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
change in charts or nautical tables, beyond the notation of longitude.
It would possess all the advantage claimed for the Greenwich meridian
in connection with navigation, and as a zero for regulating time it
would be greatly to be preferred to the Greenwich meridian. This
Pacific meridian being accepted as the common zero, and longitude
being reckoned continuously in one direction, there would be an end to
the necessity of any nation engraving on its charts the words
"longitude east or west of Greenwich." The one word "longitude" would
suffice. The zero meridian would be international and in no respect
national. Even on British charts all reference to Greenwich would
disappear.
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
conditions for its adoption. Thus the meridian situated 180° from
Greenwich presents the following advantages:--
"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 a meridian as that
contemplated in the motion of the honorable delegates. Whatever its
origin, the Pacific meridian referred to would soon be recognized as
being as much neutral as any meridian could possibly be. If, on the
other hand, we adopt the motion, I very greatly fear that the great
object of this Conference will be defeated, and the settlement of a
question so pregnant with advantages to the world will be indefinitely
postponed.
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 proposes
that the meridian adopted should have a neutral character, and should
not cross either of the great continents of Europe or America. This
proposition, gentlemen, has been strongly resisted by the Delegates of
Great Britain and the United States, and firmly maintained by the
Delegates of France, and the debates which followed gave us an
opportunity of being present at a scientific tournament of the highest
interest. The speakers whom we have had the honor of hearing seem to
me to have exhausted all the arguments for and against, and at the
present stage of the discussion I presume that these debates have
permitted each one of us to form, with a full knowledge of the case,
an opinion upon the question on which we are called to vote.
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 of opinion which have manifested themselves in this
Congress permit scarcely a hope of this result. For my part,
gentlemen, I cannot lose sight of the fact that it is indispensable
that the question for which this Congress is assembled should receive
a complete settlement; if not, the purpose of the Congress will not be
attained. Since the Delegates of France have manifested from the
begining of our discussions their opposition to the adoption of any
meridian which had a national character, which has given rise to the
motion presented by Mr. JANSSEN, it follows that every measure voted
by the Congress tending to the adoption of a national meridian, will
be, by the very fact of the abstention of France, an incomplete
measure, and which will not answer the purpose sought by the
Conference. I hasten to add, in order to avoid all erroneous
interpretations which could be given to my words, that it would be the
same, if, for instance, the meridian of Paris was proposed, and any
great maritime nation, such as England, the United States, or any
other, should abstain from voting for its adoption. In that case,
also, the measure adopted would not be complete, and in that case,
also, my line of conduct would be the same.
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 unite in their support, at present,
scientific men without distinction of nationality who are now awaiting
our decision.
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:
"_Resolved_, That the initial meridian should have a
character of absolute neutrality. It should be chosen
exclusively so as to secure to science and to international
commerce all possible advantages, and especially should cut
no great continent--neither Europe nor America."
The PRESIDENT. Is the Conference ready for the question? No objection
being made, the roll was called, with the following result:
_Ayes_.
Brazil, San Domingo.
France,
_Noes_.
Austria, Germany,
Chili, Great Britain,
Colombia, Guatemala,
Costa Rica, Hawaii,
Italy, Spain,
Japan, Sweden,
Liberia, Switzerland,
Mexico, Turkey,
Netherlands, United States,
Paraguay, Venezuela.
Russia,
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 usage of the world at that time. The
wording of the resolution of the Conference at Rome is substantially
this: That the counting of longitude should take place from the
meridian of Greenwich in the single direction of west to east.
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:
"_Resolved_, That the Conference proposes to the Governments
here represented the adoption of the meridian passing
through the centre of the transit instrument at the
Observatory of Greenwich as the initial meridian for
longitude."
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.
"That a meridian proper, to be employed as a common zero in
the reckoning of longitude and the regulation of time
throughout the world, should be a great circle passing
through the poles and the centre of the transit instrument
at the Observatory of Greenwich."
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 is ambiguous. It
is the meridian that passes through the poles and the centre of the
transit instrument of the Observatory of Greenwich. That is the
language of the amendment. But it is intended to apply to only
one-half of the great circle passing through the poles, that is to the
distant half of the meridian rather than to the nearer half. Unless it
defines which half it is intended to take, the amendment is ambiguous,
and it is not proper to be voted on.
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 to the
distinguished Delegate from Spain that the question of weights and
measures is beyond the scope of this Conference. The invitation given
by the Government of the United States to the nations here represented
was for a distinct and specific purpose, the selection of a prime
meridian, a zero of longitude throughout the world and a standard of
time-reckoning. So far as the Chair is informed, it would not be in
order at this Conference to discuss a question of metric system.