Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1901-03-08

direction and the idea is generally enter
tanned that Il will not be possible for 1t to
reach the high standard justly expected of
II except under the administration of an
experienced astronomer. In the course OF
his statement he refers TO the seeming
probability that he may be successor to the
astronomical director If the present form
OF administration Is continued.
The discussion has been going on In vari-
Gus phases since the report of the Chand-
Ter board and the present action of Cap
tain Davis grows out of the long discussion
and the personal animosity which 1t has en-
gendered-
Discussion by Scientists.
For some time past the situation has
been discussed in Science. a weekly paper
devoted to the advancement of science.
The report OF the superintendent in answer
Ing the comments made by the board OF
visitors upon the work and management OF
the observatory was subjected In this paper
to keen analysis.
Science asserted editorially that neither
permanence of purpose nor unity of object
can be discerned In the observatorys pub
lished observations and reports. Continu-
ing, the paper states: But the critics do
not why the government should estab-
lsh great institution and give men COM
missions in the navy to do work which pro-
fessors and students are doing at UNIVERSE
ties and which is Of no special naval use.
Unfavorab,e criticism Is made Of the poll
icy of establishing a magnetic observatory
thereby entering upon a field already oc-
Cupied by another bureau" especially as
the writer adds, the observatory was sta
toned within that distance of trolley line,
which. as shown by experience, Is destruc-
tive of results. AllusiOn Is made to what
is termed the unfortunate experience of
the institution with It's Instruments and
the discovery in many Instances that they
are deficient.
In later issue, namely. January Is last,
n correspondent alludes to the editorial po-
81 80 IN, ar1 to hn ms
observatory, and asserts that 1.-THE real
merit of the controversy Is left untouched"
rs it not true" he asks. that the ques-
ton in the minds of most thoughtful peo-
pie is, What IN the name of reason is the
use of having the observatory for astronom-
ical research under the Navy Department
any way? Why not just as well q geolog-
ical survey? If this question be pertinent,
1t cannot be impertinent, and why do scien-
tific men continue to beat about the bush
when they know exactly where the real
quarry is?
Reply to Criticism.
A reply to these structures is printed IN
the Issue of January p over the name of
Prof. Frank Bigelow OF this city. In regard
TO the removal Of the magnetic observatory
Prof. Bigelow states: For 1t is well known
that the magnetic observatory was moved
by the counsel of the astronomical director,
In cooperation with that of a prominent
visiting English astronomer, and against
the arguments of the professor In charge
and all others in Washington interested
in magnetic observations. The fact
that the work of the magnetic observatory
has not been otherwise efficient Is partly
due to the appointment of unframed CT
ficers of the navy to conduct the operations.
and this is of course. matter of admins
tration In the planning of new instrum ents
the astronomers have for a long while had
their head and If they chose to experiment
in novel constructions and to intruSt the
building of the Instruments to American
firms, they ought al least to relieve the adj
ministration. which simply expressed their
decisions. Of the blame for an unsatisflc-
tory outcome of that kind
Type. of Organization.
He then discusses the two types of or
ganization-one where there is strong
head and a corps of subordnates as as
sistants. this type being represented by
Harvard College and the other that Illus
trated in the naval observatory, of STATS
formed of practically independent profess
sors. whose real bond Of union is cooper
alton" This latter type. Prof. Bigelow
says, is one in keeping with the highest re-
quirements Of modern science. If in such
system jealousy and envy enter. and the
end is defeated. that, he concludes, is no
fault of the system The proper attitude,
In his opinion, Is that of cooperation be-
tween the administrator and the astrono-
mer engaged in practical research, and 1
am quite persuaded that the officers of the
navy. in the bureau and at the observa-
tory, have been quite as faithful to their
duties as the astronomers to their tasks"
He argues against the detachment of the
observatory from the Navy Department,
and expresses the opinion that Congress
would be unwilling to support "a research
observatory, and that the practical util-
ities of the needs of the navy for a nautical
almanac and time service are the grounds
for the annual appropriations for the OBJ
seryatOry.