  SESSION OF OCTOBER 20, 1884. The Conference met, pursuant to adjournment, in the Diplomatic Hall of the Department of State, at one o'clock p. m. Present: Austro-Hungary: Baron Ignatz von SchÆffer. Brazil: Dr. Luiz Cruls. Chili: Mr. F. V. Gormas and Mr. A. B. Tupper. Colombia: Commodore S. R. Franklin. Costa Rica: Mr. Juan Francisco Echeverria. France: Mr. A. Lefaivre, Mr. Janssen. Germany: Baron H. von Alvensleben, Mr. Hinckeldeyn. Great Britain: Sir F. J. O. Evans, Prof. J. C. Adams, Lieut.-General Strachey, Mr. Sandford Fleming. Gautemala: Mr. Miles Rock. Hawaii: Hon. W. D. Alexander. Italy: Count Albert de Foresta. Japan: Professor Kikuchi. Liberia: Mr. Wm. Coppinger. Mexico: Mr. Leandro Fernandez, Mr. Angel Anguiano. Netherlands: Mr. G. de Weckherlin. Paraguay: Capt. John Stewart. Russia: Mr. C. de Struve, Major-General Stebnitzki, Mr. J. de Kologrivoff. San Domingo: Mr. de J. Galvan. Spain: Mr. Juan Valera, Mr. Emilo Ruiz del Arbol, Mr. Juan Pastorin. Sweden: Count Carl Lewenhaupt. Switzerland: Col. Emile Frey. Turkey: Rustem Effendi. United States: Rear-Admiral C. R. P. Rodgers, Mr. Lewis M. Rutherfurd, Mr. W. F. Allen, Commander W. T. Sampson, Professor Cleveland Abbe. Venezuela: Dr. A. M. Soteldo. Absent: Denmark: Mr. C. S. A. De Bille. Hawaii: Hon. Luther Aholo. Salvador: Mr. Antonio Batres. The President. Some days ago a Committee was appointed to report on communications addressed to the Conference through the Chair. All communications that have been received from time to time, and they have been numerous, have been referred to this committee, of which the Delegate from England, Prof. Adams, is the chairman. He now informs the Chair that he is prepared to make a report. The Delegate of England, Prof. Adams, then read the following report:
The President. The report of the Committee is before the Conference. Mr. Rutherfurd, the Delegate of the United States. I move that the report be accepted, and its conclusions adopted. There being no objection, the report was adopted. The President. In the regular order of business to-day, the first subject before the Conference is the resolution offered on Saturday by the Delegate of the United States, Mr. Rutherfurd, with the amendment offered by the Delegate of Sweden, Count Lewenhaupt. The resolution is as follows:
The amendment offered is as follows:
Mr. Valera, the Delegate of Spain, said that he thought that the amendment of the Delegate of Sweden should be first discussed. Mr. Janssen, the Delegate of France. At the last session I informed the Congress that I had received a telegram from Sir William Thomson upon the question of the meridian. Since then, that illustrious foreign member of the Institute of France has written me a very kind letter upon the subject, in which he expresses his complete appreciation of the disinterested attitude taken by France in this Congress. I thank Sir William Thomson for his sentiments towards France, and I am persuaded that, with such excellent feelings, we should arrive at an understanding, upon scientific bases, in which the moral and material interests of all would be equitably adjusted, as we have always understood them. But the question is not open now, and this Congress would, doubtless, not be disposed to reopen it. Sir William Thomson will understand, therefore, that in the present condition of affairs we have only to maintain the attitude which we have taken and the votes which we have given. The President. The Chair will simply say to the Conference that he very informally alluded to the letter that he had received from Sir William Thomson, and the Chair would also say in answer to the Spanish Minister that the rule in this Conference, a simple one, is to discuss the last amendment offered and dispose of it, instead, as suggested by the Delegate of Spain, of taking up the one most important in its character. It would be somewhat difficult for the Chair to decide on all occasions which amendment is the most important. I think, Mr. Ruiz del Arbol, Delegate of Spain. Mr. Chairman, the Spanish Minister has not referred to the most important amendment, but to the most radical. For instance, here there are several propositions to select a meridian; one of them must be considered, and it seems to me that my amendment, which is the most radical, is the one to be first presented to the Conference. The President. Unless the Conference shall direct otherwise, the Chair must pursue the principle on which it has acted hitherto, taking the amendments in the order in which they are offered, and presenting them inversely for the action of the Conference. The proposition before the Conference, therefore, is the amendment offered by the Delegate of Spain, Mr. Arbol, which is as follows:
Mr. Ruiz del Arbol, Delegate of Spain. It is proposed to introduce an absolute universal or cosmopolitan system of time-reckoning, which, it is hoped, will, at a more or less distant day, be generally adopted, not only for scientific purposes, but for all the ordinary purposes of life for which it can possibly be used; and it is further proposed to designate a meridian at which this cosmopolitan time-reckoning is to begin. What I have to state is, that this method of absolute time-reckoning already exists, (although we do not use it,) as does this universal In fact, gentlemen, all nations that have adopted the Julian and Gregorian systems of time-reckoning have necessarily accepted their consequences, and these consequences are, as Rome told us in the time of Caesar and in that of Gregory XIII, that we must reckon our days according to certain fixed dates; some part of the world had to reckon their dates before all the rest, and as Rome consented that countries situated to the east of it should reckon their date before it and countries situated to the west after it, it is evident that both reckonings had to meet at some point on some meridian, which was and could be no other than the anti-meridian of Rome. Nature itself seems to have lent its sanction to this, since the anti-meridian of Rome crosses no continent, and, probably, no land whatever. Let us suppose, for the sake of illustration, that it were agreed to abandon the Gregorian system of reckoning at a given moment, and to adopt another; that it were agreed to abandon it at all points on the globe when the hour should be twelve o'clock at noon at Greenwich, on the first day of January, 1885; and let us suppose that for historical or scientific purposes we were interested in knowing exactly how long the Gregorian system had been in use. Is it possible to ascertain this? It is; and very easily. Using that system of universal time-reckoning which it is proposed to establish, but logically referring it to the origin of that cosmopolitan reckoning which really exists, that is