resolutions of the Roman Conference) side by side with the local time,
for international telegraphic correspondence, and for through
international lines by railroads and steamers.
We fully accept the resolution of the Roman Conference concerning the
introduction of the system of counting the hours of the universal day
from 0 to 24; and we think it desirable that the same system should be
introduced for counting the hours in ordinary life. This would greatly
contribute to the disappearance of the arbitrary division of the day
into two parts, a. m. and p. m., and to an easier transition from
local to universal time.
We think it advisable to mark on all general maps the meridians in
time as well as in degrees of longitude, which would render the reform
familiar to the public, and facilitate its introduction in the
education of the young.
On maritime charts the longitudes ought to be given in degrees, as
these are necessary for the determination of distances in maritime
miles.
The topographical maps may maintain temporarily their national
meridian, in consequence of the difficulties of the modification of
the co-ordinates for plates already engraved; but it would be
necessary to mark on every sheet the difference between the national
and the initial universal meridian in degrees of longitude.
It would be most desirable to have in all new geographical catalogues
of astronomical and geodetical points the longitudes given in degrees
as well as in time, and that in these new catalogues the new initial
meridian be taken as the starting point for the longitudes.
The PRESIDENT. The Chair has listened with great interest and pleasure
to the paper which has just been read by the Delegate of Russia, Mr.
DE STRUVE, but the Chair begs to state that there is no resolution
before the Conference.
The PRESIDENT. The Chair will now direct the second resolution to be
read.
The resolution was read, as follows:
"From this meridian" (_i.e._, the meridian passing through
the centre of the transit instrument at the Observatory at
Greenwich) "longitude shall be counted in two directions up
to 180 degrees, east longitude being plus and west longitude
minus."
Mr. RUTHERFURD, Delegate of the United States. Mr. President, In
submitting this resolution to the Conference, I wish to say that the
remarks of the Delegate of Russia have increased my confidence in the
belief of its propriety.
Mr. W. F. ALLEN, Delegate of the United States. Mr. President, the
establishment of a prime meridian has, from the force of
circumstances, become of practical importance to certain interests
entrusted with vast responsibilities for the safety of life and
property. These interests bear an important relation to the commerce
of the world, and especially to the internal commerce of an extent of
country embracing within its limits about sixty-five degrees of
longitude. Exactness of time reckoning is an imperative necessity in
the conduct of business.
On November 18, 1883, the several railway companies of the United
States and the Dominion of Canada united in the adoption of the mean
local times of the seventy-fifth, ninetieth, one hundred and fifth,
and one hundred and twentieth meridians, west from Greenwich, as the
standards of time for the operation of their roads. The system under
which they have since been working has proved satisfactory. They have
no desire to make any further change. A large majority of the people
in the several sections of the country through which the railways pass
have either by mutual consent or special legislation adopted for their
local use, for all purposes, the standards of time employed by the
adjacent roads. Upon the public and working railway time-tables
generally the fact has been published that the trains are run by the
time of the seventy-fifth or ninetieth, etc., meridians, as the case
may be.
The same standards are used by the Railway Mail Service of the United
States Post-office Department, which had previously used Washington
time exclusively for through schedules.
It will at once be apparent how undesirable any action would be to the
transportation interests of this country, which should so locate the
prime meridian as to require these time-standard meridians to be
designated by other than exact degrees of longitude. That these
standard meridians should continue to be designated as even multiples
of fifteen degrees from Greenwich is regarded as decidedly preferable.
To change to different standards, based upon exact degrees of some
other prime meridian, would require an amount of legislation very
difficult to obtain.
At a convention of the managers of many important railway lines which
control through their connections fully three-fourths of the entire
railway system of this country, held in Philadelphia on October 9,
1884, certain action was taken, of which I have the honor to present a
duly attested copy.
