Untitled Page 11

11

letters, they became the basis, as already shown,of the report of the committee of economists. A copy of this report (Exhibit "T") is included herewith.

3. As to the matter of responsibility. It must be clear from the records that the responsibility for each and every act in the Ross case properly rests with the President, to whom the power of removal is entrusted by the deed of grant under which the University was founded. The President removed Dr. Ross in 1896. He it was who established the probationary status under which he was retained until 1900, and it was the President who summarily dismissed him in 1900. The responsibility for these acts cannot to shared with or charged to the Founder.

Finally, in the dismissal of Dr. Ross there was involved no question of freedom of investigation or of class-room teaching. In no case, unsound as many of his ideas were in the estimation of the President, were the opinions of Dr. Ross on silver, on immigration, municipal ownership, socialism or protection, on anti-imperialism, the spoils system or strikes, or on any other subject, considered publicly or privately with reference to his retention in the University. It is not to be understood that if a second case of this kind should arise such opinions would not be considered and would not form a material factor. Erratic opinions indicate erratic character and stability of character and validity of opinion are essential to sound teaching. The man or body of men holding the appointing power to a University is responsible for the fitness of the men who con-