In 1841, the political situation had changed as Van Buren had been defeated and Levi Woodbury was no longer Secretary of the Treasury. J. H. Alexander, a good friend of Hassler since 1833, wrote him in February, 1841, that his concern for the Survey "is for the effect of the loss of Mr. Woodbury, whom after infinite pains you had got into pretty good train, will have upon the Coast Survey. His successor, Mr. Ewing is a sensible man, but I am afraid will need to be better informed upon several subjects. I wish you success ...."⁽¹⁾ Alexander need not have been too concerned for Ewing, as President William Henry Harrison died within one month of taking office and Ewing didn't last through the year. John Tyler became President and by the end of 1841, Walter Forward was Secretary of the Treasury.
 

In the summer of 1841, Hassler received another letter from Alexander warning him that "another naval lieutenant has sprung up who is going to survey all creation in less than no time."⁽²⁾ According to Hassler, this was Lieutenant James Glynn, who had been involved in surveying some southern harbors and inlets. Glynn had been lobbying members of Congress "to preach up his own merits, and a plan of chronometric surveying."⁽³⁾
 
 

THE HOUSE RESOLUTION
 

Lieutenant Glynn influenced Representative Caleb Cushing of Massachusetts to engage the House of Representatives in debate on the Coast Survey as an adjunct to a request for funds to print charts of the areas that he had surveyed. Cushing, during two separate days of Congressional debate called for a resolution to investigate the Coast Survey.⁽⁴⁾ He contended that the Coast Survey "was under the charge of an officer, who was almost independent of the Government, almost independent of Congress, who received the salary of six thousand dollars a year for superintending it at the expense of one million" and asked, "...what were the fruits of that expenditure?" Cushing then espoused the belief that a triangulation survey is inapplicable to the low-lying coastal regions of the southern states betraying Navy agitation for the "chronometric surveys." [This, in effect, was a direct challenge to the scientific methods advocated by Hassler.] He accused Hassler and his assistants of delaying the completion of the work because of the "high compensation paid, and especially the allowance of an extra per diem to some of the persons employed which tended to operate as a sort of premium upon procrastination...." Cushing related that, "It had been confidently asserted that Mr. Hassler kept to himself important facts ascertained in the survey. Such as a portion of the mathematical elements of the work, in order to render himself necessary to the government." Cushing continued that if this report "he had repeated heard talked of was true, it would be reason enough for at once discharging Mr. Hassler from the service of the Government...." Cushing attempted to apply the coup de grace when he added that he distrusted any mystery in matters of science, "in which concealment of any sort whatever was to his mind strong evidence of quackery." He finished by calling for a resolution to investigate the Coast Survey.
 

Defending Hassler during this attack by Cushing were Representatives Henry Wise of Virginia, Horace Everett of Vermont, and Isaac Holmes of South Carolina. Holmes proclaimed "great respect for the literary acquirements" of Cushing, but was unwilling to accept his scientific judgment "against that of such a man as Mr. Hassler." Everett was sure that "the triangular system could be carried out at the South, and ought to be so" while Wise "characterized the idea of any member of this House superintending or criticizing the work of Mr. Hassler as ridiculous." Everett also raised a sectional issue when he stated, "It could not be believed that any gentlemen from the North after the Northern Coast had been surveyed could object to the survey of the southern Coast." The issue of who was to benefit from the labors of the Survey would arise again during the hearings and debates of 1842-1843.
 

Cushing could never have had Hassler deposed on the matter of science; but his accusations against Hassler's character, if allowed to go unchallenged, could have led to Hassler's removal with the possibility of the return of the Coast Survey to the Department of the Navy. Holmes commented upon "the extraordinary course of the gentleman of Massachusetts (Mr. Cushing) in making a premeditated attack upon the character, the science, the morals of M. Hassler and said that the gentleman had undertaken to slander the subject of his remarks, for the purpose of prejudicing in advance the minds of the members of the House." Everett, in his turn, had no objection to the passage of the resolution and would not have spoken "had not the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Cushing) made the resolution the occasion of a reiterated attack on the character of the gentlemen who had charge of the Coast Survey -- of sending forth what he (Mr. Everett) deemed unfounded, unwarrantable and wanton slanders.... He was not disposed to put an unfavourable construction on the gentleman's motives, with them he had nothing to do, but he could attribute his course only to a want of information of what had been done, and to the promptings of some discontented Lieutenant."
 

The immediate result to Hassler was a Resolution from the House of Representatives requiring answers to 16 items dated June 24, 1841. His response⁽⁵⁾ was dated December 2, 1841, and was written from Station Yards in Newtown Square, Delaware County, Pennsylvania. This document included many important points which continued to echo throughout the history of the Coast Survey.
 

Hassler explained that there had been great progress for the work, particularly as "everything was to be created -- even the ability of the assistants.... It is actually much more than has ever been done in any similar work before...."⁽⁶⁾ This was true. The only comparable comparisons were the Ordnance Survey of Ireland, the Great Trigonometrical Survey of India, and the triangulation of France. He defined the aim of the Coast Survey as being "to furnish, with the fullest accuracy possible, all the geographical, topographical, and hydrographical data that may in any way be needed for the navigation and the defence of the coast.... and that this work should also furnish the elements to any future map of the country desired, as it is by its nature so extensive, and so situated, as to furnish the elements of maps of all the States."⁽⁷⁾ The value of the work "cannot be judged by the quantity, but by the quality alone, which, to judge of, requires the same insight into the mathematical and physical sciences as the execution of the operation itself. The success in all these things depends not only upon the instruments and labor of the observer, but still more upon the perfection of the methods devised for the work."⁽⁸⁾
 

Hassler once again called for a National Observatory in responding to a question concerning the number of astronomic observations made for the determination of latitude and longitude. He referred to the law of 1832 that prohibited the establishment of a permanent observatory by the Coast Survey by stating, "That the very object prohibited by this clause must unavoidably, however, once be established in this country, is easily seen, as it is one of the requisite tools for a nation having a navy; if done early enough to let the coast survey enjoy the benefit of it, the expense would be comparatively trifling, and immediately recovered by the advantages arising from it in this national work of the survey."⁽⁹⁾ Although there were many other forces acting towards establishing a National Observatory, Hassler's persistence in pursuing this objective must have had some influence as Congress passed a law in 1842 establishing an observatory under the auspices of the Navy Department.⁽¹⁰⁾
 

Hassler also was sensitive to not having printed any charts up to the time of the inquiry with the exception of a few small charts produced at the request of Congress and not for general distribution. His goal in chart engraving and publication was to produce charts that were second to none in the world in accuracy of content and beauty of presentation. To achieve accuracy of content, at least in Hassler's mind, required that the primary triangulation for a given section be verified by tieing into a measured baseline prior to the publication of any information from that section. As a consequence, it was his intention to delay publication of all charts and other information from Point Judith, Rhode Island, to the unspecified location of his second base line somewhere to the south.⁽¹¹⁾ But more importantly, there were no skilled copperplate engravers in the United States who were capable of producing work to Hassler's standards. It was not until late 1841 that he was able to acquire two engravers from Hamburg, Selmar Siebert and T. A. Rolle, to serve as the seeds for his engraving group.
 

