The PRESIDENT. The Chair would be very glad to hear Sir WM. THOMSON'S views on this subject if it were before the Conference for discussion, but it is not.

Sir WILLIAM THOMSON. I beg pardon for having mentioned it.

I would repeat that the adoption of the meridian of Greenwich is one of convenience. The difference of other meridians from it is readily ascertained, and therefore it seems to me that the minimum of trouble will be entailed on the world by the general adoption of the meridian of Greenwich. This would require the minimum of change, and, furthermore, the changes which would be necessary are already wholly ascertained.

I would inquire of the Chair whether it would be in order for me to allude to the resolutions number 2 and 3, which have been read?

The PRESIDENT. I think that we must confine ourselves to the subject immediately under discussion—the adoption of a prime meridian.

Sir WILLIAM THOMSON. Then I have only to thank you and the Delegates for allowing me to speak, and to express my very strong approbation of the resolution that has been proposed.

Sir F. J. O. EVANS, Delegate of Great Britain, then made the following remarks:

In view of the interesting information furnished to the Congress by M. JANSSEN on the hydrographic labors of France, past and present, and of the results as represented by the number of Government charts; it has appeared to myself—as having held the office of hydrographer to the Admiralty of Great Britain for many years—in which opinion I am supported by my colleagues, that I should place at the disposal of the Congress certain statistical facts bearing on the great interests of navigation and commerce, as illustrated by the number of marine charts, of sailing directions, and of nautical almanacs annually produced under the authority of the British Government, and of their distribution.

I would wish to disclaim any comparison in this respect with the labors of other countries. From personal knowledge I am aware that all nations—with only one or two exceptions—are, and especially so in the last few years, diligent in the development of hydrography, and that a cordial interchange of the results unfettered by any conditions is steadily being pursued.

With this preface I would lay before you the following statements, observing that the shores of the whole navigable parts of the globe are embraced in the series of Admiralty charts referred to:

The number of copper chart plates in constant use is between 2,850 and 2,900. This number keeps up steadily. About 60 new plates are added every year.

Average number of copper plates annually receiving correction amount to 2,700.

Total number of charts annually printed for the daily use of the ships of Her Majesty's fleet in commission, and for sale to the general public, has for some years ranged between 180,000 and 230,000.

The sale of Admiralty charts to the public through an authorized agent, both in London and at other commercial ports in the kingdom, has been for the last seven years as follows:

1877................................104,562 1878................................109,881 1879................................103,943 1880................................114,430 1881................................118,542 1882................................131,801 1883................................157,325

Of these numbers, about one-fifth have been purchased by the governments or agents of Austria, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, Turkey, and the United States. The appended list, which was furnished to me by the Admiralty Chart agent during the present year, gives the more precise particulars.

+ -+ -+ + -+ + -+ -+ + -+ Ger- United Years. France. many. States. Italy. Russia. Turkey. Austria. Total. + -+ -+ + -+ + -+ -+ + -+ 1877 .. 2,039 5,184 2,067 1,518 11,763 22,561 1878 .. 5,741 3,381 2,641 2,645 5,651 600 20,529 1879 .. 3,340 6,425 5,185 802 9,354 641 25,747 1880 .. 5,793 5,280 1,879 797 10,145 519 376 24,788 1881 .. 4,418 3,640 1,273 2,694 3,406 1,160 996 17,587 1882 .. 7,454 5,656 1,716 2,569 4,245 115 1,197 22,952 1888 .. 5,592 7,882 6,174 2,607 6,280 2,368 2,158 32,961 1884 (1st quar.) 1,367 2,261 2,942 908 2,186 429 677 10,670 + -+ + -+ + -+ -+ + -+ 35,741 39,679 23,867 14,440 52,930 4,591 6,544 177,795 + -+ -+ + -+ + -+ -+ + -+

But the chart resources of the British Admiralty, great as they are, do not suffice to meet the requirements of the smaller class ships of the mercantile marine of Great Britain. There are three commercial firms in London who publish special charts, based, however, on admiralty documents, to satisfy this demand. On inquiry I found that these firms publish 640 charts, which, from their large size, require about 930 copper plates. I am not able to furnish the number of charts sold by these firms, but it is large.

Supplementary to the Admiralty Charts, there are 51 volumes of Sailing Directions. Several of these volumes exceed 500 pages, and have passed through several editions. Private commercial firms also, in addition to their charts, publish directions for many parts of the globe. These include regions with which the Admiralty have not yet, notwithstanding great diligence, been able to deal.

The annual sales of nautical almanacs for the past seven years have been:

1877................................18,439 1878................................16,408 1879................................16,290 1880................................14,561 1881................................15,870 1882................................15,071 1883................................15,535

I think, sir, that these are salient points, which will assist the Conference in coming to a clearer view of the great interest which navigation and commerce have in the charts of a particular country.

The question was then put on the adoption of the resolution offered by the Delegate of the United States, Mr. RUTHERFURD, as follows:

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

The roll was called, and the different States voted as follows:

In the affirmative—

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

In the negative—

San Domingo.

Abstaining from voting—

Brazil, France.

The result was then announced, as follows:

Ayes, 21; noes, 1; abstaining from voting, 2.

The PRESIDENT then announced that the resolution was passed.

Mr. DE STRUVE, Delegate of Russia. In the name of the Delegates for Russia I have now, at this point of the discussion, to say a few words.

If we had to consider the scientific side alone of the questions, which have already been discussed and resolved by the prominent scientists of the different countries at the General Conference of the International Geodetical Association at Rome, in 1883, we might as well simply adhere to the resolutions of the Roman Conference, and limit our work to the shaping of these resolutions into the form of a draft of an international convention, to be submitted for approbation to our respective Governments. But, as we have, besides, to consider the application of the intended reform to practical life, we beg to submit the following suggestions to the kind attention of the Conference.

It is important to find for the more densely populated countries the simplest mode possible of transition from local to universal time, and vice versa; and we believe, therefore, that it would be convenient for the practical purposes of the question to adopt for the beginning of the universal day the midnight of Greenwich, and not the noon, as was deemed advisable by the Conference of Rome.

This modification would offer for the whole of Europe and for the greatest part of America the advantage of avoiding the double date in local and universal time during the principal business hours of the day, and would afford great facilities in the transition from local time to universal.

In adopting the universal time for the astronomical almanacs and for astronomical ephemerides, and in counting the beginning of the day from the midnight of Greenwich, there would be, it is true, a modification of the astronomical chronology, as heretofore used; but we think it easier for the astronomers to change the starting point, and to make allowance for these 12 hours of difference in their calculations, than it would be for the public and for the business men, if the date for the universal time began at noon, and not at midnight.

The Conference at Rome proposes to count the longitudes from O deg. to 360 deg. in the direction from west to east. It seems to us that this system can lead to misunderstanding in the local and universal chronology for the countries beyond the 180 deg. east of Greenwich.

We believe that a more practical result of the reform could be easily obtained by modifying the clause IV of the resolutions of the Roman Conference, and by maintaining the system already in use for a long time, which is to count the longitudes from 0 deg. to 180 deg. to east and west, adopting the sign + for eastern longitudes, and the sign - for western longitudes Thus the transition from universal to local time could be exactly expressed by the formula:

Universal time = Local time - Longitude.

The adoption of this modification would necessitate that the change of the day of the week, historically established on or about the anti-meridian of Greenwich, should henceforth take place exactly on that meridian.

We are in favor of the adoption of the universal time (clause V of the resolutions of the Roman Conference) side by side with the local time, for international telegraphic correspondence, and for through international lines by railroads and steamers.

We fully accept the resolution of the Roman Conference concerning the introduction of the system of counting the hours of the universal day from 0 to 24; and we think it desirable that the same system should be introduced for counting the hours in ordinary life. This would greatly contribute to the disappearance of the arbitrary division of the day into two parts, a. m. and p. m., and to an easier transition from local to universal time.

We think it advisable to mark on all general maps the meridians in time as well as in degrees of longitude, which would render the reform familiar to the public, and facilitate its introduction in the education of the young.

On maritime charts the longitudes ought to be given in degrees, as these are necessary for the determination of distances in maritime miles.

