observation was well founded, but it seemed to him that what the
Delegates of France had proposed had not been contested, but that the
arguments used had rather been those in favor of the adoption of the
meridian of Greenwich.
Mr. RUTHERFURD, Delegate of the United States, said that the
observations which he had made were merely to be regarded as a
negative of the proposition made by the Delegates of France, and not
as a statement of the arguments in favor of the adoption of Greenwich.
The PRESIDENT said that the remarks of the Delegate of the United
States were not out of order, inasmuch as they were intended to combat
the proposition brought forward by the Delegate of France.
Mr. JANSSEN, Delegate of France, then spoke as follows:
GENTLEMEN: At the last session, when a proposition was made by my
eminent colleague and friend, Mr. RUTHERFURD, to discuss and vote upon
the adoption of the meridian of Greenwich as the common prime
meridian, I thought it necessary to say that the proposal appeared to
me prematurely made, and that we could not agree to the discussion
proceeding in that manner. Mr. RUTHERFURD has informed me that he
would withdraw his proposition for the present, in order to permit me
to direct the discussion, in the first place, to the principle which
should direct the choice of a common prime meridian. I here take the
opportunity of thanking Mr. RUTHERFURD for his courtesy, and I no
longer object to proceeding with the debate.
What we ask is, that after the general declaration of the second
session as to the utility of a common prime meridian, the Congress
should discuss the question of the principle which should guide the
choice of that meridian.
Being charged to maintain before you, gentlemen, the principle of the
neutrality of the prime meridian, it is evident that if that principle
was rejected by the Congress it would be useless for us to take part
in the further discussion of the choice of the meridian to be adopted
as the point of departure in reckoning longitude.
We think, gentlemen, that if this question of the unification of
longitude is again taken up after so many unsuccessful attempts to
settle it as are recorded in history, there will be no chance of its
final solution unless it be treated upon an exclusively geographical
basis, and that at any cost all national competition should be set
aside. We do not advocate any particular meridian. We put ourselves
completely aside in the debate, and thus place ourselves in a position
of far greater freedom for expressing our opinion, and discussing the
question exclusively in view of the interests affected by the proposed
reform.
The history of geography shows us a great number of attempts to
establish a uniformity of longitude, and when we look for the reasons
which have caused those attempts (many of which were very happily
conceived) to fail, we are struck with the fact that it appears due to
two principal causes--one of a scientific and the other of a moral
nature. The scientific cause was the incapacity of the ancients to
determine exactly the relative positions of different points on the
globe, especially if it was a question of an island far from a
continent, and which consequently could not be connected with that
continent by itinerary measurements. For example, the first meridian
of Marinus of Tyre and Ptolemy, placed on the Fortunate Isles, in
spite of its being so well chosen at the western extremity of the then
known world, could not continue to be used on account of the
uncertainty of the point of departure. That much to be regretted
obstacle caused the method to be changed. It became necessary to fall
back on the continent. But then, in place of a single common origin of
longitude indicated by nature, the first meridians were fixed at
capitals of countries, at remarkable places, at observatories. The
second cause to which I just now alluded, the cause of a moral
nature--national pride--has led to the multiplication of geographical
starting-points where the nature of things would have required, on the
contrary, their reduction to a single one.
In the seventeenth century, Cardinal Richelieu, in view of this
confusion, desired to take up again the conception of Marinus of Tyre,
and assembled at Paris French and foreign men of science, and the
famous meridian of the Island of Ferro was the result of their
discussions.
Here, gentlemen, we find a lesson which should not be lost sight of.
This meridian of Ferro, which at first had the purely geographical and
neutral character which could alone establish and maintain it as an
international first meridian, was deprived of its original
characteristic by the geographer Delisle, who, to simplify the
figures, placed it at 20 degrees in round numbers west of Paris. This
unfortunate simplification abandoned entirely the principle of
impersonality. It was no longer then an independent meridian; it was
the meridian of Paris disguised. The consequences were soon felt. The
meridian of Ferro, which has subsequently been considered as a purely
French meridian, aroused national susceptibilities, and thus lost the
future which was certainly in store for it if it had remained as at
first defined. This was a real misfortune for geography. Our maps,
while being perfected, would have preserved a common unit of origin,
which, on the contrary, has altered more and more.