"At a meeting of the _General Railway Time Convention_, held
in _Philadelphia, October 9th, 1884_, the following minute
was unanimously adopted:
"_Whereas_, An International Conference is now in session at
Washington, D. C., for the purpose of fixing upon a prime
meridian and standard of time-reckoning; and
"_Whereas_, The railway companies of the United States and
Canada have adopted a system of time standards based,
respectively, upon the mean local times of the 75th, 90th,
105th, and 120th meridians west from Greenwich, and this
system has proved so satisfactory in its working as to
render any further change inexpedient and unnecessary;
therefore
"_Resolved_, That it is the opinion of this Convention that
the selection of any prime meridian which would change the
denomination of these governing meridians from even degrees
and make them fractional in their character would be
disturbing in no small measure to the transportation lines
of the United States and Canada.
"_Resolved_, That a duly attested copy of these resolution
be presented to the Conference."
P. P. WRIGHT,
_Chairman._
Attest: HENRY B. STONE,
_Secretary pro tempore_.
Count LEWENHAUPT, Delegate of Sweden. Mr. President, I propose as an
amendment to the resolution just offered the fourth resolution adopted
by the Congress at Rome:
"It is proper to count longitude from the meridian of
Greenwich in one direction from west to east."
Baron H. VON ALVENSLEBEN, Delegate of Germany. Mr. President, I beg to
state that I think that this is only a question of detail; and, if the
question is put to the Conference, I shall not be able to vote, and I
shall abstain from voting.
The PRESIDENT. May I ask the Delegate from Germany whether his remark
applies to the amendment?
Baron H. VON ALVENSLEBEN, Delegate of Germany. Yes, sir; to the
amendment, and to the resolution, also.
Prof. ADAMS, Delegate of England. Mr. President, I must say that I am
very much inclined to agree with the Delegate of Germany in the
opinion that this is only a question of detail.
It is a mere matter of convenience whether we count longitudes in one
direction only, or in two opposite directions, considering longitudes
measured in one direction as positive and in the opposite direction as
negative. These two methods are nominally different from each other,
but in reality there is no contradiction between them.
In the mathematical reckoning of angles we may agree to begin at zero,
and reckon in one direction round the entire circumference of 360
degrees, but this does not prevent a mathematician, if he finds it
convenient for any purpose, from reckoning angles as positive when
measured in one direction, and negative when measured in the opposite
direction.
If angles be considered positive when reckoned towards the east, it is
quite consistent with this usage that they should be considered
negative when reckoned towards the west.
It is much more convenient to consider all angles as positive in
astronomical tables, but for other purposes it may be more convenient
to employ negative angles also, especially when, by so doing, you
avoid the use of large numbers.
In comparatively small countries, like Great Britain for instance, it
is more convenient when giving the longitude of a place in the west of
England to consider it as being a few degrees west of Greenwich,
rather than 350 and some degrees to the east of that meridian.
Commander SAMPSON, Delegate of the United States. Mr. President, while
I think the question of reckoning longitude is a matter of detail, I
think it devolves upon us to decide it one way or the other.
Navigators are more interested in the question than mathematicians,
and the longitudes must be engraved upon our hydrographic charts.
Now, as the learned Delegate of Great Britain, Prof. ADAMS, who has
just spoken, has stated, the principle involved is the same, whether
we reckon east or west, or reckon continuously in the same direction.
It seems to me, however, that when we come to consider the reckoning
of longitude in connection with the adoption of a universal day, we
should then make a decided choice in favor of counting longitude from
zero to 360 degrees. If we adopt the resolution which my friend, the
Delegate of the United States, Mr. RUTHERFURD, has offered, it will be
in perfect conformity with the habits of the world. For that reason,
and it is a very strong reason, I think it might be adopted; but a
little consideration will show that if we reckon the longitude from
zero to 360 degrees, east to west, then we will change the existing
practice of reckoning longitude; but, of course, only in one
hemisphere, and that will be eastward of the prime meridian; but, as
we shall all remember, to the eastward of the prime meridian we have
the main portions of the continents of Asia, Europe, and Africa, and
in all the navigable water lying in the other hemisphere the longitude
will continue to be reckoned as now. To navigators of the water lying
to the eastward of the prime meridian there will be a change in the
method of counting longitude both ways, it would be necessary to adopt
two different rules for converting local into universal time.
Prof. ADAMS, Delegate of Great Britain. Oh! no; by no means.
Commander SAMPSON, Delegate of the United States. For although one
rule would answer, by having regard to the algebraical sign affecting
the longitude, it must be remembered that this rule is to be applied
by many who are not accustomed to distinguishing east and west
longitudes by a difference of sign, and who would therefore require
one rule when the longitude is east and another when it is west. If,
however, we adopt the method of reckoning from zero to 360 degrees,
from east to west, the relation existing between the local and the
universal time becomes the simplest possible. To obtain the universal
date and hour, under these circumstances, it only becomes necessary to
add the longitude to the local time, understanding by local time the
local date as well as the local hour. I think, for this reason, it
will be preferable to reckon the longitude in one direction from east
to west, instead of west to east.
Sir FREDERICK EVANS, Delegate of Great Britain. I would like to
present a few words on behalf of seamen. There is clearly an important
change proposed by the amendment. In the resolution before us it is
simply a question of the reckoning of longitude as now employed by
seamen of all nations, and I think it would be well to keep that fact
separate from the reckoning of time.
The PRESIDENT. The Chair begs to state that the discussion is now upon
the amendment of the Delegate of Sweden, Count LEWENHAUPT, to adopt
the fourth resolution of the Congress at Rome.
Sir FREDERICK EVANS, Delegate of Great Britain. Then I consider that,
in the interest of seamen, it would be very undesirable to accept the
amendment. We must recollect that an immense deal of the world's
traffic is carried around the world entirely by sea, and that this
proposed dislocation of the methods of seamen by reckoning longitude
in one direction only would, to say the least, be extremely
inconvenient, and it would require considerable time for them to get
into the habit of doing so. I think, however, that as to the question
of time, there would be no difference of opinion; doubtless, it is the
easier method; but, as we have to look at the practical side of this
calculation of longitude, I must certainly disagree with the amendment
and vote for the original resolution.
Mr. JUAN PASTORIN, Delegate of Spain, then presented the following
amendment:
"_Resolved_, That the Conference proposes to the Governments
here represented that longitude shall be counted from the
prime meridian westward, in the direction opposite to the
terrestrial rotation, and reckoned from zero degrees to 360
degrees, and from zero hours to 24 hours."
The PRESIDENT. The question before the Conference now is the amendment
of the Delegate of Sweden. If the Delegate of Spain desires to offer
his resolution as an amendment to the amendment already offered, the
Chair will place it before the Conference.
Mr. JUAN PASTORIN, Delegate of Spain. I am in accord with the views
expressed by our colleague, Commander SAMPSON, and I propose the
resolution which I have just presented.
Mr. VALERA, the Delegate of Spain. I believe the amendment proposed by
my colleague, Mr. PASTORIN, Delegate of Spain, does not apply to the
amendment of the Delegate of Sweden, but to the original resolution.
In order to avoid all ambiguity it would be much better to discuss
them one after the other. Therefore let us decide the question whether
it is better to count up to 180° in each direction or up to 360°
continuously. Then we can go on to something else.
The PRESIDENT. In order to meet the views expressed by Mr. VALERA, the
Delegate of Spain, Mr. PASTORIN will withdraw his amendment, and the
Delegate of Sweden, Count LEWENHAUPT, will propose the substance of
his original resolution so modified in form that its details may be
considered separately.
Mr. JUAN PASTORIN, Delegate of Spain. In conformity with the statement
of the President, I now withdraw my amendment.
Count LEWENHAUPT, Delegate of Sweden. I beg to offer the following
propositions in the form of amendments to the original resolution
offered by the Delegate of the United States; these may be discussed
in succession:
"1. That from this prime meridian (the Greenwich meridian)
longitude shall be counted in one direction."
"2. That such longitude shall be counted from west to east."
Or, in place of No. 2--
"3. That such longitude shall be counted from east to west."
The PRESIDENT. The Delegates from Sweden and Spain have agreed as to
the first part of the resolution, that longitude shall be counted in
one direction--that is, from zero to 360 degrees. The question before
the Conference is now upon the first clause of the resolution, and the
other two will be subsequently discussed.
General STRACHEY, Delegate of Great Britain. I think it is impossible
to proceed to a vote upon these propositions without bearing in mind
what is to be decided as to the universal day. That day, as it appears
to me, will have to be determined with reference to the initial
meridian in such manner as to prevent, as far as possible,
inconvenience from discontinuity of local time and date in passing
around the world.
No matter how longitude is calculated, you must necessarily arrive at
discontinuity at some point in passing around the great circle of the
earth. It seems to me that the most convenient way of counting both
longitude and time is that the discontinuity in both shall take place
on the same point on the earth. Now, certainly, as was observed at
Rome, it will be far less inconvenient if the discontinuity of date
takes place on the meridian of 180 degrees from Greenwich. Then the
reckoning of local time all around the world, going from west to east
in the direction of the earth's rotation, will be continuous.
In any other way, as far as I can see, there will be a discontinuity
at some point on the inhabited part of the earth. If the
discontinuity were to take place on the meridian of Greenwich, as has
been proposed by the Conference at Rome, the dates will change there
during the daytime. That, as it appears to me, will be extremely
inconvenient.
In order to harmonize what I have called the discontinuity of date
with the discontinuity in the reckoning of longitude, it appears to me
that it will be best to reckon the longitude in both directions. There
will be no discontinuity then except on the 180th meridian. It would
be very inconvenient for a great part of the civilized world if the
resolution which has been offered should be adopted, if, as I presume
it would do, it caused discontinuity both in longitude and local time
in Europe.
After all, what are we here to endeavor to do? Notwithstanding what
has been said in the other direction, for my part I must say that the
great object before us is to secure the greatest convenience of the
whole civilized world, and it seems to me that we should try to obtain
it.
If there is no very strong reason for altering the existing system of
counting longitudes, it appears to me that this is a very excellent
reason in favor of maintaining it. I do not see myself that, for any
practical purpose, anything would be gained by reckoning longitude
from zero to 360 degrees. There may be some special scientific
purposes for which it may be convenient, but the object which this
resolution is intended to meet is of another character.
What we want is longitude for ordinary purposes, and on that hangs the
reckoning of universal time, which, of course, should be for the
general use of the whole world.
Professor ADAMS, Delegate of Great Britain. Mr. President, I doubt
whether I should trouble the Conference in reference to this point. I
think, however, that it is a matter of little importance whether we
consider longitude as positive, when reckoned toward the east, and
negative, when reckoned to the west, or go on in one direction from
zero to 360 degrees; it amounts, mathematically speaking, to the same
thing. We never can consider mathematical lines or angles as positive
in one direction, without implying that in the opposite direction
they are negative. One of these is merely the complement of the other.
For myself, I would say that there is no use in the Conference
resolving that we should count longitude only in the eastwardly
direction. The Conference may say that if longitude is reckoned
towards the east, it shall be considered positive, and, if reckoned
towards the west, negative; and that is all we should say. I do not
think it is within the competence of the Conference to say that
mathematicians shall reckon longitude only in one direction. Whether
you choose to reckon right through to 360 degrees or not is a matter
of detail, and of no importance in a scientific point of view. You can
adopt one style or the other, according to which is found the more
convenient in practice.
Mr. SANDFORD FLEMING, Delegate of Great Britain. I would suggest that
this matter of detail can very well be discussed and arranged by a
committee, otherwise, it may take up the whole time of the Conference.
I move, therefore, that a committee be appointed to take up this
matter and report upon it at the next meeting.
