{"1": {"fulltext": "H 111\\n.R7C7", "height": "3355", "width": "2062", "jp2-path": "reportofcommitte02comm_0001.jp2"}, "2": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3355", "width": "2062", "jp2-path": "reportofcommitte02comm_0002.jp2"}, "3": {"fulltext": "7 C7\\npy 1\\nhe Dismissal of\\nrofessor R.oss\\nREPORT OF\\ncoMMirreB of economists", "height": "3355", "width": "2062", "jp2-path": "reportofcommitte02comm_0003.jp2"}, "4": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3355", "width": "2062", "jp2-path": "reportofcommitte02comm_0004.jp2"}, "5": {"fulltext": "Report of the Committee of Economists on the\\nDismissal of Professor Ross from Le/aiid\\nStanford Junior University K^\\nThe committee appointed at the meeting of the\\neconomists in Detroit, December 28, 1900, to enquire\\ninto the causes of the dismissal of Professor Ross from\\nLeland Stanford University, have earnestly endeavored\\nto learn the facts of the case. In addition to a careful\\nexamination of the statements made in the newspapers,\\nwe have asked Professor Jordan for a full and frank\\nstatement of the causes which led to Professor Ross s\\nremoval, and have obtained the replies printed in the\\nappendix, in which Professor Jordan declines to give\\nspecific information in regard to them. We have also\\nin our possession copies of letters bearing upon this\\ncase from various persons, including letters from Pro-\\nfessor Ross, as well as from President Jordan, not only\\nto Professor Ross, but also to others.\\nThe following facts are, we believe, undisputed\\nIt is customary for professors in the Leland Stan-\\nford University to be reappointed early in May of each\\nyear. Professor Ross failed to receive his annual reap-\\npointment early in May, 1900. He was, however, reap-\\npointed on June 2. On June 5, he handed to President\\nJordan his resignation as follows\\nDear Dr. Jordan: I was sorry to learn from you a\\nfortnight ago that Mrs. Stanford does not approve of me\\nas an economist, and does not want me to remain here.\\nIt was a pleasure, however, to learn at the same time of\\nthe unqualified terms in which you had expressed to her\\nyour opinion of my work and your complete confidence\\nin me as a teacher, a scientist and a man.\\nWhile I appreciate the steadfast support you have\\ngiven me, I am unwilling to become a cause of worry\\nto Mrs. Stanford or of embarrassment to you. I, there-\\nfore, beg leave to offer my resignation as professor of\\nsociology, the same to take effect at the close of the aca-\\ndemic year, 1900-1901.\\nL", "height": "3355", "width": "2062", "jp2-path": "reportofcommitte02comm_0005.jp2"}, "6": {"fulltext": "2 H B\\\\V^\\nThis resignation was not acted on until November\\n12, when it was accepted by President Jordan in the fol-\\nlowing letter\\nI have waited till now in the hope that circumstances\\nmight arise which would lead you to a reconsideraion. As\\nthis has not been the case, I, therefore, with great re-\\nluctance, accept your resignation, to take effect at your\\nown convenience. In doing so I wish to express once\\nmore the high esteem in which your work, as a student and\\na teacher, as well as your character as a man, is held by\\nall your colleagues.\\nOn November 14, Professor Ross authorized the pub-\\nlication in the newspapers of a statement setting forth\\nthe causes of his resignation and its acceptance, attribut-\\ning it to a dissatisfaction felt by Mrs. Stanford with his\\nexpressions of opinion on questions of public policy, par-\\nticu arly coolie immigration and municipal owner-\\nship of public service corporations. On the following\\nday, President Jordan wrote Professor Ross to the ef-\\nfect that, in view of his published statement, it was de-\\nsirable that his connection with the University should\\nterminate immediately.\\nThe evidence which we have been able to obtain in-\\ndicates clearly also the following facts\\n(i) The causes which led to the dismissal of Pro-\\nfessor Ross existed in May, 1900.\\n(2) Although the dismissal of Professor Ross\\nmay have been occasioned by his published statement of\\nNovember 14, his resignation was practically forced by\\nthe wish of Mrs. Stanford. This fact is distinctly stated\\nin the report of the Alumni Committee of Investigation,\\nwhich report apparently has the full endorsement of the\\nUniversity authorities.