Brazil: Dr. LUIZ CRULS.
Chili: Mr. F. V. GORMAS and Mr. A. B. TUPPER.
Colombia: Commodore 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. C. ADAMS,
Lieut.-General STRACHEY, Mr. SANDFORD FLEMING.
Gautemala: Mr. MILES ROCK.
Hawaii: Hon. W. D. ALEXANDER.
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.
J. DE KOLOGRIVOFF.
San Domingo: Mr. DE J. GALVAN.
Spain: Mr. JUAN VALERA, Mr. EMILO RUIZ DEL ARBOL, Mr.
JUAN PASTORIN.
Sweden: Count CARL LEWENHAUPT.
Switzerland: Col. 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: Dr. A. M. SOTELDO.
Absent:
Denmark: Mr. C. S. A. DE BILLE.
Hawaii: Hon. LUTHER AHOLO.
Salvador: Mr. ANTONIO BATRES.
The PRESIDENT. Some days ago a Committee was appointed to report on
communications addressed to the Conference through the Chair. All
communications that have been received from time to time, and they
have been numerous, have been referred to this committee, of which the
Delegate from England, Prof. ADAMS, is the chairman. He now informs
the Chair that he is prepared to make a report.
The Delegate of England, Prof. ADAMS, then read the following report:
_Letter from the President of the Conference._
INTERNATIONAL MERIDIAN CONFERENCE,
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, _Oct. 14, 1884_.
SIR: I have the honor to submit to the Committee of which
you are the Chairman the following communications:
No. 1. Letters from Mr. Roumanet du Cailland, through Mr.
Hunter, Ass't Sec. of State.
No. 2. Letter and communication from Mr. C. M.
Raffensparger.
No. 3. Letter from Mr. A. S. de Chancourtois, accompanying
books from Paris.
No. 4. Letter from Mr. A. W. Spofford, enclosing letter of
Mr. J. W. Stolting, of Dobbs' Ferry.
No. 5. Letter from Mr. B. Aycrigg, Passaic, N. J.
No. 6. Letter from J. T. Field, St. Louis, Mo.
No. 7. Letter and two enclosures from Mr. Theodor Pæsche.
No. 8. Description of the Universal Time-Piece of Dr. A. M.
Cory.
No. 9. Letter and enclosure from Mr. E. R. Knorr.
No. 10. Letter from Mr. J. E. Hilgard, of the U. S. Coast
Survey and Geodetic Survey.
No. 11. Arguments by Committee of New York and New Jersey
branch, and other papers relating to weights and measures.
No. 12. Letter from Lt. C. A. S. Totten, U.S.A., in relation
to a Standard Meridian.
No. 13. Letter from Mr. J. P. Merritt, in relation to the
Metric System.
No. 14. Postal card from W. H. Yates, in relation to the
Mercator Projection.
No. 15. A New System of Mensuration, by Lawrence S. Benson.
No. 16. Letter of T. C. Octman, of Hope Mills, N. C.,
calling attention to the fact that the meridian of Greenwich
passes through Havre.
No. 17. Letter from Dr. H. K. Whitner, explaining his
notation of 24 hours.
I am, sir, with great respect, your obedient servant,
C. R. P. RODGERS,
_President International Meridian Conference_.
Prof. J. C. ADAMS.
_Report of the Committee._
The Committee on communications respectfully reports as
follows:
We have carefully examined all of the communications
referred to us, as enumerated in the letter of President
Rodgers, with the following results:
No. 1 recommends that the meridian of Bethlehem be adopted
as the initial meridian. This question has been already
disposed of by the Conference; therefore further
consideration of the proposition is unnecessary.
No. 2 refers to an invention, the author of which states
that "a patent has been applied for," consequently your
Committee does not feel called upon to express any opinion
upon it.
No. 3 is a letter from M. de Chancourtois, accompanying a
work by him which contains an elaborate program of a system
of geography based on decimal measures, both of time and of
angles, and on the adoption of an international meridian.
The work also contains copious historical notices on the
metric system and on the initial meridian.
