Chapter II: Part 2

The iron mold was hinged at one joint of the semicircles, and the other joint was bolted. After the cast was poured it would be allowed to cool somewhat. When it was judged cool enough, it would be pushed into a kiln to be annealed. After it had remained in the kiln a certain length of time—again based simply on judgement—a quantity of pre-heated sand was to be poured over the mold as insulation. A further innovation was the use of a zinc sheet placed on the underside of the mold to avoid the possibility of trouble from grease on the casting table. This was the initial plan of operation.

Sometime early in 1895 the first attempt was made. It was an immediate failure. The zinc sheet, intended to protect the cast from grease, volatilized when the molten glass was poured on it, bubbled up through the glass, and, of course, ruined the cast.

The second attempt was evidently made sometime in March. The casting itself was successful. Sand had been substituted for the zinc sheet. The cast was placed in the kiln, and when it was thought to be set the insulating sand was poured over it. After a time variously estimated at from 4 to 11 days, the cast was considered sufficiently annealed, and was examined.

When the sand was removed, the disc was found in fragments. There was also a large concavity in what would have been the face of the disc. The sand had been poured over it before the glass was sufficiently set. However, the disc had been destroyed by its iron mold. The mold had contracted against the disc, bending the bolt and deforming the hinges, and this tremendous pressure had shattered the glass. The next issue of the trade paper jubilantly noted the failures. They also included Dr. Peate in their derision. They said in effect that at least this experience would save the old preacher the waste of many years of time and effort.[32]

This slur on their most esteemed citizen brought the Greenville papers into the battle. The _Budget_ had also made the mistake of implying that any number of Pittsburgh manufacturers were willing and able to make the disc. John Morrison, at that time editor of the Greenville _Advance Argus_, and source of much of our information regarding this controversy, immediately called the bluff of the trade paper, which was able to supply but one name, that of a George A. McBeth Company. This firm promptly declined without qualification. Later the name of the Phillips Semner Co. was given, and this firm guaranteed a perfect disc within 60 days for a “remunerative price,” but would not state what this price was.[33] Therefore Dr. Peate could not deal with the firm.

Although the hue and cry continued for a few more weeks, the battle was really over, for Howard was soon to cast his disc. He had replaced the iron bolts in his mold with bolts of red oak dipped in nitric acid and then charred. The purpose of this was to relieve the strain on the glass by having the wooden pegs break as the mold contracted.

The third cast was in the kiln and in process of being annealed when Howard read in the _Budget_ an article that set forth the difficulties of successfully casting optical glass. This article was anonymous and was obviously the work of an expert; it is thought to have been written by John Brashear.[34] Although Howard was thoroughly discouraged by this article, the cast had already been made and no harm could be done now by allowing it to cool and be examined.

In May 1895 Howard, with the workmen, opened the kiln. The mold was loose, so the pegs had sheared as expected. When the sand was removed the disc was found to be whole. A close inspection revealed no obvious faults. The disc was gently carried to an inspection room and Dr. Peate was immediately sent for. He arrived, examined the disc for a moment, then said, “Give me a hammer.” Before anyone could move he seized a nearby hatchet and knocked off the sprue, or tail left as the pot was removed from the mold. The onlookers feared the lens would “explode,” as predicted by its detractors, but the only result was the removal of the tail, as Dr. Peate expected.[35]

The _Budget_ was still saying it couldn’t be done. Commenting on a May 1, 1895, announcement of the removal of the disc from the kiln, the paper seized on the fact that the disc was still warm to predict that it would be shattered before Peate could examine it, and reiterated its low opinion of Standard Plate. By the time this issue was in the hands of its readers however, the disc had been inspected and approved by Peate.

Newspapers in Pittsburgh and elsewhere carried the news of the great American disc. The embarrassed _Budget_ replied that it was not talking about the mere casting of the disc but the completion of the mirror. It feigned surprise that this was all that was to be done in Butler. Even as late as May 24, 1895, the _Butler Democratic Herald_ was still defending its town. It concluded an editorial on the issue thus:

… we have a feeling he [The _Budget_] has set his foot in it
when he goes to poke fun at the Standard about casting the
biggest mold on earth, and the end of it may be a repetition of
the old saw “he who laughs last laughs best.”

