  SESSION OF OCTOBER 13, 1884. The Conference met pursuant to adjournment in the Diplomatic Hall, in the State Department, at one o'clock P. M. Present: Austria-Hungary: Baron I. von SchÆffer. Brazil: Dr. Luiz Cruls. Chili: Mr. F. V. Gormas and Mr. A. B. Tupper. Colombia: Commodore Franklin. Costa Rica: Mr. J. F. Echeverria. France: Mr. A. Lefaivre and Mr. Janssen. Germany: Baron H. von Alvensleben and Mr. Hinckeldeyn. Great Britain: Sir F. J. O. Evans, Prof. J. C. Adams, Lieut. General Strachey, and Mr. Sandford Fleming. Guatemala: Mr. Miles Rock. Hawaii: Hon. W. D. Alexander and Hon. Luther Aholo. Italy: Count Albert de Foresta. Japan: Professor Kikuchi. Liberia: Mr. William Coppinger. Mexico: Mr. Leandro Fernandez and Mr. Angel Anguiano. Netherlands: Mr. G. de Weckherlin. Paraguay: Capt. John Stewart. Russia: Mr. C. de Struve, Major-General Stebnitzki, and Mr. J. de Kologrivoff. San Domingo: Mr. M. de J. Galvan. Spain: Mr. Juan Valera, Mr. Emilio Ruiz del Arbol, and Mr. Juan Pastorin. Sweden: Count Carl Lewenhaupt. Switzerland: Col. Emile Frey. Turkey: Mr. Rustem Effendi. Venezuela: Dr. A. M. Soteldo. United States: Rear-Admiral C. R. P. Rodgers, Mr. Lewis M. Rutherfurd, Mr. W. F. Allen, Commander W. T. Sampson, and Prof. Cleveland Abbe. Absent: Denmark: Mr. C. S. A. de Bille. Salvador: Mr. A. Batres. The President. In view of the many communications addressed to the President of this Conference, having reference to the business before it, presenting statements and arguments in relation thereto, the Chair asks that a committee be appointed, to which shall be referred all such communications, and that the committee be instructed to make such report upon them as it may deem advisable. Count Lewenhaupt, Delegate of Sweden. I beg leave to propose to the Conference that the appointment of this committee be left to the President. Mr. Soteldo, Delegate of Venezuela. I second the motion of the Delegate of Sweden. Mr. de Struve, Delegate of Russia. I entertain the same opinion, and I support the motion. The motion was then unanimously adopted. The President. I will name as the members of the Committee the Delegate of Great Britain, Professor Adams; the Delegate of Germany, Mr. Hinckeldeyn; the Delegate of the United States, Professor Abbe; the Delegate of Japan, Mr. Kikuchi; and the Delegate of Costa Rica, Mr. Echeverria. President. Alter a discussion of only three hours this Conference adjourned a week ago to-day, subject to the call of its President. Owing to the want of a French stenographer to report the words that were spoken in French, there has been much delay in preparing the protocol, which has not yet been Should any delegate, who has not yet spoken, desire to address the Conference upon the resolution of the Delegate from France, his remarks will now be received, and when the mover of the resolution shall close the debate, the vote will be taken, if such be the pleasure of the Conference. Mr. Sandford Fleming, Delegate of Great Britain. I have listened with great attention and deep interest to the remarks which have fallen from the several gentlemen who have spoken, and I desire your kind indulgence for a few moments while I explain the views I have formed on the motion of the distinguished Delegates from France. I feel that the important question which this Conference has to consider must be approached in no narrow spirit. It is one which affects every nationality, and we should endeavor, in the common interest, to set aside any national or individual prejudices we possess, and view the subject as members of one community—in fact, as citizens of the world. Acting in this broad spirit, we cannot fail to arrive at conclusions which will promote the common good of mankind. In deliberating on the important subject before us, it seems to me there are two essential points which we should constantly bear in mind. 1. We should consider what will best promote the general advantage, not now only, but for all future years, while causing at the present time as little individual and national inconvenience as possible. 2. We should, in coming to a determination on the main question for which this Conference is called, leave nothing The motion is, that the initial meridian to be chosen should be selected on account of its neutrality. This undoubtedly involves the selection of an entirely new meridian, one which has never previously been used by any nation, as all initial meridians in use are more or less national, and, as such, would not be considered neutral in the sense intended by the honorable Delegates from France. Let us suppose that this Conference adopted the motion. Let us suppose, further, that we found a meridian quite independent of and unrelated to any existing initial meridian. Would we then have accomplished the task for which we are met? I ask, would the twenty-six nations here represented accept our recommendation to adopt the neutral meridian? I greatly fear that the passing of the resolution would not in the least promote the settlement of the important question before the Conference. The world has already at least eleven different first meridians. The adoption of the new meridian contemplated by the Delegates from France would, I apprehend, simply increase the number and proportionately increase the difficulty which so many delegates from all parts of the earth are assembled here to remove. This would be the practical effect of the passing of the resolution. If it had any effect, it would increase the difficulty, and I need not say that is not the object which the different Governments had in view when they sent delegates to this Conference. The President has well pointed out in his opening address the advantages which would be gained, and the great dangers which, at times, would be avoided by seafaring vessels having one common zero of longitude. Besides the benefits which would accrue to navigation, there are advantages of equal importance in connection with the regulation of time, to spring, I trust, from our conclusions. It does not appear to me that the adoption of the motion would in any way advance these objects. I do not say that the principle of a neutral meridian is wrong, but to attempt to establish one would, I feel satisfied, be productive of no good result. A neutral meridian is excellent in theory, but I The selection of an initial meridian related to meridians now in use gives us a sufficiently wide choice. Allow me to read the following list, showing the number and the total tonnage of vessels using the several meridians named, in ascertaining their longitude. It thus appears that one of these meridians, that of Greenwich, is used by 72 per cent. of the whole floating commerce of the world, while the remaining 28 per cent. is divided among ten different initial meridians. If, then, the convenience of the greatest number alone should predominate, there can be no difficulty in a choice; but Greenwich is a national meridian, and its use as an international zero awakens national susceptibilities. It is possible, however, to a great extent, to remove this objection by taking, for a zero of longitude and time, the meridian farthest distant from Greenwich. This being on the same great circle as Greenwich, it would not require the establishment of a new observatory; its adoption would produce no This view of the question is sustained by many distinguished men. I shall only ask permission to read the opinion of Mr. Otto StruvÉ, Director of the Imperial Observatory at Pulkova, than whom there is no higher authority. "The preference given to the Greenwich meridian was based, on one side, on the historical