IN the last number of the Advocate, a writer has taken exception to the CRIMSON'S stand in regard to the scheme for a new dining hall, as proposed by the Corporation. We quote his words:

"But one thing said in a CRIMSON editorial merits particular attention, - it is so particularly reprehensible. The writer of that editorial said: 'The best policy seems to be to take what we can get,' and he goes on to show the foxiness of accepting the gift of the Corporation on their terms and later perverting its use according to the lights of our own fancy. If honorable, this is hardly grateful. If the man who wrote that unfortunate article really believes in taking a gift for one ostensible purpose and using it after for another, he might have been wise enough not to publish his principles before the whole University."

For some reason the Advocate saw fit to quote but one sentence from our editorial, and to interpret the rest in her own words. Since that interpretation is entirely misleading, we beg to repeat the passage which inspired it: "The best policy seems to be to take what we can get. If the restaurant scheme succeeds, the University will be so much the better for it; if it fails, it will be nobody's loss but the Corporation's. With a building already erected, the present scheme, if unsatisfactory may be altered until it meets all requirements." It seems to us that the Advocate goes a long way out of its course to find anything "particularly reprehensible" in this. We see nothing very wicked in the suggestion that a scheme, if unsatisfactory can be altered to meet all requirements. Certainly it is quite a different thing from "accepting the gift of the Corporation on their terms and later perverting its use according to the lights of our own fancy" to say nothing of "taking a gift for one ostensible purpose and using it later for another."

The Advocate has made a serious and hasty accusation against the CRIMSON. The writer has laid himself open to severe criticism. It is not our purpose, however, to enter any controversy. We wish merely to correct any false impression which may have been given by the Advocate's ingenious, but inaccurate statements.