A week before this, however, the success of this casting had been made more or less official by an announcement to that effect in the May 17, 1895, issue of _Science_, a publication of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and probably the most highly regarded scientific paper of the time.

On June 1, 1895, Standard Plate rendered Peate an invoice, not for $1600, but for $450. Evidently their work was done at cost. The disc was now removed to Greenville where Dr. Peate had erected a shop to grind, polish, and figure it. As the disc was slightly out of round the first operation was to make it perfectly circular. Peate did this roughly by spalling off pieces of the edge with his bricklayer’s hammer. The final rounding was done with the aid of the iron hoops that had made the mold. Dr. Peate fed steel shot between the edge of the disc and the iron semicircles. He rotated the disc on the turntable and thus rounded it off.

After this had been done he commenced the rough grinding. Using the large checkerboard tool, steel shot, and levigated emery Dr. Peate ground out a rough hollow. This took only a few days. George Howard stated that the depth of the concavity was about ⅝ inch and the shape correct to within about 1/10,000 inch. The calculated concavity of the mirror would be 6/10 inch. Peate evidently used the usual method in polishing the large mirror, that is, he covered the tool face with pitch and used rouge (iron oxide) as the abrasive. This method had been used for many years before this time and is still in use today.

The figuring, which consists of removing high spots to achieve a truly parabolic contour, probably took the longest time to complete. A mirror must be continually tested as this polishing is being done, and since the polishing warms the glass and distorts its shape, it is necessary to allow a long time for the glass to cool before it can be tested. Peate estimated that polishing and figuring the mirror took 750 hours.[36]

We do not have a really accurate account of how he tested the mirror. Unfortunately none of the eyewitnesses to these tests had any knowledge of optics or of standard testing procedure. The information of those who had such knowledge is all at least secondhand and sometimes even more remote. J. W. Fecker, successor to Brashear,[37] who was one of a group that examined the mirror in 1923, states that Peate did not use the knife edge test but that he did use a pin with a hole in its head in one of the tests used at that time.

A variety of different tests and diversions with the mirror have been reported. Dr. Peate would entertain visitors in various ways. One of these was to train the mirror on an apple orchard in a valley a few miles away. In another Peate would pull out one of his whiskers and hang it on a fence nearly a quarter of a mile away. Peate himself tells of the time spent in testing the mirror, but does not go into detail about the procedure. He does mention a testing table that stood about 75 feet away from the revolving table on which the mirror rested. He says further that the mirror was tested “in all ways known, in the shop and on a pin and a watch dial a thousand feet distant.” Of these only the pin test seems to have been a conventional one.[38]

After the polishing, the mirror was silvered. Said Peate: “It was silvered and tried on the heavens in the starless region under Corvus, and under the very imperfect management of the mirror on telescopic stars, the report was as good as could be expected.”[39] Dr. Peate must have spent some time testing it on the stars. The mirror was evidently completed sometime late in summer of 1897, and when Peate was satisfied that it was as perfect as possible, he made arrangements to send it to American University. He also designed the shipping case to protect it on the trip to Washington. It is described in the University paper as follows:[40]

This consists of a box in which the glass is packed and a
wheeled truck in which it is swung. It is swung on its edge
by iron bands, which go around it over an iron belt which
encircles it.

After waiting for the case, he encountered a further delay by reason of the fact that the express company had no office at Greenville. However the great glass finally was loaded on the train, and on August 24, 1898, it arrived safely at American University.

Although all parties concerned in this project seemed optimistic, no provision for mounting the mirror had yet been made. The University paper which announced the safe arrival of the glass hoped, at a later date, that—

some day, we trust before long, a noble and generous giver will
appear, who will provide for the proper mounting of this mirror
and also build a worthy housing.

