CORRESPONDENCE ON ASTRONOMICAL ANNOUNCEMENTS. 69 



not quite clear besides under what aspect the matter has been presented 

 at Paris and Greenwich, and how far these agree with the proposed 

 change of jDrogramme. But after all, what is there objectionable to 

 sending the communications from the Smithsonian Institution not to 

 Germany only, but also, as heretofore, to Greenwich, Paris, Vienna, 

 and Pulkowa? I remember when, on a visit to Washington, I laid the 

 first proposition before j'our illustrious predecessor, I had named only 

 Greenwich, because the nearest place, to send the dispatches to, and 

 it was Professor Henry who suggested to insert besides, Berlin, Paris, 

 and Vienna, to which later was added Pulkowa. Fortunately, from our 

 stand-point on this side of the ocean, we have a broader and more equi- 

 table view of scientific life in Europe, free from national jealousies. 



As to the second point suggested in Dr. Gould's letter, I cannot deny 

 that sometimes a second communication about the same object of dis- 

 covery (not the next day, but rather after the lapse of three or five days) 

 would be very welcome, though in most cases such a repetition would 

 not be of very great utility. Professor Foerster puts it on the ground to 

 make sure against a mistake in the first dispatch. But then, if the two 

 should not agree? Vv^ould he then desire even three dispatches (as bank 

 accountants take the sum three times when the first two give it differ- 

 ent). While the cable company with great liberality did concede a lim- 

 ited (and later frequently surpassed) number of words and of dispatches 

 per year, it seems hardly proper to ask a duplication of the favor, as 

 long as it has not been clearly shown that such duplication is of abso- 

 lute desirability. 



Thirdly, as to the code to be used, I do not see in the slightest what 

 objection can be made to that adopted by the Smithsonian Institution. 

 It was the result of a consultation with the late Professor Littrow at 

 Vienna, was in the main set up by Professor Bruhns and myself at Leip- 

 zic, and approved at the time by the astronomers at Berlin. The new 

 edition of your circular of instructions embraces the modifications and 

 suggestions which you had received from various sides, and Professor 

 Airy, as you will remember, expressed himself satisfied. Professor 

 Pickering, as well as myself, has carefully compared the scheme with 

 the one now presented by Dr. Gould. I cannot find that it is an im- 

 provement in^recisio/i to say for example "one two" for "twelve," "two 

 nought" for "twenty," or always "nought three" for simply "three," 

 &c. Looking at the economy of words. Dr. Gould's scheme requires 

 twenty-four, the Smithsonian (even with the additions now introduced) 

 at the utmost only sixteen — a difference of considerable and (for the 

 cable) essential importance. 



Dr. Gould says of his code, " which they all recommend," I am sure 

 that what all desire and recommend is only a uniformity of the code in 

 use. The Smithsonian code, being far superior in precision, also more 

 economical and now perfected by the suggestions of experience, will 

 readily be accepted. The difl&culty has been that some astronomers 



