Passing to Europe, we find Great Britain already governed by the zero meridian time, which can also be used in the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Spain, and Portugal. The 15th east meridian, which is about as far east of Berlin as west of Vienna, and no more distant from Rome than from Stockholm, now governs all time in Sweden. This time could also be advantageously used in Denmark, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Switzerland, Italy, and Servia. The time of the 30th east meridian, which is nearly the mean between Constantinople and St. Petersburg times, could be used in Western Russia, Turkey, Roumania, Bulgaria, East Roumelia, and Greece. When the development of Eastern Russia in Europe shall require it, the division of that great country between the times of the 30th and 45th east meridians, upon lines of convenience similar to those employed in the United States, can doubtless be arranged. The governing meridians for Africa appear to present some advantages, especially for Egypt, and no insuperable difficulties; but for continents where the boundaries of countries are so loosely defined, the limits of time-reckoning cannot well and need not now be shown. They would ultimately adjust themselves.

In Asia the 60th east meridian passes through Khiva. Bombay would use the 75th and Calcutta the 90th. The 105th east meridian touches Siam, the 120th is near Shanghai, and the 135th passes through Japan and near Corea. The 150th meridian of west longitude is sufficiently near Hawaii. In Australia the 150th, 135th, and 120th meridians of east longitude are admirably located for governing, respectively, the time of the eastern, central, and western divisions of that continent.

In none of the localities defined or mentioned, would the standards proposed vary more from mean local time than has already been demonstrated to be practicable without detriment to any material interest. Convenience of use, based largely upon the direction of greater commercial intercourse, would determine the action of communities other than those mentioned, and probably somewhat modify the schedule proposed.

That no practical difficulty of usage would prevent the universal adoption of the hour-section system of time-reckoning is apparent. Its convenience has been abundantly realized. In adopting it, practically no expense whatever is incurred. The alteration of the works or faces of watches or clocks is not required. Their hands are simply set to the new standard, and the desired result is accomplished.

By the adoption of this system, the exact hours of time-reckoning, although called by different names in the several sections for every-day life, but specifically designated, if desired, for scientific purposes, would be indicated at the same moment of time at all points. The minutes and seconds would everywhere agree. The absolute time of the occurrence of any event could, therefore, be readily determined. The counting of the hour meridians should begin where the day begins at the transition line.

It would then be one of the possibilities of the powers of electricity that the pendulum of a single centrally located clock, beating seconds, could regulate the local time-reckoning of every city on the face of the earth.

Table of Standards governing the Hour-Section System of Time-reckoning.

====================================================================== Longitude HOUR MERIDIANS. Simultaneous from hours in Greenwich. the several Proposed names of sectional times. Numbers. sections. + -+ + Degrees. 180 Transition time 0 or 24th 12 midnight 165 west Alaskan 1st...... 1 A. M. 150 Hawaii 2d ...... 2 135 Sitka 3d ...... 3 120 Pacific (Adopted in U.S. and Can.) 4th...... 4 105 Mountain " " 5th...... 5 90 Central (American) time " " 6th...... 6 75 Eastern (or Coastwise) " " 7th...... 7 60 La Plata 8th...... 8 45 Brazilian 9th...... 9 30 Central Atlantic 10th...... 10 15 West African 11th...... 11 0 Int'l or Unvs'l (Used in Gt. Brit.) 12th...... 12 noon. 15 east Continental (Used in Sweden.) 13th...... 1 P. M. 30 Bosporus 14th...... 2 45 Caucasus 15th...... 3 60 Ural 16th...... 4 75 Bombay 17th...... 5 90 Central Asian 18th...... 6 105 Siam 19th...... 7 120 East Asian 20th...... 8 135 Japan 21st...... 9 150 East Australian 22d....... 10 165 New Caledonian 23d....... 11 -

I have no desire, however, to press on the Conference the consideration of the question of local time reckoning. But, as the system adopted in the United States and Canada has proved successful, and is now firmly established, I have deemed it proper that a statement of this fact and of the possibilities of the application of the system to other parts of the world should be made to the Congress. I will now, therefore, withdraw my amendment.

