Untitled Page 52

4

On the contrary, President Jordan stated in a letter of
May, 1900, that he was ''a careful thinker and a patient
investigator,'' ''a constant source of strength" to the
University and ''one of the best teachers, always just,
moderate and fair.''

(3) There is no evidence to show that Professor
Ross gave occasion for his dismissal by any unfaithful-
ness in the discharge of his duties. On the contrary,
President Jordan stated in a letter of May, 1900, that
''he has been most loyal, accepting extra work and all
kinds of embarrassment without a word of complaint.''
and that he was ''a wise, learned and noble man, one
of the most loyal and devoted of all the band'' at the
University.

(4) There is no evidence to show that in his pub-
lished statement of November 14 Professor Ross vio-
lated any confidence reposed in him. On the contrary,
in a letter of December 24, President Jordan states: ''I
wish after conversation with Dr. Ross to withdraw any-
thing I may have said implying that he had knowingly
used confidential material, or in any other way violated
personal proprieties in making his statement.''

(5) Concerning the point that Professor Ross gave
occasion for his dismissal by remarks derogatory to Sen-
ator Stanford, your committee finds in a statement by
Mr. C. F. Lummis, in The land of Sunshine, dated
Christmas, 1900, the following passage:

"The precise words Professor Ross may have used I
do not know, but I do know that he has stated in his
classes in Stanford many things which his students under-
stood to be reflections on Senator Stanford, and I know,
also, that Mrs. Stanford firmly believes that he did slur
her husband's memory.''

In The Independent of February 7, 1901, Mr. Lum-
mis repeats this charge, quoting Mrs. Stanford's reasons
for his dismissal: "* * * He has called my husband
a thief."

5

The committee also finds that President Jordan in a
letter of November 16, 1900, states:

''Mr. Keesling informs me that he and others of the
alumni have heard you in your classes condemn the means
by which Mr. Stanford became rich in such a way as to
make it clearly a personal reference, and that some time
last year Mrs. Stanford was told this by a prominent
alumnus, Mr. Crothers, if I understood correctly.''

In a letter of the next day, however, President Jor-
dan retracts this by saying: "Mr. Crothers tells me that
he has never mentioned the matter in question to Mrs.
Stanford. I was not sure that I understood my inform-
ant to say so."

Professor Ross, moreover, at the time, unqualifiedly
denied all such charges, and insisted that statements to
this effect were ''a thorough-paced falsehood and a dis-
ingenuous attempt to befog the real issue.'' In another
place he says: "The charge from any quarter that I
have ever made remarks derogatory to the character of
Senator Stanford is false - absolutely without founda-
tion." In a subsequent letter he states: "I have never
referred in a derogatory way to Senator Stanford, nor
have I reflected upon the manner in which he accumulat-
ed his fortune. Both my sincere respect for the Senator
and my sense of the proprieties of my position forbade
anything of the kind."

Moreover, that this charge could not have been a
determining cause in President Jordan's acceptance of
Professor Ross's resignation, is shown by the fact that
in a letter of November 16, two days after his dismissal,
President Jordan says, in reference to these charges:
"I never heard anything of the sort before."

(6) There is no evidence to show that in the opin-
ion of the President of the University, Professor Ross,
in his utterances on the silver question, on coolie immi-
gration, or on municipal ownership, overstepped the
limits of professorial propriety. On the contrary, Presi-
dent Jordan stated in May, 1900, that his remarks on