The communication published in another column this morning affords a favorable opportunity for the correction of any misapprehension to which the editorial of Saturday's CRIMSON may have led. The CRIMSON did not mean to accuse, and, as a matter of fact, did not accuse, any particular officer connected with the affairs of the training table of neglecting his office. To do so at this time, before the accounts of the training table have been made public, would be clearly unjust. It is quite as possible, as our correspondent suggests, that the whole scheme was faultily conceived. The lack of a responsible head may wholly account for the failure of the undertaking, or this want of centralization may have been, and very likely was, combined with other bad elements in the original plan. We ourselves do not for a moment believe that any one man was wholly responsible for the failure. What we asked for Saturday, and what we still think eminently desirable, is the publication, as speedily as may be, of the accounts of the association, together with a statement of the history of the training table, of the causes which led to its failure, and of the possibility or impossibility of reviving it successfully in the future. We believe that the idea of a general training table is in itself good, but we are not at all prepared to deny that there were faults innate in the plan pursued last year which made success for that time, with whatever management, impossible. The CRIMSON particularly desires, therefore, not to be understood as prematurely casting blame upon the management of last year, or upon any member of it. But we think it a matter of importance that the college should have as early an opportunity as possible of judging of the whole matter.