were endeared to us by tradition. No institution can with good sense accede to the idea that the victor can dictate the place of conflict, regardless of all other considerations. Does Harvard travel to play Dartmouth? Or Yale to play Brown and Colgate? Should Virginia leave home to play Woodberry Forest? That school beat us once in baseball. You see, gentlemen, where party spirit runs high, the very act of traveling emphasizes and intensifies the competition. For Virginia to go to Swarthmore for a game is without far-reaching significance, because the supporters of the two institutions and the newspapers do not attempt to manufacture hostile rivalry. The separate spheres of influence are protections against that. The request really meant either that Washington and Lee should be the rival of Virginia or that Virginia should increase the number of her rivals, with the undesirable consequences previously set forth.

Accordingly, Virginia continued to invite Washington and Lee as a guest to play under the same conditions that had always prevailed. Washington and Lee's replies always involved the idea of traveling, and, therefore, the surrender of our aims. Since Washington and Lee thus interpreted her athletic interests, we have no criticism whatsoever to make. That is her business. May we not likewise be permitted to interpret our own interests? The offers for a game were sent annually, until very recently. A couple of years ago, when V. P. I. and Washington and Lee were engaged in an unenviable controversy, it became necessary, at the request of V. P. I., for the Washington and Lee authorities to interpret their eligibility agreement. This official interpretation of the Washington and Lee authorities was published by the V. P. I. management. It avowed that any bona fide student was eligible for the team who was not receiving pay at Washington and Lee University. This authoritative announcement finally led to the cessation of our practice of offering a game. The law of the General Faculty requires an essential conformity in codes of eligibility and the effective administration thereof for just reasons already referred to.

So much for the story of the past. What is the present situation? Washington and Lee's latest eligibility rules, as far as we are informed, were adopted in January, 1913. They are

not in general conformity with those of Virginia. They have no one-year rule at all. Their four-year law is inadequate, because they count for a year of intercollegiate athletics only those players who have been awarded the University insignia. A student, for illustration, may play many intercollegiate games at Washington and Lee or elsewhere, and still not be credited with participation unless he gets his "letter." Moreover, a player may receive money for summer baseball and not be debarred, unless he had been "a member of a baseball team under national protection or under the protection of an outlaw league (socalled)." Furthermore, there seems to be nothing in the rules to forbid a person on the payroll of the University from playing, nor one who has been paid for athletic services "rendered either as player, trainer, or athletic instructor" on a team other than a college team. Again there is no rule relating to the eligibility of special students, who enter the University on an age limit without entrance requirements. These liberalities, among others which might be mentioned, put a football engagement with Washington and Lee, under present conditions, out of the question, unless we are to abandon our fixed law requiring general conformity of code and practice.

Aside from all these considerations, there is another potent reason. We have already pointed out the baneful evils of games which are not founded in true rivalry. The very passion of the public about this matter itself constitutes a menace. Surely Washington and Lee and V. M. I. must be conscious of this truth, and we congratulate them upon their wisdom and selfrestraint in not playing with each other. A football game, under the spectacular conditions demanded, however much it may accord with thoughtless desire and inclination, would engender an animus injurious to both institutions alike. The constant peril attending football as a college sport lies in its resemblance to a sort of war, and the tendency to think of universities at certain seasons of the year as hostile football camps, rather than as co-operative seminaries of learning striving to promote scholarship and develop citizenship. It is a primary duty, we think, of faculties, alumni and students to minimize and not to overemphasize this tendency. The University of Virginia appreci

ates the academic dignity and power of Washington and Lee University-its great co-laborer in the field of higher education in Virginia-and desires nothing more earnestly than to be associated with it in friendly coöperation and helpfulness for the public good. Indeed it is because of that desire that the University feels it to be wise to avoid the friction and apparent hostility that seem inevitable in the present state of the public mind about great spectacular athletic contests. It is our sense of oneness and kinship with Washington and Lee in service for the State, and not aloofness or athletic self-complacency, that confirms us in this judgment.

We have endeavored, even at the risk of trespassing beyond the bounds of your patience, to make clear our convictions upon these athletic concerns. Before closing, permit us to voice our regret in feeling compelled to run counter to the wishes of any group of alumni (if such unhappily be the case). But, gentlemen, the athletic authorities of your Alma Mater find themselves greatly perplexed. Alumni opinion, after all, resolves itself into alumni opinions, among which there is much diversity of interest and counsel. To mention only a few fairly typical illustrations: The alumni of Atlanta, not at all interested in a game with another institution in the state of Virginia, demanded in emphatic tones that the Vanderbilt-Virginia game be played annually in that city. They feel hurt and slighted because of our inability to comply with their request. Louisville, Chattanooga, Columbia, New Orleans, Austin, and St. Louis, among others, advance similar claims, well argued, hard to refuse, impossible of assent. Last year a delegation of Baltimore alumni visited us and strenuously urged a certan game in that city. Their spokesman vigorously demanded the abolition of what he was genially pleased to describe as "those fool laws," which

interfered with his wishes. Lynchburg and Roanoke present their interests. Norfolk representatives, this past fall, insisted that a game be played there next season. Refusal on our part was to be met with public denunciation in the press of that city. Richmond, too, has been known to present her viewpoint with vigor and eloquence. These manifestations, of course, issue out

of loyalty and devotion, but they do not always diminish our difficulties. There is apt to be the assumption that each group of alumni represents and speaks for the alumni, and that we at the University sit on Mount Olympus, ignorant and unmindful of alumni and public sentiment and desire. As a matter of fact, we are rather to be likened to operators in a great central telephone exchange, through which pass short distance and long distance messages from all quarters of the country. To these we give heed and our best thought, and with them we comply when we humanly may.

May we not, finally, plead for your sympathetic understanding and support? We appreciate this opportunity you are tonight giving us. If there be some present conditions which have not yet won your approval, may we not rely upon your patience and faith? It may not be wholly improper to recall in this connection the opposition to our adoption of the one-year law, the four-year law, and the alumni football coaching system. These measures have shown their value. Is it too much to indulge the hope that the future will render a favorable verdict regarding our attitude toward present issues? Let me assure you that the government and control of the athletic life of the University are not in the hands of any one man or any two men. We read much in the press about "the powers that be," at the University, and insinuations that one or two athletic "bosses," with arrogant methods, and the fear of defeat in their souls, act as dictators, while faculty and students play the interesting role of dupes. The truth is that the faculty committee on athletics consists of five members of the faculty and the President er officio-all free and independent Caucasian males. This committee has not only the avowed policy but the fixed habit of consulting and requesting advice from the student committee of the General Athletic Association and other representatives of student organizations, as well as from many alumni actively interested in our athletics. It is with pardonable pride that we say to you that in recent years no important action has ever been taken by the faculty committee which has not previously received the sanction and approval of the student committee. For years every action of the faculty committee has been unani