A STATEMENT 
 
 IN RESPECT TO THE 
 
 United States Naval Observatory 
 
 AND 
 
 ITS ORGANIZATION. 
 
 PREPARED BY 
 
 LEWIS BOSS, 
 
 i( 
 
 Director of Dudley Observatory, Albany, N. Y. 
 
 1891. 
 
 ALBANY : 
 
 CHAS. VAN BENTHUYSEN & SONS, 
 1891. 
 
This Statement in reference to the Naval Observatory was prepared some months 
 ago, substantially in its present form. Its length seemed to render publication inad- 
 visable ; and it was not originally intended for that purpose. The illegibility of the 
 manuscript copies, together with expressions of opinion from friends that a some- 
 what detailed statement of the principles and evidence upon which astronomers base, 
 their views in regard to this question might find some readers who would deem it 
 more satisfactory than a mere dogmatic summary, has led the author to submit this 
 document for publication. This he has been able to do through the voluntary con- 
 tributions of American astronomers, to whom his acknowledgments are due. 
 
 At the same time and while the author is indebted to astronomers for many 
 valuable suggestions he, alone, is responsible for any errors of fact or opinion which 
 this Statement may contain. 
 
 Albany, N. Y., December, 1891. 
 
 M67214 
 
TABLE OK CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 INTRODUCTION : 
 
 Cost of the new Naval Observatory . . ... . . 4 . & 
 
 The Function of a National Observatory . . . 5- 
 
 SECTION I. Opinions of Public Men in Reference to a Government Observa- 
 tory . . ... , . . . . . . . . 7 
 
 SECTION II. Origin of the Naval Observatory . .... . . 10 
 
 Appointment of the^First Superintendent . . . . . . .13 
 
 SECTION III. Naval and Marine Observatories in other Countries . . 15 
 Distinction between Marine and Astronomical Observatories . . .16 
 
 SECTION IV. National Astronomical Observatories in other Countries . . 17 
 
 The Imperial Observatory of Russia, at Pulkowa . . . <. . 18 
 
 The Royal Observatory at Greenwich . f . . , .. ...... . . . 20 
 
 Ovservatory at the Cape of Good Hope . . . . . .22 
 
 The National Observatory, at Paris 23 
 
 Observatories Supported by the German Government . . . .24 
 
 The Argentine National Observatory, at Cordoba ..... 26 
 
 SECTION V. The Scientific Record of the United States Naval Observatory . 27 
 
 Opinions on the Zone Work 29 
 
 The Naval Observatory in 1861 and Later 30 
 
 Work with the Great Telescope 32 
 
 Astronomical Researches by the Professors ...... 33 
 
 Respects in which the Observatory has Failed .... 35 
 
 Opinion of the Superintendent of the Naval Observatory upon its Recent 
 
 Scientific Record 37 
 
 SECTION VI. Naval Officers as Astronomers 38 
 
 SECTION VII. Reasons why an Astronomer should Direct Astronomical Work, 
 
 and why Others must Fail . . 43 
 
 The Superintendent must Choose the Field of Work .... 43 
 
 The Direct Supervision of Work ...... .45 
 
 The Responsibility of Providing Instrumental Equipment . . . 46. 
 
 Editorial Duties of the Superintendent ....... 49 
 
 Advantages of a Long Term of Service in the Superintendency . . 50 
 
 Objections to Skilled Superintendence Considered 51 
 
 The Question of Comparative Expenditure 54 
 
 SECTION VIII. Reform needed in the System of Employment at the Observa- 
 tory . .... 56 
 
 CONCLUSION . 58 
 
 Division of Civil and Military Duties ....... 59 
 
 The efforts of Astronomers to secure Reform in the Method of Superin- 
 tendence at the Naval Observatory 5 
 
 NOTE A. Report of the Committee on Naval Affairs, in 1842 . . . .64 
 
 NOTE B. Resources of the Naval Observatory since July 1, 1867 . . 66- 
 
Within the past decade the Government of llie United Sfates has 
 been making provision for an astronomical observatory, which in cost 
 is scarcely to be surpassed anywhere in the world. Not including some 
 minor items, the appropriations for this purpose thus far made are : 
 
 For purchase of site $75,000 00 
 
 For construction of principal buildings 400,000 00 
 
 For other constructions, alteration, repair and 
 
 remounting of instruments, removal, etc 136,689 00 
 
 Total for the new Naval Observatory $611,689 00 
 
 In addition to these sums, the Naval Observatory was already in 
 possession of instruments, books and furniture, the original cost of 
 which was not less than $100,000. The great equatorial telescope cost 
 $50,000, less than twenty years ago. The real value of all this 
 apparatus for the purpose of removal to the new observatory cannot be 
 regarded as less than $50,000. This brings up the cost of the new 
 Naval Observatory to not less than $650,000. But when the current 
 appropriation of $136,689 shall have been exhausted, the new observa- 
 tory cannot by any means be regarded as completely equipped. Tak- 
 ing as a basis the estimate of $294,487.29, officially submitted to Con- 
 gress at its last session (51st Cong., 2d session, H. R. Ex. Doc., Nos. 
 7J and 147), about $160,000 more will be needed to carry out the plans 
 which have been made. This would raise the total cost of the plant for 
 the new Naval Observatory to more than $800,000. 
 
 The sum already appropriated is larger than that which has been 
 devoted to a like purpose for any national observatory in the world. 
 The Russian Imperial Observatory at Pulkowa, has always, heretofore, 
 been regarded as the most remarkable example of the generosity of 
 governments toward astronomy. It has an equipment of unexampled 
 perfection, and is provided with quarters for all the employees. The 
 original cost in 1845 was 2,100,000 paper roubles, usually estimated to be 
 about equivalent to $340,000. Extraordinary additions to the equip- 
 ment in recent years, including the astro-physical laboratory, as well as 
 the thirty-inch telescope, the largest, or most powerful, in possession of 
 any national observatory, may possibly have added $200,000 to the cost 
 of plant. 
 
 The cost of the new Naval Observatory is large enough to have built, 
 -equipped, and to have furnished funds for the perpetual endowment of 
 two such institutions as the Bonn Observatory, renowned for the great 
 number and lasting value of its contributions to astronomical science 
 throughout the past fifty years'. Obviously the people of the United 
 
States are justified in anticipating important results to follow this large 
 expenditure. 
 
 But it is not simply in relation to the new observatory that Congress 
 ha-s shown iis . liberality. If we include extraordinary expenditures, 
 more than $2,000,000 have been appropriated for the benefit of the 
 Observatory during the past twenty-five years. Excluding these, there 
 has been expended for current maintenance of the Naval Observatory, 
 an average of $56,000 annually, during the same period. (Appended 
 note B.) With two or three exceptions, this sum is very much greater 
 than has ever been devoted to the like maintenance of any other 
 observatory in the world. Even excluding the salaries of the superin- 
 tendent and other Iftie officers of the Navy, the annual expenditure has 
 averaged very nearly $41,000. (Appended note B.) The respective 
 amounts for the present fiscal year are materially greater than these 
 averages. 
 
 Large as these sums are, they are deemed inadequate for the future. 
 In his annual report for the year ending June 30, 1890, the Superintend- 
 ent says : 
 
 " It is scarcely necessary to add that, when the new Naval Observa- 
 tory is completed and equipped, the force of astronomers and assistant 
 astronomers will have to be materially increased if the observatory is to 
 be worthy of our great and progressive country." 
 
 These expenditures very naturally invite the careful scrutiny of 
 those who are conversant with the history and present state of 
 astronomy ; they must sooner or later attract the serious attention of 
 Congress ; and they warrant the inquiry, in behalf of the people of the 
 United States, by those who are capable of judging of the answer, as to 
 what precautions have been and are to be taken to secure a return in 
 results corresponding in importance to this more than imperial munifi- 
 cence. If the money has been judiciously and economically expended ; 
 if there is promise of adequate scientific return, and if the nation can 
 justly be proud of its observatory, it is not likely that the people will 
 seriously object to this large expenditure. It is consonant with the 
 growing preeminence of our country in wealth and power, to desire to 
 have the best equipped and most useful observatory in the world. 
 
 What object is this expenditure designed to subserve ? Is the whole, 
 or any great part of it necessary in relation to the practical operation of 
 the Navy ? If it is, then the propriety of a naval administration for it 
 is more easily understood. It will be shown, however, that there is 
 absolutely no excuse for more than a small fraction of the appropriations 
 which have been made for the Naval Observatory, if practical service to 
 the Navy is alone considered ; that such an establishment as this has 
 been, and as the new observatory is evidently designed to be, is not 
 needed by the Navy ; and that naval officers in common with astrono- 
 mers, have regarded it as an institution maintained to promote the 
 
national interest in astronomical investigation. Supposing the latter 
 view to be correct, it is possible that a question may arise as to the best 
 form of administration for a national observatory which is essentially 
 astronomical. It might be supposed at first sight that nothing could 
 be more natural than that an astronomer should be chosen to manage 
 an astronomical observatory. Perhaps the majority of people, left to 
 their own common sense view of the subject, would resent the idea that 
 there could be two opinions about it, and would look with some degree 
 of impatience upon a formal argument to prove that an astronomer 
 ought to be selected for the chief direction of astronomical work, as too 
 much like an attempt to prove an axiom. This is an embarrassment 
 which the advocates of reform in the administration of the Naval 
 Observatory have to encounter. Yet it appears to be necessary, since 
 the authorities of Government have practically endorsed the opposite 
 view, though there is no evidence that the merits of the question have 
 heretofore received, either from Congress or from executive authority, 
 the attention which its importance demands.* The Superintendent of 
 the Naval Observatory has always been a line officer of the Navy. It 
 has been held by officers of the Navy on duty at the Observatory though 
 probably not by naval officers at large that they can conduct its 
 affairs with more propriety and efficiency than would be possible were 
 the chief control exercised by a civilian astronomer. On the other hand, 
 astronomers maintain that the Government observatory should be placed 
 in charge of an astronomer ; that the conduct of a government observa- 
 tory by a man who is not an astronomer of experience is an anomaly 
 without relevant precedent in the history of astronomy ; that it has no 
 warrant in a discussion of the abstract principles which apply to the 
 case ; and that it finds no justification in the results which have actually 
 been produced under this form of administration by the Naval Observa- 
 tory itself. Naval officers at the Observatory have hitherto ignored the 
 force of universal precedent, as they may do if they have succeeded in 
 establishing another of greater weight ; they contest the argument from 
 abstract principles ; they have declared at various times that scientific 
 results fully justify the form of administration adopted for the Naval 
 Observatory. 
 
 THE FUNCTION OP A NATIONAL OBSERVATORY. 
 
 * 
 
 It would be idle at this late day to urge the support of national ob- 
 servatories on the ground of practical utility alone. Their practical 
 utility is great, but it is secondary and incidental. The time has come 
 
 * Since this was written, Hon. Benjamin F. Tracy, Secretary of the Navy, in 
 his annual report for 1891, has recommended to Congress "the adoption of legisla- 
 tion which shall enable the President to appoint, at a sufficient salary, without 
 restriction, from persons either within or outside of the naval service, the ablest and 
 most accomplished astronomer who can be found for the position of Superintendent" 
 of the Naval Observatory at Washington 
 
6 
 
 when national observatories must rely for support almost wholly upon 
 the more powerful argument of scientific utility. It does happen that 
 there are departments of astronomy which have an important relation 
 to commercial utility. Even in respect to them, at the present day, the 
 necessity for the great labor and refinement which is practiced upon 
 them arises almost wholly from theoretical and scientific needs, rather 
 than from those which are purely practical ; and at the same time, un- 
 less this refinement of methods and work is practiced at any given ob- 
 servatory, its results will possess no value in comparison with those 
 which are elsewhere produced. 
 
 There are also other important fields of astronomical investigation, 
 which do not pretend to minister to the merely physical needs of man- 
 kind, but which must, nevertheless, usually be cared for by governments. 
 To provide for that class of astronomical researches, wherein constantly 
 recurring operations must be faithfully maintained, year after year, for 
 centuries, perhaps, and in which definite deductions can be reached only 
 through the accumulation of a great multitude of identical or similar 
 measurements and calculations, where the interest must be maintained 
 at high tension through years of toil often extending beyond the life- 
 time of a single individual, this is the work of a national observatory; 
 it is the world's work and must be done. Ultimately, these depart- 
 ments of astronomical research yield the most comprehensive and im- 
 pressive truths known to science. Individual workers in astronomy 
 having small means usually prefer to engage in work where the attain- 
 ment of a definite result is not too much imperilled by the accidents 
 always possible to an individual life. They must also confine them- 
 selves to undertakings which there is a reasonable prospect of carrying 
 out with limited assistance. National observatories are not maintained 
 altogether to serve the personal tastes of individual astronomers. They 
 are public institutions, subject to public criticism as well as to praise, 
 arid established to satisfy the most general demands of the world for 
 astronomical information of indispensable general interest in depart- 
 ments not likely to receive adequate attention at private observatories. 
 
 Hence the directors of nearly all great national observatories are re- 
 quired to report their proceedings to a board of visitors, or commission 
 of astronomers, whose business it is to see that the observatory subject to 
 their inspection is properly and efficiently meeting a public demand. 
 In this as in other matters it is the function of Government to do forlhe 
 people what ought to be done, and what the people cannot so well do 
 for themselves in their unorganized capacity. This claim for astronomy 
 has been advocated by great statesmen in all times ; and it is now prac- 
 tically acknowledged by every civilized government in the world. 
 
 Well understanding these facts, the friends of astronomy in this 
 country have always been solicitous for the proper conduct of the only 
 
astronomical observatory which is supported by our Government. They 
 believe that its most important function is discharged when it sustains 
 and enlarges the intellectual dignity and prestige of the nation. They 
 believe that Americans are at least the equals of any other nationality 
 in the natural capacity for successful scientific investigation. The ob- 
 servatory supported by the Government must stand before the world as 
 largely representing American astronomy. Astronomers, therefore, 
 consider it an entirely warrantable exercise of the privileges of citizen- 
 ship, when they respectfully urge that the authorities of Government 
 give serious and immediate attention to the question whether an estab- 
 lishment, such as the Naval Observatory aims to be, is more properly 
 directed through military organization under the superintendence of a 
 naval officer, than it is likely to be under a civilian organization with 
 direction by an astronomer. 
 
 The construction of a new observatory, on an unexampled scale of ex- 
 pediture renders the present a peculiarly appropriate time for an im- 
 partial examination of this question by those with whom the decision 
 must rest. 
 
 The statement which follows is designed to present the claims of 
 American astronomers in relation to the administration of the Govern- 
 ment observatory through arguments based upon competent evidence. 
 To a great extent this evidence can be drawn from official sources. In 
 regard to the statements of scientific facts and opinions, it is believed 
 that every one of them is susceptible of verification by the published 
 records, and by the united testimony of the most competent astronomers. 
 
 SECTION I. OPINIONS OF PUBLIC MEN DURING THE FIRST HALF OF 
 THIS CENTURY IN REFERENCE TO A GOVERNMENT OBSERVATORY. 
 
 It becomes necessary to look somewhat carefully into the origin of 
 the Naval Observatory ; since this origin is often cited in defense of the 
 present system. It is necessary to determine, first, what sort of an in- 
 stitution the early advocates of a national observatory for this country 
 intended, and, secondly, whether or not, Congress with due deliberation 
 placed an astronomical observatory in the hands of naval officers. 
 
 The Naval Observatory derived its existence from the law of 1842, 
 which authorized the construction of a new building termed the " Depot 
 of Charts and Instruments." The public documents contain much evi- 
 dence that the establishment of a national observatory had been favor- 
 ably considered by executive authority and by committees of Congress 
 at various times in the early history of the country.* A few citations 
 will suffice to illustrate the character of the whole. 
 
 *The late Professor Nourse, U. S. N., in his " Memoir of the Founding- and 
 Progress of the United States Naval Observatory " (Washing-ton Astronomical Ob- 
 servations for 1871, Appendix IV.) has collated citations upon this subject from the 
 public documents of that period. 
 
8 
 
 During the administration of President Madison, the establishment 
 of a first meridian and of an astronomical observatory was advocated. 
 The question had been referred to Mr. Monroe, Secretary of State, for 
 an opinion. He reported, July 3, 1812, advocating the proposition and 
 emphasizing the advantages to science. Among other things in refer- 
 ence to a first meridian for America, he said : 
 
 "For this purpose an observatory would be of essential utility. It is 
 only in such an institution, to be founded by the public, that all the 
 necessary implements are likely to be collected together ; that systematic 
 observations can be made for any length of time ; and that the public 
 can be made secure of the results of the labors of scientific men. In 
 favor of such an institution, it is sufficient to remark that every nation 
 which has established a first meridian has also established an observa- 
 tory." (Am. Misc. State Papers, Vol. II., p. 194.) 
 
 The committee of Congress to which this was referred, of which Hon. 
 S. L. Mitchell was chairman and Hon. John C. Calhoun a member, 
 reported on Jan. 20, 1813, a bill for a national observatory, and in 
 support of it said among other things : 
 
 " The most ready way of obtaining the information they desired, 
 from noting the phenomena of the heavens, is by the establishment of 
 an observatory. This may be erected at the city of Washington. By 
 such an institution, means may be adopted, not only to fix the first 
 meridian, but to ascertain a great number of other astronomical facts 
 and occurrences through the vigilance of a complete astronomer." (Am. 
 Misc. State Papers, Vol. II., p. 197.) 
 
 This is the idea of a true national observatory in a nut-shell. A 
 memorial from Mr. William Lambert, an amateur astronomer of great 
 ability who had been employing his leisure to determine the longitude 
 of the Capitol, was the occasion of these reports. At a later date, Feb. 
 25, 1824, President Monroe transmitted to Congress- another and more 
 elaborate memorial by Mr. Lambert, who had meanwhile resigned from 
 the Pension Office, to be employed on this longitude work for the 
 Government. 
 
 In his first message to Congress, in 1825, President John Quincy 
 Adams urged the establishment of a national observatory in these 
 words : 
 
 " Connected with the establishment of a university, or separate from 
 it, might be undertaken the erection of an astronomical observatory, 
 with provision for the support of an astronomer, to be in constant at- 
 tendance on the phenomena of the heavens, and for the periodical pub- 
 lication of his observations. It is with no feeling of pride as an 
 American, that the remark may be made, that, on the comparatively 
 small territorial surface of Europe, there are existing more than one 
 hundred and thirty of these light-houses of the skies ; while throughout 
 the whole American hemisphere there is not one. If we reflect a mo- 
 ment upon the discoveries which in the last four centuries have been 
 made in the physical constitution of the universe by means of these 
 buildings and of obseryers stationed in them, shall we doubt of their 
 
9 
 
 usefulness to every nation ? And while scarcely a year passes over our 
 heads without bringing some new astronomical discovery to light, which 
 we must fain receive at second hand from Europe, are we not cutting 
 ourselves off from the means of returning light for light, while we have 
 neither observatory nor observer upon our half of the globe, and the 
 earth revolves in perpetual darkness to our unsearching eyes ?" 
 
 The select committee, to which this recommendation was referred, 
 offered a bill "to establish an observatory in the District of Columbia," 
 and in support of it adopted a report prepared by General Macomb, 
 Chief of Engineers, in which occurs the following : 
 
 " The astronomer ought to be independent in the performance of his 
 duties, but accountable for the results, for his industry, arid the correct- 
 ness of his observations and calculations. The results of his scientific 
 labors should be given to the world, in order that they might be duly 
 examined by astronomers of different countries. * . * * Foreign as 
 well as domestic criticism would thus stimulate the astronomer to 
 greater vigilance and attention. * * * As an astronomer with the 
 requisite talents and qualifications would be obliged to devote all his 
 time and attention to the duties of his station, it is not to be expected 
 that a fit person could be procured for this situation without the com- 
 pensation of a liberal salary." (H. R., Report No. 124, 19th Cong., 1st 
 session.) 
 
 The committee, through the report of General Macomb, also recom- 
 mends that, " as soon as circumstances would permit, a nautical almanac, 
 or astronomical ephemeris should be prepared and published for the use 
 of the Navy and commercial marine." 
 
 The Secretary of the Navy, on March 18, 1830, in reply to a letter 
 from the chairman of the House Committee on Naval Affairs wrote: 
 
 "As far as I have been able to obtain information on the subject, an 
 astronomical observatory would be a desirable establishment in the 
 United States for the following reasons : 
 
 1st. In a national point of view, as it would furnish the means of 
 making such observations as would enable astronomers to ascertain or 
 calculate the positions of the heavenly bodies at any time without being 
 dependent on other nations for the same ; and would be, moreover, a 
 fixed point to whose meridian (commonly called a first meridian when 
 used for geographical purposes) terrestrial objects may, with certainty, 
 be referred, as far as respects their longitudes. 
 
 2d. It would, furthermore, be desirable in a scientific point of view, 
 as it would present the means of comparing certain astronomical results, 
 for the purpose of determining the figure of the earth and improving 
 theories relative to the motions of the planetary bodies.' (Nourse, 
 " Memoir on the Founding," etc., p. 12.) 
 
 In this communication the practical side of the scientific duties of a 
 Government observatory are outlined. 
 
