once a virtue and a necessity in a military corps, is quite incompatible with the spirit of scien tific investigation pure and simple. So long as the Observatory is under a bureau of the Navy Department it must, of necessity, like a navy yard or a receiving ship, be controlled by naval regulations, and any relations which naval officers may sustain to it must be governed by navy rules regarding rank, short details of service, assignments in regular order without regard to special fitness or taste and other established customs, absolutely necessary to military discipline, but utterly irreconcilable with the spirit of an institution devoted purely to scientific research. The only satisfactory solution of the problem is the removal of the Observatory from military control. No half-way measure, such as appointing a Director from civil life, will avail as long as it remains attached to the Navy Department. The amputation must be clean and complete.

If any attempt is made to accomplish this it must be kept in mind that it is a fundamental principle of bureau administration to get hold of all you can and hold all you get. It is accepted as an evidence of successful administration to have added one or more new functions to the office which you happen to hold, and it is considered almost disgraceful to allow another bureau to begin operations in a field which you have traditionally cultivated, however unrelated they may be to the work for which your corps was originally organized. Much of the useless duplication of government work is due to this.

It must also be remembered that Congress concerns itself very little with what ought to be done, but that it is very greatly influenced by what it is made to believe the people want done. As far as the interests of astronomy go, astronomers are the people. Whenever they are ready to unite in a persistent effort to secure reform in the Naval Observatory, whenever they are willing to exert their influence in favor of making it a real national establishment, directed by astronomers for astronomy they will succeed. Naturally there will be a few naval officers who will seriously oppose any measure which deprives them of such agreeable shore duty, but the great majority of them know very well that to them professional distinction

is to be reached through skill in handling a 10inch gun rather than a 26-inch objective and that the experience of commanding a battleship is vastly more valuable than anything to be gained in the performance of the petty routine duties of superintending an institution in whose work they have little real interest and no enthusiasm. T. C. MENDENHALL. WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE.

TO THE EDITOR OF SCIENCE: I beg to offer the following replies to the questions you raise with reference to a national astronomical observatory.

First, it is desirable that the government of the United States should maintain an astronomical observatory. The experience of the past two hundred years seems to demonstrate that there are certain kinds of scientific work that cannot be successfully carried on without the express sanction and support of stable governments.

Astronomy, geodesy and geology are the most striking instances of such work, and it is hardly conceivable that they could have attained their existing degree of utility except for the aid extended to them by the leading governments. That the maintenence of such work is second only in importance in national economy to the maintenance of law and order, and to the diffusion of education, is a proposition which few readers of SCIENCE are likely to controvert.

Secondly, the chief objects of a national astronomical observatory seem to fall under the following heads: (a) the registration of continuous series of observations of the sun, moon, planets and fixed stars; (b) the preparation of ephemerides of these celestial bodies for the use of surveyors, geodesists and navigators; (c) theoretical investigations with reference to the motions and physical properties of the celestial bodies, and with reference to the instruments, appliances and methods used in astronomical observations and computations; (d) the cooperation with other similar organizations in astronomical undertakings of international importance.

Thirdly, it may be said that the existing Naval Observatory has fulfilled and still fulfills

these objects. It must be admitted, in fact, that the Naval Observatory, during the half century of its existence, has done a large amount of first class work, and that its service has been dignified by the connection with it of some of the most eminent American astronomers. Nevertheless, it appears equally just to affirm that the administration of the Naval Observatory has never been favorable to the highest efficiency of such an organization. The scientific work of the Naval Observatory has been done in spite of a bad form of administration rather than by reason of a good one.

