| Year. | Played at. | Singles. | School. |
| 1891 | Cambridge | R. D. Wrenn | Cambridge Latin. |
| 1892 | Cambridge | M. G. Chace | Univ. Grammar, Prov. |
| 1893 | Newport | C. R. Budlong | High, Providence. |
| 1894 | Newport | W. G. Parker | Tutor, New York. |
These Interscholastic lists have already introduced several fine tennis players. R. D. Wrenn is the present national champion. M. G. Chace ranked fourth in the ten of 1893, and by the new method is in '94 ranked in Class 2. C. R. Budlong entered the first ten the year of his interscholastic championship, and now, with W. G. Parker, is placed in Class 4, (1/2 15). It is natural that the older players should watch the ranks of the interscholastics with some interest, for it is here that the coming players are most apt to show themselves first.
This year the contestants at Newport will be L. E. Ware, Roxbury Latin School, of the Harvard I.S.L.-T.A.; M. W. Beaman, Lawrenceville, of the Princeton I.S.L.-T.A.; and Waltz, Leal's School of the Columbia I.S.L.-T.A. J. P. Sheldon, Jun., of Hotchkiss Academy, Lakeville, won the Yale Interscholastic tournament, but may not be able to be present at Newport this week. Of these four players the chances seem in favor of Ware, who has already some practical tournament experience to back his good play. Last year he won the Harvard Interscholastic, but was defeated at Newport by W. G. Parker, winner of the championship. At Longwood, last year, he showed excellent form in his match against Larned, from whom he won the first two sets, and at Saratoga he was "runner-up" in the tournament for the New York State Championship. This season he has also appeared in several tournaments. At Longwood, having reached the semi-final round, he lost to M. D. Whitman, whom he had before defeated in the Harvard Interscholastic. In the double contests at Elmira, Ware and W. M. Scudder played a close match in the finals against Fisher and Paret. In his game, Ware's strong ground stroke, quick judgment, and self-possession give good promise of a future player.
The names of the other three contestants do not figure so conspicuously in large tournaments. Sheldon has played in Western State championships, winning in Ohio, but he has not had the experience of Ware against our best Eastern players. He easily won the Yale Interscholastic, not losing a set even to the winner of that event last year. He is good both back and at the net, placing with some accuracy, and certainly in these preliminary contests he showed a very good understanding of the game. If he keeps his steadiness and coolness under the excitement of closely contested matches he should prove a formidable adversary for Ware. Concerning Beaman and Waltz it is more difficult to pass judgment, these, as yet, having given little public exhibition of their games. Waltz ranks as a third-rate local player, having been easily beaten in local matches by the Miles and by Holcombe Ward at Orange.
It is to be regretted that Whitman is ineligible for the Newport event, for he is a strong man, and has shown wonderful improvement since Ware defeated him on Holmes Field in May. He is sure to become a prominent player in the early future. Some of the other good men that the schools have produced, and who will doubtless be at Newport, are Beals, Wright, Henderson, and Moeran of Southampton, and Palmer of Hobokus.
It cannot be debated that larger co-operation by the different colleges in this field of interscholastic tennis would be of the greatest benefit to the game in this country. It would offer early incentive to young players throughout the land, and carry a step further the general system of sectional tournaments already instituted by the central association to spur our players to greater and more scientific effort. The contests last year at Newport, and again this spring at the Neighborhood Club, West Newton, Massachusetts, where our men came in contact with foreigners, brought out both our weakness and our strength; it showed clearly that our worst fault is the unsteadiness of American players. That this early tournament playing, accustoming young men to watch their strokes and play carefully, must aid in remedying this evil among the rising players hardly needs to be pointed out, while the new opportunity of meeting equal or better players must also promote skill and brilliancy in play. Add to this the closer contact of school and college, and there seems strong argument for the more vigorous support of such a cause.
In less than a month football will be taking up most of the time and attention that school athletes can devote to sport. The coming season should be a notable one in the history of the game too, for it will show whether or not the schools are going to allow themselves to be influenced by the better or the worse element that is identified with the game. The better element is the one which has been trying for years to arrange a code of rules that would purge the sport as much as possible of opportunities for the practice of rough and unsportsmanlike methods. The other element is the one which has been trying for just as many years to evade the rules laid down. If the school players will frown upon all unfair methods, and refuse to countenance sharp practice in the game, if they will insist upon adhering to the spirit as well as to the letter of the law, they will soon swell the ranks of the better element of football men to such proportions that the other class will find itself entirely overruled.
It is unfortunate that we should be forced to admit that sharp practice occurs in football to a greater extent, probably, than in any other sport. But, nevertheless, I think this is true. More acts of meanness are performed in the course of one football game almost than in a whole season of baseball or tennis or track athletics. Men will punch and kick one another when the referee is not looking, and they will resort to all sorts of small tricks that they would blush to acknowledge afterwards. But, remember, this is not the fault of the game, it is the fault of the man. And the endeavor of every true sportsman should be to get this sort of man out of the way. We don't want him. He does more harm than good, even if he is the best player on the eleven.
It is considered clever by many to do as many small and mean acts as possible in a match game of football. To resort to petty practices is looked upon by them as good playing. But there is no good playing, except fair and honest playing. These same men who will kick their opponents in the shins when the umpire is not looking are those who encourage players to attend school during the football season, not caring whether they remain afterwards or not. It is surprising how much of this is done, and I have actually heard men say (instead of refusing to play with a team composed of such men) that they, too, have hired or obtained players to meet their rivals' crooked tactics. What an argument! Where would the ethics of sport end up if such logic were to be accepted? Why cannot we all become thoroughly imbued with the idea of sport for sport's sake only? We do not play to win. We play for the sake of playing—for the sake of the sport, the exercise, the fellowship, and good blood that is to result.
Last year and the year before there was more than one school in the Connecticut High-School League that resorted to practices not entirely consistent with true sportsmanship. I speak of these now because my attention has been directly called to them, and because I believe from personal investigation that they were guilty certainly of a portion of the misdeeds that rumor credited them with. In the other scholastic football associations I have known of irregularities, but of none quite so flagrant as those of Connecticut. There several football players have suddenly been seized with a desire to attend school just as the season opened, and have lost all inclination to study immediately after Thanksgiving.