Mr. RUTHERFURD, Delegate of the United States. The Delegate of Italy has moved, as an amendment to the first part of the resolution offered by me, the fifth resolution adopted in the Conference at Rome. Really, in spirit and in substance, there is little or no difference between them, except that the Conference at Rome has specified that the objects they had in view as suitable for regulation by universal time were these, namely: "For the internal service of the great administrations of means of communication, such as railways, steamships, telegraphs, and post-offices."

Now, I submit that in the words used in my resolution all this is embraced, and a good deal more, for this universal day is to be adopted "for all purposes for which it may be found convenient." If it were desirable that every purpose for which the universal day may be found convenient should be specified, it would make a very long resolution. On the other hand, however, we might find in the end that we had omitted some of the purposes for which it was eminently convenient. It appears, also, that in this same fifth Roman resolution all questions of chronology of universal date, etc., are omitted, although they are brought forward and appear in the sixth resolution. It seems to me, Mr. President, that nothing would be gained by the adoption of this amendment, for everything that is embraced there is more comprehensively embraced in the original resolution.

General STRACHEY, Delegate of Great Britain. In explanation of the amendment offered by the Delegate of Italy, let me call attention to what really passed at the Roman Conference. I find, first of all, in the report of the Roman Conference, in the abstract of the discussion before the Special Committee, these words, (p. 49 of the reprint:)

"The fourth resolution, in favor of a universal hour for certain scientific and practical purposes, is unanimously adopted."

There appears no discussion whatever upon it; not a word seems to have been said as to how it should be defined or acted upon. I then turn back to the report of the committee which prepared the resolutions, and there we see what, in reality, they had in their minds when they drew up that resolution. It is perfectly evident that they had no intention of tying the hands of anybody. This is what they say on page 26 of the report:

"The administrations of railroads, of the great steamship lines, telegraph lines, and postal routes, which would thus secure for their relations with each other a uniform time, excluding all complication and error, could nevertheless not entirely avoid the use of local time in their relations with the public. They would probably use the universal time only in their internal service, for the rules of the road, for the time-tables of their engineers and conductors, for the connection of trains at frontiers, etc.; but the time-tables for the use of the public could hardly be expressed otherwise than in local or national time. The depots or stations of the railroads, post-offices, and telegraph offices, and the waiting-rooms, could exhibit outwardly clocks showing local or national time, while within the offices there would be, besides, clocks indicating universal time. Telegraphic dispatches could show in future the time of despatch and of receipt, both in local and universal time."

Now, I think that the subject of universal time is dealt with in a better manner in the proposition offered by Mr. RUTHERFURD than in the proposition which emanated from the Congress at Rome. This Conference cannot designate positively the manner in which local time may be best reckoned. We are concerned now only with universal time. It may, however, be proper that the resolution offered by Mr. RUTHERFURD in regard to the employment of universal time should be supplemented by something more specific—something, for instance, of this sort:

The Conference will not designate the system on which local time may best be reckoned so as to conform, as far as possible, to universal time; this should be determined by each nation to suit its convenience.

The arrangements for adopting universal time for the use of international telegraphs will be left for regulation by the telegraph international congress.

This last idea was expressed, I forget now by whom, but by one of the Delegates since the Conference met, and it appears to me that inasmuch as there is an international congress specially appointed to regulate all matters of international telegraphy, this subject can be left to them with the firm belief that it will be regulated satisfactorily.

The question was then put to the vote; and upon the amendment offered by the Delegate of Italy the following States voted in the affirmative:

Colombia, Paraguay, Italy, Spain, Netherlands, Sweden.

The following in the negative:

Brazil, Liberia, Chili, Mexico, Costa Rica, Russia, France, Salvador, Germany, San Domingo, Great Britain, Switzerland, Guatemala, Turkey, Hawaii, United States, Japan, Venezuela.