The radical defect of this administration lies in the assumption that the Superintendent of the Observatory should be, as he has been, generally, a naval officer, who may have little knowledge of or interest in astronomy. The position is one of pleasing prominence to an officer on shore duty, and is hence likely to fall to one who has 'pull' with the party in power rather than to one who has distinguished himself as an astronomor. The effect of such administration is much the same as would result in a university if the department of mathematics, for example, were placed in charge of a superannuated clergyman. The routine work goes on pleasantly, but with no scientific energy except that which the subordinates get from external professional associations. Subordinates who are exceptionally able may, as some have done, accomplish much good work under such depressing circumstances; but those less ambitious are apt to lapse into mere time servers. This form of administration leads also to pressure for position in the service by those little competent to undertake astronomical work. The way in which some of the highest positions on the Naval Observatory staff have been obtained in recent years, through pulls and 'influence,' and competition of all kinds except that of merit, is a standing disgrace to all men of science.

To remedy these defects, and to make of the Naval Observatory a National Observatory, some rather radical changes are essential. The Observatory should cease to be a mere bureau of or appendage to the navy, and the surest way to accomplish this end will be to transfer the Observatory to some other department. The

Director or Superintendent of the Observatory should be an astronomer of acknowledged ability, and the members of his staff should be chosen by reason of merit only. The conduct of the work of the Observatory should be subject to the approval of a board of regents, similar to that of the Smithsonian Institution, half of whom should be chosen from astronomers and physicists not in the government service, and half from members of Congress. Some such system of administration, free so far as practicable from the contamination of spoils and politics, appears to be absolutely indispensable to the maintenance of an Observatory worthy of American science.

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY.

R. S. WOODWARD.

TO THE EDITOR OF SCIENCE: In reply to your questions relating to the United States Naval Observatory I assume that you do not expect an elaborate article, but merely the expression of my individual opinion in a few words. I take the topics in order.

I. If no such establishment existed, and it were a question of founding an observatory, I should say no. At least not before government methods had considerably improved.

With buildings and plant on hand, which have cost nearly a million of dollars, it is probably best to keep it up, though I am not quite sure of this.

II. Systematic work with meridian circle in determination of places of stars and planets. Measurements of double stars and positions of comets and minor planets with the equatorial. In short, the kind of work which Hall and Eastman kept up for many years and which is not likely to receive the necessary attention at private observatories.

III. I do not quite understand this question. If the meaning is as follows: Is it desirable for government to establish another observatory in order to atone for the shortcomings of that now existing? there can be only one answer.

The requisite conditions, in my opinion, are not likely to be fulfilled by any observatory established within the political atmosphere of Washington. C. L. DOOLITTLE.

FLOWER OBSERVATORY.

TO THE EDITOR OF SCIENCE: In reply to question number one I should say: Had we no observatory, no. It does not require a 26-inch telescope to test a chronometer. (2) Since we already have such an institution, it seems to me that the best work it can undertake will be large and expensive pieces of routine work, such as a private observatory would be unlikely to take up, and could only be accomplished by a combination of them. (3) The Naval Observatory certainly does not fulfill this idea. The work it is to undertake should, I think, be decided by a committee suitably appointed. It should have a civilian astronomer at its head.

W. H. PICKERING.

HARVARD COLLEGE OBSERVATORY.

TO THE EDITOR OF SCIENCE: The question whether the United States should maintain a National Astronomical Observatory must largely depend for its answer upon the opinion which we may adopt with regard to the propriety of employing money raised by taxation in the support of any branch of pure science. It may be held that the taxpayers should not be made to contribute to undertakings in which they cannot be supposed, as a whole, to feel any decided interest, and which, so far as they are beneficial, must benefit mankind at large, rather than the particular nation supporting them. But various branches of applied science must be cultivated at the national expense, and it is difficult to draw a definite boundary separating abstract inquiries and their practical applications. Some liberty of research, too, on the part of men engaged in any scientific work, seems desirable to prevent them from falling into too mechanical a routine. In this country, where the science of astronomy is so liberally supported by private munificence, there is, doubtless, very little occasion for a National Observatory; still, since such an institution exists, and has done much interesting work, as Professor Skinner shows, most of us would probably dislike to have it abandoned without further trial.