The topographical maps may maintain temporarily their national meridian, in consequence of the difficulties of the modification of the co-ordinates for plates already engraved; but it would be necessary to mark on every sheet the difference between the national and the initial universal meridian in degrees of longitude.

It would be most desirable to have in all new geographical catalogues of astronomical and geodetical points the longitudes given in degrees as well as in time, and that in these new catalogues the new initial meridian be taken as the starting point for the longitudes.

The PRESIDENT. The Chair has listened with great interest and pleasure to the paper which has just been read by the Delegate of Russia, Mr. DE STRUVE, but the Chair begs to state that there is no resolution before the Conference.

The PRESIDENT. The Chair will now direct the second resolution to be read.

The resolution was read, as follows:

"From this meridian" (i.e., the meridian passing through the centre of the transit instrument at the Observatory at Greenwich) "longitude shall be counted in two directions up to 180 degrees, east longitude being plus and west longitude minus."

Mr. RUTHERFURD, Delegate of the United States. Mr. President, In submitting this resolution to the Conference, I wish to say that the remarks of the Delegate of Russia have increased my confidence in the belief of its propriety.

Mr. W. F. ALLEN, Delegate of the United States. Mr. President, the establishment of a prime meridian has, from the force of circumstances, become of practical importance to certain interests entrusted with vast responsibilities for the safety of life and property. These interests bear an important relation to the commerce of the world, and especially to the internal commerce of an extent of country embracing within its limits about sixty-five degrees of longitude. Exactness of time reckoning is an imperative necessity in the conduct of business.

On November 18, 1883, the several railway companies of the United States and the Dominion of Canada united in the adoption of the mean local times of the seventy-fifth, ninetieth, one hundred and fifth, and one hundred and twentieth meridians, west from Greenwich, as the standards of time for the operation of their roads. The system under which they have since been working has proved satisfactory. They have no desire to make any further change. A large majority of the people in the several sections of the country through which the railways pass have either by mutual consent or special legislation adopted for their local use, for all purposes, the standards of time employed by the adjacent roads. Upon the public and working railway time-tables generally the fact has been published that the trains are run by the time of the seventy-fifth or ninetieth, etc., meridians, as the case may be.

The same standards are used by the Railway Mail Service of the United States Post-office Department, which had previously used Washington time exclusively for through schedules.

It will at once be apparent how undesirable any action would be to the transportation interests of this country, which should so locate the prime meridian as to require these time-standard meridians to be designated by other than exact degrees of longitude. That these standard meridians should continue to be designated as even multiples of fifteen degrees from Greenwich is regarded as decidedly preferable. To change to different standards, based upon exact degrees of some other prime meridian, would require an amount of legislation very difficult to obtain.

At a convention of the managers of many important railway lines which control through their connections fully three-fourths of the entire railway system of this country, held in Philadelphia on October 9, 1884, certain action was taken, of which I have the honor to present a duly attested copy.

"At a meeting of the General Railway Time Convention, held in Philadelphia, October 9th, 1884, the following minute was unanimously adopted:

"Whereas, An International Conference is now in session at Washington, D. C., for the purpose of fixing upon a prime meridian and standard of time-reckoning; and

"Whereas, The railway companies of the United States and Canada have adopted a system of time standards based, respectively, upon the mean local times of the 75th, 90th, 105th, and 120th meridians west from Greenwich, and this system has proved so satisfactory in its working as to render any further change inexpedient and unnecessary; therefore

"Resolved, That it is the opinion of this Convention that the selection of any prime meridian which would change the denomination of these governing meridians from even degrees and make them fractional in their character would be disturbing in no small measure to the transportation lines of the United States and Canada.

"Resolved, That a duly attested copy of these resolution be presented to the Conference."

P. P. WRIGHT, Chairman.

Attest: HENRY B. STONE, Secretary pro tempore.

Count LEWENHAUPT, Delegate of Sweden. Mr. President, I propose as an amendment to the resolution just offered the fourth resolution adopted by the Congress at Rome:

"It is proper to count longitude from the meridian of Greenwich in one direction from west to east."

Baron H. VON ALVENSLEBEN, Delegate of Germany. Mr. President, I beg to state that I think that this is only a question of detail; and, if the question is put to the Conference, I shall not be able to vote, and I shall abstain from voting.

The PRESIDENT. May I ask the Delegate from Germany whether his remark applies to the amendment?

Baron H. VON ALVENSLEBEN, Delegate of Germany. Yes, sir; to the amendment, and to the resolution, also.

Prof. ADAMS, Delegate of England. Mr. President, I must say that I am very much inclined to agree with the Delegate of Germany in the opinion that this is only a question of detail.

It is a mere matter of convenience whether we count longitudes in one direction only, or in two opposite directions, considering longitudes measured in one direction as positive and in the opposite direction as negative. These two methods are nominally different from each other, but in reality there is no contradiction between them.

In the mathematical reckoning of angles we may agree to begin at zero, and reckon in one direction round the entire circumference of 360 degrees, but this does not prevent a mathematician, if he finds it convenient for any purpose, from reckoning angles as positive when measured in one direction, and negative when measured in the opposite direction.

If angles be considered positive when reckoned towards the east, it is quite consistent with this usage that they should be considered negative when reckoned towards the west.

It is much more convenient to consider all angles as positive in astronomical tables, but for other purposes it may be more convenient to employ negative angles also, especially when, by so doing, you avoid the use of large numbers.

In comparatively small countries, like Great Britain for instance, it is more convenient when giving the longitude of a place in the west of England to consider it as being a few degrees west of Greenwich, rather than 350 and some degrees to the east of that meridian.

Commander SAMPSON, Delegate of the United States. Mr. President, while I think the question of reckoning longitude is a matter of detail, I think it devolves upon us to decide it one way or the other. Navigators are more interested in the question than mathematicians, and the longitudes must be engraved upon our hydrographic charts.

Now, as the learned Delegate of Great Britain, Prof. ADAMS, who has just spoken, has stated, the principle involved is the same, whether we reckon east or west, or reckon continuously in the same direction. It seems to me, however, that when we come to consider the reckoning of longitude in connection with the adoption of a universal day, we should then make a decided choice in favor of counting longitude from zero to 360 degrees. If we adopt the resolution which my friend, the Delegate of the United States, Mr. RUTHERFURD, has offered, it will be in perfect conformity with the habits of the world. For that reason, and it is a very strong reason, I think it might be adopted; but a little consideration will show that if we reckon the longitude from zero to 360 degrees, east to west, then we will change the existing practice of reckoning longitude; but, of course, only in one hemisphere, and that will be eastward of the prime meridian; but, as we shall all remember, to the eastward of the prime meridian we have the main portions of the continents of Asia, Europe, and Africa, and in all the navigable water lying in the other hemisphere the longitude will continue to be reckoned as now. To navigators of the water lying to the eastward of the prime meridian there will be a change in the method of counting longitude both ways, it would be necessary to adopt two different rules for converting local into universal time.

Prof. ADAMS, Delegate of Great Britain. Oh! no; by no means.

Commander SAMPSON, Delegate of the United States. For although one rule would answer, by having regard to the algebraical sign affecting the longitude, it must be remembered that this rule is to be applied by many who are not accustomed to distinguishing east and west longitudes by a difference of sign, and who would therefore require one rule when the longitude is east and another when it is west. If, however, we adopt the method of reckoning from zero to 360 degrees, from east to west, the relation existing between the local and the universal time becomes the simplest possible. To obtain the universal date and hour, under these circumstances, it only becomes necessary to add the longitude to the local time, understanding by local time the local date as well as the local hour. I think, for this reason, it will be preferable to reckon the longitude in one direction from east to west, instead of west to east.

Sir FREDERICK EVANS, Delegate of Great Britain. I would like to present a few words on behalf of seamen. There is clearly an important change proposed by the amendment. In the resolution before us it is simply a question of the reckoning of longitude as now employed by seamen of all nations, and I think it would be well to keep that fact separate from the reckoning of time.

The PRESIDENT. The Chair begs to state that the discussion is now upon the amendment of the Delegate of Sweden, Count LEWENHAUPT, to adopt the fourth resolution of the Congress at Rome.