If, as soon as astronomical methods had been far enough advanced to
permit the establishment of relative positions with that moderate
accuracy which is sufficient for ordinary geography, (and that could
have been done at the end of the 17th century,) we had again taken up
the just and geographical conception of Marinus of Tyre, the reform
would have been accomplished two centuries sooner, and to-day we
should have been in the full enjoyment of it. But the fault was
committed of losing sight of the essential principles of the question,
and the establishment of numerous observatories greatly contributed to
this. Furnishing naturally very accurate relative positions, each one
of these establishments was chosen by the nation to which it belonged
as a point of departure for longitude, so that the intervention of
astronomy in these questions of a geographical nature, an intervention
which, if properly understood, should have been so useful, led us
further away from the object to be attained.
In fact, gentlemen, the study of these questions tends to show that
there is an essential distinction between meridians of a geographical
or hydrographical nature and meridians of observatories. The meridians
of observatories should be considered essentially national. Their
function is to permit observatories to connect themselves one with
another for the unification of the observations made at them. They
serve also as bases for geodetic and topographical operations carried
on around them. But their function is of a very special kind, and
should be generally limited to the country to which they belong.
On the contrary, initial meridians for geography need not be fixed
with quite such a high degree of accuracy as is required by astronomy;
but, in compensation, their operation must be far reaching, and while
it is useful to increase as much as possible the number of meridians
of observatories, it is necessary to reduce as much as we can the
starting points for longitudes in geography.
Further, it may be said that as the position of an observatory should
be chosen with reference to astronomical considerations, so an initial
meridian in geography should only be fixed for geographical reasons.
Gentlemen, have these two very different functions been always well
understood, and has this necessary distinction been preserved? In no
wise. As observatories, on account of the great accuracy of their
operations, furnish admirable points of reference, each nation which
was in a condition to do it connected with its principal observatory
not only the geodetic or topographical work which was done at home--a
very natural thing--but also general geographical or hydrographical
work which was executed abroad, a practice which contained the germ of
all the difficulties with which we are troubled to-day. Thus, as maps
accumulated, the need of uniformity, especially in those that referred
to general geography, was felt more and more.
This explains why this question of a single meridian as a starting
point has been so often raised of late.
Among the assemblies which have occupied themselves with this
question, the one which principally calls for our attention is that
which was held at Rome last year; indeed, for many of our colleagues
the conclusions adopted by the Congress of Rome settle the whole
matter. These conclusions must, therefore, receive our special
attention.
In reading the reports of the discussions of that Congress, I was
struck with the fact that in an assembly of so many learned men and
eminent theorists it was the practical side of the question that was
chiefly considered, and which finally determined the character of the
resolutions adopted.
Thus, instead of laying down the great principle that the meridian to
be offered to the world as the starting-point for all terrestrial
longitudes should, have above all things, an essentially geographical
and impersonal character, the question was simply asked, which one of
the meridians in use among the different observatories has (if I may
be allowed to use the expression) the largest number of clients? In a
matter which interests geography much more than hydrography, as most
sailors acknowledge, because there exist really but two initial
hydrographic meridians, Greenwich and Paris, a prime meridian has been
taken, the reign (practical influence) of which is principally over
the sea; and this meridian, instead of being chosen with reference to
the configuration of the continents, is borrowed from an observatory;
that is to say, that it is placed on the globe in a hap-hazard manner,
and is very inconveniently situated for the function that it is to
perform. Finally, instead of profiting by the lessons of the past,
national rivalries are introduced in a question that should rally the
good-will of all.
Well, gentlemen, I say that considerations of economy and of
established custom should not make us lose sight of the principles
which must be paramount in this question, and which alone can lead to
the universal acceptance and permanence of its settlement.
Furthermore, gentlemen, these motives of economy and of established
custom, which have been appealed to as a decisive argument, exist, it
is true, for the majority in behalf of which they have been put
forward, but exist for them only, and leave to us the whole burden of
change in customs, publications, and material.
Since the report considers us of so little weight in the scales, allow
me, gentlemen, to recall briefly the past and the present of our
hydrography, and for that purpose I can do no better than to quote
from a work that has been communicated to me, and which emanates from
one of our most learned hydrographers. "France," he says, "created
more than two centuries ago the most ancient nautical ephemerides in
existence. She was the first to conceive and execute the great
geodetic operations which had for their object the construction of
civil and military maps and the measurement of arcs of the meridian in
Europe, America, and Africa. All these operations were and are based
on the Paris meridian. Nearly all the astronomical tables used at the
present time by the astronomers and the navies of the whole world are
French, and calculated for the Paris meridian. As to what most
particularly concerns shipping, the accurate methods now used by all
nations for hydrographic surveys are of French origin, and our charts,
all reckoned from the meridian of Paris, bear such names as those of
Bougainville, La Pérouse, Fleurieu, Borda, d'Entrecasteaux, Beautemps,
Beaupré, Duperrey, Dumont d'Urville, Daussy, to quote only a few among
those who are not living.