The most obviously valuable service which a National Observatory can render is the maintenance of such observations as are apt to be neglected elsewhere, from their want of im

mediate interest. Such, for example, are the determinations of position of the sun, moon and planets, which have been kept up assidously at the Naval Observatory since 1861, as Professor Skinner assures us at the close of his article. It would hardly be advisable to confine the work of the institution rigidly to a routine of this kind, so planned as to leave the astronomers no time for pursuits more stimulating to the intellect; but if they should attempt to undertake all kinds of researches most in vogue at the present moment we could not expect from them many solid additions to human knowledge.

I do not feel myself competent to judge whether the Naval Observatory is to be regarded, comparatively speaking, as a success or as a failure, or whether any change in its organization would decidedly improve it. I know that complaints of the amount and quality of its work have often been made, and I have been puzzled by the manner in which these complaints have been met. In similar cases we usually find the persons criticised inclined to excuse what may seem to be their shortcomings by their want of means, or by the uncertainty whether their present pecuniary support will be continued, or, perhaps, in other instances, by a defective organization imposed upon them from without. But, unless I misunderstand what I have heard, the astronomers of the Naval Observatory generally agree that their chief has all necessary power to carry out his plans promptly and effectively; that this power hardly needs to be exerted, because they form a united and harmonious body, animated by purely scientific zeal; that Congress has supplied them abundantly with funds, and that they entertain no apprehension that this liberal support will be withdrawn, or that they will be under the necessity of neglecting their scientific pursuits in order to solicit its continuance. If this impression of mine, which I acknowledge to be a vague one, is correct, either the critics must be in error or there is something in the mere atmosphere of Washington, or in any connection with the government of the United States, which is unfavorable to the cultivation of astronomy.

Public criticism of a public institution must

not be blamed, even if it is ill founded; and I am inclined to depend upon it for the correction of any defects which may exist in the management of the Naval Observatory. If the critics cannot agree among themselves no change is probably required, but if there is a general accordance among them it will be difficult for the Washington astronomers to persist in opposition to the scientific sentiment of the country. For example, the publication of the Washington observations has often been considered needlessly irregular and dilatory. If this criticism is just, and if the Naval Observ. atory has ample means for the reduction and publication of its work, I can hardly doubt that the mere repetition of the complaint will before long succeed in removing the occasion for it. ARTHUR SEARLE.

HARVARD COLLEGE OBSERVATORY.

TO THE EDITOR OF SCIENCE: Your ques. tions are fundamental.

1. The right to existence of a National Astronomical Observatory supported by the United States seems to me beyond dispute, and this too for the reason that certain classes of astronomical observations, such as those of the positions of sun, moon and the larger planets, must be maintained with a regularity seldom attained in an observatory subject to the vicissitudes of a changing policy or to the fluctuation of available funds. In general, those researches which demand long series of observations whose accumulation is likely to outlast the activity of an individual astronomer require an institution having the stability of a National Observatory.

For example, Holden's inquiry as to the evidences of change of form in nebulæ, which appeared in the Washington Observations for 1878, is a preliminary discussion whose final answer can best be given by comparison of a series of photographs taken under identical conditions at regular intervals and accumulated perhaps for some centuries. Such a work seems eminently suitable for a National Observatory.

But (3) the New Naval Observatory does not now fulfill, and need never fulfill, these objects so completely that the cooperation of other institutions shall be unnecessary; and a

carefully considered scheme for the division of labor and the cooperation of working astronomers would add to the efficiency of every observatory in the land. Indeed, it may be said that already, without any set compact, there is a tacit recognition of the fitness of individuals for special work, and a partial relinquishment of such work to the men whose attainments, or the institutions whose outfits, promise the best results.

