All this shows, gentlemen, how much wiser it would be to take for the origin of terrestrial longitude a point chosen from geographical considerations only. Upon the globe, nature has so sharply separated the continent on which the great American nation has arisen, that there are only two solutions possible from a geographical point of view, both of them very natural.

The first solution would consist in returning, with some small modification, to the solution of the ancients, by placing our meridian near the Azores; the second by throwing it back to that immense expanse of water which separates America from Asia, where on its northern shores the New World abuts on the old.

These two solutions may be discussed; this has been often done, and again quite recently, by one of our ablest geologists, M. de Chancourtois.

Each of these meridians combine the fundamental conditions which geography demands and upon which there has always been an agreement when national meridians are set aside from the discussion. As to the determination of the position of the point which may be adopted, the present excellent astronomical methods will give it with a degree of exactness as great as that which geography requires.

But what is the necessity for a special and costly determination of the longitude of a point which can be fixed arbitrarily, provided this be done within certain limits, as for instance by satisfying the conditions of passing through a strait or an island. We may be content with fixing the position of the point adopted in an approximate manner. The position thus obtained would be connected with certain of the great observatories selected for the purpose from their being accurately connected one with another, and the relative positions thus ascertained would supply the definition of the first meridian. As to any material mark on the globe, if one be desired, though it is in no manner necessary, it would be established in conformity with this definition, and its position should be changed until it exactly complied with it.

As to the question of the changes to be introduced in existing maps and charts which, by our proposition, would be imposed upon everybody, they could be very much reduced, especially if it were agreed—which would be sufficient at first—to draw upon existing charts only a subsidiary additional scale of graduation which would permit immediate use of the international meridian. Later, and as new charts were engraved, a more complete scale of graduation would be given; but I think that it would always be desirable to preserve in the manner now done in many atlases both systems of reckoning longitude—the national and international. If it be necessary at the present time to facilitate the external relations of all nations, it is also well to preserve among them all manifestations of personal life, and to respect the symbols which represent their traditions and past history.

Gentlemen, I do not propose to dwell upon the details of the establishment of such a meridian. We have only to advocate before you the principle of its acceptance.

If this principle be admitted by the Congress, we are instructed to say that you will find in it a ground for agreement with France.

Without doubt, on account of our long and glorious past, of our great publications, of our important hydrographic works, a change of meridian would cause us heavy sacrifices. Nevertheless, if we are approached with offers of self-sacrifice, and thus receive proofs of a sincere desire for the general good, France has given sufficient proofs of her love of progress to make her co-operation certain.

But we shall have to regret that we are not able to join a combination which to protect the interests of one portion of the contracting parties would sacrifice the more weighty scientific character of the meridian to be adopted, a character which in our eyes is indispensable to justify its imposition upon all, and to assure it permanent success.

Prof. J. C. ADAMS, Delegate of Great Britain, stated that if he were allowed to offer a few observations upon the eloquent address made by his colleague, the representative of France, Mr. JANSSEN, he would remark that, so far as he could follow that discourse, it seemed to him to turn almost entirely on sentimental considerations; that it appeared to him that the Delegate of France had overlooked one great point which was correctly laid down by the President in his opening address, viz., that one of the main objects to be kept in view in the deliberations of this Conference would be, how best to secure the aggregate convenience of the world at large—how we should choose a prime meridian which would cause the least inconvenience by the change that would take place. Of course, any change would necessarily be accompanied by a certain amount of inconvenience, but our object, as he understood it, was to take care that that inconvenience should be as small in its aggregate amount as possible.

He stated that if that were taken as the ground of consideration by this Conference, it appeared to him that the question was narrowed to one of fact rather than to be one of sentiment, which latter would admit of no solution whatever; for it was quite clear that if all the Delegates here present were guided by merely sentimental considerations, or by considerations of amour propre, the Conference would never arrive at any conclusion, because each nation would put its own interests on a level with those of every other.

He added that if the Conference should be able to agree in the opinion that the adoption of one meridian (for his part he did not undertake to say what meridian) would be accompanied by a greater amount of convenience in the aggregate than the adoption of any other, he thought that this should be the predominant consideration in guiding the decision of this Conference, on the question referred to them, and it appeared to him that this is a consideration which the Delegate of France has not put before this Conference, at least not in a prominent way. It is clear that the inconvenience caused to any one nation by the adoption of a new neutral meridian would not be lessened by the fact that all other nations would suffer the same inconvenience.

With respect to the question of a neutral meridian, Professor ADAMS wished to call the attention of the Congress to the fact that the Delegates here present are not a collection of representatives of belligerents; that they are all neutral as men should be in a matter purely scientific, or in any other matter which affects the convenience of the world at large, and that this Conference is not met here at the end of a war to see how territory should be divided, but in a friendly way, representing friendly nations.

He stated that he hoped the Delegates would be guided in their decision by the main consideration, which was, What will tend to the greatest practical convenience of the world? That he need not address a word to the other part of the argument which he thought at first of commenting upon a little, for the Delegate of the United States, Commander SAMPSON, who spoke first, had put his views so clearly before the Conference that he (Professor ADAMS) would not detain it longer.

He would add, however, that if the Conference is to take a neutral meridian they must either erect an observatory on the point selected, which might be very inconvenient if they should choose such a point as is alluded to by the Delegate of France, or if some such place was not selected, we should merely have a zero of longitude by a legal fiction, and that would not be a real zero at all; that they would have to select their zero with reference to a known observatory, and that, for instance, supposing they took a point for zero twenty degrees west of Paris, of course that would be really adopting Paris as the prime meridian; that it would not be so nominally, but in reality it would be, and he thought that we now-a-days should get rid of legal fictions as much as possible, and call things by their right names.

Mr. JANSSEN, Delegate of France, said:

My eminent colleague, whose presence is an honor to this Congress, Professor ADAMS, thinks that I overlook too much the practical side of the question; namely, how a prime meridian can be established so as to cause the least inconvenience. He says that I pay too much attention to what he calls a question of sentiment, and he concludes by expressing the hope that all nations will lay aside their national pride and only be guided by this consideration: What meridian offers the greatest practical advantages? My reply is that I intend no more than Professor ADAMS to place the question upon the ground of national pride; but it is one thing to speak in the name of national pride and another to foresee that this sentiment common to all men, may show itself, and that we should avoid conclusions likely to arouse it, or we may compromise our success. That is all our argument; and the history of the great nation to which Professor ADAMS belongs furnishes us with examples of considerable significance, for the French meridian of Ferro was never adopted by the English, notwithstanding its happy geographical situation, and we all still awaiting the honor of seeing the adoption of the metrical system for common use in England.

But let us put aside these questions which I would not have been the first to touch upon, and place ourselves upon the true ground of the importance of the proposed reform, which is the only one worthy of ourselves or of this discussion. We do not refuse to enter into an agreement on account of a mere question, of national pride, and the statement of the changes and expenses to which we should have to submit in order to accomplish the agreement is a sufficient proof of this.

But we consider that a reform which consists in giving to a geographical question one of the worst solutions possible, simply on the ground of practical convenience, that is to say, the advantage to yourselves and those you represent, of having nothing to change, either in your maps, customs, or traditions—such a solution, I say, can have no future before it, and we refuse to take part in it.

Prof. ABBE, Delegate of the United States, stated that the Delegate of France, Mr. JANSSEN, had made a very important proposition to the Conference: That the meridian adopted should be a neutral one. He said that he had endeavored to determine what a neutral meridian is. On what principle shall the Conference fix upon a neutral meridian, and what is a neutral meridian? Shall it be historical, geographical, scientific, or arithmetical? In what way shall it be fixed upon? He looked back a little into the history of an important system adopted some years ago. France determined to give us a neutral system of weights and measures, and the world now thanks her for it. She determined that the base of this neutral system should be the ten-millionth part of a quadrant of the meridian. She fixed it by measurement, and to-day we use the metre as the standard in all important scientific work; but is that metre part of a neutral system? Is our metric system neutral? It was intended to be, but it is not; we are using a French system. Had the English, or the Germans, or the Americans taken the ten-millionth part of the quadrant of the meridian, they would have arrived at a slightly different measure, and there would have been an English, a German, and an American measure. We are using the French metric system. It was intended to be a neutral system, but it is a French system. We adopt it because it deserves our admiration, but it is not a neutral system. The various nations of the world might meet and agree upon some slight modification of this metric system which would agree with the results of all scientific investigations, and thus make it international instead of French; but we do not care to do that, and are willing to adopt one system, taking the standard of Paris as our standard. How shall we determine a neutral system of longitude? The expression "neutral system of longitude" is a myth, a fancy, a piece of poetry, unless you can tell precisely how to do it. He would vote for a neutral system if the French representatives can tell the Conference clearly how to decide that it is neutral, and satisfy them that it is not national in any way.