 John Quincy Adams, chairman of a select committee of the House of 
 -Representatives, in his second report on the Smithson Fund, March 5, 
 
 1840, says : 
 
 " The express object of an observatory is the increase of knowledge 
 by new discovery. * * * There is no richer field of science opened 
 
10 
 
 to the exploration of man in search of knowledge than astronomical 
 observation ; nor is there, in the opinion of this committee, any duty 
 more impressively incumbent on all human governments than that of 
 furnishing means, and facilities, and rewards, to those who devote the 
 labors of their lives to the indefatigable industry, the unceasing vigi- 
 lance, and the bright intelligence indispensable to success in these 
 pursuits. (H. R. Report, No. 277, 27th Cong., 1st session.) 
 
 In 1842, Mr. Adams reiterated his views in support of the establish- 
 ment of a national observatory in his third report on the Smithsoii Fund, 
 together with a bill for that purpose. (H. R. Rep. No. 587, bill 386 ; 
 27th Cong., 2d session.) Notwithstanding the bitter political animosi- 
 ties of the time, the influence of Mr. Adams (most vigorously exerted in 
 1826, 1838, 1840, 1$42 and 1844) contributed more than any other to 
 prepare official sentiment for the establishment of an astronomical 
 observatory by the Government. This fact is clearly recognized by 
 Lieut. M. F. Maury, the first Superintendent of the Naval Observatory, 
 in a letter to Mr. Adams, dated Nov. 17, 1847. Lieutenant Maury says : 
 
 " Your efforts to advance in America the cause of practical astronomy 
 are known to the world. The lively interest which you continue to 
 manifest in all that concerns the observatory, causes you to be con- 
 sidered as one of its most active and zealous friends. It is proud of the 
 relation. * * * As a subject for congratulation with one who has 
 borne so conspicuous a part in establishing a Naval and National 
 Observatory in this country, permit me to call your attention," etc. 
 (Southern Literary Messenger, Vol. XIV., p. 4.) 
 
 At the same time it must be borne in mind that so late as June, 
 1844, when the buildings and instruments of the Naval Observatory 
 were nearly ready for use, Mr. Adams did not then consider the new 
 "House for the Depot of Charts" as suited to fulfil the object which he 
 and other friends of a national astronomical observatory had in view ; 
 for, on June 7, 1844, as chairman of a select committee, in a report on 
 the disposition of the Smithsoii funds, accompanied with a bill, the 
 establishment of a national observatory was specified as one of the ob- 
 jects to be provided for from the funds arising from the Smithson bequest. 
 It was recommended that the accumulated interest, $300,000, be set 
 apart for building, equipment and endowment. He was not then 
 aware of the extent to which a simple bill to provide a house for the 
 depot might be construed as conferring authority for the establishment 
 of one of the most lavishly supported astronomical institutions of modern 
 times. 
 
 SECTION II. THE ORIGIN OP THE NAVAL OBSERVATORY. 
 The history of the immediate official acts which led to the organiza- 
 tion of the Naval Observatory can be related in a brief space. Since 
 1830, the Navy had occupied a small rented house in Washington as a 
 depot of charts, that is to say, a place in which maps, charts, chro- 
 nometers and other nautical appliances could be stored arid from which, 
 
11 
 
 from time to time, they could be issued as needed. Connected with the 
 house was a small temporary structure, or observing room, which served 
 the purpose of sheltering some unimportant astronomical instruments 
 that were chiefly employed for the purpose of rating the chronometers. 
 These in the year 1837 were placed in charge of Lieutenant Gilliss, 
 who immediately developed an interest in astronomical pursuits, for 
 which the observations, deemed advisable to be made in connection 
 with the exploring expedition of Lieutenant Wilkes in 1838 and subse- 
 quent years, afforded a welcome opportunity. Lieutenant Grilliss proved 
 to be a remarkably assiduous observer who, in his scientific enthusiasm, 
 accomplished far more than was called for by the letter of his instruc- 
 tions. With time and practice he gained facility in the use of the 
 simple instruments at his command, and, no doubt, it is chiefly to his 
 influence that the. plan for what was to become a Naval Observatory 
 was proposed and executed. In his Annual Report for 1841, the Secre- 
 tary of the Navy, acting upon the report of the Navy Commissioners 
 as to the inadequacy of the then existing office for charts and instru- 
 ments, said : 
 
 " Permit me to express my entire approval of the suggestion of the 
 Commissioners, in relation to a suitable depot of charts and instruments 
 belonging to the Navy. These have been procured at great labor and 
 expense, and are indispensable in the naval service. The small expendi- 
 ture which will be necessary to preserve them in a condition, always 
 ready for use, is not worth a moment's consideration when compared 
 with the great purposes they are designed to answer. They are a nec- 
 essary part of a naval establishment worthy of the present and grow- 
 ing greatness of our country." (Ex. Doc., 27th Cong., 2d, session, Vol. 
 1, p. 367.) 
 
 It appears likely from the interesting report of Lieutenant Gilliss of 
 February 7, 1845 (Senate Doc., No. 114; 28th Cong., 2d session), that 
 not much attention would have been paid to this proposal but for the 
 personal exertions with members of both Houses of Congress by Lieu- 
 tenant Gilliss himself. The bill which finally passed on the last day of 
 the session (approved August 31. 1842). reads : 
 
 "An act to authorize the construction of a depot of charts and instru- 
 ments of the Navy of the United States. Be it enacted" etc. 
 
 " That the Secretary of the Navy be, and he is hereby, authorized to 
 contract for the building of a suitable house for a depot of charts and 
 instruments of the Navy of the United States, on a plan not exceeding 
 in cost twenty-five thousand dollars." [Section 2 appropriates $10,000 
 for the purposes of this act, and section 3 makes provisions for the site.] 
 
 Under the provisions of this law, Lieutenant Gilliss, acting under the 
 orders of the Secretary of the Navy, proceeded to construct and equip 
 the present Naval Observatory. 
 
 This was not quite all. The bill which was introduced in the House, 
 March 15, 1842, and which was identical in terms with the Senate bill 
 that finally became a law, was accompanied with a report by the Com- 
 
12 
 
 mittee on Naval Affairs, Hon. Francis Mallory, chairman. (H. R. No. 
 449 ; 27th Cong., 2d session. See also appended Note A.) 
 
 Mr. Mallory appears to have warmly espoused the cause which Lieu- 
 tenant Gilliss w as advocating, and devotes some paragraphs of his report 
 to consideration of astronomical needs. (Appended Note A.) "A small 
 observatory is absolutely essential to the depot," he says, u without it 
 the duties cannot be performed." This statement, together with other 
 comments by Mr. Mallory, favorable to the idea that astronomical work 
 should be carried on by the Navy, appears to have been considered 
 sufficient authorization for the construction of an observatory on a large 
 scale for the Navy. 
 
 In his report of 1845 previously cited, Lieutenant Gilliss says : 
 
 " Taking the report of the naval committee which accompanied the 
 bill (See Report No. 449, House of Representatives, session 1841-2) as 
 the exponent of the will of Congress, the honorable Secretary of the 
 Navy directed me, on the 9th September, 1842, to visit the principal 
 Northern cities, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting a 
 plan, which, whilst it combined essentials should riot exceed in cost the 
 appropriated sum." 
 
 That the Navy Department, though without express authority, defi- 
 nitely intended to establish an astronomical observatory, as distin- 
 guished from such an observatory as it had in connection with the old 
 depot, may be perceived, not only from the character of new equipment 
 provided after prolonged journeyings and numerous consultations with 
 American and European astronomers by Lieutenant Gilliss, but also 
 from the following paragraphs, among others, in the aforesaid report : 
 
 " Much interest was evinced in the success of the Naval Observatory 
 by the distinguished savans I had the honor to meet ; and, in token of 
 their gratification at the establishment of an institution by the United 
 States, where science will be prosecuted, they have contributed to its 
 library the following books. * * * 
 
 " In the mere store rooms for the charts and instruments, or depot, as 
 it is called, I feel no anxiety. The house on Capitol Hill would have 
 answered quite as well as any other [up to 1842, Gilliss had been superin- 
 tendent of that establishment], and a three and a half feet transit, in a 
 box ten feet square, would have served to obtain the time for the com- 
 paring clock. These, therefore, possessed no attractions for me, and I 
 should have regarded it as time misspent to labor so earnestly, only to 
 establish a depot. My aim was higher. It was to place an institution 
 under the management of naral officers, where, in the practical pursuit 
 of the highest known branch of science, they would compel an acknow- 
 ledgment of abilities hitherto withheld from the service." 
 
 That the new observatory should have a naval organization rests on 
 better authority than that for founding an observatory. Evidently a 
 new " house for a depot of charts " was intended for the Navy. Further- 
 more, in the report of Mr. Mallory, are found opinions of the committee 
 as to the manner in which astronomical and meteorological observations 
 can best be conducted. 
 
13 
 
 " If officers can be found with taste for such duties," says the com- 
 mittee, " an observatory will give more information to the world under 
 a military organization, in one year, than under any other direction in 
 two." * * * * "Night watching in stormy weather finds few 
 followers and we can only hope to obtain the desired information [in 
 meteorology] when those engaged in its pursuit have duty to compel a 
 flagging inclination." (More fully in appended Note A). 
 
 These views undoubtedly indicate that in the judgment of the com- 
 mittee, our naval officers, if given the opportunity, would far outstrip 
 the astronomers of the old world in the amount and value of scientific 
 work to be produced. 
 
 Hitherto, there has been a tradition that, when the question of future 
 management of the observatory, which had grown upon its hands and 
 was about ready for use, came up for consideration, the Navy Depart- 
 ment grew to distrust the idea of placing a naval officer in charge. It 
 had begun to suspect that an observatory is an institution where the 
 duties are extremely technical. Moreover, bills for the establishment of 
 a national observatory, had been offered in Congress on several previous 
 occasions, and now when the new depot was nearly ready for occupancy 
 another bill for this purpose was pending. It may be inferred that the 
 few practical astronomers of the country, in ignorance, possibly, of the 
 extent to which the Navy would be able to develop the purposes of leg- 
 islation, were interesting themselves in this bill. It might not have 
 been difficult to suppose there was some chance that this bill would pass. 
 Nothing would then have been more natural than that the naval authori- 
 ties, wishing the credit for inaugurating such an institution to inhere in 
 their own department, should have thought it best to appoint a civilian 
 as chief astronomer, or to make some other compromise. It appears 
 that Lieutenant Maury, who was then in charge of the old depot, had 
 become aware of the discussion in the department, and was not satisfied 
 with the course things were taking. In a letter, of Jan. 1, 1847, ad- 
 dressed to his intimate friend, William Blackford, Esq., of Lynchburg, 
 Virginia, Lieutenant Maury wrote : 
 
 " You know I did riot want the place [Superintendent] and only de- 
 cided to keep it [he had been in charge of the existing depot] when I 
 heard it had been promised to a civilian, under a plea that no one in the 
 Navy was fit for it. I then went to Mason [Secretary of the Navy, and 
 like Maury, a native of Virginia] pronounced that the repetition of a 
 practical libel, and told him he must stand by me. He did so, and 
 though I had never seen an instrument of the kind before, and had 110 
 one with me who had, I was determined to ask no advice or instruction 
 from the savans." * * * (Life of Matthew Fontaine Maury, com- 
 piled by his daughter, Mrs. D. F. M. Corbiri, London, 1888.) 
 
 Mason " stood by " Maury, and he was placed in charge of the obser- 
 vatory in October, 1844. Mr. Sears C. Walker, one of the ablest prac- 
 tical astronomers then in the country, became his assistant. Professors 
 
14 
 
 Coffin, Hubbard and Keith were also detailed to the observatory in the 
 year, 1845, they holding commissions in the Navy as Professors of 
 Mathematics. Coffin and Hubbard took the laboring oars in the obser- 
 vations ; Walker and Coffin became the mainstays in the computations, 
 and in the preparation of them for publication. All were, however, 
 comparatively inexperienced. 
 
 Lieutenant Maury was a man of good abilities. He was also of a 
 restless and enterprising spirit. He was possessed of great fertility of 
 invention and resource. He had suffered from a serious accident, which 
 had incapacitated him for active service in his profession. The pos- 
 sibility of his enforced retirement from the service, hung over him as a 
 standing menace, and actually threatened in 1859. The problem of 
 future employment, commensurate with his ambitious energy of mind, 
 was one that occupied his thoughts and found expression in communi- 
 cations to his friends during this period. Had the tide of circumstances 
 set in the proper direction, and had not law and immemorial custom 
 protected certain professional employments against inexperience far 
 more securely than astronomical and scientific appointments in this 
 country have ever been guarded, it is easy to imagine that Lieutenant 
 Maury might have accepted the office of judge in a higher court, or of 
 chief surgeon in a hospital, with the same intrepid self-reliance, which 
 he evinced in assuming the superintendence of the United States Naval 
 Observatory. 
 
 To prevent this, there was no authoritative voice in science, no recog- 
 nized body of astronomers, around which awakened public sentiment 
 could gather for leadership. The idea of a Government astronomical 
 observatory was, therefore, launched on a sea of inexperience, where it 
 long drifted, the sport of the winds of misconception and waves of pre- 
 judice. By the merest chance it was seized upon as derelict by the 
 Navy and brought to a strange port. There it was libeled without 
 chance for a hearing ; and there it has remained in an unseaworthy 
 condition ever since. 
 
 It will subsequently appear that the vague astronomical references in 
 Mr. Mallory's committee report (see appended Note A) must Be re- 
 garded, from the naval point of view, as not only authorizing the kind 
 of observations which formerly occupied the Greenwich Observatory 
 the observation of sun, moon, planets, and principal fixed stars, but 
 also much more. From the firsthand throughout its history, the Naval 
 Observatory has not hesitated to undertake any sort of astronomical 
 observations permissible to its equipment and men. Such have been 
 the observations of telescopic planets (or asteroids), planetary moons (or 
 satellites), comets, double stars, telescopic stars, and nebulas, though 
 none of all these can even be seen by the mariner at sea a small per- 
 centage of comets excepted. It is for such purposes that the Observa- 
 tory demands these large appropriations from Congress 
 
15 
 
 SECTION III. NAVAL AND MARINE OBSERVATORIES IN OTHER COUNTRIES. 
 
 It will be in order now to form an opinion in regard to the actual re- 
 sults from management of the Naval Observatory by naval officers. It 
 would scarcely be fair to hold the Navy responsible for the fulfilment of 
 the prediction by ' Mr. Mallory, that an observatory administered by 
 military methods "would accomplish more in one year, than under any 
 other direction in two." Yet the claim of naval officers of the Observa- 
 tory, that its scientific career has been such as to place it in the front 
 rank among similar institutions of the world, is entitled to candid and 
 impartial consideration. 
 
 The task of making a direct comparison of the work of our Naval 
 Observatory with that of other national institutions, to the disadvantage 
 of the former, is not a pleasant one for any right-minded American 
 astronomer. But it must be undertaken. 
 
 Officers of the Navy on duty at the Observatory, in their efforts to per- 
 petuate their control of the Naval Observatory against the attacks of 
 astronomers, have laid much stress upon the naval character of the 
 establishment. It will be well, therefore, to find out in the first place, 
 what in other countries is practically considered an observatory suitable 
 for purely marine, or naval purposes. This can be done in a very brief 
 space. 
 
 There are a number of so-called " Marine observatories " at various 
 European ports. Among these are the observatories at Wilhelmshaven, 
 Trieste, Nicolaieff, Odessa, Bergen and Liverpool. These are all small 
 affairs employing usually two or three persons at most. They are all 
 under civilian control, and are very little, or not at all known for their 
 contributions to the science of astronomy. Their business is chiefly the 
 rating of chronometers, testing of nautical instruments, arid the per- 
 formance of similar duties. There is also what is termed a Seewarte at 
 Hamburg, which is not an observatory proper. It does not attempt 
 astronomical observations. It gives great attention to nautical interests 
 and maintains an interesting museum of nautical appliances. Its 
 organization and direction are civilian. 
 
 The " Imperial Chronometric Observatory'' at Kiel, Germany, is a 
 naval observatory in charge of a naval officer. There is a hydrographic 
 office and naval observatory at Pola, Austria, in charge of a naval officer 
 with four naval officers as assistants. There is a small observatory con- 
 nected with the hydrographic office at Genoa, Italy. The French have 
 small naval observatories at Brest, Toulon, Cherbourg and other ports. 
 These are merely branches of the hydrographic office, established under 
 lieutenants of the navy, to distribute charts, rate chronometers, and to 
 perform like duties. 
 
 As astronomical observatories proper, all these establishments are 
 virtually unknown. They render practical service to their navies, and 
 so far as readily accessible published records show, they render this ser- 
 
16 
 
 vice with the aid of two or three assistants at most, and with an equip- 
 ment of instruments which would be regarded as insignificant in rela- 
 tion to an important astronomical observatory. 
 
 Besides these there is a naval observatory at San Fernando, Spain, in 
 connection with the naval institute. This is in charge of a naval officer, 
 and there is a large staff of civilian assistants. The Spanish Nautical 
 Almanac is published from this establishment. But the observatory has 
 no record as an astronomical observatory. The Spanish National Observ- 
 atory is located at Madrid. 
 
 There is a national observatory at Lisbon, Portugal, which is in 
 charge of a naval officer, with a very modest equipment and with very 
 few assistants. No astronomical observations worth mentioning have 
 ever been reported from this observatory, which now appears to be prac- 
 tically dead. The positions of assistants are reported vacant. 
 
 These illustrations, which practically cover the entire practice of civi- 
 lized nations in this respect, serve at least to show that with immaterial 
 exceptions, it has not been thought fit to entrust to naval observatories any 
 functions not connected with the strictly practical purposes of the navy 
 and marine. Astronomers well know that observations made for the 
 purpose of determining the places of sun, moon, planets and stars, though 
 they may be rendered useful in the construction of improved tables for 
 seamen, are primarily intended for theoretical uses, or for astronomical 
 almanacs and ephemerides. The necessity for the accurate observation 
 of star-places in practical relations arises almost wholly from the needs 
 of earth measurement and similar operations on land. In every case the 
 reaching of requisite accuracy, constitutes these observations as scien- 
 tific work of a high order. It is a matter demanding an order of pro- 
 fessional training and experience not likely to be acquired by those 
 whose duties are mainly of another profession. 
 
 Distinction between Marine and Astronomical Observatories. 
 It is necessary to keep clearly in mind this distinction between an 
 immediately practical marine or naval observatory, and an observatory 
 for purposes of astronomical investigation. It is for the interest of those 
 who wish to keep the observatory under control of line officers of the 
 Navy to render this distinction as nebulous as possible. This has been 
 one important source of their success in the continued usurpation of the 
 Government observatory. There has been current a great deal of mis- 
 conception, and possibly some humbug, in regard to this matter, mis- 
 conception on the part of those who do not personally understand the 
 technical details, and humbug on the part of those who, knowing the 
 facts, aid and abet such misconception. Officers of the Naval Observa- 
 tory have expressed the opinion that the greater part of its work is of 
 immediate commercial utility. (See Report of the Secretary of the Navy 
 for 1877, p. 316 ; and elsewhere.) Astronomy of immediate practical 
 
17 
 
 value in the art of navigation, embraces such operations as the testing 
 and rating of chronometers, furnishing time to shipping at ports, deter- 
 minations of longitude on the seacoast, and, of course, the rude 
 observations for obtaining a ship's position at sea. These do not consti- 
 tute a part of what is called scientific investigation, unless the pre- 
 cision attempted is much greater than the mariner requires. 
 
 Certain observations requiring the facilities of a fixed and well equip- 
 ped observatory are useful to the art of navigation. But so far as the navi- 
 gator is concerned, nine-tenths of the astronomical observations during 
 the past half century, which some would have us believe are exclusively 
 for the benefit of navigation, might as well have been omitted. The 
 tables of the moon could now be kept up to the required standard of 
 accuracy for the mariner, if observations were made in but one year out 
 of ten ; the sun and planets need to be observed for that purpose, not 
 more than three or four years out of a century; the stars would need 
 such attention not more than one year out of two hundred. It is indis- 
 pensable, to be sure, that such observations should be made ; but to make 
 them in sufficient quantity for the needs of the mariner would be but a 
 small matter for an astronomer. 
 
 As to what arrangements are needed for an observatory of the prac- 
 tical type, the most competent authority which our Navy has produced, 
 Lieutenant G-illiss, said : 
 
 " In the mere store rooms for the charts and instruments, or depot, as 
 it is called, I feel no anxiety. The house on Capitol Hill would have 
 answered quite as well as any other, and a three and a half feet transit 
 in a box ten feet square, would have served to obtain the time for the 
 comparing clock." (Report of Lieutenant Gilliss, 1845; Senate Doc., 
 No. 114; 28th Cong., 2d session.) 
 
 If the Naval Observatory still claims to be a practical observatory in the 
 sense that naval observatories elsewhere are, then there is no escape from 
 the conclusion that its management has been outrageously extravagant. 
 
 SECTION IV. NATIONAL ASTRONOMICAL OBSERVATORIES IN OTHER 
 
 COUNTRIES. 
 
 As will hereafter appear, the Naval Observatory is actually an astro- 
 nomical observatory and must be compared with national astronomical 
 observatories, among which (and especially with Greenwich) its superin- 
 tendents, when asking for large appropriations, have always desired it 
 to be classed as shown repeatedly in their reports. 
 
 In advocating the removal of the observatory to a new site, Admiral 
 Rodgers, Superintendent, said : 
 
 "The observatories of Pulkowa, Greenwich, Washington, etc., are 
 placed together in the first class. * * * It will be seen from the 
 foregoing that the observatory is a great national institution," etc. 
 (Report of the Secretary of the Navy for 1877, p. 319.) 
 