Sir FREDERICK EVANS, Delegate of Great Britain. Then I consider that, in the interest of seamen, it would be very undesirable to accept the amendment. We must recollect that an immense deal of the world's traffic is carried around the world entirely by sea, and that this proposed dislocation of the methods of seamen by reckoning longitude in one direction only would, to say the least, be extremely inconvenient, and it would require considerable time for them to get into the habit of doing so. I think, however, that as to the question of time, there would be no difference of opinion; doubtless, it is the easier method; but, as we have to look at the practical side of this calculation of longitude, I must certainly disagree with the amendment and vote for the original resolution.

Mr. JUAN PASTORIN, Delegate of Spain, then presented the following amendment:

"Resolved, That the Conference proposes to the Governments here represented that longitude shall be counted from the prime meridian westward, in the direction opposite to the terrestrial rotation, and reckoned from zero degrees to 360 degrees, and from zero hours to 24 hours."

The PRESIDENT. The question before the Conference now is the amendment of the Delegate of Sweden. If the Delegate of Spain desires to offer his resolution as an amendment to the amendment already offered, the Chair will place it before the Conference.

Mr. JUAN PASTORIN, Delegate of Spain. I am in accord with the views expressed by our colleague, Commander SAMPSON, and I propose the resolution which I have just presented.

Mr. VALERA, the Delegate of Spain. I believe the amendment proposed by my colleague, Mr. PASTORIN, Delegate of Spain, does not apply to the amendment of the Delegate of Sweden, but to the original resolution. In order to avoid all ambiguity it would be much better to discuss them one after the other. Therefore let us decide the question whether it is better to count up to 180 deg. in each direction or up to 360 deg. continuously. Then we can go on to something else.

The PRESIDENT. In order to meet the views expressed by Mr. VALERA, the Delegate of Spain, Mr. PASTORIN will withdraw his amendment, and the Delegate of Sweden, Count LEWENHAUPT, will propose the substance of his original resolution so modified in form that its details may be considered separately.

Mr. JUAN PASTORIN, Delegate of Spain. In conformity with the statement of the President, I now withdraw my amendment.

Count LEWENHAUPT, Delegate of Sweden. I beg to offer the following propositions in the form of amendments to the original resolution offered by the Delegate of the United States; these may be discussed in succession:

"1. That from this prime meridian (the Greenwich meridian) longitude shall be counted in one direction."

"2. That such longitude shall be counted from west to east." Or, in place of No. 2—

"3. That such longitude shall be counted from east to west."

The PRESIDENT. The Delegates from Sweden and Spain have agreed as to the first part of the resolution, that longitude shall be counted in one direction—that is, from zero to 360 degrees. The question before the Conference is now upon the first clause of the resolution, and the other two will be subsequently discussed.

General STRACHEY, Delegate of Great Britain. I think it is impossible to proceed to a vote upon these propositions without bearing in mind what is to be decided as to the universal day. That day, as it appears to me, will have to be determined with reference to the initial meridian in such manner as to prevent, as far as possible, inconvenience from discontinuity of local time and date in passing around the world.

No matter how longitude is calculated, you must necessarily arrive at discontinuity at some point in passing around the great circle of the earth. It seems to me that the most convenient way of counting both longitude and time is that the discontinuity in both shall take place on the same point on the earth. Now, certainly, as was observed at Rome, it will be far less inconvenient if the discontinuity of date takes place on the meridian of 180 degrees from Greenwich. Then the reckoning of local time all around the world, going from west to east in the direction of the earth's rotation, will be continuous.

In any other way, as far as I can see, there will be a discontinuity at some point on the inhabited part of the earth. If the discontinuity were to take place on the meridian of Greenwich, as has been proposed by the Conference at Rome, the dates will change there during the daytime. That, as it appears to me, will be extremely inconvenient.

In order to harmonize what I have called the discontinuity of date with the discontinuity in the reckoning of longitude, it appears to me that it will be best to reckon the longitude in both directions. There will be no discontinuity then except on the 180th meridian. It would be very inconvenient for a great part of the civilized world if the resolution which has been offered should be adopted, if, as I presume it would do, it caused discontinuity both in longitude and local time in Europe.

After all, what are we here to endeavor to do? Notwithstanding what has been said in the other direction, for my part I must say that the great object before us is to secure the greatest convenience of the whole civilized world, and it seems to me that we should try to obtain it.

If there is no very strong reason for altering the existing system of counting longitudes, it appears to me that this is a very excellent reason in favor of maintaining it. I do not see myself that, for any practical purpose, anything would be gained by reckoning longitude from zero to 360 degrees. There may be some special scientific purposes for which it may be convenient, but the object which this resolution is intended to meet is of another character.

What we want is longitude for ordinary purposes, and on that hangs the reckoning of universal time, which, of course, should be for the general use of the whole world.

Professor ADAMS, Delegate of Great Britain. Mr. President, I doubt whether I should trouble the Conference in reference to this point. I think, however, that it is a matter of little importance whether we consider longitude as positive, when reckoned toward the east, and negative, when reckoned to the west, or go on in one direction from zero to 360 degrees; it amounts, mathematically speaking, to the same thing. We never can consider mathematical lines or angles as positive in one direction, without implying that in the opposite direction they are negative. One of these is merely the complement of the other.

For myself, I would say that there is no use in the Conference resolving that we should count longitude only in the eastwardly direction. The Conference may say that if longitude is reckoned towards the east, it shall be considered positive, and, if reckoned towards the west, negative; and that is all we should say. I do not think it is within the competence of the Conference to say that mathematicians shall reckon longitude only in one direction. Whether you choose to reckon right through to 360 degrees or not is a matter of detail, and of no importance in a scientific point of view. You can adopt one style or the other, according to which is found the more convenient in practice.

Mr. SANDFORD FLEMING, Delegate of Great Britain. I would suggest that this matter of detail can very well be discussed and arranged by a committee, otherwise, it may take up the whole time of the Conference. I move, therefore, that a committee be appointed to take up this matter and report upon it at the next meeting.

The PRESIDENT. The Chair desires only to carry out the wish of the Conference, but it does not see clearly what we should gain by a committee. Still, if it be the desire of the Conference to order a committee, then the question will arise as to the organization of that committee, and the Chair would feel some hesitation in appointing it.

Mr. RUTHERFURD, Delegate of the United States. Mr. President, if this was a new question, in regard to which we had heard no discussion, it would be eminently proper that we should put it into the hands of a committee to formalize and thereby to shorten our deliberations; but it seems to me that the appointment of a committee now would not help us at all. When the report of that committee came in, we should have to proceed exactly as we do now.

There are only three questions before the Conference, and they come within very narrow limits. First, shall we count longitude both ways? Second, shall we count it all around the 360 degrees? Third, if so, in which direction is the counting to take place?

These are the only three questions, and, after all, they are questions of convenience. We are just as capable of voting upon these propositions now as we should be after the appointment of a committee.

Baron VON SCHAEFFER, Delegate of Austria-Hungary. Mr. President, I move that we adjourn until to-morrow at one o'clock P.M.

The question upon the motion to adjourn was then put and adopted, and the Conference accordingly adjourned at 3.45 P.M. until Tuesday, the 14th inst., at one o'clock P.M.



V.

SESSION OF OCTOBER 14, 1884.

The Conference met, pursuant to adjournment, in the Diplomatic Hall of the Department of State, at one o'clock p. m.

Present:

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

Absent:

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

The PRESIDENT:

The Chair begs leave to announce that, in the regular order of business, the first matter before the Conference to-day would have been the proposition of the Delegate of Great Britain, Mr. SANDFORD FLEMING, that a committee be appointed to consider a report upon the resolution offered by him yesterday. The Chair understood, however, from Mr. FLEMING this morning that he had no desire to press that proposition, and, therefore, it may be considered as withdrawn.

The question then would be upon the amendment offered by the Delegate of Spain, Mr. JUAN PASTORIN, and if that amendment be withdrawn upon the amendment offered by the Delegate of Sweden, Count LEWENHAUPT. The Chair understands that both of those gentlemen desire to withdraw their propositions temporarily, and, in that event, the first action to be taken will be upon the resolution offered by the Delegate of the United States, Mr. RUTHERFURD.

