To an English reader, with his experience of Henley Regatta, it will seem strange that the Universities in America should take little or no part in any rowing contests except their own private matches, and should have no voice, and apparently no wish to have any voice, in the general management of the sport outside the Uni versities. But such is the case. The National Association of Amateur Oarsmen of America has more than sixty clubs affiliated to it, but neither Harvard nor Yale nor Cornell is amongst the number. The National Association holds a suc cessful regatta every year in August, but no really representative Eight from Harvard or Yale has ever, I believe, taken part in it. With that exception, this Association corresponds to our Amateur Rowing Association, and in its consti tution states its object to be " the advancement and improvement of rowing amongst amateurs." By Article III. of the Association an amateur is defined as "one who does not enter in an open competition ; or for either a stake, public or ad mission money, or entrance fee ; or compete with or against a professional for any prize ; who has never taught, pursued, or assisted in the pursuit of athletic exercises as a means of livelihood ; whose membership of any rowing or other athletic club was not brought about, or does not continue, because of any mutual agreement or understand ing, expressed or implied, whereby his becoming or continuing a member of such club would be of any pecuniary benefit to him whatever, direct or indirect ;* who has never been employed in any occupation involving any use of the oar or paddle ; who rows for pleasure or recreation only, and during his leisure hours ; who does not abandon or neglect his usual business or occupation for the purpose of training, and who shall otherwise conform to the rules and regulations of this Asso ciation (as adopted August 28, 1872, amended January 20, 1876, and July 18, 1888)." "Any club which shall issue or accept a chal lenge for the purpose of holding a professional race, shall be for ever debarred from entering an individual or crew in the Regattas of the As sociation, and such club, if connected with the Association, shall be expelled." In point of strictness, it will be noticed this Rule does not suffer by comparison with that of our own Amateur Rowing Association.* Indeed, in some respects it is both fuller and stricter. Practically the only difference is that whereas we disqualify as an amateur one who has been employed in manual labour for money or wages, or who is or has been by trade or employment for wages a mechanic, artizan, or labourer, or engaged in any menial duty, this exclusion finds no place in the American Amateur definition. The Laws of Boat-racing adopted by the Association are practically the same as our own.
It may be interesting to contrast the organiza tion and management of rowing at an American University with the systems that a long tradition has consecrated at Oxford and Cambridge. In our Universities, in the first place, each particular sport is entirely independent of all others. Each has its own club, its own funds, derived from the sub scriptions of its members, and each manages its own affairs and arranges its own contests, except occa sionally in the matter of convenience of date, with out any reference whatever to the others. A don is usually treasurer of these clubs, but he has no special authority or control merely because he is a don. His experience and greater knowledge are placed at the disposal of undergraduates in matters of finance ; that is all. Certain general University rules as to time of residence, etc., have to be ob served, but beyond this the dons assume absolutely no authority at all in the sports of the under graduates. The undergraduates themselves, through undergraduate officers, elected by themselves, make all their own arrangements as to dates, matches, and everything else connected with their com petitions ; and a don would as soon think of flirting with a barmaid as of interfering with these matters in virtue of his donship. This point is really of
capital importance. The responsibility of every thing connected with the sports of the University thus falls upon the proper shoulders—those, namely, of the undergraduates who take part in them. The full glory of the victory is theirs, and a defeat they must feel is due to them alone. They cannot shift the blame to any don or committee of dons, and, as they must acknowledge themselves responsible, so the necessity of taking steps to restore the fortunes of their club is the more strongly brought home to them. The captain of a Boat Club is its absolute autocrat as regards work and discipline and the selection of his crew. The coach whom he asks to instruct them may possibly be old enough to be his father, but the coach, none the less, defers with an almost filial respect to the captain, through whom all executive orders are issued. In practice, of course, the wise captain is guided in most matters by his coach, but, should a serious difference arise between them, it is the coach who must give way to the authority of the captain. This uncontrolled management of their sports by the undergraduates is, it seems to me, no unimportant part of a University education ; and a man may learn from it even more valu able lessons in conduct, self-control, and the treat ment of his fellow-men, than from all the books, papers, and examinations of his University curri culum.
At an American University a very different situation exists. I will take the case of Harvard, not merely because it is more familiar to me, but because it is typical in its general features, though not, of course, in all its details, of the position taken up by the authorities at most American Universities with regard to the sports of the undergraduates. From the earliest days of athletic exercises the Faculty, or Governing Body, of the University has kept a very tight control over them. It has issued rules and ordinances, allow ing or forbidding certain competitions, deciding not only the number, but the date and place of matches in which it was allowable to take part, and regulating and controlling the conduct of those undergraduates who took part in athletics. This system, no doubt, originated at a time when the numbers at Harvard were compara tively small, and when the men entered College at an age considerably younger than is usual in England. But the numbers at Harvard have increased by leaps and bounds, and the age of undergraduates is now on an average the same as at Oxford and Cambridge.
In recent years, indeed, a slight change has been found advisable. The control of all athletics, whether rowing, baseball, football, or track athletics, is vested in what is called an Athletic Committee, composed of three professors (Anglia, dons), three graduates of the University, and three under graduates. These nine, who are not selected on any representative system, promulgate laws, con duct negotiations, settle dates, and generally perform those details of business which in England are left entirely to the undergraduates. For instance, the negotiations for a resumption of athletic relations with Yale University were on the Harvard side managed by and through the Athletic Committee. Moreover, the Athletic Committee has in its hands the appointment of coaches for the crew, and for the football, baseball, and athletic teams. The captain of a crew or a team is, to be sure, elected by the undergraduates themselves, the established system being that the crew should, before disbanding itself, elect the captain for the ensuing year. But no election of this kind is valid until it has been confirmed by the Athletic Committee. From the above account, in which I have confined myself to facts, and have not attempted to criticize, it will be seen how profound are the differences between athletic organizations at English and American Universities.