MAKING THE STADIUM SAFE

The complaint made by District Attorney O'Brien about the lack of police protection in the Stadium seems out of focus with the facts in the case. In the first place it shows a misjudgment of the usual football audience. The number of spectators who are not attached either to Harvard or its opponent is relatively small. If the complaint is directed aganist the spectators directly interested, it shows an entirely unwarranted mistrust. Students, graduates, and their friends come to the game to witness a friendly contest in a spirit of mutual politeness, not to indulge in a free-for-all. On the other hand among the spectators who come merely to see a game of football, the number of those who make themselves objectionable is very small indeed.

In the second place Mr. O'Brien implies that not only has there been much roughness after the games but that this roughness should be punishable by arrest. For the police can check unruliness only by arrest. As a matter of fact the objectionable element has in the past made itself objectionable more by voice than by "unnecessary roughness"-a case for ushers rather than for police. Only on one or two occasions has the exodus of spectators been other than unusually orderly. And for those exceptional cases public opinion voiced in the Boston newspapers has a more beneficial effect than arrests would have had.

In short Mr. O'Brien appears to have made a good-sized mountain out of a very small mole-hill. Members of the Harvard detachment are presumably strong enough to prevent the crowd from getting itself jammed in the exit and to keep spectators off the field. Aside from these exigencies the games at the Stadium have practically no need of policing.