March 31, 1899.] 



SCIENCE. 



All 



these objects. It must be admitted, in fact, 

 that the Naval Observatory, during the half 

 ceuturj' of its existence, has done a large amount 

 of first class work, and that its service has been 

 dignified by the connection with it of some 

 of the most eminent American astronomers. 

 Nevertheless, it apj^ears equally just to affirm 

 that the administration of the Naval Observa- 

 tory has never been favorable to the highest 

 «ificiency of such an organization. The scien- 

 tific work of the Naval Observatory has been 

 done in spite of a bad form of administration 

 rather than by reason of a good one. 



The radical defect of this administration lies 

 in the assumption that the Superintendent of 

 the Observatory should be, as he has been, gen- 

 erally, a naval officer, who may have little 

 knowledge of or interest in astronomy. The 

 position is one of pleasing prominence to an 

 oificer on shore duty, and is hence likely to fall 

 to one who .has ' pull ' with the party in power 

 rather than to one who has distinguished him- 

 self as an astronomor. The effect of such ad- 

 ministration is much the same as would result 

 in a university if the department of mathe- 

 matics, for example, were placed in charge of a 

 superannuated clergyman. The routine work 

 goes on pleasantly, but with no scientific energy 

 except that which the subordinates get from 

 external professional associations. Subordi- 

 nates who are exceptionally able may, as some 

 have done, accomplish much good work under 

 such depressing circumstances ; but those less 

 ambitious are apt to lapse into mere time serv- 

 ers. This form of administration leads also to 

 pressure for position in the service by those little 

 competent to undertake astronomical work. 

 The way in which some of the highest positions 

 •on the Naval Observatory staflT have been ob- 

 tained in recent years, through ' pulls ' and 

 ' influence,' and competition of all kinds except 

 that of merit, is a standing disgrace to all men 

 ■of science. 



To remedy these defects, and to make of the 

 Naval Observatory a National Observatory, 

 some rather radical changes are essential. The 

 Observatory should cease to be a mere bureau 

 of or appendage to the navy, and the surest 

 ■way to accomplish this end will be to transfer 

 the Observatory to some other department. The 



Director or Superintendent of the Observatory 

 should be an astronomer of acknowledged 

 ability, and the members of his staff should be 

 chosen by reason of merit only. The conduct 

 of the work of the Observatory should be sub- 

 ject to the approval of a board of regents, sim- 

 ilar to that of the Smithsonian Institution, half 

 of whom should be chosen from astronomers 

 and physicists not in the government service, 

 and half from members of Congress. Some 

 such system of administration, free so far as 

 practicable from the contamination of spoils 

 and politics, appears to be absolutely indispen- 

 sable to the maintenance of an Observator5r 

 worthy of American science. 



e. s. woodavard. 

 Columbia Univeesity. 



To THE Editor of Science : In reply to 

 your questions relating to the United States 

 Naval Observatory I assume that you do not 

 expect an elaborate article, but merely the 

 expression of my individual opinion in a few 

 words. I take the topics in order. 



I. If no such establishment existed, and it 

 were a question of founding an observatory, I 

 should say no. At least not before government 

 methods had considerably improved. 



With buildings and plant on hand, which 

 have cost nearly a million of dollars, it is prob- 

 ably best to keep it up, though I am not quite 

 sure of this. 



II. Systematic work with meridian circle in 

 determination of places of stars and planets. 

 Measurements of double stars and positions of 

 comets and minor planets with the equatorial. 

 In short, the kind of work which Hall and 

 Eastman kept up for many years and which is 

 not likely to receive the necessary attention at 

 private observatories. 



III. I do not quite understand this question. 

 If the meaning is as follows : Is it desirable 

 for government to establish another observatory 

 in order to atone for the shortcomings of that 

 now existing ? there can be only one answer. 



The requisite conditions, in my opinion, are 

 not likely to be fulfilled by any observatory es- 

 tablished within the political atmosphere of 

 Washington. C. L. Doolittle. 



Flowee Obseevatoey. 



