New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1900-01-27

keen sense of honor and their high professional
shirt Such men cannot afford to undertake
functions outside the line Of their profession I'M
less they can make the effort and success CORE
sponding to the position which they occupy
When the question arises whether success mas
been attained it is emlnently proper that the
authorities responsible for the institution should
present the best possible statement of their case
The course of the Superintendent of the Obsery-
atory in requesting an inspection by an intelh-
gent and impartial Board is therefore to be
commended. Yet more worthy of commentator
will be his course If he shall dutfully accept the
conclusions which the Board expresses in the
temperate and tactful form which characterlzes
the whole report.
So far as any bias could be feared on the part
of the Board, it must have been In favor or the
existing system. An ex-Secretary OF the Navy
and member of the Senate Naval Committee
was chairman The second member was from
the House Naval Committee and the three
astronomers were all above the suspicion OF
having any selfish end In view. The members
were the guests OF the institution during their In
spection and could not have been subject to any
Influences but such were In It's favor. Inc
careful reader of the report will be struck on
nearly every page by the effort made to state I'M
favorable conclusions of the Board with all pos
pOHoADAN
be read between the lines. Very neat Is the way
in which the appeal of the Superintendent for an
opinion as to the merits of the recent work is
answered 1.-The Board of Visitors finds 1t prac-
ideally impossible to form a satisfactory opin-
ion upon the character and condition of that
work without devotng to the task an inadmis-
"sible amount of time and labor" Failing to
find any basis for "a satisfactory opinion, the
Board then proceeds to point out number OF
details in which the administration is unsatis-
factory.
The Superintendent is less happy in what ne
saws of the criticisms made in the past than ne
is In asking the opinion Of the Board He adj
mits much criticism on the part of outside IT
responsible persons" and attacks in anonymous
newspaper articles. This criticism has gone on
lever since the observatory has been In exist
''ence and would continue no matter what the
Organization might be-" If we are not mucn
mistaken, rhe critics in question include quite
number of the most eminent astronomers OF the
country and the world writing over their own
signatures The point of this criticism is not
weakened from the fact that 1t has gone on for
half a century. If the directing authority OF the
observatory could point to some answer to these
criticisms it would be much more satisfactory
than to declare the persons who made them 'ir-
responsible" So far as we understand the case,
nothing could be easier than an answer II one
could be made. Indeed the Board itself repeats
the gist of the criticisms THE astronomical
work has not been transacted with that vigor
land continuity Of purpose which should be
Shown. This is perhaps unavoidable IN the
system which places at the head of the observ-
"atory an officer who is not an expert in technl-
zeal astronomical work. Each particular astron-
''omer seems to have been left to choose his own
"branch of work and alter it from time to time
cor abandon it." The only possible conclusion
is that the observatory should be organized as
National one on the system on which every
other great observatory In the world is organ
lied and which half a century of experience
shows to be essential to success. We cannot
believe that officers of the Navy will stand In the
way of reform so clearly necessary.