Untitled Page 54

8

The undersigned have examined the evidence sub-
mitted by the above committee, and believe that it justi-
fies 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 opin-
ions expressed by him in a lecture on the subject of coolie
immigration as well as to incidental remarks on the prob-
lem 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 pro-
priety in asking information which will enable univer-
sity teachers to form a just opinion on the merits of the
case.