Mr. RUSTEM EFFENDI, Delegate of Turkey. In voting yesterday in favor of the resolutions proposed by the Hon. Delegate of the United States, I wish to have it well understood that my vote does not bind my Government. I am, indeed, obliged to vote against any proposition which would tend to bind it in any way, for I desire to leave it free to act in the matter.

I engage to submit to my Government the result of our deliberations and to recommend their adoption, but that is all. In other words, I have only voted "ad referendum," and I ask that my statement be entered in the protocol.

The PRESIDENT. The Chair would inform the Delegate who has just spoken that the same statement was made by several delegates at a former meeting of the Conference.

M. JANSSEN, Delegate of France. I believe that the very correct doctrine just enunciated by the Delegate of Turkey, Mr. RUSTEM EFFENDI, is the one adopted by all the members of the Congress, and that we have all voted "ad referendum."

The PRESIDENT. The Chair so understood the general sense of the Conference as expressed at one of our former meetings, when many of the delegates made the same declaration.

Mr. ANTONIO BATRES, Delegate of Salvador. Mr. President, I could not be present yesterday, on account of illness, and I now request permission to register my name in favor of the resolution adopting the meridian of Greenwich as the prime meridian.

The PRESIDENT. The Delegate of Salvador, Mr. BATRES, informs the Chair that he was not able to be present yesterday, on account of illness, and he desires that his name may be recorded as voting for the meridian of Greenwich. If there be no objection to the request of the Delegate to Salvador, his vote will be so entered.

No objection being made, the President instructed the Secretary to make the proper entry in the protocol.

The PRESIDENT. The Delegate of Spain, Mr. PASTORIN, has withdrawn his amendment, and the Delegate of Sweden, Count LEWENHAUPT, has also withdrawn the amendment which he offered to the resolution of the Delegate of the United States, Mr. RUTHERFURD. The resolution originally offered will now be read.

The Secretary then read the resolution, as follows:

"Resolved, That from this meridian [i.e., the meridian of Greenwich] longitude shall be counted in two directions up to 180 degrees, east longitude being plus, and west longitude minus."

Mr. SANDFORD FLEMING, Delegate of Great Britain, representing the Dominion of Canada. I wish to offer some observations on the resolution before the Conference, but I am unable to separate the particular question from the general question. To my mind, longitude and time are so related that they are practically inseparable, and when I consider longitude, my thoughts naturally revert to time, by which it is measured. I trust, therefore, I may be permitted to extend my remarks somewhat beyond the immediate scope of the resolution. I agree with those who think that longitude should be reckoned in one direction only, and I am disposed to favor a mode of notation differing in other respects from that commonly followed.

If a system of universal time be brought into use, advantages would result from having the system of time and the system of terrestrial longitude in complete harmony. The passage of time is continuous, and, therefore, I think longitude should be reckoned continuously. To convey my meaning fully, however, it is necessary that I should enter into explanations at some length.

Ten days back I ventured informally to place my views, with a series of recommendations on this subject, before the delegates. I hope I may now be permitted to submit them to the Conference.

The PRESIDENT. The Chair would inquire of the Conference whether the recommendations and remarks which were sent in print to the Delegates a few days ago by Mr. SANDFORD FLEMING, the Delegate of Great Britain, may be entered upon the protocol as presented to-day. Each member was, it is understood, furnished with a copy of these papers.

Mr. TUPPER, Delegate of Chili. The Delegates of Chili have not received them.

The PRESIDENT. The Chair will take care that they are sent.

No objection was made to the request of the Delegate of Great Britain, Mr. SANDFORD FLEMING, who continued as follows:

The adoption of a Prime Meridian, common to all nations, admits of the establishment of a system of reckoning time equally satisfactory to our reason and our necessities.

At present we are without such a system. The mode of notation followed by common usage from time immemorial, whatever its applicability to limited areas, when extended to a vast continent, with a net-work of lines of railway and telegraph, has led to confusion and created many difficulties. Further, it is insufficient for the purposes of scientific investigation, so marked a feature of modern inquiry.

Taking the globe as a whole, it is not now possible precisely to define when a year or a month or a week begins. There is no such interval of time as the commonly defined day everywhere and invariable. By our accepted definition, a day is local; it is limited to a single meridian. At some point on the earth's surface one day is always at its commencement and another always ending. Thus, while the earth makes one diurnal revolution, we have continually many days in different stages of progress on our planet.

Necessarily the hours and minutes partake of this normal irregularity. Clocks, the most perfect in mechanism, disagree if they differ in longitude. Indeed, if clocks are set to true time, as it is now designated, they must, at least in theory, vary not only in the same State or county, but to some extent in the same city.

As we contemplate the general advance in knowledge, we cannot but feel surprised that these ambiguities and anomalies should be found, especially as they have been so long known and felt. In the early conditions of the human race, when existence was free from the complications which civilization has led to; in the days when tribes followed pastoral pursuits and each community was isolated from the other; when commerce was confined to few cities, and intercommunication between distant countries rare and difficult; in those days there was no requirement for a common system of uniform time. No inconvenience was felt in each locality having its own separate and distinct reckoning. But the conditions under which we live are no longer the same. The application of science to the means of locomotion and to the instantaneous transmission of thought and speech have gradually contracted space and annihilated distance. The whole world is drawn into immediate neighborhood and near relationship, and we have now become sensible to inconveniences and to many disturbing influences in our reckoning of time utterly unknown and even unthought of a few generations back. It is also quite manifest that, as civilization advances, such evils must greatly increase rather than be lessened, and that the true remedy lies in changing our traditional usages in respect to the notation of days and hours, whatever shock it may give to old customs and the prejudices engendered by them.

In countries of limited extent, the difficulty is easily grappled with. By general understanding, an arrangement affecting the particular community may be observed, and the false principles which have led to the differences and disagreements can be set aside. In Great Britain the time of the Observatory at Greenwich is adopted for general use. But this involves a departure from the principles by which time is locally determined, and hence, if these principles be not wrong, every clock in the United Kingdom, except those on a line due north and south from Greenwich, must of necessity be in error.

On the continent of North America efforts have recently been made to adjust the difficulty. The steps taken have been in a high degree successful in providing a remedy for the disturbing influences referred to, and, at the same time, they are in harmony with principles, the soundness of which is indisputable.

When we examine into time in the abstract, the conviction is forced upon us that it bears no resemblance to any sort of matter which comes before our senses; it is immaterial, without form, without substance, without spiritual essence. It is neither solid, liquid, nor gaseous. Yet it is capable of measurement with the closest precision. Nevertheless, it may be doubted if anything measurable could be computed on principles more erroneous than those which now prevail with regard to it.

What course do we follow in reckoning time? Our system implies that there are innumerable conceptions designated "time." We speak of solar, astronomical, nautical, and civil time, of apparent and mean time. Moreover, we assign to every individual point around the surface of the earth separate and distinct times in equal variety. The usages inherited by us imply that there is an infinite number of times. Is not all this inconsistent with reason, and at variance with the cardinal truth, that there is one time only?

Time may be compared to a great stream forever flowing onward. To us, nature, in its widest amplitude, is a unity. We have but one earth, but one universe, whatever its myriad component parts. That there is also but one flow of time is consistent with the plain dictates of our understanding. That there can be more than one passage of time is inconceivable.

From every consideration, it is evident that the day has arrived when our method of time-reckoning should be reformed. The conditions of modern civilization demand that a comprehensive system should be established, embodying the principle that time is one abstract conception, and that all definite portions of it should be based on, or be related to, one unit measure.

On these grounds I feel justified in respectfully asking the consideration of the Conference to the series of recommendations which I venture to submit.

The matter is undoubtedly one in which every civilized nation is interested. Indeed, it may be said that, more or less, every human being is concerned in it. The problem is of universal importance, and its solution can alone be found in the general adoption of a system grounded on principles recognized as incontrovertible.

Such principles are embodied in the recommendations which I am permitted to place before the Conference. They involve, as an essential requirement, the determination of a unit of measurement, and it is obvious that such a unit must have its origin in the motion of the heavenly bodies. No motion is more uniform than the motion of the earth on its axis. This diurnal revolution admits of the most delicate measurement, and, in all respects, is the most available for a unit measure. It furnishes a division of time definite and precise, and one which, without difficulty, can be made plain and manifest.

