uniformity in time-reckoning for practical purposes? Or does the
proposition for the general division of the earth's surface into
specified sections, governed by standards based upon meridians fifteen
degrees or one hour apart, supply the remedy? Objections have been
urged against this proposition on account of difficulties encountered,
or supposed to be encountered, in the vicinity of the boundary lines
between the sections. It is argued that the contact of two sections
with standards of time differing by one hour will cause numerous and
insuperable difficulties. In railway business, in which time is more
largely referred to than in any other, the experience of the past year
has proved this fear to be groundless. It is true that the approximate
local time of a number of cities near the boundary lines between the
eastern and central sections in the United States is still retained. A
curious chapter of incidents could be related which led to this
retention, not affecting, however, the merits of the case; but the
fact serves to show that changes much greater than thirty minutes from
local time would not be acceptable.
Adjacent to and on either side of all national boundary lines the
inhabitants become accustomed to the standards of weights, measures,
and money of both countries, and constantly refer to and use them
without material inconvenience. In the readjustment of a boundary upon
new lines of demarcation it must be expected that some temporary
difficulties in business transactions will be encountered, but all
history shows that such difficulties soon adjust themselves. Legal
enactments will finally determine the precise boundaries of the
several sections. If different laws respecting many other affairs of
life may exist on either side of a State or national boundary line,
with positive advantage or without material inconvenience, why should
laws respecting time-reckoning be an exception? Coins and measures are
distinguished by their names. So, also, may standards of time be
distinguished.
The adoption of standard time for all purposes of daily life, based
upon meridians fifteen degrees apart, would practically abolish the
use of exact local time, except upon those meridians. Numerous
circumstances might be related demonstrating how very inaccurate and
undetermined was the local time used in many cities in this country
before the recent change.
Except for certain philosophical purposes, does the inherent advantage
claimed in the use of even approximately accurate local time really
exist? Would the proposed change affect any custom of undoubted value
to the community? These questions have been answered in the negative
by the experience of Great Britain since January 13, 1848, of Sweden
since January 1, 1879, and of the United States and Canada since
November 18, 1883.
Greenwich time is exclusively used in Great Britain, and differs from
mean local time about eight minutes on the east and about twenty-two
and a half minutes on the west. In Sweden the time of the fifteenth
degree of east longitude is the standard for all purposes. It differs
from mean local time about thirty-six and a half minutes on the east
and about sixteen minutes on the west. In the United States the
standards recently adopted are used exclusively in cities like
Portland, Me., (33,800 inhabitants,) and Atlanta, Ga., (37,400
inhabitants,) of which the local times are, respectively, nineteen
minutes and twenty two minutes faster than the standard, and at Omaha,
Neb., (30,500 inhabitants,) and Houston, Tex., (16,500 inhabitants,)
each twenty-four minutes slower. At Ellsworth, Me., a city of six
thousand inhabitants, a change of twenty-six minutes has been made.
Nearly eighty-five per cent. of the total number of cities in the
United States of over ten thousand inhabitants have adopted the new
standard time for all purposes, and it is used upon ninety-seven and a
half per cent. of all the miles of railway lines.
Let us now consider whether insuperable practical difficulties owing
to geographical peculiarities will prevent the adoption of this system
throughout the world.
A table has been prepared, and accompanies this paper, upon which are
designated the several governing meridians and names suggested for the
corresponding sectional times. For the use of this table I am
indebted to Mr. E. B. Elliott, of this city.
On the North American continent, in the United States and Canada, the
75th, 90th, 105th, and 120th west Greenwich meridians now govern time.
In Mexico the 105th west meridian is approximately central, except for
Yucatan, which is traversed by the 90th. For Guatemala, Salvador, and
Costa Rica, the 90th west meridian is approximately central. San
Domingo closely approaches and Cuba touches the 75th.