Because there were private engraving firms agitating to engrave the work already accomplished, Hassler argued: "The results of the coast survey constitute a property of the nation at large, which it acquires by the labor and expense bestowed upon the work; for which compensation will, in proper time, be obtained by the authentic publication of the results. All interference of private publications are directly unjust, and derogatory to the lawfully acquired property of the nation, and the ultimate proper utility of the work. The garbled publications, which would be occasioned by partial communications, would interfere with very unjustly, if not destroy entirely, the advantages of the future authentic publication of the work in its appropriate connexion, turning the public expense into profit for the private pockets of single individuals... and the public would be deluded by being presented with results falsely set up as authentic. It is self-evident that none but the maps published by authority, as results of such a work, either deserve, or will ever obtain, the confidence which is an indispensable requisite in the estimation of the public." For the Government to assure that its maps and charts have and "deserve full and exclusive confidence", it must therefore "discountenance all [maps and charts] that might have any tendency to occasion doubts."⁽¹²⁾
 

Hassler was addressing two possible scenarios when arguing against the use of private means to publish charts. The first was the wholesale turning over of the data to private industry to publish as it saw fit; the second was the possibility of being required to use contract engravers and printers which may not be able to meet Hassler's exacting standards. Either way, Hassler felt that, if public confidence was lost by publication of inferior chart products, the Nation would be the loser in the end.
 

In discussing the role of the Army and Navy in conducting surveys, he took on both: "The results of the coast survey will furnish, for the future, regular systematic data to ground any detail surveys upon, that might be needed, thereby avoiding the double expenses hitherto so frequently occurring, from the Engineer and Navy Departments acting disconnectedly, thereby, of course, doubling the expense, and, I might say, the doubts."⁽¹³⁾ Concerning the employment of naval officers on the Survey, he stated emphatically: "....whether they do not find, from their experience, that the navy is indebted to the coast survey, and not the coast survey to the navy."⁽¹⁴⁾
 

This may sound like arrogance of the highest degree, but the Coast Survey did serve as a school for naval officers and gave many promising officers command at a much earlier stage of their careers than was possible with most naval duty of the time. Benjamin Sands seconded this view as did many other naval officers of the Nineteenth Century. Sands related that: "The brightest of the young officers applied for this duty as an instructive school in a branch of their profession in peace or war, its object being such as are as beneficial to our navy as to the commercial marine, and it being fitting and most proper that the naval officer should, as a part of his professional training, be well instructed in the methods and purposes of the coast survey, not only for the profit to be immediately derived from a thorough familiarity with our own coasts and harbors, but for future application of the knowledge thus attained, in the survey of foreign coasts and harbors and in the discovery of dangers to sea-going vessels such as were hitherto unknown and not suspected."⁽¹⁵⁾
 

Hassler repeatedly stressed in this document that the work must stand "the test of public scrutiny", and that it must be made "permanently useful and honorable to the country." He attempted to play upon the patriotic impulses of his inquisitors when he expounds: "... the work would, however, be positively shamed out of the annals of the science, and of such works, unless its results could be used, in future proper time, according to any future desire or exigency, to contribute their proper share to the determination of the figure of the earth in this country. This very last result will form one of the principal means for its ultimate proof, and credit for accuracy."⁽¹⁶⁾
 

In response to the final question of this inquiry, Hassler replied that the object of acquiring "the greatest amount of useful information in the shortest time, and at the least expense.... cannot be attained by any other mode than that now employed in the coast survey -- in no way whatsoever. Cases are where the economy of a few hundred dollars claimed, or aimed at, has occasioned the loss of some millions of money, years of time, and has caused many disagreements. It might apparently be fair to claim for the coast survey work, in its present organization, the habitual advice, 'Let well alone.'" ⁽¹⁷⁾
 

In ending this document, Hassler tied the work on weights and measures to the work of the Coast Survey by claiming, and rightfully so, that he had brought the construction of uniform standards "for the whole Union to a considerably advanced state, in far less time than similar works have been obtained in any country whatsoever, of far less extent than the United States. The two works, requiring similar application of mathematical and physical science, and even similar mechanical means, are assisting each other mutually, and therefore serve as acceleration, the one to the other. It is, besides, well known that in France, also, they were grounded upon the same principles -- so much so, as to call the account of the measurement of the twelve degrees of the meridian, 'the base of the metric system.'"⁽¹⁸⁾
 
 

THE CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION OF 1842
 

The Select Committee of the House of Representatives overseeing the Coast Survey saw fit not to "Let well alone" and chose to launch a time-consuming investigation of the Coast Survey in early 1842. This investigation, and the ensuing Congressional debates, is of interest because it is among the first, if not the first, concerned with a major scientific bureau in the United States Government. There were five members of the House of Representatives on this committee: John Aycrigg of New Jersey, Caleb Cushing of Massachusetts, Francis Mallory of Virginia, Henry Wise of Virginia, and Isaac Holmes of South Carolina. Aycrigg, Cushing, and Mallory were decidedly inimical to Hassler and the Coast Survey. It was Mallory's intention to prove Hassler mentally and physically incompetent to be superintendent of the Survey; Cushing wished to see the Survey placed under the Navy Department and have tighter administrative controls; Aycrigg wished to strike out the appropriation for the Survey and continue supporting detached Navy surveys that had been going on during most of the period since 1832.
 

The full contents of the hearings of the Select Committee on the Coast Survey were printed in Reports of Committees, 27th Congress, 3rd Session. Report No. 43, House of Representatives, dated January 12, 1843. This document was even-handed because, although most questioning was done by those representatives most unfriendly to the Survey, Hassler was allowed to expand on many of his answers and also add comments to the responses of his assistants that were called to testify. A second report, Reports of Committees, 27th Congress, 3rd Session, Report No. 170, House of Representatives, dated February 9, 1843, was written completely by Representative John Aycrigg and was decidedly unfavorable to Hassler and the Coast Survey. Hassler was allowed to append comments to this report, although not nearly to the detail included in Report No. 43.
 

Questioning of Hassler began March 17, 1842, but the bulk of the questions directed at Hassler were asked on March 24. The questions involved the full gamut of operations of the survey with no apparent order to the questioning. Had the original object of the survey been preserved or was Hassler out trying to measure an arc of the meridian? Was the data secure from fire and other disasters? ⁽¹⁹⁾ What is wrong with private individuals copying the work of the survey and publishing charts? Why had nothing yet been published? When would charts and other publications be made available to the public? How far offshore will soundings be carried? Are you, Hassler, the only man qualified to be superintendent of the Coast Survey? March 24 was devoted to 120 such questions. In reviewing the questions and Hassler's answers, it is necessary to correlate Hassler's "Additions to the answers...."⁽²⁰⁾ with the original questions and answers as the additions clarify many responses and expand on Hassler's procedures and philosophy in managing the survey.
 

The most dangerous questions from Hassler's perspective as Superintendent of the Coast Survey came midway through the questioning on March 24. In an attempt to make Hassler name an heir apparent, or perhaps an immediate replacement, to the Superintendency, the following exchange took place:
 

"Question 55. Is there any person in the Coast Survey, competent to take charge of, and continue the work, if you should cease to do it?

"Answer. Not as yet.

"Question 56. Do you mean to be understood, that without your personal superintendence the work must cease, and that no man can take it up, continue and complete it?

"Answer. Not honorably.