A revolution of the earth, denoted by the mean solar passage at the Prime or Anti-prime Meridian, will be recognizable by the whole world as a period of time common to all. By general agreement this period may be regarded as the common unit by which time may be everywhere measured for every purpose in science, in commerce, and in every-day life.

The scheme set forth in the recommendations has in view three principal objects, viz:

1. To define and establish an universal day for securing chronological accuracy in dates common to the whole world.

2. To obtain a system of universal time on a basis acceptable to all nations, by which, everywhere, at the same time, the same instant may be observed.

3. To establish a sound and rational system of reckoning time which may eventually be adopted for civil purposes everywhere, and thus secure uniformity and accuracy throughout the globe.

But, in the inauguration of a scheme affecting so many individuals, it is desirable not to interfere with prevailing customs more than necessary. Such influences as arise from habit are powerful and cannot be ignored. The fact must be recognized that it will be difficult to change immediately the usages to which the mass of men have been accustomed. In daily life we are in the habit of eating, sleeping, and following the routine of our existence at certain periods of the day. We are familiar with the numbers of the hours by which these periods are known, and, doubtless, there will be many who will see little reason in any attempt to alter their nomenclature, especially those who take little note of cause and effect, and who, with difficulty, understand the necessity of a remedy to some marked irregularity which, however generally objectionable, does not bear heavily upon them individually.

For the present, therefore, we must adapt a new system, as best we are able, to the habits of men and women as we find them. Provision for such adaptation is made in the recommendations by which, while local reckoning would be based on the principles laid down, the hours and their numbers need not appreciably vary from those with which we are familiar. Thus, time-reckoning in all ordinary affairs in every locality may be made to harmonize with the general system.

Standard time throughout the United States and Canada has been established in accord with this principle. Its adoption has proved the advantages which may be attained generally by the same means. On all sides these advantages have been widely appreciated, and no change intimately bearing upon common life was ever so unanimously accepted. Certainly, it is an important step towards the establishment of one system of universal time, or, as it is designated in the recommendations, Cosmic time.

The alacrity and unanimity with which the change has been accepted in North America encourages the belief that the introduction of cosmic time in every-day life is not unattainable. The intelligence of the people will not fail to discover, before long, that the adoption of correct principles of time-reckoning will in no way change or seriously affect the habits they have been accustomed to. It will certainly sweep away nothing valuable to them. The sun will rise and set to regulate their social affairs. All classes will soon learn to understand the hour of noon, whatever the number on the dial, whether six, as in Scriptural times, or twelve, or eighteen, or any other number. People will get up and retire to bed, begin and end work, take breakfast and dinner at the same periods of the day as at present, and our social habits and customs will remain without a change, depending, as now, on the daily returning phenomena of light and darkness.

The one alteration will be in the notation of the hours, so as to secure uniformity in every longitude. It is to be expected that this change will at first create some bewilderment, and that it will be somewhat difficult to be understood by the masses. The causes for such a change to many will appear insufficient or fanciful. In a few years, however, this feeling must pass away, and the advantages to be gained will become so manifest that I do not doubt so desirable a reform will eventually commend itself to general favor, and be adopted in all the affairs of life.

Be that as it may, it seems to me highly important that a comprehensive time system should be initiated to facilitate scientific observations, and definitely to establish chronological dates; that it should be designed for general use in connection with railways and telegraphs, and for such other purposes for which it may be found convenient.

The Cosmic day set forth in the recommendations would be the date for the world recognizable by all nations. It would theoretically and practically be the mean of all local days, and the common standard to which all local reckoning would be referable.

With regard to the reckoning of longitude, I submit that longitude and time are so intimately related that they may be expressed by a common notation. Longitude is simply the angle formed by two planes passing through the earth's axis, while time is the period occupied by the earth in rotating through that angle. If we adopt the system of measuring time by the revolution of the earth from a recognized zero, one of these planes—that through the zero—may be considered fixed; the other—that through the meridian of the place—being movable, the longitudinal angle is variable. Obviously the variable angle ought to be measured from the fixed plane as zero, and as the motion of the earth by which the equivalent time of the angle is measured is continuous, the longitude ought to be reckoned continuously in one direction. The direction is determined by the notation of the hour meridians, viz., from east to west.

If longitude be so reckoned and denoted by the terms used in the notation of cosmic time, the time of day everywhere throughout the globe would invariably denote the precise longitude of the place directly under the mean sun. Conversely, at the epoch of mean solar passage at any place, the longitude being known, cosmic time would be one and the same with the longitude of the place.

The advantages of such a system of reckoning and nomenclature, as suggested in the recommendations which I now submit, will be, I think, self-evident.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE REGULATION OF TIME AND THE RECKONING OF LONGITUDE

1. That a system of universal time be established, with the view of facilitating synchronous scientific observations, for chronological reckonings, for the purpose of trade and commerce by sea and land, and for all such uses to which it is applicable.

2. That the system be established for the common observance of all peoples, and of such a character that it may be adopted by each separate community, as may be found expedient.

3. That the system be based on the principle that for all terrestrial time reckonings there be one recognized unit of measurement only, and that all measured intervals of time be directly related to the one unit measure.

4. That the unit measure be the period occupied by the diurnal revolution of the earth, defined by the mean solar passage at the meridian twelve hours from the Prime Meridian established through Greenwich.

5. That the unit measure defined as above be held to be a day absolute, and designated a Cosmic Day.

6. That such Cosmic Day be held as the chronological date of the earth, changing with the mean solar passage at the anti-meridian of Greenwich.

7. That all divisions and multiples of the Cosmic Day be known as Cosmic Time.

8. That the Cosmic Day be divided into hours, numbered in a single series, one to twenty-four, (1 to 24,) and that the hours be subdivided, as ordinary hours, into minutes and seconds. Note.—As an alternative means of distinguishing the cosmic hours from the hours in local reckonings, they may be denoted by the letters of the alphabet, which, omitting I and V, are twenty-four in number.

9. That until Cosmic Time be admitted as the recognized means of reckoning in the ordinary affairs of life, it is advisable to assimilate the system to present usages and to provide for the easy translation of local reckonings into Cosmic Time, and vice versa; that, therefore, in theory, and as closely as possible in practice, local reckonings be based on a known interval in advance or behind Cosmic Time.

10. That the surface of the globe be divided by twenty-four equidistant hour meridians, corresponding with the hours of the Cosmic Day.

11. That, as far as practicable, the several hour meridians be taken according to the longitude of the locality, to regulate local reckonings, in a manner similar to the system in use throughout North America.

12. That, in all cases where an hour meridian is adopted as the standard for regulating local reckonings, in a particular section or district, the civil day shall be held to commence twelve hours before and end twelve hours after the mean solar passage of such hour meridian.

13. That the civil day, based on the Prime Meridian of Greenwich, shall coincide and be one with the Cosmic Day. That civil days on meridians east of Greenwich shall be (according to the longitude) a known number of hours, or hours and minutes in advance of Cosmic Time, and to the west of Greenwich the contrary.

14. That the surface of the globe being divided by twenty-four equidistant meridians (fifteen degrees apart) corresponding with the hours of the Cosmic Day, it is advisable that longitude be reckoned according to these hour meridians.

15. That divisions of longitude less than an hour (fifteen degrees) be reckoned in minutes and seconds and parts of seconds.

16. That longitude be reckoned continuously towards the west, beginning with zero at the Anti-prime meridian, twelve hours from Greenwich.

17. That longitude, generally, be denoted by the same terms as those applied to Cosmic Time.

I submit these recommendations suggestively, and without any desire unduly to press them. I shall be content if the leading principles laid down be recognized by the Conference.

With regard to the more immediate question, I have come to the firm conviction that extreme simplicity of reckoning and corresponding benefits would result if longitude be notated in the same manner, and denoted by the same terms as universal time. If, therefore, the Conference adopts the motion of the distinguished Delegate of the United States, which, I apprehend, is designed to cause as little change as possible in the practices of sea-faring men, I trust the claims of other important interests will not be overlooked. I refer to all those interests, so deeply concerned in securing accurate time on land, and in having easy means provided for translating any one local reckoning into any other local reckoning, or into the standard universal time. In this view I trust the Conference will give some expression of opinion in favor of extending around the globe the system of hour meridians which has proved so advantageous in North America. In an educational aspect alone it seems to me important that the hour meridians, one to twenty-four, numbered from the anti-prime meridian continuously toward the west, should be conspicuously marked on our maps and charts.

Prof. ADAMS, Delegate of Great Britain. I wish, Mr. President, to express my entire adhesion to the proposition which has been made by the Delegate of the United States, Mr. RUTHERFURD. It seems to me to satisfy one of the principal conditions that we have had before us to guide our decision; that is, that we should pursue a course which will produce the least possible inconvenience.

Now, I think if we keep that in mind, we shall have very little difficulty in coming to the conclusion that we should reckon longitude eastward, as positive or plus, and westward as negative or minus. This mode of reckoning would be attended with the least inconvenience; in fact, it will not be attended with any inconvenience at all, because it will keep to the present mode of reckoning. For my part, I see no adequate reason for changing that. There is no scientific reason, and certainly there is no practical reason. There is no scientific reason, because, as I stated yesterday, if in mathematics you measure from the zero a distance in one direction and consider that positive, you must, by the very nature of the case, consider the distance measured in the opposite direction from the same zero as negative. One follows mathematically and necessarily from the other, and by adopting this resolution you thus include both in one general formula.

It seems to me quite as scientific, to say the least, to start from zero and go in both directions, distinguishing the longitudes by the signs plus and minus, according as the directions are taken east or west, as to reckon longitudes in one direction only from zero to 360 degrees. It is, I say, just as scientific to do this, and practically it is more convenient. Because if you go on reckoning from zero to 360 degrees continuously, you have to make a break at 360 degrees. You do not count on after you have completed one revolution, but have to drop the 360 degrees and start again at zero. But this is attended with great inconvenience, because this break in counting occurs in countries which are thickly inhabited. The longitude would be a little less than 360 degrees on one side of the prime meridian, and on the other side the longitude would be a small angle. This seems to me very inconvenient.

On the other hand, if you count longitudes in one direction from zero to 180 degrees as positive, and in the opposite direction from zero to 180 degrees as negative, you are, no doubt, obliged to make a break in passing abruptly from plus 180 degrees to minus 180 degrees. But the break would then occur where it would cause the least inconvenience, viz., in mid-ocean, where there is very little land and very few inhabitants, and where we are accustomed to make the break now. This will require no change in the habits and customs of the people, and no inconvenience whatever would be caused by the action of the Conference if it decides on this method, which also has the minor advantage of not requiring the use of such large numbers as the other. But to adopt the reckoning of longitude from zero to 360 degrees would involve a very considerable change, and I think it may be doubted whether it would be generally accepted. Under the circumstances, I think the resolution contains the most expedient course for us to adopt. I do not object to anybody who chooses to do so reckoning on, for certain purposes, from zero to 360 degrees, but I do not think it would be well to make it compulsory.

With regard to the proposal of the Delegate of Great Britain, Mr. FLEMING, I would say that it would be attended with great inconvenience, because it departs from the usages and habits now existing. That, to my mind, is a very great and insuperable objection, and I do not see any countervailing advantage.

With regard to the subject of time that Mr. Fleming is anxious to take into consideration, I think that nothing can be simpler, if I may be allowed to deal with the question of time, than the relation between time and longitude which is proposed to be created by the resolution of Mr. RUTHERFURD.

By that resolution the longitude indicates the relation between the local time and the universal time in the simplest possible way. What can be easier than the method involved in the resolution of Mr. Rutherfurd? It is this: Local time at any place is equal to universal time plus the longitude of the place, plus being understood always in a mathematical sense. The longitude is to be added to the universal time if it is positive, and subtracted if it is negative. That is very simple, the whole being involved in one general formula.

Now, I think it is perfectly impossible for Mr. Fleming to make a more simple formula than that. The formula laid down in the proceedings of the Roman Conference was far less simple, as it involved an odd twelve hours. You got the universal time equal to the local time, minus the longitude, plus twelve hours. This is far from simple. It makes the calculation more complicated, and it seems to me that for other reasons it is objectionable.

Mr. RUTHERFURD, Delegate of the United States. Mr. President, I do not propose to take up the time of the Conference in reiterating the very conclusive remarks in favor of this resolution made by the Delegate of Great Britain. I wish, however, to allude, for a moment, to another view of this question. Suppose we do not adopt this resolution. What is the course before the Conference? We shall then be called upon, no doubt, to decide that longitude shall be counted all around the world from zero to 360 degrees.

That general proposition is one which would not probably meet with violent opposition, but the next point is one that will divide us very materially, and perhaps disastrously. Which way shall we count? Shall it be towards the east or towards the west?

My conversations with the gentlemen here present have lead me to know that there is a very great difference of opinion upon this point, and I believe that if we should not adopt this resolution and should decide to count longitude from zero to 360 degrees, a preference to count it in one direction rather than the other would be established only by a very close vote, nearly annulling the whole moral influence of the Conference, and we should go back to our Governments without much, if any, authority on the point in question.

And I doubt whether our resolutions would be accepted by these Governments if we show ourselves to be divided upon a question of so much practical importance.

It is simply a question of practice—of convenience. We all bowed to the rule of convenience in selecting the meridian of Greenwich. And why? Because seven-tenths of the civilized nations of the world use this meridian, not that it was intrinsically better than the meridian of Paris, or Washington, or Berlin, or St. Petersburg. Nobody claimed any scientific preference among these meridians. It was simply because seven-tenths of the civilized world were already using the meridian of Greenwich.

If we accept this argument in favor of the first resolution for selecting the initial meridian, why should we not be equally inclined to recognize the fact that all the civilized world count longitude in both ways? There is no difference of opinion on that point. There is no difference of usage. Shall we break that usage? Shall we introduce a new system, which may or may not be found practical or agreeable? Shall we not rather adopt the rule of all nations, already in use among their practised astronomers and navigators, by saying continue to do as you have already done?

Sir FREDERICK EVANS, Delegate of Great Britain. Having for many years mixed among the practical seamen of more than one nation, I confess I look with some dismay on any other system for the notation of longitude being adopted than the one proposed in this resolution.

My colleague, Mr. FLEMING, made the remark that he could not disassociate longitude from time. If he had mixed with seamen, he would have found out that there is very frequently a well-defined difference between the two in their minds. Longitude with seamen means, independently of time, space, distance. It indicates so many miles run in an east or west direction. Consequently, I am not able to look upon longitude and time as being identical.

Under these circumstances, this resolution also, as I understand it, should be considered on practical grounds.

The question of universal time will come on for consideration hereafter, and how that may be settled seems to me a matter of indifference compared with the decision on this resolution. I question, for myself, whether any other plan than that it proposes would be generally accepted. That is what I am afraid of. Whatever respect nations may have for this Conference, public opinion would be very strong upon the point now at issue. When you further recollect that all around the globe, in all these various seas, there are colonies with histories; that their geographical positions and boundaries were originally recorded by longitude according to the notation of which I have spoken, I think it is to be over sanguine to expect that those colonies will accept a new notation of longitude without greater proof of the positive necessity of the change. It would not be the fiat of this Conference, or the fiat of any government, that would bring about the change. I say this with all deference to the opinions of those who have advocated a change.

General STRACHEY, Delegate of Great Britain. At the risk of repeating somewhat my remarks made to the Congress when we last met, I would add a few words to what has now been said. It is our wish that the points of real difference should, as far as possible, be clearly brought out before the Conference comes to a vote.

As regards the counting of longitude in two directions, and the degree of advantage or disadvantage that may arise in starting from zero and treating east longitude as positive or plus, and west longitude as negative or minus, let me ask the attention of the Congress to the fact that longitude is already counted in these two directions, and that, as a matter of fact also, latitude is counted in the same way, in both directions from the equator, north latitude being plus and south latitude minus. Nobody, so far as I have heard, has ever proposed that we should abolish this method of reckoning latitude, and substitute for it North or South polar distance, to be counted right round the earth; and yet there is the same quasi scientific objection to the present method of counting in the one case as in the other. As already stated, it seems to me that, for purposes of practical convenience, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to separate the ideas on which the reckoning of longitude must be based, from those which must regulate the reckoning of time, and especially the reckoning of time in the sense of adopting a universal day over the whole world. Now, it appears to me that, as regards the acceptance of the universal day, it certainly will be anything but convenient, if it begins and ends otherwise than when the sun passes the 180th meridian. On the contrary, I think it will be extremely inconvenient. I think that if the world were to adopt the meridian of Greenwich as the origin of longitude, the natural thing for it to do would be to have the international day, the universal day, begin from the 180th meridian from Greenwich—that is, to coincide with the Greenwich civil day. That meridian passes, as I said before, outside of New Zealand, and outside of the Fijee Islands; it goes over only a very small portion of inhabited country. It appears to me, therefore, that inasmuch as there must be an absolute break or discontinuity in time in passing round the earth—a break of twenty-four hours—it is much more convenient that this break should take place in the uninhabited part of the earth than in the very centre of civilization.

If we adopt the universal day which coincides with the civil day at Greenwich, then you will be able to have complete continuity of local time over the whole earth, in harmonious relation with the universal day, except at the break which necessarily takes place on the 180th meridian. Otherwise this will not be possible. For instance, according to the system proposed by the resolution, the local time corresponding, say, to 0 hours of Monday at Greenwich, would, in passing round the earth to the eastward from the 180th meridian, gradually change from 12 hours of Sunday to 12 hours of Monday; and, on returning to that meridian, the break of time would occur, and one day would appear to be lost. But complete continuity both in the days and hours, and harmony with the universal day, that is, the Greenwich civil day, would be preserved for the whole earth, excepting on crossing the 180th meridian.

The result of the system which was proposed at Rome would be to cause the break of dates to take place at Greenwich at noon, so that the morning hours of the civil day would have a different universal date from the afternoon hours, and this would be the case all over Europe. But if the universal day be made to correspond to the civil day of Greenwich, and the longitude is counted east in one direction and west in another direction to the 180th meridian, these difficulties would be overcome, and a perfectly simple rule would suffice for converting local into universal time. As regards what was said upon the subject of longitude being plus or minus, according as you move to the east or west, it appears to me that there is a positive, clear, and rational reason for calling longitude eastward plus and longitude westward minus. The time is later to the east, and therefore the hour is indicated by a higher number. In converting universal into local time, if the place is east of Greenwich, you add the longitude to the universal time, and therefore increase the number of the hour; if the place be west of Greenwich, you subtract the longitude, and therefore diminish the number of the hour. It is natural, therefore, to call east longitude positive and the other negative.

It appears to me also that the passage of the sun over the meridian is, in reality, what may be called the index of the day, the day consisting of 24 hours, distributed equally on either side of the meridian. Noon of the universal day would thus coincide with the time of the sun passing the initial meridian. There is perfect consistency, therefore, in adopting the reckoning of longitude and time that is proposed in the resolution before us. It is a rational and symmetrical method.

Mr. JUAN PASTORIN, the Delegate of Spain. I listened with great pleasure to the observations which our honorable colleague, the Delegate of England, General STRACHEY, has just made.

I am not sufficiently acquainted with the English tongue to make a speech, though I know it well enough to follow the debate. Moreover, as I had beforehand studied the subject which is now before us, I have quite well understood all that has been said on this point. I proposed an amendment yesterday, in order to obtain what I consider the most simple formula for converting local time into cosmical time. This formula is not, perhaps, the most suitable for astronomers and sailors, but they form the minority, and it is, I am sure, the easiest for the mass of the people. This formula would be based on the considerations which are now under discussion. I am not sufficiently familiar with the language to give the reasons upon which I based my amendment, but, as I demonstrated in the pamphlet which I had the honor of addressing to my learned colleagues, the means, in my opinion, of obtaining the simplest and the most suitable formula is to make the beginning of civil time and of dates on the first meridian coincide with the cosmical time and date, and to count longitude continuously in the same direction from the initial meridian. This is what I proposed to obtain by my amendment.

Count LEWENHAUPT, Delegate of Sweden. Mr. President, I now propose that the Conference take a recess for a few moments before a vote is taken upon the resolution.

No objection being made to the motion, the President announced that a recess would be taken until the Chair called the Conference to order.

THE PRESIDENT, having called the Conference to order, said. The recess has given an opportunity for an interchange of opinion upon the subject pending, and if the Conference be ready the vote will now be taken.

Commander SAMPSON, Delegate of the United States. Mr. President, I think that the informal discussion which we have had upon this question of the method of counting longitude must lead to the conclusion that there is a great difference of opinion. So far as I have been able to learn, many of the delegates have come here instructed to favor the resolution adopted by the Roman Conference. It is my own opinion that the recommendation to count longitude continuously from the prime meridian from west to east, as recommended by the conference at Rome, is not so good as the proposition now before us. Personally, however, I would prefer to see it counted continuously from east to west, as being more in conformity with present usage among astronomers. But, as it appears that so many delegates are instructed by their Governments to favor counting in the opposite direction, and as, if this Congress adopts any other plan than that proposed by the Conference at Rome, they will have to lay before their Governments as the action of this Congress something that will be opposed to the recommendation of the Roman Conference, and as these two recommendations would naturally tend to neutralize each other, I would favor the proposition which is now before us as being the most expedient.

I would suggest, however, that, instead of making a positive declaration upon the question, we leave it as it now stands; that is to say, that longitude shall be counted east and west from the prime meridian, without specifying which direction shall be considered positive, and declare it to be the opinion of this Congress that it is not expedient to change the present method of counting longitude both ways from the prime meridian.

Count LEWENHAUPT, Delegate from Sweden. In my opinion the delegates have not undertaken to recommend the resolutions adopted by a majority of the Conference, but only the resolutions for which they have themselves voted. As regards the fact that there may be great differences of opinion concerning the questions which remain for our consideration, I am unable to see in it any reason for our not proceeding to vote upon them. On the contrary it will be of great interest to our Governments to know the exact position taken by each of the delegates, and even if any delegate should abstain from voting, such abstention would be of interest in the event of future negotiations on the subject. I am therefore of opinion that we should proceed to vote on the remaining resolutions.

The vote was then taken upon the resolution of the Delegate of the United States, Mr. RUTHERFURD, which is as follows:

"Resolved, That from this meridian (id est, Greenwich) longitude shall be counted in two directions up to 180 degrees, east longitude being plus and west longitude minus."

The following States voted in the affirmative:

Chili, Liberia, Colombia, Mexico, Costa Rica, Paraguay, Great Britain, Russia, Guatemala, Salvador, Hawaii, United States, Japan, Venezuela.

The following States voted in the negative:

Italy, Sweden, Netherlands, Switzerland. Spain,

The following States abstained from voting:

Austria-Hungary, Germany, Brazil, San Domingo, France, Turkey.

Ayes, 14; noes, 5; abstaining, 6.

The PRESIDENT then announced that the resolution was adopted.

Mr. RUTHERFURD, Delegate of the United States. Mr. President, I now propose to read the third resolution from the printed circular which has been furnished to the delegates. It is as follows:

"Resolved, That the Conference proposes the adoption of a universal day for all purposes for which it may be found convenient, and which shall not interfere with the use of local time where desirable. This universal day is to be a mean solar day; is to begin for all the world at the moment of midnight of the initial meridian coinciding with the beginning of the civil day and date of that meridian, and is to be counted from zero up to twenty-four hours."

This resolution is somewhat complex, and in order to facilitate debate, I propose that we first occupy ourselves only with the first clause, namely:

"Resolved, That the Conference proposes the adoption of a universal day for all purposes for which it may be found convenient, and which shall not interfere with the use of local time where desirable."

After having disposed of that clause we can proceed to dispose of the other parts of the resolution.

The PRESIDENT. You propose, then, to divide the resolution as printed in the circular into two resolutions, and you now offer the first part for consideration.

Mr. RUTHERFURD, Delegate of the United States. If that is the more convenient form of putting it, it meets my views. It will be more easy to discuss the subject, more easy to arrive at a decision, in that form.

