Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1921-11-27
VIRCINIA.CAROLINA
ROW EXPLAINED

Continued From First Page.)
who have talked to me. and the pup
iishcd accounts OF their attitude con-
Trims IL. The Virginia faculty COM
mlttcc's spokesman said that II was
Of course unfortunate. but that none
the less II did no, relieve North
Carolina OF the obligation OF obscrv.
ing tho amendment which barred
Johnson.
North Carolina held that when Vir-
gina made such an eleventh n our
protest the burden of proof was on
Virginia to show that the amend.
mcnt had been ratified and was an
effective and valid rule OF the con-
ference: that she. North Carolina, had
made what efforts she could to fnu
out. and that two of the institutions.
making with herself n majority or
the Ave members. had notified her
that tho amendment was not consid-
cred an effective and valid rule At
these institutions. Since she had en-
tered into the contract in perfect
good faith. and still believed shc was
Keeping to IT. she could not with
justice disqunlify the player In qucs.
tion.
Would Eliminate johnson.
Here may be taken into considcra
tion point that has been made In
some. though not many. quarters. 1t
Ia that Carolina. when Virginia de-
manded that johnson should not play,
might have said, in order 10 save the
game: Very woli. since you think he
ought not 10 play. even though we
believe he Ia eligible. even though he
has measured up to our eligibility
ruler. and the team has been built up
largely around him.-since you pro-
test him. we will yield to your inter-
probation and eliminate him."
Tho answer made to that here Is
this: The faculty committee has
other obligations. which certainly do
exist, which should not be violated
In order to observe this ono. which
the faculty committee believes does
not exist. The rules published In
the catalogue. which rules North
Carolina has been living up to- con-
sutute an agreement with tho stu
dents. 1t would be unjustifable 70
break this. II IL were quite clear
that contract with another institu-
ton connictcd with It. then the
agreement with the students would
have to give way. But when that Ia
not clear. when the faculty commit
TOO believes the other institutions
Interpretation o. tho contract is in
correct, II would be a betrayal to
| break said agreement"
Even more important reason why
North Carolina should not give wa,
! under tho Virginia faculty comma
| tees threat to cancel tho game, Ia the
| long honored practice. which both in
situations have observed. OF leaving
to the faculty OF each institution the
anal decision as to the eligibility OF
the players there. North Carolina
has In the past, made it's protests
agaIns. Virginia players. as in the
case OF Cloth for example. but It nau
abided by the Virginia faculty COM
mittee's decision. In the same way
hitherto. Virginia has accepted tho
decision OF the faculty here.
Want Contract FULFILLED.
This is no case OF n protest." said
the Virginia faculty committee, In
| effect. I'VE are not protesting a
player. We are asking that you car
~ out contract"
Here It Is not seen that there is anv
essential difference in fact, whatever
technical legal points may be made
between this recent demand and any
previous protests on players. All elig-
| Utility rules. whether they be incor-
porated In n contract or not. simply
an agreement, uDOn the mart NJ an In