JANUARY 4, 1901.] 
the Observatory because its employees are 
paid according to a rate fixed by law for 
the public service at large is clearly disin- 
genuous and tending to mislead. 
The whole report of the board is colored 
by the evident intention of making as strong 
a case against the Observatory, and in favor 
of its own plan of reorganization, as possible. 
On page 6 the board objects to transfer- 
ring responsibility of direction from the as- 
tronomical director to a committee, and 
then, on pages 7 and 8, recommends that 
the board of visitors ‘shall prepare and 
submit to the Secretary of the Navy regu- 
lations prescribing the scope of the astro- 
nomical and other researches of the Naval 
Observatory and the duties of its staff with 
reference thereto.’ In other words, the 
duties which should belong to the astro- 
nomical director, if he is to be held respon- 
sible for the astronomical work of the Ob- 
servatory, are to be transferred to the board 
of visitors. Furthermore, on page 14, it is 
proposed that the board of visitors shall 
have power to make ‘ necessary changes,’ 
apparently not only in the work, but also 
in the personnel. 
On page 8 objection is made to retiring 
astronomers at 62 years of age, as is now 
done, and on page 6 it is specifically recom- 
mended that under the proposed new ar- 
rangement the astronomical staff of the 
Naval Observatory are to ‘hold their offices 
until their successors are appointed,’ or, in 
other words, they are to have no tenure of 
office at all, and to be liable to dismissal at 
any moment. 
The pay table on page 9 proposes to give 
the astronomical director $6,000 a year, 
and the director of the Nautical Almanac, 
$5,000, making a total of $11,000 a year, for 
the same duties which were then performed 
by Professor Harkness for $3,500 a year. 
In view of the distinct charge of extrava- 
gance against the present administration, 
this proposal is only ludicrous. It is diffi- 
SCIENCE. 11 
cult to believe that it was intended to be 
taken seriously. 
On page 12 it is asserted that the 9-inch 
transit circle was not then in use, although 
the board knew that it was simply undergo- 
ing periodical temporary repairs, and would 
be brought into use again as soon as they 
were completed. 
On page 13 it is asserted that none of the 
directors of the Greenwich or Harvard Col- 
lege observatories ‘have ever resigned to 
accept positions elsewhere,’ but the author 
of the report forgets to mention that one of 
the Greenwich astronomers royal did re- 
sign. 
On page 15 it is indirectly stated that 
when an observer is not actually observing 
he is only doing clerical work, which is un- 
true. The reduction of astronomical ob- 
servations is not clerical work within the 
ordinary meaning of that phrase. 
The statement on page 30 respecting the 
personnel of the Observatory board estab- 
lished by Rear-Admiral John Rogers is 
wholly erroneous. That board compre- 
hended the entire astronomical staff of the 
Observatory. 
In the list of professors of mathematics, 
given on page 41, Professor H. M. Paul is 
stated to be attached to the Naval Observa- 
tory, when in fact he is attached to the Bu- 
reau of Yards and Docks. 
An historical sketch of the Naval Obser- 
vatory, written by an individual member 
of the board, with the avowed purpose of 
showing that the system under which the 
Observatory has been administered since 
its foundation is entirely defective, is ap- 
pended to the report. It is a sufficient 
criticism of this sketch to say that a system 
which, from a most modest beginning, has 
built up one of the few great astronomical 
institutions of the world, and which has 
produced the two most eminent living as- 
tronomers in America, can not be wholly 
bad. 
