370 
to reconcile assertions that would otherwise 
seem contradictory. It is for that reason 
that we venture again to express the hope 
that a more explicit answer may be given 
to our questions. 
Very truly yours, 
Epwin R. A. SELIGMAN, 
Henry W. Farnam, 
Henry B. GARDNER. 
LELAND STANFORD UNIVERSITY, CAL., 
February 7, 1901. 
Proressor Epwin R. A. SELIGMAN, 
Proressor Henry W. Farnam, 
Proressor Henry B. GARDNER. 
Gentlemen: Your letter of January 30th 
is at hand asking further information as to 
the reasons for the dismissal of Professor 
Ross. When I expressed my willingness 
to answer further questions I did not mean 
to indicate that I would enter into any cir- 
cumstantial description of events leading to 
or following from Professor Ross’s dismissal. 
Nor do I consider it expedient or proper to 
go into a discussion of extracts from my 
letters or conversations or of my statements 
or alleged statements, or those of others, as 
published in the newspapers. There are, 
however, certain assurances which it is 
_ within the privilege of the public to ask, and 
which it is my desire to furnish, that the 
public may be assisted in forming a judg- 
ment as to the position of the University 
upon important questions. It seems to me 
that I shall answer these questions best by 
certain plain statements which involve the 
important facts concerning the University. 
It will be necessary for you to assume my 
knowledge of all the facts, also that the in- 
terpretation herewith presented is authori- 
tative from the University standpoint. 
First. Professor Ross was not dismissed 
on account of his views on Oriental immi- 
gration nor on account of his opinion on 
any economic question. 
Second. Professor Ross was dismissed 
SCIENCE. 
(N.S. Von. XIII. No. 323. 
because in the judgment of the University 
authorities he was not the proper man for 
the place he held. The responsibility for 
the correctness of this judgment belongs to 
the University authorities and to them 
alone. 
Third. No ground exists for any inter- 
pretation of his dismissal reflecting on his 
private character, of which your letter seems 
to imply a fear. 
Fourth. The judgment that Professor 
Ross was not the proper man for the place 
he held is not incompatible with my ap- 
preciation of many good qualities he pos- 
sesses, nor with my wishes or efforts at any 
time to further his prospects. I have been 
neither ignorant of his professional short- 
comings nor inappreciative of his good 
qualities. Of such appreciation Professor 
Ross has himself adduced several expres- 
sions from my letters. 
In the hope that you may find in the 
above a substantial answer to the ques- 
tions involved in your inquiries, I remain, 
Very truly yours, 
Davip 8. JorDan. 
THE SECOND MEETING OF NATURALISTS AT 
CHICAGO. 
THE committee appointed by the meeting 
of 1899 issued a call for a second meeting 
of Naturalists at Chicago, December 27th 
and 28th. About one hundred naturalists 
were in attendance or three times the num- 
ber present last year. Among those present 
in addition to the Chicago Naturalists were 
Messrs. Folsom, Hart, Holferty, Mills and 
Frank Smith of University of Illinois; Pro- 
fessors Locy and Charles Hill of Northwest- 
ern University; Needham of Lake Forest ; 
Atherton, Birge, Juday, and Timberlake of 
Wisconsin; Densmore, and Grant Smith 
of Beloit; Lee, MacMillan and Nachtrieb 
of Minnesota; Osborn of Hamline; Nut- 
ting and Shimek of Iowa; Kelly of Cor- 
nell College; Thorn of Missouri; Ward of 
