146 Report of Observations on the Transit of Mercury. 
With one or two exceptions, a nearer agreement is seen here 
than at the second contact ; and this would probably have been 
the best time of all for obtaining an accurate observation, had 
not the proximity of the sun to the western horizon, produced 
a tremulous and ill-defined appearance of the sun’s limb. Inthe 
present case, however, the observations on the last external con- 
tact differ least of all from each other. 'They are as follows: 
Last Contact. 
m. Ss 
h. s. h m. 8. 
New York, 9, 34 7290 New Haven, 5 64 sow 
West Point, 5 54 36°8 Cincinnati, 5 pA. 186 
Charleston, 5 54 404 Nantucket, 5 54 164 
Providence, 5 54 488 
Least difference, 1:2s. Greatest difference, 32-As. 
On comparing the observed with the computed times of egress, 
we arrive at the following results. 
Observed later than the computed time. 
New York, 1 34 Charleston, . . 1 46 
New Haven,. . . 1 53 Nantucket, . . i a sa 3 
CIscmnati, ee RT Providence, . ~ 2 03 
Mean, 1m. 42s. 
This result exhibits as near a coincidence between observa- 
tion and the calculations given in the American and United 
States Almanacs, as could have been reasonably expected. Ata 
sitting of the Institute of France so late as the 3d of March last, 
M. Leverrier exhibited calculations which he had made relatively 
to this transit, according to the tables of the motions of Mer- 
cury, which he had presented to the Academy in 1843. His cal- 
culations differ considerably from those given in the Nautical Al- 
manac, the Berlin Ephemeris, and the Connoissance des Temps; 
and, indeed, these authorities differ materially from each other, 
as appears by the following comparison. 
1st Contact. 2d Contact. 3d Contact. 4th Contact. 
Dewan iss h; - m:. $3 he mays: Hh. “nee ess 
Nautical Almanac, A 28) 27. _— — BM 00-41 
Berlin Ephemeris, 4 28 19 4 38 O1 10 56 25 11 08 08 
Conn. des Temps, 4 28 40 4 32 15 10 54 58 10 58 33 
M. Leverrier, 4 29 55 4 33 36 10 58 59 11 02 41 