It would be very easy to criticise the present Naval Observatory, but probably few of us could do better under the existing system, which is not sufficiently elastic, and which fails to recognize that Science is like a living plant and must have room to grow. I will confine myself to one example. The accumulation of accurate magnetic records, and their comparison with cosmic phenomena, ought to be an uninterrupted work, undertaken with the design of making it permanent, and as such it is suitable for a National Observatory. The folly of continuing magnetic observations in the rapidly altering environment of a great city, where electric currents generate a variable magnetic field of their own, has been abundantly demonstrated. Scientific opinion and common sense demand the immediate removal of the magnetic part of the working outfit of the Naval Observatory to one or more suitable localities, far removed from civilization, but the sluggish response of a conservative authority which finds it difficult to conceive of a National Observatory in any other place than Washington, D. C., bids fair to leave a gap in our records unless individual action comes to the rescue. Now, while it is not desirable that an institution having the especial character of permanence should shift its policy on small provocation, there ought be freedom to meet emergencies.

BROWN UNIVERSITY.

FRANK W. VERY.

TO THE EDITOR OF SCIENCE: In response to your significant enquiries:

1. Is it desirable that the government of the United States should support a national astronomical observatory ?

Yes, the United States, as a leading nation of the globe, is virtually pledged to equip and

maintain an astronomical observatory of the first order.

2. If so, what ends should such an institution have in view, especially to what classes of astronomical observation and research should it be devoted? Such classes of observation and research should be conducted as will be of the utmost practical utility:

(A) Observations for determining the precise positions of the stars upon the celestial sphere. (B) Spectroscopic observations of precision for determining the motions of fixed stars toward and from the solar system.

One telescope of exceptional size should be devoted to this work.

(C) Determination of the distances of the principal fixed stars.

(D) Accurate evaluation of the elements concerned in the motion of the earth's pole of rotation.

A zenith telescope of the best construction, preferably photographic, should be constantly employed upon this research. Cooperation with the Coast and Geodetic Survey, and the uninterrupted support of an additional observer in Manila or Honolulu, is highly desirable. This service should be maintained with the utmost rigor for at least twenty-five years.

(E) Meridian observations of position of the sun, moon and major planets.

Planetary observations should be converted into errors of celestial longitude and ecliptic north polar distance, and equations formed connecting these errors with the elements of the planetary tables used in the preparation of the Nautical Almanac.

(F) Searching investigation of the constant of meridian refraction should be conducted uninterruptedly throughout a series of years. (G) Equatorial observations not previously specified. These need be but few.

(H) Solar research in several departments. 1. The spots, their number and area, photographically and visually. An independent record should be maintained in either Manila or Honolulu, thereby supplementing, at half intervals, the similar work at Greenwich, Dehra Dûn and the Mauritius.

3. The faculæ, with the spectroheliograph. 4. The corona, during total eclipses, chiefly photographically.

5. The Sun's Reversing Layer.

6. Bolometric investigation of the infra-red rays of the solar spectrum.

7. The permanency in character or the secular variation of lines in the solar spectrum.

8. The permanency or secular variation of the solar constant. In the prosecution of 6, 7 and 8 a high-level station might advantageously be maintained, in either Hawaii or southern California.

(I) The department of the Astronomical Ephemeris and Nautical Almanac should not only prepare and publish this work, at least three years in advance, but should issue also accessory publications of especial service to navigators.

(J) Magnetic observations ought to be maintained, as regards declination, dip and intensity.

(K) A time-service must be maintained, not only for the purpose of the Navy, but for the wide distribution of standard time and the dropping of time-balls at important localities.

The Superintendent or Director of the government observatory should be held responsible for the efficient prosecution of all branches of the work under his charge and for its prompt publication. Also he should be empowered to choose his subordinates, with or without examination, their recommendation for appointment to be subject to approval by a Board of Visitors at semi-annual sessions. Advancement and discharge should be regulated in a similar manner.

DAVID P. Todd. OBSERVATORY HOUSE, AMHERST, MASS.

TO THE EDITOR OF SCIENCE: To the three questions submitted to me a few days since by yourself I would reply as follows:

1. It is most emphatically desirable that the government of the United States should support a National Astronomical Observatory. There are certain important lines of astronomical research which are of a character such as not to