Jane Lathrop Stanford Papers

OverviewStatisticsSubjectsWorks List

Pages That Mention Simon N. Patten

Ross Affair: Notebook containing D. S. Jordan's statement with exhibits and ptd. report of Committee of Economists

Untitled Page 54

Untitled Page 54


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.



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.

Last edit almost 4 years ago by MikeH
Displaying 1 page