Untitled Page 55

10

We desire to add that Dr. Ross is neither the instigator
of this letter nor aware of its contents.

Very truly yours,

Edwin R. A. Seligman, Columbia University.
Henry W. Farnam, Yale University.
Henry B. Gardner, Brown University.

Leland Stanford Junior University,

Stanford University, Cal., Jan. 7, 1901.

Prof. Edwin R. A. Seligman, Columbia University,
New York City.

My Dear Sir:- In response to your kind letter of
December 30th, permit me to say that in view of the importance
of the matter I have referred the contents of
your letter to a committee of three of our professors,
Vice-President J. C. Branner, Dr. J. M. Stillman and
Dr. C. H. Gilbert. They are in possession of the facts and
are at liberty to answer any questions which your committee
may desire to ask. For reasons which will readily
appear it has not been deemed advisable for us to state
the reasons why Dr. Ross was dismissed. His statement
to the press does not assign any of the true reasons.

Very truly yours,

David Jordan, President.

11

Leland Stanford Junior University,

Jan. 14, 1901.

Professor Edwin R. A. Seligman.
Professor Henry W. Farnam.
Professor Henry B. Gardner.

Dear Sirs:-

Your letter of December 30th addressed to President
Jordan has been referred by him to us for reply.

In your letter you say: "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 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."

In reply we beg to say that the dissatisfaction of the
University management with Professor Ross antedated
his utterances on the topics you refer to. His removal
was not due primarily to whar he published, said or
thought in regard to coolie immigration or in regard to
municipal ownership.

We can assure you furthermore that in our opinion
his removal cannot be interpreted as an interference with
freedom of speech or thought within the proper and reasonable
meaning of that expression.

These statements are made with a full knowledge of
the facts of the case.

Very truly yours,

J. C. Branner.
J. M. Stillman.
C. H. Gilbert.