EXPLANATION OF PROTEST.

Professor White's Statement Regarding Eligibility of Pennsylvania Players.

The following official explanation of the protest made by Harvard against three of the Pennsylvania players, has been given out by Professor H. S. White, chairman of the Athletic Committee:

"Although the public discussion of intercollegiate disagreements is not always edifying or profitable, the University world is certainly entitled to know the facts determining the action of its own representatives. Regarding the protest by Harvard of three Pennsylvania players, the situation was as follows: Late in October the football management laid certain information before the chairman of the Athletic Committee affecting the eligibility of certain Pennsylvania players. The chairman wrote at once to the chairman of the Pennsylvania committee with reference to one of these players, and afterwards discussed the cases of three players with the Pennsylvania chairman and the president of the Pennsylvania Athletic Association, at an informal intercollegiate conference held at Princeton, on October 31, and attended by representatives of Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Pennsylvania. Princeton, and Harvard. The members of this conference have had a long-standing agreement that any inquiries may be privately exchanged with entire freedom and frankness. It may be added that many points have been thus privately debated and settled without any unwelcome publicity.

"Two of the cases were students who played last year on college or university teams, although themselves members of the preparatory department. The third was a student who had played early in October. 1902, on a college team as a member of the college, and then entered the University of Pennsylvania. There seemed to be no controversy about the facts. The rule affecting these cases is as follows: 'No student of the university, who has ever played in any intercollegiate contest, upon a team of any other college or university, shall represent the university until he has resided one academic year at the university, and has attained in the annual examinations upon an academic year's work a satisfactory standing of scholarship.'

"The Pennsylvania contention was that if the player were not a regular member of the college, this irregular representation should not count; and further that in the third case a student might satisfy the residence rule who should enter at any time up to the first of December and should pass the whole year's work. It is no violation of confidence to state that the conference did not endorse this ruling. The conference, however, has no authority to impose its opinions upon any of its members. But what would be the effect of the Pennsylvania interpretation? Apparently a player could participate in a whole season of football at one institution, and then transfer himself to another institution and be eligible at that institution for the whole of the next season, the very practice which the rule was formed to prevent. "At a consultation held November 3 between the Harvard captain, head coach, and chairman of the Harvard Athletic Committee, it was decided that the captain, would be justified in protesting the three cases in point if the names of the players appeared on the Pennsylvania list. It was also agreed that no changes of professionalism should be made against any Pennsylvania player, that the game should be played in any event, and that absolutely no reference should be made to future contests.

"The Pennsylvania list was received November 4, and the protest was forwarded the same day. The Harvard list had been sent the preceding week.

"As regards the agreement with Yale concerning protests, such protests must be sent at least two weeks before the game. Lists, however, must be exchanged at least three weeks before the game; and if the lists are delayed, the time for protesting is correspondingly extended.

"It should appear from this statement that the Harvard protest was made in due course, that it contained no charges of unfair practices, and that the points raised were of such a nature that a difference of view might obtain without involving any breach of friendly relations