In refusing to play on May 19, the date agreed upon for the first game with Harvard, the Yale freshmen have laid themselves open to severe criticism, and '89 is perfectly justified in feeling indignant at the "crawling" policy of their adversaries. The facts of the case are these: '89 challenged the Yale freshmen, who accepted, but wished to play the first game at New Haven. To this '89 replied that they would play the first game at New Haven on any Saturday the Yale men would name, but that the faculty would not allow them to leave Cambridge on any other week-day. Yale answered that Wednesday, May 19, was the only day on which they could arrange to come to Cambridge, but that they were willing to play the first game here on that date, and the second in New Haven on June 12. This suited Harvard perfectly; the umpire was agreed upon, the dinner ordered, and all other arrangements made; when a day or two ago the Yale freshmen sent a telegram stating that it would be impossible for them to come to Cambridge on the 19th, but giving no reason for their extraordinary conduct. A meeting of a few representative base-ball men was immediately held, and it was decided to inform Yale that she must either stick to her agreement, or consider the game forfeited to Harvard. A telegram to this effect was immediately despatched. This behavior on the part of Yale is certainly peculiar and we trust that she will be able to give good and sufficient reasons for thus breaking her agreement.
The Boylston prize speaking, which occurred last evening, offers an opportunity for some criticism upon the methods pursued in the preparation for this annual contest. The Boylston prizes are offered as a reward to those students who upon an annual trial shall exhibit the best command over vocal and dramatic expression. It has been urged that the present plan which allows the cramming of a piece for the declamation in the last few days before the trial, defeats the purpose of the prize. We take strong exceptions to this view, for the simple reason that we deny that any student who is a poor speaker, can, with a few day's practice, present a declamation of a high order. Here it is replied that for this very reason the excellence of the contest is far from marked. This is simply an attack upon the methods of instruction here pursued. In reply to such an attack, we can only say that the present method, while differing widely from the instruction which presents as its highest ideal a clarion cry and the famous "windmill act," is surely based upon the most fundamental rules of good speaking. Gentlemanly and dignified bearing, and full control of the vocal powers are certainly aims sufficiently elevated for even an elocutionist of the old school.