This donor was never to appear. Five years later, in announcing the death of Peate, the _Courier_ was still appealing for funds to mount the mirror. Late in 1903 it announced that a gentleman in Pennsylvania would contribute $100,000 to defray the cost of an observatory to house the mirror, but nothing further was ever heard of this gentleman. Earlier, before the mirror had been made, the Reverend H. G. Sedgwick of Nashville, Tennessee, had offered to mount and equip the mirror on the same terms under which Peate had made it. That is, he would do the work if someone would donate the cost and the material. But of this offer, too, nothing further was heard. Possibly he died before the mirror was completed.

The mirror was to remain untouched for some 24 years. In 1922 the “Greenville Roundtable,” a group reportedly founded by Dr. Peate, allocated $90 to the Reverend H. G. Dodds to investigate the disposition of the mirror. In that same year the Erie Conference appointed Dodds a committee of one to report on the same matter. Dodds visited American University and conferred with the chancellors. They checked the mirror and it seemed to be in good shape. Dodds then went to Warner and Swasey, in Cleveland, Ohio, where he attempted to discover what it would cost to mount the mirror and provide an observatory. But he learned nothing there. Dodds knew nothing either of astronomy or of glass and his lack of knowledge did not inspire confidence in his mission. He did note a peculiar phenomenon, that people seemed suspicious of the mirror in itself without knowing anything about its actual condition.[41]

Shortly after Dodds’ failure to secure a user for the mirror the Perkins Observatory at Ohio Wesleyan University, which planned to add a large reflecting telescope, became interested in it. Dr. Clifford C. Crump, director of the Perkins Observatory, J. W. Fecker, then president of the J. W. Fecker Company, and A. N. Finn and A. Q. Tool, of the National Bureau of Standards, inspected the glass at American University. They found it remarkably free of bubbles and similar defects. Due to a lack of facilities they were unable to test the mirror optically, so that no comment was made on either the polishing or the correctness of the figure. It was, however, found badly strained due to poor annealing, and Fecker advised against using it, as it would have to be re-annealed. If this were done, some refiguring would also be necessary. After this rather expensive renovation it would remain a rather thin, flexible glass and not equal to modern standards. The Perkins Observatory consequently decided rather to use a mirror cast and finished under the supervision of the Bureau of Standards.[42]

This was the last attempt to use the mirror. It remained at American University until the mid 30’s, when it was placed in the Smithsonian Institution. It was still, in February 1935, the largest mirror ever cast and polished in the United States.

Let us return now to Dr. Peate. After seeing the mirror safely stored at American University he returned to Greenville, Pennsylvania. Then 78 years old, still in good health and very active, he was to live for 5 more years.

To the end of his life he maintained his interest in astronomy, and was optimistic about the possibility of his great mirror eventually being mounted and used. In 1900 at the age of 80 he decided to see Europe once again. His prime objective on this trip was undoubtedly the Paris Exposition of 1900, where one of the main attractions was a huge telescope made by Gautier. It had a refracting objective of 49.2 inches, mounted horizontally, the largest refractor yet made. Strangely enough this much publicized telescope was never used either. After the exposition was over the backers became bankrupt and the instrument was dismantled and sold for scrap.

Dr. Peate with his wide range of knowledge and his conversational ability delighted and puzzled his fellow passengers on the boat to and from Europe. They guessed that he was an educator, a scientist, or statesman but he denied all this saying, “no, I’m only a bricklayer.”

Dr. Peate lived three years after this trip, dying on March 24, 1903. His good health and physical vigor never left him till almost the moment of his death; as shortly as a week before, he had conducted a funeral service.

It would be rather easy to dismiss him as a harmless fanatic except that everything known of him indicates that he was not. It is reasonable to believe that his mirrors were made more in the hope than in the certain expectation that they would stimulate the study of astronomy in the institutions receiving them. He was probably well aware of the difficulties of establishing so large a telescope at a newly founded institution such as American University, and, content in the knowledge that he had done his part, could only hope that others might be inspired to do likewise.

Dr. Peate’s great mirror will shortly be put to use in a manner that could hardly have been predicted by its maker. It has been in the Smithsonian Institution for over 20 years. The huge glass will form a part of the exhibition of optics and astronomy in the new Museum of History and Technology that the Smithsonian Institution will open to the public about 1962. There it will be seen by some millions of persons each year. Because of its spectacular size it should catch the attention of most museum visitors. Surely it will awaken in more than one potentially able worker an interest in astronomy. If so, it will have accomplished Dr. Peate’s purpose.