Mr. JANSSEN, Delegate of France, said:

I perfectly understand the objection of my honorable colleague, Prof. ABBE. He asks what is a neutral meridian, and adds that the metre itself does not appear to him to be a neutral measure, but to be a French measure. He relies upon the consideration that if the English, the Americans, and Germans, in adopting a definition of the metre, had measured it for themselves, they would have arrived each at a slightly different result, which would have given us an English, American, and German metre; nevertheless, he adds, we use the French metre, because we find it so admirable.

I would answer, first, that the metre, as far as the measure is derived from the dimensions of the earth, is not French, and it was precisely to take away this character of nationality that those who fixed on the metre sought to establish it on the dimensions of the earth itself. What is French is the particular metre of our national archives, which exhibits a very slight difference from that which our actual geodesy would have given us. Also, I think that if, at the time of the adoption of the Convention du Metre, in which the nations of Europe participated, we had slightly changed the length of our standard to make it agree with the result of actual geodetic measurements, we should have done an excellent thing in depriving this measure of any shadow of nationality. I agree with my honorable colleague that if a few slight changes adopted by common accord could perfect the metrical system, we French ought to have no motive for opposing it. We have the honor of having invented a system of measures which, being based upon considerations of a purely scientific nature, has been accepted by all. Therefore if it can be said with truth that the metre of the Archives of Paris is French, (not intentionally, but because it bears the mark of an error of French origin,) it is an international metre, by the same title that the discovery of the satellites of Mars made by my friend, Prof. Asaph Hall, whom I have the pleasure of seeing here, is scientific and of a universal nature. The metre—equal to the ten-millionth part of the distance from the equator to the pole—is no more French than that distance itself, and, nevertheless, if the Americans, English, or Germans had measured it, they would each have arrived at a slightly different metre.

Now, my honorable colleague adds that a neutral meridian appears to him a myth, a fancy, a piece of poetry, so long as we have not exactly settled the method of determining it. I shall disregard the expressions which my honorable colleague has thus introduced into the discussion, because this discussion should be serious. It is plain that Prof. ABBE did not thoroughly apprehend the explanations which I gave of the proper methods of fixing the initial meridian, and of the conditions which make a meridian neutral; but I return to them, since I am invited to do so. Our meridian will be neutral if, in place of taking one of those which are fixed by the existing great observatories, to which, consequently, the name of a nation is attached, and which by long usage is identified with that nation, we choose a meridian based only upon geographical considerations, and upon the uses for which we propose to adopt it.

Do you want a striking example of what differentiates a neutral meridian from a national meridian? In order to avoid the confusion which existed in geography at the beginning of the seventeenth century, on account of the multiplicity of initial meridians then in use, a congress of learned men, assembled in Paris at the instance of Richelieu to select a new common meridian, fixed its choice on the most eastern point of the Island of Ferro. This was a purely geographical meridian, being attached to no capital, to no national observatory, and consequently neutral, or, if you please, purely geographical. Later, Le pere Feuillet, sent in 1724 by the Academy of Sciences to determine the exact longitude of the initial point, having given the figure 19 deg. 55' 3" west of Paris, the geographer, Delisle, for the sake of simplicity, adopted the round number 20 deg.; and, as I stated a little while ago, this alteration completely changed the character of this prime meridian. It ceased to be neutral, and became merely the meridian of Paris disguised, as has been truly said, and the English, notably, never adopted it. Here is the difference, gentlemen, between a neutral meridian and a national meridian.

And, parenthetically, you see, gentlemen, how dangerous it is to awaken national susceptibilities on a subject of a purely scientific nature. Now allow me to add that, if in 1633 it was possible to find a neutral meridian, a purely geographical meridian, an independent meridian, it may easily be done in 1884 if we wish to do so; and that a point chosen on purely geographical considerations, either in Behring's Strait or in the Azores, could be much better determined now than was possible to Father Feuillet in 1724, and could take the position which the meridian of Ferro would not have lost had it not been confounded with the meridian of Paris.

Professor J. C. ADAMS, Delegate of Great Britain, stated that he merely desired to refer to one subject touched on by the Delegate of France, Mr. JANSSEN, whose opinion he thought could hardly be supported, and that was that the question of longitude was purely one of geography. He desired to controvert that, and to hold that the question of longitude was purely one of astronomical observation. The difference of longitude between two places could not be determined by geodetic observations, because to do this you must take hypothesis as to the figure of the earth, and the figure of the earth is not a simple figure. You may take as hypothesis that the figure of the earth is spheroidal, and that the ratio of the axes is exactly defined. Now, in the first place, we are not agreed as to the exact ratio of the axes, nor are we agreed as to the exact figure of the earth. If an attempt is made to measure the difference of longitude between two points on the earth's surface, especially when they are a considerable distance from each other, it is necessary to depend upon astronomical observations. In attempting to deduce the difference of longitude from geodetic measures, you must assume that the true figure and dimensions of the earth are known, which is far from being the case. The theory that the prime meridian is a matter purely of a geographical nature is liable to the fatal objection that the determination of the difference of longitude between one place and the other is really the determination of the difference of time of the passage of a star across the meridian of the two places concerned. That is very definite. You observe the transit of the star at one place, and you observe the transit of the star at the other place, and by means of telegraphic communications you are able to determine their difference of longitude independent of the figure of the earth. He said, in conclusion, that he thought the honorable Delegate of France was mistaken upon the main point which he had just referred to, if, indeed, he had rightly understood him.

M. JANSSEN, Delegate of France, replied as follows:

I think that M. ADAMS entirely misunderstands me. I agree with him absolutely in thinking that longitudes cannot be determined, especially of places far apart, except by astronomical methods. Geodesy can only furnish it for short distances; in such cases, it is true, it supplies it with a degree of accuracy which meridianal observations cannot attain. So, if the question be to determine rigorously the difference of longitude in time between two places on the earth at considerable distances apart, it becomes one of astronomy, because here it is astronomy which gives the quickest and most accurate solution. For these reasons if, for instance, we should wish to connect a given observatory with a point situated on the other side of the ocean which had been chosen as the starting point of longitudes, it would become a question of astronomy. Astronomy here is an admirable instrument for the solution, but it should only be the instrument.

On the contrary, the question becomes geographical, if it be that of determining where it will be most convenient to fix the origin of terrestrial longitudes. If the question be, for instance, to select one or another point, in some one or other ocean, astronomy has nothing to do with it, and when it wishes to impose upon us one of its observatories to fulfil such a function it tends to give an inaccurate solution.

At first sight it may seem that any point might become a starting point for terrestial longitudes, but when we study the question a little more we see there may be great advantages in choosing some one point in preference to some other. Hence it is that all geographers have agreed to place initial meridians, when possible, in the oceans.

The PRESIDENT stated that, in accordance with the decision of the Conference, he had sent to the scientists named by them invitations to a seat upon this floor. The Chair sees several of these gentlemen here to-day, notably one of the most eminent astronomers of this country, to whom his countrymen are always ready to do homage, Professor Newcomb, Superintendent of the United States Nautical Almanac. If it be the pleasure of the Congress, the Chair will now request Professor Newcomb to give us his views upon the resolution now under discussion.

No objection being made to the proposition of the President, Professor NEWCOMB arose and said:

That in reference to the remarks of the distinguished Delegate of France, Professor JANSSEN, he would prefer, if the Conference would consent, to study his arguments more carefully when they should be in print.

He remarked that some points raised by that argument have been already replied to, and he wished now more particularly to request that Professor JANSSEN would define precisely what he meant by "a neutral meridian;" that he had partially answered this question in reply to Professor ABEE; but that there was a more fundamental point, one of practice, which must be brought in and kept in mind at every step, and which was raised by Commander SAMPSON'S paper, to which he had listened with great interest. Commander SAMPSON held that it would be necessary to have a fixed observatory on the chosen prime meridian, but he (Professor NEWCOMB) did not concur in that view, but rather agreed to a limited extent with what Professor JANSSEN had said on that question.

In choosing a meridian from which to count longitude, you meet a difficult problem. You have a point on the globe defined as the first meridian. This would be taken as the initial point of departure, and you are to determine the longitude of a certain place from that point. Now, doubtless, there is no other way to do this than to have an astronomical instrument and telegraphic communication. And if they chose the Azores or Behring's Strait, in neither case could they mount a transit instrument or have a system of telegraphic communication. Nor could we make a determination of longitude from a single fixed observatory in any case.

He then stated that it was impracticable under any circumstances to have an absolutely neutral prime meridian; that the definition of the prime meridian must practically depend upon subsidiary considerations, no matter where it might be located. In the practical work of determining longitudes a connection with the prime meridian cannot be made in each case. What is really determined is the longitude from some intermediate point, generally in the same country, and in telegraphic communication with the place whose longitude we wish to know. This intermediate point would, for the time, be the practical prime meridian. But the longitude of this point itself must always be uncertain. Science is continually advancing in accuracy, and we find that we continually need to correct the longitude of our intermediate meridian, and hence of all points determined from it. How can this difficulty of constantly changing longitudes be avoided? He replied that each system of connected longitudes must rest upon its own basis. It must be referred to an assumed prime meridian, and the measurements must be made from that, even if it be found to be somewhat in error. If some such system had been adopted thirty or forty years ago, we would have avoided the confusion arising from the fact that the longitudes given on many maps do not refer at all to any absolute meridian. All that is known is that the astronomers determined the longitude of the place, and then the maps had to be corrected accordingly. The longitude of one place would be determined from Cambridge, and perhaps in the neighborhood is another place determined from the observatory at Washington. In either case we know nothing of the longitude of Cambridge or Washington which the observer assumed in his calculations.

