8 SCIENCE. 
available to the Observatory until long after 
its substance had appeared in the public 
prints, was in the nature of an attack on 
- the Observatory, I trust that it will not be 
out of place, in the report of the Superin- 
tendent, to touch upon its salient features. 
The board was unfortunate in having 
the support of several zealous newspaper 
writers, by whom it has been made to ap- 
pear, and IJ think that itis generally believed 
in the scientific world and by that part of the 
public which takes an interest in scientific 
affairs, that the presence of the board was 
in the nature of a visitation distasteful to 
the Observatory and inflicted against its 
will. As the Observatory has thus been 
made to appear in an odious light, I take 
the liberty of reminding the Bureau that 
not only the original conception of the 
board of visitors was a suggestion of the 
Superintendent, but the selection of the 
three astronomical members was concurred 
in by him because they were already the 
members of a self-constituted committee to 
conduct a gratuitous investigation of the 
Observatory, and known to be inspired by 
a hostility toits organization. It was hoped 
that by placing them in a position of official 
responsibility an impartial judgment could 
be obtained. 
A criticism of the report may be very 
briefly summarized. The board made no 
examination or inspection of the Observa- 
tory except in the most casual way. To 
quote its own language, ‘‘ Owing to the lack 
of printed material representing the recent 
work of the Naval Observatory, the board 
of visitors finds it practically impossible to 
form a satisfactory opinion of that work 
without devoting to the task an inadmissi- 
ble amount of time and labor.’’ Neverthe- 
less, and without such an opinion, the board 
did not hesitate to recommend the most 
sweeping changes in the present organiza- 
tion, and it is noticeable that the report of 
the board deals exclusively with the ques- 
[N. S.. Von. XIII. No. 314. 
tion of reorganization, while that question 
had not been officially presented to it at all. 
Asa guide to the board the following letter 
of instructions was addressed to it by the 
Department : 
NAvy DEPARTMENT, 
WASHINGTON, JUNE 28, 1899. 
Sir: I have the honor to enclose you herewith a 
memorandum making certain suggestions which the 
Department wishes the board, of which you are the 
chairman, to have in mind in making an examina- 
tion of the Naval Observatory. This memorandum 
is not intended to finally limit the investigations of 
the board, but to convey certain suggestions in re- 
gard to which the Department desires to be informed, 
and which, it is believed, may assist the board in its 
work. : 
JOHN D. LONG, Secretary. 
Hon. WM. E. CHANDLER, 
Chairman Board of Visitors, Naval Observatory, Wash- 
ington, D. C. 
[The points covered by the enclosure, 
which is too long for reproduction here, are 
meridian observations of the sun, moon 
and planets, spectroscopy and photography, 
chronometers, the Magnetic Observatory 
and the publications of the Observatory. ] 
Not one of the subjects proposed in the 
above memorandum received the attention 
of the board or was even mentioned by it. 
The whole report is taken up with the pro- 
posed reorganization, a subject which it had 
not been asked to consider at all, and for 
which it could only find a general authori- 
zation in the concluding paragraph of the 
Department’s letter. 
Notwithstanding that the board had no 
time to form an opinion as to the condition 
of work at the Observatory, the conclusion 
upon which it bases a recommendation for 
a revolutionary change of organization is 
found in the charge that the output, in 
published results, is not commensurate with 
an extravagant annual outlay. In other 
words, the board lays particu'ar stress upon 
the delay in the publication of the annual 
volume, and bases its whole finding upon 
that fact. 
