Jane Lathrop Stanford Papers

4

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, moderate and fair.''

(3) There is no evidence to show that Professor Ross gave occasion for his dismissal by any unfaithfulness in the discharge 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 embarrassment 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 14 Professor Ross violated any confidence reposed in him. On the contrary, in a letter of December 24, President Jordan states: ''I wish after conversation with Dr. Ross to withdraw anything I may have said implying that he had knowingly used confidential material, or in any other way violated personal proprieties in making his statement.''

(5) Concerning the point that Professor Ross gave occasion for his dismissal by remarks 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 I do know that he has stated in his classes in Stanford many things which his students understood to be reflections on Senator Stanford, and I know, also, that Mrs. Stanford firmly believes 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: "* * * He has called my husband a thief."

5

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 understood 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 understood my informant to say so."

Professor Ross, moreover, at the time, unqualifiedly denied all such charges, and insisted that statements to this effect were ''a thorough-paced falsehood and a disingenuous 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 Stanford is false - absolutely without foundation." In a subsequent letter he states: "I 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 for the Senator and my sense of the proprieties 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 resignation, is shown by the fact that in a letter of November 16, two days after his dismissal, President Jordan says, in reference to these charges: "I never heard anything of the sort before."

(6) There is no evidence to show that in the opinion of the President of the University, Professor Ross, in his utterances on the silver question, on coolie immigration, or on municipal ownership, overstepped the limits of professorial propriety. On the contrary, President Jordan stated in May, 1900, that his remarks on