"Add. to 55, 56. It is very natural that in this, like in every other subject of science, or knowledge, the acquirements and improvements are gradual, they develop themselves as the occasion for them is given. So much so, that even in Europe this branch of science is not so much spread, as it is pretended to be already in this country, where it has never yet been employed at all; for the detached surveys, made so abundantly, do not come at all in comparison, nor under the principles of science, which is absolutely required for such an extensive work as the Coast Survey....

"Question 57. Is there any profound secret in the mensuration of triangles, and the making of astronomic observations known to you alone of all mankind?

"Answer. Science is a public thing, but it requires study to be perfect in it.

"Add. These are not the exact words of my answer. I answered, with measured reflection, 'science is no secret, but it requires a great deal of study to acquire it.'" ⁽²¹⁾
 

Perhaps questions 55 and 56 were asked in a spirit of public concern. Hassler was getting older and the nation had invested over half a million dollars in the Survey. Question 57 is blatantly sarcastic in response to Hassler's seeming arrogance. Concerning the perception of arrogance, Hassler further defined his position in a pamphlet printed in early 1843: "Arrogance is only when a man pretends to what he is not able; what a man knows, and is able to do, and the standing he has proved himself to fill satisfactorily, he has the right, and, as a man of truth, the duty to state without deserving the reproach of arrogance."⁽²²⁾
 

Questions 96 and 97 were asked in an apparent attempt to trap Hassler into admitting that he had lost sight of the original aims of the survey. Hassler brushed aside these questions:
 

"96. Question. Do you regard the survey as a great scientific enterprise, embracing delicate problems of geodetic research, beyond what is necessary to an accurate but rapid survey of the coast for nautical purposes?

"Answer. There is not a single movement in all I do which is not necessary for the honorable and faithful execution of the work.

"97. Is it intended as the basis of a topographical, military, and statistical survey of the whole United States?

"Answer. That is the Government's business and not mine."⁽²³⁾
 

A few of the members of the Committee chose to spar with Hassler over scientific matters and in so doing betrayed their ignorance. Question 91 dealt with how many observations had been made for latitude and longitude during the course of the survey. Hassler explained that latitude and longitude were computed for all points observed upon during triangulation operations. In answering Question 84 concerning how far offshore soundings will be observed, he responds, "To the Gulf Stream." After Hassler explains that the amount of time required to complete soundings to the Gulf Stream depends upon the weather encountered, and in particular on having clear weather to make astronomic observations, a Congressman asks, "Where are the astronomical observations to be made?" Hassler responds, "Of course, on board the ship...."⁽²⁴⁾
 

The final question directed at Hassler was the same one that had plagued him since the beginning of the Survey:
 

"120. Question. Do you think that, under the most favorable circumstances, and with continuance of a yearly appropriation of $100,000, the survey of the coast can be completed in twenty years?

"Answer. Perhaps. The progress is slower at first, and the means increase as the work proceeds.

"To 120 add: But the constant persecution to which the work has been exposed, and especially now is, impede its progress very much: there is a damage now incurred by the propositions of the last Congress session, and the present investigations, which have been occasioned by it, of positively upwards of $50,000, in delay of the work, and accessories: besides the discouragement occasioned by it, in all those persons engaged in the work, by their seeing their liberal exertions rewarded by throwing out suspicions against them, these occasion a still greater damage. The discredit thrown out in the public, occasions impediments with the people in the country, with whom we come in contact, they consider themselves equally authorized to ill-treat us, which makes the work difficult, and increases the expenses beyond reason, to no good purpose, and subject to uncertainty."⁽²⁵⁾
 

Hassler, as was typical throughout his life, didn't shrink from the fray. He ended his testimony with an attack on those whom he felt were obstructing the Survey. This did not end the affair. In fact, it was merely the opening volley. Other witnesses called during the first months of this investigation were Assistants James Ferguson and Edmund Blunt; Captain William H. Swift, United States Army; Commander Thomas R. Gedney and Lieutenant George S. Blake, United States Navy; and W.J. Stone, a private engraver.
 

The engraver Stone was a principal in an incident that seems comical now but caused great consternation during the hearings. He was requested to examine the charts of New York that Hassler's engravers were working on so as to be able to give an estimate of the time and cost to produce such a work. On many occasions Hassler had displayed an antipathy towards private contractors and during his questioning by the Select Committee had spoken of "common chart sellers." He was adamant in his belief that American engravers at the time were incapable of the fine work that he envisioned for the Coast Survey charts. Thus, when Mr. Stone came knocking on his door and presented a letter from Chairman Francis Mallory instructing Hassler to allow Stone to examine the charts in progress, the results were predictable.
 

By Stone's testimony: "I went to Mr. Hassler's office and knocked at the door. A servant showed me into his room, and asked me to sit down, and in a minute or two Mr. Hassler came in. I then handed him Mr. Mallory's letter. Mr. H. read it, and immediately fell into a violent rage, and swore that I should not see the map, neither should the committee have it. After much rudeness and violent language, both towards the committee and me.... Mr. H. permitted me to examine the map...."⁽²⁶⁾ Benjamin Sands was present at this incident and described Hassler as giving way to one of those" displays of temper that would simply astound us."^(27)(28) While Stone was examining the charts, Hassler drafted a letter⁽²⁹⁾ to Representative Mallory which was remarkable for its clarity in expressing his opinion of Stone's qualifications:
 
 

******************************************************************************

Honorable FRANCIS MALLORY, Chairman of the Committee on the Coast Survey.
 
 

SIR, -- The unprovoked insult offered to me by sending the engraver Stone to me, to inspect the work of the Coast Survey in the Map of New York, is too much as well for the powers of the Committee, as for the feelings of an honest man.

You know, that the maps of the Coast Survey cannot be engraved, but in the office under my own inspection. You know that the map in question, is already cut up in plates, two of which are under the engraver's hands, nearly finished, and two more are half finished drawings.

You know, that the engraver Stone, is in no way qualified to do such work, nor that I could be made responsible for any of his doings.

Thence you cannot otherwise but conclude, that the measure you begin upon is destructive [consideration of contracting engraving and printing] to the work; therefore, to the exertions and expenses hitherto incurred, directly opposite to the aim professed by the Committee to favor the Coast Survey work.

No man can expect that I , who am answerable for the work, could be compelled to give the final execution in the hands of a man in whom I have not the slightest reason to have any confidence whatever.

I consider the sending of Stone, to inspect my work, as he said first, an unmerited insult, and am certain that every member of the Committee, placed in my situation, would consider it so.