Austria-Hungary abstained from voting.

Ayes, 6; noes, 18; abstaining, 1.

So the amendment was lost.

The question then recurred upon the original resolution.

Mr. RUTHERFURD, Delegate of the United States. Mr. President, it has been represented to me that it may, perhaps, be found advantageous in different countries and different localities to use a time that would not be accurately described as local time. In one place the standard of time may be strictly local time; in another place it may be national time; in another place it may be railroad time.

In order to meet this condition of things, I propose to alter the phraseology of the original resolution in this way: by inserting the words "or other," so that it shall read "which shall not interfere with the use of local or other time where desirable."

Professor ADAMS, Delegate of Great Britain. May it not be better to put it in this way: "Which shall not interfere with the use of local or other standard time where desirable."

Mr. RUTHERFURD, Delegate of the United States. I accept the amendment offered by the Delegate of Great Britain.

Mr. JEAN VALERA, Delegate of Spain. As I consider that both the amendment which was just rejected and the present proposition really signify the same thing, I shall vote for the proposition, as I before did for the amendment.

The PRESIDENT. The question is now upon the resolution, as modified. It will be read.

The resolution was then read, as follows:

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

The following States voted in the affirmative:

Austria-Hungary, Mexico, Brazil, Netherlands, Chili, Paraguay, Colombia, Russia, Costa Rica, Salvador, France, Spain, Great Britain, Sweden, Guatemala, Switzerland, Hawaii, Turkey, Italy, United States, Japan, Venezuela. Liberia,

There were no negative votes.

Germany and San Domingo abstained from voting.

Ayes, 23; noes, 0; abstaining, 2.

So the resolution was carried.

Mr. RUTHERFURD, Delegate of the United States. Mr. President, I now propose to offer the other portion of the resolution, or rather I propose to offer the other portion in the form of a distinct resolution. It will run as follows:

"Resolved, That this universal day is to be a mean solar day; is to begin for all the world at the moment of midnight of the initial meridian, coinciding with the beginning of the civil day and date of that meridian; and is to be counted from zero up to twenty-four hours."

This is, in substance, the resolution adopted by the Conference at Rome, with the exception that the Conference at Rome proposed that the universal day should coincide with the astronomical day instead of the civil day, and begin at Greenwich noon, instead of Greenwich midnight.

Professor ADAMS, Delegate of Great Britain. I desire to make one remark merely. Would it not be a little more correct if we said "at the moment of mean midnight?" I think I have mentioned this before, but, to be clear, I think it should be made.

Mr. RUTHERFURD accepted Professor ADAMS'S suggestion.

Mr. JUAN VALERA, Delegate of Spain. Mr. President, I wish to call special attention to the proposition now before us, on which we are called upon to vote, as it is of very great importance.

As for me, I acknowledge that my mission is already fulfilled. The Government of Spain had directed me to admit the necessity or the usefulness of a common prime meridian, and also to accept the meridian of Greenwich as the universal meridian. I have attended to these directions.

We have now to deal with a scientific question on which I cannot well express an opinion, as I do not feel that I am competent in such matters; besides, I am not authorized to do so. This may be due to my ignorance in matters of this kind, but I fear that extraordinary difficulties may arise in the adoption of this proposition, and if we proceed with too great haste, we run the risk of placing ourselves in contradiction to common sense. All the popular ideas of men for thousands of years past will, perhaps, be overturned. It may happen that when the day begins at Greenwich it will be 23 hours later at Berlin. The east will be confounded with the west, and the west with the east. If we made the day begin at the anti-meridian these questions would be avoided, and we should at one be with the rest of the human race. I believe that it would be better to adjourn till to-morrow to give us time to reflect; in this way we shall not risk by our devotion to science drawing upon ourselves popular criticism.

I propose, therefore, that the vote on this question be put off till to-morrow.

