946 



SCIENCE. 



[N. S. Vol. XIV. No. 364. 



a century been supporting a great national 

 observatory for the promotion of astronom- 

 ical science. During the last few years 

 this has been done at a cost exceeding that 

 of any other observatory, public or private, 

 in the world. Even the great observatories 

 of Greenwich and Paris, which the two 

 governments have supported in friendly 

 rivalry, do not approach ours in the matter 

 of outlay. 



The latter has, at various times during 

 the past twenty years, been reported upon, 

 oflficially and unoflBcially, by the highest 

 scientific authorities in the land. Only one 

 voice is heard in these reports. The work of 

 our observatory, considered as a whole, does 

 not come up to any standard of which our 

 country can be proud. The Greenwich and 

 Paris observatories are the pride of their re- 

 spective nations ; ours can inspire no such 

 sentiment. On the cause of this failure the 

 expressions are also unanimous. N^o re- 

 flection is ever heard upon the staff of the 

 institution, which has always been and still 

 is of the ablest. But this alone does not 

 fulfil all the requirements of success. The 

 best instruments and a well-arranged plan 

 of work are also necessary. Above all, the 

 work must be directed with that familiarity 

 with the multifarious details of modern 

 astronomy which our own good sense, as 

 well as the experience and practice of all 

 other nations, show to be necessary to suc- 

 cess. 



Secretaries of the navy have joined their 

 voices with those of the scientific authorities 

 in calling attention to this want, and ask- 

 ing that it be supplied. But Congress has 

 never made provision for a director of the 



observatory, and the work has suffered, 

 and still suffers, in consequence. 



Desirous of seeing to what extent the 

 observatory had replied to all these criti- 

 cisms, we made a careful study of its re- 

 ports during the last ten years. It required 

 no knowledge of technical astronomy to see 

 that the most serious strictures seemed to 

 be amply justified by them. Especially 

 striking was the defense of the observatory 

 in the report for 1900. A number of al- 

 leged weak points were pointed out in the 

 report of the board of visitors, but the 

 serious criticism was ignored, unless an im- 

 plied denunciation of the whole body of 

 astronomers of established reputation as 

 men 'whose prejudices and animosities 

 were mature and confirmed ' could be re- 

 garded as a reply. 



In our issue of January 4 last, we set 

 forth the main points of the case against 

 the observatory and earnestly invited their 

 consideration by official authority. Our 

 readers will be gratified to see that the 

 head of the observatory has not thought 

 them unworthy of attention. Desiring, as 

 we do, in the interest of fairness and jus- 

 tice, to give the greatest publicity possible 

 to every official defense of the scientific 

 character of the institution, we invite atten- 

 tion to the following passages of the report, 

 premising that we do not imply that this is 

 or is intended to be the best that the author 

 of the passages might say on the subject : 



Critics who are in no way responsible for results, 

 and who probably would not carry out their own 

 suggestions if they were, have had a standing griev- 

 ance against the observatory because it has not put 

 its clocks underground. In point of fact very few 