A copy of this work was presented to each of the Delegates
prior to the discussions of the Conference with regard to
the choice of an initial meridian, and therefore no special
report of the author's views on this subject appears to your
committee to be necessary. These views are nearly identical
with those which were so ably laid before the Conference by
Professor Janssen, but which failed to meet with their
approval.
The author further proposes to supersede the present mode of
measuring both angles and time by a system in which the
entire circumference and the length of the day should each
be first divided into four equal parts, and then each of
these parts should be subdivided decimally.
However deserving of consideration these proposals may be,
in the abstract, your Committee are clearly of the opinion
that they do not fall within the limits indicated by the
instructions which we have received from our respective
governments, and that, therefore, any discussion of them
would only be of a purely academical character, and could
lead to no practical result. Such a discussion would be sure
to elicit great differences of opinion, and would,
therefore, occupy a considerable time.
Hence, your Committee think that it would be very
undesirable for the Conference to enter upon it.
No. 4 is a letter from Mr. Spofford, Librarian of Congress,
including a communication of Mr. J. W. Stolting, Dobbs'
Ferry, N. Y. The author recommends the adoption of the
meridian 162° W. from Greenwich as the prime meridian; he
proposes further, not to say east or west, but first or
second half, and also recommends the adoption of a universal
time, not to interfere with local or other standard time,
and to reckon from "1 to 24." He expresses no opinion as to
whether the day should begin at noon or midnight. There
seems to be nothing in the communication to influence the
decisions of the Conference.
No. 5. See report as to letter No. 1.
No. 6 suggests that the prime meridian should be 180° from
Greenwich, and that longitude should be reckoned from 0° to
360°. This proposition has been already considered and
rejected by the Conference.
No. 7. This communication proposes "to adopt as the prime
meridian the frontier line between Russia and the United
States, as defined in the treaty of March 30, 1867." As the
initial meridian has already been agreed to by the
Conference, this proposition needs no further notice.
No. 8. This communication refers to an invention which has
no bearing on the question before the Conference. The
committee therefore abstain from expressing an opinion as to
its merits.
No. 9. Two letters from Mr. E. R. Knorr, of Washington,
D.C., advocating the advisability of reckoning longitude
"westward from 0° to 359°," and marking them on charts by
time instead of by degrees. The Conference has already taken
action on the question involved.
No. 10. A letter from Prof. Hilgard, enclosing a pamphlet by
Lt. C. A. S. Totten on the metrology of the great pyramid, a
subject which does not fall within the scope of the subjects
presented for the consideration of this Conference. In the
enclosing letter Prof. Hilgard says: "I am purely and
squarely for Greenwich midnight as the beginning of the
universal day, and an east and west count of longitude; that
is, 180° each way."
No. 11 advocates the preservation of the Anglo-Saxon system
of weights and measures. This subject being foreign to the
questions under consideration by this Conference, the
Committee deems further comment unnecessary.
No. 12. A letter from Lieut. C. A. S. Totten, U.S.A.,
advocating a prime meridian through the great pyramid. The
proposition involved has already been decided by the
Conference.
No. 13 recommends redistribution of time according to the
decimal system. As already remarked under No. 3, this
proposition is clearly not within the limits indicated by
the instructions which we have received from our respective
governments.
No. 14 states that the author has a plan by which
"chronometers will record the longitude equably." This
proposition is foreign to the subjects under consideration
by the Conference.
No. 15 proposes a new system of mensuration; and, therefore,
this does not fall within the subjects for consideration by
the Conference.
No. 16. This communication suggests that as the prime
meridian passes through Havre, it should be allowable to
call it by that name. This Committee recommends that the
prime meridian be not named after the localities through
which it passes, but be called simply "The Prime Meridian."
No. 17 is the subject of a patent. The Committee does not
feel called upon to express an opinion respecting it.
This report is respectfully submitted to the Conference.
J. C. ADAMS,
_Chairman Committee on Communications._
WASHINGTON, _Oct. 18th, 1884_.
The PRESIDENT. The report of the Committee is before the Conference.
