Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1886-02-20
CITY AND DISTRICT.

CITY AND DtSfRlCE
"NAvAL1 OR "NATIOyAL."
More About the Naming Of the Pro-
posed New Observatory.
THE Committee OF THE ACADEMY OF
SCIENCES OBJECT TO CALLING 1T THE NAVAL
oBsERvAroRY-A PURELY NAVAL oBsERvA-
TORY AT ANNAPOLIS FAVORED.
In the report of the committee Of the Ma
tional Academy of Sciences upon the advisa-
bility OF an immediate construction of a new
naval observatory upon the site selected ian
abstract OF which report has been published in
THE STAR the prefix of "naval' is criticised
and even condemned The report says: "The
honorable Secretary (of the navy in employ
ing the phrase naval observatory instead of
saying observatory merely, has seemed TO sub
init the question whether, in the opinion of the
academy tof National Sciencesl the interests OF
the nary require that a new observatory should
be erected. The committee have therefore
sought to ascertain what are the special SER
vices rendered by the observatory to the navy,
or what are the relations OF the establishments
To that branch OF the public service which JUS
tify the epithet naval This title has never
been conferred upon ii by law, nor Is it that by
which it was first known"
EARLY PRECEDESTs.
The report goes on to state that the old ooser-
vatory commenced operations in the fall of
1s44 and its first volume of astronomical OBJ
servatiOns was published in 1916 under the
title astronomical observations made during
the year 1915 at the national observatory,
Washington; published by authority of Hon.
George Bancroft, secretary OF the navy In a
letter addressed in 1854 by sUperin tendent NJ.
+. Maury, of the observatory, to Commodore
Charles Morris. chief OF the bureau of ordnance
etc, il was stated that the observatory was
ehristened National by Mr.. Bancroft (the first
secretary OF the navy under President Polk,
in a letter of March 8, 1876 relating to the
labors TO be undertaken" Commodore
Morris, being dissatisfied with that title,
appealed to ]. c. Dobbin, Secretary of the
Navy under Pierce, who promptly replied: 'My
opinion Is that it (the observatory should be
sty led 'The United States Naval Observatory
and photographic Office" The report says
that thus one Secretary overrules the decision
of one of his predecessors and the practice sane
the name which has been borne by a public
institution, with the perfect acquiescence of
Congress and the people for nearly ten years.
Mr.. Dobbin founded his ruling on the basis that
the observatory had always been under the
control of the Navy department and was con-
Quoted by naval officers.
NOT NAVAL INSTITUTION.
The report cOntroverts assertion of Mr..
Dobbin that the observatory is a 'navy affair
and its reputation is the property of the navy"
and says: 1.-The reputation which the observa-
tory has acquired has been a reelection of the
personal luster OF individual men appOinte TO
IL from civil life, and whose most brilliant
works have been accom- plished quite independ-
emily of their routine duties at the observa-
tory" The fact, say the committee, that the
observatory Is under control OF the navy does
not necessarily give it the character of a naval
establishment. The museum of hygiene IS
under the same depar tment, but it is not called
a naval museum. The marine hospital service
Is under the treasury department, not because
II mas any affinity with the business of collect
Ing and discussing the revenues, but simply
because II is seemingly proper that every
branch of the public service should be subject
10 the control OF some executive department
Some years prior to the erection of the pres
ent observatory there was established on Capt.
81 laI
a depot of charts and Instruments" Here
nautical thermometers were regulated, charts
deposited, other naval instruments regulated
ETC. After the erection of the observatory these
duties we're transferred to- il, and. say the COM
m1ttee, while IL remained this embryonic
condition there might perhaps have been a GER
tain propriety in calling il = naval observatory;
but the service it rendered TO the navy required
no astronomical instruments Tor its satisfactory
performance more than a small meridian tran
sit The variety OF superior instruments with
which the new structure was furnished invited
however. 10 the prosecution of researches purely
scientific, and the consequence has been the
publication up TO this time OF about
tween five and ten thousand pages
not one in a hundred OF which is probably OF
asserts that the work by which the Washing
ton observatory has made itself known-taat
which has given it the honorable reputation it
enjOyS-has been work which has been under
taken and successfully accomplished purely in
the interest of astronomical science IL Is such
work as is done at Greenwich AT Pulkoya. AT
farIS and other national observatorieS.
PROPOSED DIVISION.
1t Is with the view of making the proposed
new observatory a national observatory that
the committee recommend that all the instru-
ments and paraphernaIia of the present obser-
Saiory essential 10 naval matters be transferred
u Annapolis, and that the observatory AT An
napOlis be enlarged il necessary as Ia render
adequate to all the wants of the navy and that il
sinai! be styled the naval observatory: and that
the 2S-inch telescope, the transit circle and the
prime vertical transit be transferred 10 the pro-
posed new national observatory.
NAVAL OFFICERS AS SUPERINTENDENT.
The report of the committee also advis es
against the continuation of the practice of as
signing naval officers to take charge of the
"NatiOnal' observatory, and says on this SUBJ
1ect: Having become thus assimilated in title
As IL already Is in its work, to the institutions
OF similar character maintained by the govern
ments OF other enlightened nations, il would
seem that II should, like them, be placed under
. direction in harmony with its objects No
one can have higher respect for the gallant
Onicers OF our navy than the members of this
mmittee or those of the national academy:
but IT Inn plies no disrespect to them to s,y that
there Is nothing in their professional educs,-
ton, and nothing in the nature OF their active
duties in the service TO faniliariZe them with
the processes of astronomical observation or to
acquaint them with the construction and uses
OF nxed astronomical instruments. There have
been exceptional cases, indeed, in which a
naval officer has been an accomplished astron-
omer- This was especially true in the case of
Capt J. NJ Gilliss who had the direction OF the
observatory from 1861 20 1865, and of Admiral
&. II. Davis, his immediate successor who held
the position from 1865 TO 1885,. When as
trononers ike these TO be found in the
navy, 1t is quite lifting that they should be
placed al the head OF our national astrOnOmi-
cal observatory; but in the view OF the commit
tee a line officer o! the navy not thus specially
qualified is as much out of place as superintend-
ent OF a great astronomical establishment as q
civilian astronomer would be IL placed in COM
mand OF a feet of armed vessels in time OF
war;