8 4 4 



THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



EDITOR'S TABLE. 



OFFICIAL SCIENCE AT WASHINGTON. 



MUCH has been said in the news- 

 papers during the last few- 

 weeks about the mismanagement and 

 irregularities that have been disclosed 

 by official inquiries into the administra- 

 tion of the United States Coast Survey. 

 The superintendent of that branch of 

 the public service has been retired 

 from his office ; the assistant in charge 

 was also removed, and then restored ; 

 and charges have been made against 

 other parties. It is alleged that ex- 

 penditures are out of all proportion to 

 results, lhat the service is inefficient, 

 and the department much demoralized. 

 The first question, of course, in re- 

 gard to such grave accusations is, to 

 what extent are they true ? Is the case 

 as bad as alleged, or only an exagger- 

 ation of such defects as are always 

 incident to the administration of gov- 

 ernmental affairs ? It seems that a com- 

 mittee of investigation was appointed 

 by the Treasury Department to look 

 into the working of the Coast Survey. 

 A committee charged with so serious a 

 duty should certainly have made the 

 most careful and searching inquiry, 

 should have given the accused officers 

 the fullest opportunity of defending 

 themselves, and should have published 

 their results in an explicit and authen- 

 tic form. "We are not aware that this 

 has been done ; and if so, common jus- 

 tice requires that judgment should be 

 suspended until decisive evidence is 

 forthcoming, because innocence is to 

 be presumed until guilt is established. 

 Upon these points the following re- 

 marks from an excellent editorial in 

 " Science " are so appropriate and fair 

 as to be worthy of quotation : 



Without the slightest disposition to screen 



official mismanagement, if it has been dis- 



. covered, we must caution our readers against 



giving credence to insinuations and rumors. 

 All who are under implied censure have a 

 right to be fully heard, and to bring all the 

 facts which are explanatory of their conduct 

 to the eye of a qualified tribunal. They have 

 a right to protest against the arbitrary exer- 

 cise of personal authority, or against the ju- 

 dicial methods of a star-chamber or a drum- 

 head court-martial. No political purpose, no 

 personal dislike, no disbelief in science, should 

 be allowed, unquestioned, to throw discredit 

 upon a branch of the public service, or dis- 

 honor upon a corps hitherto regarded as ex- 

 emplary in all its official work. 



The work of the Coast Survey, during its 

 long history, has been of the highest charac- 

 ter. For nearly seventy years it has been ap- 

 proved by successive Congresses and admin- 

 istrations, and by navigators, merchants, and 

 men of exact science. It has received the 

 highest encomiums of foreigners who were 

 qualified to judge of its merits, and were m-> 

 terested in pointing out its defects. The five 

 superintendents Hassler, Bache, Benjamin 

 Peirce, Patterson, and Hilgard have each, 

 in different ways, improved its methods and 

 upheld its efficiency. The officers ju6t dis- 

 placed have grown up in the service, and 

 have won promotion by the ability and fidel- 

 ity with which they have discharged their 

 great responsibilities. The presumptions of 

 official rectitude are in their favor until posi- 

 tive faults are pointed out. They are enti- 

 tled by the principles of good government, as 

 well as by their individual services, to all the 

 opportunities they may desire for explanation 

 or defense ; and any premature opinion is un- 

 fair, especially if it is affected by personal 

 prejudices, or is based upon a lack of appre- 

 ciation for scientific researches. 



In the conduct of such a bureau as the 

 Coast Survey, a large amount of discretion 

 must be left to the chief. He, and he only, 

 can determine a vast number of questions 

 which pertain to the selection of assistants 

 for different kinds of work, the choice of 

 fields of labor, the discrimination between 

 services which have an obvious relation to 

 some immediate want of the public, and those 

 which may be just as serviceable, but are rec- 

 ondite, and unintelligible to the uninformed. 

 It is impossible to mark out the duties of the 

 highest assistants by such rules as may be 

 applied to the clerical services of an ordinary 



