Jane Lathrop Stanford Papers

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

That I, Jane L. Stanford, widow of Leland Stanford, deceased, of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara, State of California, do hereby create and establish a Scholarship at the Leland Stanford Junior University, situated at Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara, State of California, upon the following terms and conditions, that is to say:

I.

The said Scholarship shall, in memory of my beloved son, be known, as and called the ''LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR MEMORIAL SCHOLARSHIP".

II.

For the support of such Scholarship, I have given in trust to the Union Trust Company of San Francisco, a corporation, the following personal property, that is to say:

Six (6) first mortgage five per cent. bonds of the Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railway Company of Texas, (Mexican & Pacific Extension), Numbers 535 to 540, both inclusive, principal due 1931, interest payable May 1st and November 1st of each year, coupons 39 to 100, both inclusive, attached, said bonds being of the par value of one thousand dollars each; the net income, interest and revenue from which said Trust property said Union Trust Company of San Francisco is to pay over, for the support of said Scholarship, in the manner provided in a certain instrument of even date herewith transferring to it, said Union Trust Company of San Francisco, the said personal property, in trust for purposes designated. The funds with which said bonds were purchased are the savings and earnings of my beloved son from an early date until he passed away on May 14th, 1884, and what I have added in order to make the fund sufficient to establish the Scholarship.

This Scholarship originated in my mind as a fitting and sacred disposal of my dear son's little sum, which he had deposited with the Security Savings Bank, San Francisco, and in accordance with his expressed wish to his father only a few hours before he passed away from his life, which was to this effect -- "live for humanity's sake; live to feed the hungry, clothe the naked.'' His father concluded that the best way to do this was to educate the sons and daughters of the very poor, who otherwise would

34 6

to justify your good opinion, it is understood that he will seek another position and withdraw quietly from Palo Alto, and from the ''dearest hopes of his life.''. For no one can do good work where he fails to inspire confidence.

Very truly yours,

David S. Jordan

(Copy)

8

The undersigned have examined the evidence submitted by the above committee, and believe that it justifies the conclusions which they have drawn:

Horace White, editor of Evening Post, New York.

John B. Clark, Columbia University.

Henry C. Adams, University of Michigan.

Frank W. Taussig, Harvard University.

Richard T. Ely, University of Wisconsin.

Simon N. Patten, University of Pennsylvania.

Richmond Mayo-Smith, Columbia University.

John C. Schwab, Yale University.

Sidney Sherwood, Johns Hopkins University.

Franklin H. Giddings, Columbia University.

William J. Ashley, Harvard University.

Charles H. Hull, Cornell University.

Davis R. Dewey, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Henry C. Emery, Yale University.

Henry R. Seager, University of Pennsylvania.

9

Appendix.

December 30, 1900.

President Jordan, Leland Stanford Junior University,

Palo Alto, Cal.:

Dear Sir:- In behalf of a considerable number of economists, recently assembled in Detroit and much interested in the resignation of Professor Ross from the Leland Stanford University, we venture to address you on the subject. We understand from the public prints as well as from other sources, that Professor Ross was asked to sever his connection with the University owing to the loss of confidence in him by Mrs. Stanford, and that this loss of confidence was due primarily to the opinions expressed by him in a lecture on the subject of coolie immigration as well as to incidental remarks on the problem of municipal ownership.

May we inquire whether, as it has been alleged in some of the Eastern journals, there are any other reasons than those mentioned for the resignation of Professor Ross, and may we hope that, if such other reasons exist, you may be disposed to communicate them to us? Many university men have been led to believe that in this case the legitimate freedom of thought without which no progress in science is possible has been discouraged. As this is a matter which concerns not a single university, but the interests of scholarship all over the country, we believe that we are not overstepping the bounds of propriety in asking information which will enable university teachers to form a just opinion on the merits of the case.