FOOTNOTES

[1] Instruments surviving from 18th-century America are almost exclusively of European origin, products of the numerous and famous shops which sprang up, particularly in England and France, to meet the demand occasioned by the popularity of the telescope among amateurs and dilettanti.

[2] U.S. National Museum catalog nos. 152078 and 152079.

[3] W. I. Milham, _Early American Observatories_, Williamstown, Mass., Williams College, 1938.

[4] _Mechanics Magazine_, 1830, vol. 13, pp. 114-115 and frontispiece.

[5] See p. 184 for a list of Holcomb’s instruments in the U.S. National Museum.

[6] H. C. King, _The History of the Telescope_, London, Charles Griffin, 1955, pp. 246-248. Milham _op. cit._ (footnote 3), p. 10.

[7] As reported in the _Journal of the Franklin Institute_ for July 1834, new ser. vol 14 (whole no. 18), pp. 169-172; July 1835, new ser. vol. 16 (whole no. 20), pp. 11-13; and August 1836, new ser. vol. 18 (whole no. 22), p. 110. The first two of these are given in the appendix, pp. 181-184.

[8] Reported by “R. K. M.” in _Sky and Telescope_, March 1942, vol. 1, p. 21. The “Catalog of Objectives Made by Henry Fitz,” the time span of which is unspecified, lists 428 objectives up to 13 inches and only 6 mirrors. It is not clear, however, that these represent finished units.

[9] Langley’s work at the Allegheny Observatory, particularly his invention of the bolometer, brought him international reknown as a scientist. In January 1887 he was appointed assistant secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, and later in that year became its third Secretary, serving from 1887-1906.

[10] The giant mirrors of Herschel (1789) and Rosse (1842) were made of an alloy of 71% copper and 29% tin, and 68½% copper and 31½% tin, respectively. This alloy was known as “speculum metal.” The silvered glass mirror was pioneered by Steinhill and Foucault in 1856. In England Dr. A. A. Common made considerable use in the 1870’s of silvered glass mirrors made by George Calver. About 1892-97 Common himself made, but never finished, a 60-inch mirror. It was later refigured and is still in use.

On these matters see King, _op. cit._ (footnote 6).

[11] For a list of these, see appendix, p. 184.

[12] Words crossed out in manuscript. See figure 1.

[13] For a list of Fitz material in the U.S. National Museum, see appendix, p. 184.

[14] F. W. Preston, “The first big American telescope mirror, John Peate, his lens,” _Bulletin of the American Ceramic Society_, 1936, vol. 15, pp. 129-152. Hereafter cited as Preston.

[15] The circumstances of Peate’s life and ministerial career are from Preston, supplemented by Dr. Peate’s service record, provided by the Erie Conference of the Methodist Church. Dr. Preston’s prime sources are: J. N. Fradenburgh, _History of the Erie Conference_, Oil City, Pa., 1907, vol. 2, pp. 204-211; obituary notice by R. N. Stubbs in _Minutes of the Erie Conference_, pl. publ. 1903, p. 90. Other data were obtained by Preston through interviews and letters, all cited in detail in the article.

[16] From information provided by Robert Barr, acting secretary of Oberlin College, February 15, 1960. The college records show a John Peate from Buffalo enrolled in the preparatory department in 1842-43 and 1844-45. The _Encyclopedia Americana_ (1924 ed., vol. 21, p. 460) states that Peate attended Oberlin about this time. The Doctorate was an honorary one conferred by Allegheny College.

[17] Fradenburgh, _op. cit._ (footnote 2), p. 204.

[18] Preston, p. 130, n. 10; p. 131, n. 19; p. 148.

[19] “On the Construction of a Silvered Glass Telescope, Fifteen and a Half Inches in Aperture, and its Use in Celestial Photography,” _Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge_, vol. 14, art. 3, iv+55 pp., 1865 (reprinted in vol. 34 as art. 2, 1904).