With respect and good wishes,

Your obedient servant,

F. R. HASSLER
 

Washington City, 30th May, 1842

******************************************************************************
 

Hassler admitted that he "treated him [Stone] in words, as he knew that he deserved of me." One can only wonder whether he was cursing in English, German, or French. He described Stone's inspection of the copper plates: "This man I and my assistants knew too well, to be inimical to my engraving arrangement; however to him, of course, the map was shown ... he measured the map with a foot rule, like an undertaker, to make a coffin for a dead body...."⁽³⁰⁾
 

Within a few days of the Stone affair, Hassler received a request from the select Committee on the Coast Survey to report the progress of the work on Weights and Measures. Hassler responded June 29, 1842, with a report containing the history and accomplishments of the Office of Weights and Measures.⁽³¹⁾ He reported that as with the Survey, the "means to the aim" of producing the required standards had to be created and that he was confronted with the problem of producing the largest number of such standards (for the various states and custom houses) "as were never before made."⁽³²⁾ In answer to a question concerning money spent upon the weights and measures, he admonishes the Committee, "... all that was ordered, was calculated before hand, to the closest economy, compatible with the indispensable accuracy of the results, and its certainty; for bad work, not answering the aim, is no economy, but money lost."⁽³³⁾ He stated that this work has cost the nation, "in proportion to the quantity of work produced, its accuracy, and the extensive usefulness, far less time and money, than any other nation, as I am well acquainted with...."⁽³⁴⁾ He expanded on this subject with "The money spent upon such an indispensable and valuable establishment cannot be put in any comparison with the benefit which it bestows upon the society, and the daily intercourse of the citizens. The economy of a nation, or government, does not consist in not spending, but in producing good by the money spent."⁽³⁵⁾
 

Hassler invited the Committee to visit the establishment to help the members form a proper judgment as to the value of the work and the means by which it was being accomplished. He related, "... it has actually been visited by men of science of all civilized nations, from Russia through all Europe, to South America, etc., with the highest approbation; all equally considering the establishment unique, and unequaled in its kind; and as actually highly creditable to the country; in which all the well informed citizens of the country rejoiced."⁽³⁶⁾ He ended this report with a warning: "Now the object is nearly attained, and any change whatsoever that might be attempted to be introduced, would destroy again the whole system, make of the whole a disgraceful failure, and a direct pecuniary loss. All the particulars of the work are known, and spread over this country and Europe, and the approbation which my reports met all over, are sure guarantees of the public disapprobation that would follow any change or interruption."⁽³⁷⁾ The Committee chose not to question Hassler on the issue of weights and measures and on July 15, 1842, notified him that he would no longer be required to testify before the Committee.
 
 

HOUSE DEBATE ON THE COAST SURVEY APPROPRIATION
 

It is unclear when Hassler proceeded to the field in 1842, but late in the year he was at Station Pinehill in southern New Jersey when a Congressional debate was begun on the Coast Survey appropriation on December 16.⁽³⁸⁾ This debate is worthy of note, as it is the first major Congressional debate on a civil scientific agency of the Federal Government. Arguments advanced, both pro and con, for the continuation of the survey are recognizable today in the Congressional investigations and national debates concerned with all major agencies conducting science and engineering.
 

The appropriation in question was for $50,000 which included the compensation of the Superintendent and the assistants. (Hassler had requested $100,000.) John Aycrigg moved to strike out the $50,000 as the Select Committee had not yet reported on its findings, and he gave the impression that it would probably report against the Coast Survey, thus making the appropriation unnecessary. (Aycrigg, Cushing, and Mallory had no intention of releasing the report, as there was very little in its content that could be used to further their end of removing Hassler and placing the Survey under Navy control.) This led to an acrimonious debate which was not resolved until March 3, 1843.
 

Most of the discussion on the Coast Survey took place between December 17 and December 22, 1842.⁽³⁹⁾ On the 17th, discussion was begun by Representative Francis Mallory who reported that "the survey was absolutely necessary and that it was for the great interest of the Country that it should be carried on." This statement was tempered by the comment: "A majority of that Committee believed that the superintendent of this work was physically and mentally incompetent for the performance of his duties." Representative Henry A. Wise took exception to this and inquired of Mallory if a vote had ever been taken on this issue. Mallory replied that Cushing, Aycrigg, and himself had arrived at that conclusion when Wise and Representative Holmes had been absent from a Committee meeting. In fact, Wise and Holmes had only attended two meetings of the Committee as they knew that the other three members had reached a foregone conclusion concerning Hassler and the Survey.
 

Wise reiterated the source of complaints against Hassler. Private interests wished to have access to his baseline data in order to run out their own surveys (actually, Hassler had already published this information); withholding of publication of charts until the verification baseline had been measured, which Wise considered the proper course of action; those men who were interested in taking over the survey, "who had lately discovered the old and exploded idea of a chronometrical and astronomical survey" which Wise "believed to be of no value"; and a group of men who felt Hassler's salary to be quite lucrative and wished to have the office of Superintendent for themselves. Coupled with Mallory's charge of mental and physical incompetence, the list of items to refute was growing quite large. Three other complaints were lodged against Hassler: old age, eccentricity, and arrogance.
 

Representatives Wise, Holmes, Joseph. R. Ingersoll of Pennsylvania, and Joseph Tillinghast of Rhode Island orchestrated Hassler's defense. Wise defended Hassler's scientific and mental capabilities by relating an anecdote pointing out Hassler's simplicity in ordinary matters, but he then went on to say, "...Mr. Hassler had higher accuracy in science than either his colleague or the gentleman from New Jersey; with respect to this, they might sit down at Mr. Hassler's feet as children and learn." Holmes continued in this vein by relating that during the investigation "that so far from being convinced of any thing like mental inferiority on his [Hassler's] part," that every case that he had observed "in which the questions put, involved a collision of intellect, the examiners had invariably been put down...." At this, the House erupted in roars of laughter. Holmes went on that he "... was far from depreciating the knowledge of these gentlemen. Oh no! he was quite willing to admit that it was inferior only to that of the great man on whose incompetency they wished to stop the survey; far be it from him to derogate from the vast mathematical and hydrographical skill of his honourable friend behind him (Mr. Cushing) of whose attainments in science of all kinds, he meant to speak in terms only a little less than that of Mr. Hassler himself...." [The House burst into laughter again.]
 

Holmes finished his speech in defense of Hassler by asking the House if it was fair "to destroy not only the character of an illustrious scholar, but prostrate at the same time a work which had been first projected by Jefferson, and had been prosecuted at vast expense and with the highest ability for so many years? A work involving not merely the safety of our national commerce, but the lives themselves of our mariners. And all this on a mere ex-parte examination, without testimony, without even a report, on the mere assertion of the individual opinion of three members of that House, and in an appropriation bill? Surely, if ever an attempt might be characterized as child's play, it was a reckless attempt like this."
 

Cushing took the floor next; and, after defending his own intellectual abilities, he commenced asking: "...whether triangulation was the exclusively good mode of prosecuting such a survey; or whether the aid of the chronometric mode of survey might not in some cases, with advantage be resorted to as subsidiary to it?" He then stated "...that there still existed a difference of opinion among scientific men as to the exclusive superiority of either system."
 

Cushing then suggested "that the work had suffered great delay from Mr. Hassler's infirmities and age." Wise retorted that he "never heard any man say that Mr. Hassler was rendered incompetent by old age; he had once indeed been laid aside by an attack of fever, but so had Mr. Wise himself who was several years younger than Mr. Hassler." [More laughter from the House.] A little later, Wise commented that "Mr. Hassler was at this moment in camp, with two inches of snow on the ground, and never was in better health in his life." Ingersoll later commented on the occasional illness that Hassler was subjected to: "In his exposure along the coast, manly and unhesitating as he is said to be, it would be strange were he perhaps alone, to be exempt from the influence of fens and marshes that in some places abound.... The fact of encountering year after year, up to this very moment the blasts of December in the tented or the untented field, would speak for the condition of a well-organized body...."⁽⁴⁰⁾ Tillinghast continued this defense: "... as to his physical capacity he exhibited to the House, his person; and where was it now? The head white with the frosts of more than seventy winters, was at this hour exposed in the open fields to the cold December gales, and surrounded by snow not whiter than himself."
 