M. LEFAIVRE, Delegate of France. Not to-morrow.

Count LEWENHAUPT, Delegate of Sweden. I beg to propose as an amendment the sixth resolution adopted by the Conference at Rome, which is as follows:

The Conference recommends as initial point for the universal hour and the cosmic day the mean midday of Greenwich, coinciding with the moment of midnight or the beginning of the civic day at the meridian 12 hours or 180 deg. from Greenwich.

The universal hours are to be counted from 0 up to 24 hours.

The PRESIDENT. The Chair quite concurs with the Delegate of Spain in thinking that it would be very proper for us to take some time to consider this matter.

A motion to adjourn would be in order, but before that motion is made, the Chair would like to read a communication which he has just received from the Assistant Secretary of State. It is this:

"The President of the United States will receive the members of the Conference on Thursday, the 16th instant, at 12 o'clock, at the White House."

The Assistant Secretary of State proposes that we shall meet here at a quarter before 12, and go to the White House from this hall.

The PRESIDENT. If the Delegate of Spain will withdraw his motion to adjourn for one moment, the Delegate of Sweden desires to offer a resolution.

Count LEWENHAUPT, Delegate of Sweden, then read the following proposal:

Hereafter the reports of the speeches, whether in English or French, will be sent as soon as possible to the Delegates who made them, and the proofs should be corrected and returned by them without delay to the Secretary. No correction will be allowed afterward, except such as are considered necessary by the Secretaries, who will meet as soon as possible after the first corrections shall have been printed to prepare the protocols for the approval of the Conference.

The motion being put to a vote by the President, was unanimously carried.

The PRESIDENT. The Chair would very informally state that he has received to-day a letter from Sir William Thomson, the distinguished scientist who addressed the Conference yesterday, expressing his regret that he did not then say something which he had in his mind and which he wished to say, namely, that the meridian of Greenwich passes directly through the great commercial port of Havre.

Mr. JANSSEN, Delegate of France. Since the Chairman refers to this subject, I may state to my colleagues that I have received a telegram from Sir William Thomson, in which he makes certain propositions of the nature described.

Yet it is not possible to make out precisely, by this telegram, what are Sir William Thomson's ideas. All that I can say is, that whatever proceeds from such an eminent man should be treated with great consideration, and that is a reason for asking Sir W. Thomson to be good enough to explain to me his ideas more fully. If we could adjourn to Monday, I think that it would be better. The preparation of the protocols is very much behind-hand, and it is desirable that the members of the Conference be kept fully acquainted with all the discussions. I would, therefore, suggest that we adjourn till Monday.

The PRESIDENT. There are several propositions to adjourn to different days. The Chair will take them up in order and will first put the question upon the motion to adjourn until Monday.

The motion was carried, and at four o'clock the Conference adjourned until Monday, the 20th instant, at one o'clock p. m.



VI.

SESSION OF OCTOBER 20, 1884.

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

Present:

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

Absent:

Denmark: Mr. C. S. A. DE BILLE. Hawaii: Hon. LUTHER AHOLO. Salvador: Mr. ANTONIO BATRES.

The PRESIDENT. Some days ago a Committee was appointed to report on communications addressed to the Conference through the Chair. All communications that have been received from time to time, and they have been numerous, have been referred to this committee, of which the Delegate from England, Prof. ADAMS, is the chairman. He now informs the Chair that he is prepared to make a report.

The Delegate of England, Prof. ADAMS, then read the following report:

Letter from the President of the Conference.

INTERNATIONAL MERIDIAN CONFERENCE, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, Oct. 14, 1884.

SIR: I have the honor to submit to the Committee of which you are the Chairman the following communications:

No. 1. Letters from Mr. Roumanet du Cailland, through Mr. Hunter, Ass't Sec. of State.

No. 2. Letter and communication from Mr. C. M. Raffensparger.

No. 3. Letter from Mr. A. S. de Chancourtois, accompanying books from Paris.

