Correspondence (outgoing) to David Starr Jordan, 1900 May 17 - Dec

-entertain such rabid ideas without incubating them in the minds of the students under his charge.

There is a very deep and bitter feeling of indignation throughout the community - and I am made to feel it in various ways, expressed and unexpressed and in letter form that Stanford University is lending itself to partisanism, and even

[Page 1 ends] [Page 2]

to dangerous socialism; or in fact to any questions outside of the regular prescribed course of instruction which students are expected to receive from their professors.

Prof. Ross made a very pronounced tirade in Oakland only a few weeks previous to this last outburst, against street railroads. I did not mention it at the time, although

I knew of it, having read of it in the papers, and was informed through no one connected with the railroad company, but by some of our leading conservative citizens, who are in sympathy with, and deeply interested in the future welfare of the University, and alive to the dangerous tendencies, which in time will rebound and reflect against us all. [He?]

[Page 1 ends] [Page 2]

May 17, 190[1?0?]

Dr D. S. Jordan Stanford University

Dear Dr. Jordan:-

I have just reached home after a fatiguing trip to Vina, and find your letter of May the eleventh.

All that I have to say regarding Prof. Ross, however brilliant and talented he may be, is that a man cannot en-

themselves, any of them, even paid or unpaid, to the interests of any factions in our state. Prof. Ross cannot be trusted and he should go. Because of his ability and because of his brightness he is a desirable factor to the socialistic element, and all the more potent power for good or evil. This is the third outburst of partisanship and cannot be overlooked. He is a dangerous man. Dear Dr. Jordan I am very much in earnest in this matter, and I have just reasons for feeling so. When I compare Prof. Ross with Prof. Branner, Prof. Howard, Prof. Hudson, Prof. Newcomb, and Prof. Still man and Prof. Pease I might mention a dozen others, who are just as gifted, but who are conservative, wise and temperate in their language and confine their influence entirely to the one aim for which they were selected and have never caused us any

anxiety, but the longer they are with us, the dearer they become the contrast is so great it makes the case above mentioned more pronounced.

I notice you say, "I am thoroughly convinced that towards election it is best for all of us not only to refrain from partisan speeches, but also to refrain from everything that can by any possibility be made to appear as such." I am very much

is solicited by just such men as Phelan and his followers, because of his ability, and the helpfulness which the support a professor of Stanford University gives them through the assistance of such men as Prof. Ross. I still feel that he should not be retained, for you should not have to feel that you must be on the watch for what your professors may say. In fact they should not lend

themselves, any of them, even paid or unpaid to the interests of any factions in our state. Prof. Ross cannot be trusted, and he should go. Because of his ability, and because of his brightness he is a desirable factor to the socialistic element, and all the more potent power for good or evil. This is the third outburst of partisanship and cannot be overlooked. He is a dangerous man. Dear Dr. Jordan I am very much in earnest in this matter, and I have just reasons for feeling so. When I compare Prof. Ross with Prof. Branner, Prof. Howard Prof. Hudson, Prof. Nincomb, and Prof. Stillman and Prof. Pease I might mention a dozen others, who are just as gifted, but who are conservative, wise, and temperate in their language, and confine their influence entirely to the one aim for which they were selected and have never caused us any