The Washington herald., 1909-03-12
HANDS OUT HOT SHOT
George Washington College
Paper RapS A. A. u.
ALSO THE FEDERAL GAMES
''The Hatchet'' Has Decided Views
on What IL Terms "Launehing Of
Amateur sport by Professionals for
Private Gain"-Breach of Conf
dence Ia Also Charged.

The Ratchet" the official publication
OF the students at George Washington
University. contains. the following article:
The attitude OF the athletic adthori-
ties Of this university, with reference to
the professional promotion OF amateur
sport by a private individual for his own
private gain. is one that cannot fail to
appeal to all fair-minded followers Of
amateur sport and 10 all colleges. schools.
and clubs who spend large sums Of
money annually in the development and
maintenance OF amateur athletics. There
has been. as might be expected when you
open up your guns on what has been a
SOFT snap for a few individuals. some
very weak criticism Of our position.
The very weakness Of this criticism
viii but spur US on TO constant and con-
tinued opposition 20 the professional
promotion Of amateur sport for private
gain.
I'VE are opposed to this practice be-
cause it has been. is now. and always
Will be inconsistent with the true prin-
eiples OF amateur athletics We have so
far confined ourselves TO a mere state
ment OF our position in this matter, but
our conservative nature in this respect
has not been due 20 lack or more def
mite information, and should occasion de-
mand It we are fully equipped 10 turn
on more light and bring to view some
very interesting and surprising facts
We desire II understood that our oppo-
siuon TO the professional promotion Of
amateur athletics is not a personal at
tack on any individual or individuals. but
is simply an effort 10 eliminate what is
conceded by all club. school. and colleei-
ate athletic followers 20 be a practice not
IN keeping with the principles Of amateur
sport and its maintenance.
Any reference that We have made OF
may make to an individual viii simply be
based on the fact that a very QUIET in
vestigation has shown an individual 10
be an interested participant in the very
undesirable practice under discussion.
The efforts Of a substitute editor OF our
evening daily Behind the Times. 10 dis
cuss editorially, analytically. phIosophic-
ally, and otherwise the question raised by
Us has furnished some amusement. which
has assisted in driving away duh care
during the recent drearX spell Of weather.
The only trouble with the efforts OF this
youthful scribe Is that he has discussed
everything but the question at issue.
he has told us that this one has done
one thing for US. and another one has
done something else. but not once has he
told anybody whether he OF the publica-
ton he represents approves Of the profess
sional promotion OF amateur athletics by
an individual or set OF individuals. and
the appropriation BY them to their owa
pockets any profits that may arise from
the promotion.
Tell US how YOU stand on this simple
question. Mr. Editor. but remember we
are not interested in the past perform
ances OF individuals or the history OF
their lives. so don't let US have 70 saw
10 you when YOU pour forth your wisdom
that your knowledge OF the subject under
discussion coE1pared to YOUR verbogitv
IS as needle 10 a haystack. Now. Dear
Mr. Editor. just answer US. yes or no
Another feature In regard 20 the matter
under discussion should not be passed BY
without our strongest condemnation. We
have learned authenticity that our Of
hcial correspondence TO a national organ
ization. OF which we are a member seek
ing Information as 10 the attitude Of the
organization in regard TO professional
promotion OF amateur athletics for pri-
vate gain was divulged by an official OF
said organization TO parties who were
at that time INDUCING in the practice.
and who were without warrant or right
as 10 information as to the contents OF
our correspondence.
I'VE are forced out Of self-respect 10
view this act with suspicion. and espe-
cially so when he knew that one OF the
parties 10 whom the contents Of our cor
respondence was divulged IS barred by
his past deeds from business or social
relation with US. We feel that this act
was a breach Of confidence, disrespect-
full. and indiscreet. and is beyond the pos
sibility Of Justification.
Our position is clear. and is in the in
terests OF honesty and decenCy. and we
will not permit II 70 be Obscured. We
stand pat"