PENNSYLVANIA REFUSES TO RATIFY.

The board of trustees of the University of Pennsylvania, having referred the whole question of the action of the college to a committee consisting of representatives of the trustees, the faculty, and the Athletic Association, that committee met on February 19th, and after careful consideration of the proposed rules, together with their preambles, decided that it would be unwise to approve of many of them, and therefore unanimously resolved to reject them as a whole, at the same time instructing a sub-committee, to prepare a statement of the reasons for such rejection. This sub-committee consisted of doctors S. Weir Mitchell and J. W. White, and of Samuel Powel, Jr. They have printed a circular setting forth their views upon and objections to the different resolutions.

To the first they make no radical objection, except to the names of athletic instructors being put in the catalogue, assigning as a reason that they are liable to dismissal at any time. The second they would amend so that professional instructors may be appointed subject to the approval of the Director of Physical Education, or of a committee having such matters in charge. Moreover, they seem to be heartily in favor of professional trainers subject to proper supervision. They say:

"We believe that by the employment of proper professional athletes as instructors, to act under the personal supervision of a director of Physical Education, the students would not only gain more rapidly in experience and skill, but would do so with less risk of over training and its dangerous results. Indeed, looking at the question from a sanitary point of view, it seems difficult to imagine any more dangerous practice, than to intrust numbers of young men animated by a spirit of strong rivalry, with the preparation for athletic contests, without the constant supervision of regular training masters, all of whose work could not possibly be performed by any director of physical culture, however able and energetic."

To the third resolution, preventing games with amateurs, they say that:

"The chief objection is that it debars all college clubs from practice with amateur teams, crews, etc., which are frequently made up of college graduates and of material as good socially as the undergraduate classes. It seems manifestly unfair to deprive all colleges of the opportunity of availing themselves of these advantages, because a few may not have within convenient distance precisely such amateur organizations as meet with the approval of the college authorities."

They find no objection with the scheme of an advisory committee, but think that the members of it need not be confined necessarily to the faculty.

They remonstrate against the restricting of eligibility of men to play on the teams. This forms the fifth resolution. They put it very well when they say that:

"This resolution would unjustly prevent many good men from entering into inter-collegiate athletics who are fairly entitled to do so, who, while pursuing professional studies, are in need of the exercise and recreation afforded by such sports, and who by previous training and habits of life are often especially well fitted to get the fullest advantage from such pursuits. As to the possibility of fraud, the rules of the Undergraduate Inter-collegiate Athletic Association amply cover the ground. These rules established by the students render the college itself directly responsible, and make it practically impossible that men can here-after be induced to enter the professional schools after graduation, merely that they may help to retain the championship in certain sports."

The sixth resolution conferring all games to the home grounds, they consider as objectionable, because some colleges have none, and because, as has been so often said, it is fairer in deciding games to play on neutral ground. Then:

"It is equally manifest that the above resolution, while perhaps not seriously injurious to most of the great colleges, would operate most disadvantageously to many smaller colleges where still athletic sports are creditably maintained."

Of the boating resolution, their opinion is that:

"While the resolution seems less objectionable than some of the preceding ones we would like to call attention to the fact that it is asserted that a race is not harmful in proportion to its length, but that on the contrary the stroke rowed in the longer races is less exhausting and makes less strain on the vital forces of the crews chosen for them. In addition, the men selected for these crews have in the class races already demonstrated their ability for long sustained effort. If, however, the opinion of practical oarsmen, which we believe is opposed to such a rule, should prove after full conference to be in its favor, we should of course have no objection to its adoption."

The committee close their observations as follows:

It seems to us that in college athletics as in graver matters in life, the degree of excellence attained and the resulting benefit to the participants both depend largely on the stimulus afforded by wide opportunity for competition. We think it very undesirable to limit in any way, not entirely necessary, the scope of inter-collegiate contests in athletics, and, while approving of proper restrictions, earnestly deprecate the narrowing of the field which would result from the adoption of such a resolution by a comparatively small number of colleges. In consideration of the widely differing conditions of American colleges, absolute equality in the undergraduate athletic material, from which crews and teams are to be chosen, is unattainable, and it seems inadvisable to strain after it in minor respects while ignoring the more important differences which are obviously unavoidable. The committee cannot see the justice of imposing such regulations as are suggested upon the crews base-ball nines, foot-ball, lacrosse and cricket teams, while at the same time no special mention is made of the general field of athletics, such as running, jumping, all of which enter into inter-collegiate meetings.

In conclusion, we may state that although adverse to minute or rigid restrictions upon college sports, we fully appreciate the necessity of excluding therefrom all spirit of professionalism, and would willingly see the University of Pennsylvania enter into any reasonable agreement in the matter which the colleges of the Eastern and Middle States might think advisable.