In answer to his questions about the the professionalism of Ames, the playing of graduates, and brutality, it is only necessary to refer to the facts as already well known. These, rendered decisive action absolutely necessary. Mr. Codman's charge of hypocrisy in these matters is most unjust. Our attitude is not hypocritical, but is based, we believe, on a real desire for purity in college athletics. In our efforts to accomplish this end, Princeton has thus far refused to co operate. We have withdrawn from the league not for the purpose of holding Princeton up to public scorn, but because we are unwilling to compete longer under the disadvantages which a consistent effort at reform forces upon us.
Mr. Codman asks why the withdrawal should have taken place "without the notice or knowledge of Princeton? Why was it necessary to do this with any shadow of secrecy? If to obtain the desired dual league with Yale, why refuse to give the college time to consider it? " These questions are easily answered. It was thought that decisive action would prove that we were in earnest much more conclusively than a mere threat. There was no secrecy about the matter. Everything was done openly and avowedly. The matter of a dual league was inevitably bound up with the proposition to withdraw from the old one. For years it has been talked of and considered the final solution of all difficulties; so when plans of the future were brought up at the meeting, the dual league was naturally the first scheme suggested.
If Princeton will accept the standard now proposed by Harvard, nothing has been done as yet to prevent games with her in the future; if, however, as now seems most probable, she insists in imputing false motives to us and in refusing to help raise the tone of college athletics we shall be justified in refusing to compete again with her. The least our graduate friends can do is to give us the credit of honorable intentions even if they cannot agree with our methods.