366 
5. Concerning the point that Professor 
Ross gave occasion for his dismissal by re- 
marks derogatory to Senator Stanford, your 
committee finds in a statement by Mr. C. 
F. Lummis, in The Land of Sunshine, dated 
Christmas, 1900, the following passage : 
The precise words Professor Ross may have used 
I do not know, but 1 do know that he has stated in 
his classes in Stanford many things which his stu- 
dents understood to be reflections on Senator Stan- 
ford, and I know also that Mrs. Stanford firmly be- 
lieves that he did slur her husband’s memory. 
In The Independent of February 7, 1901, 
Mr. Lummis repeats this charge, quoting 
Mrs. Stanford’s reasons for his dismissal : 
‘kk kK He has called my husband a 
thief.’ 
The committee also finds that President 
Jordan in a letter of November 16, 1900, 
states : 
Mr. Keesling informs me that he and others of the 
alumni have heard you in your classes condemn the 
means by which Mr. Stanford became rich in such a 
way as to make it clearly a personal reference, and 
that some time last year Mrs. Stanford was told this 
by a prominent alumnus, Mr. Crothers, if I under- 
stood correctly. 
In a letter of the next day, however, 
President Jordan retracts this by saying: 
“Mr. Crothers tells me that he has never 
mentioned the matter in question to Mrs. 
Stanford. I was not sure that I under- 
stood my informant to say so.” 
Professor Ross, moreover, at the “Pan, 
unqualifiedly denied all such charges, and 
insisted that statements to this effect were 
‘a thorough-paced falsehood and a disin- 
genuous attempt to befog the real issue.’ 
In another place he says: ‘‘ The charge from 
any quarter that I have ever made remarks 
derogatory to the character of Senator Stan- 
ford is false—absolutely without founda- 
tion.’”’ In a subsequent letter he states: 
‘JT have never referred in a derogatory way 
to Senator Stanford, nor have I reflected 
upon the manner in which he accumulated 
his fortune. Both my sincere respect 
SCIENCE. 
[N. S. Vou. XIII. No. 323. 
for the Senator and my sense of the pro- 
prieties of my position forbade anything of 
the kind.” 
Moreover, that this charge could not have 
been a determining cause in President 
Jordan’s acceptance of Professor Ross’s res- 
ignation, is shown by the fact that in a 
letter of November 16th, two days after his 
dismissal, President Jordan says, in refer- 
ence to these charges : “‘ I never heard any- 
thing of the sort before.” 
6. There is no evidence to show that in 
the opinion of the President of the Univer- 
sity, Professor Ross, in his utterances on 
the silver question, oD coolie immigration, 
or on municipal ownership, overstepped the 
limits of the professorial propriety. On the 
contrary, President Jordan stated in May, 
1900, that his remarks on coolie immigra- 
tion and on municipal ownership were in 
accord with the drift of public sentiment 
on those subjects, and that even on the 
silver question ‘he never stepped outside 
of the recognized rights of a professor.’ 
7. There is evidence to show: 
(a) That Mrs. Stanford’s objections to 
Professor Ross were due, in part at all 
events, to his former attitude on the silver 
question, and to his utterances on coolie 
immigration and on municipal ownership; 
and : 
(6) That while the dissatisfaction of Mrs. 
Stanford due to his former attitude on the 
silver question antedated his utterances on 
coolie immigration and municipal owner- 
ship, her dissatisfaction was greatly in- 
creased by these utterances. 
As to (a). This is shown by the fact 
that President Jordan at first attempted to 
deter Mrs. Stanford from taking any action 
for such reasons, stating in a letter of May, 
1900: ‘‘T feel sure that if his erities would 
come forth and make their complaints to 
me in manly fashion I could convince any 
of them that they have no real ground for 
complaint.”’ President Jordan, moreover, 