\\n(3) Mrs. Stanford s wishes in the matter were ex-\\npressed as early as May, 1900.\\n(4) The delay in the acceptance of Professor\\n\u00e2\u0080\u00a2Rtjsslginejigngtioniivks due to an effc^o^^the part of\\n9,\\n/S/p*Ol", "height": "3355", "width": "2062", "jp2-path": "reportofcommitte02comm_0006.jp2"}, "7": {"fulltext": "President Jordan to overcome Mrs. Stanford s objec-\\ntions.\\nThe question in regard to which have been called\\nupon to express an opinion is What were the reasons\\nwhich led Mrs. Stanford to force Professor Ross s resig-\\nnation\\nTwo classes of reasons have been alleged\\n(ij Dissatisfaction on the part of Mrs. Stanford\\nwith Professor Ross s expressions of opinion on ques-\\ntions of economic policy, notably in regard to the free\\ncoinage of silver in the campaign of 1896, and more re-\\ncently in regard to coolie immigration and municipal\\nmonopolies.\\n(2) It has been asserted or suggested that Pro-\\nfessor Ross had made statements before his classes re-\\nflecting upon Senator Stanford, that he had shown him-\\nself selfish and lacking in loyalty to the University, that\\nhe was erratic and frequently overstepped the bounds of\\nacademic propriety in the manner of giving expression\\nto his opinions, that his publication of November 14th\\nwas a violation of confidence, and that there are facts\\nwhich, if disclosed, would reflect upon his personal char-\\nacter.\\nWhile it is, of course, impossible for us definitely to\\ndetermine what facts, or reports of supposed facts, may\\nhave weighed with Mrs. Stanford, the evidence in the\\npossession of the committee seems to justify the following\\nconclusions\\n(i) There is no evidence to show that Professor\\nRoss gave occasion for his dismissal by any defect in\\nmoral character. On the contrary, President Jordan\\nstates in his letter of February 7 to the committee No\\nground exists for any interpretation of his dismissal re-\\nflecting on his private character.\\n(2) There is no evidence to show that Professor\\nRoss gave occasion for his dismissal by incompetence.", "height": "3355", "width": "2062", "jp2-path": "reportofcommitte02comm_0007.jp2"}, "8": {"fulltext": "On the contrary, President Jordan stated in a letter of\\nMay, 1900, that he was a careful thinker and a patient\\ninvestigator, a constant source of strength to the\\nUniversity and one of the best teachers, always just,\\nmoderate and fair.\\n(3) There is no evidence to show that Professor\\nRoss gave occasion for his dismissal by any unfaithful-\\nness in the discharge of his duties. On the contrary,\\nPresident Jordan stated in a letter of May, 1900, that\\nhe has been most loyal, accepting extra work and all\\nkinds of embarrassments without a word of complaint,\\nand that he was a wise, learned and noble man, one\\nof the most loyal and devoted of all the band at the\\nUniversity.\\n(4) There is no evidence to show that in his pub-\\nlished statement of November 14 Professor Ross vio-\\nlated any confidence reposed in him. On the contrary,\\nin a letter of December 24, President Jordan states I\\nwish after conversation with Dr. Ross to withdraw any-\\nthing I may have said implying that he had knowingly\\nused confidential material, or in any other way violated\\npersonal proprieties in making his statement.\\n(5) Concerning the point that Professor Ross gave\\noccasion for his dismissal by remarks derogatory to Sen-\\nator Stanford, your committee finds in a statement by\\nMr. C. F. Lumniis, in The Land of Sunshine, dated\\nChristmas, 1900, the following passage:\\nThe precise words Professor Ross may have used I\\ndo not know, but I do know that he has stated in his\\nclasses in Stanford many things which his students under-\\nstood to be reflections on Senator Stanford, and I know,\\nalso, that Mrs. Stanford firmly believes that he did slur\\nher husband s memory.\\nIn The Independent of February 7. 1901, Mr. Lum-\\nmis repeats this charge, quoting Mrs. Stanford s reasons\\nfor his dismissal He has called my husband\\na thief.", "height": "3355", "width": "2062", "jp2-path": "reportofcommitte02comm_0008.jp2"}, "9": {"fulltext": "The committee also finds that President Jordan in a\\nletter of November i6, 1900, states\\n]\\\\Ir. Keesling informs me that he and others of the\\nalumni have heard you in your classes condemn the means\\nby which Mr. Stanford became rich in such a way as to\\nmake it clearly a personal reference, and that some time\\nlast year Mrs. Stanford was told this by a prominent\\nalumnus, Mr. Crothers, if I understood correctly.\\nIn a letter of the next day, however. President Jor-\\ndan retracts this by saying: Mr. Crothers tells me that\\nhe has never mentioned the matter in question to Mrs.\\nStanford. I was not sure that I understood my inform-\\nant to say so.\\nProfessor Ross, moreover, at the time, unqualifiedly\\ndenied all such charges, and insisted that statements to\\nthis effect were a thorough-paced falsehood and a dis-\\ningenuous attempt to befog the real issue. In another\\nplace he says The charge from any quarter that I\\nhave ever made remarks derogatory to the character of\\nSenator Stanford is false absolutely without founda-\\ntion. In a subsequent letter he states: I have never\\nreferred in a derogatory way to Senator Stanford, nor\\nhave I reflected upon the manner in which he accumulat-\\ned his fortune. Both my sincere respect for the Senator\\nand my sense of the proprieties of my position forbade\\nanything of the kind.\\nMoreover, that this charge could not have been a\\ndetermining catise in President Jordan s acceptance of\\nProfessor Ross s resignation, is shown by the fact that\\nin a letter of November 16, two days after his dismissal,\\nPresident Jordan says, in reference to these charges\\nI never heard anything of the sort before.\\n(6) There is no evidence to show that in the opm-\\ninn of the President of the University, Professor Ross,\\nin his utterances on the silver question, on coolie immi-\\ngration, or on municipal ownership, overstepped the\\nlimits of professorial propriety. On the contrary. Presi-\\ndent Jordan stated in May. 1900, that his remarks on", "height": "3355", "width": "2062", "jp2-path": "reportofcommitte02comm_0009.jp2"}, "10": {"fulltext": "coolie immigtation and on municipal ownership were in\\naccord with the drift of public sentiment on those sulv\\njects, and that even on the silver question he never\\nstepped outside of the recognized rights of a professor.\\n(7) There is evidence to show:\\n(a) That Mrs. Stanford s objections to Pro-\\nfessor Ross were due, in part at all events, to his\\nformer attitude on the silver question, and to his\\nutterances on coolie immigration and on munic-\\nipal ownership and\\n(b) That while the dissatisfaction of Mrs.\\nStanford due to his former attitude on the silver\\nquestion antedated his utterances on coolie immi-\\ngration and municipal ownership, her dissatisfac-\\ntion was greatly increased by these utterances.\\nAs to (a). This is shown by the fact that President\\nJordan at first attempted to deter Mrs. Stanford from\\ntaking any action for such reasons, stating in a letter oi\\nMay, 1900: I feel sure that if his critics would come\\nforth and make their complaints to me in manly fashion\\nI could convince any of them that they have no real\\nground for complaint. President Jordan, moreover, in-\\nliinated that to dismiss him for such reasons would be hn-\\nproper in the extreme, for no graver charge can be made\\nagainst a University than that it denies its professors\\nfreedom of speech.\\nAs to (b). This is shown by the fact that not until\\nimmediately after delivery of the coolie immigration\\nspeech did Mrs. Stanford force Professor Ross s resigna-\\ntion, as well as by the fact that in a letter of June, kioo,\\nPresident Jordan stated: The matter of immigraiion\\nshe (Mrs. Stanford) takes most seriously.\\nIn the same letter, while Mrs. Stanford s objecti(Mi is\\ndeclared to be due to the fact that the reputation of the\\nUniversity for serious conservatism is impaired by the\\nhasty acceptance of social and political fads, it is added,\\nthat these local criticisms which weighed with Mrs.", "height": "3355", "width": "2062", "jp2-path": "reportofcommitte02comm_0010.jp2"}, "11": {"fulltext": "Stanford unfortunately are based on chance matters and\\nobiter dicta, not at all upon your serious work.\\nWe have liOt deemed it wise to publish in full the\\nletters upon which we have based our conclusions, but we\\nstand reads to publish them if such a course is necessary\\nto establish the truth in this matter.\\nWe are aware that owing to the failure of President\\nJordan to give definite replies to all our questions, there\\nmay be important facts with which we are unacquainted.\\nOn the other hand, we cannot but feel that a refusal to\\nfurnish specific information in a case of such importance\\nin which it is charged that the freedom of speech is at\\nstake is itself a fact of significance, which, to say the\\nleast, is much to be regretted.\\nAll of which is respectfully submitted.\\nEDWIN R. A. SELIGMAN. Professor of Political\\nEconomy and Finance, Columbia University.\\nHENRY W. FARNAM. Professor of Political Econ-\\nomy, Yale University.\\nHENRY B. GARDNER. Professor of Political Econ-\\nomy, Brown l niversity.\\nFebruary 20, looi.", "height": "3355", "width": "2062", "jp2-path": "reportofcommitte02comm_0011.jp2"}, "12": {"fulltext": "The undersigned have examined the evidence sub-\\nmitted by the above committee, and beheve that it justi-\\nfies the conclusions which they have drawn\\nHorace White, Editor of the Evening Post, New York.\\nJohn B. Clark, Columbia University.\\nHenry C. Adams, University of Michigan.\\nFrank W. Taussig, Harvard University.\\nRichard T. Ely, University of Wisconsin.\\nSimon N. Patten, University of Pennsylvania.\\nRichmond Mayo-Smith, Columbia University.\\nJohn C. Schwab, Yale University.\\nSidney Spier wood, Johns Hopkins University.\\nFranklin H. Giddings, Columbia University.\\nWilliam J. Ashley, Harvard University.\\nCharles H. Hull, Cornell University.\\nDavis R. Dewey, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.\\nHenry C. Emery, Yale University.\\nHenry R. Seager, University of Pennsylvania.", "height": "3355", "width": "2062", "jp2-path": "reportofcommitte02comm_0012.jp2"}, "13": {"fulltext": "APPENDIX.\\nDecember 30, 1900.\\nPresident Jordan^ Leland Stanford Junior University,\\nPalo Alto, Cal.\\nDear Sir In behalf of a considerable number of\\neconomists, recently assembled in Detroit and much in-\\nterested in the resignation of Professor Ross from the\\nLeland Stanford University, we venture to address you\\non the subject. We understand -from the public prints as\\nwell as from other sources, that Professor Ross was\\nasked to sever his connection with the University owing\\nto the loss of confidence in him by Mrs. Stanford, and\\nthat this loss of confidence was due primarily to the opin-\\nions expressed by him in a lecture on the subject of coolie\\nimmigration as well as to incidental remarks on the prob-\\nlem of municipal ownership.\\nMay we inquire whether, as it has been alleged in\\nsome of the Eastern journals, there are any other reasons\\nthan those mentioned for the resignation of Professor\\nRoss, and may we hope that, if such other reasons exist,\\nyou may be disposed to communicate them to us Many\\nuniversity men have been led to believe that in this case\\nthe legitimate freedom of thought without which no\\nprogress in science is possible has been discouraged. As\\nthis is a matter which concerns not a single university,\\nbut the interests of scholarship all over the country, we\\nbelieve that we are not overstepping the bounds of pro-\\npriety in asking information which will enable univer-\\nsity teachers to form a just opinion on the merits of the\\ncase.", "height": "3355", "width": "2062", "jp2-path": "reportofcommitte02comm_0013.jp2"}, "14": {"fulltext": "lO\\nWe desire to add that Dr. Ross is neither the instiga-\\ntor of this letter nor aware of its contents.\\nVery truly yours,\\nEdwin R. A. Seligman,\\nColumbia University.\\nHenry W. Farnam^\\nYale University.\\nHenry B. Gardner,\\nBrown University.\\nLeland Stanford Junior University,\\nStanford University, Cal., Jan. 7, 1901.\\nProf. Edwin R. A. Seligman, Columbia University,\\nNew York City.\\nMy Dear Sir: In response to your kind letter of\\nDecember 30th, permit me to say that in view of the im-\\nportance of the matter I have referred the contents of\\nyour letter to a committee of three of our professors,\\nVice-President J. C. Branner, Dr. J. M. Stillman and Dr.\\nC. H. Gilbert. They are in possession of the facts and\\nare at liberty to answer any questions which your com-\\nmittee may desire to ask. For reasons which will readily\\nappear it has not been deemed advisable for us to state\\nthe reasons why Dr. Ross was dismissed. His statement\\nto the press does not assign any of the true reasons.\\nVery truly yours,\\nDavid Jordan,\\nPresident.", "height": "3355", "width": "2062", "jp2-path": "reportofcommitte02comm_0014.jp2"}, "15": {"fulltext": "II\\nLeland Stanford Junior University,\\nJan. 14, 1901.\\nProfessor Edwin R. A. Seligman.\\nProfessor Henry W. Farnam.\\nProfessor Henry B. Gardner.\\nDear Sirs\\nYour letter of December 30th addressed to Presi-\\ndent Jordan has been referred by him to us for reply.\\nIn your letter you say We understand from the\\npublic prints as well as from other sources that Professor\\nRoss was asked to sever his connection with the Univer-\\nsity owing to loss of confidence in him by Mrs. Stanford,\\nand that this loss of confidence was due primarily to the\\nopinions expressed by him in a lecture on the subject of\\ncoolie immigration as well as to incidental remarks on the\\nproblem of municipal ownership.\\nIn reply we beg to say that the dissatisfaction of the\\nUniversity management with Professor Ross antedated\\nhis utterances on the topics you refer to. His removal\\nwas not due primarily to what he published, said or\\nthought in regard to coolie immigration or in regard to\\nmunicipal ownership.\\nWe can assure you furthermore that in our opinion\\nhis removal cannot be interpreted as an interference with\\nfreedom of speech or thought within the proper and rea-\\nsonable meaning of that expression.\\nThese statements are made with a full knowledge of\\nthe facts of the case.\\nVery truly yours.\\nJ. C. Branner,\\nJ. M. Stillman,\\nC. H. Gilbert.", "height": "3355", "width": "2062", "jp2-path": "reportofcommitte02comm_0015.jp2"}, "16": {"fulltext": "12\\nJanuary 30, 1901.\\nPresident Jordan,\\nLeland Stanford University,\\nPalo Alto, California\\nDear Sir\\nWe beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of\\nJanuary 7th, as well as the letter of your committee of\\nthree, of January 14th.\\nYou state in your letter that you are ready to answer\\nall questions. May we venture to put the following\\nI. In the committee s letter of January 14th, it is\\nstated that the dissatisfaction of the University Manage-\\nment with Professor Ross antedated his utterances on the\\ntopics you refer to. How can this dissatisfaction of the\\nUniversity management be made to agree with the state-\\nment of the President, speaking for himself and the facul-\\nty, and quoted in the public prints of November 14th as\\nfollows\\na. Extract from a letter from Professor Ross to Presi-\\ndent Jordan It was a pleasure, however, to learn from\\nyou of the unqualified terms in which you have ex-\\npressed to her (Mrs. Stanford) your high opinion of\\nmy work and your complete confidence in me as a teach-\\ner, a scientist, and a man.\\nb. Quotation from a letter from President Jordan to Pro-\\nfessor Ross I wish to express once more the high\\nesteem in which your work as a student and a teacher,\\nas well as your character as a man. is held by your col-\\nleagues.\\n2. In 5^our letter of January 7th, you say His\\n(Professor Ross s) statement to the press does not assign\\nany of the true reasons. If the speeches on coolie immi-\\ngration and municipal ownership did not constitute any\\nof the reasons for his dismissal, why was the dissatisfac-\\ntion, which in your judgment antedated these speeches,\\nnot manifested until immediately after the delivery of the\\nsame? Why was the reappointment so dubious and tardy", "height": "3355", "width": "2062", "jp2-path": "reportofcommitte02comm_0016.jp2"}, "17": {"fulltext": "13\\nwhile Professor Ross had no intimation of his possible\\nnon-appointment till May i8?\\n3. In saying that Professor Ross does not assign\\nany of the true reasons for his dismissal, do we under-\\nstand you to deny the truth of Professor Ross s pub-\\nlished statement, containing quotations from your re-\\nmarks to him\\na. That he (Dr. Jordan) had heard from her (Mrs.\\nStanford) just after my address on cooHe immigra-\\ntion.\\nb. That quite unexpectedly to him (President Jordan)\\nMrs. Stanford had shown herself greatly displeased with\\nme (Professor Ross).\\nc. That he (President Jordan) was profoundly dis-\\ntressed at the idea of dismissing a scientist for utter-\\nances within the scientist s own field.\\nd. That he (President Jordan) made earnest representa-\\ntions to Mrs. Stanford.\\n4. What are the real reasons for the dismissal of\\nDr. Ross? In your letter of January 7th, you say For\\nreasons which will readily appear, it has not been deemed\\nadvisable for us to state the reasons why Dr. Ross was\\ndismissed. Will you pardon us for saying that we fail\\nreadily to recognize any such reasons? If the reasons\\nare that you fear to injure the personal reputation of Pro-\\nfessor Ross, may we venture to suggest that nothing that\\nyou could do would be more calculated to injure Dr. Ross\\nthan the insinuation that there are some secret reasons\\nwhich cannot be divulged. It is just because some such\\ninnuendoes have been printed in the papers that our com-\\nmittee addressed itself to you, in order to ascertain the\\ntrue state of aflfairs.\\nWhile we regret to prolong this correspondence, you\\nwill readily see that unless we can give the members of\\nthe American Economic Association some explicit rea-\\nsons for Professor Ross s dismissal other than those as-\\nsigned by him, they will naturally adhere to the opinion", "height": "3355", "width": "2062", "jp2-path": "reportofcommitte02comm_0017.jp2"}, "18": {"fulltext": "14\\nbased apon the statements first made in the pubHc press.\\nA mere denial of the truth of the statements made by him\\nwill not be apt to satisfy gentlemen who are not willing\\nto believe that any of the parties concerned in the ques-\\ntion would intentionally make a false statement, and facts\\nalone will enable them to reconcile assertions that would\\notherwise seem contradictory. It is for that reason that\\nwe venture again to express the hope tliat a more explicit\\nanswer may be given to our questions.\\nVery truly yours,\\nEdwin R. A. Seligman,\\nHenry W. Farnam,\\nHenry B. Gardner.\\nLeland Stanford University, Cal.,\\nFeb. 7, 1901.\\nProfessors\\nEdwin R. A. SeligmaNj\\nHenry W. Farnam,\\nHenry B. Gardner.\\nGentlemen\\nYour letter of January 30th is at hand asking further\\ninformation as to the reasons for the dismissal of Pro-\\nfessor Ross. When I expressed my willingness to an-\\nswer further questions I did not mean to indicate that I\\nwould enter into any circumstantial description of events\\nleading to or following from Professor Ross s dismissal.\\nNor do I consider it expedient or proper to go into a dis-\\ncussion of extracts from my letters or conversations or\\nof my statements or alleged statements, or those of others,\\nas published in the newspapers. There are, however, cer-\\ntain assurances which it is within the privilege of the pub-\\nlic to ask, and which it is my desire to furnish, that the", "height": "3355", "width": "2062", "jp2-path": "reportofcommitte02comm_0018.jp2"}, "19": {"fulltext": "IS\\npublic may be assisted in forming a judgment as to the\\nposition of the University upon important questions. It\\nseems to me that I shall answer these questions best by\\ncertain plain statements which involve the important facts\\nconcerning the University. It will be necessary for you\\nto assume my knowledge of all the facts, also that the in-\\nterpretation herewith presented is authoritative from the\\nUniversity standpoint.\\nFirst Professor Ross was not dismissed on account\\nof his views on Oriental immigration nor on account of\\nhis opinions on any economic question.\\nSecond Professor Ross was dismissed because in\\nthe judgment of the University authorities he was not the\\nproper man for the place he held. The responsibiHty for\\nthe correctness of this judgment belongs to the Univer-\\nsity authorities and to them alone.\\nThird No ground exists for any interpretation of\\nhis dimissal reflecting on his private character, of which\\nyour letter seems to imply a fear.\\nFourth The judgment that Professor Ross was not\\nthe proper man for the place he held is not incompatible\\nwith my appreciation of many good qualities he pos-\\nsesses, nor with my wishes or efforts at any time to fur-\\nther his prospects. I have been neither ignorant of his\\nprofessional shortcomings nor inappreciative of his good\\nqualities. Of such appreciation Professor Ross has him-\\nself adduced several expressions from my letters.\\nIn the hope that you may find in the above a sub-\\nstantial answer to the questions involved in your inquiries,\\nI remain,\\nVery truly yours,\\nDavid L. Jordan.", "height": "3355", "width": "2062", "jp2-path": "reportofcommitte02comm_0019.jp2"}, "20": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3355", "width": "2062", "jp2-path": "reportofcommitte02comm_0020.jp2"}, "21": {"fulltext": "MAR 25 1901", "height": "3355", "width": "2062", "jp2-path": "reportofcommitte02comm_0021.jp2"}, "22": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3355", "width": "2062", "jp2-path": "reportofcommitte02comm_0022.jp2"}}