[20] Preston, p. 148. From an article in the Greenville, Pa., _Record Argus_, December 17, 1903.

[21] Preston, p. 148. In 1960 it was further learned that an “American Temperance” college or university once existed at Harriman.

[22] _Scientific American_, October 24, 1891, vol. 65, p. 260.

[23] Communication from Thiel College, Preston, p. 131, n. 17.

[24] _Popular Astronomy_, July 1898, vol. 6, p. 310.

[25] Preston, p. 129, notes 2 & 3. Based on recollections of George Lambert (1895) and John Morrison (1903). That the decision to make the mirror 62 inches in diameter may have had another origin is suggested by the fact that Common, in England, had made two mirrors of 60 and 61 inches in 1886-91.

[26] Minutes of the Erie Conference, 1893, p. 29. Preston, p. 130, n. 4.

[27] Preston has reconstructed the story of the making of the 62-inch mirror from contemporary journals, which will be cited below, and from personal communications with some of the participants, notably George Howard and George Lambert. Detailed citation of these communications are given in Preston. He has also used a brief manuscript account by Peate himself (Preston, p. 142, n. 62).

[28] Communication with Frank A’Hearn and John Hodge. Preston, p. 135.

[29] Peate’s workshop and apparatus is described in detail by Preston, pp. 135-138.

[30] Preston, p. 139.

[31] _Advance Argus_, Greenville, Pa., May 9, 1895. Preston, p. 139.

[32] Clipping of uncertain date from the _Pittsburgh Leader_, quoting the _National Glass Budget_. Preston, p. 139 and n. 55.

[33] Preston, p. 140.

[34] Preston, p. 139.

[35] Preston, p. 140.

[36] Preston, p. 142.

[37] The Brashear Instrument Company, after the death of its founder John Brashear, became the J. W. Fecker Company, Inc. This concern is now a division of the American Optical Company.

[38] Preston, pp. 142-143.

[39] The mirror is no longer silvered. The silver surface was apparently removed during the inspection by the Bureau of Standards in the 1920’s.

[40] Preston, p. 144. Various notices were published in the _American University Courier_ in 1898.

[41] Preston, pp. 145-146.

[42] Preston, p. 146.

Appendix

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES OF THE FRANKLIN INSTITUTE

_Report on Amasa Holcomb’s Reflecting Telescope._

[From _Journal of the Franklin Institute_, July 1834, new ser. vol. 14 (whole no. 18), pp. 169-172.]

The Committee on Science and the Arts, constituted by the
Franklin Institute of the State of Pennsylvania for the
promotion of the Mechanic Arts, to whom was referred for
examination a Reflecting Telescope, manufactured by Mr. Amasa
Holcomb, of Southwick, Hampden county, Massachusetts,

REPORT:—

That the following is the description of the instrument as given by Mr. Holcomb.

“The telescope submitted to the examination of the Committee
of the Franklin Institute is of the reflecting kind; has a
focal length of six feet; the diameter of the speculum is three
inches nine-tenths; the rays of light are reflected but once;
the image formed in the focus of the speculum is viewed by a
common astronomical eye piece, or by a single lens; it has
also an eye piece for viewing land objects, which shows them
erect. The telescope is of the same construction as those of
Sir William Herschell, the observer having his back towards
the object and looking directly towards the speculum. It has
an advantage over those of the Gregorian and Newtonian forms,
by showing the object brighter with the same aperture, there
being no light lost by a second reflection. The diameter of
the speculum is small in proportion to the length of the
instrument; it will bear a diameter of eight inches, with much
advantage for viewing very small stars, in consequence of the
great increase of the light.

The magnifying powers that are used are, forty, ninety, and two
hundred and fifty.”

Through the politeness of Prof. A. D. Bache, the committee were permitted to compare the performance of Mr. Holcomb’s reflector with that of a five feet achromatic, of four inches aperture, by Dolland, the property of the University of Pennsylvania. The instrument was also compared with a three and a half feet achromatic, by Dolland, and with a Gregorian of four inches aperture, the mirrors of which had been lately repolished in London. The short stay of Mr. Holcomb in Philadelphia, prevented the comparison of it with reflectors in the possession of other members of the committee.