18 
 
 Commodore Belknap, Superintendent, in his Annual Report for 1885 r 
 writes : 
 
 " From its humble beginning in 1838 it [the Naval Observatory] has 
 grown to be one of the most important astronomical centers in the 
 world." 
 
 Other quotations of similar import occur elsewhere in this Statement, 
 and still others may easily be found in the annual reports of the super- 
 intendents. It is when help is wanted from Congress that these state- 
 ments are most freely made ; the " practical " theory is reserved for 
 defense against astronomers, sfcice the inference might naturally be 
 supposed to follow that astronomers can present no legitimate claim to 
 the control of a Naval Observatory proper. 
 
 If only those observatories are to be considered which employ a work- 
 ing staff nearly equal to that of the Naval Observatory this comparison 
 would have to be restricted to three establishments. But the comparison 
 should relate to quality and methods as well as to mere bulk. 
 
 The Imperial Observatory of Russia, at Pulkowa. 
 
 The national observatory which concededly holds the primacy among 
 institutions of this class is the Imperial Observatory at Pulkowa. This 
 observatory was established in 1838, and is, therefore, but slightly older 
 than the Naval Observatory. The primary purpose of the Pulkowa Ob- 
 servatory has been to increase the precision of our knowledge regarding 
 the positions and motions of the principal "fixed stars" and the astronom- 
 ical constants connected with this field of work. This programme includes 
 meridian observations of a fundamental character and high precision 
 upon the sun, larger planets, and stars ; micrometric observations of 
 standard quality upon the principal binary, or revolving double stars ; 
 labors in the interest of the higher forms of geodesy, or earth-measure- 
 ment ; and a variety of minor operations, too great for enumeration in 
 this place. 
 
 The star-observations made at Pulkowa enjoy the confidence of 
 astronomers to a greater extent than any others. They have become 
 the fundamental basis upon which rest the observations in the great 
 "zone" undertaking, which has been successfully carried on during the 
 last twenty years through the cooperation of thirteen university- 
 observatories, located in Germany, Russia, Sweden, Norway, Holland, 
 England, and the United States. This project has for its object the 
 accurate determination of the place of every star in the sky down to 
 those which are no more than one-sixteenth as bright as the faintest 
 visible without a telescope. It has been frequently characterized as the 
 most important astronomical undertaking of the present century ; and 
 the work of the Russian Imperial Observatory has been thus far adopted 
 as the fundamental basis for it. The star-places of the astronomical 
 almanac (Berliner Jahrbuch) which is used more than any other by 
 
19 
 
 astronomers, rest upon the Pulkowa basis ; so that in numerous obser- 
 vatories, in nearly every country, an important class of astronomical 
 measurements, which are constantly being made, take the standards 
 established at Pulkowa as the starting point. Even the star-places of 
 the American almanac, one of the best astronomical almanacs in the 
 world, in one of the coordinates necessarily depend more upon the 
 Pulkowa observations than upon those of the Naval Observatory. It is 
 understood that the United States Coast Survey in its longitude work, 
 which is not anywhere surpassed, reduces everything to the Pulkowa 
 standard, concurring in the practice of European organizations of a 
 similar character, though the Naval Observatory is supposed to exist 
 very largely for the very purpose of furnishing the basis, in part at 
 least, for these and similar operations in this country. 
 
 The constants of atmospheric refraction have been determined at 
 Pulkowa with unexampled refinement. The quantities of precession, 
 nutation, and aberration, constants of almost daily use in the compu- 
 tations at astronomical observatories, have been determined each more 
 than once, through the labors of the Pulkowa astronomers ; and the re- 
 sults deduced there are now employed in numberless computations by 
 nearly every astronomer in the world, including those of the Naval 
 Observatory. They are also extensively used in the calculations of 
 astronomical almanacs. 
 
 In determining the distances of the stars (one of the most difficult 
 operations in the entire range of science), in researches of precision 
 upon comets, in investigations upon the planets and their satellites, in 
 spectroscopic researches of the highest precision, and in a multitude of 
 studies in various lines, the work of the Pulkowa Observatory is ranked 
 as standard. 
 
 There has never been any material interruption in the scientific 
 activity of this famous institution. Every year offers a full complement 
 of excellent observations. The list of memoirs and shorter contributions 
 to astronomy presents remarkable evidence of the great variety and (to 
 those acquainted with them) value of the work accomplished at the 
 Pulkowa Observatory. From 1838 to 1888, these memoirs and papers 
 number 389, and for the last twenty-five years of the period, 230. 
 (Jubilee Celebration of the Pulkowa Observatory.) The subjoined list 
 illustrates the variety of topics treated : 
 
 SUBJECTS. NUMBER. 
 
 Stellar Astronomy 62 
 
 Bodies of the Solar System 54 
 
 Practical Astronomy. 20 
 
 Geodesy and Geodetic Astronomy 20 
 
 Astro-physics 22 
 
 Mathematical and Miscellaneous , 52 
 
20 
 
 During the first fifty years of its existence (to 1888), the Pulkowa 
 Observatory was under the superintendence of the Struves, father and 
 son, who are reckoned among the ablest practical astronomers of their 
 times. The success of their respective administrations is attributed in 
 the first place, to their unerring judgment as to the particular kind and 
 degree of scientific capacity of the assistants employed by them ; in the 
 second place, to the wisdom displayed by them in the choice of work to 
 be done ; in the third place, to the stimulus exercised by them through 
 personal participation in the astronomical activities of the institution 
 under their charge ; and in the fourth place, to the rigorous superin- 
 tendence and scrutiny which they exercised upon all the publications of 
 the observatory. 
 
 . The observatory is subject to the scientific supervision of the St. 
 Petersburg Academy of Sciences, by which its directors are nominated. 
 
 The annual expenditure in 1845 was $33,588, exclusive of payments 
 to members of the Academy. At the present time the annual ex- 
 penditure is probably somewhat larger, the amounts are not stated in 
 the reports of the observatory. 
 
 The Pulkowa Observatory has responded vigorously to the demands 
 produced by the remarkable awakening of astronomical interest during 
 the past decade or more. 
 
 The Royal Observatory at Greenwich. 
 
 The Observatory at Greenwich is the prototype of our Naval Obser- 
 vatory, so far as the functions of either have been expressly or indirectly 
 defined. Though established two hundred years ago expressly for per- 
 fecting astronomical tables useful in the art of navigation, and though 
 always subject to the British Admiralty, the Greenwich Observatory has 
 always been placed under the direction of civilian astronomers, aided 
 exclusively by civilian assistants. The warrant of the Astronomer 
 Royal, from Charles II. to the present time, has directed him " to 
 apply himself with the utmost care and diligence to the rectifying the 
 tables of the motions of the heavens and the places of the fixed stars, in 
 order to find out the so much desired longitude at sea for perfecting the 
 art of navigation." Until lately, the Greenwich Observatory has 
 adhered more closely to this programme than has our Naval Observatory. 
 Yet civilian astronomers do the work, and superintend it. The names 
 of Flamsteed, Halley,* Bradley, Maskelyne, Pond and Airy, formerly 
 directors of that observatory, are among the most distinguished in the 
 annals of astronomy. The names of the otherwise distinguished direc- 
 
 * Halley was given a pro forma commission in the Navy in connection with 
 scientific expeditions to the southern hemisphere. As fate would have it, however, 
 none of the few observations which he made while director of the Greenwich 
 Observatory, were considered worth publication, though the record is preserved. 
 He, like Flamsteed, was provided neither with instruments nor assistants. His 
 fame as an astronomer is due to his theoretical investigations. 
 
21 
 
 tors of the Naval Observatory are unknown in astronomy, with two 
 exceptions ; and none of them has achieved a distinguished place in 
 that science. 
 
 The Greenwich observations of sun, moon, planets and stars are highly 
 esteemed by astronomers for their uniform reliability. Since 1750, they 
 form a continuous series, without material interruption (except during 
 the brief administration of Bliss). Since 1845, when our Naval Obser- 
 vatory began similar observations with a like purpose in view, the out- 
 put from Greenwich has been full and continuous from year to year. 
 
 It has been very truly remarked by high authority that were it 
 necessary to reconstruct the lunar and planetary tables anew, this could 
 be done from the Greenwich observations alone, without material sacri- 
 fice of accuracy. Since 1845, six important general catalogues of stars 
 have emanated from the Greenwich Observatory. They enjoy a high 
 reputation for accuracy and general excellence. Many other important 
 astronomical researches have been carried on at the Greenwich 
 Observatory during the period under consideration. Among these 
 should be mentioned the series of spectroscopic measurements of the 
 motions of stars toward or from the earth. These very difficult measures 
 in the newest field of astronomy, have been continued for more than a 
 decade, with extraordinary tenacity of purpose. Elsewhere, no regular 
 work of this kind has been attempted and continued for any great 
 length of time. 
 
 The record of occultations of stars by the moon, and of the phenomena 
 of planetary satellites is full and continuous. There was also instituted 
 at Greenwich, about twenty years ago, 'a series of physical observations 
 of the sun to determine the particulars of change going on upon its 
 surface, and these, with the necessary calculations, have been carried on 
 to the present time with the most perfect regularity and success, every 
 day when the sun has been visible. 
 
 The meteorological record, and especially the observations to deter- 
 mine the elements of terrestrial magnetism, together with their changes 
 and fluctuations, form at Greenwich one of the largest arid most valuable 
 on these subjects in existence. 
 
 The directors of the Greenwich Observatory have also been dis- 
 tinguished for the influence which they have exerted not only in the 
 observatory, but also upon the general progress of astronomy. They 
 have been foremost in the counsels of English astronomy. 
 
 One reason for the success of their superintendence has been due to 
 the clearness and steadfastness with which they have recognized the 
 line of work which could most advantageously be prosecuted by the 
 Greenwich Observatory, and the inexorable perseverance with which 
 they have held the observatory to its chosen work. The principal 
 feature of that work in the past, has been one in which one or two large 
 
22 
 
 observatories could find constant employment to the high advantage of 
 science. Another reason for this success resides in the close attention 
 which the superintendent of the Greenwich Observatory has always 
 given, even for the smallest details in the organization of work, to the 
 observations, and especially to the computations, as well as to publica- 
 tion. Sir George B. Airy, late Astronomer Royal, says : 
 
 " In every transaction in or originating in the observatory, without 
 any exception, the Astronomer Royal alone is responsible to the Govern- 
 ment. Even in the case of his absence on leave granted by the 
 Admiralty, it is his duty so to direct the chief assistant by written 
 instructions that as little ^as possible may be left to his discretion." 
 (Par. 8, "Regulations"; Greenwich Observations for 1873, Appendix.) 
 
 The current annual expenditure, until recent years, was about 
 $30,000. (Greenw. Obs., 1873.) More recently this has increased to 
 about $42,000, and this amount will, in all probability, be materially 
 increased in the future. In spite of the extremely conservative traditions 
 of this observatory, it has fully recognized the rapidly expanding claims 
 of modern astronomy by greatly enlarging its sphere of work. It is one 
 of the most progressive institutions in the world in that respect. 
 
 The Astronomer Royal reports to a " Board of Visitors," composed of 
 members of the Royal Society, of certain astronomers, and of persons 
 appointed by the Admiralty office. 
 
 Observatory at the Cape of Good Hope. 
 
 The Royal Observatory at the Cape of Good Hope is in many respects 
 similar to that of Greenwich. In spite of its colonial and isolated 
 position, the special obligation of an observatory located in the southern 
 hemisphere has not been neglected. The results achieved by it are of 
 indispensable importance. In earlier years, the personnel of this 
 observatory was very small. It was largely employed upon geodetic (or 
 high surveying) work in South Africa. In recent years, the annual 
 expenditure has been about $30,000 (something like half that for the 
 Naval Observatory), and accordingly the astronomical output has been 
 vastly increased. 
 
 Since the founding of the Naval Observatory, three important general 
 catalogues of stars have issued from the Cape Observatory, and another 
 is in course of preparation. There is a good complement of observa- 
 tions upon the bodies of the solar system. During the last ten or twelve 
 years there have been made at this observatory numerous determina- 
 tions of the distances of stars from the earth, and there has been very 
 remarkable activity in the determination of the distances of small 
 planets to ascertain the sun's parallax. These observations are of the 
 highest class. 
 
 Important experiments in astronomical photography have been car- 
 ried on with success ; a photographic survey of the entire southern sky, 
 
23 
 
 promising results of the highest value, has been completed, and the 
 results will shortly be ready for publication ; observations for longitude, 
 and for places of comets, with a ' variety of other investigations, have 
 also been made. 
 
 The directors of this observatory have been eminent astronomers ; 
 and their success has been largely due to the enthusiasm engendered 
 among assistants by the personal participation of their chiefs in the 
 observations and calculations of the observatory. In the prefatory 
 remarks to the well-known Cape Catalogue of Stars for 1880, Mr. Stone, 
 at that time director of the observatory at the Cape, says : 
 
 " Besides the general organization arid arrangement of the work, and 
 the making in each year, sufficient observations to check the instru- 
 mental adjustments and the general working of the transit circle, I have 
 made it a rule to throw my personal weight upon any part of the work 
 which, from time to time, appeared to flag. I have thus taken a direct 
 share in the work to an extent which appears somewhat unusual on the 
 part of directors of large observatories. * * * I have spared no 
 personal labor to make the work accurate." 
 
 These principles are exemplified in the practice of the present 
 Astronomer Royal at the Cape to a remarkable extent. It is in no 
 small measure due to his personal efforts that the courage of observers 
 in attacking the more severe measurements of astronomy has been 
 revived. 
 
 The National Observatory at Paris. 
 
 The National Observatory at Paris is one of the most extensively 
 equipped in the world, both as to instruments and personnel. Its field 
 of operations has been more varied and miscellaneous than is usually 
 the case with large observatories. Its attention has been largely given, 
 however, to the observation of sun, moon, planets, and telescopic stars. 
 During the directorship of the celebrated LeVerrier, a great part of its 
 resources was also given up to mathematical work, and chiefly to 
 the colossal task of computing tables for all the great planets. His 
 administration, owing to his introduction of " military methods," 
 has been severely, and perhaps justly, criticised by his assistants; 
 though he was one of the most distinguished and best known as- 
 tronomers of the present century. Considering this instance to have 
 weight, as militating against the desirability of having an astronomer 
 to manage scientific work, it must still be remembered that this case is 
 entirely isolated, so far as the large national observatories are concerned. 
 
 The work of constructing an extensive catalogue of the brighter tele- 
 scopic stars constitutes a very important contribution of the Paris 
 Observatory. The most extensive charts of the fainter telescopic stars 
 have also been made at that observatory. Much attention has also been 
 given to the invention of new forms of astronomical instruments and of 
 new methods in the use of instruments. 
 
24 
 
 In the course of labors for mapping the faint telescopic stars, the idea 
 of charting them with a much higher degree of accuracy by photography 
 was conceived and practically perfected at this observatory. A plan 
 for charting the entire heavens in this way has been initiated, and its 
 practical organization has been successfully completed under the leader- 
 ship of the Paris Observatory. The cooperation of nearly every one of 
 the leading governments, except our own, has been assured. The pre- 
 liminary work is in progress. 
 
 The present director of the observatory, Admiral Mouchez, is an 
 officer of the navy, many years ago detached for this duty. He is a 
 member of the French Academy of Sciences, and reports to a council 
 which is under the presidency of M. Faye, one of the most distinguished 
 astronomers of France. The organization of the observatory is in no 
 sense naval, nor are its methods. The vice-director is a civilian astron- 
 omer, as at Pulkowa, and so are all the assistants. The appointment of 
 a naval officer to the chief direction is entirely exceptional. 
 
 In recent times, the French government has supported, in part, a 
 number of astronomical observatories in various parts of France. These 
 are all under civilian direction, and bid fair to raise the astronomical 
 reputation of France to the first rank. 
 
 Observatories Supported by the Gferman Government. 
 
 The policy of Germany has not led to the establishment of any one great 
 national observatory, but to the division of its patronage among many. 
 Each of the leading states has its observatory, on a comparatively small 
 scale. The principal of these is the Royal Observatory of Prussia at 
 Berlin, best known through the labors of Encke, one of its distinguished 
 directors. The observatory proper is a small establishment employing 
 only three or four assistants ; but it is closely connected in an adminis- 
 trative way, with the Astronomical Almanac office, or computing bureau, 
 the new physical observatory at Potsdam, and other scientific interests 
 cared for by government. The services of the director are in constant 
 requisition by his government in a great variety of scientific employ- 
 ments. 
 
 The observatory itself is mainly devoted to the precise observation of 
 small planets and telescopic stars. In combination with the Astronomi- 
 cal Almanac office, it has become the head-quarters in relation to the 
 astronomy of the small planets. From 1825 to 1865 this observatory 
 was under the direction of the renowned astronomer Johann Friedrich 
 Encke. The present incumbent, a pupil and active assistant of Encke 
 for many years, succeeded to the direction in 1865. During the period 
 since that time, the Naval Observatory has had nine different superin- 
 tendents, six of them since 1882. It is thus easy to understand why 
 the work of the Berlin Observatory, should have been organized on a 
 more consistent and permanent plan, and why that plan should have 
 
25 
 
 been more effectively executed than has been the case with the Wash- 
 ington Observatory. 
 
 The astro-physical observatory at Potsdam, though less than twenty 
 years old and though it employs but a small staff of assistants, has 
 already become authority in standard measurements involving the use 
 of the spectroscope and photographic processes. Its recent work upon 
 the motion of stars in the line of sight, towards or from the earth, is of 
 a highly original character. It is the most valuable that has been done. 
 Already, most interesting discoveries have originated in that work. 
 
 As previously stated, there are a large number of university-observa- 
 tories in the various states of Germany, which are organized on a modest 
 scale and derive their support from government. Some of these, like 
 that of Konigsberg in the period from 1812 to 1849, have fulfilled in a 
 great measure the functions of a national observatory. The example of 
 the Konigsberg Observatory is a striking illustration of the relation 
 which skilled direction of an observatory bears to the value as well as to 
 the amount of its product. Its director during the period mentioned 
 was Bessel, generally accounted the ablest observing astronomer of the 
 century. Though he had but two or three assistants, the amount and 
 value of the astronomical work produced at that observatory was scarcely 
 equaled by that of any other observatory in the world. Such is the 
 experience of all observatories, large and small, the abler the director, 
 in the astronomical sense, the more and better the work, no matter 
 what the ability of assistants may be. 
 
 The splendid new observatory at Strasburg and the famous observa- 
 tory at Bonn, established in the Prussian dominions ; the observatory at 
 Leipsic in Saxony ; and the Royal Observatory of Bavaria near Munich, 
 as well as others of a similar character, furnish valuable illustrations of 
 the great value of skilled astronomical direction for such institutions. 
 
 Various National Observatories. ^ 
 
 The Austrian government supports a national observatory, splendidly 
 housed and equipped, which, however, employs but a small personnel, 
 that is chiefly engaged in observations and calculations upon comets and 
 small planets. At present, a large proportion of the new asteroids an- 
 nounced are discovered here. Its large output of results has been con- 
 centrated upon definite objects, pursued with fidelity, under the direc- 
 tion of distinguished astronomers, through many succeeding years. 
 
 Holland has a quasi-national observatory at Leyden, with a modest 
 but efficient equipment, where four or five astronomers, all told, are 
 employed. Since it has been raised to its present rank (in 1858) its con- 
 tributions to astronomy, under highly competent practical astronomers, 
 have been of fundamental importance, particularly in the direction of 
 star-observations. 
 
 Belgium has a national observatory with a limited number of assistants. 
 
26 
 
 Its work has been about equally divided between star-observations and 
 researches in climatology. Its directors have been among the ablest 
 astronomers of Belgium. A national observatory of considerable im- 
 portance is located at the capital of Brazil ; and there are also small 
 observatories under state patronage in nearly every capital city of the 
 world, in addition to those already mentioned, all under the direction of 
 practical astronomers, imported, sometimes, in default of suitable 
 material at home. 
 
 The Argentin^ National Observatory, at Cordoba. 
 
 There is a national observatory which will have a special interest and 
 pertinence in this comparison of observatories with that of Washington. 
 At Cordoba the national observatory of the Argentine Republic was 
 established in 1870 under 'the superintendence of Dr. B. A. Gould, an 
 American astronomer. The labors of this observatory have been mainly 
 directed to observation of the fixed-stars. During thirteen years, from 
 1871 to 1884, the average annual expenditure for this observatory was 
 $20,963, or less in American currency. In this period, from 1871 to 
 1884, in addition to observations of comets and a large amount of pioneer 
 work in celestial photography, the star-observations there made and de- 
 duced constitute in extent and value by far the largest contribution in 
 this respect ever made by any one observatory in alike space of time. So 
 far as star-observations are concerned, what the Cordoba Observatory 
 achieved in thirteen years exceeds by far, both in quantity and value, 
 the total output of our Naval Observatory during the forty-seven years 
 of its existence. 
 
 The history of this observatory is a remarkable illustration of the 
 value of skilled direction in astronomical work. The assistants, in 
 nearly every case, when they arrived at Cordoba from the United States, 
 were without practical experience in astronomical work, and were 
 trained in their Duties at the observatory where they were employed. 
 Yet, with immaterial exceptions, the observations by all the observers 
 are of uniformly good quality, and the computations are a model of 
 thoroughness and accuracy. There is remarkably little evidence of 
 wasted labor. All the work seems to have counted in the attainment 
 of a definite purpose. It is seldom in any observatory that assistants 
 have labored with more zealous energy ihan has been manifested at the 
 Cordoba Observatory. The director himself participated personally in 
 the observations, and in the most important features of the calculations, 
 and he maintained a constant and critical watch upon them throughout. 
 It may safely be inferred that it was this practice which stimulated the 
 assistants to such unusual energy. The thorough manner in which all 
 parts of the work were coordinated into one homogeneous whole, was 
 accomplished through close and practical supervision by the director in 
 person. 
 