In South America--the United States of Columbia, Ecuador, Peru, the
western portion of Bolivia, and Chili would use the time of the 75th
west meridian, while Venezuela, Guiana, western Brazil, including the
Amazon River region, eastern Bolivia, Paraguay, Uruguay, and the
Argentine Republic, would be governed by the time of the 60th
meridian. In eastern Brazil the 45th west meridian would govern.
Passing to Europe, we find Great Britain already governed by the zero
meridian time, which can also be used in the Netherlands, Belgium,
France, Spain, and Portugal. The 15th east meridian, which is about as
far east of Berlin as west of Vienna, and no more distant from Rome
than from Stockholm, now governs all time in Sweden. This time could
also be advantageously used in Denmark, Germany, Austria-Hungary,
Switzerland, Italy, and Servia. The time of the 30th east meridian,
which is nearly the mean between Constantinople and St. Petersburg
times, could be used in Western Russia, Turkey, Roumania, Bulgaria,
East Roumelia, and Greece. When the development of Eastern Russia in
Europe shall require it, the division of that great country between
the times of the 30th and 45th east meridians, upon lines of
convenience similar to those employed in the United States, can
doubtless be arranged. The governing meridians for Africa appear to
present some advantages, especially for Egypt, and no insuperable
difficulties; but for continents where the boundaries of countries are
so loosely defined, the limits of time-reckoning cannot well and need
not now be shown. They would ultimately adjust themselves.
In Asia the 60th east meridian passes through Khiva. Bombay would use
the 75th and Calcutta the 90th. The 105th east meridian touches Siam,
the 120th is near Shanghai, and the 135th passes through Japan and
near Corea. The 150th meridian of west longitude is sufficiently near
Hawaii. In Australia the 150th, 135th, and 120th meridians of east
longitude are admirably located for governing, respectively, the time
of the eastern, central, and western divisions of that continent.
In none of the localities defined or mentioned, would the standards
proposed vary more from mean local time than has already been
demonstrated to be practicable without detriment to any material
interest. Convenience of use, based largely upon the direction of
greater commercial intercourse, would determine the action of
communities other than those mentioned, and probably somewhat modify
the schedule proposed.
That no practical difficulty of usage would prevent the universal
adoption of the hour-section system of time-reckoning is apparent. Its
convenience has been abundantly realized. In adopting it, practically
no expense whatever is incurred. The alteration of the works or faces
of watches or clocks is not required. Their hands are simply set to
the new standard, and the desired result is accomplished.
By the adoption of this system, the exact hours of time-reckoning,
although called by different names in the several sections for
every-day life, but specifically designated, if desired, for
scientific purposes, would be indicated at the same moment of time at
all points. The minutes and seconds would everywhere agree. The
absolute time of the occurrence of any event could, therefore, be
readily determined. The counting of the hour meridians should begin
where the day begins at the transition line.
It would then be one of the possibilities of the powers of electricity
that the pendulum of a single centrally located clock, beating
seconds, could regulate the local time-reckoning of every city on the
face of the earth.
_Table of Standards governing the Hour-Section System of
Time-reckoning._
======================================================================
Longitude | HOUR MERIDIANS. |Simultaneous
from |----------------------------------------------| hours in
Greenwich.| | | the several
|Proposed names of sectional times. | Numbers. | sections.
----------+-----------------------------------+----------+------------
_Degrees._| | |
----------| | |
180 |Transition time | 0 or 24th|12 midnight
165 west |Alaskan | 1st......| 1 A. M.
150 |Hawaii | 2d ......| 2
135 |Sitka | 3d ......| 3
120 |Pacific (Adopted in U.S. and Can.)| 4th......| 4
105 |Mountain " " | 5th......| 5
90 |Central (American) time " " | 6th......| 6
75 |Eastern (or Coastwise) " " | 7th......| 7
60 |La Plata | 8th......| 8
45 |Brazilian | 9th......| 9
30 |Central Atlantic |10th......|10
15 |West African |11th......|11
0 |Int'l or Unvs'l (Used in Gt. Brit.)|12th......|12 noon.
