Ross Affair: Notebook containing D. S. Jordan's statement with exhibits and ptd. report of Committee of Economists

12

January 30, 1901

President Jordan,

Leland Stanford University, Palo Alto, California:

Dear Sir:-

We beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of January 7th, as well as the letter of your committee of three, of January 14th.

You state in your letter that you are ready to answer all questions. May we venture to put the following:

1. - In the committee's letter of January 14th, it is stated that he ''dissatisfaction of the University Management with Professor Ross antedated his utterances on the topics you refer to." How can this dissatisfaction of the University management be made to agree with the statement of the President, speaking for himself and the faculty, and quoted in the public prints of November 14th as follows: -

a.- Extract from a letter from. Professor Ross to President Jordan: "it was a pleasure, however, to learn from you of the unqualified terms in which you have expressed to her (Mrs. Stanford) your high opinion of my work and your complete confidence in me as a teacher, a scientist, and a man."

b.-Quotation from a letter from President Jordan to Professor Ross: ''I wish to express once more the high esteem in which your work as a student and a teacher, as well as your character as a man, is held by your colleagues."

2.- In your letter of January 7th, you say- ''His (Professor Ross's) statement to the press does not assign any of the true reasons." If the speeches on coolie immigration and municipal ownership did not constitute any of the reasons for his dismissal, why was the dissatisfaction, which in your judgment antedated these speeches, not manifested until immediately after the delivery of the same? Why was the reappointment so dubious and tardy

13

while Professor Ross had no intimation of his possible non-appointment till May 18?

3.- In saying that Professor Ross does not assign any of the true reasons for his dismissal, do we understand you to deny the truth of Professor Ross's published statement, containing quotations from your remarks to him:

a.- That "he (Dr. Jordan) had heard from her (Mrs. Stanford) just after my address on coolie immigration."

b.- That ''quite unexpectedly to him (President Jordan) Mrs. Stanford had shown herself greatly displeased with me (Professor Ross)."

c.- That "he (President Jordan) was profoundly distressed at the idea of dismissing a scientist for utterances within the scientist's own field."

d.- That "he (President Jordan) made earnest representations to Mrs. Stanford."

4.- What are the real reason for the dismissal of Dr. Ross? In your letter of January 7th, you say: For reasons which will readily appear, it has not been deemed advisable for us to state the reasons why Dr. Ross was dismissed." Will you pardon us for saying that we fail readily to recognize any such reasons? If the reasons are that you fear to injure the personal reputation of Professor Ross, may we venture to suggest that nothing that you could do would be more calculated to injure Dr. Ross than the insinuation that there are some secret reasons which cannot be divulged. It is just because some such innuendoes have been printed in the papers that our committee address itself to you, in order to ascertain the true state of affairs.

While we regret to prolong this correspondence, you will readily see that unless we can give the members of the American Economic Association some explicit reasons for Professor Ross's dismissal other than those assigned by him, they will naturally adhere to the opinion

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 question 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 Professor Ross. When I expressed my willingness to answer 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 discussion 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, certain 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 interpretation 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 University 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 possesses, nor with my wishes or efforts at any time to further his prospects. I have been neither ignorant of his professional shortcomings nor inappreciative of his good qualities. Of such appreciation Professor Ross has himself 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.