27 
 
 With reduced means (nominally, not less), since 1885, under the 
 superintendence or another American astronomer, Dr. J. M. Thome, the 
 Argentine National Observatory is continuing its astronomical career 
 with great credit to those who perform its labors, and to the government 
 which sustains them. 
 
 SECTION V. THE SCIENTIFIC RECORD OP THE UNITED STATES NAVAL 
 
 OBSERVATORY. 
 
 It will now be in order to examine the astronomical record of the 
 United States Naval Observatory in the light of the standards which 
 have been thus established. The significance of these standards will 
 more fully appear in the course of the actual comparison. 
 
 The first Superintendent of the Naval Observatory, Lieut. Matthew 
 Fontaine Maury, entered upon the duties of his office, October 1, 1844. 
 In 1845 the astronomical work was begun, with four astronomical 
 assistants and eleven naval officers. The astronomical work of the 
 astronomers was as good, during the first three or four years, as could 
 fairly have been expected in a country where practical astronomy was 
 in its infancy, and at an institution, the chief of which boasted that he 
 knew nothing of the operations he was expected to direct, arid "had 
 never seen an [astronomical] instrument of the kind before." The 
 observations were promptly published at first, but "publication soon 
 began to fall in arrears. The observations of 1848 were published only 
 in part in 1856 ; those of 1849-50, in 1859 ; and those of 1851-2, not 
 until 1867. 
 
 It is generally conceded that the observations of the sun, moon, 
 planets and stars in 1851-2 have little or no value ; they have been 
 purposely excluded in investigations where they would have been very 
 useful had they been of the requisite accuracy. 
 
 During the years 1853 to 1860, inclusive, no annual report of the 
 astronomical observations has ever appeared, because very few observa- 
 tions of any value were made. However, the work done by civilian 
 assistant Ferguson with the equatorial telescope upon comets and minor 
 planets was of good quality arid sufficiently continuous. These obser- 
 vations were published from time to time in journals of astronomy. 
 Another exception should be made in respect to observations of stars 
 made by Professor Yarnall in this period. These are creditable, and 
 were collected in a small volume in 1872. 
 
 Two great works had been proposed at or near the inauguration of 
 astronomical work at the Observatory. The first was observation of the 
 brighter stars and of the principal bodies of the solar system with a 
 view to providing data for the construction of a Nautical Almanac in a 
 thoroughly " American " sense. The second work proposed was the 
 observation in zones of all the stars south of the celestial equator (and 
 
north, for that matter), that could be seen with the meridian instruments 
 of the Observatory. 
 
 In regard to the first proposition, the design is fully and repeatedly 
 expressed in the records of the Navy department. Two quotations will 
 suffice. In his annual report, dated November 25, 1844, Hon. John Y. 
 Mason, Secretary of the Navy, says : 
 
 " The instruments purchased have been received and placed in the 
 depot. They are well selected, and may be advantageously employed 
 in the necessary observations, with a view to calculate nautical almanacs. 
 For these we are now iiictebted to foreign nations. This work may be 
 done by our own naval officers without injury to the service, and at very 
 small expense." 
 
 In his report of October 20, 1845, Superintendent Maury says : 
 
 " Without the English Nautical Almanac, or the nautical ephemeris 
 of some other European nation, our vessels which are now abroad might 
 not find their way home. This office [depot or Naval Observatory] 
 affords the means of wiping off so much of the reproach as is due to us 
 as a nation on this account, for, with the means already at hand, nearly 
 all the requisite data for a nautical ephemeris of our own are obtainable. 
 With a view of obtaining the requisite data for this purpose, a series of 
 observations for the preliminary determinations has been undertaken, 
 and is now in progress. If we attempt to compute the l American 
 Nautical Almanac ' and this we can do at no greater expense than we 
 pay the Englishjor computing theirs for us from our own data, it is 
 highly desirable that the data should be wholly American." 
 
 " If we borrow one element of the work from foreign observations, it 
 would be more creditable to borrow the whole," * * * etc. (Papers 
 accompanying the report of the Secretary of the Navy for 1845.) 
 
 Leaving aside consideration of the cautious and skillful progress from 
 a " depot," toward a full fledged observatory, which is manifest in these 
 extracts, and overlooking the impracticability of the plan suggested by 
 Lieutenant Maury, it may be conceded that the observatory began in 
 the path most appropriate to it. It is sufficient commentary to remark 
 that the observatory pursued the practicable part of this programme in 
 a manner for four or five years ; with evidence of fatigue for two or 
 three years longer, and then, apparently tired of it, abandoned it 
 altogether, until the revival of the observatory in 1861. It would be 
 exceedingly difficult to find in the pages of the American Nautical 
 Almanac any evidence that the observations of the Naval Observatory 
 have been considered of more value than those of other observatories in 
 its preparation. 
 
 In reference to the second project the observation of faint stars south 
 of the celestial equator it must be said that while such work is purely 
 astronomical, and not by any stretch of the imagination germane to 
 nautical or naval needs, its creditable performance would have done 
 very much to establish the astronomical reputation of the Naval Obser- 
 vatory and to justify the expenditures which had been made for it. 
 
29 
 
 These observations Were begun in 1846, under authority" of an order 
 from the Secretary of the Navy, March 6, 184(5. The first Superin- 
 tendent was loyal to the design of accumulating executive precedents 
 for future reference in case the right to do purely scientific work should 
 be thereafter impugned. In this order Secretary Bancroft said : 
 
 " % * * I approve your course in making the series of astronomi- 
 cal observations, more immediately necessary for the preparation of a 
 Nautical Almanac. 
 
 "The country expects, also, that the observatory will make adequate 
 contributions to Astronomical Science," etc. (Washington Observations, 
 Vol. I., for 1845; Appendix, p. 38.) 
 
 The observations in pursuance of this order were continued for several 
 years by a large force of observers, rarely less than six ; but their 
 termination is enveloped in obscurity. In fact, the plan was abandoned. 
 The first publication of a part of the observations, made in 1846, 
 occurred in 1860. The remaining observations, 1846-49, were published 
 in 1869 and 1871, twenty years after the latest of them was made ; and 
 then only in the preliminary form, precedent to the formation of a cata- 
 logue for practical use. This catalogue has not yet made its appearance. 
 
 Commenting on this work in the North American Review (Vol. 105), 
 in 1867, Professor Newcomb, then on duty at the Naval Observatory, 
 says: "So the entire plan ended in ignominious failure." Professor 
 Asaph Hall, U. S. N., under whose editorship the published volumes of 
 these observations were issued, in the introduction to the final volume, 
 says : 
 
 "On account of the inexperience of some of the observers and the 
 lack of good organization these observations contain many errors, and 
 the whole work needs a careful revision." (Washington Observations 
 for 1871, Appendix I, p. VI.) 
 
 There is no manner of doubt that the observations are of inferior 
 merit. They are rarely used where other observations of the same 
 stars are to be had, and by some astronomers not at all. 
 
 The failure of these observations was not altogether the fault of the 
 assistants. The plan of observations was a bad one, such as no ex- 
 perienced astronomer would have sanctioned. For this plan the Super- 
 intendent was necessarily responsible. 
 
 In- the years from 1849 to 1851 a large part of the region of sky 
 covered by this programme was far more completely attended to by 
 Professor F. W. Argelander, Director of the Bonn Observatory. Argel- 
 ander made all the observations in person, and with very little assist- 
 ance otherwise. However humiliating to our national pride it may be, 
 it must be acknowledged that these observations by Argelander, in so 
 short a time and with so little help, are superior to those made at the 
 Naval Observatory in the same region at nearly the same time. The 
 Naval Observatory had also the very marked advantage of a latitude 
 twelve degrees farther south. These observations by Argelander, which 
 
30 
 
 form a mere episode in his career, first appeared in catalogue form 
 more than thirty years ago. 
 
 Whenever a comet, or one of the minor planets, has appeared in that 
 region of sky, even the observers of the Naval Observatory are accus- 
 tomed to use these star-observations by Argelander, as the basis of their 
 computations, rather than observations of identically the same stars, 
 made at nearly the same time, from beneath their own roof, and pub- 
 lished at large expense by their own Government. This finds an illus- 
 tration, among many others, in the Washington Observations for 1884. 
 That volume contains a large number of observations of comets and 
 small planets, made by locating, from night to night, their positions 
 upon the face of the sky in relation to the stars near them. In 22 cases 
 the position of the star has been quoted from Argelander, from the 
 Washington Observations in question, riot once ; though it was possible 
 to have done so in a number of cases. These observations of planets 
 were made by Commander Sampson, who certainly will not be accused 
 of a desire to overlook the merits of the work done by the Naval 
 Observatory. 
 
 This practically comprises the astronomical history of the Naval 
 Observatory down to 1861. It is true that during the ten years pre- 
 ceding that date, Superintendent Maury carried on an important in- 
 vestigation upon the winds and currents of the ocean. But this is no 
 part of the work of an observatory. For this purpose, the costly in- 
 struments were of no use whatever. Nor was it necessary to have a 
 force of civilian astronomical assistants to aid him in this work. This 
 was, indeed, practical nautical work germane to a " depot of charts," 
 or a " Hydrographical office," into which the Naval Observatory had 
 become partially reconverted. At any rate the Naval Observatory 
 during that period was no longer fulfilling the mission which the Navy 
 itself had chosen and proclaimed to the world as its vocation. Congress 
 and the people have no guaranty that the management of the Naval 
 Observatory may not at any time, when the fancy seizes it, take up some 
 other line of work and abandon astronomy as it did once before. There 
 is no law in the way, and precedent is in favor of it. 
 
 Revival of Astronomical Activity at the Naval Observatory in 1861. 
 
 In 1861, after the appointment of Captain Grilliss to the superinten- 
 dency of the Naval Observatory, it resumed its character as an astro- 
 nomical institution, though it was still charged with the custody 
 of charts until 1866. After the latter date its duties became quite 
 as purely astronomical as are those of the great national obser- 
 vatories in other lands. Captain Grilliss, though not a thoroughly 
 trained astronomer, was probably more competent for his post than any 
 other superintendent the Observatory has ever had. As an astronomer 
 
31 
 
 he was self-taught. In his personal work in astronomy he has not left 
 any very effectual mark on the progress of investigation ; yet the 
 same may be said of many professional astronomers who have enjoyed 
 a respectable rank. Captain Gilliss had the temperament of an astron- 
 omer. He was earnest and zealous for astronomical progress and 
 appreciated its importance. He displayed good judgment in gathering 
 about him a corps of young assistants of rare scientific promise, some of 
 whom have since demonstrated the wisdom of his choice in a remark- 
 able degree. 
 
 In spite of the troubled times, the Naval Observatory now entered 
 upon a career of astronomical activity which was comparatively cred- 
 itable. Observations of the principal stars and of bodies of the solar 
 system were resumed and have been carried on with unimportant 
 interruptions ever since. At first the old instruments were used. 
 These were already antiquated when they were set up in 
 1844. Later, a new instrument (Transit Circle) was provided for 
 these observations. Yet the new instrument has not seemed to 
 furnish results equal in value to those obtained with the old instru- 
 ments. Writing in 1867 of the observations made by the aid of this 
 new instrument, the professor in charge of it says: " Some partial 
 publications of its asteroid observations have appeared in the Astronom- 
 ische Nachrichten, and these show much better for the optical power of 
 the instrument than for its precision*" (N. A. Rev., Vol. 105.) The same 
 writer, Professor Newcomb, summing up the work of the observatory 
 up to that time (1867), in this same article says : 
 
 "Our judgment of the past work of the Naval Observatory may be 
 summed up thus. That of the first four years, and of the last four years, 
 so far as published, is highly creditable to the country, and to the 
 Navy, all things considered. Among the things to be taken into 
 account are the want of educated astronomers in the beginning and the 
 inferior character of many of the instruments throughout the history of 
 the observatory. During the intervening years [12 years] the opera- 
 tions are creditable to no one but the one or two astronomers by whom 
 all the observations of value were made." 
 
 That is to say, the most prominent astronomer at the Naval Obser- 
 vatory, in 1867, gives it as his deliberate judgment, that in the previous 
 history of that observatory, three-fifths of its record is practically blank, 
 and that the astronomical output of the remaining two-fifths is quite 
 as good as could have been expected with unsuitable instruments and 
 untrained observers. 
 
 The new Transit Circle set up in 1865, with which to make obser- 
 vations for what has been declared the principal object of the Naval 
 Observatory, has proved a source of endless perplexity to the observers, 
 and a fruitful theme for the scoffs and gibes of astronomers who are 
 well versed in this class of work. It is quite possible that these obser- 
 vations are no worse than those which have been made at some other 
 
32 
 
 observatories ; but they are certainly inferior to those made at Green- 
 wich, Cape of Good Hope, Paris, Berlin and Leyden, and very decidedly 
 inferior to those made at Pulkowa. A part of this apparent inferiority 
 may really be due to errors of computation and printing which are 
 excessively frequent in some of the annual volumes produced by the 
 Observatory, notably in that for 1868. If our Naval Observatory were 
 a small, ill-nurtured institution ; if it had experienced niggardly instead 
 of most generous treatment from the Government ; if its superintendents 
 had not repeatedly declared this work with the Transit Circle to be the 
 most important work of the Observatory ; the results might be entitled 
 to more lenient judgment. 
 
 Work With the Great Telescope. 
 
 In 1873, the great equatorial telescope, at that time the most power- 
 ful in existence, was placed in position. It has been devoted chiefly to 
 the observation of double stars and of the satellites (or moons) of the 
 large planets. Determinations of the distances of the stars, studies 
 upon nebulas and planets, and other minor observations, have also 
 formed a part of the work done with this instrument. It was with this 
 instrument that Professor Hall made his memorable discovery of the 
 moons of Mars. The observations made with the great telescope are 
 believed to be standard in precision. In special lines, such as the obser- 
 vation of faint planetary satellites, ihey are scarcely surpassed else- 
 where in amount and value. It is largely upon work done with this 
 instrument that the Naval Observatory relies for whatever of reputation, 
 as a place where observations are made, it enjoys. Yet this work is 
 entirely outside of its principal official programme. When placed on its 
 defense, the representatives of the observatory try to maintain that 
 such work forms but an incidental and insignificant part of its 
 activity. 
 
 To some extent this claim is justified. Usually two, and rarely more 
 than three persons, as astronomers and computers, have been engaged 
 in work with this instrument in any one year. At a high estimate 
 these form not more than twenty per cent, of the effective working-staff 
 at the observatory, usually less. The great telescope has constituted an 
 observatory within an observatory. The astronomer in charge has been 
 virtually his own superintendent ; and perhaps the superintendents of 
 the observatory are entitled to some praise for permitting this to be so, 
 under the circumstances. 
 
 At different periods, with intervals of comparative inaction, observa- 
 tions of comets and small planets (sometimes of other objects) have been 
 made with the smaller telescope. At one time, 1853-1861, this was 
 about the only sign of astronomical activity that emanated from the 
 Observatory. It is not known that these observations are entitled to 
 
33 
 
 consideration beyond that which attaches to good routine observations 
 of the kind, constantly produced in many of the large arid small observa- 
 tories. Such work has a value. In order, however,, to acquire for it 
 more than an incidental and secondary value, it must be prosecuted 
 continuously through long periods, on some consistent and comprehen- 
 sive plan, that attends to distinct needs. There is no evidence that 
 such a plan has governed this work at the Naval Observatory. Ex- 
 ceptional years excluded, the observations are not numerous enough to 
 call for special remark. 
 
 Meteorology, Magnetism and Miscellaneous. 
 
 So far as meteorological observations are concerned, those of the Naval 
 Observatory have been of a simple routine character, but they have been 
 made with diligence and regularity by the watchmen under direction 
 of one of the astronomers. The "night watching in. stormy weather" 
 has, after all, fallen to the lot of civilians, who have not even had the 
 stimulus of a military " duty to compel a flagging inclination." 
 
 After marked inattention to the subject of terrestrial magnetism, 
 supposed by the founders' of the observatory to be peculiarly worthy the 
 notice of a naval institution, the Observatory, in 1887, finally inaugura- 
 ted a magnetical department, the buildings for which were provided by 
 the Hydrographic office. This subject has apparently interested the 
 younger officers stationed at the Observatory. But already in his report 
 for 1890, we find the Superintendent saying that the " services of a 
 laborer" at a salary of $720 per annum " are urgently required." This 
 " laborer," in addition to the care of the little buildings, or rooms (which 
 would doubtless prove too much of a burden to the seven laborers already 
 employed, as well as to the two "skilled laborers"), could "read and 
 record temperatures," " develop photographs, make prints and do other 
 work, which at present takes up much of the time of the officers in 
 charge that could be more profitably employed." It is the old story. 
 The details of scientific work are as irksome to military men, as the 
 routine duties of the military camp or vessel of war would be to scientific 
 men. 
 
 The Naval Observatory rates chronometers for the Navy. This work 
 has been done by naval officers in recent years ; and in connection with 
 it an elaborate public time service has been maintained, resulting in 
 considerable friction with private observatories. This department has 
 doubtless been maintained in a sufficiently creditable manner. This is 
 the work of a Naval Observatory. 
 
 Astronomical Researches by the Professors. 
 
 Since 1861, there has emanated from the Naval Observatory a series 
 of astronomical memoirs, usually in the form of "Appendices" to the 
 
34 
 
 annual volume. Some of these have earned a deservedly high reputation, 
 and are not surpassed in value by the similar contributions from any 
 other observatory in the world. Many of these researches have been 
 published elsewhere than in the Observatory volumes. For whatever of 
 reputation among astronomers that it enjoys, the Naval Observatory is 
 more indebted to these memoirs than to its work in observation. In 
 1877, the Superintendent, in an attempt to defend the existing organiza- 
 tion of the observatory, cited some facts to show the appreciation in 
 which it was held abroad. (Report of the Secretary of the Navy for 
 1877, pp. 317-9). Among other things the space devoted to the Naval 
 Observatory in the " Grehnan Astronomical Review" was counted up. 
 This was really no test of the value of observatory work, or a very im- 
 perfect one at least. It was shown that this space amounted to 1044 
 pages. But of these 1044 P a g es > 59 pages, or more than half, were 
 devoted to the personal researches of Professor Newcomb ; so that if this 
 is a test of appreciation for observatory work considerably more than 
 half of it in this case is due to the volunteer efforts of one man out of 
 the fifteen or twenty employed. One is tempted to speculate as to what 
 might have been the result if Professor Newcomb had been given the 
 power to direct the labors of the others as efficiently as he did his 
 own. 
 
 In fact, very little of favorable comment upon the work of the Naval 
 Observatory will be anywhere found that does not relate to such of the 
 " Appendices " as contain the personal researches of the Professors of 
 Mathematics, without special connection with the observations of the 
 Observatory. The work with the Transit Circle, Yarnall's Catalogue, 
 and other purely observational work of the observatory have been the- 
 subjects of occasional descriptive comment. 
 
 Those of the "Appendices" which contain general memoirs upon sub- 
 jects of astronomical research not specially founded upon observations 
 made at the Naval Observatory, with the briefer contributions to astro- 
 nomical journals upon theoretical subjects, while they are the most cred- 
 itable part of its record, have little or nothing to do with its principal 
 function as an institution where observations are made. They were 
 almost invariably volunteer works, undertaken solely at the instance of 
 the authors themselves, who were not in any sense directed to perform 
 them. There was never a superintendent at the Naval Observatory who 
 could have presumed to exercise any actual supervision over these 
 works, further than to permit them to be done, and to say how much 
 time and money could be spared for the purpose, in addition to extra- 
 official work. The superintendents are, of course, entitled to whatever 
 of praise is due 'to them for aiding these works in some cases, and for 
 permitting them to be done. 
 
35 
 
 Respects in which the Naval Observatory has Failed. 
 
 
 
 It is quite evident from the record, that the Naval Observatory has 
 not achieved the place in the annals of astronomy which might have 
 been expected from the generous support which it has received. For 
 the first seventeen years it was astronomically a failure. .This Judgment 
 is very well and fairly expressed in the comments of Professor Newcomb, 
 previously quoted. The period from 1861 to about 1868 was one of de- 
 velopment. During this time the Observatory was successively in 
 charge of the two superintendents who, alone, out of the entire list, could 
 lay even a moderate claim to professional standing in astronomy. Later, 
 the record of the Observatory has been uneven and, on the whole, dis- 
 tinctly unsatisfactory ; and during the last six or eight years it has de- 
 generated into a lifeless and unproductive routine. 
 
