Communications.

EDITORS DAILY CRIMSON.- On taking up my Advocate to-day, I was very much astonished, and not a little indignant to find in the description of the winter meetings a violent personal attack upon one of the gentlemen who took part in the boxing. Now I for one do not think that a college paper should criticise any gentleman by name, especially without having a good command of the facts. Again, I think that a paper which does this, should be at least consistent in its procedure. Why does it not name the gentleman who misbehaved in the wrestling? Why does it say nothing about the gentlemen in the first meeting whose eactics were precisely the same as those of the gentleman alluded to, although without the same effect? Why does it not admit that there was another gentleman in the light-weight who also "slugged" to the full extent of his powers, and also possessed but very little science? The facts of the case are that the gentleman so severely criticised was pressed by Mr. Clark against his own desires, to enter the light weight sparring, because of the small number of entries in that event; and the day before, he took one losson in sparring to aid him in defending himself. Now, I ask you if any man would go to a sparring match and allow himself to be pummelled about, merely because if he hit his opponent so hard that he disabled him, he would be declared "fit only for the society of roughs and 'muckers' "? Either the gentleman who was so badly handled was also ignorant of sparring, or else in an unfit condition to appear; in the former case he would also come under the pale of criticism, in the latter, to what purpose are contestants examined before entering contests? If he knew nothing about sparring, he has himself to blame for the blows he received; if he was unwell, Dr. Sargent should never have permitted him to spar. I am sorry the Advocate should have made such an uncalled for attack on a gentleman who entered only to oblige the H. A. A., and whose only fault was that he defended himself too well to please his critics; if criticisms are to be made, they should be both temperate and impersonal, else the college publications will fall to as low a level as the daily press. Above all, there is no need of singling out a freshman for especial criticism, when there are three upper ciassmen who are equally capable.

FAIR PLAY.