Untitled Page 57

14

based upon the statements first made in the public press.
A mere denial of the truth of the statements made by him
will not be apt to satisfy gentlemen who are not willing
to believe that any of the parties concerned in the ques-
tion would intentionally make a false statement, and facts
alone will enable them to reconcile assertions that would
otherwise seem contradictory. It is for that reason that
we venture again to express the hope that a more explicit
answer may be given to our questions.

Very truly yours,

Edwin R. A. Seligman,

Henry W. Farnam,

Henry B. Gardner.

Leland Stanford University, Cal.,

Feb.7, 1901.

Professors

Edwin R. A. Seligman,

Henry W. Farnam,

Henry B. Gardner.

Gentlemen:—

Your letter of January 30th is at hand asking further
information as to the reasons for the dismissal of Pro-
fessor Ross. When I expressed my willingness to an-
swer further questions I did not mean to indicate that I
would enter into any circumstantial description of events
leading to or following from Professor Ross's dismissal.
Nor do I consider it expedient or proper to go into a dis-
cussion of extracts from my letters or conversations or
of my statements or alleged statements, or those of others,
as published in the newspapers. There are, however, cer-
tain assurances which it is within the privilege of the public
to ask, and which it is my desire to furnish, that the

15

public may be assisted in forming a judgment as to the
position of the University upon important questions. It
seems to me that I shall answer these questions best by
certain plain statements which involve the important facts
concerning the University. it will be necessary for you
to assume my knowledge of all the facts, also that the in-
terpretation herewith presented is authoritative from the
University standpoint.

First: Professor Ross was not dismissed on account
of his views on Oriental immigration nor on account of
his opinions on any economic question.

Second: Professor Ross was dismissed because in
the judgment of the University authorities he was not the
proper man for the place he held. The responsibility for
the correctness of this judgment belongs to the Univer-
sity authorities and to them alone.

Third: No ground exists for any interpretation of
his dismissal reflecting on his private character, of which
your letter seems to imply a fear.

Fourth: The judgment that Professor Ross was not
the proper man for the place he held is not incompatible
with my appreciation of many good qualities he pos-
sesses, nor with my wishes or efforts at any time to fur-
ther his prospects. I have been neither ignorant of his
professional shortcomings nor inappreciative of his good
qualities. Of such appreciation Professor Ross has him-
self adduced several expressions from my letters.

In the hope that you may find in the above a substantial
answer to the questions involved in your inquiries,
I remain,

Very truly yours,

David L. Jordan.