15 east |Continental (Used in Sweden.) |13th......| 1 P. M.
30 |Bosporus |14th......| 2
45 |Caucasus |15th......| 3
60 |Ural |16th......| 4
75 |Bombay |17th......| 5
90 |Central Asian |18th......| 6
105 |Siam |19th......| 7
120 |East Asian |20th......| 8
135 |Japan |21st......| 9
150 |East Australian |22d.......|10
165 |New Caledonian |23d.......|11
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have no desire, however, to press on the Conference the
consideration of the question of local time reckoning. But, as the
system adopted in the United States and Canada has proved successful,
and is now firmly established, I have deemed it proper that a
statement of this fact and of the possibilities of the application of
the system to other parts of the world should be made to the Congress.
I will now, therefore, withdraw my amendment.
Mr. RUTHERFURD, Delegate of the United States. The Delegate of Italy
has moved, as an amendment to the first part of the resolution offered
by me, the fifth resolution adopted in the Conference at Rome. Really,
in spirit and in substance, there is little or no difference between
them, except that the Conference at Rome has specified that the
objects they had in view as suitable for regulation by universal time
were these, namely: "For the internal service of the great
administrations of means of communication, such as railways,
steamships, telegraphs, and post-offices."
Now, I submit that in the words used in my resolution all this is
embraced, and a good deal more, for this universal day is to be
adopted "for all purposes for which it may be found convenient." If it
were desirable that every purpose for which the universal day may be
found convenient should be specified, it would make a very long
resolution. On the other hand, however, we might find in the end that
we had omitted some of the purposes for which it was eminently
convenient. It appears, also, that in this same fifth Roman resolution
all questions of chronology of universal date, etc., are omitted,
although they are brought forward and appear in the sixth resolution.
It seems to me, Mr. President, that nothing would be gained by the
adoption of this amendment, for everything that is embraced there is
more comprehensively embraced in the original resolution.
General STRACHEY, Delegate of Great Britain. In explanation of the
amendment offered by the Delegate of Italy, let me call attention to
what really passed at the Roman Conference. I find, first of all, in
the report of the Roman Conference, in the abstract of the discussion
before the Special Committee, these words, (p. 49 of the reprint:)
"The fourth resolution, in favor of a universal hour for
certain scientific and practical purposes, is unanimously
adopted."
There appears no discussion whatever upon it; not a word seems to have
been said as to how it should be defined or acted upon. I then turn
back to the report of the committee which prepared the resolutions,
and there we see what, in reality, they had in their minds when they
drew up that resolution. It is perfectly evident that they had no
intention of tying the hands of anybody. This is what they say on page
26 of the report:
"The administrations of railroads, of the great steamship
lines, telegraph lines, and postal routes, which would thus
secure for their relations with each other a uniform time,
excluding all complication and error, could nevertheless
not entirely avoid the use of local time in their relations
with the public. They would probably use the universal time
only in their internal service, for the rules of the road,
for the time-tables of their engineers and conductors, for
the connection of trains at frontiers, etc.; but the
time-tables for the use of the public could hardly be
expressed otherwise than in local or national time. The
depots or stations of the railroads, post-offices, and
telegraph offices, and the waiting-rooms, could exhibit
outwardly clocks showing local or national time, while
within the offices there would be, besides, clocks
indicating universal time. Telegraphic dispatches could show
in future the time of despatch and of receipt, both in local
and universal time."
Now, I think that the subject of universal time is dealt with in a
better manner in the proposition offered by Mr. RUTHERFURD than in the
proposition which emanated from the Congress at Rome. This Conference
cannot designate positively the manner in which local time may be best
reckoned. We are concerned now only with universal time. It may,
however, be proper that the resolution offered by Mr. RUTHERFURD in
regard to the employment of universal time should be supplemented by
something more specific--something, for instance, of this sort:
The Conference will not designate the system on which local
time may best be reckoned so as to conform, as far as
possible, to universal time; this should be determined by
each nation to suit its convenience.
