The following reply was sent to a personal letter received, and to the above statement.

Two points about the editorial that you appear to have neglected:

1. The six-lecture hours a week requirement, and:

2. That any reference dealt only with the senior A team for the match of April 15.

Applying these criteria and according to the Students' Association records, four of the players could be regarded as students. "Two or three" is a phrase widely used to mean "a few": four could well come within its scope.

Since receiving your letter I have checked the association's flies with the registrar, and he informs me that eight of that team are enrolled for six hours of lectures a week or more. To a maximum of five then, the editorial misrepresented the composition of the senior A team. For this. I apologise. But in mitigation, there was little reason to suspect the association's files would be so incomplete (that they are is seemingly a fault of the students concerned themselves), and the error hardly amounts to "blatant inaccuracy."

The club's committee statement published in the Dominion on May 12. held there had been 12 students playing for the senior A team this year. Your letter puts the figure at 14—an inconsistency which points to the lack of defination of a "bona fide student." The six-hour requirement would help the club out of this difficulty.

For the issue of Salient that followed the editorial, your club captain. Mr. Barrowman, was specifically approached for comment. Four column inches were devoted to his views. Surely the club has been done no injustice.

Recent actions by your committee suggest an urgent desire to avoid the main premise of the editorial. The contention that the club lacks "reasonably stringent eligibility requirements" has not been questioned. Actual numbers of student players are of little count on this constitutional point.