. That it was not written seems traceable to the Yale faculty, and as Professor Richards is of that body, and was one of the triumvirate responsible for the first letter, it is not unfair to identify him with the opposition to a second letter. . . .

"Harvard's course in this unfortu

nate business has been consistent and fair, while Yale seems to have been worshiping at the shrine of strange gods. It was against the protest of her most tried advisers that the first

laid before the Athletic Committee, and accepted by them: (1) Abolition of summer practice. (2) Reduction of expense. (3) Limitation of attendance. (4) Certain changes in the play

counsel of these advisers that a second letter was written. There is nothing more to be said on the merits of the position assumed by the respective universities. But I cannot dismiss the subject without publicly declaring my regret that the voices of two of Yale's hitherto most trusted and tried alumni -George A. Adee and Walter Camp - should not have been dominant in this controversy. Had their counsel prevailed, the first letter would never have been sent, or, having been sent, would have been followed by a second."

THE AUTUMN GAMES. Immediately after the Pennsylvania game last year, the members of the eleven met to choose their new captain. After several changes, Arthur H. Brewer, '96, of Jamaica Plain, was elected. With the mistakes of the past season still fresh in his memory, Brewer set to work to select his coaches and settle his system. Unfortunately, difficulties of every sort confronted him. The rough play in the Harvard-Yale game called for many radical changes in the playing rules, if the game was to continue as a college sport. What grounds to play on, and what arrangements should be made with Yale, were also questions to be decided. After the Faculty voted to allow football to continue, subject to certain restrictions, Brewer was able to make definite arrange

ments.

The following changes in the management and rules were accordingly

on college grounds. Let me here say that Brewer was handicapped more than any one can realize, by being forced to wait so long for the Faculty's final answer.

Scarcely had the question of the game been settled, when the unfortunate disagreement with Yale arose, and made matters worse than ever.

In spite of everything, however, Brewer called out his spring squad about April 20. Almost fifty men answered the call. Many of the old "Varsity players, especially the backs, were rowing in their Class crews, and therefore the work of developing new material was the main object of the squad. The most promising new men in the practice were Donald, of Roxbury Latin, and Sargent, of Hopkinson's.

The time was spent merely in kicking, catching, blocking, and breaking through. The best work was done by Hallowell, Wheeler, Donald, and Cabot. On May 10, or thereabouts, the squad disbanded, after a short game of two fifteen-minute halves. Summer practice having been given up, nothing more was done until September. On the 3d, the most promising men were summoned to Brewer's home in Marion, and there spent a week getting into condition.

The season opened on Sept. 17, at Cambridge, and the following men reported for the various positions :

Rush Line: A. H. Brewer, '96, Capt.; G. M. Sargent, '99, R. B. Merriman, '96, T. G. Stevenson, '96, W. D. Hennen, '98, R. H. Hallowell, '96, E. G. Holt, '99, S. W. Wheeler, '98, R.

M. Townsend, '96, A. H. Gould, '96, G. Newell, '98, J. Harrison, '97, S. L. Fuller, '98, F. G. Shaw, '97, N. W. Cabot, '98, P. Haughton, '99, C. C. Bull, '98, P. M. Jaffray, '99, A. A. Sprague, '97, J. B. Moulton, '98, M. J. Connor, '97, A. E. Doucette, Gr., A. H. Ladd, '97, M. S. Duffield, '96, F. K. Kernan, '97, K. K. Kubli, L. S., S. Eddy, '96, L. Williams, '97, M. Donald, '99, D. Tiffany, L. S., G. T. Rice, '96.

Backs: A. Borden, '96, A. M. Beale, '97, E. Wadsworth, '98, C. Brewer, '96, E. N. Wrightington, '97, J. C. Fairchild, '96, P. M. Hamlen, '96, B. H. Hayes, '98, J. J. Hayes, '96, J. W. Dunlop, '97, M. Gonterman, '96, C. M. Weld, '97, G. F. Cozzens, '98, P. F. J. Gierarch, '98, G. Scull, '98, E. H. Fennessy, '96, L. W. Redpath, '98, J. L. Knox, '98.

Owing to the unsettled state of affairs in the spring, Brewer had been unable to fill out his coaching committee. His original men were to have been Prof. J. B. Ames, Fox, Deland, and Emmons, '95; but for various reasons they were unable to serve. Practice began, therefore, without any definite coaching system, and the results have conclusively shown how much it was missed.

The team soon shaped itself as follows: Cabot, left-end; Hallowell, left-tackle; Holt, left-guard; F. Shaw, centre; Norton Shaw, right-guard; (Jaffray, right-guard); Donald, righttackle; A. Brewer, right-end; Borden, quarter-back; Wrightington and C. Brewer, half-backs; Fairchild Dunlop, full-back; and continued to play together with hardly a change until the Princeton game.

or

As a whole, the men have appeared to be a better lot than those of a year ago; but the places of Waters and

Wrenn have not been satisfactorily filled by Donald and Borden. Holt seems to have filled Mackie's shoes, and Emmons never was missed.

The Harvard-Brown game gave the first chance to see what sort of football the eleven could play. The result, 26 to 6, signified weakness in their defense, but a strong, aggressive game. The following Saturday, in the match with Cornell, the team showed improvement in their defense, but none in their offensive game. A general impression now, however, began to grow, that Harvard would win the match with Princeton on Nov. 2d. Where it came from no one can say; perhaps the work in the second half of the Cornell game was responsible for it. Certain it was, however, that a Harvard victory was expected.

The game was played at Princeton on Nov. 2, the following being the men engaged: :