to say, to the anti-meridian of Rome, we shall find that 1885 years have been reckoned according to the Gregorian system, plus the difference of longitude between the anti-meridians of Greenwich and Rome. Nothing is more certain than this, and there is no other way of solving the problem. As I have already This reform will cause a change of nearly 13 hours—that is to say, 12 hours plus the difference of longitude between Rome and Greenwich, if the meridian of Greenwich is designated as the new initial point of the universal date. I do not believe, however, that you will adopt this choice irrevocably, since its curious and strange consequences may be shown by I may be told that this would happen, whatever might be the meridian chosen, but we could afford to allow it to happen at sea, or in some isolated and uninhabited region where congresses never sit, and where no ray of civilization ever penetrates. But to return to the reform, what are you going to do? I will say that if, instead of the meridian of Greenwich, you designate the anti-meridian for the reckoning of universal time and for the initial point of cosmopolitan dates for the present, but for the future as the initial point also of local dates, the reform will amount to about an hour only, but it will still be a reform. In a word, the anti-meridian of Rome is the one which now furnishes dates to the entire world, and you propose to make the meridian of Greenwich or the anti-meridian do so in future. I therefore tell you, if you desire a common hour for postal and commercial purposes, designate no meridian at all; let the railway and telegraph companies, the postal authorities and the governments make an arrangement and select an artificial You see that I am not speaking in behalf of any special meridian, not even that of Rome, since I admit that the reform may be necessary. You see, and I assure you, that I have not the slightest wish that the meridian which is to be the initial point of universal time should bear the name of any observatory or place in Spain, although that nation discovered the New World in which this Congress is holding its sessions, and although it may be said of that nation that it discovered those very meridians concerning which we are now speaking, inasmuch as terrestial meridians were indefinite and unknown lines, and were even without form until one was given them by Sebastian Elcano. I therefore hope that if you do not honor my proposition by accepting it, you will at least do justice to my intentions. Prof. Adams, Delegate of Great Britain. Mr. President, I shall be very short in any remarks which I may make upon the proposition before us. As far as I understand it, it is that, although we have adopted the meridian of Greenwich as a prime meridian from which to count longitudes, we should begin to count our time according to the meridian at Rome. I cannot consent to that proposition. It appears to me to be wanting in every element of simplicity, which should be our chief aim in this Conference. To count longitude from one meridian and time from another, is something that will never be adopted. I do not understand that that was at all the proposition recommended by the Roman Conference. On the contrary, I think that it was quite a different one. Mr. Ruiz del Arbol, Delegate of Spain. Mr. President, I do not in reality propose to adopt the meridian or anti-meridian of Rome. What I have been contending for is that we should abstain at present from adopting any meridian as a point of departure for the calculation of time; otherwise, we introduce a new element of confusion for the future. We should change the chronological reckoning which is now in vogue, and I contend that we have no right, scientific or historical, to make that change now. According to my views, the meridian of longitude is relatively an unimportant affair. It is a practical one; it cannot be changed in twenty years, probably, and it will take that time to correct all existing charts. But if you adopt a meridian for time, it will be very difficult to alter it in the future. I cannot now clearly see what the difficulties will be, but I apprehend that the application of this new principle to the various details of scientific and civil matters will necessarily be attended with great inconvenience, and may result in proving to be quite impracticable. I understand it very well that it is proposed to confine this principle to certain subjects, and that it is adopted for the purpose of avoiding dangers in communications, in navigation, in railways, and in transmitting telegrams, &c.; but this is purely an administrative matter, and can be left for settlement to other bodies. The President. The Chair would remind the Delegate of Spain, Mr. Ruiz del Arbol, that at its last session the Conference resolved, with singular unanimity, that it was expedient to adopt "a universal day for all purposes for which it may be found convenient, and which shall not interfere with the local or other standard time where desirable." The Chair would politely suggest that the subject now under consideration is the adoption of the proposition recommended by the Conference at Rome, and which has been presented here by the Delegate of Sweden, Count Lewenhaupt. Mr. Ruiz del Arbol, Delegate of Spain. My proposition is to abstain from the adoption of any one meridian, and that we leave the matter to some other Congress, organized with the special object of regulating this question. Commander Sampson, Delegate of the United States. Mr. President, as near as I can follow the Delegate of Spain, he seems to be under the apprehension that by the adoption of the universal day, which has been proposed here, we should either gain or lose time in our chronology; that we should skip 12 hours, more or less. But, of course, that is not the case. Any event which has occurred, or which will occur, at the time of the adoption of the universal day will be expressed just as exactly with reference to time as if the time had been calculated from the beginning of the Christian era. There will not only be no confusion, but it seems to me the adoption of the universal day will tend to avoid confusion hereafter, because confusion must exist where we have so many standards of time. Now, if any event which is taking place, or has taken place at any past time in the history of the world, is referred to the prime meridian, or is expressed in the time of any locality or of several localities, these times will all be different. The adoption of the universal day is to avoid any difficulty of that sort, and any event which has transpired will, when expressed in the time of the universal day—that is, according to the universal method—represent exactly the interval of time which has elapsed since the beginning