A few days since, in discussing the faculty's attitude towards professionalism in athletics, we characterized the course of the committee on athletics as having been more than once marked by inconsistency and disingenuousness. At the time we based our criticism of this committee on two points; firstly, on the report which appeared in various college papers, notably the Yale News, and thence widely copied, that a member of this committee had avowed that the chief object of the prohibition of the Harvard eleven from playing its foot-ball game with the Yale eleven last fall had been to draw attention to the condition of the game and provoke discussion; and that the purpose proclaimed by the committee at the time had been only secondary to their real object. This report had so far as we know, not been denied up to the time of the appearance of our editorial.

Secondly, we formed our opinion of the course of this committee from the report current at the college that assurances had come from it that in case other colleges could not be got to agree to a prohibition of professional trainers, it would after a certain date permit the employment of a trainer for the Harvard nine on the like terms with other colleges.

We now understand that both these statements are denied by members of the committee, who assert that the committee was actuated by sincere motives as expressed in Prof. Norton's letter in prohibiting the Yale game, and that no official assurance has been given the nine of permission to employ a professional trainer in the contingency named, although individual members of the committee may be in favor of such action in that case.

We therefore with pleasure offer our apology to this committee for our hasty characterization of its action. That its motives and course of action have been fully explained cannot but be a cause of satisfaction to all who have watched that course with anxious interest for the past few months.