M. le Comte ALBERT DE FORESTA, Delegate of Italy. I propose as an amendment the fifth resolution of the Roman Conference, which reads as follows:

"The Conference recognizes, for certain scientific needs and for the internal service of great administrations of ways of communications, such as those of railroads, lines of steamships, telegraphic and postal lines, the utility of adopting a universal time, in connection with local or national times, which will necessarily continue to be employed in civil life."

The PRESIDENT. The question is now upon the amendment offered by the Delegate of Italy.

Professor ABBE, Delegate of the United States. I would like to ask whether this amendment adds anything substantially to the resolution. I think it does not. It simply specifies the details of the resolution pending before us. That resolution "proposes the adoption of a universal day for all purposes for which it may be found convenient." That is general. The amendment merely specifies certain of these purposes. That is a matter of detail.

Mr. ALLEN, Delegate of the United States. Mr. President, I desire to offer an amendment to the amendment, as follows:

"Civil or local time is to be understood as the mean time of the approximately central meridian of a section of the earth's surface, in which a single standard of time may be conveniently used."

Mr. RUTHERFURD, Delegate of the United States. Mr. President, it does not seem to me that it is within the competence of this Conference to define what is local time. That is a thing beyond us.

Mr. W. F. ALLEN, Delegate of the United States, then said: Mr. President and gentlemen, all efforts to arrive at uniformity in scientific or every-day usage originate in a desire to attain greater convenience in practice. The multiplicity of coins of which the relative value can only be expressed by fractions, the various common standards of weights and of measures, are inconvenient both to the business man and the scientist. Alike inconvenient to both are the diverse standards of time by which the cities of the world are governed, differing, as they do, by all possible fractions of hours.

All coins have a relative and interchangeable value based upon their weight and fineness. Weights and measures remain the same by whatever unit they may be expressed; but, primarily, time can only be measured by a standard actually or apparently in motion. Absolutely accurate mean local time, varying, as it does, by infinitesimal differences at every point in the circuit of the earth, may be shown on a stationary object, but cannot in general be kept by an individual or object in motion. The mean local time of some fixed point in each locality must be taken as the standard for practical use. The important question to be determined is, over what extent of territory, measuring east and west from such fixed point, its mean time may be employed for all ordinary purposes without inconvenience. This can be absolutely determined only by practical experience.

Careful study of this phase of this subject led, perhaps, more directly than any one single cause, to the proposal of the detailed system of standard time which now satisfactorily controls the operations of one hundred and twenty thousand miles of railway in the United States and Canada, and governs the movements of fifty millions of people.

Before the recent change there were a number of localities where standards of time were exclusively employed which varied as much as thirty minutes, both on the east and the west, from mean local time, without appreciable inconvenience to those using them. From this fact the conclusion was inevitable that within those limits a single standard might be employed. The result has proved this conclusion to have been well founded.

No public reform can be accomplished unless the evil to be remedied can be made plainly apparent. That an improvement will be effected must be clearly demonstrated, or the new status of affairs which will exist after the change, must be shown to have been already successfully tried. Here, as in law, custom and precedent are all powerful. It would be a difficult task to secure the general adoption of any system of time-reckoning which cannot be employed by all classes of the community. Business men would refuse to regard as a reform any proposition which introduced diversity where uniformity now exists, nor would railway managers consent to adopt for their own use a standard of time not coinciding with or bearing a ready relation to the standard employed in other business circles. To adopt the time of a universal day for all transportation purposes throughout the world, and to use it collaterally with local time, would simply restore, and possibly still more complicate, the very condition of things in this country which the movement of last year was intended to and did to a great extent obviate. Railway managers desire that the time used in their service shall be either precisely the same as that used by the public, or shall differ from it at as few points as possible, and then by the most readily calculated differences. The public, on the other hand, have little use for absolutely accurate time, except in connection with matters of transportation, but will refuse to adopt a standard which would materially alter their accustomed habits of thought and of language in every-day life. That this position is absurd may be argued, and, perhaps, admitted, but it is a fact, and one which cannot be disregarded.

The adoption of the universal day or any system of time-reckoning based upon infrequent—such as the great quadrant—meridians, to be used by transportation lines collaterally with local time, is, therefore, practically impossible.

Shall it, then, be concluded that there is no hope of securing uniformity in time-reckoning for practical purposes? Or does the proposition for the general division of the earth's surface into specified sections, governed by standards based upon meridians fifteen degrees or one hour apart, supply the remedy? Objections have been urged against this proposition on account of difficulties encountered, or supposed to be encountered, in the vicinity of the boundary lines between the sections. It is argued that the contact of two sections with standards of time differing by one hour will cause numerous and insuperable difficulties. In railway business, in which time is more largely referred to than in any other, the experience of the past year has proved this fear to be groundless. It is true that the approximate local time of a number of cities near the boundary lines between the eastern and central sections in the United States is still retained. A curious chapter of incidents could be related which led to this retention, not affecting, however, the merits of the case; but the fact serves to show that changes much greater than thirty minutes from local time would not be acceptable.

Adjacent to and on either side of all national boundary lines the inhabitants become accustomed to the standards of weights, measures, and money of both countries, and constantly refer to and use them without material inconvenience. In the readjustment of a boundary upon new lines of demarcation it must be expected that some temporary difficulties in business transactions will be encountered, but all history shows that such difficulties soon adjust themselves. Legal enactments will finally determine the precise boundaries of the several sections. If different laws respecting many other affairs of life may exist on either side of a State or national boundary line, with positive advantage or without material inconvenience, why should laws respecting time-reckoning be an exception? Coins and measures are distinguished by their names. So, also, may standards of time be distinguished.

The adoption of standard time for all purposes of daily life, based upon meridians fifteen degrees apart, would practically abolish the use of exact local time, except upon those meridians. Numerous circumstances might be related demonstrating how very inaccurate and undetermined was the local time used in many cities in this country before the recent change.

Except for certain philosophical purposes, does the inherent advantage claimed in the use of even approximately accurate local time really exist? Would the proposed change affect any custom of undoubted value to the community? These questions have been answered in the negative by the experience of Great Britain since January 13, 1848, of Sweden since January 1, 1879, and of the United States and Canada since November 18, 1883.

Greenwich time is exclusively used in Great Britain, and differs from mean local time about eight minutes on the east and about twenty-two and a half minutes on the west. In Sweden the time of the fifteenth degree of east longitude is the standard for all purposes. It differs from mean local time about thirty-six and a half minutes on the east and about sixteen minutes on the west. In the United States the standards recently adopted are used exclusively in cities like Portland, Me., (33,800 inhabitants,) and Atlanta, Ga., (37,400 inhabitants,) of which the local times are, respectively, nineteen minutes and twenty two minutes faster than the standard, and at Omaha, Neb., (30,500 inhabitants,) and Houston, Tex., (16,500 inhabitants,) each twenty-four minutes slower. At Ellsworth, Me., a city of six thousand inhabitants, a change of twenty-six minutes has been made. Nearly eighty-five per cent. of the total number of cities in the United States of over ten thousand inhabitants have adopted the new standard time for all purposes, and it is used upon ninety-seven and a half per cent. of all the miles of railway lines.

Let us now consider whether insuperable practical difficulties owing to geographical peculiarities will prevent the adoption of this system throughout the world.

A table has been prepared, and accompanies this paper, upon which are designated the several governing meridians and names suggested for the corresponding sectional times. For the use of this table I am indebted to Mr. E. B. Elliott, of this city.

On the North American continent, in the United States and Canada, the 75th, 90th, 105th, and 120th west Greenwich meridians now govern time. In Mexico the 105th west meridian is approximately central, except for Yucatan, which is traversed by the 90th. For Guatemala, Salvador, and Costa Rica, the 90th west meridian is approximately central. San Domingo closely approaches and Cuba touches the 75th.

In South America—the United States of Columbia, Ecuador, Peru, the western portion of Bolivia, and Chili would use the time of the 75th west meridian, while Venezuela, Guiana, western Brazil, including the Amazon River region, eastern Bolivia, Paraguay, Uruguay, and the Argentine Republic, would be governed by the time of the 60th meridian. In eastern Brazil the 45th west meridian would govern.