Cushing then attempted to establish that Hassler had "no administrative talents" but "merely scientific qualifications [that] did not fit him to manage so great a concern." Not only were his administrative abilities questioned, but Cushing pointed out that "a bureau was virtually established the head of which had the appointment of more men than the head of any other bureau in the Government." As a consequence, "That individual wielded an enormous patronage and exercised a great scope of power wholly without regulation." When "...any one member of Congress, Secretary or President presumed to ask any question in relation to the administration of the discretionary power.... Mr. Hassler had by his personal arrogance of manner daunted and shocked all who so approached him."
 

Following Cushing's speech, Wise attacked him in the pivotal exchange of the debate on Hassler and the appropriation:
 

Mr. Wise: "My colleague (Mr. Mallory) stated to this committee that three members of the select committee were ready to report Mr. Hassler's mental and physical incompetency to take charge of this survey, I again ask the gentleman from Massachusetts if he is one of the three?"

Mr. Mallory: "What I said, was, that a majority of the committee were agreed to report on the basis of that conviction."

Mr. Wise: "Is the gentleman from Massachusetts prepared to say that there did exist such a basis for a report?"

Mr. Cushing: "I did not enter on the scientific question. What the committee intended to report was the facts elicited by testimony. I must however in candor say, that it was my opinion that Mr. Hassler was incompetent to the administrative duties of the head of a bureau. I repeat that I did not enter on the scientific question. It may be true that he is the most competent man to be found in the United States but non lignet. I cannot tell whether he is so or not. I have no certain knowledge as to that question."

Mr. Wise: "Then the gentleman was not ready to report that Mr. Hassler is mentally incompetent to conduct the survey."

Mr. Cushing: "I was ready to say that he is not competent to its administrative duties and although every man in this House should believe that Mr. Hassler is in point of science the most competent man in the whole world to conduct the survey, yet I feel confident that they must be of opinion that it is not fit that the sole arbitrary unregulated administration of that whole enterprise should be entrusted to his hands.

"In conclusion I must say that I deeply regret the necessity of entering on these inquiries. I am sincerely anxious to preserve the work, I am ready to overlook the defects of Mr. Hassler, and I had rather the whole thing should continue in his hands, than that its progress should be delayed and the country deprived of the results. I therefore hope that the appropriation will not be stricken out."
 

Following the dramatic capitulation on the part of Cushing, who had begun this whole sordid odyssey with his attack on Hassler in 1841, Representative J. R. Ingersoll of Philadelphia took the floor and eloquently defended Hassler. He pointed out that the discovery of Gedney Channel saved the Government hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars by the cancellation of a project for the defenses of New York that involved building two large casemated batteries on the shoals off Sandy Hook. These would have been rendered useless as Gedney Channel was outside the range of their guns. After establishing that the Survey had saved more than it cost the Government even at that early date, Ingersoll argued that the basis of the attack upon the Survey was not founded in money issues, as only Aycrigg wanted to eliminate funding, but was in truth an attack upon Hassler. Ingersoll espoused the belief that: "Certain it is that the moving spirit of the whole vast work, has been its superintendent, without him it never has had actual existence and probably none in contemplation. He has guided its movements when it has gone forward, and when the operations of his hands have been suspended, the whole object has been laid aside, if not forgotten."
 

Ingersoll defended Hassler's "peculiarity of appearance and manner" that had been complained of, as being "neither important or extraordinary." He then compared Hassler to Blucher, an aged eccentric European General, "who at his great battle, sat in a coach, perhaps not unlike Mr. Hassler's ark, groaning out his prompt and bold directions, covered not only with bruises and wounds, but to the infinite diversion of the soldiers, covered also with a woman's bonnet."
 

Next up on the floor was John Aycrigg, who was the most shrill of Hassler's enemies. He attacked the accuracy of Hassler's work, his integrity, and his mental capacity when he exhibited a map of Newark Bay that had been presented to some of his constituents a few years earlier. Aycrigg claimed that the map had come from the Superintendent himself. On this particular map, the scale was discovered to be in error by a factor of one half. Aycrigg used this map to trap Hassler's assistants into measuring too great a distance across Newark Bay. Aycrigg claimed that at a following meeting of the Committee, that he found the erroneous scale had been cut out and another substituted. Hassler claimed no knowledge of any of this; Aycrigg reiterated that it had been furnished to his constituents by the Superintendent himself. Aycrigg's implication was that Hassler was either lying to cover up his inaccurate work or that "Mr. Hassler's mind was failing as he had evidently forgotten the map furnished by himself."
 

Aycrigg was acting out of total malevolence to Hassler on this matter, as he and many other Congressmen had already been informed of the circumstances relating to this map. The truth was that Lieutenant Gedney had passed a copy of the survey of Newark Bay to Congressman Aycrigg's constituents upon which a junior officer had drawn an incorrect scale. This map had been passed without Hassler's knowledge; and, in fact, it was transferred contrary to Hassler's orders that no data or map sheets were to be turned over to anyone without Hassler having personally inspected the outgoing product. As a result of Aycrigg's unconscionable tactic in attacking Hassler over this map, Lieutenant Gedney published a statement on December 24 stating:
 

"I feel called upon in justice to Mr. Hassler publicly to pronounce him free from all blame whatever in relation to the mistake made in the scale of the chart of Newark Bay (and which has been made to assume such importance) as not only was the error mine, but the chart was sent to the engraver by me, after my reporting it to be ready.

"It is also to myself to say that the error in question is simply in the scale, and does not affect the correctness of the mathematical and topographical part of the work, and that the

error in the scale was my oversight, caused by hurrying it to the engraver.

"So soon as this error was discovered, it was confessed and as I thought explained to the satisfaction of Mr. Aycrigg."⁽⁴¹⁾
 

Following Aycrigg, Representative John Reynolds of Illinois gave some insight into the rough and tumble nature of politics in the 1840's when he suggested that Hassler "had one of the most warm, zealous and able friends for an advocate that could be found in this or any country, even if under the influence of a fee which he presumed the gentleman (Ingersoll) was not." Reynolds drew a laugh when he suggested that in Ingersoll's view, "... if Mr. Hassler was turned out, this republic would pretty nigh stop." But then Reynolds drew on sectional views and suggested that those advocating Hassler were so motivated because their home states were on the Atlantic seaboard. He then attacked Hassler's incompetency "from age" and suggested that in a country with "17,000,000 people they might find another Hassler. It seemed to him that there were thousands in this Republic." In the interest of economy, Reynolds suggested detailing "naval Officers [who] were intelligent and could soon learn the details of the science.... Was any great knowledge required to sound a piece of lead to show the depth of the water?" At this a voice from the House called out, "They do not know triangles from circles." Reynolds continued, "... they might not... but they knew how far down it was from the boat to the bottom. That was the great art in sounding ...." More laughter from the House at this statement. Then he said that "He was not against this survey, but ... let it be done in the economical old fashioned manner." With the economies that Reynolds saw from surveying the coast in the "old fashioned manner", he saw a source of funds and asked, "Should not some of these appropriations be applied to the western waters, and the harbours on their Lakes, which were more necessary to be surveyed than the Atlantic Coast?"
 

