Vou Vite we oe
NEW HAVEN, CONN., THURSDAY, APRIL 14, 1898.
- Price Tren Cents.
THE SOUTHERN TRIP.
Yale Beaten Twice—Batting is Im-
Pproving—Fearey Shows Im-
provement,
The annual Southern trip of the
Yale University nine just completed has
demonstrated that Yale has a fairly
strong fielding nine; that the men are
learning to bat, and that the battery
is better than was feared. Fearey did
excellent work in two games and Sulli-
van’s backstop record was fine. Wal-
lace, Wadsworth, Wear, and Sullivan
led in batting. Wallace did particularly
good work with the stick. BO
Yale was beaten twice in six games.
She is always at some disadvantage
in these early games with Southern
nines, and the Southern nines are apt
to be very good anyway. The trip
developed team play and gave much
experience. The management was ex-
cellent and the weather was generally
good.
The reports of the trip were received
by the WEEKLY by mail and wire, from
its Athletic Editor, accompanying the
Nine.
Wale, 3—Manhattan, 10.
The first game of the trip was played
Wednesday, April 6, at Jasper Field,
New York, against the Manhattan Col-
lege nine. Yale lost by a score of Io
to 3. The weather was cold and dis-
agreeable and the field in poor condi-
tion. Cadwalader pitched the first six
innings for Yale and was relieved by
Chauncey. Yale’s defeat was largely
due to the unsteady work of these two.
McBride, on the contrary, put up an
effective game in the box for Manhat-
tan, striking out eight men and allow-
ing seven scattered hits. A running
catch by Greenway and the all-around
work of Agnew were features of the
game.
The score:
YALE.
) AB. R. H. PO. A. E.
deSatiles 36. = 4° 0°90 5 TF GC
Wadsworth, 1b...... 4°46 620. 6
Wear, CL 23... #o- Tio I
Greenway; lf. ....... AO Sons 6. 2
Hazen, 3a - 7. 4 0-5 0-0-0
Camp, SS2iv ee ave. . 20 O50 By. ©
Wallace, fle 3 > 4-0: 2.2 GO
Cadwalader; pa... 202207 030° I
Chatiicey i. 4s. £72 6-6 2° 6
Sullivan, e242 70. 3233 me iS Ser
Totals .4 2 Fs 24589917 242 5--3
MANHATTAN.
AB. R. H. PO. A. E.
G.. Cotter i sn et oO. OO
D: Gore te. iss 22 0 3. 0.
Garvey, 1c en sks = 2 fF tt 0 6
Agnew, G72... 22 8 1-9
Castro, SS. 3 fo te
McBride, p20. nO o> O. § 2
McQuade, 3: eg Oe» Was Mey aa
Burns; Sif a7 t.: Ao E52 ee O
Shea, 2De te we Ach ?SG or OO
Cohalan,; 2b2..4. -<- eo [29 Oo.
Totals 22922425 3 30-10 5 27 10 3
Score by innings:
fog 34-5 67 8: 9
Yale-:.:.0¢ 0-2 © 6 F £ 6 0-3
Manh’t ..06°@ 0 2 3° @ 4 £& x+-I0
Summary: Three-base hits—Green-
way. Stolen bases—Wadsworth, Chaun-
cey, G. Cotter, D.-Cetter; Garvey (2),
Castro, Agnew. Double plays—de-
Saulles to Camp. Bases on balls—Off
THE YALE NINE AND SUBSTITUTES.
Robson, 3b. (sub.)
Wear, c.f.
Hazen, 3b.
Chauncey, p. (sub.)
Camp, s.s.
Cadwalader, p..(sub.) deSaulles, 2b.
Wadsworth, lb. . | Greenway, 1.f.
a
Kiefer, c. (sub.)
Fearey, p.
Bronson, s.s. (sub.)
Hall, p. (sub.) - -
Wallace, r-f. Sullivan, c. .
[Photograph by Pach.]
Eddy, r.f. (sub.)