Mr. RUTHERFURD, the Delegate of the United States. I move that the
report be accepted, and its conclusions adopted.
There being no objection, the report was adopted.
The PRESIDENT. In the regular order of business to-day, the first
subject before the Conference is the resolution offered on Saturday by
the Delegate of the United States, Mr. RUTHERFURD, with the amendment
offered by the Delegate of Sweden, Count LEWENHAUPT.
The resolution is 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 mean
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."
The amendment offered is as follows:
"The Conference recommends as initial point for the
universal hour and the cosmic day the mean mid-day of
Greenwich, coinciding with the moment of midnight or the
beginning of the civil day at the meridian 12 hours or 180°
from Greenwich.
"The universal hours are to be counted from 0 up to 24
hours."
Mr. VALERA, the Delegate of Spain, said that he thought that the
amendment of the Delegate of Sweden should be first discussed.
Mr. JANSSEN, the Delegate of France. At the last session I informed
the Congress that I had received a telegram from Sir William Thomson
upon the question of the meridian. Since then, that illustrious
foreign member of the Institute of France has written me a very kind
letter upon the subject, in which he expresses his complete
appreciation of the disinterested attitude taken by France in this
Congress. I thank Sir William Thomson for his sentiments towards
France, and I am persuaded that, with such excellent feelings, we
should arrive at an understanding, upon scientific bases, in which the
moral and material interests of all would be equitably adjusted, as we
have always understood them.
But the question is not open now, and this Congress would, doubtless,
not be disposed to reopen it. Sir William Thomson will understand,
therefore, that in the present condition of affairs we have only to
maintain the attitude which we have taken and the votes which we have
given.
The PRESIDENT. The Chair will simply say to the Conference that he
very informally alluded to the letter that he had received from Sir
William Thomson, and the Chair would also say in answer to the Spanish
Minister that the rule in this Conference, a simple one, is to discuss
the last amendment offered and dispose of it, instead, as suggested by
the Delegate of Spain, of taking up the one most important in its
character. It would be somewhat difficult for the Chair to decide on
all occasions which amendment is the most important. I think,
therefore, as Chairman, that I will pursue the rule in force in this
country, and, unless the Conference order otherwise, shall present the
amendment which is the last offered.
Mr. RUIZ DEL ARBOL, Delegate of Spain. Mr. Chairman, the Spanish
Minister has not referred to the most important amendment, but to the
most radical. For instance, here there are several propositions to
select a meridian; one of them must be considered, and it seems to me
that my amendment, which is the most radical, is the one to be first
presented to the Conference.
The PRESIDENT. Unless the Conference shall direct otherwise, the Chair
must pursue the principle on which it has acted hitherto, taking the
amendments in the order in which they are offered, and presenting them
inversely for the action of the Conference. The proposition before the
Conference, therefore, is the amendment offered by the Delegate of
Spain, Mr. ARBOL, which is as follows:
"Having accepted the meridian of Greenwich to account the
longitudes, as a general need for practical purposes, but
thinking that the introduction of any new system of
time-reckoning is far more scientific and important, and
liable to great difficulties and confusion in the future, we
propose the following resolution:
"_Resolved_, The Congress, taking in consideration that
there is already a meridian tacitly accepted by almost all
the civilized nations as the origin of dates, the
anti-meridian of Rome, abstains from designating any other
meridian to reckon the universal time."
Mr. RUIZ DEL ARBOL, Delegate of Spain. It is proposed to introduce an
absolute universal or cosmopolitan system of time-reckoning, which, it
is hoped, will, at a more or less distant day, be generally adopted,
not only for scientific purposes, but for all the ordinary purposes of
life for which it can possibly be used; and it is further proposed to
designate a meridian at which this cosmopolitan time-reckoning is to
begin. What I have to state is, that this method of absolute
time-reckoning already exists, (although we do not use it,) as does
this universal meridian which has been tacitly chosen by almost all
civilized nations--that is to say, by all such as have adopted the
Julian calendar, with or without the Gregorian correction. Thus it is
that anything involving even a slight modification of our present
system is nothing more than a chronological reform, which I do not
feel certain that it will be well for us to introduce or recommend,
and with regard to which I have my doubts whether it will be received
with unanimous or hearty approval.