"Our actual hydrographic collections amount to more than 4,000 charts.
By striking off those which the progress of explorations have rendered
useless, there still remain about 2,600 charts in use. Of this number
more than half represent original French surveys, a large part of
which foreign nations have reproduced. Amongst the remainder, the
general charts are the result of discussions undertaken in the Bureau
of the Marine, by utilizing all known documents, French as well as
foreign, and there are relatively few which are mere translations of
foreign works. Our surveys are not confined to the coasts of France
and of its colonies; there is scarcely a region of the globe for which
we do not possess original work--Newfoundland, the coasts of Guiana,
of Brazil, and of La Plata, Madagascar, numerous points of Japan and
of China, 187 original charts relative to the Pacific. We must not
omit the excellent work of our hydrographic engineers on the west
coast of Italy, which was honored by the international jury with the
great medal of honor at the Universal Exhibition of 1867. The
exclusive use of the Paris meridian by our sailors is justified by
reference to a past of two centuries, which we have thus briefly
recalled.
"If another initial meridian had to be adopted, it would be necessary
to change the graduation of our 2,600 hydrographic plates; it would be
necessary to do the same thing for our nautical instructions, (sailing
directions,) which exceed 600 in number. The change would also
necessarily involve a corresponding change in the _Connaissance des
Temps_."
These are titles to consideration of some importance. Well, if under
these circumstances the projected reform, instead of being directed by
the higher principles which ought to govern the subject, should take
solely for its base the respect due to the established customs of the
largest number and the absence on their part of all sacrifice,
reserving to us alone the burden of the change and the abandonment of
a valued and glorious past, are we not justified in saying that a
proposition thus made would not be acceptable?
When France, at the end of the last century, instituted the metre, did
she proceed thus? Did she, as a measure of economy and in order to
change nothing in her customs, propose to the world the "Pied de Roi"
as a unit of measure? You know the facts. The truth is, everything
with us was overthrown--both the established methods and instruments
for measurement; and the measure adopted being proportioned only to
the dimensions of the earth, is so entirely detached from everything
French that in future centuries the traveller who may search the ruins
of our cities may inquire what people invented the metrical measure
that chance may bring under his eyes.
Permit me to say that it is thus a reform should be made and becomes
acceptable. It is by setting the example of self-sacrifice; it is by
complete self-effacement in any undertaking, that opposition is
disarmed and true love of progress is proved.
I now hasten to say that I am persuaded that the proposition voted for
at Rome was neither made nor suggested by England, but I doubt whether
it would render a true service to the English nation if it be agreed
to. An immense majority of the navies of the world navigate with
English charts; that is true, and it is a practical compliment to the
great maritime activity of that nation. When this freely admitted
supremacy shall be transformed into an official and compulsory
supremacy, it will suffer the vicissitudes of all human power, and
that institution, (the common meridian,) which by its nature is of a
purely scientific nature, and to which we would assure a long and
certain future, will become the object of burning competition and
jealousy among nations.
All this shows, gentlemen, how much wiser it would be to take for the
origin of terrestrial longitude a point chosen from geographical
considerations only. Upon the globe, nature has so sharply separated
the continent on which the great American nation has arisen, that
there are only two solutions possible from a geographical point of
view, both of them very natural.
The first solution would consist in returning, with some small
modification, to the solution of the ancients, by placing our meridian
near the Azores; the second by throwing it back to that immense
expanse of water which separates America from Asia, where on its
northern shores the New World abuts on the old.
These two solutions may be discussed; this has been often done, and
again quite recently, by one of our ablest geologists, M. de
Chancourtois.
Each of these meridians combine the fundamental conditions which
geography demands and upon which there has always been an agreement
when national meridians are set aside from the discussion. As to the
determination of the position of the point which may be adopted, the
present excellent astronomical methods will give it with a degree of
exactness as great as that which geography requires.
But what is the necessity for a special and costly determination of
the longitude of a point which can be fixed arbitrarily, provided this
be done within certain limits, as for instance by satisfying the
conditions of passing through a strait or an island. We may be content
with fixing the position of the point adopted in an approximate
manner. The position thus obtained would be connected with certain of
the great observatories selected for the purpose from their being
accurately connected one with another, and the relative positions thus
ascertained would supply the definition of the first meridian. As to
any material mark on the globe, if one be desired, though it is in no
manner necessary, it would be established in conformity with this
definition, and its position should be changed until it exactly
complied with it.