Generally, in determining longitude, the country adopts the principal place within its confines as a subsidiary prime meridian, and the assumed longitude of this place is necessarily selected somewhat arbitrarily. The longitude, for instance, of Washington was, thirty years ago, known to be nearly 5 hours 8 minutes and 12 seconds west from Greenwich. Had we adopted this difference by law, it would have amounted to choosing for our prime meridian a point 5 hours 8 minutes and 12 seconds east of Washington, whether we happened to strike the transit instrument at Greenwich or not. This would have fixed an assumed longitude for the Cambridge observatory and for all points within our telegraphic net-work. We should have had a practical system, which might, however, require to be corrected from time to time, if some slight error were found in the assumed longitude of Washington.

In the present state of astronomical observation these little errors are of no consequence except in some very refined astronomical discussions. For all geographical and perhaps geodetical purposes the error may be regarded as zero, and it may be said, in regard to astronomical work, that it will always be independent of any meridian that might be chosen.

But even if this difficulty were avoided, he could not see how they could have any place which would come within the definition of a neutral meridian. Supposing they took the Azores, they belong to Portugal; then certainly they would have a Portuguese prime meridian, belonging to the Portuguese nation. Thus they would no longer have a neutral point, if he (Professor NEWCOMB) rightly understood the meaning of Professor JANSSEN.

He said that the Delegate of Great Britain, Professor ADAMS, had expressed very clearly his (Professor NEWCOMB'S) ideas, and the difficulty we have in meeting the propositions of the French Delegates; that what he had said would apply very properly to any neutral meridian that might be chosen in accordance with the plans of Professor JANSSEN. Whatever that meridian might be, we must always assume for it a certain number of degrees from the capital of the country, where the place to be determined is located, and then take that imaginary meridian instead of a real point on the surface of the globe.

It is true that this is perfectly practicable, and on that theory there might not be any necessity of having an astronomical observatory. But why we should go to this trouble and expense Mr. JANSSEN did not make very clear; his considerations were purely sentimental, as was remarked by the Delegate of Great Britain, Professor ADAMS, and he (Prof. NEWCOMB) did not see what advantage would be gained by a neutral meridian in preference to one fixed by convenience.

In order that a discussion may proceed, it is necessary to agree on a given basis from which to start, and it is extremely difficult to agree upon a basis if there are considerations of sentiment introduced, because such considerations are peculiar to each person.

He therefore wished to propose this question again to the Delegate of France, namely, what advantages can we derive from fixing upon a neutral meridian?

Mr. JANSSEN, Delegate of France, said:

Professor NEWCOMB asks me to point out the advantages of a neutral meridian. These advantages are of two kinds—they are of a geographical nature and a moral nature. Let us examine the first. By placing the initial meridian between Asia and America, we get away from the centres of population, which is almost indispensable in view of the change of dates. We divide the world into two parts, the Old World and the New. The advantage of drawing the prime meridian through the ocean has always been understood, and it was precisely for this reason that Marinus of Tyre, during the first century, placed it at the Fortunate Isles, west of the African Continent. It is idle to urge the difficulty of fixing such a meridian as an objection. Astronomy is so far advanced in our day as to enable us to make this calculation with all desirable accuracy.

As to the methods of obtaining this meridian exactly, there are several. I have already spoken of them, but I return to the subject, since more details are desired. These methods fall under two principal heads. We can, and that is the ancient idea, choose some remarkable physical point—as, for instance, the extremity of an island, a strait, the summit of a mountain—and determine approximately the distance in longitude of this point from the points of reference, which are at present the observatories. This method, if all the precision that science can now attain is required, would be costly in certain cases. For the Azores the expense would be small, because of the proximity of the telegraphic cables; it would be much greater for Behring Straits. On the hypothesis of the employment of this method, it would evidently be necessary to place our meridian at the Azores.

According to the other method, it is not the physical point which is fixed, but simply the distance of the assumed origin from the points of comparison. For example, admit that the general definition of our prime meridian was that it should pass through the middle of Behring Straits. To obtain its theoretical definition, we should obtain a position of this point, either by summary observations of the nature of hydrographic surveys, or by the aid of existing information, and the longitude thus obtained would be connected with the observatories best connected with each other. A list of the differences of longitude would become the definition of our meridian, and not the physical point in the sea which marks the exact middle of the strait. If, now, we absolutely wished for a physical point, we have the Island of St. Lawrence, which is cut towards its eastern part by such a meridian, and we could put a point of reference there, subject to the condition that the position of this point should conform to the definition, and that it should be removed, in one direction or the other, until it did conform to it. As to the very slight errors which might still affect the relative positions of the great observatories actually connected by electricity, they do not concern geography. If I am not mistaken, the eminent Superintendent of the American Nautical Almanac acknowledges that we could thus avoid the difficulties which might result from the changes to which the perfecting of science would in the course of time give rise in the statement of longitudes.

In this manner the expense would be nothing or small. Thus, also, the meridian would be truly neutral, both by reason of its position in the ocean between the continents, and by reason of its definition, since the zero of longitude would then be so placed as to occupy a point not identified with any nation. This illustration appears to me to answer the demands of Professor NEWCOMB. I have taken it only for that reason, for I maintain no particular method, but only the principle of neutrality.

Finally, I must return again to those sentimental reasons which my eminent and friendly opponents so often call to my attention. If I do not err, the very warmth of these interesting discussions shows me that the honor of being personally connected with a great reform touches us more than we are willing to admit, or than practical interests alone could effect.

Professor ADAMS himself supplies an illustration of this. He should remember the lively discussions of the English and French press on the occasion of the magnificent discovery of Neptune, and on the claims of the two illustrious competitors who were then the objects of universal admiration. If we go back in history, do we not see the friends of Newton and of Leibnitz equally contesting with asperity the discovery of the infinitesimal calculus. The love of glory is one of the noblest motives of men; we must bow before it, but we must also be careful not to permit it to produce bad fruits.

When our men of science sought, a hundred years ago, to determine a new measure of length, some one proposed the length of the seconds pendulum at Paris. This measure was rejected, because it introduced the idea of time in a measure of length, and also because it was peculiar to Paris, and because a measure acceptable to the whole world was desired. It is important not to introduce questions of national rivalries into a scientific reform intended to be accepted by all, and history shows us precisely on this question of prime meridians what active rivalries there are. There was a time when almost every nation which had a large observatory had a meridian, and that meridian was considered an object of national pride. There were the meridians of Paris, of Rome, of Florence, of London, and so on, and no nation was willing to abandon its meridian for that of another. If you please to adopt either the meridian of Greenwich, Washington, Paris, Berlin, Pulkowa, Vienna, or Rome, our reform may be accepted for the moment, especially if it offers immediate advantages in economy; but it will contain within it a vice which will prevent its becoming definitive, and we are not willing to participate in action which will not be definitive.

Whatever we may do, the common prime meridian will always be a crown to which there will be a hundred pretenders. Let us place the crown on the brow of science, and all will bow before it.

Commander SAMPSON, Delegate of the United States, said that he thought that the Delegate of France, Professor JANSSEN, had explained very fully the advantages of a neutral meridian, but he thought that he had not explained how we are to determine the neutral meridian. He added that he quite agreed with Professor ADAMS and Professor NEWCOMB, that to establish a prime meridian it is necessary to refer its position to an astronomical observatory.

He stated further that if a meridian were selected passing through the Atlantic or Pacific Ocean, it must be referred to some initial point whose longitude is known, and the consequence of that would be, it seemed to him, that the prime meridian selected would still be dependent upon some national observatory, and that to select a meridian at random without reference to any observatory would lead to the utmost confusion, and, he had no doubt, would not be entertained by any one.

Prof. JANSSEN, Delegate of France. When my honorable colleague, Commander SAMPSON, reads the remarks which I have just made, he will see that I have very fully shown what characterizes a neutral or geographical meridian, as contradistinguished from those meridians which, passing through capitals and observatories of different countries, bear the names of nations, whilst geographical meridians bear geographical names, such as the meridian of Ferro, of the Azores, Behring's Strait, &c. Of course it would be necessary to connect the places selected with observatories, either by calculation or in some other effective manner. I said all this a few moments ago.

Mr. RUTHERFURD, Delegate of the United States, then remarked that in addition to what had been said he would merely call attention to the fact that after that neutral point had been established it would cease to be a neutral meridian; that if the Azores be chosen they belong to Portugal, and he did not know any island in the Pacific which would serve the purpose, and at the same time not be subject to this objection; that perhaps Behring's Strait, mentioned by the French Delegate, might be less objectionable than any other place. He added that it is absolutely necessary that there should be some means of determining the difference between this adopted place and the other places, or else no use could be made of it. We must know how far other places are from the prime meridian, and for that reason it is necessary that it should be on land. Now, that land must belong to some country, and after we have fixed upon it it would cease to be a neutral meridian, and it would have to be connected by telegraphic wires with all the great observatories in the world.

Prof. JANSSEN, Delegate of France. My honorable friend, Mr. RUTHERFURD, says that from the time the prime meridian was chosen it would cease to be neutral. I reply that he confounds a scientific principle with a question of property in the soil. If, for reasons of a geographical nature, we should fix upon a point in the Azores, that meridian would be neutral, because it would have been chosen on scientific grounds alone. The equator is neutral because geographical conditions give it that character; and, nevertheless, the countries along it belong to various nations, do they not? As to the manner of connecting the prime meridian with the system of observatories, I have already explained how this may be done in my former speech.

General STRACHEY, Delegate of England, remarked that he had rather hesitated about saying anything on the subject, after the expression of so many opinions of persons better qualified to speak than himself, but he felt that he ought to make a few remarks as to the distinction which Prof. JANSSEN had attempted to establish between astronomical and geographical longitude. It appeared to him that longitude was longitude. It would never do if, for geographic purposes, we are to have a second or third-class longitude and for astronomical purposes a first-class longitude. He said that as a geographer he repudiated any such idea. When you come to the practical application of the determination of longitude at sea for maritime purposes, it is true that a much less accurate determination suffices than would suffice for the determination of longitude for astronomical observatories; but, for all that, what is the object of a ship desiring to know what its place at sea is? Obviously to arrive at the port to which it is destined, and the object to be obtained is such a determination of the longitude as to enable that ship to arrive at its port without danger. You obtain a comparatively imperfect determination of longitude, but it is sufficiently accurate to prevent you from striking on the solid earth. But how is the longitude of the port to be determined? Certainly, as has been properly said, by astronomical observations, which can only be made with certainty on the earth. Consequently, it seemed to him that it is absolutely essential for fixing an initial meridian for the determination of longitude that it should be placed at an astronomical observatory which can be connected with other places by astronomical observations and by telegraph wires, and that the idea of fixing a neutral meridian is nothing more than the establishment of an ideal meridian really based upon some point at which there is located an observatory. This has been repeated once or twice before, and I need not enlarge upon it.

Prof. JANSSEN, Delegate of France. My honorable colleague, General STRACHEY, thinks that longitude is longitude, and that there is not an astronomical longitude and a geographical longitude. I answer, that this is, nevertheless, what the nature of things indicates. The longitude of observatories, or rather the difference of longitude between those establishments, must be fixed with an accuracy which is never sufficiently great. In the Bureau of Longitude of France we are occupied with the differences of longitude of European observatories, and we adopt for these calculations all the latest scientific improvements, and especially the employment of electricity. Geography, especially for general purposes, does not require this great accuracy, which could not be expressed on maps. All geographers agree upon that subject. A statement of the longitude is like the statement of a weight, of a measure, or of anything, and its precision must vary according to the purpose to which it is applied. Is not a weighing necessary to determine a chemical equivalent of an entirely different kind from that of a commercial weighing? Yet it is still a weight. Is it necessary to insist on this further? It is entirely a secondary question. If General STRACHEY, whom I had the pleasure of meeting in India, demands that the prime meridian should be connected with observatories with rigorous accuracy, this can be done if it be desired; the astronomical and electrical methods at our disposal will permit of it.

Prof. ABBE, Delegate of the United States, said that he was quite interested in the determination, if possible, of what is a neutral meridian. We are precisely in the condition in which we were years ago, when the French Institute determined that the basis of the metric system should be the one ten-millionth of the quadrant of the globe. Having settled upon that ideal basis, they spent years of labor, and finally legalized a standard metre, which is still preserved at Paris. We have now the same problem to solve. We have before us the idea of a neutral meridian, and, if it be adopted, we must see that there be embodied in the system the distance of certain other important places with reference to it. The only suggestion given as to the location of this neutral meridian is Behring's Strait. This is said to be a neutral meridian, because it lies between Russia and America; but how long will it remain so? Perhaps a year or two, or perhaps fifty years. Who knows when Russia will step over and reconquer the country on this side of Behring's Strait? Who knows when America will step over and purchase half of Siberia? At any rate, that point is not cosmopolitan; something must be found which is fixed, either within the sphere of the earth or in the stars above the earth—something that is above all human considerations—otherwise we shall fail in securing a neutral meridian.

Commander SAMPSON, Delegate of the United States, said that he would like to ask the Delegate from France, Mr. JANSSEN, where he would place the neutral meridian.

The PRESIDENT said that the Delegate of the United States, Commander SAMPSON, puts a question which seems to be somewhat categorical.

At this point in the proceedings the PRESIDENT stated that it would be convenient if the Conference would take a short recess to enable the Secretaries, with himself, to consult upon the subject of the preparation and approval of the protocols.

A recess was thereupon taken.

After the recess, the Delegate from France, Prof. JANSSEN, presented the following resolution:

"Resolved, That the decision upon the motion of the French Delegates, in regard to the choice of a neutral meridian, be postponed to the next meeting of the Conference."

He said that as he must speak French, and as several of his colleagues could, perhaps, not entirely grasp the meaning of the discussion, he asked for the adjournment of the vote until the next meeting, so that the protocol of this meeting may be printed and distributed to the members of the Conference.

The PRESIDENT stated that as far as he understood this resolution it merely amounted to this: that no vote shall be taken upon the original resolution of the French Delegate—namely, as to the adoption of a neutral meridian—until the next meeting of the Conference, when the protocols in both languages will have been printed and distributed.

Commander SAMPSON, Delegate of the United States, inquired whether, if this resolution were adopted, it would be necessary to vote upon the original question at the next meeting.

The PRESIDENT replied that was not necessarily the case. The Delegate of France simply desires that no vote shall be taken to-day. The original subject will come up and be open for debate at the next meeting, but it seemed to the Chair that it should be as far as possible exhausted to-day, so that the Delegates could have the whole matter before them at the next meeting.

Mr. LEFAIVRE, Delegate from France, said that the arguments already presented will require time for careful consideration. Consequently he asked for the adjournment of the vote, and he hoped that none of his colleagues would object to it.

The PRESIDENT stated that he would venture to suggest, for the purpose of preventing delay, that so far as was possible any arguments that are to be offered should be made now, so that in the protocol of this day's proceedings, which will be of considerable length, these arguments may be incorporated.

Mr. RUSTEM EFFENDI, Delegate of Turkey, stated that it would be impossible to prepare a proper protocol of this Conference without the assistance of a French stenographer, and he therefore suggested that such a stenographer be secured as early as possible.

The PRESIDENT stated that efforts had been made to obtain a French stenographer, but without success, and that if any Delegate knows of such a stenographer and will communicate with the Chair it will be happy to take the necessary steps to secure his services.

Count LEWENHAUPT, Delegate of Sweden, then made the following statement:

I beg to propose that the Conference adjourn at the call of the President, that the time and hour for the next meeting be communicated to the Delegates 24 hours before the meeting, and that at the same time a proof-copy of the protocols of the present meeting be forwarded.

He added that by giving the Delegates 24 hours after the protocols are printed time would be allowed them to revise the protocols and make such corrections as they thought necessary, and those corrections could be reported to the Secretaries and made in the printed text. The protocol can then be finally and definitively printed and approved at the beginning of the next meeting of the Conference.

The proposition of the Delegate of Sweden was then adopted.

The Conference then adjourned at 5 o'clock p. m., subject to the call of the President.



IV.

SESSION OF OCTOBER 13, 1884.

The Conference met pursuant to adjournment in the Diplomatic Hall, in the State Department, at one o'clock P. M.

Present:

Austria-Hungary: Baron I. VON SCHAEFFER. Brazil: Dr. LUIZ CRULS. Chili: Mr. F. V. GORMAS and Mr. A. B. TUPPER. Colombia: Commodore FRANKLIN. Costa Rica: Mr. J. F. ECHEVERRIA. France: Mr. A. LEFAIVRE and Mr. JANSSEN. Germany: Baron H. VON ALVENSLEBEN and Mr. HINCKELDEYN. Great Britain: Sir F. J. O. EVANS, Prof. J. C. ADAMS, Lieut. General STRACHEY, and Mr. SANDFORD FLEMING. Guatemala: Mr. MILES ROCK. Hawaii: Hon. W. D. ALEXANDER and Hon. LUTHER AHOLO. Italy: Count ALBERT DE FORESTA. Japan: Professor KIKUCHI. Liberia: Mr. WILLIAM COPPINGER. Mexico: Mr. LEANDRO FERNANDEZ and Mr. ANGEL ANGUIANO. Netherlands: Mr. G. DE WECKHERLIN. Paraguay: Capt. JOHN STEWART. Russia: Mr. C. DE STRUVE, Major-General STEBNITZKI, and Mr. J. DE KOLOGRIVOFF. San Domingo: Mr. M. DE J. GALVAN. Spain: Mr. JUAN VALERA, Mr. EMILIO RUIZ DEL ARBOL, and Mr. JUAN PASTORIN. Sweden: Count CARL LEWENHAUPT. Switzerland: Col. EMILE FREY. Turkey: Mr. RUSTEM EFFENDI. Venezuela: Dr. A. M. SOTELDO. United States: Rear-Admiral C. R. P. RODGERS, Mr. LEWIS M. RUTHERFURD, Mr. W. F. ALLEN, Commander W. T. SAMPSON, and Prof. CLEVELAND ABBE.

Absent:

Denmark: Mr. C. S. A. DE BILLE. Salvador: Mr. A. BATRES.

The PRESIDENT. In view of the many communications addressed to the President of this Conference, having reference to the business before it, presenting statements and arguments in relation thereto, the Chair asks that a committee be appointed, to which shall be referred all such communications, and that the committee be instructed to make such report upon them as it may deem advisable.

Count LEWENHAUPT, Delegate of Sweden. I beg leave to propose to the Conference that the appointment of this committee be left to the President.

Mr. SOTELDO, Delegate of Venezuela. I second the motion of the Delegate of Sweden.

Mr. DE STRUVE, Delegate of Russia. I entertain the same opinion, and I support the motion.

The motion was then unanimously adopted.

The PRESIDENT. I will name as the members of the Committee the Delegate of Great Britain, Professor ADAMS; the Delegate of Germany, Mr. HINCKELDEYN; the Delegate of the United States, Professor ABBE; the Delegate of Japan, Mr. KIKUCHI; and the Delegate of Costa Rica, Mr. ECHEVERRIA.

PRESIDENT. Alter a discussion of only three hours this Conference adjourned a week ago to-day, subject to the call of its President. Owing to the want of a French stenographer to report the words that were spoken in French, there has been much delay in preparing the protocol, which has not yet been completed. Fortunately, an experienced French stenographer has been procured through the kind intervention of Mr. SANDFORD FLEMING, of the delegation from Great Britain, and Mr. WILLIAM SMITH, Deputy Minister of Marine for the Dominion of Canada. We may now hope to have a fairly accurate report of what is said, both in French and English, needing only slight verbal corrections, and the Chair trusts that delegates may find it convenient to make the corrections very promptly, so that the protocols may be printed and verified as speedily as possible.

Should any delegate, who has not yet spoken, desire to address the Conference upon the resolution of the Delegate from France, his remarks will now be received, and when the mover of the resolution shall close the debate, the vote will be taken, if such be the pleasure of the Conference.

Mr. SANDFORD FLEMING, Delegate of Great Britain. I have listened with great attention and deep interest to the remarks which have fallen from the several gentlemen who have spoken, and I desire your kind indulgence for a few moments while I explain the views I have formed on the motion of the distinguished Delegates from France.

I feel that the important question which this Conference has to consider must be approached in no narrow spirit. It is one which affects every nationality, and we should endeavor, in the common interest, to set aside any national or individual prejudices we possess, and view the subject as members of one community—in fact, as citizens of the world. Acting in this broad spirit, we cannot fail to arrive at conclusions which will promote the common good of mankind.

In deliberating on the important subject before us, it seems to me there are two essential points which we should constantly bear in mind.

1. We should consider what will best promote the general advantage, not now only, but for all future years, while causing at the present time as little individual and national inconvenience as possible.

2. We should, in coming to a determination on the main question for which this Conference is called, leave nothing undone to avoid offence, now or hereafter, to the sensitiveness of individual nations.

The motion is, that the initial meridian to be chosen should be selected on account of its neutrality. This undoubtedly involves the selection of an entirely new meridian, one which has never previously been used by any nation, as all initial meridians in use are more or less national, and, as such, would not be considered neutral in the sense intended by the honorable Delegates from France.

Let us suppose that this Conference adopted the motion. Let us suppose, further, that we found a meridian quite independent of and unrelated to any existing initial meridian. Would we then have accomplished the task for which we are met? I ask, would the twenty-six nations here represented accept our recommendation to adopt the neutral meridian? I greatly fear that the passing of the resolution would not in the least promote the settlement of the important question before the Conference. The world has already at least eleven different first meridians. The adoption of the new meridian contemplated by the Delegates from France would, I apprehend, simply increase the number and proportionately increase the difficulty which so many delegates from all parts of the earth are assembled here to remove.

This would be the practical effect of the passing of the resolution. If it had any effect, it would increase the difficulty, and I need not say that is not the object which the different Governments had in view when they sent delegates to this Conference. The President has well pointed out in his opening address the advantages which would be gained, and the great dangers which, at times, would be avoided by seafaring vessels having one common zero of longitude. Besides the benefits which would accrue to navigation, there are advantages of equal importance in connection with the regulation of time, to spring, I trust, from our conclusions.

It does not appear to me that the adoption of the motion would in any way advance these objects. I do not say that the principle of a neutral meridian is wrong, but to attempt to establish one would, I feel satisfied, be productive of no good result. A neutral meridian is excellent in theory, but I fear it is entirely beyond the domain of practicability. If such be the case, it becomes necessary to consider how far it would be practicable to secure the desired advantages by adopting as a zero some other meridian which, while related to some existing first meridian, would not be national in fact, and would have the same effect as a perfectly neutral meridian in allaying national susceptibilities.

The selection of an initial meridian related to meridians now in use gives us a sufficiently wide choice. Allow me to read the following list, showing the number and the total tonnage of vessels using the several meridians named, in ascertaining their longitude.

====================================================================== SHIPS OF ALL KINDS. PER CENT. INITIAL MERIDIANS. + -+ Number. Tonnage. Ships. Tonnage. -+ -+ -+ + - Greenwich.................. 37,663 14,600,972 65 72 Paris...................... 5,914 1,735,083 10 8 Cadiz...................... 2,468 666,602 5 3 Naples..................... 2,263 715,448 4 4 Christiana................. 2,128 695,988 4 3 Ferro...................... 1,497 567,682 2 3 Pulkova.................... 987 298,641 11/2 11/2 Stockholm.................. 717 154,180 11/2 1 Lisbon..................... 491 164,000 1 1 Copenhagen................. 435 81,888 1 1/2 Rio de Janeiro............. 253 97,040 1/2 1/2 Miscellaneous.............. 2,881 534,569 41/2 21/2 -+ -+ + - Total ............... 57,697 20,312,093 100 100 -+ -+ -+ + -

It thus appears that one of these meridians, that of Greenwich, is used by 72 per cent. of the whole floating commerce of the world, while the remaining 28 per cent. is divided among ten different initial meridians. If, then, the convenience of the greatest number alone should predominate, there can be no difficulty in a choice; but Greenwich is a national meridian, and its use as an international zero awakens national susceptibilities. It is possible, however, to a great extent, to remove this objection by taking, for a zero of longitude and time, the meridian farthest distant from Greenwich. This being on the same great circle as Greenwich, it would not require the establishment of a new observatory; its adoption would produce no change in charts or nautical tables, beyond the notation of longitude. It would possess all the advantage claimed for the Greenwich meridian in connection with navigation, and as a zero for regulating time it would be greatly to be preferred to the Greenwich meridian. This Pacific meridian being accepted as the common zero, and longitude being reckoned continuously in one direction, there would be an end to the necessity of any nation engraving on its charts the words "longitude east or west of Greenwich." The one word "longitude" would suffice. The zero meridian would be international and in no respect national. Even on British charts all reference to Greenwich would disappear.

This view of the question is sustained by many distinguished men. I shall only ask permission to read the opinion of Mr. Otto Struve, Director of the Imperial Observatory at Pulkova, than whom there is no higher authority.

"The preference given to the Greenwich meridian was based, on one side, on the historical right of the Royal Observatory of England, acquired by eminent services rendered by this establishment during the course of two centuries, to mathematical geography and navigation; on the other side, considering that the great majority of charts now in use upon all the seas are made according to this meridian, and about 90 per cent. of the navigators of long standing are accustomed to take their longitude from this meridian. However, an objection against this proposition is, that the meridian of Greenwich passes through two countries of Europe, and thus the longitude would be reckoned by different signs in different portions of our own continent and also of Africa.

