The Yale News makes a very indignant plunge at the Advocate's claim of the freshman series for Harvard. Now the whole affair is not worth the controversy that has already been wasted on it, except that if the championship series is awarded to Yale with only one game to its credit, a dangerous precedent is established at once. Now Yale freshmen always have an independent way of acting with our freshmen that is truly original: if they fear a defeat on account of a weak team, they "crawl" as their freshman eleven did last fall, or their '87 nine did a year ago; if they have an unusually strong team, they win one game and then in a calm way refuse to play any more games because they have the series "cold," as they claim. Now we do not claim that our freshmen could have won the series had they played the requisite number of games; they probably could not have won. But what we protest against, is the cool way in which Yale, '88, has broken written agreements, and refused to play the series out, because, for sooth, they did not care to take the time and trouble ! As for the News' claim that the freshman championship was acknowledged to be lost by Harvard, '88, quoting a letter to that effect, no one who had read the letter in question from an untiased standpoint could have helped seeing what the writer meant. He meant that the Yale game probably decided the championship, for if beaten there we had certainly no show of winning the 3rd game; but he never, as he himself acknowledges, meant or inferred that one game makes a championship: nor could anyone but a Yale freshman construe such a meaning from it. Something will have to be done, whether it consist in claiming championships we have only won on paper, or not, to check the growing disregard of agreements of any description shown by Yale freshman teams in their dealings with us.