On the evening of the 14th of April, the committee met by adjournment in the open lot south of the Pennsylvania Hospital, the use of which was politely permitted to the committee by the managers of that institution.

The following were the results of the comparisons:—

The moon, nearly full, was at a height to be conveniently viewed with the lower powers of the instruments: with a power of 350 in the five feet achromatic, the moon appeared bright and well defined,—with the same eye-piece, giving a power of 400, in the reflector by Mr. Holcomb, the moon was sufficiently bright, and equally well defined. The same, with the exception that the moon was more brilliant, and the field of view much greater, was remarked with the use of Mr. Holcomb’s highest magnifier, giving a power of two hundred and fifty.

As an illustration of their comparative performances, it was remarked that the waved appearance of the outer declivities of the craters of some of the apparently extinct lunar volcanoes, indicating the successive depositions of the lava, was more manifest with a power of four hundred in the reflector.

The immersions of 3 and 4 Geminorum of the sixth and seventh magnitude, were observed at the same instant of time in each.

The same occurred the evening before with a star of the eighth or ninth magnitude.

The immersions, however, of two very small stars, apparently of the tenth or eleventh magnitude, were observed with difficulty in the refractor, but could not be observed at all in the reflector.

The comparison of Polaris was best seen when the moon was up in the refractor, but in the absence of the moon it was readily seen in both.

Castor was easily divided with the lower powers of either, but in the case of this, as well as of other binary and double stars, the dark space between the stars was less disturbed by scattering rays in the reflector than in the refractor.

ε Bootes was seen double in each, but more distinctly in the reflector, μ Draconis, γ Leonis, and 4th and 5th ε Lyra, were seen distinctly double in both instruments; μ Draconis, from the equality of the disks and softness of light, presented the finest appearance.

γ Virginis, with a power of three hundred and fifty in either telescope, gave no certain indications of being double. Some of the members of the committee were of opinion that it was slightly elongated.

It was stated by the artist that his reflector would divide stars distant 3″ from each other.

Estimating the distance of the stars observed by the late observations of South, Struve, and Herschel, jr., the committee were of opinion that his instrument is adequate to the distinct division of double stars distant from each other 2″.5.

The motion of this instrument, plainly mounted, was steady, and with the finder, even without rack work, objects were easily made to range with the centre, or line of collimation of the instrument.

The position of the observers with the Herschelian telescope, was natural and easy in contemplating objects having seventy or eighty degrees of altitude, though quite constrained and inconvenient in using the achromatic.

The reflector gave a distinct view of land objects, even when within one-fourth of a mile.

Some light was lost by the position of the head, an inconvenience partially obviated by making the end nearest the object three inches greater in aperture.

The Gregorian, which probably was not a very fine instrument of its kind, bore no comparison in distinctness, or in quantity of light, with the Herschelian telescope.

From these trials, the committee are of opinion that Mr. Holcomb has been entirely successful in the difficult art of polishing specula with the true curve, which gives to the objects viewed all the distinctness of figure that is given them by the best refractors by Dolland.

In one respect, the largeness of the field of view, the reflectors by Mr. Holcomb have a decided advantage over achromatics and reflectors of different construction. The apparent diameter of the field of view in the Herschelian being nearly double that of either, with equal freedom from aberration. The quantity of light furnished by the refractor was greater with the same aperture, an important advantage in searching for, and observing very minute objects. This deficiency of light in the Herschelian for viewing faint objects near the moon, or satellites near their primaries, the committee are of opinion may be removed by enlarging the aperture of the Herschelian reflector to five or five and a half inches.

The simplicity of the method of preparing and mounting Mr. Holcomb’s telescopes is worthy of notice, since on this plan, the artist is enabled to furnish for an expense of one hundred dollars, with plain mounting, or of one hundred and fifty to two hundred dollars, with more expensive mounting, telescopes whose performance equals that of Gregorians and achromatics hitherto imported into the country at an expense of five hundred dollars.

By order of the committee.