"Moreover, the close proximity of the meridian of Paris, to which, perhaps, some French geographers and navigators of other nations would still hold to, from custom, from a spirit of contradiction or from national rivalry, might easily cause sad disaster. To obviate these inconveniences, I have proposed to choose as prime meridian another meridian, situated at an integral number of hours east or west of Greenwich, and among the meridians meeting this condition, I have indicated, in the first place, the meridian proposed to-day by scientific Americans, as that which would combine the most favorable conditions for its adoption. Thus the meridian situated 180 deg. from Greenwich presents the following advantages:—

"1. It does not cross any continent but the eastern extremity of the North of Asia, inhabited by people very few in number and little civilized, called Tschouktschis.

"2. It coincides exactly with that line where, after the custom introduced by a historical succession of maritime discoveries, the navigator makes a change of one unit in the date, a difference which is made near a number of small islands in the Pacific Ocean, discovered during the voyages made to the east and west. Thus the commencement of a new date would be identical with that of the hours of cosmopolitan time.

"3. It makes no change to the great majority of navigators and hydrographers, except the very simple addition of twelve hours, or of 180 deg. to all longitudes.

"4. It does not involve any change in the calculations of the Ephemerides most in use amongst navigators, viz., the English Nautical Almanac, except turning mid-day into midnight, and vice versa. In the American Nautical Almanac there would be no other change to introduce. With a cosmopolitan spirit, and in the just appreciation of a general want, the excellent Ephemerides published at Washington, record all data useful to navigators calculated from the meridian of Greenwich.

"For universal adoption, as proposed by the Canadian Institute, it recommends itself to the inhabitants of all civilized countries, by reason of the great difference in longitude, thus removing all the misunderstandings and uncertainties concerning the question, as to whether, in any case, cosmopolitan or local time was used.

"In answer to the first question offered by the Institute at Toronto, I would, therefore, recommend the Academy to pronounce without hestation in favor of the universal adoption of the meridian situated 180 deg. from Greenwich, as Prime Meridian of the globe."

I quote from the report of M. Otto Struve to the Imperial Academy of Sciences of St. Petersburg, 30th Sept., 1880.

I respectfully submit, we have thus the means of solving the problem presented to us, without attempting to find such a meridian as that contemplated in the motion of the honorable delegates. Whatever its origin, the Pacific meridian referred to would soon be recognized as being as much neutral as any meridian could possibly be. If, on the other hand, we adopt the motion, I very greatly fear that the great object of this Conference will be defeated, and the settlement of a question so pregnant with advantages to the world will be indefinitely postponed.

Dr. CRULS, Delegate of Brazil. Gentlemen. Since the opening of this discussion more authoritative voices than mine—among others that of the Honorable Mr. SANDFORD FLEMING, Delegate of Great Britain, who has just expressed his opinion upon the question—have been heard upon the important subject which we are now called upon to discuss, and of which we should endeavor to find a full and final solution. The various aspects of the projected reform—viz., the unification of longitude, which numerous international interests recommend to our care—appear to me to have been examined, and that relieves me of the task of taking up again the question in its details, and permits me to abridge very much the considerations which I think it is my duty to present in order to explain my vote. Upon to the present moment we have settled one point, gentlemen, and it is one of great importance; that is, the necessity of adopting a common prime meridian. This point has obtained the support of all the Delegates present at the Conference. This necessity being recognized, it is proper to take another step towards the solution of the problem presented to us, and to decide what that meridian shall be. It is this choice, gentlemen, which at this moment forms the subject of our discussion, and upon which we have to decide.

My honorable colleague, Mr. RUTHERFURD, the Delegate of the United States, has presented a motion proposing the adoption of the meridian of Greenwich, a motion which is again made, having been withdrawn temporarily from our discussion with the consent of its proposer. The motion which was presented at the last session, and which has formed the subject of numerous interesting discussions is that made by my honorable colleague, Mr. JANSSEN, Delegate of France, who proposes that the meridian adopted should have a neutral character, and should not cross either of the great continents of Europe or America. This proposition, gentlemen, has been strongly resisted by the Delegates of Great Britain and the United States, and firmly maintained by the Delegates of France, and the debates which followed gave us an opportunity of being present at a scientific tournament of the highest interest. The speakers whom we have had the honor of hearing seem to me to have exhausted all the arguments for and against, and at the present stage of the discussion I presume that these debates have permitted each one of us to form, with a full knowledge of the case, an opinion upon the question on which we are called to vote.

For my part, gentlemen, I desire to state clearly the attitude that Brazil, in my opinion, must take in this Conference. That attitude is one of absolute neutrality, inasmuch as the question is whether or not to choose a national meridian which may provoke among certain nations very legitimate rivalries. From the point of view only of the interests of Brazil, the choice of one meridian rather than any other is recommended to me by no consideration. Our local charts are referred to the nearest meridian, that of the observatory of Rio Janeiro, which is the point of departure in the geodetic or hydrographic operations in course of execution in Brazil, and which all are connected with that same meridian. The marine charts of the coast most in use are the result of the hydrographic works executed by the Commandant MOUCHEZ, now admiral and director of the observatory of Paris. As to the telegraphic determination of the longitude of the observatory of Rio, we owe it to the American Commission, directed by Commandant GREEN, of the United States Navy. Now, gentlemen, up to the day on which the Conference met for the first time, I had hoped that these discussions entered upon under the influence of a generous rivalry, and having for their only purpose the establishment of a measure, the necessity of which is strongly sought by many interests of a diverse nature, would lead to a complete and final solution of the problem. Unfortunately, and I regret to be obliged to add it, the differences of opinion which have manifested themselves in this Congress permit scarcely a hope of this result. For my part, gentlemen, I cannot lose sight of the fact that it is indispensable that the question for which this Congress is assembled should receive a complete settlement; if not, the purpose of the Congress will not be attained. Since the Delegates of France have manifested from the begining of our discussions their opposition to the adoption of any meridian which had a national character, which has given rise to the motion presented by Mr. JANSSEN, it follows that every measure voted by the Congress tending to the adoption of a national meridian, will be, by the very fact of the abstention of France, an incomplete measure, and which will not answer the purpose sought by the Conference. I hasten to add, in order to avoid all erroneous interpretations which could be given to my words, that it would be the same, if, for instance, the meridian of Paris was proposed, and any great maritime nation, such as England, the United States, or any other, should abstain from voting for its adoption. In that case, also, the measure adopted would not be complete, and in that case, also, my line of conduct would be the same.

To resume, I would say that the great benefits that the whole world will receive from the adoption of a common prime meridian will not be fully produced unless the measure is unanimously accepted by all the most important maritime nations. In any other event, I am, for my part, absolutely convinced that the measure adopted will be partly inefficacious, its adoption not being general, and everything will have to be done over again in the not distant future. The discussions at which we have been present abundantly prove to me that it will always be so, as long as the meridian of some great nation is proposed. In the face of this difficulty, which appears to me insurmountable, the only solution which, by its very nature, will not raise exciting questions of national pride is that of a meridian having a character of absolute neutrality. If the adoption of such a meridian was admitted in principle, I am certain that a discussion based upon pure science, and following the best conditions which it should realize, would conduct us rapidly to a practical settlement of the question.

In such a discussion the arguments which ought to prevail should be, before everything, drawn from science, the only source of truth which alone can enlighten us, so as to permit us to form a sound judgment, and to decide solely upon considerations of a purely scientific nature.

In addition to these considerations, I am not ignorant that there are others. I refer to questions of economy of which it is necessary to take count. As to political interests, if there are any, our eminent colleagues who represent so worthily the diplomatic element in this assembly would see that they had due weight, and, thanks to this assembly of men distinguished, some in science and others in diplomacy, there was every reason to hope that the final practical solution of the question which we are seeking would not be long in being made clear to us all by the discussions.

Moreover, this practical solution appears to me already to follow from what our honorable colleague, M. JANSSEN, has told us on that subject. The principle of the neutral meridian once adopted, there would still to be discussed the conditions which it should fulfil and the determination of its position. Two things must be considered, either the meridian will be exclusively over the ocean, and then, by its very nature, it will be neutral, or it will cut some island, and in that case nothing would prevent an international diplomatic convention making neutral the plot of land on which it was desirable to establish an observatory, which would in reality be a very small matter. Of these two solutions, both of which satisfy the conditions which the meridian ought to fulfil in its character of neutrality and by the requirements of science, I prefer the second. I wish merely to suggest by what I have said how it would be possible to arrive at a practical solution of the question, since now I am only speaking of the adoption of the principle of the neutral meridian.

I conclude, gentlemen, by declaring that I shall vote in favor of the adoption of a meridian with a character of absolute neutrality, and in doing so I hope to contribute my share to giving our resolutions such a character of independence as is necessary to make them generally acceptable in the future, and to unite in their support, at present, scientific men without distinction of nationality who are now awaiting our decision.

