The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1896-08-17

consequence of it, the planet had been
teleScopically discovered at Berlin.
Those who put forward the claims of
the English mathematician urged the
undoubted fact that the calculations OF
Adams were really prior TO those Of lie
Verrier, though it was admitted that
the optical discovery Of DR.. Gale ar
ticipated the discovery which certain
~ would have been made by Challis
when he had completed and compared
his observation at Cambridge. The
English claim demanded that the fame
OF the discovery of Neptune by mathe-
NAUTICAL research should be equally
shared between LIE Verrier and Adams.
Gradually this claim has come to be
almost universally recognized as d just
one. 1t is true that certain French
writer's occasionally speak of the dis
covery of Neptune as simply due to LIE
Verrier, but impartial judges generally
refer to it as the joint result of the
concurrent labors Of the French and
the English astronomers.
There can be 10 doubt that even if
LIE Verrier or Adams had never lived,
Neptune would in the course of the last
fifty years have been discovered in
some other way. We frequently read
IN the papers announcements of the
detection OF an additional planetary
member of our system, but no one at
taches to such achievements more
than a very small fraction OF the sig
nificance that must ever be attached to
the discovery of Neptune. These small
planets are usually covered by diligent
comparison of the stars in the sky with
the stars on the chart, and whenever d
new object is thus brought under notice
it is carefully looked after. There can
be no doubt that Neptune would i'll
course of time have been found by this
simple survey work, and though its de-
lection would have been a great re-
ward to the diligent astronomer who
was so fortunate as to have first
dropped upon it, yet it would have
been a matter Of much regret had
Neptune been thus picked up, instead
of having been the object of that Won
derful mathematical triumph by which
indications were given of the exact
spot in which the search was to be
made. Indeed, as matter of fact,
Neptune had once been very nearly
discovered ir what may be described
as an accidental manner before either
Adams or LIE Verrier were born. AS
tronomer Lalande records in his great
celestial catalogue a certain star IN
certain place on the 10th of May 1875.
Subsequent inquiries instituted by
Adams showed that this object was not
a star as Lalande had thought, but
that it was really the planet Neptune
A reference to the original manuscript
observations of Lalande brought cir
cumstances of much interest to light.
1t appears that the astronomer had OBJ
served this object on May 8 as well as
on the date two days later, but as his
observations showed a different posi-
ton on the 10th from that which he
had set down on the Sth, Lalande con-
Guided that the latter was erroneous
We now know that the discrepancy in
the two positions was simply due to
the movement of the planet in the in
terval Little did Lalande dream that
a superb discovery had lain so nearly
in his grasp, but we cannot regret that
he did not make it. Had he done so it
would have been what we may rel
atively describe as a mere accidental
achievement. We should have been
deprived of the most glorious illustra-
ton science has yet given of the prin-
ciples of theoretical astronomy.