right of the Royal Observatory of England, acquired by eminent services rendered by this establishment during the course of two centuries, to mathematical geography and navigation; on the other side, considering that the great majority of charts now in use upon all the seas are made according to this meridian, and about 90 per cent. of the navigators of long standing are accustomed to take their longitude from this meridian. However, an objection against this proposition is, that the meridian of Greenwich passes through two countries of Europe, and thus the longitude would be reckoned by different signs in different portions of our own continent and also of Africa. "Moreover, the close proximity of the meridian of Paris, to which, perhaps, some French geographers and navigators of other nations would still hold to, from custom, from a spirit of contradiction or from national rivalry, might easily cause sad disaster. To obviate these inconveniences, I have proposed to choose as prime meridian another meridian, situated at an integral number of hours east or west of Greenwich, and among the meridians meeting this condition, I have indicated, in the first place, the meridian proposed to-day by scientific Americans, as that which would combine the most favorable "1. It does not cross any continent but the eastern extremity of the North of Asia, inhabited by people very few in number and little civilized, called Tschouktschis. "2. It coincides exactly with that line where, after the custom introduced by a historical succession of maritime discoveries, the navigator makes a change of one unit in the date, a difference which is made near a number of small islands in the Pacific Ocean, discovered during the voyages made to the east and west. Thus the commencement of a new date would be identical with that of the hours of cosmopolitan time. "3. It makes no change to the great majority of navigators and hydrographers, except the very simple addition of twelve hours, or of 180° to all longitudes. "4. It does not involve any change in the calculations of the Ephemerides most in use amongst navigators, viz., the English Nautical Almanac, except turning mid-day into midnight, and vice versa. In the American Nautical Almanac there would be no other change to introduce. With a cosmopolitan spirit, and in the just appreciation of a general want, the excellent Ephemerides published at Washington, record all data useful to navigators calculated from the meridian of Greenwich. "For universal adoption, as proposed by the Canadian Institute, it recommends itself to the inhabitants of all civilized countries, by reason of the great difference in longitude, thus removing all the misunderstandings and uncertainties concerning the question, as to whether, in any case, cosmopolitan or local time was used. "In answer to the first question offered by the Institute at Toronto, I would, therefore, recommend the Academy to pronounce without hestation in favor of the universal adoption of the meridian situated 180° from Greenwich, as Prime Meridian of the globe." I quote from the report of M. Otto StruvÉ to the Imperial Academy of Sciences of St. Petersburg, 30th Sept., 1880. I respectfully submit, we have thus the means of solving the problem presented to us, without attempting to find such Dr. Cruls, Delegate of Brazil. Gentlemen. Since the opening of this discussion more authoritative voices than mine—among others that of the Honorable Mr. Sandford Fleming, Delegate of Great Britain, who has just expressed his opinion upon the question—have been heard upon the important subject which we are now called upon to discuss, and of which we should endeavor to find a full and final solution. The various aspects of the projected reform—viz., the unification of longitude, which numerous international interests recommend to our care—appear to me to have been examined, and that relieves me of the task of taking up again the question in its details, and permits me to abridge very much the considerations which I think it is my duty to present in order to explain my vote. Upon to the present moment we have settled one point, gentlemen, and it is one of great importance; that is, the necessity of adopting a common prime meridian. This point has obtained the support of all the Delegates present at the Conference. This necessity being recognized, it is proper to take another step towards the solution of the problem presented to us, and to decide what that meridian shall be. It is this choice, gentlemen, which at this moment forms the subject of our discussion, and upon which we have to decide. My honorable colleague, Mr. Rutherfurd, the Delegate of the United States, has presented a motion proposing the adoption of the meridian of Greenwich, a motion which is again made, having been withdrawn temporarily from our discussion with the consent of its proposer. The motion which was presented at the last session, and which has formed the subject of numerous interesting discussions is that made by my honorable colleague, Mr. Janssen, Delegate of France, who For my part, gentlemen, I desire to state clearly the attitude that Brazil, in my opinion, must take in this Conference. That attitude is one of absolute neutrality, inasmuch as the question is whether or not to choose a national meridian which may provoke among certain nations very legitimate rivalries. From the point of view only of the interests of Brazil, the choice of one meridian rather than any other is recommended to me by no consideration. Our local charts are referred to the nearest meridian, that of the observatory of Rio Janeiro, which is the point of departure in the geodetic or hydrographic operations in course of execution in Brazil, and which all are connected with that same meridian. The marine charts of the coast most in use are the result of the hydrographic works executed by the Commandant Mouchez, now admiral and director of the observatory of Paris. As to the telegraphic determination of the longitude of the observatory of Rio, we owe it to the American Commission, directed by Commandant Green, of the United States Navy. Now, gentlemen, up to the day on which the Conference met for the first time, I had hoped that these discussions entered upon under the influence of a generous rivalry, and having for their only purpose the establishment of a measure, the necessity of which is strongly sought by many interests of a diverse nature, would lead to a complete and final solution of the problem. Unfortunately, and I regret to be obliged to add it, the differences To resume, I would say that the great benefits that the whole world will receive from the adoption of a common prime meridian will not be fully produced unless the measure is unanimously accepted by all the most important maritime nations. In any other event, I am, for my part, absolutely convinced that the measure adopted will be partly inefficacious, its adoption not being general, and everything will have to be done over again in the not distant future. The discussions at which we have been present abundantly prove to me that it will always be so, as long as the meridian of some great nation is proposed. In the face of this difficulty, which appears to me insurmountable, the only solution which, by its very nature, will not raise exciting questions of national pride is that of a meridian having a character of absolute neutrality. If the adoption of such a meridian was admitted in principle, I am certain that a discussion based upon pure science, and following the best conditions which it should realize, would conduct us rapidly to a