AT the boating convention at Worcester a resolution allowing candidates for the degree of A. B., Ph. D. & c., to row on University crews was passed. Nothing was said about admitting men from the Freshman class in scientific schools to row together with the Academic Freshmen. Moreover, no Freshman crew sent delegates to the convention at Worcester, so that even the frail plea that, by consenting to the action of the convention, the Freshman classes are bound to follow the lead of the University crews is taken away. The only Freshman present, we understand, was the president of the convention, Mr. Cook of Yale, and he represented the College, not his class.
When such is the state of affairs we were surprised, not long since, to learn that Yale proposed to enter at this summer's races a consolidated Freshman crew, both "Academics" and "Scientifics." No notice was given to either Amherst or Harvard Freshmen, the only two other entries; much less did they ask it as a favor. In the latter case, we have no doubt Harvard would have yielded without a murmur, while Amherst would not have been slow to follow. As it is, both Amherst and Harvard have refused to row against Yale's consolidated Freshman crew. That they are justified in so doing by the course Yale has pursued, no one unprejudiced can doubt. With some degree of sharpness, however, the Yale Courant notices this disagreement. "Dishonorable" and "cowardly" are strange words for gentlemen to apply to their equals; but, coming as they do from Yale lips, they are not unexpected.
The Springfield Republican also, adopting the view of the Yale papers, and, strange to say, for once soiling its reputation for impartiality, follows them also in its language. It accuses our men of "showing the white feather," because after a student from Harvard had seen the Yale Freshmen row, then the letter of refusal was first received at Yale. "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" can prove almost anything if it is admitted. After accounting for our refusal in this derogatory manner, it appeals to the traditional fairness that pertains to Harvard from her honorable past, and urges the Freshmen not to give occasion for aspersions on her fame. Such appeals are stale, and the Republican ought to know it.
The class is bound to do what is just to Yale, but no more; for did they go further and yield everything that Yale impertinence demands, nothing could be more unjust, and consequently unfair, to Harvard herself, and a host of smaller colleges.
We assert then, what is trite enough, that it is not for our Freshmen to be over generous with what does not belong to them, Harvard's aquatic reputation, but to see that all the arrangements are equitable as well to Harvard as to Yale. Under these circumstances, which the Republican cannot but see justify us, it will be consonant with that paper's pretensions to not only state the case again, but retract its previous judgment.