In fact, gentlemen, all nations that have adopted the Julian and
Gregorian systems of time-reckoning have necessarily accepted their
consequences, and these consequences are, as Rome told us in the time
of Caesar and in that of Gregory XIII, that we must reckon our days
according to certain fixed dates; some part of the world had to reckon
their dates before all the rest, and as Rome consented that countries
situated to the east of it should reckon their date before it and
countries situated to the west after it, it is evident that both
reckonings had to meet at some point on some meridian, which was and
could be no other than the anti-meridian of Rome. Nature itself seems
to have lent its sanction to this, since the anti-meridian of Rome
crosses no continent, and, probably, no land whatever.
Let us suppose, for the sake of illustration, that it were agreed to
abandon the Gregorian system of reckoning at a given moment, and to
adopt another; that it were agreed to abandon it at all points on the
globe when the hour should be twelve o'clock at noon at Greenwich, on
the first day of January, 1885; and let us suppose that for historical
or scientific purposes we were interested in knowing exactly how long
the Gregorian system had been in use. Is it possible to ascertain
this? It is; and very easily. Using that system of universal
time-reckoning which it is proposed to establish, but logically
referring it to the origin of that cosmopolitan reckoning which really
exists, that is to say, to the anti-meridian of Rome, we shall find
that 1885 years have been reckoned according to the Gregorian system,
plus the difference of longitude between the anti-meridians of
Greenwich and Rome. Nothing is more certain than this, and there is no
other way of solving the problem. As I have already shown, when the
Gregorian correction was made, the day which, according to the old
mode of reckoning, would have been the 5th of October, was called the
15th of October, 1582; the countries situated to the east of Rome had,
however, previously begun to reckon according to the new system
(previously in absolute time I mean,) and the countries situated to
the west adopted it successively afterwards. Now, then, as that
portion of the globe which lies to the east of any given point or
meridian is nothing more or less than one hemisphere, and as that
which lies to the west is another hemisphere, it is evident that, at
the anti-meridian of Rome, the two meridians, which constantly differ
by one day in their dates, are confounded, and that the anti-meridian
of Rome, being the first one in the world that adopted the Julian and
the Gregorian systems of reckoning, is the prime meridian of the
world, the meridian by which we now reckon, and ought to reckon
universal time, until the establishment of a different system. If we
had, at the present time, to settle any question depending on dates,
in the region where there is some confusion in regard to them, we
should have to do so on this principle. If we desired to compel the
entire world to keep a regular and logical account of dates, we should
have to do so by compelling all the nations to the west of the
anti-meridian of Rome to go on reckoning their dates uninterruptedly
after they have begun to be reckoned at the said anti-meridian, and by
forbidding all the nations to the east of it to reckon any date until
it has been reckoned at the anti-meridian of Rome. For this reason I
say that the express designation, for the reckoning of universal time,
of the meridian of Greenwich or of any other than the anti-meridian of
Rome, involves a chronological reform, inasmuch as it will involve the
abandonment of the system to which we now adhere, and which we now use
by common consent.
This reform will cause a change of nearly 13 hours--that is to say, 12
hours plus the difference of longitude between Rome and Greenwich, if
the meridian of Greenwich is designated as the new initial point of
the universal date. I do not believe, however, that you will adopt
this choice irrevocably, since its curious and strange consequences
may be shown by one example, which I will adduce: This table is of
about sufficient extent to allow the difference between the
geographical longitude of its two ends to be observed and appreciated.