No. 4. Letter from Mr. A. W. Spofford, enclosing letter of Mr. J. W. Stolting, of Dobbs' Ferry.

No. 5. Letter from Mr. B. Aycrigg, Passaic, N. J.

No. 6. Letter from J. T. Field, St. Louis, Mo.

No. 7. Letter and two enclosures from Mr. Theodor Paesche.

No. 8. Description of the Universal Time-Piece of Dr. A. M. Cory.

No. 9. Letter and enclosure from Mr. E. R. Knorr.

No. 10. Letter from Mr. J. E. Hilgard, of the U. S. Coast Survey and Geodetic Survey.

No. 11. Arguments by Committee of New York and New Jersey branch, and other papers relating to weights and measures.

No. 12. Letter from Lt. C. A. S. Totten, U.S.A., in relation to a Standard Meridian.

No. 13. Letter from Mr. J. P. Merritt, in relation to the Metric System.

No. 14. Postal card from W. H. Yates, in relation to the Mercator Projection.

No. 15. A New System of Mensuration, by Lawrence S. Benson.

No. 16. Letter of T. C. Octman, of Hope Mills, N. C., calling attention to the fact that the meridian of Greenwich passes through Havre.

No. 17. Letter from Dr. H. K. Whitner, explaining his notation of 24 hours.

I am, sir, with great respect, your obedient servant,

C. R. P. RODGERS, President International Meridian Conference.

Prof. J. C. ADAMS.

Report of the Committee.

The Committee on communications respectfully reports as follows:

We have carefully examined all of the communications referred to us, as enumerated in the letter of President Rodgers, with the following results:

No. 1 recommends that the meridian of Bethlehem be adopted as the initial meridian. This question has been already disposed of by the Conference; therefore further consideration of the proposition is unnecessary.

No. 2 refers to an invention, the author of which states that "a patent has been applied for," consequently your Committee does not feel called upon to express any opinion upon it.

No. 3 is a letter from M. de Chancourtois, accompanying a work by him which contains an elaborate program of a system of geography based on decimal measures, both of time and of angles, and on the adoption of an international meridian.

The work also contains copious historical notices on the metric system and on the initial meridian.

A copy of this work was presented to each of the Delegates prior to the discussions of the Conference with regard to the choice of an initial meridian, and therefore no special report of the author's views on this subject appears to your committee to be necessary. These views are nearly identical with those which were so ably laid before the Conference by Professor Janssen, but which failed to meet with their approval.

The author further proposes to supersede the present mode of measuring both angles and time by a system in which the entire circumference and the length of the day should each be first divided into four equal parts, and then each of these parts should be subdivided decimally.

However deserving of consideration these proposals may be, in the abstract, your Committee are clearly of the opinion that they do not fall within the limits indicated by the instructions which we have received from our respective governments, and that, therefore, any discussion of them would only be of a purely academical character, and could lead to no practical result. Such a discussion would be sure to elicit great differences of opinion, and would, therefore, occupy a considerable time.

Hence, your Committee think that it would be very undesirable for the Conference to enter upon it.

No. 4 is a letter from Mr. Spofford, Librarian of Congress, including a communication of Mr. J. W. Stolting, Dobbs' Ferry, N. Y. The author recommends the adoption of the meridian 162 deg. W. from Greenwich as the prime meridian; he proposes further, not to say east or west, but first or second half, and also recommends the adoption of a universal time, not to interfere with local or other standard time, and to reckon from "1 to 24." He expresses no opinion as to whether the day should begin at noon or midnight. There seems to be nothing in the communication to influence the decisions of the Conference.

No. 5. See report as to letter No. 1.

No. 6 suggests that the prime meridian should be 180 deg. from Greenwich, and that longitude should be reckoned from 0 deg. to 360 deg.. This proposition has been already considered and rejected by the Conference.

