Marcu 8, 1901. ] 
for Dr. Ross's enforced resignation begs 
leave to report : i 
That inasmuch as those interviewed, on 
both sides, have stipulated that the detailed 
information received should be treated as 
confidential, your committee is able to re- 
port only the ultimate facts. These are as 
follows: 
First. Mrs. Stanford shared in the opin- 
ion general in university circles in 1896 
that Dr. Ross’s pamphlet entitled ‘An 
Honest Dollar,’ illustrated by political car- 
toons, signed by him as ‘ Professor of Eco- 
nomics in the Leland Stanford Jr. Univer- 
sity,’ and published and circulated by one 
of the political parties during the campaign 
of that year, was undignified in its form 
and manner of treatment, and that it was 
unwise in the point of the time and manner 
of its publication, because jeopardizing the 
University’s right to a reputation for polit- 
ical non-partisanship. This incident, to- 
gether with Dr. Ross’s general conduct 
throughout that campaign, was deemed by 
Mrs. Stanford a symptom of unfitness for 
the responsible position of head of the eco- 
nomics department of the University. 
_ Second. The justness of the criticism 
then expressed must be deemed to be con- 
ceded by Dr. Ross, since it has been ad- 
mitted by him to your committee that he 
would not again pursue the same course 
under similar circumstances. 
Third. Your committee is unable to find 
that Mrs. Stanford’s objection arose because 
Dr. Ross’s opinion differed from her own, 
since it is in evidence that she had at that 
time no opinion upon either side of the par- 
ticular financial theories then in issue, and 
since she has not abandoned her objection 
to his conduct in the campaign of 1896, al- 
though his views upon the silver question 
- thereafter radically changed. 
Fourth. That from December, 1896, 
when Dr. Ross’s chair was changed from 
economics to social science, until the time 
SCIENCE. 
363 
of his dismissal his position in the Univer- 
sity was probational. 
Fifth. That the want of confidence en- 
gendered by the incidents of 1896 was never 
removed from Mrs. Stanford’s mind, but was 
accentuated by other incidents impairing 
her faith in his good taste and discretion. 
Among these your committee has found: 
The use of slang in his public and class- 
room lectures, brought to her attention by 
friends present, and by lampoons in the 
college annuals, and reports that his class- 
room lectures contained references deroga- 
tory to her deceased husband. 
Sixth. Your committee has been unable 
to find any evidence that Mrs. Stanford 
ever took exceptions to Dr. Ross’s economic 
teachings. 
Seventh. That her ultimate demand for 
his resignation was not due to opinions ex- 
pressed in his speeches on ‘ Coolie Immigra- 
tion’ and the ‘Twentieth Century City,’ 
but was because she deemed that her orig- 
inal estimate had proved correct, and that 
he was redisplaying, after three years of 
trial, those qualities found objectionable in 
the instance of her original action. 
In passing upon the question whether 
Mrs. Stanford’s action involved any abridg- 
ment of the right of free speech, your com- 
mittee has considered very carefully the 
published statement of Dr. Ross, and the 
proofs upon which it is founded, In de- 
liberating upon these, however, your com- 
mittee has been unable to escape the force 
of the following facts : 
First. Dr. Ross was not in the posi- 
tion of one able to remain in the University 
who ehose to resign, but of one who, will- 
ing to remain, was forced to resign. His 
statement, therefore, necessarily attempted 
to tell Mrs. Stanford’s reasons for forcing him 
out and not his own for going; hence it — 
cannot have the probative force of his own 
reasons for his own acts. 
Second. Dr. Ross’s statement ignores the 