practical settlement of the question. In such a discussion the arguments which ought to prevail should be, before everything, drawn from science, the only source of truth which alone can enlighten us, so as to permit us to form a sound judgment, and to decide solely upon considerations of a purely scientific nature. In addition to these considerations, I am not ignorant that there are others. I refer to questions of economy of which it is necessary to take count. As to political interests, if there are any, our eminent colleagues who represent so worthily the diplomatic element in this assembly would see that they had due weight, and, thanks to this assembly of men distinguished, some in science and others in diplomacy, there was every reason to hope that the final practical solution of the question which we are seeking would not be long in being made clear to us all by the discussions. Moreover, this practical solution appears to me already to follow from what our honorable colleague, M. Janssen, has told us on that subject. The principle of the neutral meridian once adopted, there would still to be discussed the conditions which it should fulfil and the determination of its position. Two things must be considered, either the meridian will be exclusively over the ocean, and then, by its very nature, it will be neutral, or it will cut some island, and in that case nothing would prevent an international diplomatic convention making neutral the plot of land on which it was desirable to establish an observatory, which would in reality be a very small matter. Of these two solutions, both of which satisfy the conditions which the meridian ought to fulfil in its character of neutrality and by the requirements of science, I prefer the second. I wish merely to suggest by what I have said how it would be possible to arrive at a practical solution of the question, since now I am only speaking of the adoption of the principle of the neutral meridian. I conclude, gentlemen, by declaring that I shall vote in favor of the adoption of a meridian with a character of absolute neutrality, and in doing so I hope to contribute my share to giving our resolutions such a character of independence as is necessary to make them generally acceptable in the future, and to Professor Janssen, Delegate of France. Gentlemen, I have listened with a great deal of attention to the discourse of the Delegate of England, Mr. Fleming, and if we had not had such an exhaustive discussion last session, at which, I believe, all the reasons for and against were given, I would certainly have asked permission to answer it. But I believe that on all sides we are sufficiently enlightened on the question, and I desire above all to declare that it is not our intention of making this debate eternal. It is now for you, gentlemen, to decide. I am the more inclined to act thus, as my honorable colleague, the Delegate of Brazil, Dr. L. Cruls, who is an astronomer like myself, appears to me to have recapitulated the question with a loftiness of views, and in such happy language, that, in truth, we may take his arguments as our own. Before concluding, I wish to thank my colleagues for the kind attention that they have been good enough to accord me. The President. The question recurs upon the resolution offered by the Delegates of France. The resolution is as follows:
The President. Is the Conference ready for the question? No objection being made, the roll was called, with the following result:
Twenty-one noes and three ayes. The President. The resolution is, therefore, lost. Mr. Rutherfurd, Delegate of the United States. Mr. President, in presenting again the resolution which was withdrawn by me to give place to the resolution offered by our colleagues from France, having taken the advice from several members of the Conference with whom I consulted, it was thought best to offer a system of resolutions which should be responsive to the mandate under which we act. With the view of bringing the subject to the notice of all the members of the Conference, I caused copies of the resolutions which I hold in my hand to be sent to them. I have since heard that is has been held that these resolutions had been irregularly so communicated; that is, that the communication was made in a semi-official manner. I beg to express an entire disclaimer of anything of that sort. It was merely my individual action, and I desired to give notice of certain resolutions, with the sole view of having them fully understood before we met and to save time. I hope, therefore, that this excuse and explanation will be understood and accepted. These resolutions are founded, as far as may be, upon those adopted at Rome. They differ from them only in two points. In the counting of longitude the Conference at Rome proposed that it should take place around the globe in one direction. This counting was to be in the direction from west to east. Very singularly, I find in the report of the proceedings of the Roman Conference no discussion on that subject. No questions were asked, nor were any reasons given, why it should be so counted, and yet it was an entire divergence from the It being my desire to avail myself, as far as possible, of the work of the Conference at Rome, I consulted with my colleagues here, and found that there was a great diversity of opinion. In the first place, some said we have always counted longitude both ways, east to west and west to east. Shall we cease to do that? Those who claimed that it was a more scientific way to count all around the globe immediately differed on the direction in which the longitude should be counted. Without going into any argument as to which of these methods would be the best or most convenient, I propose, by the second resolution, that we should go on in the old way, and count longitude from the initial meridian in each direction. One of the objects of the third resolution is to make the new universal day coincide with the civil day rather than with the astronomical day. In the Conference at Rome the universal day was made to coincide with the astronomical day. It seems to me that the inconvenience of that system would be so great that we ought to hesitate before adopting it. For us in America, perhaps the inconvenience would not be so very great, but for such countries as France and England, and those lying about the initial meridian, the inconvenience would be very great, for the morning hours would be one day, and the afternoon hours would be another day. That seems to me to be a very great objection. It was simply, therefore, to obviate this difficulty that this resolution was offered. I hope, notwithstanding, that some day, not far distant, all these conflicting days, the local, the universal, the nautical, and the astronomical, may start from some one point. This hope I have the greater reason to cherish since I have communicated with the distinguished gentlemen who are here present, and it was with that hope before me that I framed the resolution so that the beginning of the day should be the midnight at the initial meridian, and not the mid-day. With this explanation, I now again move the adoption of the first resolution, which is as follows:
The President. The Conference has heard the resolution. Any remarks are now in order. Mr. Sandford Fleming, Delegate of Great Britain. I think, sir, the resolution goes a little too far at a single leap. I beg leave, therefore, to move an amendment in harmony with the resolution, at the same time leaving it to be settled by a subsequent resolution, whether the zero be at Greenwich or at the other side of the globe.
Prof. Adams, Delegate of Great Britain. Mr. President, I desire merely to state, in reference to the amendment brought forward by one of our delegates, that the remaining delegates of Great Britain are by no means of the opinion expressed in that amendment, and that it is their intention, if it should come to a vote, to vote against it. The proposition to count longitude from a point 180 degrees from the meridian of Greenwich appears to them not to be accompanied by any advantage whatever. On the contrary, it must lead to inconvenience. You do not, by adopting the meridian opposite Greenwich, get rid of the nationality of the meridian. If there is objection to the meridian of Greenwich on account of its nationality, the meridian of 180 degrees from Greenwich is subject to the same objection. The one half is just as national as the other half. The President. The chair would say that no specific meridian is mentioned in the amendment. Prof. Adams, Delegate of Great Britain. That is true, but, at the same time, it should be said that the meridian described Mr. Miles Rock, Delegate of Guatemala. Mr. President, It may be well to hear the words of the original resolution, in order that we can clearly see the relation of the amendment to that resolution. The original resolution of the Delegate of the United States was then read. Baron von Alvensleben, Delegate of Germany. Mr. President, I think that in this amendment offered by the Delegate of Great Britain two questions are mixed up together. The first thing for us to do is to fix upon a prime meridian; the second thing to settle is the question whether the adoption of a universal day is desirable or not. If we adopt this amendment, these two questions are involved in one vote. Therefore, I think that they should be divided, for they are not appropriate in the form in which they are presented. Mr. Valera, Delegate of Spain. I ask permission to speak, in order to explain my vote. The Government which I represent here has told me to accept the Greenwich meridian as the international meridian for longitudes, but I think it my duty to say that, though the question does not arise in this debate, that Spain accepts this in the hope that England and the United States will accept on their part the metric system as she has done herself. I only wish to state this, and I have no intention of making it a subject of discussion. I shall only add that I believe Italy is similarly situated with Spain in this matter. The President. The Chair would say with great deference Mr. Juan Valera, Delegate of Spain. My only intention in making these remarks was to verify a fact. I know very well that we have not to discuss that question. Besides, the Government which I represent expresses only a hope, and I know we do not insert any hopes in our protocols; but I thought it my duty to make this declaration. Mr. Lefaivre, Delegate of France. I desire to make some remarks on the question when it is put to a vote; for the time being I shall only say a few words on the remarks of my honorable colleague, the Delegate of Spain, Mr. Valera. I believe that though the question of weights and measures is not before the Conference, it is allowable for a member to state, in the name of his Government, the conditions to which his vote has been subordinated. Even though the question is not under discussion, it may appear from such an explanation that the vote is conditional, instead of being a simple affirmation. If my honorable colleague has received from his Government instructions to subordinate his vote to such or such a condition, even when the question to which it is subordinated is not submitted to the Conference, it follows from it, according to me, and everybody will admit it, that the consequences of that vote are at least conditional. Mr. Valera, Delegate of Spain. My Government has charged me to express here its hopes and desires, but the vote which I have given is not, in my opinion, conditional; for I have received instructions to pronounce in favor of the Greenwich meridian to measure the degrees of longitude. However, it was necessary for me to say at the same time that General Strachey, Delegate of Great Britain. While I entirely agree with the view which the Chair has taken of the question whether the adoption of metrical weights and measures is before this Conference—namely, that it is beyond our competence to discuss it—yet I am glad to have the opportunity of saying that I am authorized to state that Great Britain, after considering the opinions which were expressed at Rome, has desired that it may be allowed to join the Convention du mÈtre. The arrangements for that purpose, when I left my country, were either completed, or were in course of completion, so that, as a matter of fact, Great Britain henceforth will be, as regards its system of weights and measures, exactly in the same position as the United States. In Great Britain the use of metrical weights and measures is authorized by law. Contracts can be made in which they are used, and the department which regulates the weights and measures of Great Britain is charged, consequently, with the duty of providing properly authenticated standard metric weights and measures for purposes of verification. It is quite true that the Government of England does not hold out any expectation that she will adopt the compulsory use of the metric system, either at the present time, or, so far as that goes, at any future time; but it is a well known fact—and in saying this I shall be supported, I have no doubt, by the views of the eminent scientific men of my own country who are here present—that there is a strong feeling on the part of scientific men of England that, sooner or later, she will be likely to join in the use of that system, which, no doubt, is an extremely good one, and which, so far as purely scientific purposes are concerned, is largely in use at the present time. Mr. Valera, Delegate of Spain. I desire to thank the honorable Delegate of England, General Strachey, for the friendly words which he has just pronounced, and to felicitate myself for having manifested the desire and hope of my Government that England should accept the weights and measures Mr. Lefaivre, Delegate of France. Mr. Chairman, I cannot pretend to make any suggestion of any technical value on the question now before us. I only rise to add a few words to the views which have been so authoritatively expounded to you by Prof. Janssen, in order to explain clearly the situation of the French Government in this important discussion. It is henceforth evident, after the instructive debate at which we have just assisted, that the meridian of Greenwich is not a scientific one, and that its adoption implies no progress for astronomy, geodesy, or navigation; that is to say, for all the branches and pursuits of human activity interested in the unification at which we aim. Thus, science is absolutely disinterested in the selection which we are now discussing and that fact I wish to emphasize particularly, as we are about to take a vote which we can easily anticipate by the one we had a few minutes ago, in order that the opponents of the resolution may not be accused of obstructing progress and the great aims of science for private interests. If, on the contrary, any conclusion is to be drawn from the instructive debate at which we have assisted, it is that the principal, I will say more, the only merit of the Greenwich meridian—and our colleague from Great Britain just now reminded us of it by enumerating with complacency the tonnage of British and American shipping—is that there are grouped around it, interests to be respected, I will acknowledge it willingly, by their magnitude, their energy, and their power of increasing, but entirely devoid of any claim on the impartial solicitude of science. To strengthen my assertion, gentlemen, I fall back upon the arguments brought forward by Mr. Hirsch in his remarkable report to the Geodetic Conference at Rome, arguments that evidently carried the vote of that assembly. The Greenwich meridian, says that report, corresponds to an empire that embraces twenty million square kilometres and a population of two hundred and fifty millions. Her merchant marine, which counts 40,000 ships of a tonnage from six to So long as there are not in polities or commerce any scientific means by which to fix, to enchain fortune, I see no reason to fix, to enchain, to subordinate, so to say, science to their fate. The character of the proposed determination of the initial meridian is so evident, that the reporter of the Conference at Rome, Mr. Hirsch, admits it implicitly, for recognizing that the adoption of the meridian of Greenwich is a sacrifice for France, he asks that England should respond by a similar concession, by favoring the definitive adoption of the metric system, and by acceding to the Convention of the metre which furnishes to all States metric standards rigorously compared. Thus, Mr. Hirsch, in a spirit of justice, wished to make for each a balance of profit and loss—evident proof that the question was of a commercial, and of no scientific advantage. I am not aware, and my mission is not to discover, whether the bargain might have been accepted by France. However, it is with great pleasure that I heard our colleague from England declare that his Government was ready to join the international metric convention, but I notice, with sorrow, that our situation in this Congress is not as favorable as that of Rome, since the total abandonment of our meridian is proposed without any compensation. At Rome the adoption of the metric system of weights and measures, of which France had the glorious initiative, was held out to us, but here we are simply invited to sacrifice traditions We are assuredly very much flattered that there should be attributed to us sufficient abnegation to elevate us to that double heroism. We wish that we were able to justify such a flattering opinion, and especially we should like to be encouraged by examples. There are at this very moment magnificent transformations to be realized for the progress of science, and of the friendly relations of nations—unification of weights and measures, adoption of a common standard of moneys, and many other innovations of a well recognized utility, infinitely more pressing and more practical than that of meridians. When the discussion of these great questions is begun, let each nation come and bring its share of sacrifices for this international progress. France, according to her usage, I may say so without vain glory as without false modesty, France will not remain behind. For the present we decline the honor of immolating ourselves alone for progress of a problematic, and eminently secondary order; and it is with perfect tranquillity of conscience that we declare that we do not concur in the adoption of the meridian of Greenwich, persuaded as we are that France does not incur the reproach of retarding and of obstructing the march of science by abstaining from participating in this decision. The President. Unless some other Delegate desires to speak, the question will be put upon the amendment of the Delegate of Great Britain, Mr. Fleming. The question was then put, and the amendment was lost. The President. The Chair sees upon the floor to-day, as the guest of this Conference, one of the most distinguished scientists, who was invited to be present at our meetings, Sir William Thomson, whose name is known the world over in connection with subjects kindred to this we are now discussing. If it be the pleasure of the Conference to ask Sir William Thomson briefly to express his views, the Chair would be very happy to make the invitation. The Chair, hearing no dissent, takes pleasure in introducing Sir William Thomson. Sir William Thomson. Mr. President and Gentlemen, I thank you for permitting me to be present on this occasion, and I thank you also for giving me the opportunity of expressing myself in reference to the subject under discussion. I only wish that the permission which you have so kindly given me may conduce to the objects of this Conference more than I can hope any words of mine can do. The question immediately under discussion is, I understand, the proposal that the meridian passing through the centre of the instrument at the Observatory of Greenwich shall be adopted as the initial meridian of longitude, and it does seem to me that this is a practical question; that this resolution expresses a practical conclusion that it is expected by the world the present Conference may reach. It is expected that the resolutions adopted will be for the general convenience, and not for the decision of a scientific question. It is the settlement of a question which is a matter of business arrangement. The question is, what will be most convenient, on the whole, for the whole world. It cannot be said that one meridian is more scientific than another, but it can be said that one meridian is more convenient for practical purposes than another, and I think that this may be said pre-eminently of the meridian of Greenwich. I do most sincerely and fervently hope that the Delegates from France and from the other nations who voted for the preceding resolution will see their way to adopt the resolution that is now before the Conference. It does seem to me that it is a question of sacrifice, and I do trust that the honorable Delegate from France who spoke last, Mr. Lefaivre, will see that France is not being asked to make any sacrifice that it was not prepared to make. In the admirable and interesting addresses which Mr. Janssen has given to this Conference, (which I had not the pleasure or satisfaction of hearing, but which I have read with great interest,) the readiness of France to make a much greater sacrifice than that which is now proposed was announced. If the resolution for a neutral meridian had been adopted, all nations would have to make the sacrifice necessary for a change to a meridian not actually determined, and the relations of which could not be so convenient with those meridians already adopted as are the relations between the meridians now in use with that of Greenwich. It does seem to me that if the Delegates of France could see their way to adopt this resolution, they would have no occasion whatever to regret it. I sympathize deeply with what has been said in regard to a common metrical system. I have a very strong opinion upon this subject, which I will not express, however, if it meets any objection from the Chair; but it seems to me that England is making a sacrifice in not adopting the metrical system. The question, however, cannot be put in that way. We are not here to consider whether England would gain or lose by adopting the metrical system. That is not the way to view this question at all, because whether England should adopt the metrical system is a matter for its own convenience and use, and whether it adopts it or not, other nations are not affected by its course. It would not at all be for the benefit or the reverse of other nations. The President. The Chair would be very glad to hear Sir Wm. Thomson's views on this subject if it were before the Conference for discussion, but it is not. Sir William Thomson. I beg pardon for having mentioned it. I would repeat that the adoption of the meridian of Greenwich is one of convenience. The difference of other meridians from it is readily ascertained, and therefore it seems to me that the minimum of trouble will be entailed on the world by I would inquire of the Chair whether it would be in order for me to allude to the resolutions number 2 and 3, which have been read? The President. I think that we must confine ourselves to the subject immediately under discussion—the adoption of a prime meridian. Sir William Thomson. Then I have only to thank you and the Delegates for allowing me to speak, and to express my very strong approbation of the resolution that has been proposed. Sir F. J. O. Evans, Delegate of Great Britain, then made the following remarks: In view of the interesting information furnished to the Congress by M. Janssen on the hydrographic labors of France, past and present, and of the results as represented by the number of Government charts; it has appeared to myself—as having held the office of hydrographer to the Admiralty of Great Britain for many years—in which opinion I am supported by my colleagues, that I should place at the disposal of the Congress certain statistical facts bearing on the great interests of navigation and commerce, as illustrated by the number of marine charts, of sailing directions, and of nautical almanacs annually produced under the authority of the British Government, and of their distribution. I would wish to disclaim any comparison in this respect with the labors of other countries. From personal knowledge I am aware that all nations—with only one or two exceptions—are, and especially so in the last few years, diligent in the development of hydrography, and that a cordial interchange of the results unfettered by any conditions is steadily being pursued. With this preface I would lay before you the following statements, observing that the shores of the whole navigable parts The number of copper chart plates in constant use is between 2,850 and 2,900. This number keeps up steadily. About 60 new plates are added every year. Average number of copper plates annually receiving correction amount to 2,700. Total number of charts annually printed for the daily use of the ships of Her Majesty's fleet in commission, and for sale to the general public, has for some years ranged between 180,000 and 230,000. The sale of Admiralty charts to the public through an authorized agent, both in London and at other commercial ports in the kingdom, has been for the last seven years as follows: Of these numbers, about one-fifth have been purchased by the governments or agents of Austria, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, Turkey, and the United States. The appended list, which was furnished to me by the Admiralty Chart agent during the present year, gives the more precise particulars.
But the chart resources of the British Admiralty, great as they are, do not suffice to meet the requirements of the smaller class ships of the mercantile marine of Great Britain. There are three commercial firms in London who publish special charts, based, however, on admiralty documents, to satisfy this demand. On inquiry I found that these firms publish 640 charts, which, from their large size, require about 930 copper plates. I am not able to furnish the number of charts sold by these firms, but it is large. Supplementary to the Admiralty Charts, there are 51 volumes of Sailing Directions. Several of these volumes exceed 500 pages, and have passed through several editions. Private commercial firms also, in addition to their charts, publish directions for many parts of the globe. These include regions with which the Admiralty have not yet, notwithstanding great diligence, been able to deal. The annual sales of nautical almanacs for the past seven years have been:
I think, sir, that these are salient points, which will assist the Conference in coming to a clearer view of the great interest which navigation and commerce have in the charts of a particular country. The question was then put on the adoption of the resolution offered by the Delegate of the United States, Mr. Rutherfurd, as follows:
The roll was called, and the different States voted as follows: In the affirmative—
In the negative—
Abstaining from voting—
The result was then announced, as follows: Ayes, 21; noes, 1; abstaining from voting, 2. The President then announced that the resolution was passed. Mr. de Struve, Delegate of Russia. In the name of the Delegates for Russia I have now, at this point of the discussion, to say a few words. If we had to consider the scientific side alone of the questions, which have already been discussed and resolved by the prominent scientists of the different countries at the General Conference of the International Geodetical Association at Rome, in 1883, we might as well simply adhere to the resolutions of the Roman Conference, and limit our work to the shaping of these resolutions into the form of a draft of an international convention, to be submitted for approbation to our respective Governments. But, as we have, besides, to consider the application of the intended reform to practical life, we beg to submit It is important to find for the more densely populated countries the simplest mode possible of transition from local to universal time, and vice versa; and we believe, therefore, that it would be convenient for the practical purposes of the question to adopt for the beginning of the universal day the midnight of Greenwich, and not the noon, as was deemed advisable by the Conference of Rome. This modification would offer for the whole of Europe and for the greatest part of America the advantage of avoiding the double date in local and universal time during the principal business hours of the day, and would afford great facilities in the transition from local time to universal. In adopting the universal time for the astronomical almanacs and for astronomical ephemerides, and in counting the beginning of the day from the midnight of Greenwich, there would be, it is true, a modification of the astronomical chronology, as heretofore used; but we think it easier for the astronomers to change the starting point, and to make allowance for these 12 hours of difference in their calculations, than it would be for the public and for the business men, if the date for the universal time began at noon, and not at midnight. The Conference at Rome proposes to count the longitudes from O° to 360° in the direction from west to east. It seems to us that this system can lead to misunderstanding in the local and universal chronology for the countries beyond the 180° east of Greenwich. We believe that a more practical result of the reform could be easily obtained by modifying the clause IV of the resolutions of the Roman Conference, and by maintaining the system already in use for a long time, which is to count the longitudes from 0° to 180° to east and west, adopting the sign + for eastern longitudes, and the sign - for western longitudes Thus the transition from universal to local time could be exactly expressed by the formula: Universal time = Local time - Longitude. The adoption of this modification would necessitate that the change of the day of the week, historically established on or We are in favor of the adoption of the universal time (clause V of the resolutions of the Roman Conference) side by side with the local time, for international telegraphic correspondence, and for through international lines by railroads and steamers. We fully accept the resolution of the Roman Conference concerning the introduction of the system of counting the hours of the universal day from 0 to 24; and we think it desirable that the same system should be introduced for counting the hours in ordinary life. This would greatly contribute to the disappearance of the arbitrary division of the day into two parts, a. m. and p. m., and to an easier transition from local to universal time. We think it advisable to mark on all general maps the meridians in time as well as in degrees of longitude, which would render the reform familiar to the public, and facilitate its introduction in the education of the young. On maritime charts the longitudes ought to be given in degrees, as these are necessary for the determination of distances in maritime miles. The topographical maps may maintain temporarily their national meridian, in consequence of the difficulties of the modification of the co-ordinates for plates already engraved; but it would be necessary to mark on every sheet the difference between the national and the initial universal meridian in degrees of longitude. It would be most desirable to have in all new geographical catalogues of astronomical and geodetical points the longitudes given in degrees as well as in time, and that in these new catalogues the new initial meridian be taken as the starting point for the longitudes. The President. The Chair has listened with great interest and pleasure to the paper which has just been read by the Delegate of Russia, Mr. de Struve, but the Chair begs to state that there is no resolution before the Conference. The President. The Chair will now direct the second resolution to be read. The resolution was read, as follows:
Mr. Rutherfurd, Delegate of the United States. Mr. President, In submitting this resolution to the Conference, I wish to say that the remarks of the Delegate of Russia have increased my confidence in the belief of its propriety. Mr. W. F. Allen, Delegate of the United States. Mr. President, the establishment of a prime meridian has, from the force of circumstances, become of practical importance to certain interests entrusted with vast responsibilities for the safety of life and property. These interests bear an important relation to the commerce of the world, and especially to the internal commerce of an extent of country embracing within its limits about sixty-five degrees of longitude. Exactness of time reckoning is an imperative necessity in the conduct of business. On November 18, 1883, the several railway companies of the United States and the Dominion of Canada united in the adoption of the mean local times of the seventy-fifth, ninetieth, one hundred and fifth, and one hundred and twentieth meridians, west from Greenwich, as the standards of time for the operation of their roads. The system under which they have since been working has proved satisfactory. They have no desire to make any further change. A large majority of the people in the several sections of the country through which the railways pass have either by mutual consent or special legislation adopted for their local use, for all purposes, the standards of time employed by the adjacent roads. Upon the public and working railway time-tables generally the fact has been published that the trains are run by the time of the seventy-fifth or ninetieth, etc., meridians, as the case may be. The same standards are used by the Railway Mail Service It will at once be apparent how undesirable any action would be to the transportation interests of this country, which should so locate the prime meridian as to require these time-standard meridians to be designated by other than exact degrees of longitude. That these standard meridians should continue to be designated as even multiples of fifteen degrees from Greenwich is regarded as decidedly preferable. To change to different standards, based upon exact degrees of some other prime meridian, would require an amount of legislation very difficult to obtain. At a convention of the managers of many important railway lines which control through their connections fully three-fourths of the entire railway system of this country, held in Philadelphia on October 9, 1884, certain action was taken, of which I have the honor to present a duly attested copy.
Count Lewenhaupt, Delegate of Sweden. Mr. President, I propose as an amendment to the resolution just offered the fourth resolution adopted by the Congress at Rome:
Baron H. von Alvensleben, Delegate of Germany. Mr. President, I beg to state that I think that this is only a question of detail; and, if the question is put to the Conference, I shall not be able to vote, and I shall abstain from voting. The President. May I ask the Delegate from Germany whether his remark applies to the amendment? Baron H. von Alvensleben, Delegate of Germany. Yes, sir; to the amendment, and to the resolution, also. Prof. Adams, Delegate of England. Mr. President, I must say that I am very much inclined to agree with the Delegate of Germany in the opinion that this is only a question of detail. It is a mere matter of convenience whether we count longitudes in one direction only, or in two opposite directions, considering longitudes measured in one direction as positive and in the opposite direction as negative. These two methods are nominally different from each other, but in reality there is no contradiction between them. In the mathematical reckoning of angles we may agree to begin at zero, and reckon in one direction round the entire circumference of 360 degrees, but this does not prevent a mathematician, if he finds it convenient for any purpose, from reckoning angles as positive when measured in one direction, and negative when measured in the opposite direction. If angles be considered positive when reckoned towards the east, it is quite consistent with this usage that they should be considered negative when reckoned towards the west. It is much more convenient to consider all angles as positive in astronomical tables, but for other purposes it may be more convenient to employ negative angles also, especially when, by so doing, you avoid the use of large numbers. In comparatively small countries, like Great Britain for instance, it is more convenient when giving the longitude of a place in the west of England to consider it as being a few degrees west of Greenwich, rather than 350 and some degrees to the east of that meridian. Commander Sampson, Delegate of the United States. Mr. President, while I think the question of reckoning longitude is a matter of detail, I think it devolves upon us to decide it one way or the other. Navigators are more interested in the question than mathematicians, and the longitudes must be engraved upon our hydrographic charts. Now, as the learned Delegate of Great Britain, Prof. Adams, who has just spoken, has stated, the principle involved is the same, whether we reckon east or west, or reckon continuously in the same direction. It seems to me, however, that when we come to consider the reckoning of longitude in connection with the adoption of a universal day, we should then make a decided choice in favor of counting longitude from zero to 360 degrees. If we adopt the resolution which my friend, the Delegate of the United States, Mr. Rutherfurd, has offered, it will be in perfect conformity with the habits of the world. For that reason, and it is a very strong reason, I think it might be adopted; but a little consideration will show that if we reckon the longitude from zero to 360 degrees, east to west, then we will change the existing practice of reckoning longitude; but, of course, only in one hemisphere, and that will be eastward of the prime meridian; but, as we shall all remember, to the eastward of the prime meridian we have the main portions of the continents of Asia, Europe, and Africa, and in all the navigable water lying in the other hemisphere the longitude will continue to be reckoned as now. To navigators of the water lying to the eastward of the prime meridian there will be a change in the method of counting longitude both ways, it would be necessary to adopt two different rules for converting local into universal time. Prof. Adams, Delegate of Great Britain. Oh! no; by no means. Commander Sampson, Delegate of the United States. For although one rule would answer, by having regard to the algebraical sign affecting the longitude, it must be remembered that this rule is to be applied by many who are not accustomed to distinguishing east and west longitudes by a difference of sign, and who would therefore require one rule when the longitude is east and another when it is west. If, however, we adopt the method of reckoning from zero to 360 degrees, from east to west, the relation existing between the local and the universal time becomes the simplest possible. To obtain the universal date and hour, under these circumstances, it only becomes necessary to add the longitude to the local time, understanding by local time the local date as well as the local hour. I think, for this reason, it will be preferable to reckon the longitude in one direction from east to west, instead of west to east. Sir Frederick Evans, Delegate of Great Britain. I would like to present a few words on behalf of seamen. There is clearly an important change proposed by the amendment. In the resolution before us it is simply a question of the reckoning of longitude as now employed by seamen of all nations, and I think it would be well to keep that fact separate from the reckoning of time. The President. The Chair begs to state that the discussion is now upon the amendment of the Delegate of Sweden, Count Lewenhaupt, to adopt the fourth resolution of the Congress at Rome. Sir Frederick Evans, Delegate of Great Britain. Then I consider that, in the interest of seamen, it would be very undesirable to accept the amendment. We must recollect that an immense deal of the world's traffic is carried around the world entirely by sea, and that this proposed dislocation of the methods of seamen by reckoning longitude in one direction only would, to say the least, be extremely inconvenient, and Mr. Juan Pastorin, Delegate of Spain, then presented the following amendment:
The President. The question before the Conference now is the amendment of the Delegate of Sweden. If the Delegate of Spain desires to offer his resolution as an amendment to the amendment already offered, the Chair will place it before the Conference. Mr. Juan Pastorin, Delegate of Spain. I am in accord with the views expressed by our colleague, Commander Sampson, and I propose the resolution which I have just presented. Mr. Valera, the Delegate of Spain. I believe the amendment proposed by my colleague, Mr. Pastorin, Delegate of Spain, does not apply to the amendment of the Delegate of Sweden, but to the original resolution. In order to avoid all ambiguity it would be much better to discuss them one after the other. Therefore let us decide the question whether it is better to count up to 180° in each direction or up to 360° continuously. Then we can go on to something else. The President. In order to meet the views expressed by Mr. Valera, the Delegate of Spain, Mr. Pastorin will withdraw his amendment, and the Delegate of Sweden, Count Lewenhaupt, will propose the substance of his original resolution so modified in form that its details may be considered separately. Mr. Juan Pastorin, Delegate of Spain. In conformity with the statement of the President, I now withdraw my amendment. Count Lewenhaupt, Delegate of Sweden. I beg to offer the following propositions in the form of amendments to the original resolution offered by the Delegate of the United States; these may be discussed in succession:
The President. The Delegates from Sweden and Spain have agreed as to the first part of the resolution, that longitude shall be counted in one direction—that is, from zero to 360 degrees. The question before the Conference is now upon the first clause of the resolution, and the other two will be subsequently discussed. General Strachey, Delegate of Great Britain. I think it is impossible to proceed to a vote upon these propositions without bearing in mind what is to be decided as to the universal day. That day, as it appears to me, will have to be determined with reference to the initial meridian in such manner as to prevent, as far as possible, inconvenience from discontinuity of local time and date in passing around the world. No matter how longitude is calculated, you must necessarily arrive at discontinuity at some point in passing around the great circle of the earth. It seems to me that the most convenient way of counting both longitude and time is that the discontinuity in both shall take place on the same point on the earth. Now, certainly, as was observed at Rome, it will be far less inconvenient if the discontinuity of date takes place on the meridian of 180 degrees from Greenwich. Then the reckoning of local time all around the world, going from west to east in the direction of the earth's rotation, will be continuous. In any other way, as far as I can see, there will be a discontinuity at some point on the inhabited part of the earth. In order to harmonize what I have called the discontinuity of date with the discontinuity in the reckoning of longitude, it appears to me that it will be best to reckon the longitude in both directions. There will be no discontinuity then except on the 180th meridian. It would be very inconvenient for a great part of the civilized world if the resolution which has been offered should be adopted, if, as I presume it would do, it caused discontinuity both in longitude and local time in Europe. After all, what are we here to endeavor to do? Notwithstanding what has been said in the other direction, for my part I must say that the great object before us is to secure the greatest convenience of the whole civilized world, and it seems to me that we should try to obtain it. If there is no very strong reason for altering the existing system of counting longitudes, it appears to me that this is a very excellent reason in favor of maintaining it. I do not see myself that, for any practical purpose, anything would be gained by reckoning longitude from zero to 360 degrees. There may be some special scientific purposes for which it may be convenient, but the object which this resolution is intended to meet is of another character. What we want is longitude for ordinary purposes, and on that hangs the reckoning of universal time, which, of course, should be for the general use of the whole world. Professor Adams, Delegate of Great Britain. Mr. President, I doubt whether I should trouble the Conference in reference to this point. I think, however, that it is a matter of little importance whether we consider longitude as positive, when reckoned toward the east, and negative, when reckoned to the west, or go on in one direction from zero to 360 degrees; it amounts, mathematically speaking, to the same thing. We never can consider mathematical lines or angles as positive in one direction, without implying that in the opposite direction For myself, I would say that there is no use in the Conference resolving that we should count longitude only in the eastwardly direction. The Conference may say that if longitude is reckoned towards the east, it shall be considered positive, and, if reckoned towards the west, negative; and that is all we should say. I do not think it is within the competence of the Conference to say that mathematicians shall reckon longitude only in one direction. Whether you choose to reckon right through to 360 degrees or not is a matter of detail, and of no importance in a scientific point of view. You can adopt one style or the other, according to which is found the more convenient in practice. Mr. Sandford Fleming, Delegate of Great Britain. I would suggest that this matter of detail can very well be discussed and arranged by a committee, otherwise, it may take up the whole time of the Conference. I move, therefore, that a committee be appointed to take up this matter and report upon it at the next meeting. The President. The Chair desires only to carry out the wish of the Conference, but it does not see clearly what we should gain by a committee. Still, if it be the desire of the Conference to order a committee, then the question will arise as to the organization of that committee, and the Chair would feel some hesitation in appointing it. Mr. Rutherfurd, Delegate of the United States. Mr. President, if this was a new question, in regard to which we had heard no discussion, it would be eminently proper that we should put it into the hands of a committee to formalize and thereby to shorten our deliberations; but it seems to me that the appointment of a committee now would not help us at all. When the report of that committee came in, we should have to proceed exactly as we do now. There are only three questions before the Conference, and they come within very narrow limits. First, shall we count These are the only three questions, and, after all, they are questions of convenience. We are just as capable of voting upon these propositions now as we should be after the appointment of a committee. Baron von SchÆffer, Delegate of Austria-Hungary. Mr. President, I move that we adjourn until to-morrow at one o'clock P.M. The question upon the motion to adjourn was then put and adopted, and the Conference accordingly adjourned at 3.45 P.M. until Tuesday, the 14th inst., at one o'clock P.M. |
|