The arrangements for adopting universal time for the use of
international telegraphs will be left for regulation by the
telegraph international congress.
This last idea was expressed, I forget now by whom, but by one of the
Delegates since the Conference met, and it appears to me that inasmuch
as there is an international congress specially appointed to regulate
all matters of international telegraphy, this subject can be left to
them with the firm belief that it will be regulated satisfactorily.
The question was then put to the vote; and upon the amendment offered
by the Delegate of Italy the following States voted in the
affirmative:
Colombia, Paraguay,
Italy, Spain,
Netherlands, Sweden.
The following in the negative:
Brazil, Liberia,
Chili, Mexico,
Costa Rica, Russia,
France, Salvador,
Germany, San Domingo,
Great Britain, Switzerland,
Guatemala, Turkey,
Hawaii, United States,
Japan, Venezuela.
Austria-Hungary abstained from voting.
Ayes, 6; noes, 18; abstaining, 1.
So the amendment was lost.
The question then recurred upon the original resolution.
Mr. RUTHERFURD, Delegate of the United States. Mr. President, it has
been represented to me that it may, perhaps, be found advantageous in
different countries and different localities to use a time that would
not be accurately described as local time. In one place the standard
of time may be strictly local time; in another place it may be
national time; in another place it may be railroad time.
In order to meet this condition of things, I propose to alter the
phraseology of the original resolution in this way: by inserting the
words "or other," so that it shall read "which shall not interfere
with the use of local or _other_ time where desirable."
Professor ADAMS, Delegate of Great Britain. May it not be better to
put it in this way: "Which shall not interfere with the use of local
or other _standard_ time where desirable."
Mr. RUTHERFURD, Delegate of the United States. I accept the amendment
offered by the Delegate of Great Britain.
Mr. JEAN VALERA, Delegate of Spain. As I consider that both the
amendment which was just rejected and the present proposition really
signify the same thing, I shall vote for the proposition, as I before
did for the amendment.
The PRESIDENT. The question is now upon the resolution, as modified.
It will be read.
The resolution was then read, 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 or other standard time where desirable."
The following States voted in the affirmative:
Austria-Hungary, Mexico,
Brazil, Netherlands,
Chili, Paraguay,
Colombia, Russia,
Costa Rica, Salvador,
France, Spain,
Great Britain, Sweden,
Guatemala, Switzerland,
Hawaii, Turkey,
Italy, United States,
Japan, Venezuela.
Liberia,
There were no negative votes.
Germany and San Domingo abstained from voting.
Ayes, 23; noes, 0; abstaining, 2.
So the resolution was carried.
Mr. RUTHERFURD, Delegate of the United States. Mr. President, I now
propose to offer the other portion of the resolution, or rather I
propose to offer the other portion in the form of a distinct
resolution. It will run as follows:
"_Resolved_, That 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 is, in substance, the resolution adopted by the Conference at
Rome, with the exception that the Conference at Rome proposed that the
universal day should coincide with the astronomical day instead of the
civil day, and begin at Greenwich noon, instead of Greenwich midnight.
Professor ADAMS, Delegate of Great Britain. I desire to make one
remark merely. Would it not be a little more correct if we said "at
the moment of mean midnight?" I think I have mentioned this before,
but, to be clear, I think it should be made.
Mr. RUTHERFURD accepted Professor ADAMS'S suggestion.
Mr. JUAN VALERA, Delegate of Spain. Mr. President, I wish to call
special attention to the proposition now before us, on which we are
called upon to vote, as it is of very great importance.
As for me, I acknowledge that my mission is already fulfilled. The
Government of Spain had directed me to admit the necessity or the
usefulness of a common prime meridian, and also to accept the meridian
of Greenwich as the universal meridian. I have attended to these
directions.
We have now to deal with a scientific question on which I cannot well
express an opinion, as I do not feel that I am competent in such
matters; besides, I am not authorized to do so. This may be due to my
ignorance in matters of this kind, but I fear that extraordinary
difficulties may arise in the adoption of this proposition, and if we
proceed with too great haste, we run the risk of placing ourselves in
contradiction to common sense. All the popular ideas of men for
thousands of years past will, perhaps, be overturned. It may happen
that when the day begins at Greenwich it will be 23 hours later at
Berlin. The east will be confounded with the west, and the west with
the east. If we made the day begin at the anti-meridian these
questions would be avoided, and we should at one be with the rest of
the human race. I believe that it would be better to adjourn till
to-morrow to give us time to reflect; in this way we shall not risk by
our devotion to science drawing upon ourselves popular criticism.
I propose, therefore, that the vote on this question be put off till
to-morrow.
M. LEFAIVRE, Delegate of France. Not to-morrow.
Count LEWENHAUPT, Delegate of Sweden. I beg to propose as an amendment
the sixth resolution adopted by the Conference at Rome, which is as
follows:
The Conference recommends as initial point for the universal hour and
the cosmic day the mean midday of Greenwich, coinciding with the
moment of midnight or the beginning of the civic day at the meridian
12 hours or 180° from Greenwich.
The universal hours are to be counted from 0 up to 24 hours.
The PRESIDENT. The Chair quite concurs with the Delegate of Spain in
thinking that it would be very proper for us to take some time to
consider this matter.
A motion to adjourn would be in order, but before that motion is made,
the Chair would like to read a communication which he has just
received from the Assistant Secretary of State. It is this:
"The President of the United States will receive the members
of the Conference on Thursday, the 16th instant, at 12
o'clock, at the White House."
The Assistant Secretary of State proposes that we shall meet here at a
quarter before 12, and go to the White House from this hall.
The PRESIDENT. If the Delegate of Spain will withdraw his motion to
adjourn for one moment, the Delegate of Sweden desires to offer a
resolution.
Count LEWENHAUPT, Delegate of Sweden, then read the following
proposal:
Hereafter the reports of the speeches, whether in English or
French, will be sent as soon as possible to the Delegates
who made them, and the proofs should be corrected and
returned by them without delay to the Secretary. No
correction will be allowed afterward, except such as are
considered necessary by the Secretaries, who will meet as
soon as possible after the first corrections shall have been
printed to prepare the protocols for the approval of the
Conference.
The motion being put to a vote by the President, was unanimously
carried.
The PRESIDENT. The Chair would very informally state that he has
received to-day a letter from Sir William Thomson, the distinguished
scientist who addressed the Conference yesterday, expressing his
regret that he did not then say something which he had in his mind and
which he wished to say, namely, that the meridian of Greenwich passes
directly through the great commercial port of Havre.
Mr. JANSSEN, Delegate of France. Since the Chairman refers to this
subject, I may state to my colleagues that I have received a telegram
from Sir William Thomson, in which he makes certain propositions of
the nature described.
Yet it is not possible to make out precisely, by this telegram, what
are Sir William Thomson's ideas. All that I can say is, that whatever
proceeds from such an eminent man should be treated with great
consideration, and that is a reason for asking Sir W. Thomson to be
good enough to explain to me his ideas more fully. If we could adjourn
to Monday, I think that it would be better. The preparation of the
protocols is very much behind-hand, and it is desirable that the
members of the Conference be kept fully acquainted with all the
discussions. I would, therefore, suggest that we adjourn till Monday.
The PRESIDENT. There are several propositions to adjourn to different
days. The Chair will take them up in order and will first put the
question upon the motion to adjourn until Monday.
The motion was carried, and at four o'clock the Conference adjourned
until Monday, the 20th instant, at one o'clock p. m.
VI.
SESSION OF OCTOBER 20, 1884.
The Conference met, pursuant to adjournment, in the Diplomatic Hall of
the Department of State, at one o'clock p. m.
Present: