Untitled Page 53

6

coolie immigration and on municipal ownership were in
accord with the drift of public sentiment on those sub-
jects, and that even on the silver question "he never
stepped outside of the recognized rights of a professor.''

(7) There is evidence to show:

(a) That Mrs. Stanford's objections to Pro-
fessor Ross were due, in part at all events, to his
former attitude on the silver question, and to his
utterances on coolie immigration and on munic-
ipal ownership; and

(b) That while the dissatisfaction of Mrs.
Stanford due to his former attitude on the silver
question antedated his utterances on coolie immi-
gration and municipal ownership, her dissatisfac-
tion was greatly increased by these utterances.

As to (a). This is shown by the fact that President
Jordan at first attempted to deter Mrs. Stanford from
taking any action for such reasons, stating in a letter of
May, 1900: ''I feel sure that if his critics would come
forth and make their complaints to me in manly fashion
I could convince any of them that they no real
ground for complaint.'' President Jordan, moreover, in-
timated that to dismiss him for such reasons would be im-
proper in the extreme, for ''no graver charge can be made
against a University than that it denies its professors
freedom of speech."

As to (b). This is shown by the fact that not until
immediately after delivery of the coolie immigration
speech did Mrs. Stanford force Professor Ross's resigna-
tion, as well as by the fact that in a letter of June, 1900,
President Jordan stated: "the matter of immigration
she (Mrs. Stanford) takes most seriously."

In the same letter, while Mrs. Stanford's objection is
declared to be due to the fact that the reputation of the
University for serious conservatism is impaired by the
hasty acceptance of social and political fads, it is added,
that these ''local criticisms'' which weighed with Mrs.

7

Stanford "unfortunately are based on chance matters and
obiter dicta, not at all upon your serious work.''

We have not deemed it wise to publish in full the
letters upon which we have based our conclusions, but we
stand ready to publish then if such a course is necessary
to establish the truth in this matter.

We are aware that owing to the failure of President
Jordan to give definite replies to all our questions, there
may be important facts with which we are unacquainted.
On the other hand, we cannot but feel that a refusal to
furnish specific information in a case of such importance
- in which it is charged that the freedom of speech is at
stake - is itself a fact of significance, which, to say the
least, is much to be regretted.

All of which is respectfully submitted.

Edwin R. A. Seligman, Professor of Political
Economy and Finance, Columbia University.

Henry W. Farnam, Professor of Political
Economy, Yale University.

Henry B. Gardner, Professor of Political
Economy, Brown University.

February 20, 1901