Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1894-12-03
MERCURY'S GHOsTLY MOON.
Mr.. Maine's Further observations M
to the Disputed Discovery.

to the Disputed Discovery.
From the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle.
In the Sun of Tuesday, November 10. Gar
rett p. Serviss discusses the observation Of
Mercury and an accompanying shadow,
which was described in the Democrat and
Chronicle last Sunday morning.
Mr.. Serviss says that he saw tho appear
ance of a shadow In advance of Mercury
| during the transit, but attributed II to the
nothing of the suns surface land thought
| little Of it." 1t is quite apparent that with
| the comparatively high power $50 dame
| ters) employed Mr.. Serviss did not get a
very good view Of the shadow, and 1t
| seemed faint, like the nothing of the sun.
This view corresponds precisely with the
results of the effort made here 10 observe
the shadow with a power higher than
thirty-two diameters. The shadow ap-
peared thin under power OF sixty and was
barely visible. The experiment led to the
suggestion that the shadow might be missed
altogether by observers using large ifstru-
ments and high magnifying power. In such
a breeze as was blowing during the transit
of Mercury the seeing must always be bet
ter with small telescope and low magnify
ing power than with a large instrument
and a high power. For this reason il does
not follow that thing seen with a small
telescope must necessarily be visible in
large instruments.
The matter of chief interest In the re-
marks by Mr.. Serviss is the statement that
ne noted the appearance of the shadow and
located II with accuracy in advance, or to
the westward of the planet. His statement
that the direction of the shadow from the
planet was a little to the south of west is
also strictly in accordance with the OBJ
servation made here, although the southerly
direction was so slight that we did not mem
tlon IT In the description published on Sun
day. The careful description by Mr. Seryiss
OF the bearing OF the shadow shows con-
IN h.a caxxvt h., III
was seen here, but IL Is evident that ne did
not see so clearly, and, therefore, it did not
impress him at the time as being of i'm
portance.
The fact that the shadow was seen by two
persons independently in this city and by
another at Bayport, l. l., indicates that
the object was real and to be explained on
some other ground than an optical illusion
What Is the true explanation? The sug-
gestion made on Sunday that the effect was
produced by gaseous body accompanying
Mercury still holds good. In discussing this
suggestion Mr.. Serviss is conservative, but
gives 1t as much weight as could be ex-
pected at the present.
The Rev. Samuel Charlesworth of London
England, who came to the United States
for the express purpose of observing the
transit OF Mercury, writes from Montclair
N j., to the Democrat and Chronicle OBJ
server as follows. as Introductory to some
remarks concerning the observation de-
scribed last Sunday morning: Il have come
from London especially to see the transit
as 1t could be observed alone i'm the United
States. The inclosed rough notes briefly
mention the principal object of my in
curry" These notes, prepared I'm advance
OF the transit, contain the following: This
transit, as seen from the United States, af-
fords an opportunity for deciding once and
forever whether Mercury does or does not
possess a satellite. If there be one il must
be apparent on the suns disk, above or be-
low, before or behind the planet; if none
such be seen, then the negative is equally
certain" Mr.. Charlesworth, who describes
himself as AN aged amateur" closed his
circular by asking astronomers to look for
q satellite.