WILLIAM HAMILTON, _Actuary_.

_May 8th, 1834._

_Report on Holcomb’s Reflecting Telescopes._

[From _Journal of the Franklin Institute_, July 1835, new ser. vol. 16 (whole no. 20), pp. 11-13]

The Committee on Science and the Arts, constituted by the
Franklin Institute of the State of Pennsylvania for the
promotion of the Mechanic Arts, to whom was referred for
examination, two reflecting telescopes, made by Mr. Amasa
Holcomb, of Southwick, Hampden county, Massachusetts,

REPORT:—

That the following description of these telescopes is given by Mr. Holcomb:

The two reflecting telescopes now submitted by the subscriber,
are constructed on the plan of Sir William Herschel, having
the front view. The largest has a focal length of 9½ feet;
the diameter of the speculum is 8½ inches, and has five
astronomical eye-pieces, and one terrestrial eye-piece, for
showing objects erect; the lowest power is 57, the highest
900. The smallest has a focal length of 7 feet 9 inches; the
diameter of the speculum is 6½ inches, and has one terrestrial,
and four astronomical, eye-pieces; the lowest power is 60, the
highest is 600. They are of the same kind as those that were
submitted a year ago, except the manner of mounting, which is
very different.

AMASA HOLCOMB.

On the evening of the 4th of May, the committee met, by appointment, in an open lot south of the Pennsylvania Hospital, for the purpose of testing the performance of the telescopes, which had previously been tried by some of the members of the committee, and by other gentlemen, on the evening of the 2d. The result of the examination was highly creditable to Mr. Holcomb, and cannot fail to gratify all who have at heart the advancement of astronomical science in this country.

The instruments, with powers varying from 50 to 600 in the smaller, and to 900 in the larger, gave satisfactory views of the moon with a sufficiency of light.

Mr. Holcomb’s ability to manufacture telescopes which should bear a comparison, on favourable terms, with the best four and five feet achromatics now in the country, having been established by the report of the committee in May, 1834, their attention was chiefly directed to ascertaining the degree of perfection to which he has attained in his art, by his persevering efforts during the past year. Accordingly, the remarks which follow are made with reference to the larger telescope, of about ten feet focal length, eight inches aperture, and with a positive eye-piece, giving a power of about 900, and the surface of the field of view nearly twice as great as that of a Gregorian, and one-third greater than that of an achromatic telescope, under similar circumstances.

The view of the moon with its rugged surface, its ridges of mountains, and the endless variety of indentations on its surface, was interesting beyond description, and exceeded any thing of the kind the committee have ever witnessed.

Saturn’s ring, though not in a favourable position, was seen manifestly double, for the first time in this country, as far as the information of the committee extends.

The companion of Polaris appeared as a star of the fourth or fifth magnitude, to the unassisted eye.

The double stars, Castor, μ Draconis, 4 and 5 ε Lyræ, and 44 Bootes, were distinctly separated, and the dark space between them made evident. The last mentioned, consisting of two stars of the fifth magnitude, distant 3″ made a fine appearance; they were soft, and well defined, and there were no scattering rays of light, as was the case with Castor, in both instruments.

A class of closer doubles stars, of which 6 Coronæ, distant 1″.2., and ζ Bootes, distant 1″.4., may serve as examples, was acknowledged by the artist, last year, to be too difficult for his telescope. This has furnished a stimulus for his exertions, and the complete division of the latter, as witnessed by the committee on the present occasion, has been the reward of his disinterested labours. The discs of the two stars in ζ Bootes appeared to be tangent to each other. The committee have no evidence that the same has been effected by any other telescope in the country.

For the purpose of finding the limit to the power of Mr. Holcomb’s telescope, the committee called his attention to a class of still closer stars; among them were mentioned, ζ Cancri, μ2 Bootes, ῎ Coronæ, 36 Andromedæ, and ε Arietis, the last of which is only divisible by two telescopes now in use, viz.: the Dorpat telescope, and the twenty foot reflector of Sir John Herschel. These stars, distant from 0″.6. to 1″.0., are made to appear with their discs tangent to each other in those celebrated instruments, as appears by their notes appended to the observations contained in their printed catalogues. It is almost needless to add, that Mr. Holcomb acknowledged these stars to be too difficult for any telescopes he has yet made.

It may seem presumptuous to compare the small instrument of Holcomb with the chefs d’oeuvre of British and German genius; but, thanks to the admirable labours of the Herschels, of Struve, and of South, observers are enabled, through their printed catalogues, to compare together the optical capacities of their telescopes in distant regions. Accordingly it appears from an examination of these catalogues, and of Holcomb’s instruments, that what the best telescopes in Europe can do upon stars distant 0″.6., can be done upon stars distant 1″.4., by instruments which are the work of an unassisted, and almost neglected, American optician.

Judging from the progress made in his art, by Mr. Holcomb, during the past year, the committee look forward, with confident expectation, to the not far distant period, when, should his health be spared, the country will be in possession of a twenty feet reflector, of native workmanship, rivalling the best European instruments, and that, too, without the patronage of any corporate institution, should all of them be willing to waive the opportunity of sharing with him the merit of such an enterprise.

The committee have been led to enlarge upon this subject, from a knowledge that one of our national institutions has, within a few years, imported into the country, at an expense of $2,500, a telescope which, though excellent in its kind, is inferior to that exhibited by Mr. Holcomb, which was made and mounted to order for an individual in Georgia, at less than the eighth part of the above mentioned sum. It is not probable that a twenty foot instrument from Mr. Holcomb, would cost eight times as much as one of the length of ten feet.

The mode of mounting the instrument appears to be original, and nothing can exceed it in simplicity, or steadiness. Indeed, with a power of 900, no inconvenience was perceived from resting with one hand on the frame, and another on the tube, although the same could not be done with the mounting used by Mr. Holcomb last year, or with that of common achromatics with a power of 200, without serious inconvenience.

In conclusion, the committee beg leave to recommend Mr. Holcomb to the Board of Managers of the Franklin Institute, as a candidate for a premium and medal from the Scott’s legacy fund, for his new mode of mounting reflecting telescopes.

By order of the committee.

WILLIAM HAMILTON, _Actuary_.

_May 14th, 1835._

RELICS OF HOLCOMB, FITZ, AND PEATE IN THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

(United States National Museum catalog number shown at right)

AMASA HOLCOMB

(All items from Mrs. Grace E. Holcomb Steere and Mrs. Eva C. Holcomb Storey)

1. Undated and unsigned original autobiographical
sketch, ink on notepaper (as
published here, p. 160)

2. Manuscript notebook on meteorological
and astronomical matters, covering the
period 1834-41. 310600

3. Herschelean reflecting telescope, 8½-inch
aperture, 9 feet 4 inches long. This is the
telescope made by Holcomb and shown at
the Franklin Institute in 1835. 310598

4. Refracting telescope, 1½-inch aperture,
21 inches long, on 14-inch axis for use as a
transit telescope, without support. 310599

HENRY FITZ, JR.

(Item 1 from Mr. L. C. Eichner, items 2-4 from Mrs. Julia Fitz Howell, item 5 from Mr. Arthur V. A. Fitz)

1. Refracting telescope, comet seeker, 8¼-inch
aperture, 61-inch wooden tube, fitted
for equatorial mounting, but without mount. 317027

2. Machines, tools, and partially completed
instruments from the shop of Henry Fitz,
of which the major pieces are:

Lens grinding machine 315152
Lens polishing machine 315153
Lens edging and testing machine 315151

3. Manuscript notebook of Fitz accounts from
1851 to 1855. 317026 (2)

4. Manuscript “Catalogue of Objectives made
by Henry Fitz.” 317026 (2)

5. Refracting telescope, 5-section draw, marked
“Ta. Long, Royal Exchange, London,”
2⅛-inch objective, 42½ inches long, open.
Purchased in London by Fitz in 1839. The
present objective was made by Fitz. 316706

JOHN PEATE

(From The American University)

1. Mirror, glass, unsilvered, 62-inch diameter,
about 6 inches thick. 310899

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1962

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington 25, D.C.—Price 30 cents