Evening Star Newspaper, November 17, 1929, Page 98

4 | e THE SUNDAY STAR, WASHINGTON, D. C. NOVEMBER ¥, 1929, Famous Intercollegiate Army and Navy Have Been Slow to Arbi- trate, Harvard and Princeton Still Split, Pennsylvania and the Tiger Don’t Meet, Nor Do Columbia and N. Y. U.—How They Love Each Other! BY JAMES M. NEVILLE. EACE parleys, disarmament confer- ences, good-will tours, healing of war wounds, world-wide overtures for mutual agreements—and now the likely “get-together” of seme more ancient enemies. Increasing popularity of thic college sport-— ot ball—and the demand cf alumni for a re- Frank Hinkey, famous Yale end in 1894, whose tackle of a Crimson player aroused such a controversy that Harvard and Yale severed athletic relations for two years. newal of diplomatic relations between their favorite alma maters may bring together, with- in another season, some “friendly enemies” who have not met on the gridiron fcr many a moon. Army and Navy, participating for years in one of the most colorful spectacles in American sport, seem on the verge of “forgive, forget and fight it all over again.” Official Washington wants the big game restored.to the calendar of social events, and it would not be surprising to see the Army mule and the Navy goat 'squared off against each other next Fall, A meeting of the Army mule and the Navy, goat. But this hap Princeton and Harvard, despite the rancor which marked their severance of relations sev- eral years ago, need each other; their alumni are loudly demanding a renewal of relations. Penn and Princeton, natural gridiron rivals, only a few miles from each other, have not met for many years. Put these two colleges on the field and the crowd that would want to see the game would tax the largest stadium in the country. There are other “natural enemies” that would prove strong drawing cards—if only they could forget their differences. Notre Dame and Georgetown would furnish a real gridiron thrill, And in the City of New York are two rivals— Columbia and New York University—who would “pack ‘em in” to standing room only if they could get together. Princeton and Harvard severed relations three years ago. It is one of the most important and least understood of existing feuds, with both colleges suffering by the break. Princeton and Harvard have been competing on the golf course without bloodshed. But they still refuse to meet on the gridiron and diamond. The utterly silly fact that neither of these two colleges can be- long to the new Eastern Base Ball League at the same time rests on the argument that they are supposed to be mad at each other. EXHAUSTIVE and painful researches have convinced the public that Harvard students are decent, honorable and likeable human be- ings. The same thing can be said of Prince- ton students. At neither college do they wear horns or forked tails or carry concealed weapons, yet for some unknown reason they cannot play on the gridiron. This strange feud is of long standing, being fanned by irritating incidents which creep out in a long and hard rivalry. The disagreement between the two universities started many years ago, back in the days when foot ball was in a formative stage of development. Coach Alopzo Stagg, who played for Yale 37 years ago, asserts that the hate propaganda which was spread before the games in the 90s had much to do with the ill-feeling exist- ing between Princeton and Harvard today. “When I played at Yale,” said Stagg, “we were pumped full of poison by old grads. They re- cited to us all the dastardly deeds of the enemy in years past, predicted more to come and as- sured us that none but a scoundrel could sur- vive the fetid air of Harvard or Princeton. Meanwhile, Harvard and Princeton elevens were being informed that a crew of blackguards, barn-burners and strike-breakers were playing for Yale. “Often the old grads were pathetically sincere. They had come to believe that Yale, Princeton or Harvard, as the case might be, was popu- Feuds in Foot Ball Leonard Grant, captain of New York University eleven. He cannot lead his team against Columbia because of ill will between the two institutions. lated half by contemptible milksops and half by horse thieves and train-wreckers. That was the correct way for a college man to feel, and the Big Three set the styles for the colleges.” This ill-feeling between Harvard and Prince- ton was aggravated after the war by the annoy- ing regularity with which the Tigers succeeded in winning from the Crimson. The loss of sev- eral foot ball games is enough to destroy all good feeling of one institution toward another. The writer recalls with vividness the atmos- phere of chilly animosity which permeated the l}::ed before the two service schools disagreed over eligibility stadium at Cambridge in the last meeting bee tween Princeton and Harvard. A riot was seething on both sides, when Lawler, the Prince= ton end, brought down Miller, a burly Harvard back, and then unavoidably rolled over on him. At the moment of attack Miller was seized with stomach cramps and lay on the field kicking his legs. The sight of the crimson-jerseyed figure writhing in pain aroused the Harvard partisans. A regular chorus of boos and hisses swept across the field to the Princeton section. They took up the cue and booed back. Silence was restored when the referee, who watched the play and held Lawler in no way respon- sible, ran over to the Harvard side and shouted: “Miller has a cramp; cut out the razzing.” However, the incident afforded the two uni- versities a chance to let off steam and show their painful dislike for each other. Up to that time the tension was so marked that one sus- pected at any moment both student bodies were only too eager to rush across the field and grab each other’s throats. If Princeton and Harvard were alone in car- rying on an athletic feud they might be more severely criticized, but the practice is an old one, deep-rooted in the very elements which have added color and thrills to all competitive sports. Stagg, continuing, says that feuds were encouraged in the old days, and even today they are a part of all strenuous, man-to-man games. “We used to sow a fine crop of dragon’s teeth ourselves in the Western Conference during the first 15 years of its existence,” declared Stagg. “The hatred that once glowed at white heat has been cooling steadily, but it still will raise an occasional blister around big-game time, for every college has one, sometimes two, games which do not inspire a philosophical calm, and some strafing spirit will survive, I suspect.” The Army-Navy break is a case in point. The absence of this annual colorful contest is sorely felt by political and social Washington, Agitation has been rife all Fall for a resumption of this game between Uncle Sam's two service schools, it being suggested President Hoover was in favor of mending the breach and Rep~ resentative Britten leading in peace overtures. The question of eligibility of players was brought about when Annapolis adopted the three-year rule. The substance of this rule is: No player shall enjoy more than three years of varsity-team competition, regardless of how those years are divided between different ine stitutions. Annapolis announced that it would not play any team which was not guided by this three-year rule. Army refused to change its own eligibilty rules, which take no accouns of a man’s playing previous to the time he enters West Point, and so the break occurred.. ‘The highly colorful series of gridiron battles between Annapolis and West Point began in & very inconspicuous manner in 1890, when they met on the old Plains of West Point. The fol= lowing year a return game was played at Annapolis. The series was interrupted after the 1893 game, but was resumed in Philadelphia Continued on Nincteenth Page