Let us suppose that these sessions were held at Greenwich, and that
the table were placed east and west, so that the meridian intersected
it lengthwise; let us further suppose that we had agreed to reckon the
new universal time by this meridian--that is to say, by that of
Greenwich--and that, in signing the protocol, we wished to set an
example to the world by using the universal date, the present civil
date and the future civil date, which, by the daily use of the
universal date, the nations will or may finally accept, to the
exclusion of all others, for the ordinary purposes of life. Well, now,
gentlemen, we should bring our own choice into discredit. We could not
sign, according to these three dates. As regards the last, we should
find that half the table and half the Congress were under one date,
and the other half under another; even our chairman, if seated in the
middle, would find that he had been presiding over our sessions with
his right side in one day and his left in the next.
I may be told that this would happen, whatever might be the meridian
chosen, but we could afford to allow it to happen at sea, or in some
isolated and uninhabited region where congresses never sit, and where
no ray of civilization ever penetrates.
But to return to the reform, what are you going to do? I will say that
if, instead of the meridian of Greenwich, you designate the
anti-meridian for the reckoning of universal time and for the initial
point of cosmopolitan dates for the present, but for the future as the
initial point also of local dates, the reform will amount to about an
hour only, but it will still be a reform. In a word, the anti-meridian
of Rome is the one which now furnishes dates to the entire world, and
you propose to make the meridian of Greenwich or the anti-meridian do
so in future.
I therefore tell you, if you desire a common hour for postal and
commercial purposes, designate no meridian at all; let the railway and
telegraph companies, the postal authorities and the governments make
an arrangement and select an artificial hour, so to speak, whatever
it be the hour of Rome, London, Paris, or even that of Greenwich, but
do not make a premature declaration which will be an authoritative one
as emanating from this Congress, an apparently insignificant reform,
but in reality one of very great importance, since, giving the
preference to determinate localities in the face of what is
scientific, historical, and logical, you render difficult, in the
future, the adoption of that very reform, which will, perhaps, then be
more necessary, and which can perhaps then be introduced more
intelligently.
You see that I am not speaking in behalf of any special meridian, not
even that of Rome, since I admit that the reform may be necessary. You
see, and I assure you, that I have not the slightest wish that the
meridian which is to be the initial point of universal time should
bear the name of any observatory or place in Spain, although that
nation discovered the New World in which this Congress is holding its
sessions, and although it may be said of that nation that it
discovered those very meridians concerning which we are now speaking,
inasmuch as terrestial meridians were indefinite and unknown lines,
and were even without form until one was given them by Sebastian
Elcano. I therefore hope that if you do not honor my proposition by
accepting it, you will at least do justice to my intentions.
Prof. ADAMS, Delegate of Great Britain. Mr. President, I shall be very
short in any remarks which I may make upon the proposition before us.
As far as I understand it, it is that, although we have adopted the
meridian of Greenwich as a prime meridian from which to count
longitudes, we should begin to count our time according to the
meridian at Rome. I cannot consent to that proposition. It appears to
me to be wanting in every element of simplicity, which should be our
chief aim in this Conference. To count longitude from one meridian and
time from another, is something that will never be adopted. I do not
understand that that was at all the proposition recommended by the
Roman Conference. On the contrary, I think that it was quite a
different one.
Mr. RUIZ DEL ARBOL, Delegate of Spain. Mr. President, I do not in
reality propose to adopt the meridian or anti-meridian of Rome. What I
have been contending for is that we should abstain at present from
adopting any meridian as a point of departure for the calculation of
time; otherwise, we introduce a new element of confusion for the
future. We should change the chronological reckoning which is now in
vogue, and I contend that we have no right, scientific or historical,
to make that change now. According to my views, the meridian of
longitude is relatively an unimportant affair. It is a practical one;
it cannot be changed in twenty years, probably, and it will take that
time to correct all existing charts. But if you adopt a meridian for
time, it will be very difficult to alter it in the future. I cannot
now clearly see what the difficulties will be, but I apprehend that
the application of this new principle to the various details of
scientific and civil matters will necessarily be attended with great
inconvenience, and may result in proving to be quite impracticable. I
understand it very well that it is proposed to confine this principle
to certain subjects, and that it is adopted for the purpose of
avoiding dangers in communications, in navigation, in railways, and in
transmitting telegrams, &c.; but this is purely an administrative
matter, and can be left for settlement to other bodies.