to 180 degrees as positive, and in the opposite direction from zero to
180 degrees as negative, you are, no doubt, obliged to make a break in
passing abruptly from plus 180 degrees to minus 180 degrees. But the
break would then occur where it would cause the least inconvenience,
viz., in mid-ocean, where there is very little land and very few
inhabitants, and where we are accustomed to make the break now. This
will require no change in the habits and customs of the people, and no
inconvenience whatever would be caused by the action of the Conference
if it decides on this method, which also has the minor advantage of
not requiring the use of such large numbers as the other. But to adopt
the reckoning of longitude from zero to 360 degrees would involve a
very considerable change, and I think it may be doubted whether it
would be generally accepted. Under the circumstances, I think the
resolution contains the most expedient course for us to adopt. I do
not object to anybody who chooses to do so reckoning on, for certain
purposes, from zero to 360 degrees, but I do not think it would be
well to make it compulsory.
With regard to the proposal of the Delegate of Great Britain, Mr.
FLEMING, I would say that it would be attended with great
inconvenience, because it departs from the usages and habits now
existing. That, to my mind, is a very great and insuperable objection,
and I do not see any countervailing advantage.
With regard to the subject of time that Mr. Fleming is anxious to take
into consideration, I think that nothing can be simpler, if I may be
allowed to deal with the question of time, than the relation between
time and longitude which is proposed to be created by the resolution
of Mr. RUTHERFURD.
By that resolution the longitude indicates the relation between the
local time and the universal time in the simplest possible way. What
can be easier than the method involved in the resolution of Mr.
Rutherfurd? It is this: Local time at any place is equal to universal
time plus the longitude of the place, plus being understood always in
a mathematical sense. The longitude is to be added to the universal
time if it is positive, and subtracted if it is negative. That is very
simple, the whole being involved in one general formula.
Now, I think it is perfectly impossible for Mr. Fleming to make a more
simple formula than that. The formula laid down in the proceedings of
the Roman Conference was far less simple, as it involved an odd twelve
hours. You got the universal time equal to the local time, minus the
longitude, plus twelve hours. This is far from simple. It makes the
calculation more complicated, and it seems to me that for other
reasons it is objectionable.
Mr. RUTHERFURD, Delegate of the United States. Mr. President, I do not
propose to take up the time of the Conference in reiterating the very
conclusive remarks in favor of this resolution made by the Delegate of
Great Britain. I wish, however, to allude, for a moment, to another
view of this question. Suppose we do not adopt this resolution. What
is the course before the Conference? We shall then be called upon, no
doubt, to decide that longitude shall be counted all around the world
from zero to 360 degrees.
That general proposition is one which would not probably meet with
violent opposition, but the next point is one that will divide us very
materially, and perhaps disastrously. Which way shall we count? Shall
it be towards the east or towards the west?
My conversations with the gentlemen here present have lead me to know
that there is a very great difference of opinion upon this point, and
I believe that if we should not adopt this resolution and should
decide to count longitude from zero to 360 degrees, a preference to
count it in one direction rather than the other would be established
only by a very close vote, nearly annulling the whole moral influence
of the Conference, and we should go back to our Governments without
much, if any, authority on the point in question.
And I doubt whether our resolutions would be accepted by these
Governments if we show ourselves to be divided upon a question of so
much practical importance.
It is simply a question of practice--of convenience. We all bowed to
the rule of convenience in selecting the meridian of Greenwich. And
why? Because seven-tenths of the civilized nations of the world use
this meridian, not that it was intrinsically better than the meridian
of Paris, or Washington, or Berlin, or St. Petersburg. Nobody claimed
any scientific preference among these meridians. It was simply because
seven-tenths of the civilized world were already using the meridian of
Greenwich.
If we accept this argument in favor of the first resolution for
selecting the initial meridian, why should we not be equally inclined
to recognize the fact that all the civilized world count longitude in
both ways? There is no difference of opinion on that point. There is
no difference of usage. Shall we break that usage? Shall we introduce
a new system, which may or may not be found practical or agreeable?
Shall we not rather adopt the rule of all nations, already in use
among their practised astronomers and navigators, by saying continue
to do as you have already done?
Sir FREDERICK EVANS, Delegate of Great Britain. Having for many years
mixed among the practical seamen of more than one nation, I confess I
look with some dismay on any other system for the notation of
longitude being adopted than the one proposed in this resolution.
My colleague, Mr. FLEMING, made the remark that he could not
disassociate longitude from time. If he had mixed with seamen, he
would have found out that there is very frequently a well-defined
difference between the two in their minds. Longitude with seamen
means, independently of time, space, distance. It indicates so many
miles run in an east or west direction. Consequently, I am not able to
look upon longitude and time as being identical.
Under these circumstances, this resolution also, as I understand it,
should be considered on practical grounds.
The question of universal time will come on for consideration
hereafter, and how that may be settled seems to me a matter of
indifference compared with the decision on this resolution. I
question, for myself, whether any other plan than that it proposes
would be generally accepted. That is what I am afraid of. Whatever
respect nations may have for this Conference, public opinion would be
very strong upon the point now at issue. When you further recollect
that all around the globe, in all these various seas, there are
colonies with histories; that their geographical positions and
boundaries were originally recorded by longitude according to the
notation of which I have spoken, I think it is to be over sanguine to
expect that those colonies will accept a new notation of longitude
without greater proof of the positive necessity of the change. It
would not be the fiat of this Conference, or the fiat of any
government, that would bring about the change. I say this with all
deference to the opinions of those who have advocated a change.
General STRACHEY, Delegate of Great Britain. At the risk of repeating
somewhat my remarks made to the Congress when we last met, I would add
a few words to what has now been said. It is our wish that the points
of real difference should, as far as possible, be clearly brought out
before the Conference comes to a vote.
As regards the counting of longitude in two directions, and the degree
of advantage or disadvantage that may arise in starting from zero and
treating east longitude as positive or plus, and west longitude as
negative or minus, let me ask the attention of the Congress to the
fact that longitude is already counted in these two directions, and
that, as a matter of fact also, latitude is counted in the same way,
in both directions from the equator, north latitude being plus and
south latitude minus. Nobody, so far as I have heard, has ever
proposed that we should abolish this method of reckoning latitude, and
substitute for it North or South polar distance, to be counted right
round the earth; and yet there is the same _quasi_ scientific
objection to the present method of counting in the one case as in the
other. As already stated, it seems to me that, for purposes of
practical convenience, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible,
to separate the ideas on which the reckoning of longitude must be
based, from those which must regulate the reckoning of time, and
especially the reckoning of time in the sense of adopting a universal
day over the whole world. Now, it appears to me that, as regards the
acceptance of the universal day, it certainly will be anything but
convenient, if it begins and ends otherwise than when the sun passes
the 180th meridian. On the contrary, I think it will be extremely
inconvenient. I think that if the world were to adopt the meridian of
Greenwich as the origin of longitude, the natural thing for it to do
would be to have the international day, the universal day, begin from
the 180th meridian from Greenwich--that is, to coincide with the
Greenwich civil day. That meridian passes, as I said before, outside
of New Zealand, and outside of the Fijee Islands; it goes over only a
very small portion of inhabited country. It appears to me, therefore,
that inasmuch as there must be an absolute break or discontinuity in
time in passing round the earth--a break of twenty-four hours--it is
much more convenient that this break should take place in the
uninhabited part of the earth than in the very centre of civilization.
If we adopt the universal day which coincides with the civil day at
Greenwich, then you will be able to have complete continuity of local
time over the whole earth, in harmonious relation with the universal
day, except at the break which necessarily takes place on the 180th
meridian. Otherwise this will not be possible. For instance, according
to the system proposed by the resolution, the local time
corresponding, say, to 0 hours of Monday at Greenwich, would, in
passing round the earth to the eastward from the 180th meridian,
gradually change from 12 hours of Sunday to 12 hours of Monday; and,
on returning to that meridian, the break of time would occur, and one
day would appear to be lost. But complete continuity both in the days
and hours, and harmony with the universal day, that is, the Greenwich
civil day, would be preserved for the whole earth, excepting on
crossing the 180th meridian.
The result of the system which was proposed at Rome would be to cause
the break of dates to take place at Greenwich at noon, so that the
morning hours of the civil day would have a different universal date
from the afternoon hours, and this would be the case all over Europe.
But if the universal day be made to correspond to the civil day of
Greenwich, and the longitude is counted east in one direction and west
in another direction to the 180th meridian, these difficulties would
be overcome, and a perfectly simple rule would suffice for converting
local into universal time. As regards what was said upon the subject
of longitude being plus or minus, according as you move to the east or
west, it appears to me that there is a positive, clear, and rational
reason for calling longitude eastward plus and longitude westward
minus. The time is later to the east, and therefore the hour is
indicated by a higher number. In converting universal into local time,
if the place is east of Greenwich, you add the longitude to the
universal time, and therefore increase the number of the hour; if the
place be west of Greenwich, you subtract the longitude, and therefore
diminish the number of the hour. It is natural, therefore, to call
east longitude positive and the other negative.
It appears to me also that the passage of the sun over the meridian
is, in reality, what may be called the index of the day, the day
consisting of 24 hours, distributed equally on either side of the
meridian. Noon of the universal day would thus coincide with the time
of the sun passing the initial meridian. There is perfect consistency,
therefore, in adopting the reckoning of longitude and time that is
proposed in the resolution before us. It is a rational and symmetrical
method.
Mr. JUAN PASTORIN, the Delegate of Spain. I listened with great
pleasure to the observations which our honorable colleague, the
Delegate of England, General STRACHEY, has just made.
I am not sufficiently acquainted with the English tongue to make a
speech, though I know it well enough to follow the debate. Moreover,
as I had beforehand studied the subject which is now before us, I have
quite well understood all that has been said on this point. I proposed
an amendment yesterday, in order to obtain what I consider the most
simple formula for converting local time into cosmical time. This
formula is not, perhaps, the most suitable for astronomers and
sailors, but they form the minority, and it is, I am sure, the easiest
for the mass of the people. This formula would be based on the
considerations which are now under discussion. I am not sufficiently
familiar with the language to give the reasons upon which I based my
amendment, but, as I demonstrated in the pamphlet which I had the
honor of addressing to my learned colleagues, the means, in my
opinion, of obtaining the simplest and the most suitable formula is to
make the beginning of civil time and of dates on the first meridian
coincide with the cosmical time and date, and to count longitude
continuously in the same direction from the initial meridian. This is
what I proposed to obtain by my amendment.
Count LEWENHAUPT, Delegate of Sweden. Mr. President, I now propose
that the Conference take a recess for a few moments before a vote is
taken upon the resolution.
No objection being made to the motion, the President announced that a
recess would be taken until the Chair called the Conference to order.
THE PRESIDENT, having called the Conference to order, said. The recess
has given an opportunity for an interchange of opinion upon the
subject pending, and if the Conference be ready the vote will now be
taken.
Commander SAMPSON, Delegate of the United States. Mr. President, I
think that the informal discussion which we have had upon this
question of the method of counting longitude must lead to the
conclusion that there is a great difference of opinion. So far as I
have been able to learn, many of the delegates have come here
instructed to favor the resolution adopted by the Roman Conference. It
is my own opinion that the recommendation to count longitude
continuously from the prime meridian from west to east, as recommended
by the conference at Rome, is not so good as the proposition now
before us. Personally, however, I would prefer to see it counted
continuously from east to west, as being more in conformity with
present usage among astronomers. But, as it appears that so many
delegates are instructed by their Governments to favor counting in the
opposite direction, and as, if this Congress adopts any other plan
than that proposed by the Conference at Rome, they will have to lay
before their Governments as the action of this Congress something that
will be opposed to the recommendation of the Roman Conference, and as
these two recommendations would naturally tend to neutralize each
other, I would favor the proposition which is now before us as being
the most expedient.
I would suggest, however, that, instead of making a positive
declaration upon the question, we leave it as it now stands; that is
to say, that longitude shall be counted east and west from the prime
meridian, without specifying which direction shall be considered
positive, and declare it to be the opinion of this Congress that it is
not expedient to change the present method of counting longitude both
ways from the prime meridian.
Count LEWENHAUPT, Delegate from Sweden. In my opinion the delegates
have not undertaken to recommend the resolutions adopted by a majority
of the Conference, but only the resolutions for which they have
themselves voted. As regards the fact that there may be great
differences of opinion concerning the questions which remain for our
consideration, I am unable to see in it any reason for our not
proceeding to vote upon them. On the contrary it will be of great
interest to our Governments to know the exact position taken by each
of the delegates, and even if any delegate should abstain from voting,
such abstention would be of interest in the event of future
negotiations on the subject. I am therefore of opinion that we should
proceed to vote on the remaining resolutions.
The vote was then taken upon the resolution of the Delegate of the
United States, Mr. RUTHERFURD, which is as follows:
"_Resolved_, That from this meridian (_id est_, Greenwich)
longitude shall be counted in two directions up to 180
degrees, east longitude being plus and west longitude
minus."
The following States voted in the affirmative:
Chili, Liberia,
Colombia, Mexico,
Costa Rica, Paraguay,
Great Britain, Russia,
Guatemala, Salvador,
Hawaii, United States,
Japan, Venezuela.
The following States voted in the negative:
Italy, Sweden,
Netherlands, Switzerland.
Spain,
The following States abstained from voting:
Austria-Hungary, Germany,
Brazil, San Domingo,
France, Turkey.
Ayes, 14; noes, 5; abstaining, 6.
The PRESIDENT then announced that the resolution was adopted.
Mr. RUTHERFURD, Delegate of the United States. Mr. President, I now
propose to read the third resolution from the printed circular which
has been furnished to the delegates. It is as follows:
"_Resolved_, That the Conference proposes the adoption of a
universal day for all purposes for which it may be found
convenient, and which shall not interfere with the use of
local time where desirable. This universal day is to be a
mean solar day; is to begin for all the world at the moment
of midnight of the initial meridian coinciding with the
beginning of the civil day and date of that meridian, and is
to be counted from zero up to twenty-four hours."
This resolution is somewhat complex, and in order to facilitate
debate, I propose that we first occupy ourselves only with the first
clause, namely:
"_Resolved_, That the Conference proposes the adoption of a
universal day for all purposes for which it may be found
convenient, and which shall not interfere with the use of
local time where desirable."
After having disposed of that clause we can proceed to dispose of the
other parts of the resolution.
The PRESIDENT. You propose, then, to divide the resolution as printed
in the circular into two resolutions, and you now offer the first part
for consideration.
Mr. RUTHERFURD, Delegate of the United States. If that is the more
convenient form of putting it, it meets my views. It will be more easy
to discuss the subject, more easy to arrive at a decision, in that
form.
M. le Comte ALBERT DE FORESTA, Delegate of Italy. I propose as an
amendment the fifth resolution of the Roman Conference, which reads as
follows:
"The Conference recognizes, for certain scientific needs and
for the internal service of great administrations of ways of
communications, such as those of railroads, lines of
steamships, telegraphic and postal lines, the utility of
adopting a universal time, in connection with local or
national times, which will necessarily continue to be
employed in civil life."
The PRESIDENT. The question is now upon the amendment offered by the
Delegate of Italy.