 The chief trouble has often been pointed out by astronomers. There 
 has been no evidence that the activities of the Observatory are based on 
 any specific and controlling plan. Its work, like that of 4 many small 
 observatories, has been desultory and without cumulative effect. This 
 is made more plain and definite in this way. Each of the great national 
 observatories has striven to become authority in some important field of 
 work. Greenwich leads in the thoroughness, abundance, and continuity 
 of its observations upon the principal stars and the bodies of the solar 
 system. Pulkowa is foremost in observations of fundamental precision 
 upon the stars visible to unassisted vision, and in the determination of 
 astronomical constants pertaining to that class of observations. The 
 Paris National Observatory has gained leadership in photography of 
 precision upon the stars. The Cape of Good Hope Observatory occupies 
 for the Southern hemisphere the field corresponding to that held by 
 Greenwich in the Northern ; and, besides, is foremost in micrometric 
 work with the heliometer. The Berlin Observatory, with its related 
 Computing bureau, has become authority in regard to the small planets ; 
 and Potsdam Observatory is the leader in the more recondite researches 
 by the spectroscope and photography, where these depend on accurate 
 measurements. Bonn has been foremost in the uraiiometry of the north- 
 ern sky, Cordoba in that of the southern ; each in its sphere having also 
 led in the comprehensive observation of telescopic stars. The list might 
 be prolonged, but these illustrations will suffice to show that while each 
 of these observatories has made valuable contributions in varied lines of 
 research, they are each of them authority in some one or more related 
 lines. For instance, any one desiring immediate information, without 
 absolute completeness, in these respective lines, would naturally consult 
 the work of these observatories first ; and they would be apt to test the 
 value of similar observations elsewhere, by inquiring whether it comes 
 up to the standard of these observatories. It would be natural to say in 
 praise of the work of a given observatory, that it was nearly or quite as 
 
36 
 
 good as the similar work of one of these observatories in that line. That 
 would be considered praise sufficient to settle the matter. The Naval 
 Observatory has made the best and most numerous observations upon 
 the fainter moons of the planets. Otherwise, there is scarcely a point 
 in which that observatory would be considered by astronomers to have 
 made a distinctly leading record. Otherwise no observatory would feel 
 complimented by having it said that its observations in a particular line 
 are as good as the corresponding observations of Washington. Outside the 
 work done by means of the great Equatorial, since 1873, the absolute 
 destruction of all the observations ever made at the Naval Observatory 
 would not sensibly delay the progress of research in any line. The point 
 in this statement is not that the work is not fairly good, but that none of 
 it is so good and unique as to be indispensable not so good but that 
 equally good or better, covering the same ground, cannot be found else- 
 where. The Naval Observatory has not been a leader. 
 
 Nevertheless, ever since the administration of .Captain G-illiss, the Ob- 
 servatory his had a large corps of able assistants. It is not assuming 
 too much to say that it is not inferior to the astronomical staff of any 
 other observatory. But as a rule there has been an apparent lack of 
 zeal in the observations, where in the stress of scientific competition, 
 zeal is so necessary. The causes of this cannot readily be stated with 
 precision. They may originate in a variety of sources to be considered 
 later on. Badly planned instruments would be one cause. Another 
 would be the feeling that, owing to the absence of a well-defined aim 
 and an equally denned plan, the results could not rise above common- 
 place in usefulness. They would be merely imitative, and would have 
 no distinctive value. They would not be likely to be hereafter cited to 
 determine any particular thing which could not be as well or better de- 
 termined through other evidence. The observations savor too much of 
 unthinking and unprofitable routine. The professors, therefore, would 
 feel like saving their energies for their own personal researches, rather 
 than to spend them in wheeling the sands of the seashore with aimless 
 industry from one point to another. The lack of comprehensive schemes 
 of investigation in which the labors of many can be coordinated, so as 
 to produce an impressive whole, as at Pulkowa, is also responsible to 
 some extent for the present state of things. In short, the Observatory 
 has been without a directing head. The superintendents, wisely recog- 
 nizing their inability to direct the scientific labors, in the manner sug- 
 gested, have had the tact and discretion to perceive that the best thing 
 under the circumstances, would be to leave the chief assistants to do as 
 they please. It was probably the wisest course ; but no great observa- 
 tory can ever be built up in that way. Millions spent on marble palaces 
 and costly apparatus, would serve only to emphasize the failure. 
 
37 
 
 Opinion of the Superintendent of the Naval Observatory. 
 
 These views upon the recent history of the Observatory may appear 
 hypercritical. There is no institution of the kind in which one may not 
 easily pick flaws. It is much easier to criticise astronomical observa- 
 tions, than it is to make good ones. It will, therefore be interesting to 
 call in the judgment of the Superintendent of the Naval Observatory in 
 the case. 
 
 Consider, then, the progress of annual expenditure for current main- 
 tenance of the Observatory. This may begin with 1867, when the 
 Observatory was relieved of the care of the charts. Exclude extraordi- 
 nary expenditures, amounting to $570,000. (See appended Note B.) 
 The figures for all purposes cannot be very exactly given without 
 recourse to the records on file in the appropriate departments. But it is 
 possible to form fair estimates. From such estimates it will appear that 
 the total resources of the Naval Observatory have amounted to an 
 annual average, in the period, 1867 to 1873, of $47,000 ; from 1873 to 
 1879, of $56,000; from 1879 to 1885, of $60,500; and from 1885 to 1891 
 of $60,800. (Appended Note B.) It may be thought that the salaries 
 of line officers of the Navy ought not to be included in these estimates, 
 on the ground that the same number would have to be maintained 
 whether they were assigned to the Observatory or not. In that case, the 
 annual averages would be : for the period, 1867 to 1873, about $36,580; 
 for 1873 to 1879, about $43,170; for 1879. to 1885, about $41,040; and 
 for 1885 to 1891, about $43,340. (Appended Note B.) On either hypoth- 
 esis, there has evidently been no material diminution in the total 
 resources of the Naval Observatory during the six years, 1885 to 1891, 
 as compared with the six years of the period, 1873 to 1879. 
 
 It might be inferred, therefore, that the efficiency of the Observatory 
 has been well maintained of late, especially as the average resources 
 from 1889 to 1891 (for the two fiscal years) were perceptibly larger than 
 for the other years with which they are grouped. No great surprise 
 ought to be felt,' if it should turn out that added experience of the astro- 
 nomical corps, inspired by the increasing development of astronomy, 
 had quickened the pulses of the observatory in a sensible degree. On 
 this point, the present Superintendent, in his annual report for the year 
 ending June 30, 1890, says : 
 
 " The issuing of the annual volumes of the observatory has been for 
 years falling farther and farther behind, until now publication is five 
 years behind the observations, and the amount of work done has been 
 growing less and less. Important improvements in instruments arid in 
 methods of observation, as well as new and equally important lines of 
 research, many of which are actively pushed forward at the principal 
 Government observatories, have here been entirely neglected on account 
 of the lack of practical astronomers to make independent observations 
 and to carry on special investigations in conjunction with other observa- 
 tories. In this connection, it is much to be regretted that from the cause 
 
38 
 
 just mentioned this observatory was unable to perform its part in observ- 
 ing the positions of the stars in the zone assigned to complete a chart of 
 the heavens." (Report of the Secretary of the Navy for 1890, p. 99.) 
 
 It is proper to add that the Superintendent prefaces the above extract 
 from his report with the following statement : 
 
 " Out of the corps of twelve professors of mathematics in the Navy, 
 there are . now only six who are on duty as astronomers ; one of the 
 ablest of these will be retired shortly, leaving but five for service at the 
 Observatory and Nautical Almanac office. In contrast with this there 
 were in 1876, and for several years about that time, six professors of 
 mathematics, well kno\yri as astronomers, engaged in active work at the 
 observatory alone." 
 
 The number of professors under the orders of the superintendent from 
 1885 to the present time has been five, all astronomers ; and three of 
 them are among the number alluded to by the Superintendent as well 
 known astronomers in 1876, the others coming in under the system of 
 rigid examinations in vogue for appointments to that corps. The effect- 
 ive reduction in the number of professors has not, therefore, been very 
 great ; and it should have been compensated in some measure by the 
 increase of four or five in the number of naval officers on duty at the 
 Observatory in the latter period. 
 
 Astronomers, the world over, who have given much attention to the 
 matter, will cordially agree with the present Superintendent in his main 
 conclusions. But they do not agree with the idea of the Superintendent 
 that this unfortunate state of affairs is altogether due to "the lack of 
 practical astronomers to make independent observations." When that 
 opinion was written there were on duty at the observatory, exclusive of 
 naval officers, at least eight men, who are entitled to be called practical 
 observers and astronomers. Few observatories in the world can show a 
 list larger than this. Rarely has so large an annual appropriation for 
 general and contingent expenses been available for the use of any gov- 
 ernment observatory. In the sum total, the resources for an observatory 
 of the first rank have always been provided in undimiriishing amount. 
 If these are not so applied as to maintain the full efficiency of the insti- 
 tution, there must be something wrong with the system. 
 
 SECTION VI. NAVAL OFFICERS AS ASTRONOMERS. 
 One of the reasons why the scientific prosperity of the Observatory 
 appears to bear no definite relation to its total resources in men and 
 money at any time, can be attributed to the fact that naval officers are 
 not necessarily, in virtue of their commissions, trained astronomers, or 
 scientific men. This statement implies no disrespect to naval officers, 
 any more than the assertion that our great statesmen are not, as a rule, 
 skilled musicians could be regarded as derogatory to them. The people, 
 recalling the facts of a glorious history, feel the greatest confidence in 
 our naval officers in their professional capacity. Our naval officers have 
 
39 
 
 shown themselves to be skillful and diligent in matters concerning their 
 
 own profession ; courteous and manly representatives of their country in 
 times of peace ; cool and reasonable in irritating relations ; energetic 
 and decisive in emergencies ; chivalrous arid intrepid in fight. But all 
 this public esteem and admiration, which they have justly earned and 
 now deserve, does not entitle them to preside over our courts of justice, 
 to manage our hospitals, or to superintend our observatories. 
 
 Why, then, do we find our Government observatory in the hands of 
 naval officers ? 
 
 One motive for placing the Observatory in the hands of the Navy, had 
 its origin in the excess of naval officers, and in the belief that this excess 
 could be profitably employed in astronomy. This excess was very great 
 at the time the Observatory was founded. (See Report of the Secretary 
 of the Navy, for 1845.) It was so great that, in the words of Secretary 
 Bancroft, some of them "since their promotions have not received orders, 
 and, from the excess of officers and for other reasons, can never receive 
 them." At the same time our vessels of war could not sail up the Potomac to 
 the capital of the nation without charts procured from the Admiralty office 
 in England. (Report of Lieutenant Maury, for 1845). The Government 
 of that day appears to have preferred to employ our naval officers in 
 astronomy, Lather than in maritime surveying ; though it may be doubted 
 if this preference extended to the officers themselves. That the Obser- 
 vatory did afford a refuge for a goodly part of this excess of naval 
 officers is well known. For instance, in the introduction of the Obser- 
 vatory volume for 1851-2, it is stated that forty-five officers were on duty 
 there during those two years, the term of service averaging about eight 
 months for each. The astronomical observations for those years are con- 
 ceded to be practically worthless. 
 
 The attempt to convert naval officers into astronomers has never suc- 
 ceeded and cannot succeed unless the officer, as in the case of Captain 
 Gilliss, virtually abandons his profession. The young man who joins 
 the Navy because he has a strong taste for it is not likely to have the 
 temperament necessary to make a successful scientific investigator. 
 The astronomical observations made by line officers of the Navy at the 
 observatory are relatively few and inferior. This can be specifically 
 shown with reference to the observations they have made with the 
 meridian instruments upon the sun, moon, planets, and telescopic stars. 
 The observations they made with the " prime vertical transit " in 1845 
 have been shown by Professor Hall to have for each observation only 
 one-third the value of those made with the same instrument by ex- 
 perienced astronomers in 1862 to 1867. (Astronomical Journal, Vol. X., 
 p. 57.) 
 
 After an interval of nearly thirty years in which no astronomical 
 observations of scientific consequence had been attempted by officers of 
 the naval line, a systematic and persistent effort was made in the 
 
40 
 
 
 
 period, 1882 to 1885, to employ these officers in astronomical observa- 
 tions. This aroused protests in the public press, but the officers per- 
 severed.* Except for the injury they might do the scientific reputation 
 of the country, and for the diversion of their energies into a channel 
 having nothing in common with the purpose for which they were edu- 
 cated at the expense of the Government, there was, perhaps, no valid 
 reason why they should not make the experiment. The Government 
 can have the services of any number of astronomers likely to be 
 required, at rates of compensation no greater than the naval officers 
 receive, without incurring one dollar of expenditure, either in the pre- 
 liminary or in the professional education of these persons. 
 
 The observations which one of the senior officers made upon comets 
 and small planets, with the smaller equatorial telescope, were numerous 
 and have been published. It is probable that they are of fair quality. 
 Such observations are of the class which the beginner finds it easiest to 
 master. They had not the remotest connection with any nautical or 
 naval utility. 
 
 Other officers observed the sun, moon and planets with the transit 
 instrument. These observations are also published. They are 
 
 * An anonymous writer, " N," evidently representing- the naval line at the ob- 
 servatory, wrote a communication to the New York Tribune, defending- the policy 
 of the Superintendent in this controversy. This article, which appears in the issue 
 of the Tribune for Feb. 12, 1883, maintains among- other points strongly put : 
 
 " 4. The officers eng-ag-ed upon this work were selected for their mathematical 
 and scientific attainments, and in the former at least will stand comparison with a 
 majority of the professors of mathematics." 
 
 ' Ag-ain, he says : " The Naval Observatory is supported at g-overnment expense 
 for naval purposes and while in addition to its special uses other scientific work may 
 be done, it has never been the policy of this country to sustain establishments for 
 purely scientific investigations. The most important duty at the Naval Observatory 
 is the testing, rating and care of the chronometers, collecting data for the Nautical 
 Almanac, and sending time signals and dropping time balls at the various stations. 
 These are purely naval wants which can be readily supplied by naval officers." 
 
 These extracts, in connection with arguments used in the official reports, which 
 are of an altogether different tenor, well illustrate the cleverness of some of those 
 who favor naval control of the observatory in misleading public sentiment. To the 
 public they say, this is purely a practical Naval Observatory. But they well know 
 that if they should say this officially in a way to attract the notice of astronomers, 
 they could be at once convicted of the most outrageous extravagance. If that posi- 
 tion is true the naval officers have absolutely squandered nearly $40,000 per annum 
 in useless expenditure for the observatory, and $600,000 in expenditures for the new 
 observatory. The public is told that naval officers are competent astronomers. It 
 is possible that public officers and Congressmen, in private conversations, are led to 
 suppose that every naval officer is necessarily an astronomer. But no such claim 
 would be made in the presence of professional astronomers. Whenever added sup- 
 port for the observatory is needed, the request is put upon the ground th it the 
 observatory is a great scientific institution, and it is said : * * * " It is neces- 
 sary to appoint some professors of mathematics, astronomers of known experience, 
 as it is mainly to this corps that the observatory has to look for aid to keep up its 
 astronomical reputation." (Rep. of the Secretary of the Navy for 1890, p. 99.) The 
 arguments for removal of the observatory to the new site, with the attendant 
 enormous expenditure, were exclusively based upon the necessity of maintaining 
 and increasing the scientific glories of the establishment. On any other ground the 
 proposal would have been simply impudent. The authorities should insist upon 
 knowing definitely, once for all, what kind of an observatory the Naval Observatory 
 officially claims to be. The law does not say. 
 
41 
 
 decidedly inferior to the observations made by civilian astronomers at 
 the same time in the opposite wing of the observatory building, though 
 the latter were obliged to include an operation which doubled the diffi- 
 culty of the observation, and which the instrument used by the naval 
 officers did not permit to be employed. Mathematically weighed, one 
 observation of the sun by the trained astronomers is worth about as 
 much as three by the naval officers. In the matter of general reliability, 
 the contrast would be, without doubt, more unfavorable to the work of 
 the naval officers. 
 
 Still other officers observed with the prime vertical transit. These 
 observations have never been published, and nothing is known to the 
 astronomical public as to their number or quality. 
 
 Occasionally, junior officers have served as routine computers, though 
 the amount of such work done by them is not relatively important. If 
 they are patient under such tasks, there is no 'reason why, after a few 
 months of training, they should not render efficient service. Such 
 service some of them have produced, as evidenced by the testimony of 
 astronomers for whom it was rendered. Indeed, one may cheerfully 
 concede that the naval officers are men of much more than average 
 intelligence. The manner of their original appointment secures this. 
 But it by no means follows that they can become skilled astronomers for 
 independent work in the intervals of their regular professional duties. 
 
 This appears to have been the conclusion of the late Admiral John 
 Rodgers, a former superintendent of the observatory. He says : 
 
 "No corps in which observatory work is casual, to be abandoned upon 
 occasion for the proper duties of another profession, can compete with 
 the observatories of Europe, in which astronomical observations are a 
 life-long pursuit." (Report of the Secretary of the Navy for 1877, 
 p. 320.) 
 
 On July 1, 1886, these observations by officers of the naval line 
 appear to have been definitely abandoned, and it is not likely that the 
 experiment will soon be resumed. Neither Congress nor the Navy 
 department could make astronomers from naval officers, but through an 
 arrangement by which astronomers are sometimes appointed to be 
 " Professors of Mathematics in the United States Navy," it has become 
 possible to claim that the Observatory is really a naval establishment 
 which employs chiefly "officers of the Navy." 
 
 The pursuit of astronomical investigation, like that of all the other 
 exact sciences, is a profession, requiring for its ordinary walks fully as 
 much preliminary training as is required for the successful practice of 
 law or medicine, and for its higher departments, in their way, as much 
 natural aptitude, training and experience, as are necessary to the 
 development of the qualities of statesmanship in the legal practitioner, 
 or of the power to make independent discoveries in the healing art by 
 the physician. Mathematical and astronomical training at the Naval 
 
42 
 
 Academy is certainly not superior to that which is furnished at our 
 leading colleges and technical schools, and very probably inferior to 
 that which is afforded to students of optional courses in these institutions. 
 Yet the students of our colleges and universities when they first enter 
 the astronomical observatories are considered to be, and are actually 
 found to be, mere beginners in the science of astronomy. They have at 
 best some elementary notions of the science, and if previously trained in 
 the proper way, are ready to make a good beginning, but nothing 
 more. They are still in need of professional training. 
 
 Lieutenant Grilliss, who was well aware of what was needed, proposed 
 to give the midshipmen such training at the observatory. He says : 
 
 " They should possess a knowledge of the higher mathematics, and a 
 taste for astronomical pursuits. To such requisites they must add 
 patience, perseverance, and endurance ; for the refinements of astronomy 
 entail long hours of delicate adjustments and calculations, as well as 
 continued loss of sleep, and exposure to the external temperature at all 
 seasons. Such officers it may be somewhat difficult to select immediately ; 
 but, with an eye to the future, inducements should be offered midship- 
 men to give greater attention to study. Mathematics being the ground- 
 work, upon which must be built all scientific knowledge, I recommend 
 to serious consideration the propriety of offering to the five midshipmen 
 who annually pass the best examination in its higher branches, the honor 
 of serving four years at the observatory. If no others are ordered, I 
 think the emulation will be such in a few years that the junior officers 
 will deservedly attain a high character among scientific men." (Pp. 66 
 and 67, Senate Doc., No. 114, 28th Cong., 2d session. Feb. 7, 1845.) 
 
 This proposal was not adopted, and evidently could not be consistently 
 adopted so long as the Government is always able to command the 
 services of trained astronomers without offering a bounty, and without 
 incurring the smallest expense for their education. Yet it was the 
 only method by which astronomers could be developed from the Navy, 
 or from any other walk in life. 
 
 What actually took place is learned from the comments of Lieutenant 
 Maury, Superintendent, as well as from other sources. He says : 
 
 " A large corps, principally consisting of lieutenants and passed mid- 
 shipmen is engaged upon the details of these investigations [wind and 
 current charts]. They are liable to be called away to sea, and often 
 are at a moment's warning ; and that so frequently, that almost the 
 entire corps is sometimes ordered off to sea and a new one sent in its 
 place, so as to form, in the course of a few weeks, a complete change of 
 the officers engaged upon these investigations." (Washington Obser- 
 vations for 1846 ; published, 1851.) 
 
 Even when applied to the simple clerical details required of assistants 
 on those wind and current investigations, the system proved vexatious, 
 and called forth complaint from the very man who, as much as any one, 
 was responsible for it. The te,rm of shore duty at present appears to be 
 more regular than it formerly was ; but even with three years of it, the 
 
43 
 
 young officer must go to sea just at the time when he could begin to be 
 useful in the scientific operations. 
 
 It is indeed true that very man y of our American astronomers are 
 practically self-taught. With time and opportunity, the resolute man, 
 filled with enthusiasm for his chosen science can conquer all obstacles. 
 But it requires both time arid opportunity, and these struggles cannot 
 be commingled wifch the distractions of another profession. 
 
 SECTION VII. REASONS WHY ASTRONOMICAL WORK SHOULD BE 
 DIRECTED BY AN ASTRONOMER, AND CAUSES OF THE FAILURE OP 
 THE SUPERINTENDENTS OP THE NAVAL OBSERVATORY. 
 
 But if it is difficult for the naval officer to acquire the rudiments of 
 the astronomical profession, how much more hopeless must it seem for 
 him to accumulate that ripened experience, those broad views of as- 
 tronomy, and that keen discernment of the present tendencies of inves- 
 tigation, so necessary in the man who is to supervise, direct, and inspire 
 the labors of others in an institution mainly devoted to professional 
 research in astronomy. 
 
 The acknowledged scientific inefficiency of the Naval Observatory is 
 very largely due to the lack of skilled superintendence. A man who 
 should boast that he never saw a ship or a cannon, and that none of his 
 subordinates ever had, would never be entrusted with the command of 
 a ship or squadron about to engage the enemy. Yet the first Superin- 
 tendent of the observatory made much of the fact that he had never seen 
 an astronomical " instrument of the kind before and had no one with 
 [him] who had." It is not surprising that the Naval Observatory under 
 such captaincy has been beaten. 
 
