748 
ing the views of American astronomers and 
physicists upon the organization and work 
of the Naval Observatory. Mr. Pickering 
submitted to the Board a statement regard- 
ing correspondence on the same subject 
conducted by a Committee ofthe American 
Association for the Advancement of Science. 
In view of the facts brought before the 
Board at its several sessions and after the 
best consideration which it has been able to 
give to the subject, the Board of Visitors 
. reports and recommends as follows : 
The Naval Observatory, which was orig- 
inally established as a scientific bureau, 
auxiliary to the needs of the naval service, 
has become through half a century of growth 
and through the expenditure of large sums 
of money, as authorized by law, an astro- 
nomical observatory of the first rank in 
respect of buildings, instruments and equip- 
ments. But by far the larger and more 
valuable part of its equipment has little or 
no reference to any direct requirement of 
the naval service and its existence can be 
justified only on the ground that Congress 
has intended to establish and maintain a 
national astronomical observatory. Under 
these changed circumstances its continued 
connection with the Navy Department has 
seemed to many of those whose views have 
been submitted to the Board of Visitors, il- 
logical and undesirable. In view, however, 
of the absence of a national university, a 
Department of Science and Industries, or 
other department or bureau of the govern- 
ment especially suited to the conduct of 
such scientific work, and in view of the 
diversity of opinion among American as- 
tronomers upon the question to which ex- 
isting department the observatory could be 
wisely transferred, we believe it to be inex- 
pedient for us at the present time to further 
consider the subject of such transfer. 
With reference to the organization of the 
Observatory under naval administration, 
the Board of Visitors disapproves of those 
SCIENCE. 
[N.S. Vou. X. No. 256. 
parts of the ‘ Proposed Organization of 
Naval Observatory’ (Appendix, Exhibit 
B), submitted under date of September 7, 
1897, by ‘ F. E. Chadwick, Chief of Bureau 
of Equipment and C. H. Davis, Superin- 
tendent United States Naval Observatory,’ 
which requires the establishment of a for- 
mal observatory council with nominal func- 
tions and which by omission practically 
abolish the office of Astronomical director. 
We are by no means objecting tothe as- 
sembling in conference of the astronomers 
engaged in the observatory work, but the 
proposed transfer of duties and responsibil- 
ities from a single director to a committee 
of five appears to us a step in the wrong 
direction; and when, as under the proposed 
scheme, an absolute power of veto upon all 
action by the council is lodged in the hands 
of one of its members, the usefulness of the 
body seems to approach the vanishing point. 
In the history of observatories we have been 
unable to find a case of successful adminis- 
tration without a competent astronomer in 
immediate supervision of the work, and we 
believe that the ideal conditions for the 
successful administration of an astronomical 
observatory are most nearly realized when 
a professional astronomer is made the re- 
sponsible director of the work. This system 
which is adopted in every great national 
observatory, the Board of Visitors believes 
to be the one best suited to secure the astro- 
nomical efficiency of the Naval Observatory. 
If the naval observatory as a shore- 
station charged with the performance of 
certain functions assumed to havea relation 
to the navy is to continue under the com- 
mand of a line officer, we recommend that 
the astronomical staff of the Naval Observa- 
tory shall consist of an Astronomical Di- 
rector, four astronomers, three assistant 
astronomers and such computers and other 
minor officers ag may be provided by law. 
The Astronomical Directors and astron- 
omers, whether professors of mathematics 
