New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1898-03-20
A HANDICAP TO SCIENCE.
WE SAD MIsMANAGEMENT OF THE
NAVAL OBSERVATORY.

ING IS ACCOMPLISHED AT THE WASHING
TON oBsERVATORY-THE PLAN TO
TAKE IT AWAY FROM THE NAVY
Washington. March 10 (specaD-In wider
Ard wider circles among members OF Congress.
officers OF the Department. scientists. scholars
.ni those laymen who know the history Of the
Naval Observatory and are aware what a brill
,,r, future its early work promised and how
Gar Il has failed 70 fulfil this promise. the in
orirv IS constantly being made. What prac-
,,csl use IS the Observatory TO the Navy or any
othe~ Department."
criticisms OF the management OF the institu-
,,on were current Ions before the old observa-
,o-y was abandoned, some five or SIX years ago,
tut the former observatory was a primitive
affair poorly equipped, and but little should
hsye been expected OF It. The new one. built
the cos; OF three-quarters OF million dollars.
g on the contrary. conspicuous for It's magnif-
c.uce and convenient arrangement. which to-
sether with the large sums expended on its
maintenance, leads 10 the query why SO little is
heard Of rs dongs.
The authorities OF the Observatory treat
these questions with lofty disdain. and attribute
then, % the ignorance Of laynnep and the
jealousy and malice Of contemporary astron-
omers who. 1; is given out. envtous Of the
.endent But this assumption is hardly ten
abe when Il IS remembered that the foremost
scientists Of the day. men who occupy honorable
and re-nuneratlve posts in our leading unver-
,les. and whose professional integrity and
,..-io:sr9 cannot be Questioned criticise the
management and work ot the Observatory 70 its
6isc-e6!t II Is ridiculous to assume that these
We, are actua:ei by sordid motives: but II
.se- criticisms can be dismissed for such puerile
reasons what Of the criticisms Of foreign as
.rouomers who regard with amazerent the lack
., accomplishment the splendid opportunities
wasted ny what IS understood on the other side
"a be the National Observatory OF the United
States? ..
The main reasons why the history Of the OBJ
e,vatory Is Disappointing its affairs at present
IN SO unfortunate a state are easily given: 1t
has had no adequate head. no continuous plan.
m rer,uanent policy. Since the death Of Lieu
tenant ti.lliss. who was It's founder. and under
whom II had renaissance in 1859, when Pro-
..ssors Nencomo Hall, Hardness and Eastman
became connected with its staff. and who served
during the rest Of his lie until 1894. there was
70 direction % rs astronomical work by
seient,st competent for this duty. The naval
officers for the mos; part, who succeeded Gillss
ss superintendents. had neither the requisite
knowledge nor proper appreciation OF the
fundamental work % an institution OF this char
sc,er: 10 ability 10 map out plan or 20 IN
stlre ana direct the force they controlled. II is
TUE the naval superintendent rarely inter
.s,ed with the astronomical work. but the chang
ing O.. The head OF the Observatory every four
years had unQuestionably demoralizing effect
twas q case Of laissez fare. The professors
ell OF them men OF ability and standing. were
allowed 10 carry out their own fancies. but
there has unhapp.ly. been lack OF harmony
among the corps They have not worked to-
gether for a common aim. there has been jeal-
ousy and pickering, and frequently important
work. for some unknown reason. was suddenly
abandoned and other work less important un-
Ge-taken which, later on, was Ia I'd aside at
somebody's wh'in
This miserable condition OF the Internal af-
fairs % the Observatory could not be kept
from those interested in It's work and for years
back. as has been noted il was a subject for
criticism among eminent astronomers inspired
BY love of their profession and OF their Coun-
IN. They argued that Il would be as well TO
put an e-udite Judge IN charge OF q battle-ship
Is a naval officer no matter how excellent an
executive h might be. at the head Of such
scientific institution; for while ne did not med
Gle with IS astronomical work he was utterly
unable TO direct IT.
In the last Administration the conduct Of the
Observatory amounted almost 20 a scandal; its
critics relentlessly attacked Il. and such strong
Arguments were presented 10 Secretary Herbert
IN favor % change in It's management that he
finally decided 70 throw sop TO Cerberus and
put the astronomical work in charge OF as
Economical director. There being no law for this
place. the Secretary detailed naval professor
FOR the 6u.y; but the superintendent was and
Is still at the head OF the Observatory with
absolute power over everything and every one
connected with the institution. all officers as
Gs-ants. astronomers. computers and employees.
Tie Astronomical director. therefore who wears
50 sonorous e title IS director in name only, for
while he Is held responsible for the direction,
scope character. quantity and preparation OF
the work. ne has no authority over his assist
ants or subordinates: he can make no details
without permission % his naval superior, and
ia cap or a screw IS needed for ar instrument,
the order for It must come from that officer.
A STEP NOT FAR ENOUGH
No one. no matter how high he might stand in
his profession, could accomplish anything with
me work % a great observatory handicapped
IN this way. and a three years trial Of Score
'sTy Herberts plan mas demonstrated It's i'm
pracucablity. J. was q step IN the right direc-
Ton. but Il did not go FAR enough he gave 10
ne Astronomical director greater responsibility
Nan the superintendent possesses. but without
'he authority 10 carry 1t out The fault les
both With the plan and with the director named
Onoer the new arrangement An astronomer o.
equal ability with Professor Hardness. but less
accustomed 70 bureaucratic methods. would
nave been too proud OF his own scientific repu-
auon too ambitious FOR the Observatory. 10
nave remained mere ponderous fgurehead
Without authority or power.
" would be an endless task 10 crit!cse all
'ne weak points OF the Naval Observatory and
Hihost an impossible one since the diplomatic
e-.letk u fLe Cfat. 80 2 L.