Ingersoll regained the floor and responded to this question of national priorities: "...Western gentlemen should recollect that the Coast was the entire of this Republic towards Europe, whither and whence the whole of our foreign commerce must arrive and depart. Had the West no interest in this commerce? Whose wealth did it transport to the European Market? Was it that of New England or the middle States only, or chiefly? No, it was emphatically the wealth of the great West; the products of the vast Mississippi Valley. Every risk, every loss, to our foreign commerce, fell ultimately on the Western producer. Surely it was the obvious interest of the whole West to make the access to the Coast as safe as practicable. A work like this survey was eminently conducive to this end, and if suffered to be ably prosecuted to its completion, would redound as much to the honour of the nation as to the safety and wealth of her people, whether on the coast or in the interior."
 

The final argument of the day, Sunday, December 19, was made by Representative Thomas Gilmer of Virginia. Gilmer professed no desire to take part in arguments concerning the fitness of Hassler to conduct the affairs of the Survey and had no concern with the scientific methods employed. To him, "It was purely a question of revenue. How was the necessary revenue to be raised? Not by any system of taxation thus far levied. There would still be a deficit in the Treasury. We had borrowed till we could borrow no more. It only remained to reduce our expenditures." Gilmer suggested that Congress appropriate $20,000 for 1843 to allow Hassler to finish his computations and drafting of surveys and thence no further monies until the Government was back on a firm financial footing. In his view, "The great duty of the times, the duty of Government and the duty of individuals, was to retrench. This was the way to restore public and private credit -- and the only way."
 

On December 22, the issue of the Coast Survey appropriation was taken up again by Representative Barker Burnell of Massachusetts who argued against the sectional interests shown by Reynolds and the mindless tactic of indiscriminately cutting off all spending suggested by Gilmer. He chastised Reynolds by pointing out that the rivers and lakes of Illinois were "but a continuation of the great highway" made up of the coastal waters of the Gulf Coast and Atlantic Seaboard. "The mariner that threw his net in the Gulf Stream, threw it into the waters of the Mississippi. It was the great Highway in which every part of the nation was clearly interested. It made no matter of difference whether the obstructions which existed at the commencement of the navigation of the Mississippi, at New Orleans, or any other point on their coast, it was all one great Highway in the country..." In reference to Gilmer, Burnell asked, "... whether the produce and property almost to an illimitable extent, which were daily going down the Western waters, and over every part of the habitable globe, whether these should be abandoned and whether they [Congress] ought to set their faces against protecting them with a view to put a few insignificant dollars in the Treasury? He would also ask whence does the Treasury exist save in relation to what it receives from navigation and commerce?" He further attacked Gilmer's position "that no appropriation should be made when the Government could get along without it." He asked incredulously, "Human life and trade of the greatest magnitude to be put in comparison with a few thousand dollars in their Country?"
 

With Burnell the debates ended. Hassler, although in the field, had received notice of the Congressional debates and appeared to have received information on much of the dialogue within a few days of the actual comments on the House floor. Being Hassler, he responded immediately with two pamphlets for publication from Station Pinehill, New Jersey, dated December 21, 1842. These were "Notice of the Impediments and Delays which the Survey of the Coast has encountered previous to 1842," and "ORIGIN AND HISTORY OF THE ATTACK OF MR. CUSHING UPON THE COAST SURVEY, AND OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE OF INVESTIGATION, OR EXAMINATION, UPON THE WORK."
 

Hassler ended the first pamphlet with a ringing denunciation of his attackers: "This constant persecution, and the groundless reproaches, heaped upon a work of science, and public utility for the country, which is universally acknowledged to go on in the best manner possible, to the complete success of the results aimed at, becomes ultimately discreditable. It would be a painful result, if the ignorance and jealousy of a private few should be able to produce a national harm and disgrace, by Congress being once more misled to espouse them."
 

In the second document, Hassler stated the obvious: "The whole attack of Mr. Cushing was directed against me, personally; his other discussions betrayed the most complete ignorance of mathematical science.... He betrayed it in a very low manner, by saying, after repeating a call for a committee; 'if it should be found that no one but a Swiss could do the duty, he would waive his objection, and not till then.'" Hassler stated that Cushing wanted him "ejected, if it could be done" and "that private interested intention, without regard to public good, lay in his motives."
 

Hassler wrote a third document, "SURVEY OF THE COAST OF THE UNITED STATES -- Further rectification of facts alleged in the discussion of Congress in December, 1842," dated January 10, 1843, which was published in the Baltimore Sun on January 11, 1843. In this essay, Hassler defended his seeming arrogance and eccentricity:
 

"7. Arrogance is only when a man pretends to what he is not able; what a man knows, and is able to do, and the standing he has proved himself to fill satisfactorily, he has the right, and as a man of truth, the duty to state without deserving the reproach of arrogance.

"8. What may appear eccentricity to a man standing at a distance from a mass of information, may not be eccentric at all in reality; therefore, eccentricity is entirely only relative between the persons concerned."
 

Hassler also defended the Naval Officers who were maligned during Reynolds' speech by the anonymous voice calling out that "They do not know triangles from circles." He pointed out that in 1808, while employed at West Point that he "made a plan for the studies and organization of the Military Academy" and that in 1832 he also presented a plan to the Navy Department for a Naval Academy. (He was eminently qualified to have done this; in fact, he was the first to teach analytic trigonometry in the United States while at the Military Academy.) Concerning the Military Academy, he espoused that "what they are not taught ... the students cannot be expected to bring out of it." There was not yet a Naval Academy with no possibility of instruction in higher mathematics; and, as such, "the Naval Officers are entirely innocent of the accusation lanced against them."
 

He finished this pamphlet by admonishing Congress "that actually more than one year of my work was lost, which I would with immensely more satisfaction, have applied to the forwarding of the interesting and valuable works which I have engaged for with the Government." In an anonymous editorial, the Baltimore Sun commented upon this article: "It really appears to us that Mr. Hassler has entirely vindicated himself from the special charges made, and that the piquancy of his reply is altogether at variance with the mental and physical debility asserted to exist." The editorial continues that the Survey under Hassler had "more than redeemed every promise of usefulness and honor."
 

Hassler's good friend John H. Alexander, with whom he had been associated both on a planned triangulation of the State of Maryland and with weights and measures, was the author of this "anonymous" editorial. Alexander wrote to Hassler on January 14, 1843: "I was pleased to find from many persons, who knew nothing of my hand in the business, and from some who did, that the whole article -- your letter and all -- produced a good impression here. Here [Baltimore] is of no use otherwise than as an omen of what it may be in Washington."⁽⁴²⁾ Hassler, as always, showed himself to be a master of the use of the press to advance his cause. In this instance, he was also aided by a good friend and showed at least a minimal amount of networking with other American scientists.
 

