Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1899-06-28
THE NAVAL OBSERVATORY
Changes to Be Suggested to the Board of
Visitors.
Scientists Think 1t Should BE Con.
Quoted by n Trained Aa-
tFOnOmer.

Secretary Longs appointment of a board
OF visitors to visit, examine and report on
the naval observatory has revived the long,
standing controversy between scientists
and naval officers over the control of the
observatory, which is under the Navy De-
partment and has naval officer as SUPER
intendent The board is composed of Sena-
tor William F.. Chandler of New Hamp-
shire, Representative Alston g. Dayton of
West Vii 1ginia, Prof George c. Comstock,
director of the observatory of the Univer-
sity of Wisconsin, Madison; Prof George
E. Hale, director of the Yerkes obserya-
tory, Williams Bay, Wis, and Prof. Ed
ward c. Pickering, director of the Harvard
College observatory, Cambridge. This
board will meet at the naval observatory
on June 30. The scientific world through
one of Its organs, Science, has urged the
board to go into the question of mana ge-
ment with view to determining whether
the policy shall be continued of "manag-
ing a great national observatory like a
naval station" 1t is alleged that better
results, from a scientific standpoint will
be attained If the observatory is placed un-
der civilian administration.
Trained Astronomer at the Head.
A prominent member of the Washing
ton scientific colony, not connected with
the observatory, said today that the views
would be presented to the board of visit
ors in the hope of impressng the mem
bers with the desirability of placing a
trained astronomer at the head of the OBJ
servatory. -.
1T is no disparagement to the navy" he
continued, Ito say that the professional
education and training of naval officers
does not necessarily fit them for the duties
of superintendence- of an astronomical OBJ
servatory. There have been instances
where the naval officer at the head of the
observatory has been a capable astrono-
mer, but a naval officer pot so qualified is
as much out of place. as Superintendent of
an astronomical obserya tory as a civilian
astronomer would be AS a flag officer of a
modern squadron. -
There has been considerable scientific
criticism of the work done by the naval
observatory on the ground of it's lack of
system and continuity Prof. Newcomb is
authority for the statement that for con-
nual volume of observations was omitted
because there were so few observations
worth publishing. The publications show
large gaps in the series, years having
passed by without leaving any records be-
hind, and they further demonstrate the
lack of ANY precenceived{ plan of opera
tions or any defined policy governing the
conduct of observation 1t Is also true that
some of the work done displays signs of i'm
perfection in the instruments. These are
some of the matters that will be brought
to the attention of the board of visitors.
Change of Name Suggested.
Another thing that is distasteful to
scientists is the name naval observatory.
1t Is maintained that the name should be
changed to national observatory. This
change was advocated at the time the new
observatory buildings were built, but with
out result. The word national was origi
naly part of the nahe, and appears to
have been dropped on the authority of
Secretary of the Navy Dobbin, in Presi-
dent Pierce's administration, who decided
that the observatory should be called the
geographic office. The latter office has
long since been distinct from the naval OBJ
servatory, but the frst part of the name
devised by Secretary Dobbin has stuck"