472 



SCIENCE. 



[N. S. Vol. IX. No. 223. 



To THE Editor of Science : In reply to 

 question number one I should say : Had we no 

 observatory, no. It does not require a 26-ineh 

 telescope to test a chronometer. (2) Since we 

 already have such an institution, it seems to me 

 that the best work it can undertake will be large 

 and expensive pieces of routine work, such as a 

 Ijrivate observatory would be unlikely to take 

 up, and could only be accomplished by a com- 

 bination of them. (3) The Naval Observatory 

 certainly does not fulfill this idea. The work 

 it is to undertake should, I think, be decided 

 by a committee suitably appointed. It should 

 have a civilian astronomer at its head. 



W. H. Pickering. 



Harvard College Observatory. 



To THE Editor of Science : The question 

 whether the United States should maintain 

 a National Astronomical Observatory must 

 largely depend for its answer upon the opinion 

 which we may adopt with regard to the pro- 

 priety of employing money raised by taxation 

 in the support of any branch of pure science. 

 It may be held that the taxpayers should not 

 be made to contribute to undertakings in which 

 they cannot be supposed, as a whole, to feel 

 any decided Interest, and which, so far as they 

 are beneficial, must benefit mankind at large, 

 rather than the particular nation supporting 

 them. But various branches of applied science 

 must be cultivated at the national expense, and 

 it is difficult to draw a definite boundary sepa- 

 rating abstract inquiries and their practical ap- 

 plications. Some liberty of research, too, on 

 the part of men engaged in any scientific 

 work, seems desirable to prevent them from 

 falling into too mechanical a routine. In this 

 country, where the science of astronomy is so lib- 

 erally supported by private munificence, there 

 is, doubtless, very little occasion for a National 

 Observatory ; still, since such an institution 

 exists, and has done much interesting work, as 

 Professor Skinner shows, most of us would 

 probably dislike to have it abandoned without 

 further trial. 



The most obviously valuable service which a 

 National Observatory can render is the mainte- 

 nance of such observations as are apt to be 

 neglected elsewhere, from their want of im- 



mediate interest. Such, for example, are the 

 determinations of position of the sun, moon 

 and planets, which have been kept up assid- 

 ously at the Naval Observatory since 1861, as 

 Professor Skinner assures us at the close of his 

 article. It would hardly be advisable to con- 

 fine the work of the institution rigidlj^ to a 

 routine of this kind, so planned as to leave the 

 astronomers no time for pursuits more stimula- 

 ting to the intellect ; but if they should attempt 

 to undertake all kinds of researches most in 

 vogue at the present moment we could not ex- 

 pect from them many solid additions to human 

 knowledge. 



I do not feel myself competent to judge 

 whether the Naval Observatory is to be re- 

 garded, comparatively speaking, as a successor 

 as a failure, or whether any change in its 

 organization would decidedly improve it. I 

 know that complaints of the amount and qual- 

 ity of its work have often been made, and I 

 have been puzzled by the manner in which 

 these complaints have been met. In similar 

 cases we usually find the persons criticised in- 

 clined to excuse what may seem to be their 

 shortcomings by their want of means, or by 

 the uncertainty whether their present pecuniary 

 support will be continued, or, perhaps, in other 

 instances, by a defective organization imposed 

 upon them from without. But, unless I misun- 

 derstand what I have heard, the astronomers 

 of the Naval Observatory generally agree that 

 their chief has all necessary power to carry out 

 his plans promptly and effectively ; that this 

 power hardly needs to be exerted, because they 

 form a united and harmonious body, animated 

 by purely scientific zeal ; that Congress has 

 supplied them abundantly with funds, and that 

 they entertain no apprehension that this liberal 

 support will be withdrawn, or that they will 

 be under the necessity of neglecting their scieu-. 

 tific pursuits in order to solicit its continuance. 

 If this impression of mine, which I acknowl- 

 edge to be a vague one, is correct, either the 

 critics must be in error or there is something in 

 the mere atmosphere of Washington, or in any 

 connection with the government of the United 

 States, which is unfavorable to the cultivation 

 of astronomy. 



Public criticism of a public institution must 