By this time, it appeared that Cushing and Mallory had thrown in the towel. John Aycrigg stuck to his anti-Coast Survey and anti-Hassler attack until the bitter end. Reports of Committees, 27th Congress, 3rd Session, Report No. 43, House of Representatives was printed on January 12, 1843, and detailed the results of the previous year's hearings on the Coast Survey. This was an even-handed document that reported the testimony of all parties with no recommendations being made. John Aycrigg felt the need to continue the battle by producing House of Representatives Report No. 170 "as an individual member of the Committee on the Coast Survey and of Weights and Measures, with the consent of the committee...." In this document, he reported his views and conclusions. He attempted to present facets of the testimony in such a way as to sway opinion away from Hassler. He failed. On page 7 of this document he asks: "Must we see wrecks upon wrecks, and thousands of lives sacrificed, for the want of information that has been obtained, and quietly doze over the drowning shrieks of the mariner and traveller, while we enjoy the golden dream that, in a 'few years,' the 'result' will be reached that will 'be creditable to a man of science,' and then the whole will be published?" Hassler became aware of these works before publication of Report No. 170 and in an odd non sequitur was allowed to inject a letter dated February 7, 1843, into the body of Aycrigg's report.⁽⁴³⁾ Hassler gave better than he got with the closing lines of his letter:
 

"Besides, please to observe, that every stroke you may think to do at the coast survey, by raising doubts upon its accuracy, and reviling it, may be also a stroke at some vessel, bearing, perhaps, a friend or relation of yours, whose groans will cry vengeance upon you, for having prevented, or discredited, the execution of an accurate survey of the coast, upon which you may be long in search of his corpse.

With best wishes, your obedient servant,

F. R. HASSLER"

Report No. 170 was the final word for both sides in this great national debate on the first science agency within the Federal Government. On February 27, 1843, the National Intelligencer reported that Mr. Mallory, under the instructions of the Select Committee on the Coast Survey, offered the following amendment on the House floor:
 

"That the sum of 100,000 dol. be appropriated out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated for continuing the Survey of the Coast of the United States, provided that this and all other appropriations hereafter to be made for this work shall, until otherwise provided by law, be expended in accordance with a plan of reorganizing the mode of executing the survey...."⁽⁴⁴⁾
 

The appropriation act was passed March 3, 1843, and a board convened to reorganize the Survey. Hassler was chairman of the Board of Reorganization. This board consisted of James Ferguson, Edmund Blunt, Commander Thomas R. Gedney, Lieutenant Commanding George S. Blake, all of whom were affiliated with the Coast Survey; and Lieutenant Colonel James Kearney, Majors J. D. Graham and William Turnbull, and Captains W. H. Swift and G. W. Hughes, all of the Army Topographical Engineers. Swift also had been on Coast Survey duty for the past ten years. The opening statement of this document is a testimony to the magnitude of Hassler's victory:
 

"1. That the scientific methods proposed by F. R. Hassler, Esq., for the survey of the coast, and described in the second article of his paper of the 21st March, "on rebuilding of the contract, and organization for the Coast Survey," be taken as a basis of reorganization, and be followed in the execution of the work ...."
 

Paragraph 1g of the Plan of Reorganization was the only real difference between past operation and the new plan. This paragraph was concerned with the rapid dissemination of the results of the Survey and directed that: "Every result of the Survey .... shall be published at the office of the Survey of the Coast, by the most simple, cheap, and immediate mediums; it being always understood that the more finished and authentic charts shall follow at the proper time." This was a common-sense policy that Hassler should have instituted many years before.
 

Following the text of the plan was a resolution that formalized the role of the Survey:

"Resolved, That inasmuch as the object and purpose of the survey of the coast refer principally to the commercial interests of the country, and as all the laws of Congress ... contemplate the employment of civilians and officers of the Army and Navy upon said work, it is the opinion of this board, and they do hereby respectfully recommend, that it should be under the control, and considered a part of, the Treasury Department.
 

EDMUND BLUNT

THOS. R. GEDNEY

W. H. SWIFT

Committee of Verification
 

President John Tyler approved the plan of reorganization on April 29, 1843, and directed that the Coast Survey remain under the control of the Treasury Department.
 

Looking back two years to June 26, 1841, Hassler had written Cushing and invited him to visit the Coast Survey offices "as it must be disagreeable to you to labor under so many misapprehensions, or side influences, by which besides you might occasion irreparable mischief before the so desirable investigation has proved them as unfounded as they are.... Please to consider nothing of all this as personal to me, it is the good of the public, and your own credit, alone which I consult in addressing you; as for me, personally, I can only gain from that side by any investigation." As he had predicted almost two years before, the old man had beaten back his enemies and the enemies of the Survey.

1. In: Cajori, F. 1929. p. 211.

2. In: Cajori, F. 1929. p. 222.

3. Hassler, F. R. 1842. Pamphlet "Origin and History of the Attack of Mr. Cushing ...." December 21, 1842.

4. Congressional Globe. 1841. 1st Session, 27th Congress, Vol. 10. Washington, p. 88,89, and 111, 112. In: Norris, p. 181-200. CHECK CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE dates and pages.

5. House of Representatives Document 28, 27th Congress, 2nd Session, January 3, 1842, 18 p. This will be referred to as: H. R. Document 28, 1842 in further notes.

6. H. R. Document 28, 1842. p. 3. In response to Question No. 1, "The progress which shall have been made in the survey of the coast."

7. H. R. Document 28, 1842. p. 3. In response to Question No. 1.

8. H. R. Document 28, 1842. p. 4. In response to Question No. 3, "The number of stations occupied therefor, namely, the triangulation."

9. H. R. Document 28, 1842. p. 5. In response to Question No. 5, "The astronomical observations made for the determination of latitude and longitude."

10. The earliest serious astronomic work accomplished in North America seems attributable to Charles Mason, an assistant to the Royal Astronomer Maskelyne, during his survey of the Mason-Dixon Line with Jeremiah Dixon between 1763 and 1767. Incidental to this work, they measured a degree of latitude. This work was followed up by the American Philosophical Society appointing a committee of thirteen to observe the transit of Venus in 1769. This work, which used a reflecting telescope purchased by Benjamin Franklin in London, was the first

astronomic work which could be said to have a national character within the boundaries of today's United States. There was discussion concerning the establishment of an observatory at Philadelphia between Maskelyne and Dr. Thomas Ewing of the University of Pennsylvania in 1775 but the American Revolution intervened.

Following the Revolution, both George Washington and Thomas Jefferson expressed interest in establishing a national observatory. Although Hassler's plan was selected as the best for producing a Survey of the Coast, he did not mention the establishment of a national observatory in this plan. However, when Hassler was sent to England to procure instruments for the Coast Survey in 1811, he did obtain several instruments for establishment of a fixed observatory. The procurement of these instruments added to his financial woes as they contributed to his overspending during this time. During Hassler's stay in England, Secretary of State James Monroe urged Congress to establish an observatory in 1812. Monroe's interest was generated by William Lambert of Virginia. Hassler was not able to establish even a rudimentary observatory upon return to the United States as his superintendency of the Coast Survey was too short-lived (1816-1818.) In writing his "Papers...." in 1819, he mentioned the establishment of an observatory as the first task to accomplish (p.241) and provided a detailed design for an observatory building (pp.365-370.) In 1825, Hassler's "Papers...." were finally published and that same year, President John Quincy Adams made his celebrated statement calling for the establishment of "a lighthouse of the skies." Unfortunately, Adams' description of an observatory as "a lighthouse of the skies" was the cause of much derision. In 1832, Congress, upon enacting the law that allowed the reinstatement of Hassler as head of the Survey of the Coast, specifically forbade "the construction or maintenance of a permanent astronomical observatory."