 The Superintendent Must Choose a Field of Work. 
 In the first place, the superintendent of any observatory must deter- 
 mine what is the best and most appropriate field of work for it. This 
 cannot be left in a hap-hazard way to the tastes of the subordinate as- 
 tronomers. Nor is it any longer justifiable to devote the energies of a 
 great observatory to those researches alone, which tend to the " improve- 
 ment of the art of navigation," even in the most sublimated theoretical 
 sense. That department of astronomy must be looked after, to supply 
 its real needs, in precisely the same way that obtains with other branches 
 of the science. The field of astronomical research is widening as it 
 never has before since the days of Newton and his successors. All the 
 great astronomical centers feel the force of this. The Greenwich Obser- 
 vatory has made provision for a large telescope (diameter of glass, 28 
 inches) with a view to attacking some of these new problems with greater 
 effect. It has already set up a new photographic telescope, and is pur- 
 suing with great energy the preliminary investigations in celestial pho- 
 tography of precision, so necessary for its own guidance and for that of 
 
44 
 
 others. The Greenwich Observatory which, for one hundred and forty 
 years, has accomplished far more than any other in furnishing the 
 material of observation for the improvement of planetary theories arid 
 for " finding the so much desired longitude at sea," while it will continue 
 to give more attention to that department of astronomy than any other 
 observatory can afford to give, will hereafter expend the greater part of 
 its energies in other fields. The Royal Observatory at the Cape, belongs 
 to the best type of modern development. Its field of work has been 
 completely transformed. Pulkowa is already, and has been since its 
 foundation, engaged in a line, the relative importance of which must 
 steadily increase with time. Within the past two decades it has also 
 added a department of astro-physics. The observational energies of 
 the Paris National Observatory are stirred to a degree which that insti- 
 tution has not heretofore known. For many years the numerous German 
 observatories under government patronage have been employed in inves- 
 tigations, preparing the way to the modern revival, both of mathematical 
 and physical astronomy. 
 
 Each of these institutions is finding its own work. It will not do for 
 a great observatory to content itself with merely imitating them, and 
 performing the cooperative tasks suggested by them. Neither should 
 a particular task be avoided because it has been elsewhere undertaken. 
 The highest technical experience is needed in order to decide wisely in 
 this choice of work. The business of a national observatory lies in the 
 lines of established promise, and not in those of mere speculation or 
 experimentation. Observations necessary to supply the needs of the 
 public service must, of course, be attended to by the national observa- 
 tory, but these will never require a large force of observers or expensive 
 equipment. 
 
 In this choice of work, the superintendent has no safe guide, other- 
 wise than in his own knowledge of astronomical needs, founded upon an 
 intimate acquaintance with the history of modern astronomy, and of its 
 tendencies up to the present. He must know not only what it is 
 practicable to do, and what needs to be done, but also what is likely to 
 prove the most profitable investment of future labor. He must look 
 ahead and see, as well as he can, what is coming. His assistants can- 
 not do this for him. They can advise, but the decision rests with him. 
 They may be able to choose some special line of work and gain leader- 
 ship in it, but they can rarely extend this to a whole department, pro- 
 vide for the employment of their colleagues, and insure uninterrupted 
 continuance of the work. 
 
 Choice of the works most appropriate for an observatory would be 
 easier were it not for the constantly changing aspect of astronomical 
 development. This feature of change is more marked at the present 
 time than it has ever been during the last two centuries. The 
 astronomy of twenty,years ago is now termed " old-fashioned," that of 
 
45 
 
 twenty years hence will have a similar epithet for us. While many 
 overestimate the influence and importance of this crowding novelty in 
 the methods and substance of research, there is no doubt that it must be 
 intelligently and closely studied by all who have the responsibility of 
 organizing astronomical work on a large scale. The question, how far 
 not to yield, may be as important and difficult to decide as the opposite. 
 If the superintendent does not successfully meet and decide these 
 questions, the institution under his charge will get behind the times, 
 just as the present Superintendent of the Naval Observatory says that 
 institution now is. 
 
 The choice of work must be governed, to a great extent, by the 
 special training and capacities of available assistants. Furthermore, 
 it is important that assistants be directed, or guided, toward those 
 spheres of activity for which they are respectively best fitted. 
 Scientific discernment of a high order is required for the proper per- 
 formance of this duty. The Naval Observatory has suffered from a 
 defect in this respect. 
 
 The Direct Supervision of Work. 
 
 In an observatory so generously supported as the Naval Observatory 
 has been, it may be possible to employ high-salaried assistants of 
 eminent abilities and experience, who do not need constant supervision 
 in the details of work. They should be permitted as much freedom in 
 following their individual tastes as is compatible with the interests of 
 the observatory as a whole ; but since the observatory is supported in 
 response to a public demand, and not for the pleasure of individual 
 men employed in its duties, there should be some one who possesses 
 scientific ability and knowledge enough to devise a proper coordination 
 of these individual tastes with the obligation of the observatory to the 
 public, the interests of which it is the special business of the superintend- 
 ent to ascertain and enforce. This is one of his most delicate, techni- 
 cally difficult and responsible duties, and it is one which the superin- 
 tendent, who is not an astronomer, must entirely abdicate. So far as 
 tact in dealing with men is concerned, it may be admitted that no 
 astronomer could be expected to surpass the distinguished men who 
 have hitherto filled the office of Superintendent of the Observatory, and 
 if that were the only qualification required, there would be no occasion 
 for change. 
 
 Also, when the director is an astronomer, a large proportion even 
 of the important work of a great observatory can be performed by 
 assistants who might not, perhaps, be able to do so well without profes- 
 sional guidance. It is so in all professions. It is necessary for the 
 director in such case to see that assistants are competent to carry out 
 his instructions, more or less detailed as may be required, and that they 
 are faithful in the performance of duties assigned to them. The as- 
 
46 
 
 sistants must be not only physically present at times when duty requires 
 such presence; they must not only manifest the outward form of in- 
 dustry, but they must be really accomplishing something useful. The 
 two former requirements are probably as well looked after now at the 
 Naval Observatory as they are in any other, but the latter requires 
 personal inspection of the work while it is in progress by some one who 
 knows how it ought to be done, and an examination of results, when 
 furnished, by a director professionally competent to do this expeditiously 
 and on his own independent judgment. 
 
 In this same connection it is proper to remark that it is an important 
 responsibility of a superintendent to keep a watchful eye on the inci- 
 dental needs of astronomy. He must suggest and plan the numerous 
 small series of observations and minor researches, so necessary to the 
 vigorous life as well as to the reputation of a large observatory. It is in 
 these that the junior assistants find their opportunity to develop the 
 power of independent research. It is a judicious admixture of this sort 
 of work with the heavier operations of prolonged investigation that in- 
 spires the working staff with fresh zeal which extends its influence far 
 beyond the official working hours of the establishment. The director, 
 or superintendent, who by reason of his professional qualities is able to 
 inspire his assistants with this zeal for scientific work, and who by 
 reason of his experience and attainments is able to put his assistants 
 fairly on the road to successful results, will never have to complain of 
 unwilling service or inferior work. If he has not these qualities and 
 this experience, then, perhaps, as Mr. Mallory said, military methods 
 may be necessary " to compel a flagging inclination." 
 
 In all these respects the system of non-professional superintendence 
 in vogue at the Naval Observatory has retarded its usefulness in a 
 sensible degree. There have been periods when the Observatory seemed 
 to be full of life and scientific interest ; but analysis will show that it 
 was a state brought about by the activity of two or three of the leading 
 assistants, and that it did not have the element of permanence, because 
 it did not spring from a source which acted equally upon the entire 
 staff'. The superintendent was not the scientific leader of the Observa- 
 tory. 
 
 The Responsibility of Providing Instrumental Equipment. 
 
 To see that an observatory is provided with the best practicable 
 equipment and observing arrangements, at the least possible cost, is 
 another highly important duty of the astronomical director. 
 
 The equipment of the observatory at Pulkowa, as well as that for the 
 Bonn Observatory was provided shortly before that for the Naval 
 Observatory ; and the meiidian instruments then installed at the two 
 former observatories for observations upon the stars and bodies of the 
 solar system are still in efficient use and have not been supplemented 
 
47 
 
 by others during the fifty years that have passed. They are scarcely 
 to be surpassed by the meridian instruments of the present day, if an 
 opinion may be founded upon the work done with them. In the same 
 period, Bessel, the greatest practical astronomer of the century, pro- 
 vided a new meridian instrument for the Prussian Observatory at 
 Konigsberg. Instruments of a similar construction, known as Transit 
 Circles, had been in general use since the beginning of the century. 
 These are the most important instrumental factor in assembling " data 
 for computing a Nautical Almanac." Lieutenant Gilliss visited many 
 observatories in Europe for the special purpose of obtaining advice as 
 to the new equipment for the Naval Observatory. At that time he was 
 a mere tyro in the art of astronomical observation ; but very likely no 
 astronomer in America at that time would have done better. This does 
 not, however, impair the force of the illustration, America was in that 
 respect unfortunate. He was not able to Aveigh the conflicting advice he 
 received, so as to arrive at a proper conclusion. He decided for the 
 antiquated " Mural Circle." The consequence was that the Observatory 
 was handicapped in its principal astronomical undertaking during the 
 first twenty years of its existence ; while brilliant results were being 
 achieved through the use of the instruments procured, as stated, for the 
 observatories at Ptilkowa, Bonn, Konigsberg, and elsewhere. 
 
 Soon after entering upon the duties of his position, the Superintendent 
 of the Naval Observatory conceived the idea of a new instrument which 
 he christened a " Refraction Circle." This was to perfect the means for 
 gathering original material for the calculation of an American Almanac, 
 as one may learn from his glowing descriptions which were published. 
 The instrument was procured at great cost a cost undoubtedly sufficient 
 to have purchased a first-class Transit Circle. There is no record of any 
 observations made with it. The tradition is that it " would not stand 
 alone." 
 
 Even so late as 1865, when the new Transit Circle was procured to 
 supersede the old meridian instruments, misfortune appears to have pur- 
 sued the Observatory. One would have supposed that extraordinary 
 care would have been exercised in the plan of an instrument which 
 was to subserve the principal object of the Observatory and employ one- 
 third, or more, of its effective astronomical staff. Yet it has been 
 regarded by astronomers generally as a failure. If it be maintained 
 that the inferior results obtained through its use are to be attributed to 
 incompetent observers, or to incompetent direction, rather than to defects 
 of the instrument, how shall the fact be explained that this instrument 
 is now undergoing reconstruction at an expense nearly sufficient to buy 
 a new instrument ? 
 
 It was at first supposed that better observations could be made with 
 this instrument in a new room, since that in which it was first placed 
 was unquestionably not well suited to the purpose. The official record 
 
48 
 
 tells the story of the success experienced in this new enterprise, which, 
 by the way, did not do away with the particular defects of the obser- 
 vations that were most injurious. 
 
 Report of Commodore B. F. Sands, Superintendent, Sept. 25, 1869. 
 
 " The architectural qualities of the new room have not yet been 
 tested, but there is no doubt that for purely astronomical purposes it is 
 the best meridian observing room in the world." 
 
 Report of Rear Admiral B. F. Sands, Superintendent, Oct. 6, 1871. 
 
 " The new wing built for it [Transit Circle] has answered our expec- 
 tations, but will yet require some fitting up, for which I have submitted 
 an estimate." ' 
 
 Report of Rear Admiral C. H. Davis, Superintendent, Oct. 17, 1874. 
 
 " The Transit Circle observing-room is in a very unsatisfactory con- 
 dition. It is impossible to obtain proper ventilation in the hot days of 
 midsummer; the roof-shutters do not work well; and, in spite of frequent 
 repairs, they leak in every heavy rain-storm ; the track for the reversing- 
 carriage, is not properly laid ; the arms of the reversing-carriage. which 
 are half an inch too near together, require some changes ; and the pro- 
 tection of the thermometer, on which the computation for refraction 
 depends, is such that there is frequently an abnormal range of 5 or 6." 
 
 " It will require at least $1,500 to put this room in order." 
 
 In 1874, a splendid new telescope, then the most powerful in exist- 
 ence, was mounted at the Naval Observatory. It cost, with building 
 and fittings, $67,000. The observational record with this instrument 
 has been highly creditable. The work, however, is entirely in the field 
 of pure scientific investigation. Yet the authorities of the Observatory 
 appear to have decided that this instrument must be almost totally 
 reconstructed at the enormous expense of $32,600. The removal of this 
 telescope to the new site and placing it in position, with incidental 
 improvements that may really be necessary would cost a large sum to 
 be sure ; but it requires a generous Government to pass over in silence 
 this much greater expenditure upon an instrument which is still 
 virtually new, and with the aid of which so much excellent work has 
 been already accomplished. 
 
 This .entire record in regard to instrumental equipment is in striking 
 contrast to that of all other observatories, where the instruments have 
 been provided under the direction of competent astronomers. The 
 number of serious mistakes which have been made by them in this 
 matter is surprisingly small. 
 
 Scientific Atmosphere of a Large Observat<yry . 
 
 Another important obligation of an astronomical superintendent is to 
 see that his assistants are properly instructed in their duties. Even 
 after his three or four years of apprenticeship the young observer has 
 still much to learn at the hands of experience. He may gain this 
 
49 
 
 knowledge through the mistakes he will inevitably make. The liability 
 to make such mistakes of method, and to waste labor upon compara- 
 tively profitless objects, is a serious drawback for the small observatories 
 which cannot always command the services of an experienced astrono- 
 mer. To a certain extent 110 instruction can entirely do away with these 
 errors of practice. But it is the duty of the director to be alert to dis- 
 cover these faults, or to see that they are pointed out, and, so far as 
 possible, to correct them before they have resulted in the disfigurement 
 of what might otherwise become creditable work. A great observatory 
 can command the services of a director competent to perform this 
 service ; if it neglects this opportunity, it sacrifices its advantage, and 
 becomes wasteful of labor. 
 
 In short, it devolves upon the superintendent, vastly more than upon 
 any of his subordinates, to create a healthy and vigorous scientific at- 
 mosphere in the observatory ; to stimulate study for the enthusiasm 
 which it generates ; to nurture an esprit de corps ; and to create a senti- 
 ment in the entire staff that will not tolerate the production of an in- 
 ferior article of observation or research. 
 
 Editorial Duties of the Superintendent. 
 
 An intimate knowledge of the professional literature of astronomy is 
 of essential use when the director is dealing with observations and de- 
 ductions drawn from them. The practical questions come up : Shall 
 they be accepted for printing in the form and condition presented ? 
 How do they compare in method and value with similar observations 
 and researches elsewhere produced ? Are they accurate in the details 
 of observation and calculation ? It is easy to say off-hand, " we have 
 beaten Greenwich all hollow" (Maury to Blackford, p. 49, Life of 
 Maury), but it. is quite another thing to determine the value of astro- 
 nomical work by a specific examination. While it may not be neces- 
 sary for the superintendent always to enter into every detail of such an 
 examination, the experienced astronomer will know how to determine 
 the general quality of the work in such a manner that he can afford to 
 assume genuine responsibility for its character. The theory at the 
 Naval Observatory appears to have been that these editorial functions 
 could be, for the most part, omitted, and for the remainder, delegated 
 to subordinates. Common sense and experience prove that subordinates 
 hesitate to throw discredit on the work of a colleague, even when it is 
 strongly justified. The exercise of such functions by those \vh n do not 
 have the real power of decision and who may be subjected to the vexa- 
 tious duty of defending themselves against frivolous complaints of in- 
 justice, not only impairs the sense of actual responsibility, but is also a 
 fruitful source of those jealousies which are complained of at the Naval 
 Observatory. 
 
50 
 
 Especially must the superintendent be responsible for the accuracy of 
 the calculations and of printing. The directors of the great national 
 observatories have always been very punctilious on these points. The 
 annual volumes of the Naval Observatory bear ample testimony to the 
 fact that this necessary function of the superintendent has not always 
 been exercised with efficiency. A single example will suffice to illus- 
 trate. In 1873 the Observatory issued what is technically known as a 
 star-catalogue. This is the only general catalogue containing the posi- 
 tions of a large number of stars which has so far emanated from the Ob- 
 servatory. It was hailed with joy by astronomers everywhere ; for, 
 although it had nothing whatever to do with the practice of navigation, 
 it was the most important work of observation which had been published 
 by the Observatory. But it was soon found to be crowded with errors 
 to such an extent that a new edition was rendered imperatively neces- 
 sary. This new and improved edition of " YamaH's Catalogue " was 
 issued in 1878. In the course of a very short time it was found that this 
 new edition was still extremely faulty. The entire work was accord- 
 ingly again revised, requiring years of skilled labor for the purpose. A 
 third edition was finally brought out in 1890, which is presumably of 
 the proper standard of accuracy. The catalogue must now be regarded 
 as one of decided value. 
 
 This incident furnishes a most instructive illustration of the evils which 
 may result from the lack of efficient superintendence. It is not alone 
 the waste in costly printing, amounting to thousands of dollars, that 
 calls for condemnation. It is the waste of labor in these repeated revi- 
 sions, preparation of new manuscript, and extra proof-reading, that is 
 equally to be deplored. The loss of prestige for the Observatory and 
 for American astronomy, as well as the annoyances and waste of labor 
 which astronomers have suffered in consequence of these faulty editions, 
 cannot be ignored. This was the fault of unskilled superintendence. 
 
 Advantages of a Long Term of Service in the Superinteniency of an 
 
 Observatory. 
 
 Another obvious advantage of skilled civilian direction for an astro- 
 nomical observatory is that resulting from the long tenure of office that 
 becomes possible under that system. During fifty years the Pulkowa 
 Observatory had two directors. Sir George B. Airy was in charge of the 
 Greenwich Observatory for forty -five years ; and during somewhat more 
 than two centuries the directors of the Greenwich Observatory have num- 
 bered only eight. The Naval Observatory has had nine Superintend- 
 ents during the past twenty-five years, and six of these since 1882. One 
 advantage of the long term principle is the relatively small loss of effi- 
 ciency, inevitable while a new superintendent is adjusting himself to his 
 duties. A vastly greater advantage, however, lies in the possibility of 
 originating and fixing those comprehensive and well-studied scientific 
 
51 
 
 policies which are so absolutely essential to the highest success in any 
 scientific work, and especially in that of a great national observatory. 
 The observatory thus becomes an astronomical power that makes an in- 
 delible impress upon the age. If the policy is ever a mistaken one, the 
 astronomical superintendent will find it out more quickly and surely 
 than any business man can. 
 
 Objections to Skilled Superintendence Considered. 
 
 Arguments have been presented on the other side of this question, 
 between skilled arid unskilled superintendence. Some of these have 
 been met in the foregoing remarks. It is desirable, perhaps, that still 
 others should receive attention. 
 
 " It is to be feared," says the late Admiral John Rodgers, Superin- 
 tendent, " that a national observatory open to the whole body of 
 American astronomers, would gravitate into the political arena, where 
 mere unobtrusive merit would avail less than sectional partialities, or 
 specious pleading supported by personal preferences." (Number 13 of 
 papers accompanying the Report of the Secretary of the Navy for 1877.) 
 
 In this connection, it seems pertinent to inquire whether the Navy is 
 more free from the operation of personal preferences and favoritism than 
 are the civilian scientific bureaus of Government. It is confidently 
 asserted that the civilian scientific bureaus have been remarkably free 
 from partisan influences. With extremely rare exceptions, scientific 
 men in positions of administrative responsibility, have sturdily 
 defended the right and advisability of making appointments and pro- 
 motions in scientific work under their charge, solely on the basis of 
 personal and professional merit. That position has been almost 
 invariably respected and supported by the higher executive powers. It 
 is a notable fact of observation and remark, that the most intense parti- 
 sans in Congress, and in positions of executive responsibility, have been 
 among the most generous and intelligent of public men in regard to 
 the non-partisan administration of scientific work. Scientific men seem 
 to be regarded as non-combatants in the political arena, arid are treated 
 accordingly. The assertion may be safely ventured that the Coast 
 Survey and Geological Bureau contain as large a proportion of " unob- 
 trusive merit " among their employes, as the Naval Observatory con- 
 tains, and that it would be as difficult to discover political motives in 
 the appointments to the former as . in the latter. There is no reason 
 whatever for fearing that a different rule would prevail in regard to an 
 astronomical observatory under civilian control. 
 
 The following extracts from the document prepared by the Superin- 
 tendent of the Naval Observatory in 1877 (Report of the Secretary of 
 the Navy, accompanying papers, No. 13) illustrate criticisms in ref- 
 erence to the superintendence of a large observatory by an astronomer, 
 which have been brought forward in this controversy : 
 
52 
 
 " The statement may, perhaps, be hazarded that authors, inventors, 
 musicians, are naturally jealous of each others' professional reputation. 
 It may be feared that mathematicians and astronomers are not free 
 from the same weakness ; and so far as this is true, so far would its 
 existence militate against harmony and efficiency." (Admiral Rodgers.) 
 
 * # * " No scientific man can afford to step from the ranks of 
 scientific workers into such a position [as Superintendent of the observ- 
 atory] unless he hopes to build up his reputation upon the labor of 
 others." * * * "There are few eminent astronomers who have not 
 made their reputation by the cultivation of some specialty to the exclu- 
 sion of almost everything else ; and were such a man made Superin- 
 tendent of the observatory, there would be great danger that the whole 
 force of the establishment would be employed in advancing his specialty ; 
 thus preventing his assistants from engaging in other work of equal or 
 perhaps greater importance, and greatly limiting the scope of the insti- 
 tution." (Letter of majority professors to. the Superintendent.) 
 
 It is fair to infer that Admiral Rodgers (who discusses the subject in 
 a fair-minded way with predilections in favor of superintendence by an 
 astronomer) had gained his experience in regard to the ways of scien- 
 tific men at the Naval Observatory, of which he was then the honored 
 Superintendent. It is pertinent to inquire whether there is anything in 
 the system of administration at the Naval Observatory which should 
 lead to the expression of opinions by astronomers*, so much at variance 
 with those which are generally entertained in the profession elsewhere. 
 It is quite as easy to suppose there was something of this kind as it is 
 to believe that the members of a profession engaged in the noblest of 
 intellectual pursuits are universally actuated by petty motives and self- 
 ish interests. It may be admitted that astronomers are no better in 
 these respects than are lawyers, physicians, clergymen, or naval officers ; 
 but to say that they are not capable of self-government among 
 themselves is to ignore the testimony of experience in the great as well 
 as in the small national observatories of other lands. There is abso- 
 lutely no escape from the logic of this experience except in saying that 
 these charges apply to American astronomers only. One may admit, 
 with the Superintendent, that troubles of an analogous nature are not 
 unknown among professional musicians. Yet no one appears to have 
 thought of a remedy like that which would be implied in placing a 
 naval officer at the head of the Observatory. Whenever a great orches- 
 .tra proves inharmonious in either sense of the word, the remedy which 
 is always applied, whenever the public demand for music is strong 
 enough to warrant it, is to put the refractory orchestra under the direc- 
 tion of the ablest musical director that available funds, or patronage, 
 will warrant. 
 
 * Two of the Professors, Simon Newcomb, Superintendent of the Nautical Alm- 
 anac, and Edward S. Holden, now director of the Lick Observatory in California, 
 did not join in these views of their five colleagues, but wrote letters to the Superin- 
 tendent, strongly advocating scientific control for the Observatory. It is also 
 believed that the views of some of the other professors were subsequently very 
 much modified. 
 
53 
 
 It is further evident that the live majority professors did not want 
 any superintendent at all, except a non-astronomical one who should, as 
 they express it later in their letter, "look after the business affairs of 
 the institution, thus leaving the scientific corps leisure for their proper 
 work." This would undoubtedly, in some respects, prove an agreeable 
 arrangement for those who suppose that a Government observatory exists, 
 not in response to a public demand, but for the personal gratification of 
 the astronomers who happen to be employed therein, 'the theory of a 
 Government observatory has already been sufficiently considered. A 
 national observatory exists, because the public at large desires that the 
 nation shall bear its share in contributing to the intelligence of the 
 world in a field which is one of the noblest and most fascinating that can 
 engage the attention of mankind. At the same time this public relies 
 on the assurance from astronomers that there is a large class of laborious 
 operations in the most important fields of research which are very sure 
 to be neglected, if left to the care of private enterprise. It is not for 
 the assistants, nor even for the director, to dictate what work a national 
 observatory shall do. The work is imposed upon the observatory by the 
 logic of scientific events ; and for that reason, especially, the director 
 must be a well-trained and experienced astronomer, in order properly to 
 perceive and interpret this logic. In nearly all countries having large 
 observatories, he has a commission, or " board of visitors," to aid him in 
 the performance of this duty, arid to control him in this respect if his 
 judgment be deemed at fault. In accepting the office and emoluments 
 of a Government astronomer, whether subordinate or chief, the astrono- 
 mer takes upon himself the obligation to labor faithfully in the interest 
 of this public demand. 
 
 It is quite probable that an " eminent astronomer " would actually desire 
 to make some distinct and possibly unique impression through the com- 
 bined labors over which he might have the control. He would not wait for 
 other observatories to point out the work he ought to do, nor fritter the 
 energies confided to his management in doing the work which is as well, 
 or better (and sufficiently), done elsewhere. Nor is there the least 
 danger that an able specialist will dragoon unwilling assistants of high 
 rank to labor in his own lines. He well knows that responsible work in 
 science cannot be well done by the man who is not able to put some 
 heart in it. 
 
 The majority professors, in common with other advocates of the 
 present system of the Naval Observatory, make much of the business 
 duties of the superintendent. They cannot be neglected ; but it is 
 difficult to believe that they can be more onerous than the corresponding 
 responsibilities of the Coast Survey or Geological Bureau. The super- 
 intendents of these establishments have been specially complimented by 
 committees of Congress (Senate Reports, 49th Cong., 1st Session ; No. 
 1285, p. 52 ; and elsewhere) upon the ability and efficiency with which 
 
54 
 
 they have discharged this part of their duties ; yet there has been no 
 lack of attention to their scientific duties ; arid it is not known or 
 believed that the chiefs of either of these important bureaus have at any 
 time considered it necessary to recoup themselves for time spent in the 
 multifarious business duties of their offices by stealing the credit due to 
 their subordinates. 
 
 The Question of Comparative Expense. 
 
 Against proposed superintendence of our Government observatory 
 by an astronomer has been urged the fear that the " expenses would be 
 largely augmented." It is impossible to consider the matter of expen- 
 diture apart from that which is produced as the result of expenditure. 
 Whether the expenses of the Observatory shall be increased or dimin- 
 ished under a civilian administration depends entirely upon the will of 
 the people, expressed through their representatives in Congress, as to 
 the amount and quality of astronomical product which is desirable that 
 this nation shall contribute to the world's common stock of scientific 
 knowledge. The value of that product cannot be measured by the array 
 of figures and the number of pages in publications. If it is considered 
 sufficient that our G-overnmeiit observatory shall, hereafter, simply 
 maintain its present scientific standing, and contribute astronomical 
 results of not much more intrinsic value than those which have hitherto 
 emanated from the Naval Observatory during like periods, then 
 every experienced astronomer in the country (who is free to speak), 
 would unite in the prediction that expenses would be reduced under the 
 administration of a competent astronomer. The separation of the func- 
 tions of the present establishment in such a manner, that the rating of 
 the chronometers and similar duties shall be carried on at a naval 
 observatory in charge of a naval officer, assisted by naval officers, and 
 that the scientific duties, both theoretical and practical, shall be per- 
 formed at an astronomical observatory in charge of a competent 
 astronomer with a civilian organization, would unquestionably result in 
 greater efficiency and economy of service. 
 
 In support of these assertions, two pertinent comparisons may be 
 instituted. The Argentine National Observatory was established in 
 1872, ready for work. Its directors and assistants had been citizens of 
 the United States, and received liberal salaries for their service. Every 
 competent astronomer must join in the statement that the results 
 achieved by the Argentine Observatory, at Cordoba, during the period 
 from its foundation to 1885, were much greater in quantity and certainly 
 not inferior in quality, as compared with the corresponding results pro- 
 duced by the United States Naval Observatory during any similar 
 period of its history. Yet the annual expenditure at the Cordoba 
 Observatory averaged less than $21,000, including sums expended for 
 somejbuildings and instruments additional to those originally provided. 
 
55 
 
 The current expenditures for the Naval Observatory, during this same 
 period (1872-1885), exclusive of the salary of the superintendent and 
 of line officers of the Navy, amounted to fully $42,000 per annum. (See 
 Note B, appended.) The total expenditures for the Argentine Obser- 
 vatory were, in fact, less than the sums appropriated to the Naval 
 Observatory, during the same period, for the pay of a few civilian 
 assistants, for labor, and for general expenses, and excluding the 
 the amounts paid for salaries of the six or seven principal astronomers. 
 (See appended Note B.) But it may be objected that this was a sort of 
 expeditionary tour de force (though it lasted nearly fifteen years), and that 
 the work of an observatory cannot habitually be kept at such high tension. 
 The Greenwich Observatory offers a standard of comparison which is 
 not open to this objection. 
 
 The output of scientific observations from the Greenwich Observatory 
 has certainly been larger and better than it has been at the Washington 
 Observatory in corresponding periods. A comparison between the ex- 
 penditures of these two observatories is therefore not unfair to the Naval 
 Observatory. In the Appendix to the Greenwich Observations for 1873 
 (published in 1875) the annual grant to the Royal Observatory for all 
 purposes is stated to be usually about 6,000 (or say $29,200). The 
 Astronomer Royal receives 1,000 per annum ; the chief assistant, from 
 500 to 600 ; the three assistants next in rank, 320 to 450 ; five as- 
 sistants of junior grade, 180 to 300. The sum of 600 per annum 
 was expended for the services of computers in the discretion of the 
 Astronomer Royal. " A laborer, a watchman and a gate porter are also 
 employed." It appears that the total resources of the Naval Observa- 
 tory in the period, 1867 to 1879, excluding pay of superintendent, 
 (which at Greenwich amounts to nearly $5,000), and excluding the pay 
 of line officers on duty at the Observatory as assistants, amounted to an 
 average of $39,875 per annum. This is 36 per cent greater than the 
 corresponding amount for the Greenwich Observatory, and is quite 
 sufficient to allow for the difference in scale of salaries in the two 
 countries, which such services command, as may be seen from the above 
 quoted list. The practical duties for the public service performed by 
 the Greenwich Observatory, such as rating chronometers for the English 
 navy, public time service, and the like, were certainly as great as those 
 performed by the line officers on duty at the Naval Observatory ; and 
 if the value of these services had been subtracted from the Greenwich 
 account as they here are from that of the Washington Observatory, the 
 showing would have been much more unfavorable to the latter. 
 
 The account for labor and general services at the Naval Observatory, 
 in comparison with the corresponding account for Greenwich, suggests 
 a promising field for retrenchment. It appears from the appropriation 
 bill for 1882 and subsequent years, that there were employed, one fourth- 
 class clerk, an instrument-maker, two skilled laborers, three watchmen, 
 
56 
 
 and seven laborers, fourteen persons in all, as compared with three 
 for like services at the Greenwich Observatory. It is probable that a 
 part of this difference is not real the clerical service at Greenwich 
 coming in as part of the duty of the astronomical service, perhaps, and 
 that for instrumental repairs out of the general contingent fund ; but it 
 is not easy to find the reason for this remarkable disproportion of 
 laborers. 
 
 The plans for the new observatory point to the necessity for a very 
 large increase in these forms of expenditure in the future. 
 
 Full responsibility for the details of work finally centers upon the 
 man who directs the labors of individual workers upon the Superin- 
 tendent of the Arsenal, or Navy yard, of the military post, or of the 
 vessel of war, of the Coast Survey, the Medical bureau, or the astronomi- 
 cal observatory. It is a responsibility which cannot be further dele- 
 gated or evaded. It can only be exercised with advantage by the man 
 who is professionally conversant with the details of the work. Especially 
 where all, or nearly all, the workers must be men of special professional 
 attainments, is the necessity of professional superintendence more 
 urgent. This statement is so true, and its truth is so universally 
 recognized in ordinary affairs, that the utterance of it, even in this dis- 
 puted connection, seems like a platitude, for which there would be no 
 excuse but for the fact that its applicability is practically denied in the 
 administration of the Observatory. 
 
 SECTION VIII. REFORM NEEDED IN THE SYSTEM OF EMPLOYMENT AT 
 
 THE NAVAL OBSERVATORY. 
 
 The reform really demanded at the Observatory, should go much 
 deeper than the question as to what manner of man ought to be its 
 directing head. The entire system of naval organization is unfavor- 
 able to the interests and efficiency of an astronomical establishment. 
 At best not many men can be supported by the Government, or from 
 private endowments, for the purpose of carrying on scientific investiga- 
 tions, even when these concern the every day needs of mankind. It 
 will never be necessary to impress into this service the few men who are 
 needed, nor to hold them to it by the bonds of military discipline. The 
 opportunity to engage in scientific work as a profession is something 
 that a few men, here and there, will strive for as other men strive for 
 money or political power. The more responsible posts in scientific work, 
 both theoretical and applied, should be reserved by those who have 
 the power to award them, as the prizes of distinguished merit. This 
 has been the policy of all the great European Governments ; and any 
 other tends to restrict the science of a country within provincial limits. 
 There will be 110 dearth of worthy applicants for scientific positions of 
 any grade, even if the rates of compensation be moderate, provided the 
 
57 
 
 Government arranges efficient and vital organization, and offers a 
 reasonable assurance that promotion shall be based upon the combined 
 claims of zealous industry and the growth of professional attainment. 
 It should be a high honor to occupy a prominent position on the 
 Observatory staff, arid it would be so considered under a proper 
 organization. 
 
 These principles are violated in the organization of the Naval 
 Observatory. The professors of mathematics designed for duty at the 
 Observatory are commissioned as staff officers in the Navy. They are 
 usually appointed at a time in their professional career (and occasionally 
 before they have any professional experience), when it is impossible to 
 foresee what capacity for independent scientific work of the higher 
 order, they will develop. Yet, once appointed, the technical rank and 
 the actual emolument to which they can attain is rigidly mapped out 
 for the remainder of life in the service. They are beyond the reach of 
 external stimulus. In many cases professional pride will act as an 
 incentive ; if they have the true scientific spirit, the interest of work 
 will sufficiently stimulate, but whether it does or not, the material 
 reward is the same. Those unfortunate divergencies in personal 
 capacity and quality may so operate in the case of two astronomers who 
 are equally earnest, and who may seem to start on an equal footing, in 
 a manner such that one shall quickly mount the ladder of scientific 
 attainment to the highest point, while the other may remain at the foot. 
 It is absurd that the material rewards should be the same. 
 
 The arguments which bear upon the system of promotions in the 
 Army and Navy do not apply in a service where so much depends upon 
 a special form of intellectual vigor and capacity. The arguments 
 which advocate a secure tenure of office during efficiency and good 
 behavior cannot, in the case of astronomers, be extended so as to cover 
 promotion for longevity alone. There is no excuse -for this system as 
 applied in the Observatory, except to found the quibble that the princi- 
 pal astronomers at the Observatory are naval officers. 
 
 A great national observatory such as the Naval Observatory is evidently 
 designed to be, should be enabled to draw upon the entire country for 
 the available material in astronomers, which circumstances may render 
 it unable to supply from its own personnel. Among the astronomical 
 enterprises which such an observatory should desire to carry on, are some 
 that may require special training and experience of a high order. 
 When such an undertaking is interrupted by the accident of death or 
 resignation of its actual conductor, it will frequently happen that there 
 is no one in the observatory staff able to take up the interrupted work in 
 a proper manner, while it will as frequently happen that exactly the 
 right man for the work can be had elsewhere. Unless the organization of 
 the observatory is such that when the necessity arises new men may be 
 introduced in any grade where it would be most advantageous for the 
 
58 
 
 interests of the observatory to place them, it will fail in that most essen- 
 tial requisite of a national observatory, the ability to prosecute a pro- 
 longed investigation continuously without sensible loss of efficiency at 
 any time. In this respect, the present organization of the Naval Obser- 
 vatory conspicuously fails. 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 It may seem surprising that a system of organization so manifestly 
 unsuited to the wants of a scientific institution has endured so long. 
 This is not so much due to the lack of complaint from astronomers, as it 
 is to the manner in which the Observatory has been developed without 
 legislation expressly defining its objects. In a military department, with 
 subordinates subject to order, and transfer of service at will, it is easy to 
 encroach upon the prerogatives of legislation and to build up what are 
 virtually new institutions without express permission from Congress. 
 Such, in great measure, was the early history of the Geological and 
 Geographical Surveys by the Army, as well as of the Army Weather 
 Service. The Army and Navy have facilities which enable them to start 
 such enterprises without attracting much attention They can inaugurate 
 an observatory through the device of building a " house for charts," and 
 stock it with instruments from a general contingent fund for instruments 
 for the Navy. They can then man it with their own officers, requiring 
 no special appropriation at first. Later they can show that the efficiency 
 of the establishment would be increased if a few civilian assistants were 
 allowed ; and thus, from small beginnings, build up an extensive estab- 
 lishment through the power and skill of organization. To be sure, so 
 far as special appropriations may be necessary, Congress, in the act of 
 granting them, does virtually sanction the objects to which they are 
 devoted. But this is a very different thing from the kind of authoriza- 
 tion which ought to be accorded to a new enterprise. In granting an 
 appropriation to an existing establishment, the inquiry is usually, not so 
 much whether the institution ought to be supported at all, or whether it 
 is conducted as it ought to be, as it is, what was the appropriation last 
 year, and why is more wanted this year. 
 
 This facility, while it is necessary in operations concerning the mili- 
 tary, is pernicious when applied to civil administration. The extension 
 of military control to matters which have no relation to military effi- 
 ciency is, indeed, highly obnoxious to good government, as Americans 
 regard it. Much evidence exists that Congress looks with disfavor on 
 this form of control in matters which are essentially not military. More 
 than ten years ago the geological and geographical survey in the West, 
 which was conducted by the Army, was taken from that department 
 and consolidated with others to form a civilian bureau. This year the 
 Weather Bureau of the Army Signal Corps has been transferred to 
 civilian management. This transfer grew out of a long-continued agi- 
 
tation in which the investigation of 1884-6, by a joint commission of 
 both Houses of Congress, may be considered to have been the decisive 
 feature. The controversy was precisely of the nature that now exists 
 between astronomers and the naval representatives of the Observatory, 
 except that the arguments for placing the Observatory under technical and 
 civilian control are much more conclusive than in a case like that of the 
 Weather service. The subject-matter of investigation related to details 
 of operation in certain scientific bureaus of Government to supposed du- 
 plication of work and functions rather than to general principles of 
 administration. Nevertheless, the report of the commission, of which 
 Hon. William B. Allison was chairman, contains some reflections upon 
 the general principles which ought to govern in the conduct of scientific 
 work by the Government. One point upon which the commission ap- 
 pears to have been unanimous is pertinent to the present occasion. This 
 point is very succinctly expressed in the minority report which was 
 signed by Hon. John T. Morgan, Hon. Hilary A. Herbert, and Hon. John 
 T. Tait. They say : 
 
 "As a question of proper civil administration, it seems clear to the 
 commission, as appears in the general report, that it is not good govern- 
 ment to put a branch of the service that has no necessary relation to mil- 
 itary affairs under the regimen of a military establishment and under 
 military organization and command." (Senate Reports, No. 1,285, p. 
 59 ; 49th Cong., 1st session.) 
 
 On its own account the minority also says : 
 
 " It is not consistent with the spirit of our Government that the mili- 
 tary should dominate the civil power in any case where such a danger- 
 ous course of administration can be avoided." (Ibid., p. 59.) 
 
 With the ordinary operations of the Navy Department, astronomers 
 have no more concern than any other class of citizens. They would 
 ordinarily have no more occasion to be exercised over the administration 
 of a depot of charts than those of other professions. But when this 
 " depot " is discovered to be an astronomical observatory, which assumes 
 to represent American astronomy and employs a large staff of profes- 
 sional astronomers in pure scientific investigation, it becomes not only 
 the right but the duty of astronomers to interfere, if, in their judgment, 
 the interests of astronomy and the country require it. 
 
 From the account of the early history of the Naval Observatory, it is 
 evident that astronomers did make an effort to secure a proper scientific 
 organization for the Government observatory. There is evidence that 
 this sentiment was alive in 1854, when the Secretary of the Navy in 
 response to an inquiry in regard to the proper name for the observatory 
 wrote : 
 
 " It is a Navy affair, and its reputation is the property of the Navy. 
 If it assume another name and character, the next step will be to place 
 a civilian at its head." (Letter of Dec. 12, 1854. See Report of National 
 Academy of Sciences for 1885, p. 64.) 
 
60 
 
 The number of practical astronomers in America in those days was 
 small, and they could exert but a feeble influence. There were few 
 observatories in the land, and, with one exception, they had no inde- 
 pendent income. Within the past twenty-five or thirty years there has 
 been a great change in this respect. There are now in the United 
 States nine or ten observatories that are supported from special endow- 
 ments or from public funds ; and in addition to these, a number of uni- 
 versity and college observatories where the professors in charge have 
 opportunity to carry on work of investigation in addition to that of 
 instruction. The antagonism to superintendence of the Government 
 observatory by a Naval officer, has, therefore, become more pronounced 
 arid aggressive, in proportion to the increase of the astronomical interest 
 in the country. This antagonism has been marked during the past 
 fifteen years, though thus far without evident effect. The distinguished 
 character of many of the superintendents of the Naval Observatory, 
 when it was the practice to detail officers of high rank to that duty, 
 undoubtedly served to restrain the protests of astronomers, though not 
 to silence them. These appointments gave the incumbents shore duty 
 pay at the seat of Government, a comfortable residence, a stable, a 
 garden, and perhaps other desirable perquisites. It is not likely that 
 the public would have applauded what might have been improperly 
 construed as personal attacks upon these distinguished men. 
 
 Nevertheless, in 1865 and again in 1867, the earlier administration of 
 the Observatory was sharply criticised by American astronomers of high 
 rank, in articles addressed to the public*. In 1877 naval administration 
 at the Observatory was put on the defensive, as previously shown. In 
 1882-3 the struggle assumed definite shape and the controversy made 
 some stir in the public press. In 1885, the National Academy of 
 Sciences, in response to a request from the Secretary of the Navy for its 
 opinion in regard to the proposed removal of the Observatory to a new 
 site presented an elaborate reportf upon the subject of the organization 
 of the Naval Observatory, in which the present system is arraigned and 
 unequivocally condemned, urging at the same time in emphatic terms 
 that a change to skilled superintendence be made a condition pre- 
 cedent to the removal. Petitions to like effect have been sent to the 
 Navy Department from various representative educational institutions, 
 such as Harvard College, Johns Hopkins University and others. Out- 
 side the Naval Observatory the sentiment of the scientific men of the 
 country is practically unanimous in favor of the change. 
 
 *The National Almanac for I<s64, by Dr. B. A. Gould; North American Review, 
 Vol. 105 (editorially), by Professor Simon Newcomb, U. S. N. 
 
 fSee Report of the National Academy for 1885. This report was signed by F A. 
 P. Barnard, President of Columbia College ; A. Graham Bell ; J. D. Dana, Professor 
 in Yale College and Editor of the American Journal of Science ; S. P. Langley, 
 Director of the Allegheny Observatory (now Secretary of the Smithsonian Insti- 
 tution) ; Theodore Lyman, E. C. Pickering, Director of the Observatory of Harvard 
 College ; and C. A. Young, Director of the Halstead Observatory, Princeton. 
 
61 
 
 Notwithstanding these and many other protests, it has not been 
 possible for astronomers to make much impression upon the authorities 
 of Government in this matter. It *is difficult for the few astronomers 
 scattered over the country and absorbed in their work, to make effec- 
 tive head against the influences interested in perpetuating the present 
 system at the Observatory. But the justice of their cause will insure 
 their persistence, until some favorable occasion when the authorities of 
 Government choose to examine the question on its merits. 
 
 There is no longer any pretense that the new Observatory is not 
 intended to fulfill the functions elsewhere exercised by great national 
 observatories. In 1877, the Superintendent, after reviewing the work 
 at the Observatory, said : 
 
 " It will be seen from the foregoing that the observatory is a great 
 national institution, and that within its sphere, it amply returns, both in 
 material value and national fame, all the sums expended upon it." 
 {Report of the Secretary of the Navy for 1877, p. 319.) 
 
 Whatever was true in regard to the purely astronomical scope of the 
 Naval Observatory in 1877, will be true in a much greater degree of 
 the new Observatory. So the projectors of the new institution 
 undoubtedly intend, for, otherwise, they would stand convicted of the 
 most unpardonable extravagance. 
 
 If confronted with the issue, it is believed that a majority of the 
 officers of the Navy would concede the propriety of turning the 
 Observatory over to those who know how to manage it. It is not sur- 
 prising that naval officers, who have been or who wish to be detailed to 
 the Naval Observatory, should strive to maintain their hold on that 
 establishment. The duties of officers stationed at the Observatory are 
 not believed to be arduous. It must be pleasant to enjoy the period of 
 shore duty at the capital. It may, therefore, be assumed that the naval 
 officers of the Naval Observatory will never voluntarily relinquish their 
 hold npon it. It appears to be a common belief that even Congress can- 
 not dispossess them, otherwise than by the most explicit legislation. 
 
 Naval officers do not need the training which an observatory affords, 
 any more than the clerks in the civil departments do. On this point, 
 the Committee of the National Academy of Sciences, in its report for 
 1885, well remarks : 
 
 " There is already an observatory at Annapolis, but the course of 
 instruction pursued at .the naval school there, is of itself evidence how 
 little importance is considered in naval education to attach to the pro- 
 cesses of practical astronomy as conducted in fixed observatories. All 
 the astronomical training which the naval cadets receive is confined to 
 the principles of navigation and the use of portable reflecting instru- 
 ments. It is believed that the observatory of the academy is not used 
 at all, and has not been for many years, and the neglect of it would 
 appear to show that the naval officers stationed there have not the time 
 
62 
 
 to occupy themselves with subjects so far outside the necessities of their 
 professional life." 
 
 There is, indeed, no reason why naval officers should not furnish time 
 to shipping and rate the chronometers of the Navy. They should be 
 charged with whatever duty is necessary in testing nautical instruments. 
 The connection of these operations with the duties of skilled seamanship 
 is obvious. There seems to be every reason why, following the example 
 of the German, French, Austrian and Italian Governments, our Navy 
 should be provided with a small establishment adequate for this pur- 
 pose. The necessary expenditure for such purpose need riot be a twen- 
 tieth of that for the new Observatory. If the old observatory, or the 
 observatory at Annapolis be utilized for the purpose, the expense would 
 need to be only a mere trifle, in comparison with the expenditure in- 
 curred for the new Observatory. There would be no occasion for the 
 employment of skilled civilian assistants. 
 
 It would be of great advantage to the interests of the public service, 
 as well as to those of astronomy, if a change in the form of superintend- 
 ence of the Government observatory could be made at once and a civilian 
 director appointed. The arrangements making and to be made at the 
 new Observatory at great expenditure, will affect its future efficiency in a 
 marked degree. If they are as wisely made as were those at Pulkowa fifty 
 years ago, or as they are usually made under the direction of competent 
 astronomers, there will be little to alter or regret. If they are made in 
 the manner w r hich experience proves to be the usual rule under unskilled 
 superintendence, it is greatly to be feared that the Government may 
 hereafter be burdened with a cumbersome plant, unsuited to the uses 
 for which it was designed, and costly in its maintenance. For the first 
 twenty years of its existence, the old Observatory was handicapped by 
 the character of its equipment, though money enough had been expended 
 to have supplied essential needs ; and for the remainder of its history 
 the arrangements were far from satisfactory, or, indeed, extremely im- 
 perfect, if we are to concede the necessity for the expensive alterations 
 now in progress. 
 
 In fact, the arrangements for the new Observatory ought not to be 
 carried beyond the most obvious necessities until some settled policy as to 
 scientific work has been formulated by competent authority. One of 
 the ablest American astronomers very pungently says in this connection : 
 
 " To build an observatory before knowing what it is going to do is 
 much like designing a machine-shop and putting in a large collection of 
 improved tools and machinery before concluding what the shop is to 
 make, and what are the conditions of the market open to its product." 
 (Professor Newcomb in the North American Review for August, 1881.) 
 
 The increasing importance of astronomical science in this country ; 
 the rapidly developing intelligence of -the general public in scientific 
 
63 
 
 matters ; and the tendencies of Government in dealing with scientific 
 organizations as illustrated during the past fifteen years in the reorga- 
 nization of the Geological and the Weather services ; these render it 
 certain that the needed reform cannot be long delayed. This time of 
 removal from the old to the new Observatory is most opportune and 
 appropriate for the change. It is best for all interests that the issue be 
 fairly met and decided now. 
 
 The experience of all nations, which have had large astronomical 
 observatories under professional superintendents, demonstrates that the 
 advantages of such a system are not confined to the work of the observ- 
 atory alone. The observatory becomes an inspiration to astronomical 
 science throughout the land. During recent years our Naval Observ- 
 tory has stood constantly in an attitude of defense toward astronomers ; 
 while by them it has usually been regarded with a degree of disfavor 
 such as is implied by want of respect for its scientific standing as an 
 institution. It is not natural for any American to rest satisfied that the 
 observatory which is so generously supported by the United States 
 should fail to occupy a commanding position in astronomical science, and 
 to offer a leadership which all astronomers can support with loyalty and 
 pride. 
 
 It has been said that science knows no country, and in a certain sense 
 this is true. Science is cosmopolitan in its sympathies. But it is also 
 true that one of the most effective spurs to scientific effort is a strong 
 national pride. The astronomers of other nations are strongly influenced 
 by this sentiment. All astronomers rejoice unreservedly in the triumphs 
 of astronomical research and discovery wherever they are achieved. 
 They are ready to give credit impartially where crdit is due. But 
 every friend of astronomy finds his keenest enjoyment over successes 
 won, in the knowledge that his own country, more than any other, has 
 contributed to win them. It is the National Observatory that must 
 stand as the most conspicuous representative of national astronomy. 
 All Americans would like to feel proud of their National Observatory. 
 Let it, then, be placed in a position where it may be able to assume the 
 leadership that naturally belongs to it. 
 
64 
 
 NOTE A. 
 
 EXTRACTS PROM THE REPORT OF HON. FRANCIS MALLORY, FROM THE 
 COMMITTEE ON NAVAL AFFAIRS, TO ACCOMPANY HOUSE BILL, No. 
 
 303, IN REFERENCE TO A NEW HOUSE FOR THE DEPOT OF CHARTS 
 
 OF THE NAVY. 27TH CONGRESS, 2o SESSION, No. 449. PRESENTED 
 TO THE HOUSE, MARCH 15, 1842. 
 
 The following extracts from the essential portions of the Report 
 of Hon. Francis Mallory, from the Committe on Naval Affairs, which 
 served the Navy as authority for organizing and providing for the present 
 Naval Observatory : 
 
 " It appears from the statements of its superintendent, that the depot 
 of charts and instruments was established in 1830. The duties at that 
 time required were, the selection, purchase, repairs, and distribution of 
 all the instruments and charts required by the Navy, and to render useful 
 the hydrograpic information which might be contributed by our officers 
 from to time. 
 
 " Since its organization, the Navy has not only been furnished with 
 better instruments and more recent charts, at a greatly less original cost 
 than before, but greater care has been observed in their use, consequent 
 upon the regulations of the depot, making the masters of our public vessels 
 directly responsible for each article delivered to them. * * * * 
 
 " In the summer of 1838, the honorable Secretary of the Navy, directed 
 the Superintendent to make a constant series of observations in as- 
 tronomy, magnetism, and meteorology, ordering an additional number 
 of assistants, and granting authority for the purchase of all necessary 
 instruments. 
 
 " In the two latter sciences, the observations are made tri-hourly, 
 throughout the day and night, and from year's end to year's end ; and, 
 in the former, the average number of observations is three thousand 
 annually. * * * * 
 
 " These observations are intended not only for the benefit of the Navy, 
 but for the country and the world. * * * * 
 
 " The house now occupied, and the observatory connected with it, are 
 both private property. The former is inadequate to the purpose for 
 which it is intended, and from its possessing no accommodations for the 
 officers in charge; and the latter is unfit, from its size, and unsafe to the 
 valuable instruments it contains. 
 
 " In addition to the saving of money to the Government, and the im- 
 portance of having our national ships furnished with the most perfect 
 instruments and charts of the most recent surveys, it is unquestionably 
 the fact, that its establishment has disseminated information in the Navy 
 which could scarcely have been attained by other means. The assistants 
 have been obliged, in the pursuance of their duties, to acquire a know- 
 ledge of new instruments and new charts, whether they possessed a taste 
 for such pursuits or not a knolwedge which cannot fail to be useful in 
 the practice of their profession. 
 
 " It is proposed to extend its usefulness still further ; to make it what 
 it should become in the existing requirements of the naval service." 
 
 [The advantages to hydrography are then considered.] 
 
 "Astronomy. We are indebted to other nations for the data which 
 
65 
 
 enable our ships to cross the ocean. Not only has the Navy failed to 
 contribute to the common stock from which all our navigators borrow, 
 but our country has never yet published an observation of a celestial 
 body, which bore the impress 'by authority;' and it is believed that, until 
 the observations before alluded to in this report, none have ever been 
 directed by the Government which can be considered continuous. 
 
 " That great errors exist in the tabulated places of the heavenly 
 bodies, the labors of astronomers of the present day sufficiently prove. 
 Indeed, all who were at all curious in such matters could not have failed 
 to remark how great a difference there was between the observed and 
 computed times of the last annular eclipse visible in the United States. 
 
 u Observatories, though not expensive, cannot prosper in our country 
 until we can obtain rest from the pursuit of mercantile affairs, or their 
 charge is undertaken by the Government. The duties are confining ; 
 if properly executed, arduous ; and but few are qualified by experience 
 or habits to undertake them. If officers can be found with taste for 
 such duties, an observatory will give more information to the world, under 
 a military organization, in one year, than under any other direction in 
 two. 
 
 " A small observatory is absolutely essential to the depot ; without it 
 the duties cannot be performed. The present tenement was erected at 
 private expense, of slight materials, and is entirely unsuited to the wants 
 of the Navy or the protection of the instruments. From defects in its 
 original construction, a considerable portion of the heavens is entirely 
 obscured to the observer. Nor can these defects be remedied even were 
 the building worthy of alteration ; for it is already so frail that its doors 
 have been blown entirely off twice during this winter, leaving the 
 instruments completely exposed to the weather. The Superintendent 
 reports that it is unsafe to continue so much valuable property in such 
 a building longer than the ensuing spring. The value of the instru- 
 ments and charts under his charge, is never less than $60,000, and will 
 be greatly increased within a short time." 
 
 "Magnetism. This subject is scarcely less important to the Navy 
 than astronomy. Without a knowledge of the variation of the compass, 
 none but coasting craft dare venture beyond the precincts of a harbor ; 
 yet how few have more than a practical knowledge of the mode of 
 determining its amount. * * * 
 
 " The magnetic observatories which were established by the 
 European Governments two years since, and which have a location in 
 almost every part of the world, were earnestly recommended to us by 
 the learned men of England. * * * 
 
 " Whatever these results may be, the Navy is deeply interested in 
 them, more so than any other branch of society ; and shall it be said 
 that we have appropriated the hard-earned labors of others to benefit 
 our Navy without compelling it to bear its portion ? " 
 
 "Meteorology. To be a good judge of the weather is considered an 
 important qualification for a seaman ; the safety of a ship and her crew 
 may depend on the promptness and accuracy of his judgment. 
 Meteorology has been more generally pursued in the United States than 
 any other of the physical sciences. * * * Meteorological observa- 
 tions are more important at night than by day, because of their 
 scarcity hitherto ; and it is scarcely to be expected that amateurs can be 
 found in sufficient numbers to make all the required observations. 
 
66 
 
 Night watching iu stormy weather finds few followers, and we can only 
 hope to obtain the desired information, when those engaged in its pur- 
 suits have duty to compel a flagging inclination. 
 
 "Deeming an establishment of this description essential to the 
 welfare of the Navy, the committee report the accompanying bill." 
 
 NOTE. This bill did not, however, pass. The bill which did pass, 
 originated in the Senate, but was identical in terms with that which the 
 Committee on Naval Affairs reported in the House with the foregoing 
 recommendation. 
 
 NOTE B. 
 
 AVAILABLE RESOURCES OF THE NAVAL OBSERVATORY SINCE JULY 1, 1867. 
 
 The greater part of the employees at the Naval Observatory hold 
 commissions in the Navy, and their salaries and allowances are paid 
 from the general appropriation. Nothing short of a careful compu- 
 tation from the records of the Navy and Treasury Departments would 
 serve to furnish an accurate account of expenditures for the Obser- 
 vatory. In lieu of this it is believed that fairly good estimates can be 
 derived from consultation of the reports of the Observatory and the Navy 
 Register as to personnel, together with the direct annual appropriations 
 for the support of the Observatory. 
 
 In order to get a clear view of the current operating expenses of the 
 Observatory, it will be necessary to subtract certain items found in the 
 appropriation bills. Congress made large appropriations for observing 
 the Transits of Venus in 1874 and 1882, which were expended by a 
 commission representing several scientific bureaus of Government. 
 These have no connection with Observatory appropriations, and may be 
 regarded as chargeable to national astronomy at large. But some 
 small incidental appropriations for the Transit of Venus operations were 
 included in the appropriations for the Observatory. Consistency 
 requires that these should be excluded from the account of current 
 expenses. Following are the items excluded, in order to ascertain the 
 regular operating expenses of the Observatory. 
 
 Great Telescope and its tower, etc., 1870-1874 $67,000 
 
 Incidental Transit of Venus, as explained, 1871-1 884, 16,950 
 
 For account of Hall's second Arctic Expedition 5,000 
 
 Watchman for the new observatory to July 1, 1891... 6,480 
 
 New observatory to July 1,1891 475,000 
 
 Total of incidental and extraordinary expenses 
 
 1870-1891 $570,430 
 
 The account of expenses here considered begins with July 1, 1867, 
 and ends with June 30, 1891. After the revival of astronomy in 1861 
 
67 
 
 and previous to 1867 the Observatory may be regarded as having been 
 under the management of astronomers. Previous to 1867, also, the 
 Observatory was charged with the care of charts. The total current 
 expenses of the Naval Observatory during the period, 1861 to 1867 were 
 less than they have been at any time since. 
 
 Direct Appropriations for Civilian Assistants, Labor and General Expen- 
 ses, Including Deficiencies. 
 
 Fiscal Year. 
 
 Amount. 
 
 Fiscal Year. 
 
 Amount. 
 
 Fiscal Year. 
 
 Amount. 
 
 1867-8 
 
 $21,500 
 
 1875-6 ... . 
 
 . . $17 500 
 
 1883 4 
 
 $26 138 
 
 1868-9 
 
 16,600 
 
 1876-7 
 
 21 300 
 
 1884 5 
 
 26 436 
 
 1869-70 .... 
 
 ... 19,000 
 
 1877-8 
 
 21,000 
 
 1885-6 
 
 26 336 
 
 1870-1 
 
 ... 19,800 
 
 1878 9 
 
 . .. 22,100 
 
 1886-7 . 
 
 26 736 
 
 1871-2 
 
 ... 22,300 
 
 1879-80 
 
 ... 25,786 
 
 1887-8 
 
 26 136 
 
 1872-3 
 
 24 200 
 
 1880 1 
 
 24 537 
 
 1888 9 
 
 27 336 
 
 1873 4 ... 
 
 23,100 
 
 1881-2 . . . 
 
 26 936 
 
 1889 90 
 
 29 136 
 
 1874-5 ... . 
 
 ... 19,050 
 
 1882-3 
 
 28 764 
 
 1890-1 
 
 9 050 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 The reports of the Observatory do not always show the precise dates 
 when newly appointed professors reported for duty, nor the exact dates 
 when others resigned, were transferred to other duty, or were retired. 
 Notwithstanding this difficulty the average number of professors on 
 duty in any given period and their compensation, exclusive of allow- 
 ances, can be stated with sufficient accuracy for the purposes of this 
 exhibit. This does not include the pay of professors in retirement. 
 The part of this item which belongs to the Observatory account amounts 
 to many thousand dollars. 
 
 For brevity and convenience, the entire period under consideration 
 will be divided into four periods of six years each. In connection with 
 each is given the average number of professors on duty at the Observ- 
 atory in that period ; the average compensation which that corps received 
 at the Observatory ; the average of direct appropriations for the same 
 interval, taken from the foregoing table ; and the total, which may be 
 considered as the total income of the Observatory, exclusive of the 
 amounts paid to officers of the line for salaries. 
 
 PERIOD. 
 
 No. 
 Professors. 
 
 Average Pay 
 of Professors. 
 
 Average Direct 
 Appropriation. 
 
 For Professors 
 and General 
 Expenses. 
 
 1867 1873 
 
 7 
 
 $16 010 
 
 $20 567 
 
 $36 580 
 
 1873 1879 
 
 8 
 
 22,500 
 
 20 675 
 
 43 170 
 
 1879 1885 
 
 5 
 
 14 610 
 
 26 433 
 
 41 040 
 
 1885 1891 
 
 5 
 
 15 890 
 
 27 455 
 
 43 340 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 For reasons already stated, it is still more difficult to ascertain the 
 exact terms of service of officers of the naval line at the Observatory 
 
with the exact amount of compensation received by them. A rough 
 estimate of averages can be made, however, which will probably be 
 found to l?e not far from the truth. The following table exhibits for 
 each of the adopted periods, the average number of line officers on duty 
 at the Observatory, including the Superintendent ; the average compen- 
 sation received by them for such service, roughly estimated ; and the 
 average of the total annual expenses for current operating purposes in 
 the respective periods : 
 
 PERIOD. 
 
 No. Line 
 Officers. 
 
 Average Pay of 
 Line Officers. 
 
 Total Annual Re- 
 sources of the 
 Observatory. 
 
 1867-1873 
 
 4 
 
 $10 400 
 
 $47 000 
 
 1873-1879 
 
 5 
 
 12,800 
 
 56 000 
 
 1879-1885 
 
 9 
 
 19,500 
 
 60,500 
 
 1885-1891 
 
 10 
 
 17 500 
 
 60 800 
 
 
 
 
 
 Assembling the separate items, it appears that from June 30, 1867, to 
 July 1, 1891, there has been expended for the Observatory on account of 
 current expenses about $1,346,000 ; and for extraordinary expenses, not 
 including appropriations on account of the Transits of Venus, which 
 should not be considered chargeable to the Observatory alone, a total of 
 $548,480. For the current fiscal year the appropriation for the new Ob- 
 servatory is $136,689, and for current maintenance the expenditures will 
 probably reach $66,000. This gives an estimated total expenditure for 
 all purposes in relation to the Naval Observatory during the twenty-five 
 years following June 30, 1867, of very nearly $2,100,000, or about $84,000 
 per annum. 
 
 Assuming that the existence of the Naval Observatory has made no dif- 
 ference in the number of officers of the line of the Navy that would have 
 been employed by the Government, and deducting the amount of salary 
 paid to them, the total charge for current expenses has been about $985,000 
 during the twenty-four years. Including the present fiscal year, and 
 adding the amounts for extraordinary expenditures, as before, the total 
 for twenty-five years is about $1,720,000, , or not far from $69,000 per 
 annum when the pay of line officers is left out of the account. 
 
Pamphlet 
 Binder 
 
 Gaylord Bros., Inc. 
 
 Stockton, Calif. 
 T. M. Reg. U.S. Pat. Off. 
 
 M67214 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY