TENNIS vs. LACROSSE.
The writer in the Advocate of October 21st states that the Lacrosse men obtained the grant of the land without consulting, in the arrangement, the tennis players from whom they were taking the only ground available for courts.
The article in the Crimson claims, on the other hand, that the grant to the Lacrosse Association was made by the President before any courts had been marked out on the land specified in that grant. This statement merely confirms the technical right of the Lacrosse men; but has no bearing upon the question of discourtesy which, in the judgment of the writer in the Advocate, is one of considerable importance, but which the answer in the Crimson waives, and, by silence upon this point, admits, we infer, that the Lacrosse Association is wrong at least in this respect.
The defender of Lacrosse further says that in seniority that game ranks next to base ball and football. We do not understand how this argument is powerful, except in showing that Lacrosse has had the opportunity to gain a firm foothold in College, but has failed, and has in fact been eclipsed by cricket, though the latter is the newer sport. Had Lacrosse been able to obtain a high position in the estimation of our students, by common consent it would have had a field allotted to its use, and would have received pecuniary support, which is the willing and necessary accompaniment of a popular sport. The opponent of tennis further states that to those who do not play the game it seems to be the most utterly imbecile and childish of all out-door sports. This does not appear to us strictly correct. Lawn tennis poorly played may be uninteresting, but not childish; for even in the early stages of learning, when the art of the players is but little advanced, we who are not intimately acquainted with the game can nevertheless see how broad is the field for the acquirement of skill. If a Yale-Harvard tennis tournament be arranged for next spring, the result, if favorable to us, will possibly be received with as much pleasure as the late victory of the Lacrosse Team was.
In summing up, we wish to say that in our opinion the Lacrosse Team has been somewhat arbitrary in enforcing its technical right; furthermore, that the argument of seniority seems to be one in favor of tennis rather than Lacrosse; and, lastly, that though Lacrosse men regard the fact that the Association has been self-supporting as a peculiar merit, we look on this as proving that Lacrosse has hitherto been unsuccessful in becoming generally popular; otherwise, as in base ball and football, subscriptions would have been necessary and would have been voluntarily given. It is our earnest hope, however, that Lacrosse may be so successful in future as to preclude the possibility of any question as to the position it holds in College.