Professor ABBE, Delegate of the United States. I would like to ask
whether this amendment adds anything substantially to the resolution.
I think it does not. It simply specifies the details of the resolution
pending before us. That resolution "proposes the adoption of a
universal day for all purposes for which it may be found convenient."
That is general. The amendment merely specifies certain of these
purposes. That is a matter of detail.
Mr. ALLEN, Delegate of the United States. Mr. President, I desire to
offer an amendment to the amendment, as follows:
"Civil or local time is to be understood as the mean time of
the approximately central meridian of a section of the
earth's surface, in which a single standard of time may be
conveniently used."
Mr. RUTHERFURD, Delegate of the United States. Mr. President, it does
not seem to me that it is within the competence of this Conference to
define what is local time. That is a thing beyond us.
Mr. W. F. ALLEN, Delegate of the United States, then said: Mr.
President and gentlemen, all efforts to arrive at uniformity in
scientific or every-day usage originate in a desire to attain greater
convenience in practice. The multiplicity of coins of which the
relative value can only be expressed by fractions, the various common
standards of weights and of measures, are inconvenient both to the
business man and the scientist. Alike inconvenient to both are the
diverse standards of time by which the cities of the world are
governed, differing, as they do, by all possible fractions of hours.
All coins have a relative and interchangeable value based upon their
weight and fineness. Weights and measures remain the same by whatever
unit they may be expressed; but, primarily, time can only be measured
by a standard actually or apparently in motion. Absolutely accurate
mean local time, varying, as it does, by infinitesimal differences at
every point in the circuit of the earth, may be shown on a stationary
object, but cannot in general be kept by an individual or object in
motion. The mean local time of some fixed point in each locality must
be taken as the standard for practical use. The important question to
be determined is, over what extent of territory, measuring east and
west from such fixed point, its mean time may be employed for all
ordinary purposes without inconvenience. This can be absolutely
determined only by practical experience.
Careful study of this phase of this subject led, perhaps, more
directly than any one single cause, to the proposal of the detailed
system of standard time which now satisfactorily controls the
operations of one hundred and twenty thousand miles of railway in the
United States and Canada, and governs the movements of fifty millions
of people.
Before the recent change there were a number of localities where
standards of time were exclusively employed which varied as much as
thirty minutes, both on the east and the west, from mean local time,
without appreciable inconvenience to those using them. From this fact
the conclusion was inevitable that within those limits a single
standard might be employed. The result has proved this conclusion to
have been well founded.
No public reform can be accomplished unless the evil to be remedied
can be made plainly apparent. That an improvement will be effected
must be clearly demonstrated, or the new status of affairs which will
exist after the change, must be shown to have been already
successfully tried. Here, as in law, custom and precedent are all
powerful. It would be a difficult task to secure the general adoption
of any system of time-reckoning which cannot be employed by all
classes of the community. Business men would refuse to regard as a
reform any proposition which introduced diversity where uniformity now
exists, nor would railway managers consent to adopt for their own use
a standard of time not coinciding with or bearing a ready relation to
the standard employed in other business circles. To adopt the time of
a universal day for all transportation purposes throughout the world,
and to use it collaterally with local time, would simply restore, and
possibly still more complicate, the very condition of things in this
country which the movement of last year was intended to and did to a
great extent obviate. Railway managers desire that the time used in
their service shall be either precisely the same as that used by the
public, or shall differ from it at as few points as possible, and then
by the most readily calculated differences. The public, on the other
hand, have little use for absolutely accurate time, except in
connection with matters of transportation, but will refuse to adopt a
standard which would materially alter their accustomed habits of
thought and of language in every-day life. That this position is
absurd may be argued, and, perhaps, admitted, but it is a fact, and
one which cannot be disregarded.
The adoption of the universal day or any system of time-reckoning
based upon infrequent--such as the great quadrant--meridians, to be
used by transportation lines collaterally with local time, is,
therefore, practically impossible.