Professor JANSSEN, Delegate of France. Gentlemen, I have listened with a great deal of attention to the discourse of the Delegate of England, Mr. FLEMING, and if we had not had such an exhaustive discussion last session, at which, I believe, all the reasons for and against were given, I would certainly have asked permission to answer it. But I believe that on all sides we are sufficiently enlightened on the question, and I desire above all to declare that it is not our intention of making this debate eternal. It is now for you, gentlemen, to decide. I am the more inclined to act thus, as my honorable colleague, the Delegate of Brazil, Dr. L. CRULS, who is an astronomer like myself, appears to me to have recapitulated the question with a loftiness of views, and in such happy language, that, in truth, we may take his arguments as our own. Before concluding, I wish to thank my colleagues for the kind attention that they have been good enough to accord me.

The PRESIDENT. The question recurs upon the resolution offered by the Delegates of France. The resolution is as follows:

"Resolved, That the initial meridian should have a character of absolute neutrality. It should be chosen exclusively so as to secure to science and to international commerce all possible advantages, and especially should cut no great continent—neither Europe nor America."

The PRESIDENT. Is the Conference ready for the question? No objection being made, the roll was called, with the following result:

Ayes.

Brazil, San Domingo. France,

Noes. Austria, Germany, Chili, Great Britain, Colombia, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Hawaii, Italy, Spain, Japan, Sweden, Liberia, Switzerland, Mexico, Turkey, Netherlands, United States, Paraguay, Venezuela. Russia,

Twenty-one noes and three ayes.

The PRESIDENT. The resolution is, therefore, lost.

Mr. RUTHERFURD, Delegate of the United States. Mr. President, in presenting again the resolution which was withdrawn by me to give place to the resolution offered by our colleagues from France, having taken the advice from several members of the Conference with whom I consulted, it was thought best to offer a system of resolutions which should be responsive to the mandate under which we act. With the view of bringing the subject to the notice of all the members of the Conference, I caused copies of the resolutions which I hold in my hand to be sent to them.

I have since heard that is has been held that these resolutions had been irregularly so communicated; that is, that the communication was made in a semi-official manner. I beg to express an entire disclaimer of anything of that sort. It was merely my individual action, and I desired to give notice of certain resolutions, with the sole view of having them fully understood before we met and to save time. I hope, therefore, that this excuse and explanation will be understood and accepted.

These resolutions are founded, as far as may be, upon those adopted at Rome. They differ from them only in two points. In the counting of longitude the Conference at Rome proposed that it should take place around the globe in one direction. This counting was to be in the direction from west to east.

Very singularly, I find in the report of the proceedings of the Roman Conference no discussion on that subject. No questions were asked, nor were any reasons given, why it should be so counted, and yet it was an entire divergence from the usage of the world at that time. The wording of the resolution of the Conference at Rome is substantially this: That the counting of longitude should take place from the meridian of Greenwich in the single direction of west to east.

It being my desire to avail myself, as far as possible, of the work of the Conference at Rome, I consulted with my colleagues here, and found that there was a great diversity of opinion. In the first place, some said we have always counted longitude both ways, east to west and west to east. Shall we cease to do that? Those who claimed that it was a more scientific way to count all around the globe immediately differed on the direction in which the longitude should be counted. Without going into any argument as to which of these methods would be the best or most convenient, I propose, by the second resolution, that we should go on in the old way, and count longitude from the initial meridian in each direction.

One of the objects of the third resolution is to make the new universal day coincide with the civil day rather than with the astronomical day. In the Conference at Rome the universal day was made to coincide with the astronomical day. It seems to me that the inconvenience of that system would be so great that we ought to hesitate before adopting it. For us in America, perhaps the inconvenience would not be so very great, but for such countries as France and England, and those lying about the initial meridian, the inconvenience would be very great, for the morning hours would be one day, and the afternoon hours would be another day. That seems to me to be a very great objection.

It was simply, therefore, to obviate this difficulty that this resolution was offered. I hope, notwithstanding, that some day, not far distant, all these conflicting days, the local, the universal, the nautical, and the astronomical, may start from some one point. This hope I have the greater reason to cherish since I have communicated with the distinguished gentlemen who are here present, and it was with that hope before me that I framed the resolution so that the beginning of the day should be the midnight at the initial meridian, and not the mid-day. With this explanation, I now again move the adoption of the first resolution, which is as follows:

"Resolved, That the Conference proposes to the Governments here represented the adoption of the meridian passing through the centre of the transit instrument at the Observatory of Greenwich as the initial meridian for longitude."

The PRESIDENT. The Conference has heard the resolution. Any remarks are now in order.

Mr. SANDFORD FLEMING, Delegate of Great Britain. I think, sir, the resolution goes a little too far at a single leap. I beg leave, therefore, to move an amendment in harmony with the resolution, at the same time leaving it to be settled by a subsequent resolution, whether the zero be at Greenwich or at the other side of the globe.

"That a meridian proper, to be employed as a common zero in the reckoning of longitude and the regulation of time throughout the world, should be a great circle passing through the poles and the centre of the transit instrument at the Observatory of Greenwich."

Prof. ADAMS, Delegate of Great Britain. Mr. President, I desire merely to state, in reference to the amendment brought forward by one of our delegates, that the remaining delegates of Great Britain are by no means of the opinion expressed in that amendment, and that it is their intention, if it should come to a vote, to vote against it.

The proposition to count longitude from a point 180 degrees from the meridian of Greenwich appears to them not to be accompanied by any advantage whatever. On the contrary, it must lead to inconvenience. You do not, by adopting the meridian opposite Greenwich, get rid of the nationality of the meridian. If there is objection to the meridian of Greenwich on account of its nationality, the meridian of 180 degrees from Greenwich is subject to the same objection. The one half is just as national as the other half.

The PRESIDENT. The chair would say that no specific meridian is mentioned in the amendment.

Prof. ADAMS, Delegate of Great Britain. That is true, but, at the same time, it should be said that the meridian described is ambiguous. It is the meridian that passes through the poles and the centre of the transit instrument of the Observatory of Greenwich. That is the language of the amendment. But it is intended to apply to only one-half of the great circle passing through the poles, that is to the distant half of the meridian rather than to the nearer half. Unless it defines which half it is intended to take, the amendment is ambiguous, and it is not proper to be voted on.

Mr. MILES ROCK, Delegate of Guatemala. Mr. President, It may be well to hear the words of the original resolution, in order that we can clearly see the relation of the amendment to that resolution.

The original resolution of the Delegate of the United States was then read.

Baron VON ALVENSLEBEN, Delegate of Germany. Mr. President, I think that in this amendment offered by the Delegate of Great Britain two questions are mixed up together. The first thing for us to do is to fix upon a prime meridian; the second thing to settle is the question whether the adoption of a universal day is desirable or not. If we adopt this amendment, these two questions are involved in one vote. Therefore, I think that they should be divided, for they are not appropriate in the form in which they are presented.

Mr. VALERA, Delegate of Spain. I ask permission to speak, in order to explain my vote. The Government which I represent here has told me to accept the Greenwich meridian as the international meridian for longitudes, but I think it my duty to say that, though the question does not arise in this debate, that Spain accepts this in the hope that England and the United States will accept on their part the metric system as she has done herself. I only wish to state this, and I have no intention of making it a subject of discussion. I shall only add that I believe Italy is similarly situated with Spain in this matter.

The PRESIDENT. The Chair would say with great deference to the distinguished Delegate from Spain that the question of weights and measures is beyond the scope of this Conference. The invitation given by the Government of the United States to the nations here represented was for a distinct and specific purpose, the selection of a prime meridian, a zero of longitude throughout the world and a standard of time-reckoning. So far as the Chair is informed, it would not be in order at this Conference to discuss a question of metric system.

Mr. JUAN VALERA, Delegate of Spain. My only intention in making these remarks was to verify a fact. I know very well that we have not to discuss that question. Besides, the Government which I represent expresses only a hope, and I know we do not insert any hopes in our protocols; but I thought it my duty to make this declaration.

Mr. LEFAIVRE, Delegate of France. I desire to make some remarks on the question when it is put to a vote; for the time being I shall only say a few words on the remarks of my honorable colleague, the Delegate of Spain, Mr. Valera. I believe that though the question of weights and measures is not before the Conference, it is allowable for a member to state, in the name of his Government, the conditions to which his vote has been subordinated. Even though the question is not under discussion, it may appear from such an explanation that the vote is conditional, instead of being a simple affirmation. If my honorable colleague has received from his Government instructions to subordinate his vote to such or such a condition, even when the question to which it is subordinated is not submitted to the Conference, it follows from it, according to me, and everybody will admit it, that the consequences of that vote are at least conditional.

Mr. VALERA, Delegate of Spain. My Government has charged me to express here its hopes and desires, but the vote which I have given is not, in my opinion, conditional; for I have received instructions to pronounce in favor of the Greenwich meridian to measure the degrees of longitude. However, it was necessary for me to say at the same time that it was with the hope that England and the United States would adopt the French weights and measure.

General STRACHEY, Delegate of Great Britain. While I entirely agree with the view which the Chair has taken of the question whether the adoption of metrical weights and measures is before this Conference—namely, that it is beyond our competence to discuss it—yet I am glad to have the opportunity of saying that I am authorized to state that Great Britain, after considering the opinions which were expressed at Rome, has desired that it may be allowed to join the Convention du metre. The arrangements for that purpose, when I left my country, were either completed, or were in course of completion, so that, as a matter of fact, Great Britain henceforth will be, as regards its system of weights and measures, exactly in the same position as the United States.

In Great Britain the use of metrical weights and measures is authorized by law. Contracts can be made in which they are used, and the department which regulates the weights and measures of Great Britain is charged, consequently, with the duty of providing properly authenticated standard metric weights and measures for purposes of verification. It is quite true that the Government of England does not hold out any expectation that she will adopt the compulsory use of the metric system, either at the present time, or, so far as that goes, at any future time; but it is a well known fact—and in saying this I shall be supported, I have no doubt, by the views of the eminent scientific men of my own country who are here present—that there is a strong feeling on the part of scientific men of England that, sooner or later, she will be likely to join in the use of that system, which, no doubt, is an extremely good one, and which, so far as purely scientific purposes are concerned, is largely in use at the present time.

Mr. VALERA, Delegate of Spain. I desire to thank the honorable Delegate of England, General Strachey, for the friendly words which he has just pronounced, and to felicitate myself for having manifested the desire and hope of my Government that England should accept the weights and measures which have been accepted in Spain and in other parts of the European continent.

Mr. LEFAIVRE, Delegate of France. Mr. Chairman, I cannot pretend to make any suggestion of any technical value on the question now before us. I only rise to add a few words to the views which have been so authoritatively expounded to you by Prof. JANSSEN, in order to explain clearly the situation of the French Government in this important discussion.

It is henceforth evident, after the instructive debate at which we have just assisted, that the meridian of Greenwich is not a scientific one, and that its adoption implies no progress for astronomy, geodesy, or navigation; that is to say, for all the branches and pursuits of human activity interested in the unification at which we aim.

Thus, science is absolutely disinterested in the selection which we are now discussing and that fact I wish to emphasize particularly, as we are about to take a vote which we can easily anticipate by the one we had a few minutes ago, in order that the opponents of the resolution may not be accused of obstructing progress and the great aims of science for private interests.

If, on the contrary, any conclusion is to be drawn from the instructive debate at which we have assisted, it is that the principal, I will say more, the only merit of the Greenwich meridian—and our colleague from Great Britain just now reminded us of it by enumerating with complacency the tonnage of British and American shipping—is that there are grouped around it, interests to be respected, I will acknowledge it willingly, by their magnitude, their energy, and their power of increasing, but entirely devoid of any claim on the impartial solicitude of science. To strengthen my assertion, gentlemen, I fall back upon the arguments brought forward by Mr. Hirsch in his remarkable report to the Geodetic Conference at Rome, arguments that evidently carried the vote of that assembly.

The Greenwich meridian, says that report, corresponds to an empire that embraces twenty million square kilometres and a population of two hundred and fifty millions. Her merchant marine, which counts 40,000 ships of a tonnage from six to nine million tons, and crews of 370,000 men, surpasses in importance all the other marines put together. Other States, equally important by their merchant marine, especially the United States, make use of the Greenwich meridian. Well, gentlemen, if we weigh these reasons—the only ones that have been set forth, the only ones that at present militate for the Greenwich meridian—is it not evident that these are material superiorities, commercial preponderances that are going to influence your choice? Science appears here only as the humble vassal of the powers of the day to consecrate and crown their success. But, gentlemen, nothing is so transitory and fugitive as power and riches. All the great empires of the world, all financial, industrial, and commercial prosperities of the world, have given us a proof of it, each in turn.

So long as there are not in polities or commerce any scientific means by which to fix, to enchain fortune, I see no reason to fix, to enchain, to subordinate, so to say, science to their fate.

The character of the proposed determination of the initial meridian is so evident, that the reporter of the Conference at Rome, Mr. Hirsch, admits it implicitly, for recognizing that the adoption of the meridian of Greenwich is a sacrifice for France, he asks that England should respond by a similar concession, by favoring the definitive adoption of the metric system, and by acceding to the Convention of the metre which furnishes to all States metric standards rigorously compared. Thus, Mr. Hirsch, in a spirit of justice, wished to make for each a balance of profit and loss—evident proof that the question was of a commercial, and of no scientific advantage. I am not aware, and my mission is not to discover, whether the bargain might have been accepted by France. However, it is with great pleasure that I heard our colleague from England declare that his Government was ready to join the international metric convention, but I notice, with sorrow, that our situation in this Congress is not as favorable as that of Rome, since the total abandonment of our meridian is proposed without any compensation.

At Rome the adoption of the metric system of weights and measures, of which France had the glorious initiative, was held out to us, but here we are simply invited to sacrifice traditions dear to our navy, to national science, by adding to that immolation pecuniary sacrifices.

We are assuredly very much flattered that there should be attributed to us sufficient abnegation to elevate us to that double heroism. We wish that we were able to justify such a flattering opinion, and especially we should like to be encouraged by examples. There are at this very moment magnificent transformations to be realized for the progress of science, and of the friendly relations of nations—unification of weights and measures, adoption of a common standard of moneys, and many other innovations of a well recognized utility, infinitely more pressing and more practical than that of meridians. When the discussion of these great questions is begun, let each nation come and bring its share of sacrifices for this international progress. France, according to her usage, I may say so without vain glory as without false modesty, France will not remain behind. For the present we decline the honor of immolating ourselves alone for progress of a problematic, and eminently secondary order; and it is with perfect tranquillity of conscience that we declare that we do not concur in the adoption of the meridian of Greenwich, persuaded as we are that France does not incur the reproach of retarding and of obstructing the march of science by abstaining from participating in this decision.

The PRESIDENT. Unless some other Delegate desires to speak, the question will be put upon the amendment of the Delegate of Great Britain, Mr. FLEMING.

The question was then put, and the amendment was lost.

The PRESIDENT. The Chair sees upon the floor to-day, as the guest of this Conference, one of the most distinguished scientists, who was invited to be present at our meetings, Sir WILLIAM THOMSON, whose name is known the world over in connection with subjects kindred to this we are now discussing. If it be the pleasure of the Conference to ask Sir WILLIAM THOMSON briefly to express his views, the Chair would be very happy to make the invitation.

The Chair, hearing no dissent, takes pleasure in introducing Sir WILLIAM THOMSON.

Sir WILLIAM THOMSON. Mr. President and Gentlemen, I thank you for permitting me to be present on this occasion, and I thank you also for giving me the opportunity of expressing myself in reference to the subject under discussion. I only wish that the permission which you have so kindly given me may conduce to the objects of this Conference more than I can hope any words of mine can do.

The question immediately under discussion is, I understand, the proposal that the meridian passing through the centre of the instrument at the Observatory of Greenwich shall be adopted as the initial meridian of longitude, and it does seem to me that this is a practical question; that this resolution expresses a practical conclusion that it is expected by the world the present Conference may reach. It is expected that the resolutions adopted will be for the general convenience, and not for the decision of a scientific question. It is the settlement of a question which is a matter of business arrangement. The question is, what will be most convenient, on the whole, for the whole world.

It cannot be said that one meridian is more scientific than another, but it can be said that one meridian is more convenient for practical purposes than another, and I think that this may be said pre-eminently of the meridian of Greenwich.

I do most sincerely and fervently hope that the Delegates from France and from the other nations who voted for the preceding resolution will see their way to adopt the resolution that is now before the Conference. It does seem to me that it is a question of sacrifice, and I do trust that the honorable Delegate from France who spoke last, Mr. LEFAIVRE, will see that France is not being asked to make any sacrifice that it was not prepared to make.

In the admirable and interesting addresses which Mr. JANSSEN has given to this Conference, (which I had not the pleasure or satisfaction of hearing, but which I have read with great interest,) the readiness of France to make a much greater sacrifice than that which is now proposed was announced. The amount of sacrifice involved in making any change from an existing usage must always be more or less great, because it cannot be said that it is a matter of no trouble to make such a change; but what I may be allowed to suggest is that the sacrifice which France was ready to make would be very much greater than that which would be made by adopting the resolution now pending.

If the resolution for a neutral meridian had been adopted, all nations would have to make the sacrifice necessary for a change to a meridian not actually determined, and the relations of which could not be so convenient with those meridians already adopted as are the relations between the meridians now in use with that of Greenwich. It does seem to me that if the Delegates of France could see their way to adopt this resolution, they would have no occasion whatever to regret it.

I sympathize deeply with what has been said in regard to a common metrical system. I have a very strong opinion upon this subject, which I will not express, however, if it meets any objection from the Chair; but it seems to me that England is making a sacrifice in not adopting the metrical system. The question, however, cannot be put in that way. We are not here to consider whether England would gain or lose by adopting the metrical system. That is not the way to view this question at all, because whether England should adopt the metrical system is a matter for its own convenience and use, and whether it adopts it or not, other nations are not affected by its course. It would not at all be for the benefit or the reverse of other nations.