JANUARY 4, 1901.] 
well be set down to unavoidable misfortune. 
But so long-continued a history leads one 
to infer a cause, and we should be glad to 
see something said to efface the impression 
that the administration is at fault. 
In the way of assistance we suggest a 
few other questions as worthy of careful 
consideration. Itis understood that, when 
the Astrophysical Society of America chose 
its committee to confer with the Secretary 
of the Navy on the question of the Observ- 
atory, especial pains were taken to select 
men who had never been known to express 
any opinion on the subject. We are quite 
sure that the Society would like the Super- 
intendent of the Observatory to state how 
he knows that in making the selection, it 
was the victim of misplaced confidence, and 
that the members were ‘known to be in- 
spired by a hostility to its organization.’ 
A cognate point is this: —The membership 
of the Society includes a respectable and 
influential number of members who have 
been connected with the Observatory at 
one time or another in various capacities 
and who would be its natural defenders. 
Would not some of them have objected to 
the appointment of a hostile committee? 
The greater number of our astronomers 
are the mildest of men, and glad to see 
their science promoted in every way. How 
does it happen that they, as a class, are 
moved by ‘animosity’ toward a national 
institution for promoting their science ? 
We wish also to discover every possible 
justification for the claim that ‘‘no person, 
no matter how eminent he may be in sci- 
ence, can pretend to be a friend of the Ob- 
servatory or of science while attacking its 
SCLENCE. 5 
organization.’”’ This is preceded by the 
statement that ‘the number of observations 
made at the old and new Observatories 
kept pace with those made at Greenwich.”’ 
If the report had said that the Observatory 
during the past ten years, with less than 
half the personnel of Greenwich, had, on 
the average, done nearly one-half as much 
work, the critics might have inquired in 
reply whether this was not a slight exag- 
geration. They might also have inquired 
whether it was not desirable to take ac- 
count of the quality as well as the quantity 
of the work, and whether in that respect 
the observations described in the annual 
reports of the last ten years could compare 
even with one-third of the work done at 
But when we find the head 
of the Observatory seriously believing that 
Greenwich. 
some comparison can be instituted between 
the output of the two observatories we see 
that he has, from his own point of view, 
just cause of resentment against the critics 
of the institution, and feel encouraged to 
believe that, when he has ascertained the 
facts, he will, as an act of justice, fair play 
and public policy, admit that the ‘preju- 
dices and animosities’ of the astronomers 
have better grounds than he had supposed. 
REPORT OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE 
NAVAL OBSERVATORY. 
[We regret that we have room only for 
such portions of this interesting report as 
relate to astronomical work and the report 
of the board of visitors. | 
DEPARTMENT OF ASTRONOMICAL OBSERVA- 
TIONS. 
The work of the year in this department 
may be summarized as follows: 
