€oPpyx

March lst, 1938.

Le W. St. John, Esq.,
Ohio State University,
Columbus, Ohio,
U. S. A.

Dear Mr. St. John:

I acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 21st
ultimet enclosing copy of letter written to Mr. Crocker un-
der date of February 15th.

As it is quite apparent that you have only heard
one side of the Canadian situation and that the members of
the Executive have not been informed of the true situation
in Canada, I cannot agree to abide by the decision express-
ed in your letter.

In the first place, the Canadian Amateur Basket-
ball Association was given its representation on the Rules
Committee under the constitution approved some years ago
and I do not believe that the Executive is empowered to ad~
mit the A.A.U. of Canada’*> and disbar the C.A.B.A. from its
membership until the matter has been dealt with by the
Rules Committee as a whole by way of amendment to the con-
stitution.

I do not, however, intend to base my argument up-~
on technical or legal grounds, but upon the fact that the
C.A.B.A. represents approximately ninety percent of all
basketball played in Canada. The A.A.U. of Canada repres-
ents no basketball whatsoever and the Canadian Intercolleg-
iate Association represents only a few colleges in Ontario
and Quebec. The University of British Columbia Canadian
1937 senior champions and Mount Alison University, New
Brunswick, intermediate 1937 champions are C.A.B.A. teams,

It has always been our mutual objective that
there should be one set of rules for the United States and
Canada and if the step which you suggest should be taken
and the C.A.B.A. barred from participation in the Rules
Committee, we would have no other alternative than to set
up our own Rules Committee under whose rules practically
all basketball in Canada would be played.