of the Christian era. Nothing is gained or lost. General Strachey, Delegate of Great Britain. It seems to me that the Congress having accepted the resolution to which reference was made a little while ago, adopting the universal day, it is incumbent upon us, in the nature of things, to determine when that universal day shall begin. The resolution presented by the Delegate of the United States proposes to define how that universal day shall be reckoned; that is, when it shall begin and how its hours shall be counted. It was explained by him that the difference between his proposition and the proposition made at Rome consisted in altering the time of the commencement of the so-called universal day from noon at Greenwich to the commencement of the civil day. Certainly what Commander Sampson just said is perfectly true. The adoption of this so-called universal day will not interfere in the smallest degree with any purpose Mr. Ruiz del Arbol, Delegate of Spain. I understand that the consequences, perhaps, would not be troublesome at first; but who can look into the future and say, if we take the meridian of Greenwich as the standard of time, what difficulties we may be driven into? Every country will be obliged to count both ways. They will have to use civil time and universal time. Perhaps all countries may get accustomed to this radical change sooner or later, but we cannot foresee the difficulty now. I have here a treatise (a book) on "Analytic Chronology," showing the rules by which to bring into accord different dates of different calendars and eras, and I do not know how they would be affected by this universal time; but it is unnecessary Mr. Juan Pastorin, Delegate of Spain. The Congress has already come to very important decisions on the subject of the reckoning of longitude, and it will also certainly approve to-day those which have just been submitted on the subject of the universal day. I say certainly, because the result of the former votes being already known, it cannot be doubted on which side the majority will be, and because, from a scientific point of view, having chosen Greenwich as the prime meridian for the calculation of longitude, and having decided to reckon longitude in two directions from zero hours to twenty-four hours, with the sign plus towards the east and minus towards the west, it will be advantageous to make the civil day of Greenwich coincide with the universal day, if we would have an easy formula for passing from local to cosmic time. So many of the resolutions submitted to the Congress by Mr. Rutherfurd having been approved one after another, the plan that our colleague has carefully studied will be accepted in its entirety; but it will be impossible for the Conference to know in all their details other plans which, perhaps, would not be less worthy of attention. Is the resolution adopted by a majority of the Congress the best? Should we reach the end of the reform in complete harmony with the hopes of all the governments represented here? On the contrary hypothesis, it seems to me, that the sessions of this Congress will only be another step towards that reform, but not the reform itself. If the majority of the Congress, in accordance with the logical consequence of its work, adopts as the cosmic time the civil time of Greenwich, that decision will be contrary to the most ancient ideas of the human race. For many centuries the day has been reckoned as starting from the east, and the world will not easily abandon the traditions of its predecessors. The civil day of the world commences near the anti-meridian of Rome, Greenwich, or Paris. Therefore it is not natural Really, one phenomenon cannot be the commencement of a series of phenomena if there is another which precedes it periodically. If the majority, as is logical, adopts the formula, "cosmic time=local time-longitude," and applies in the calculation longitude with the signs plus and minus, according as the longitude is east and west, the system will be source of frequent mistakes, and those, in their turn, will be the cause of disastrous accidents, especially on railroads. Let us take the 31st of December, for instance. It is three o'clock at a point nine hours east of Greenwich; at the same moment they will count at Greenwich eighteen civil hours of the 30th of the same month, after the actual manner of reckoning the civil day, and that civil time of Greenwich will be the cosmic time. Apply to the proposed example the formula which I suppose the majority of the Congress will adopt, and the result will be a negative quantity, minus six hours—a result not sufficiently comprehensible in itself, and one that could not be easily applied by the general public. Can a majority prevail in questions, such as those we are speaking of, simply by the force of numbers? The whole world for several centuries thought that the earth was the centre of our planetary system; in fact, until an insignificant minority rose against this theory, for a long time considered by their ancestors indisputable. I will conclude by expressing my opinion upon the subject with which the Congress is occupied. My opinion is not new, in spite of its having been modified in the course of our sitting. The works of our eminent colleague and indefatigable propagandist, Mr. Sandford Fleming, the resolution of the Conference at Rome, the valuable opinions of Messrs. Faye, Otto Struve, Beaumont de Boutiller, Hugo GyldÉn, the scientific work of Monsieur Chancourtois, and the report which M. Gaspari has just presented to the Academy of Sciences of Paris are the text upon which I base the simplest and most practical method of solving the problem, namely, to adopt as the prime meridian I think that the best way of finding cosmic time in relation to local time and longitude is to add a quantity to the civil hour of each point of the globe. But as the majority of this Congress, so worthy of respect, admits no modifications of the system which we may call Greenwich, let us lay aside the question of longitude and consider cosmic time separately. I have the honor, therefore, to present the following resolutions, and I ask the Congress to consider them, and to accept them as a means of compromise: I. We agree to choose as the prime meridian for cosmic time that meridian near which the civil day of the world commences, namely, the anti-meridian of Rome, Greenwich, or Havre. II. The cosmic day consists of twenty-four hours, and commences at midnight of the prime meridian. III. The earth is divided from the initial meridian into twenty-four hour-spaces, counted in a direction contrary to the movement of the earth from 0h. to 24h. We shall, then, have the following formula: T = t + R, where R represents the difference reckoned from 0h. to 24h. between the local time of the prime meridian and the local time of each point of the globe; T the Cosmic Time and t the local time. The President. The Chair would ask the Delegate of Spain, Mr. Pastorin, whether he offers his resolution as an amendment to that offered by his colleague, Mr. Ruiz del Arbol. Mr. Ruiz del Arbol, Delegate of Spain. Mr. Chairman, the amendment last offered is not intended to interfere with my proposition. The President then put the question to the Conference upon the amendment offered by the Delegate of Spain, Mr. Ruiz del Arbol. Upon a vote being taken, the amendment was lost. The President. The question now recurs upon the amendment offered by the Delegate of Spain, Mr. Pastorin. That amendment runs as follows:
The President. In order that this amendment may be presented more clearly to the Conference, I would propose a recess for a few minutes. If there be no objection, a recess will be taken. No objection being made, the Conference took a recess. The President having called the Conference to order stated that, unless further remarks were presented, the vote would be taken upon the resolution offered by the Delegate of Spain, Mr. Pastorin. No objection being made, the vote was then taken upon the amendment, and it was lost. The President. The question now recurs upon the resolution offered by the Delegate of Sweden, Count Lewenhaupt, which will again be read. The resolution is as follows:
Professor Adams, Delegate of Great Britain. Mr. President, I intended to speak on the resolution offered by the Delegate of the United States, Mr. Rutherfurd, but the remarks which I have put together apply equally well to the amendment to that resolution now offered by the Delegate of Sweden, which is identical with one of the recommendations of the Conference at Rome, because, in fact, in my remarks I discuss these propositions alternatively. Therefore, with your permission, I will lay before you the observations which I wish to make. I beg leave to express my entire approval of the resolution which has been laid before the Conference by Mr. Rutherfurd. There is only one point involved in the resolution which seems to call for or even to admit of any discussion. It appears evident that the universal day and date should coincide with the day and date of the initial meridian. The only question, therefore, which we have now to decide is, when shall this day of the initial meridian be considered to commence? And the proper answer to be given to this question does not appear to me in any degree doubtful. In modern times it is the universal practice to reckon dates by days and not by nights. The word "day" is used in two different significations, being sometimes applied to the period of daylight and sometimes to the period of 24 hours, including both day and night; but in whichever of these senses the word day is employed, the term mid-day has one and the same signification, viz., the instant of noon or of the sun's passage over the meridian. In the present case, where we are concerned with mean time, mid-day means the instant of mean noon, or of the passage of the mean sun over the meridian. Accordingly, the civil day, by which all the ordinary affairs of life are regulated, begins and ends at midnight, and has its middle or mid-day at noon. It appears, then, most natural that the universal day should follow this example, and should begin and end at the instant of mean midnight on the initial meridian, and should have its middle at the instant of mean noon on the same meridian. I fail, therefore, to see the force of the reasons which induced the Conference at Rome to recommend that the universal day should commence at noon on the initial meridian. The only ground for making this recommendation is that astronomers, instead of adopting the use of the civil day, like the rest of the world, are accustomed to employ a so-called astronomical day, which begins at noon. The advantage thus gained is that they avoid the necessity of changing the date in the course of the night, which is the time of their greatest activity; but this advantage is surely very small when compared with the inconvenience of having two conflicting methods of reckoning dates, and of being obliged to specify, in giving any date, which mode of reckoning is adopted. If this diversity is to disappear, it is plain that it is the astronomers who will have to yield. They are few in number compared with the rest of the world. They are intelligent, and could make the required change without any difficulty, and with very slight or no inconvenience. The requisite changes in the astronomical and nautical ephemerides would be easily made. As these ephemerides are published several years in advance, there would be plenty of time for navigators to become familiar with the proposed change in time-reckoning before they were called upon to employ it in their calculations. I believe that they would soon come to think it more convenient and natural to reckon according to civil time than according to the present astronomical time. I am told that this practice is already universally adopted in keeping the log on board ship. To avoid any chance of mistake, it should be prominently stated on each page of the ephemerides that mean time reckoned from mean midnight is kept throughout. Whether or not astronomers agree to adopt the civil reckoning, I think we ought to adopt the instant of midnight on the initial meridian as the commencement of the universal day. The relation between the local time at any place and the universal time would then be expressed by the simple formula: Local time = universal time + longitude. Whereas, if the proposition of the Roman Conference were adopted, we should have to employ the less simple formula: Local time = universal time + longitude - 12 hours. In recommending the mean noon at Greenwich as the commencement of the universal day and of cosmopolitan dates, the Roman Conference refers to this instant as coinciding with the instant of midnight, or with the commencement of the civil day, under the meridian situated at 12 h. or 180° from Greenwich. Now, this reference to the civil day and date on the meridian opposite to Greenwich appears not only to be unnecessary and to be wanting in simplicity, but it may also lead to ambiguity in the date, as expressed in universal days, unless this ambiguity be avoided by making an arbitrary assumption. No doubt the Greenwich mean noon of January 1 coincides with midnight on the meridian 12 h. from Greenwich, but with what midnight. What shall be its designation and the corresponding date given to the universal day? Shall we call the instant above defined the commencement of the universal day denoted by January 1 or by January 2? Each of these dates has equal claims to be chosen, and the choice between them must clearly be an arbitrary one, and may, therefore, lead to ambiguity. By adopting Greenwich mean midnight as the commencement of the universal day, bearing the same designation as the corresponding Greenwich civil day, all ambiguity is avoided, and there is no need to refer to the opposite meridian at all. Those are the ideas I wish to express with regard to the commencement of the universal day. I may mention in connection with this subject that Professor Valentiner is one of the gentlemen who were invited, a week or two ago, to attend the meetings of this Conference, in order that, if requested, they might express their opinions from a scientific standpoint upon the questions before it; but as Professor Valentiner had to leave Washington before our sessions were at an end, I thought it would be expedient to ask him for his opinion in writing upon the matter which is now pending before this Conference. He has written a letter in German, expressing his opinion. I have caused that letter to be translated into English, and if the Conference allows me I will read it. The President. If there be no objection to the proposition of the Delegate of Great Britain the letter will be read. No objection being made, Professor Adams continued: It is well known that Professor Valentiner is an eminent practical astronomer, and I think that any opinion coming from him on this subject, which interests astronomers very much, will be considered of great weight. The letter runs as follows:
I may also mention that the practice that prevails among astronomers at the present time of reckoning the day from noon is by no means without exceptions. There are very important astronomical tables which reckon the day from midnight; for instance, in Delambre's Tables of the Sun; in Burg's, Burckhardt's and Damoiseau's Tables of the Moon; in Bouvard's Tables of Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus, and in Damoiseau's Tables of Jupiter's Satellites, mean midnight is employed as the epoch of the tables. I may also mention that Laplace, in his MÉcanique Celeste, adopts the mean midnight of Paris as the origin from which his day is reckoned. Hence there are great authorities, even among astronomers, in favor of commencing the day at midnight. General Strachey, Delegate of Great Britain. Sir, I observe that a very eminent American authority is present in this room, I mean Professor Hilgard. As he was invited to attend the meeting of this Conference, I suggest that the views of the Conference may be taken, whether he may not be invited to express his opinion on the point now under consideration. The President. With the concurrence of the Conference, the Chair will be most happy to ask Professor Hilgard to do us the favor to give us his opinion upon the question now before the Conference. No objection was made to the proposition of the President. Professor Hilgard arose and said. I thank you and the Conference very much for this invitation, and General Strachey for having proposed it to the Conference, but my opinion has been squarely expressed both in French and English in the report of a certain committee, that I am in favor of midnight at Greenwich as the beginning of the universal day, and of longitude being calculated both ways from Greenwich. I really cannot add anything to what has been said in the arguments already presented by Professor Adams, and I do not think that I ought to detain this Conference a moment by repeating the opinion he has expressed to all the experts in this matter. I beg you will excuse me for not further ventilating my views. Absence from the city, I regret, has prevented me from availing myself of the invitation earlier. Sir Frederick Evans, Delegate of Great Britain. I have the honor to address the Conference once more upon the practical aspect of the subject before us as affecting the large body of navigators. I wish to say upon this point that there appears to me, in the address of my colleague, Professor Adams, somewhat of a mixing together of two subjects. The question immediately before us, as I understand it, is whether the commencement of the universal day shall be midnight or noon of the initial meridian. That is what we practically have to decide. Now, I gather from Professor Adams' remarks that upon this question the ephemerides which we now employ have some important bearing. I do not think that that should influence us, for this reason, that the next resolution which will come before the Conference "expresses the hope that as soon as may be practicable the astronomical and nautical days will be arranged everywhere to begin at midnight." This resolution, so far as I understand it, will be the warning to astronomers to begin to make the changes growing out of this resolution which may be necessary for seamen. Therefore, I consider that we may at once proceed to vote upon the I have given some consideration to the practical bearings of this question—whether it should be midnight or noon. What we ought to decide is what will be the least inconvenience to the world at large. I have ascertained from two of my colleagues, who have given this matter the greatest consideration, that the adoption of midnight will really cause less confusion than noon, for this reason, that all the great colonies of the world would be less affected; that is to say, that the times they are using now would be less affected by midnight than by noon. That being so, it appears to me to be an essential point in coming to a settlement of this question. Mr. Ruiz del Arbol, Delegate of Spain. I have only to say that I have listened to the remarks about navigators changing the reckoning of time. I do not know whether there are many navigators here, but it is a fact that seamen reckon the day from noon. The President. I beg the pardon of the Delegate of Spain; but, in the United States navy, we reckon the day from midnight. Mr. Ruiz del Arbol, Delegate of Spain. I am speaking generally. Now, there is some reason for this rule among seamen, for the only way to find out the position of a ship is to observe the meridian altitude of the sun; and everybody requires to know, at sea, what has taken place in the course of every day, from the beginning to the last moment of the day; and I think that whatever the rule may be in the United States navy, navigators generally will count their time as they count it now. I think that navigators will not change the rule now in force, no matter what we may adopt in this Conference. Commander Sampson, Delegate of the United States. I think, Mr. President and gentlemen, that the change to the adoption of the universal day, beginning at midnight, would be a very decided advantage to navigators. The quantities as now given in the nautical ephemerides are for noon of the meridian for The usual observations made by navigators at sea consist in a meridian observation of the sun for latitude, and a morning and possibly afternoon observation of the sun near the prime vertical for longitude. Consequently all navigators, when in the vicinity of the initial meridian, might have their day's work occurring in two astronomical days. On the other hand, those navigators who were in the neighborhood of the 180th meridian would have all their work of one day occurring in the same astronomical day. The first would have the advantage of interpolating for short intervals only, while the second would be obliged to interpolate for much larger intervals. Consequently, on the whole, it would make no difference to navigators whether the quantities given in the nautical almanacs were for noon or midnight of the initial meridian. Another consideration, however, would make it very advantageous to have the quantities given for midnight. That consideration is this: if midnight were chosen, then the universal day would be identical with the nautical almanac day, and navigators would have only ship time and universal time to deal with, while, if the quantities were given for noon, they would have astronomical time, in addition to the other two. This consideration I think a very important one. The President. The question will be on the amendment offered by the Delegate of Sweden, Count Lewenhaupt, which has been read. The vote was then taken, as follows: States voting in the affirmative:
In the negative:
Abstaining from voting:
Ayes, 6; noes, 14; abstaining from voting, 4. The President then announced that the amendment was lost. The question then recurred on the original resolution offered by the Delegate of the United States. Rustem Effendi, Delegate of Turkey. Mr. President, I have listened with a great deal of interest and attention to the learned arguments bearing upon the proposition under discussion offered by the Hon. Mr. Rutherfurd, the Delegate of the United States for the adoption of a universal hour. This question is of such high importance, and of such interest to every one, that I consider it my duty to make a few remarks upon the subject, as I wish to state clearly the position my government proposes to take in the matter. I do not pretend to discuss scientifically this subject, which has already been so ably treated by several of the gentlemen present. My task is of a different and inferior order. I merely propose to briefly examine the manner in which the proposition ought to be made, in order that it may be adopted by our respective governments. The question of a universal hour is not of equal interest and importance to all. The United States of America, although comparatively a young nation, have done so much in the pursuit I hope I may be permitted to remind you of the conclusions arrived at by a commission consisting of scientists, railroad and telegraph officials, &c., appointed by the French Government to express their opinion upon this subject. If I am not mistaken, they recommended a universal hour, stating, however, at the same time, that the benefit to be derived from such an hour would be only of secondary importance for their country. The learned Delegate from France, Professor Janssen, will probably be kind enough to inform us whether I am right or not. The few remarks I have made bring me to the point I wanted to consider more specially. I mean that the originators of the pending proposition, and those directly interested in it, should be induced to modify their proposition somewhat if they wish it to be adopted by other countries. In other words, to leave to each country the greatest latitude possible in adopting a universal hour. With regard to the Ottoman Empire, I must state that it is placed in a somewhat exceptional position in this respect, and is, therefore, obliged to ask for more latitude even than the other countries concerned. In our country we have two modes of reckoning time: Reasons of a national and religious character prevent us, however, from abandoning this mode of counting our time. The majority of our population is agricultural, working in the fields, and prefer to count to sunset; besides, the hours for the Moslem prayers are counted from sundown to sundown. Therefore it is impossible for us to abandon our old system of time, although in our navy we generally use the customary reckoning or "heure À la franque." Finally, permit me to state that I am ready to cast my vote in favor of a universal hour, with the precise understanding that the universal hour will have to be limited to international transactions, and that will not interfere with the rules up to now in force in my own country. Before resuming my seat I wish to thank the President and the members of the Conference for their kind indulgence in having listened to my remarks. The President, The Chair would remind the Delegate of Turkey that the following resolution was passed at our last session:
The very difficulty which the Delegate of Turkey anticipates was thus carefully provided for in the resolution just read. Mr. Sandford Fleming, Delegate of Great Britain. To my mind it is of very great importance that this resolution should be adopted. I have already given generally my views on this question, and therefore I do not intend to trespass on the attention of the Conference beyond saying a very few words. From what I have already ventured to submit, it will be obvious that I hold that all our usages in respect to the reckoning of time are arbitrary. Of one thing there can be no doubt. There is only one, and there can only be one flow of time, although our inherited usages have given us a chaotic number of arbitrary reckonings of this one conception. There can be no doubt of another matter; the progress of civilization requires a simple and more rational system than we now have. We have, it seems to me, reached a stage when a unification of the infinite number of time-reckonings is demanded. This unification will be, to a large extent, accomplished if the resolution be adopted, and by adopting it, it seems to me to be in the power of the Conference to confer lasting benefits on the world. Universal time will in no way interfere with local time. Each separate community may continue the usages of the past in respect to local time, or may accept whatever change the peculiar conditions in each case may call for. But the use of universal time will not necessarily involve a change; it will rather be something added to what all now possess. It will be a boon to those who avail themselves of it. To the east of the prime meridian all possible local days will be in advance; to the west all possible days will be behind the universal day. The universal day, as defined by the resolution, will at once be the mean of all possible local days, and the standard to which they will all be related by a certain known interval, that interval being determined by the longitude. In my judgment, the resolution is an exceedingly proper one, and the Conference will act wisely in passing it. The President. In taking the vote upon the resolution, it is requested that the roll be called. The following States voted in the affirmative:
States voting in the negative:
Abstaining from voting:
Ayes, 15; noes, 2; abstained, 7. The President then announced that the resolution was passed. Mr. Rutherfurd, Delegate of the United States. Mr. President, I now present for the consideration of the Conference the following resolution:
Before action is taken upon this resolution, I would make a verbal correction. I think that the word "mean" ought to be introduced before the word "midnight" and I therefore alter my resolution in that way. The vote was then taken upon the resolution just offered, and it was carried without division. The President. The Chair begs leave to state that the protocols No objection was raised, and the President put the question to the Conference on the adoption of the protocols of the first and second sessions in French and English, and they were unanimously adopted. M. Janssen, Delegate of France. Mr. President, we have been directed to present for the approval of the Congress the desire that studies relative to the application of the decimal system to the division of angular space and of time should be resumed in order that this application may be extended to all cases—and they are numerous and important—where it presents real advantages. I would say that a similar desire upon the same subject was expressed by the Conference at Rome. You are aware, gentlemen, that at the time of the establishment of the metrical system the decimal division had been extended to the measurement of angular space and of time. Numerous instruments were even made according to the new system. As to time, the reform was introduced too abruptly, and, we might say, without enough discretion, and it came into conflict with old habits and was quickly abandoned; but as to the division of angular space, in which the decimal division presented many advantages, the reform sustained itself much better, and is still used for certain purposes. So, the division of the circumference into 400 parts was adopted by Laplace, and we find it constantly employed in the MÉcanique Celeste. Delambre and Mechain used, for the measurement of the are of the meridian from which the metre was derived, repeating circles divided into "grades." Finally, in our own time, Colonel Perrier, Chief of the Geographical Division of our Department of War, has used instruments decimally divided, and at the present time logarithmic tables appropriate to that method of division are in course of calculation. But it is especially when it is a question of making long The Conference at Rome, which brought together so many astronomers, geodetists, eminent topographers—that is to say, the men most competent and most interested in the question—expressed in respect to it a desire, the high authority of which it is impossible to mistake. It is, therefore, now evident that the decimal system, which has already done such good service in the measurements of length, volume, and weight, is called upon to render analagous services in the domain of angular dimensions and of time. I know that this question of the decimal division encounters legitimate doubts, principally as to its application to the measurement of time. It is feared that we want to destroy habits fixed for centuries, and upset established usages. In this respect, gentlemen, I think that we ought to be fully satisfied. The teachings of the past will be respected. It will be perceived that if we failed at the time of the Revolution, it is because we put forward a reform which was not limited to the domain of science, but which did violence to the habits of daily life. It is necessary to take the question up again, but with due regard to the limits which common sense and experience would prescribe to wise and well-informed men. I think that the character of the reform would be well defined by saying that it is intended especially to make a new effort towards the application of the decimal system in scientific matters. But, gentlemen, I have not to discuss here the bearing of the reforms which the study of this question will lead to. It is sufficient for me to show that there is in that direction an indispensable step to be made, and to ask you to express the desire that the question should be studied. I do not think that there is anybody here who would desire to oppose a request which does not in truth commit us to any specific solution of the question, and which appears so opportune at the present time. I would ask the President to be so kind as to submit the following proposition to the Conference:
The President. The Chair is of opinion that the Conference was called for a special and somewhat narrow purpose, and the consideration of the decimal system, proposed by the Delegate of France, seems to it foreign to that purpose and beyond the scope of the Conference. The President, however, simply acts for the Conference, and if the Conference shall decide to take the matter up, he will acquiesce, but it strikes the Chair that the resolution is out of order. Gen. Strachey, Delegate of Great Britain. Sir, I desire to express my personal views on this subject. I should be very happy to join the Delegate of France in voting for such a resolution, but I fear that there is a feeling among many of the delegates that it is not within our competence to discuss it. If that is so, I would suggest whether it might not be better that it should not be pressed to a vote. It would be a pity if there should be on the records of the proceedings of this Conference anything in the shape of a vote against the subject-matter of this resolution. I consequently think that if delegates have formed any decided opinion on the subject, they might express their opinion without voting; but I repeat that it would be a great pity if a negative vote should be taken on the subject of the decimal system of dividing the circle and time, particularly as it was received with unanimity in the Conference at Rome. Prof. Adams, Delegate of Great Britain. Mr. President, I may say that while I agree with Gen. Strachey in thinking that I should not like to vote against the proposition brought forward by our eminent colleague, Mr. Janssen, yet I feel it is somewhat beyond the scope of the subjects which we have to discuss, and, therefore, I should abstain from voting. I quite recognize that, for certain purposes, the decimal division of the circle is very valuable. The President. Unless the Conference decides to entertain this proposition, the Chair suggests that no discussion shall take place. If any member present desires to bring the matter up, he can do so by taking an appeal from the decision just made. Gen. Strachey, Delegate of Great Britain. Do I understand, sir, that the subject is dropped? The President. The Chair has decided that the resolution offered by the Delegate of France is out of order, and unless a difference of opinion is expressed by the Conference, the subject will be dropped. The Chair wishes to treat with the most distinguished deference the Delegate of France, because we are all most happy to do honor to him in every way. Does the Chair understand that the Delegate of France appeals from its decision, and wishes to take the sense of the Conference upon it? Mr. Janssen, Delegate of France, replied in the affirmative. Commodore Franklin, Delegate of Colombia. Mr. President, I would like hear the resolution read again. If it be merely a suggestion to consider the subject of the decimal system, I should like to know it. The vote was then taken upon the appeal of the Delegate of France from the decision of the Chair. States voting in favor of the appeal: States voting against the appeal:
Abstaining from voting:
Ayes, 13; noes, 9; abstained, 2. The President. The appeal from the decision of the Chair is sustained, and the proposition offered by the Delegate of France is now before the Conference. If no delegate wishes to speak upon the resolution, the vote will be taken. Mr. Janssen, Delegate of France. Mr. President, before the definitive vote I desire to again call my colleague's attention to the fact that it is a question here of the much-needed extension of the decimal system, an extension desired by a large number of the highest scientific authorities and of the most distinguished observers. As I said only a moment ago, the Congress at Rome, whose high authority in the matters which have occupied us is acknowledged, was a still higher authority as to astronomy, geodesy, topography; that is to say, in the domain to which our proposition relates. At Rome a wish, similar to that which we ask you to formulate, was expressed. Besides, if we observe that it is a question here only of expressing the desire that studies should be resumed upon the matter in question, is there anyone among us who would wish to oppose the liberal proposition which prejudges nothing in the solution of the question, but which will surely lead to important progress. I do not doubt, then, that all our colleagues will desire to unite in a resolution, which by its object and by the manner in which it is expressed, ought, it appears to me, to unite the suffrages of all. No further remarks were made upon the resolution, and the States voting in the affirmative:
States voting in the negative: None. Abstained from voting:
Ayes, 21; noes, 0; abstained, 3. The President. The resolution of the Delegate of France is, therefore, adopted. General Strachey, Delegate of Great Britain. Sir, before concluding the session to-day, I hope that the Delegates will be in a position to listen to the two resolutions which I now desire to propose, and which I think will tend to clear up a good deal of the discussion which we have had. The first of these resolutions is as follows:
This resolution, as it stands, embraces all the practical suggestions which have been made on the subject up to the present time. The only limitation it proposes to put upon the adoption of what may be called local standard time is that the breaks shall be at definite intervals of ten minutes or more. The second resolution which I propose is a very simple one. It is this:
There has been established by an international arrangement a congress which meets every two years to settle questions of international telegraphy, and I think that the precise manner in which universal time may be adapted to telegraphy would very properly be left to that congress. Mr. de Struve, Delegate of Russia. On behalf of the Delegates of Russia, I beg to make the following remarks: We have already expressed the opinion that the universal time could be properly used for international postal, railway, and telegraphic communications. But it is to be understood that local or any other standard time, which is intimately connected with daily life, will necessarily be used side by side with the universal time. It has been proposed, in order to establish an easier connection between local and universal time, to accept twenty-four meridians at equal distances of 1 hour or 15°, or to divide the whole circumference of the earth by meridians at distances of 10 minutes of time or 2½°. This question not yet having been made the subject of special and thorough investigation by the respective Governments, and not having been discussed at the International Conference at Rome, we believe that it would as yet be difficult to express, in regard to Europe, any positive opinion on the practical convenience We would suggest to recommend that the system of counting the hours of the universal day from 0 to 24, which probably will be adopted for the universal day, might also be introduced for counting the local time side by side with the old method of counting the hours of 0 to 12 A. M. and 0 to 12 p. m. Count Lewenhaupt, Delegate of Sweden. I have had the honor to transmit to the members of the Conference a rÉsumÉ of a report on this subject made by Professor GyldÉn, an eminent Swedish astronomer, whose name, no doubt, is familiar to many of the Delegates. The system proposed by Mr. GyldÉn is similar to the one now proposed by the Delegate for Great Britain. The only difference is that Mr. GyldÉn, in explaining the system, recommends the adoption of equidistant meridians, separated by intervals of 2½°, or 10 minutes of time, while the proposition of the Delegate for Great Britain is so worded that this distance may be greater than 10 minutes. This difference is, however, only a question of detail. The basis of Mr. GyldÉn's system is that time meridians should be separated from the standard initial meridian by either 10 or some integral multiple of 10 minutes. Therefore, I shall, with pleasure, vote for the resolution of the Delegate from Great Britain. I beg only permission of the Conference to insert Mr. GyldÉn's report as part of my remarks:
The President. If the Chair hears no objection, the pamphlet referred by the Delegate of Sweden will be printed as proposed. Mr. Lefaivre, Delegate of France. Mr. President, I move that the Conference adjourn until Wednesday, at one o'clock p. m. The motion was put and agreed to, and the Conference thereupon adjourned at 4:30 p. m. until Wednesday, the 22d inst., at one o'clock p. m. |
|