The PRESIDENT. The Chair desires only to carry out the wish of the
Conference, but it does not see clearly what we should gain by a
committee. Still, if it be the desire of the Conference to order a
committee, then the question will arise as to the organization of that
committee, and the Chair would feel some hesitation in appointing it.
Mr. RUTHERFURD, Delegate of the United States. Mr. President, if this
was a new question, in regard to which we had heard no discussion, it
would be eminently proper that we should put it into the hands of a
committee to formalize and thereby to shorten our deliberations; but
it seems to me that the appointment of a committee now would not help
us at all. When the report of that committee came in, we should have
to proceed exactly as we do now.
There are only three questions before the Conference, and they come
within very narrow limits. First, shall we count longitude both ways?
Second, shall we count it all around the 360 degrees? Third, if so, in
which direction is the counting to take place?
These are the only three questions, and, after all, they are questions
of convenience. We are just as capable of voting upon these
propositions now as we should be after the appointment of a committee.
Baron VON SCHÆFFER, Delegate of Austria-Hungary. Mr. President, I move
that we adjourn until to-morrow at one o'clock P.M.
The question upon the motion to adjourn was then put and adopted, and
the Conference accordingly adjourned at 3.45 P.M. until Tuesday, the
14th inst., at one o'clock P.M.
V.
SESSION OF OCTOBER 14, 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. 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. O. ADAMS,
Lieut.-General STRACHEY, Mr. SANDFORD FLEMING.
Guatemala: Mr. MILES ROCK.
Hawaii: Hon. W. D. ALEXANDER, Hon. LUTHER AHOLO.
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.
KOLOGRIVOFF.
San Domingo: Mr. DE J. GALVAN.
Salvador: Mr. ATONIO BATRES.
Spain: Mr. JUAN VALERA, Mr. EMILO RUIZ DEL ARBOL, Mr.
JUAN PASTORIN.
Sweden: Count CARL LEWENHAUPT.
Switzerland: Mr. 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: Señor Dr. A. M. SOTELDO.
Absent:
Denmark: Mr. C. S. A. DE BILLE.
The PRESIDENT:
The Chair begs leave to announce that, in the regular order of
business, the first matter before the Conference to-day would have
been the proposition of the Delegate of Great Britain, Mr. SANDFORD
FLEMING, that a committee be appointed to consider a report upon the
resolution offered by him yesterday. The Chair understood, however,
from Mr. FLEMING this morning that he had no desire to press that
proposition, and, therefore, it may be considered as withdrawn.
The question then would be upon the amendment offered by the Delegate
of Spain, Mr. JUAN PASTORIN, and if that amendment be withdrawn upon
the amendment offered by the Delegate of Sweden, Count LEWENHAUPT. The
Chair understands that both of those gentlemen desire to withdraw
their propositions temporarily, and, in that event, the first action
to be taken will be upon the resolution offered by the Delegate of the
United States, Mr. RUTHERFURD.
Mr. RUSTEM EFFENDI, Delegate of Turkey. In voting yesterday in favor
of the resolutions proposed by the Hon. Delegate of the United States,
I wish to have it well understood that my vote does not bind my
Government. I am, indeed, obliged to vote against any proposition
which would tend to bind it in any way, for I desire to leave it free
to act in the matter.
I engage to submit to my Government the result of our deliberations
and to recommend their adoption, but that is all. In other words, I
have only voted "_ad referendum_," and I ask that my statement be
entered in the protocol.
The PRESIDENT. The Chair would inform the Delegate who has just
spoken that the same statement was made by several delegates at a
former meeting of the Conference.
M. JANSSEN, Delegate of France. I believe that the very correct
doctrine just enunciated by the Delegate of Turkey, Mr. RUSTEM
EFFENDI, is the one adopted by all the members of the Congress, and
that we have all voted "_ad referendum_."
The PRESIDENT. The Chair so understood the general sense of the
Conference as expressed at one of our former meetings, when many of
the delegates made the same declaration.