As to the question of the changes to be introduced in existing maps
and charts which, by our proposition, would be imposed upon everybody,
they could be very much reduced, especially if it were agreed--which
would be sufficient at first--to draw upon existing charts only a
subsidiary additional scale of graduation which would permit immediate
use of the international meridian. Later, and as new charts were
engraved, a more complete scale of graduation would be given; but I
think that it would always be desirable to preserve in the manner now
done in many atlases both systems of reckoning longitude--the national
and international. If it be necessary at the present time to
facilitate the external relations of all nations, it is also well to
preserve among them all manifestations of personal life, and to
respect the symbols which represent their traditions and past history.
Gentlemen, I do not propose to dwell upon the details of the
establishment of such a meridian. We have only to advocate before you
the principle of its acceptance.
If this principle be admitted by the Congress, we are instructed to
say that you will find in it a ground for agreement with France.
Without doubt, on account of our long and glorious past, of our great
publications, of our important hydrographic works, a change of
meridian would cause us heavy sacrifices. Nevertheless, if we are
approached with offers of self-sacrifice, and thus receive proofs of a
sincere desire for the general good, France has given sufficient
proofs of her love of progress to make her co-operation certain.
But we shall have to regret that we are not able to join a combination
which to protect the interests of one portion of the contracting
parties would sacrifice the more weighty scientific character of the
meridian to be adopted, a character which in our eyes is indispensable
to justify its imposition upon all, and to assure it permanent
success.
Prof. J. C. ADAMS, Delegate of Great Britain, stated that if he were
allowed to offer a few observations upon the eloquent address made by
his colleague, the representative of France, Mr. JANSSEN, he would
remark that, so far as he could follow that discourse, it seemed to
him to turn almost entirely on sentimental considerations; that it
appeared to him that the Delegate of France had overlooked one great
point which was correctly laid down by the President in his opening
address, viz., that one of the main objects to be kept in view in the
deliberations of this Conference would be, how best to secure the
aggregate convenience of the world at large--how we should choose a
prime meridian which would cause the least inconvenience by the change
that would take place. Of course, any change would necessarily be
accompanied by a certain amount of inconvenience, but our object, as
he understood it, was to take care that that inconvenience should be
as small in its aggregate amount as possible.
He stated that if that were taken as the ground of consideration by
this Conference, it appeared to him that the question was narrowed to
one of fact rather than to be one of sentiment, which latter would
admit of no solution whatever; for it was quite clear that if all the
Delegates here present were guided by merely sentimental
considerations, or by considerations of _amour propre_, the Conference
would never arrive at any conclusion, because each nation would put
its own interests on a level with those of every other.
He added that if the Conference should be able to agree in the opinion
that the adoption of one meridian (for his part he did not undertake
to say what meridian) would be accompanied by a greater amount of
convenience in the aggregate than the adoption of any other, he
thought that this should be the predominant consideration in guiding
the decision of this Conference, on the question referred to them, and
it appeared to him that this is a consideration which the Delegate of
France has not put before this Conference, at least not in a prominent
way. It is clear that the inconvenience caused to any one nation by
the adoption of a new neutral meridian would not be lessened by the
fact that all other nations would suffer the same inconvenience.
With respect to the question of a neutral meridian, Professor ADAMS
wished to call the attention of the Congress to the fact that the
Delegates here present are not a collection of representatives of
belligerents; that they are all neutral as men should be in a matter
purely scientific, or in any other matter which affects the
convenience of the world at large, and that this Conference is not met
here at the end of a war to see how territory should be divided, but
in a friendly way, representing friendly nations.
He stated that he hoped the Delegates would be guided in their
decision by the main consideration, which was, What will tend to the
greatest practical convenience of the world? That he need not address
a word to the other part of the argument which he thought at first of
commenting upon a little, for the Delegate of the United States,
Commander SAMPSON, who spoke first, had put his views so clearly
before the Conference that he (Professor ADAMS) would not detain it
longer.
He would add, however, that if the Conference is to take a neutral
meridian they must either erect an observatory on the point selected,
which might be very inconvenient if they should choose such a point as
is alluded to by the Delegate of France, or if some such place was not
selected, we should merely have a zero of longitude by a legal
fiction, and that would not be a real zero at all; that they would
have to select their zero with reference to a known observatory, and
that, for instance, supposing they took a point for zero twenty
degrees west of Paris, of course that would be really adopting Paris
as the prime meridian; that it would not be so nominally, but in
reality it would be, and he thought that we now-a-days should get rid
of legal fictions as much as possible, and call things by their right
names.
Mr. JANSSEN, Delegate of France, said: