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

16

EXHIBIT "D"

OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY

May 26, 1900.

Mrs. Stanford,

My dear Friend:

May I trouble you once more with the matter of Dr. Ross? Would you approve of this compromise suggestion?

1. That I reappoint him as usual, letting him go ahead with his work.

2. That he tender his resignation to take effect at the discretion of the President.

3. That he make reasonable efforts to secure another place. As to this I have written making a proposition to ******* University that he should exchange positions with Dr. *****, and to ******* that he should exchange with Dr. ******. Either Dr. ****** or Dr. ******* would be acceptable to us, and Dr. Ross is highly esteemed both at ******* and at *********.

4. I will be responsible for loyal service and tactful utterances on the party of Dr. Ross so long as he remains.

Very truly yours,

David S. Jordan,

(Copy)

Exhibit "E".

---COPY---

PALO ALTO, CAL. 17

May 28, 1900.

President D. S. Jordan,

Stanford University.

My dear friend:

Your communication dated May 26th. has received consideration.

I am in accord with you as to re-appointing Professor Ross, as usual, and letting him go ahead with his work; second that he tender his resignation to take effect at a stated time-for instance at the end of six months- which gives him an opportunity, and you an opportunity to make the exchange you suggest. I certainly wish to avoid, as far as possible, doing anything that would prove an injury to him or his future.

Since receiving Professor Ross's communication (a copy of which was sent to you) it has occured to me that he did not know that the position he took at the time of his campaigning for Bryan, an the silver question, was objectionable. I have come to this conclusion, and feel very sorry that he was not made to know at that time that he should be more tactful in his utterances, and that his course had been very severely criticised. This has aroused my sympathy for him, and I cannot but feel that had he then known the true condition of affairs, this second offense might never have occurred.

Very sincerely your friend,

(Signed) Mrs. Jane L. Stanford.

18

Exhibit "F"

---Copy---

Stanford University, Cal. June 5, 1900.

Pres. D. S. Jordan,

Stanford University.

Dear Dr. Jordan:

I was very sorry to learn from you a fortnight ago that Mrs. Stanford does not approve of me as an economist and does not want me to remain here. It was a pleasure, however, to learn, at the same time, of the unqualified terms in which you had expressed to her your high opinion of my work and your complete confidence in me as a teacher, a scientist and a man.

While I appreciate the steadfast support you have given me I am unwilling to become a cause to worry to Mrs. Stanford or of emarassment to you. I, therefore, beg leave to offer my resignation as Professor of Sociology, the same to take effect at the close of the academic year 1900-1901.

For obvious reasons I reserve the right to withdraw this resignation if it is not acted upon by Mar. 1, 1901.

Respectfully yours, (Signed) Edward A. Ross.

19

Exhibit "G"

----COPY----

Stanford University, Nov. 11, 1900.

Professor Edward A. Ross,

Stanford University.

Dear Dr. Ross:

Your letter of June 5th, tendering the resignation of the chair of Sociology in Stanford University has not yet been answered.

I have waited till now in the hope that circumstances might arise which would lead you to a reconsideration. As this has not been the case, I therefore, with great reluctance accept your resignation to take effect at your own convenience.

In doing so, I wish to express once more the high esteem in which your work as a student and as a teacher, as well as your character as a man, is held by all your colleagues.

Very truly yours, David S. Jordan, President.

21

of embarrassment to you. I, therefore, beg leave to offer my resignation as professor of sociology, the same to take effect at the close of the academic year, 1900-1901.

When I handed in the above, Dr. Jordan read me a letter which he had just received from Mrs. Stanford, and which had, of course, been written without knowledge of my resignation. In this letter she insisted that my connection with the university end, and directed that I be given my time from January 1st to the end of the academic year.

My resignation was not acted upon at once, and efforts were made by President Jordan and the President of the Board of Trustees to induce Mrs. Stanford to alter her decision. These proved unavailing, and on Monday, November 12th, Dr. Jordan accepted my resignation in the following terms:

"I have waited till now in the hope that circumstances might arise which would lead you to reconsideration. As this has not been the case, I, therefore, with great reluctance, accept your resignation to take effect at your own convenience. In doing - so, I wish to express once more the high esteem in which your work as a student and as a teacher, as well as your character as a man, is held by all your colleagues."

My coolie immigration speech is not my sole offense. Last April I complied with an invitiation from the Unitarian Church at Oakland to lecture before them on the "The Twentieth-Century City." I addressed myself almost wholly to questions of city growth and city health and touched only incidentally on the matter of public utilities. I pointed out, however, the drift, both here and abroad, toward the municipal ownership of water and gas works, and predicted that, as regards street railways, American cities would probably pass through a period of municipal ownership and then revert to private ownership under regulation. My remarks were general in character and, of course, I took no stand on local questions. Only months of special investigation could enable me to say whether a particular city like Oakland or San Francisco could better itself by supplying its own water or light. Yet this lecture was objected to.

Last year I spoke three times in public, once before a university extension center on "The British Empire", once before a church on "The Twentieth-Century City," and once before a mass meeting on collie [sic] immigration. To my utterances on two of these occasions objection has been made. It is plain, therefore, that this is no place for me. I cannot with self-respect decline to speak on topics to which I have given years of investigation. It is my duty, as an economist spirit, my conclusions on subjects with which I am expert. And if I speak, I cannot but take positions which are justified by statistics and by the experience of the old world, such as the municipal ownership of water works or the monopoly profits of street-car companies; or by standard economic science such as the relation of the standard of life to the density of population.