The long-delayed matter of co-operation among the college faculties in the regulation of athletic aports has at last come to an issue, and the labors of the Harvard athletic committee and of President Eliot in behalf of such cooperation at last have begun to bear fruit in the regulations already adopted by the Harvard faculty, and soon very probably to be adopted by the four other colleges necessary to give them effect. There now seems little doubt therefore that the experiment of the new system will be tried, and that Harvard is to be among those who first will feel its effects.

The resolutions can be considered under three general heads: In the first place, so far as they are directly anti-professional and express the extreme views of the Harvard faculty on this question. This is an aspect that does not require particular discussion here. In form the resolutions include well enough a complete prohibition of "professionalism" from college athletics. In this respect as in others their effect will depend entirely upon the interpretation given to them and to the degree of strictness or of laxity with which they are enforced. We do not see that there is any common tribunal in this matter, but that every college is left to give its own rendering to the rules.

In the second place, has the conference committee done wisely in extending its restrictions into such matters of detail as e. g. to prohibit all contests with non-collegiate amateurs, and to insist upon regulating such a comparatively unimportant point (unimportant as concerns the effect of the resolutions in general) as the length of intercollegiate boat-races? At no point in this discussion has student opinion been directly consulted, at least in any such way as to affect the final decision and therefore we do not know that it s worth while to discuss this point now that everything is practically settled. Certainly in these points of detail the resolutions are most open to criticism. We do not see the connection between such points and the general question of professionalism. The issue on both is not the same, and therefore in our opinion much better had been separated and not made the one to depend upon the other. If in any point, in these the necessity of amendment will first be felt. The prohibition of contests with general amateurs is certainly a foolish one in the sense that it is unnecessary, arbitrary and oppressive, and was evidently a concession on the part of Harvard to other colleges-a concession that the Harvard faculty can very well make, but the weight of which will fall entirely upon the students who were entirely unconsulted in the matter.

The restriction on the race is certainly one of doubtful wisdom. Boating authorities certainly do not agree upon the point, and for this reason its adoption was impolitic. It will seem to many that Harvard here again has sacrificed her interests to the demands of other colleges.

In the third place we question very much the firmness of these regulations in their immediate effects on college athletics no less than we doubt and fear their influence on college sports in general in the long run. Yale it is probable will not adopt them. It necessarily follows then that following from the provisions of the 8th and last resolution all the present inter-collegiate associations of which Yale is a member will be disbanded. Of course the weight of all this and of re-organization, if any such takes place, falls upon the present teams. Practically by these measures student control of athletics is abolished. We do not think that these rules can be made effective without further and more minute restrictions being adopted by the faculty. What would be the ultimate effect upon athletics of such a policy consistently followed out it is easier to conjecture than accurately to predict. Certainly a system of espionage does not strike the average Harvard man as likely to help on the cause of athletic sports in the colleges.