Marcu 8, 1901. ] 
his connection with the University should 
terminate immediately. 
The evidence which we have been able 
to obtain indicates clearly also the follow- 
ing facts : 
1. The causes which led to the dismissal 
of Professor Ross existed in May, 1900. 
2. Although the dismissal of Professor 
Ross may have been occasioned by his pub- 
lished statement of November 14th, his 
resignation was practically forced by the 
wish of Mrs. Stanford. This fact is dis- 
tinctly stated in the report of the Alumni 
Committee of Investigation which report 
apparently has the full endorsement of the 
University authorities. 
3. Mrs. Stanford’s wishes in the matter 
were expressed as early as May, 1900. 
4. The delay in the acceptance of Pro- 
fessor Ross’s resignation was due to an 
effort on the part of Professor Jordan to 
overcome Mrs. Stanford’s objections. 
The question in regard to which we have 
been called upon to express an opinion is: 
What were the reasons which led Mrs. 
Stanford to force Professor Ross’s resigna- 
tion ? 
‘Two classes of reasons have been al- 
leged : 
1. Dissatisfaction on the part of Mrs. 
Stanford with Professor Ross’s expressions 
of opinion on questions of economic policy, 
notably in regard to the free coinage of sil- 
ver in the campaign of 1896, and more re- 
cently in regard to coolie immigration and 
municipal monopolies. 
2. It has been asserted or suggested 
that Professor Ross had made statements 
before his classes reflecting upon Senator 
Stanford, that he had shown himself selfish 
and Jacking in loyalty to the University, 
that he was erratic and frequently over- 
stepped the bounds of academic propriety 
in the manner of giving expression to his 
opinions, that his publication of November 
14th was a violation of confidence, and that 
SCIENCE. 
365 
there are facts which, if disclosed, would 
reflect upon his personal character. 
While it is, of course, impossible for us 
definitely to determine what facts, or re- 
ports of supposed facts, may have weighed 
with Mrs. Stanford, the evidence in the 
possession of the committee seems to justify 
the following conclusions : 
1. There is no evidence to show that 
Professor Ross gave occasion for his dis- 
missal by any defect in moral character. 
On the contrary, President Jordan states in 
his letter of February 7th to the committee : 
‘* No ground exists for any interpretation of 
his dismissal reflecting on his private char- 
acter.” 
2. There is no evidence to show that 
Professor Ross gave occasion for his dis- 
missal by incompetence. On the contrary, 
President Jordan stated in a letter of May, 
1900, that he was a ‘careful thinker and a 
patient investigator’; ‘a constant source of 
strength’ to the University and ‘ one of the 
best teachers, always just, moderateand fair.’ 
3. There is no evidence to show that 
Professor Ross gave occasion for his dis- 
missal by any unfaithfulness in the dis- 
charge of his duties. On the contrary, 
President Jordan stated in a letter of May, 
1900, that ‘he has been most loyal, accepting 
extra work and all kinds of embarrassments 
without a word of complaint,’ and that he 
was ‘a wise, learned and noble man, one of 
the most loyal and devoted of all the band’ 
at the University. 
4. There is no evidence to show that in 
his published statement of November 14th 
Professor Ross violated any confidence re. 
posed in him. On the contrary, in a letter 
of December 24th, President Jordan states: 
“‘T wish after conversation with Dr. Ross 
to withdraw anything I may have said im- 
plying that he had knowingly used confi- 
dential material, or in any other way vio- 
lated personal proprieties in making his 
statement.”’ 
