Evening star., 1914-01-19
Sought General Agreement.

"On this same occasion the Virginia
representatives made it clear to Father
Emmet that the purpose of their visit
was not to disqualify-or even to dis
cuss the case of-any particular player,
but TO come to an understanding about
the efficient administration and enforce
ment of Geo-getown's code. Father En-
met was further assured that this was
the only basis upon which permanent
athletic relations between the two uni
versitieS could be maintained
Sin the fall of 1910 we observed that a
Mr.. Kelly was playing on Georgetown's s
team, although he had played the pre-
vious fall on the George Washington
foot ball team. and was therefore ineligi-
Bile for the same reason as had been Mr..
Byrd. We were astounded when Father
Emmett informed us that he had investi-
gated the case of Mr.. Kelly and discov-
cred that Mr.. Kelly had not been a stu
dent at George Washington, but had been
member of the foot ball team Of that
institution and was therefore eligible at
Georgetown.
Gould it be possible that a bona fide
student at George Washington who had
played on the foot ball team there would
be disqualified his first session at George
town under the laws of clean athletics,
but an illegitimate player, popularly call
ed a ringer, should be declared eligi-
BILE by the Georgetown athletic authori-
Tics. III any event, ueSpite the ABOVE
facts, he was declared eligible and did
play on Georgetown's tea nagainst Vir-
ginia- We assured Father Emmett that
such interpretations of fundamental prin-
ciples Of pure athletics would inevitably
lead to a rupture of our athletic relations.
Acknowledgement of PROOF.
In the fall of 1911 foot ball conditions
at Georgetown were far from reassurng,
IN, bae y,,l.r
factory than ever before Among other
players Of questionable eligibility there
was one notable example, Mr.. Magne.
| Of St. Louis, who, after a varied foot
ball career in Missouri. arrived at George
| town under circumstances that neces.
sarily excited public suspicion
Although lacking direct evidence of his
! ineligibility, absolute proof of which came
TO our hands a year later, we nevertheless
felt 1t our duty to inform Father Emmet
that We believed the case required his
| closest scrutiny. We were told that the
case had been fully investigated. and that
! the reports. of which Father Emmett said
| he was aware, Were utterly without foun.
| dation. Mr.. Magner was declared elig,bI.
by GeorgetownI and he. too. played
son of 1911 Mr.. Kheinschild of California
| also played against Virginia. The sus-
| picicns attaching to his eligibility were
| likewise brought to the attention of the
Georgetown faculty athletic authority
| but with the same result as in the case
| of MIR. Masner. Our grave concern was
| still further aroused.
I'VE therefore invited Father Emmet
| 10 visit US, and he courteousiy accepted
| our invitation. a conference was held
| with him at the University OF Virginia
! JANUARY is. 1872, pending the result o.
which our student foot ball manager had
been officially instructed not to make a
| contract for a game with Georgetown fol
the fail of 1912. AT this meeting we re-
affirmed our previous position, frankly