Hassler, undaunted, provided his pupil, Lieutenant Charles Wilkes, then head of the Depot of Charts and Instruments, with a transit instrument that Wilkes mounted in a small observatory that he built on his property and at his expense about a thousand feet north of the Capitol. Wilkes used this instrument to rate chronometers. Upon his being transferred to the command of the United States Exploring Expedition, Lieutenant James Melville Gilliss became head of the Depot and continued the astronomic work. In 1841, Hassler misunderstood a letter from Gilliss inquiring what Hassler thought of the Depot of Charts and Instruments being established on Capitol Hill. Hassler thought Gilliss was referring to the establishment of an observatory. To clarify this Gilliss wrote back: "If a national observatory is to be erected, I think from your abilities and experience, you have a right to originate it, and I would gladly add my mite to carry it through whenever you may prepare it." (In Hassler Collection, New York Public Library, Letter from Gilliss to Hassler dated September 29, 1841.)

The year before, Hassler had visited former President John Quincy Adams in an attempt to gain Adams' support for Hassler taking control of the Smithson bequest to establish a national astronomic school. Adams, in turn, wished to use the Smithson Bequest for the establishment of an observatory first. Neither of these schemes came to fruition as Lieutenant Gilliss succeeded in obtaining funding for the establishment of a permanent Depot of Charts and Instruments in 1842. Although this did not include funding for an observatory, Gilliss, in spite of earlier protestations to Hassler, proceeded to begin the erection of the Naval Observatory with the approval of President Tyler. Fortuitously, he was among the first to observe Encke's Comet when it appeared in 1842 and read a paper upon it at the National Institute. Senator William Preston of South Carolina was present at the meeting and was so impressed that he sent forth a bill for an appropriation of $25,000 with which Gilliss proceeded to Europe to obtain astronomical instruments. Hassler was pre-occupied with the Congressional Investigation of 1842 and there is no record of his thoughts on this matter. Ironically, Gilliss was not selected as first superintendent of the Naval Observatory as Matthew Fontaine Maury pulled political strings and was selected in 1844 as head of the observatory. Gilliss came back to the United States and dutifully assisted in mounting the instruments, but soon went to work for Alexander Dallas Bache on the Coast Survey. For a discussion of the roots of astronomy in the United States see, Goode, G. Brown, "The Origin of the National Scientific and Educational Institutions of the United States" in Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1889, and printed in Miscellaneous Document No. 170, 51st Congress, 1st Session, Senate, Washington, Government Printing Office, 1890, p. 100-110.

11. In 1843 he sent Assistants James Ferguson and J. C. Neilsen to Bodie Island, North Carolina to conduct reconnaissance for a second base line site. This was in spite of having testified at the Congressional investigation of 1842 that the next base line was going to be measured somewhere on the eastern shore of Chesapeake Bay.

12. H. R. Document 28, 1842. p. 5-6. In response to Question No. 5.

13. H. R. Document 28, 1842. p. 11. In response to Question No. 14, "The probable amount of money required to complete the survey of the coast in the mode heretofore pursued."

14. H. R. Document 28, 1842. p. 10. In response to Question No. 12, "Exhibiting as well the direct appropriations for the survey of the coast, as the indirect expenditures upon it, by reason of the employment thereon of public vessels and officers."

15. Sands, B. F. 1899. p. 120-121.

16. H. R. Document 28, 1842. p. 14. In response to Question No. 15, "With the suggestion of any other mode of surveying the same." Embodied in Hassler's response to this question is a discourse on the history of geodetic surveying in Europe.

17. H. R. Document 28, 1842. p. 15. In response to Question No. 16, "Which shall have for its object the acquisition of the greatest amount of useful information in the shortest time, and at the least expense."

18. H. R. Document 28, 1842. p. 15 and 16. In response to Question No. 16. (See above.)

19. There had been a disastrous fire in the Treasury Building in 1833 that destroyed many public records; but, fortunately, Hassler had maintained personal copies of all records associated with the Survey.

20. Reports of Committees, 27th Congress, 3rd Session. Report No. 43, House of Representatives, January 12, 1843, p. 48-64. "Additions ..." are found on p. 48-64. However, as the whole document will be referred to many times, it will be designated "H. R. Report No. 43, 1843" in following notes.

21. H. R. Report 43, 1843. p. 7-8, and 52.

22. Hassler, F. R. 1843. Pamphlet: Survey of the Coast of the United States. Further rectification of facts alleged in the discussion of Congress, in December, 1842. Point No. 7. January 10, 1843, Washington City. This document is dated January 10, 1842, but this is an obvious error as it undoubtedly refers to the Congressional debates of December, 1842, on the Coast Survey.

23. H. R. Report No. 43, 1843. p. 10-11.

24. H. R. Report No. 43, 1843. p. 10.

25. H. R. Report No. 43, 1843. p. 12 and 64.

26. H. R. Report No. 43, 1843. p. 43.

27. Sands, B. F. 1899. p. 89.

28. Benjamin Sands was present at the Stone incident, but in writing his memoirs mistakenly referred to Stone as Caleb Cushing. Sands felt that this particular incident was the most angry that he had ever seen Hassler.

29. H. R. Report No. 43, 1843. p. 47.

30. Hassler, F. R. 1842. Origin and History of the Attack of Mr. Cushing Upon the Coast Survey, and of the Select Committee of Investigation, or Examination, Upon the Work written at Pinehill, New Jersey, December 21, 1842, p. 6, Section 24. Other versions of this incident are found in: H. R. Report 170, p. 85; "Survey of the Coast of the United States" in the Baltimore Sun, January 11, 1843; and in Sands, B. F. 1899. p. 89-90.

31. Hassler, F. R. 1842. Report upon the Construction of Standards of Weight and Measure, to the Committee of Investigation of the Coast Survey, June 29th, 1842. Referred to in following notes as: Construction of Standards of Weight and Measure.

32. Hassler, F. R. 1842. Construction of Standards of Weight and Measure, p. 47.

33. Hassler, F. R. 1842. Construction of Standards of Weight and Measure, p. 50.

34. Hassler, F. R. 1842. Construction of Standards of Weight and Measure, p.50.

35. Hassler, F. R. 1842. Construction of Standards of Weight and Measure, p. 52.

36. Hassler, F. R. 1842. Construction of Standards of Weight and Measure, p. 50.

37. Hassler, F. R. 1842. Construction of Standards of Weight and Measure, p. 59.

38. Congressional Globe, 3rd Session, 27th Congress, 1842-1843, Vol. II, p.58-61????? and in: Norris, p. 221-303.

39. Norris, R. 1882. p. 221-303. Congressional Globe, 3rd Session, 27th Congress, 1842-1843, p. 57-61.????

40. A review of Superintendent's Reports in later years and reports from field officers of the Survey indicate a high rate of sickness for all those engaged in the field work of the Coast Survey during the Nineteenth Century. Assistant George Davidson, one of the primary pioneers of the West Coast work, occasionally spent a good part of the year recuperating from rheumatism or various fevers. Davidson's letters during the 1850's are rampant with references to the state of his health. Poor water, all manner of vermin, improper storage of food, improper cleansing of utensils, rampant epidemics of many diseases, parasites, etc., all contributed to relatively poor health. It is more amazing that the field officers were able to accomplish what they did given the prevailing state of public health, than that they were occasionally incapacitated by "bilious fevers."

41. Norris, R. 1882. p. 295-296.

42. Letter from John H. Alexander to Ferdinand R. Hassler dated January 14, 1843. In: Hassler Collection within Special Collections of the New York Public Library.

43. Report No. 170, p. 39-44.

44. Norris, R. 1882. p.303.

Return to Contents