Makcu 8, 1901.] 
January 30, 1901. 
PRESIDENT JORDAN, 
Leland Stanford University, 
Palo Alto., California. 
Dear Sir: We beg to acknowledge receipt 
of your letter of January 7th, as well as 
the letter of your committee of three, of 
January 14th. f 
You state in your letter that you are ready 
to answer all questions. May we venture 
to put the following : 
1. In the committee’s letter of January 
14th, itis stated that the ‘ dissatisfaction 
of the University Management with Pro- 
fessor Ross antedated his utterances on the 
topics you refer to.’ How can this dis- 
satisfaction of the University management 
be made to agree with the statement of the 
President, speaking for himself and the 
faculty, and quoted in the public prints of 
November 14th as follows : 
a.—Extract from a letter from Professor Ross to 
President Jordan: ‘‘It was a pleasure, however, 
to learn from you of the unqualified terms in which 
you have expressed to her (Mrs. Stanford) your 
high opinion of my work and your complete confi- 
dence in me asa teacher, a scientist, and a man.’’ 
b.—Quotation from a letter from President Jordan 
to Professor Ross: ‘‘I wish to express once more 
the high esteem in which your work as a student 
and a teacher, as well as your character as a man, 
is held by your colleagues.’’ 
2. In your letter of January 7th, you say : 
‘¢ His (Professor Ross’s) statement to the 
press does not assign any of the true 
reasons.’’? If the speeches on coolie immi- 
gration and municipal ownership did not 
constitute any of the reasons for his dis- 
missal, why was the dissatisfaction, which 
in your judgment antedated these speeches, 
not manifested until immediately after the 
delivery of the same? Why was the reap- 
pointment so dubious and tardy while Pro- 
fessor Ross had no intimation of his possible 
non-appointment till May 18th? 
3. In saying that Professor Ross does not 
assign any of the true reasons for his dis- 
SCIENCE. 369 
missal, do we understand you to deny the 
truth of Professor Ross’s published state- 
ment, containing quotations from your re- 
marks to him : 
a.—That “he (Dr. Jordan) had heard from her 
(Mrs. Stanford) just after my address on coolie im- 
migration.’’ 
b.—That ‘‘ quite unexpectedly to him (President 
Jordan) Mrs. Stanford had shown herself greatly 
displeased with me (Professor Ress).’’ 
c.—That ‘‘he (President Jordan) was profoundly 
distressed at the idea of dismissing a scientist for 
utterances within the scientist’s own field.’’ 
d.—That ‘‘he (President Jordan) made earnest 
representations to Mrs. Stanford.’’ 
4. What are the real reasons for the dis- 
missal of Dr. Ross? In your letter of 
January 7th, yousay: ‘‘ For reasons which 
will readily appear, it has not been deemed 
advisable for us to state the reasons why 
Dr. Ross was dismissed.’’ Will you pardon 
us for saying that we fail readily to recog- 
nize any such reasons? If the reasons are 
that you fear to injure the personal reputa- 
tion of Professor Ross, may we venture to 
suggest that nothing that you could do 
would be more calculated to injure Dr. 
Ross than the insinuation that there are 
some secret reasons which cannot be di- 
vulged. It is just because some such in- 
nuendoes have been printed in the papers 
that our committee addressed itself to you, 
in order to ascertain the true state of affairs. 
While we regret to prolong this corre- 
spondence, you will readily see that unless 
we can give the members of the American 
Economic Association some explicit reasons 
for Professor Ross’s dismissal other than 
those assigned by him, they will naturally 
adhere to the opinion based upon the state- 
ments first made in the public press. A 
mere denial of the truth of the statements 
made by him will not be apt to satisfy 
gentlemen who are not willing to believe 
that any of the parties concerned in the 
question would intentionally make a false 
statement, and facts alone will enable them 
