44 
ceeded by an admiral of the navy under whose di- 
rection it was excellently administered.’’ 
The fact that the officer who succeeded 
Leverrier was retired from active service 
and had devoted his energy to astronomical 
work with such success that, before his ap- 
pointment, he had become one of the pro- 
fessional astronomers of the French Acad- 
emy of Sciences, was not stated in the letter. 
There are several other points in which 
the construction placed upon the Visitors’ 
report differs essentially from that which 
would be placed upon it by the ordinary 
reader; but we shall not stop to discuss 
them. One is “‘ that the Board actually pro- 
poses to remove the affairs of the Observa- 
tory from Government control.”’ The reader 
of the Visitors’ report will see for himself 
that nothing of this sort was intended. 
A charge of unfairness should, however, 
be noticed. A comparison of personnel, sal- 
aries and total expenses at Washington 
shows it to cost about 50 per cent. more 
than Greenwich or Harvard. In the report 
now under review a comparison is given 
limited to the scientific personnel of the 
three observatories, and, showing that of 
Washington to be less in total cost, and 
less than half in strength, as compared 
with either of the others. But this only 
emphasizes the extraordinary number of 
non-scientific employees and the magnitude. 
of the general expenses at our Observatory. 
A general remark on the Visitors’ report 
The careful 
reader of this paper will find it marked by 
may not be out of place. 
a moderation of tone showing a keen ap- 
preciation of the amenities of official ex- 
pression, and by an avoidance of the blunt 
SCIENCE. 
[N.S. Vou. XIII. No. 315. 
statement of unpleasant facts suggestive of 
the gentle influences exerted by a hospit- 
able reception at a great government insti- 
tution. A curious feature of the situation 
is that the plan of reform which now comes 
in for such scathing criticism is the out- 
come of an effort on the part of the Board 
to devise some way of making the continued 
administration of the Observatory as a 
naval station compatible with its success as 
a scientific institution. The Board is now, 
we suppose, considered as functus officio, but 
it would be interesting to know whether its 
individual members would, in the light of 
subsequent events, change their minds as to 
the practicability of their plan after reading 
such forceful criticisms from the very au- 
thority it was intended to propitiate. 
Having said so much implying dissatis- 
faction with the report, it is a pleasure to 
find a serious misapprehension corrected by 
it. This is the common notion, shared by 
the Board of Visitors, that the Astronomical 
Director is a dual head of the Observatory. 
It is now made quite clear that he is only 
one of seven subordinate and co-equal heads 
of departments. We must frankly admit 
that this makes the proposal to have him 
appointed by the President, by and with the 
advice and consent of the Senate at a salary 
of $6,000, look—if not ‘ preposterous ’—at 
least a little open to question. 
We conclude with two questions, an an- 
swer to which we are sure would be re- 
ceived by all the astronomers of the country 
with great respect, not to say eager interest. 
Granting that ‘no person can now pretend 
to be a friend of the Observatory or of 
science while attacking its organization,’ 