Cadwalader, 6; off Chauncey, 4; off Mc-
Bride, 1. Hit by pitcher—By Chaun-
cey, 1;-by Cadwalader, 1. Struck out—
By Cadwalader, 2; by Chauncey, 4;
_ by McBride, 8. Passed balls—Sullivan,
1; Agnew,1. Wild pitch—Chauncey.
Time of game—Two hours 25 minutes.
Umpire—Horan.
Yale, 5—-Georgetown, 53.
Yale won the game with Georgetown
University on Thursday, by a score of
5 to 3. The match was thoroughly sat-
isfactory from a Yale standpoint, as it
afforded the first opportunity of judg-
ing the real strength of the Nine.
Fearey’s work in the box was espe-
cially oratifying. He held the oppos-
ing team down to five well scattered
hits, struck out ten men and allowed
only one base on balls. His control
and speed were uniformly good through-
out the game. Sullivan’s support was
excellent. The entire team fielded
sharply except in the fourth inning,
and played steadily at critical ‘points.
Yale’s batting was also encouraging.
Yale scored first in the second inning.
Hazen was given his base on balls,
reached third on a passed ball and
crossed the plate on Camp’s single.
In the fourth, Georgetown took the
lead when three errors and Downe’s
hit to center field allowed three men
to score. Hits by Camp, Fearey and
Sullivan tied the score in the fifth.
The scoring ended in the sixth, when
Wear and Camp came home on Wal-
lace’s three-base hit.
[Continued on 2d poze] :
loyalty to the
CRITICISM OF COLLEGES,
Why Is it Not Justifiable in the
-Public Press?
To the Editor of YALE ALUMNI WEEKLY:
Sir: The report in the YALE ALUMNI
WEEKLY of the speeches made at the
banquet that followed the recent Yale-
Princeton debate says that Mr. James
W. Alexander of the Princeton Board
of Trustees, “referred to the newspaper
war over Yale’s English Department,”
and said “that the same loyalty which
would prevent a man from disclosing
his mother’s failings in public should
prevent him from attacking faults of his
alma mater in the newspapers. Such
attacks may be of value in their place;
but their place is not in the public
press, where an invidious public may
see and glut [gloat?] over-them.”
This has a familiar sound. It is not
uncommon for a trustee, a director, an
office-holder, to protest against public
criticism of a condition for which he
and his associates are responsible on
the ground that such criticism is dis-
institution or catse
they represent. The Emperor William
of Prussia is not the only potentate who
construes and punishes doubt of his
perfect wisdom in administration as
high treason to the State.. It is the
foible of men who are responsible in
the public eye for the conduct of any
institution to imagine that they and the
institution are one, and that criticism
which impeaches their judgment, in
any particular, can have no_ other
motive than hostility to the welfare. of
the institution. As a general rule, this
peculiar sensitiveness is most demon-
strative when the need of calling public
attention to an existing condition is
greatest. It becomes desperately in-
sistent when there is no other available
defence. -
Let us scrutinize this imputation of
disloyalty in order to see if it is war-
ranted by sober reason. |
In the first place, when.an alumnus
criticises any condition of his alma
mater, not inherent and remediless,
neither constitutional nor organic, but
only an accidental circumstance due to
the error or neglect of those who are
temporarily in charge of her interests,
the criticism is no sign of-want of
affection. To utter it may be the high-
est duty of loyalty, a clear proof of
sincere zeal that the ideal of her honor
and services shall suffer no prolonged
degradation. When trustees and fac-
ulties resent such criticism as mere im-
pertinence.and assume that only they
and those who uphold them are com-
petent to express an intelligent opinion
of alma mater’s welfare, it suggests
the case of a son who, because his
brothers have intrusted to him the im-
mediate care of their dear mother,
imagines that they have abnegated their
share of responsibility and relinquished
her entirely to his discretion and pleas-
ure, so that, even if he should be re-
miss in any respect, they would have no
privilege of protest, no right to invoke
the influence of all friends of the suffer-
ing mother to effect a correction of his
mistaken action.
A college is not the alma mater of
its official trustees only, nor of its
trustees and faculty only, nor of those
only who have graduated. The ma-
ternal function did not end with the last
degrees conferred. The undergraduates
[Continued on 8th page.]