364 
criticism arising from his conduct during 
the campaign of 1896; notwithstanding 
that he knew at the time of publishing his 
statement that it was one of the operative 
reasons for his dismissal. 
Third. The established fact that Dr. Ross 
desired to remain at Stanford, notwith- 
standing Mrs. Stanford’s criticism, is in- 
consistent with the theory that he really re- 
garded those criticisms as involving any 
abridgment of his right of free speech. 
Fourth. The admission of Dr. Ross to 
your committee that he would not regard a 
university rule against the participation in 
politics by a university professor of eco- 
nomics during the progress of a political 
campaign as impairing the proper right of 
academic freedom, disposes of his conten- 
tion that the criticism of his conduct in 
1896 is capable of that construction. 
From the foregoing facts and upon the 
testimony as a whole, your committee con- 
cludes that the action of Mrs. Stanford in 
asking the dismissal of Dr. Ross involved 
no infringement of the right of free speech. 
REPORT OF A COMMITTEE OF ECONOMISTS. 
The committee, appointed at the meeting 
of the economists in Detroit, December 
28, 1900, to enquire into the cause of 
the dismissal of Professor, Ross from Le- 
land Stanford University, has earnestly 
endeavored to learn the facts of the case. 
In addition to a careful examination of the 
statements made in the newspapers, we 
have asked Professor Jordan for a full and 
frank statement of the causes which led to 
Professor Ross’s removal, and have ob- 
tained the replies printed in the appendix, 
in which Professor Jordan declines to give 
specific information in regard to them. We 
have also in our possession copies of letters 
bearing upon this case from various persons, 
including letters from Professor Ross, as 
well as from President Jordan, not only to 
Professor Ross, but also to others. 
‘SCIENCE. 
[N.S. Von. XIII. No. 323. 
The following facts are, we believe, un- 
disputed : 
It is customary for professors in the Le- 
land Stanford University to be reappointed 
early in May of each year. Professor 
Ross failed to receive his‘annual reappoint- 
ment early in May, 1900. He was, how- 
ever, reappointed on June 2d. On June 5th, 
he handed to President Jordan his resigna- 
tion as follows : 
Dear Dr. Jordan: Iwas 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 opinion of my work and your 
complete confidence in me asa teacher, a scientist and 
a man. 
While I appreciate the steadfast support you have 
given me, [am unwilling to become a cause of worry to 
Mrs. Stanford or of embarrassment to you. I, there- 
fore, beg leave to offer my resignation as professor of 
sociology, the same to take effect at the close of the 
academic year, 1900-1901. . 
This resignation was not acted on until 
November 12th, when it was accepted by 
President Jordan in the following letter : 
I have waited till now in the hope that circum- 
stances might arise which would lead you to a recon- 
sideration. As this has not been the case, I, there- 
fore, 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 a teacher, as well as 
your character aya man, is held by all your col- 
leagues. 
On November14th, Professor Ross author- 
ized the publication in the newspapers of a 
statement setting forth the causes of his res- 
ignation and its acceptance, attributing it 
to a dissatisfaction felt by Mrs. Stanford 
with his expressions of opinion on ques- 
tions of public policy, particularly Coolie 
Immigration and Municipal Ownership of 
public service corporations. On the fol- 
lowing day, President Jordan wrote Pro- 
fessor Ross to the effect that, in view of his 
published statement, it was desirable that 