No. 7. This communication proposes "to adopt as the prime meridian the frontier line between Russia and the United States, as defined in the treaty of March 30, 1867." As the initial meridian has already been agreed to by the Conference, this proposition needs no further notice.

No. 8. This communication refers to an invention which has no bearing on the question before the Conference. The committee therefore abstain from expressing an opinion as to its merits.

No. 9. Two letters from Mr. E. R. Knorr, of Washington, D.C., advocating the advisability of reckoning longitude "westward from 0 deg. to 359 deg.," and marking them on charts by time instead of by degrees. The Conference has already taken action on the question involved.

No. 10. A letter from Prof. Hilgard, enclosing a pamphlet by Lt. C. A. S. Totten on the metrology of the great pyramid, a subject which does not fall within the scope of the subjects presented for the consideration of this Conference. In the enclosing letter Prof. Hilgard says: "I am purely and squarely for Greenwich midnight as the beginning of the universal day, and an east and west count of longitude; that is, 180 deg. each way."

No. 11 advocates the preservation of the Anglo-Saxon system of weights and measures. This subject being foreign to the questions under consideration by this Conference, the Committee deems further comment unnecessary.

No. 12. A letter from Lieut. C. A. S. Totten, U.S.A., advocating a prime meridian through the great pyramid. The proposition involved has already been decided by the Conference.

No. 13 recommends redistribution of time according to the decimal system. As already remarked under No. 3, this proposition is clearly not within the limits indicated by the instructions which we have received from our respective governments.

No. 14 states that the author has a plan by which "chronometers will record the longitude equably." This proposition is foreign to the subjects under consideration by the Conference.

No. 15 proposes a new system of mensuration; and, therefore, this does not fall within the subjects for consideration by the Conference.

No. 16. This communication suggests that as the prime meridian passes through Havre, it should be allowable to call it by that name. This Committee recommends that the prime meridian be not named after the localities through which it passes, but be called simply "The Prime Meridian."

No. 17 is the subject of a patent. The Committee does not feel called upon to express an opinion respecting it.

This report is respectfully submitted to the Conference.

J. C. ADAMS, Chairman Committee on Communications.

WASHINGTON, Oct. 18th, 1884.

The PRESIDENT. The report of the Committee is before the Conference.

Mr. RUTHERFURD, the Delegate of the United States. I move that the report be accepted, and its conclusions adopted.

There being no objection, the report was adopted.

The PRESIDENT. In the regular order of business to-day, the first subject before the Conference is the resolution offered on Saturday by the Delegate of the United States, Mr. RUTHERFURD, with the amendment offered by the Delegate of Sweden, Count LEWENHAUPT.

The resolution is as follows:

"Resolved, That this universal day is to be a mean solar day, is to begin for all the world at the moment of mean midnight of the initial meridian coinciding with the beginning of the civil day and date of that meridian, and is to be counted from zero up to twenty-four hours."

The amendment offered is as follows:

"The Conference recommends as initial point for the universal hour and the cosmic day the mean mid-day of Greenwich, coinciding with the moment of midnight or the beginning of the civil day at the meridian 12 hours or 180 deg. from Greenwich.

"The universal hours are to be counted from 0 up to 24 hours."

Mr. VALERA, the Delegate of Spain, said that he thought that the amendment of the Delegate of Sweden should be first discussed.

Mr. JANSSEN, the Delegate of France. At the last session I informed the Congress that I had received a telegram from Sir William Thomson upon the question of the meridian. Since then, that illustrious foreign member of the Institute of France has written me a very kind letter upon the subject, in which he expresses his complete appreciation of the disinterested attitude taken by France in this Congress. I thank Sir William Thomson for his sentiments towards France, and I am persuaded that, with such excellent feelings, we should arrive at an understanding, upon scientific bases, in which the moral and material interests of all would be equitably adjusted, as we have always understood them.

But the question is not open now, and this Congress would, doubtless, not be disposed to reopen it. Sir William Thomson will understand, therefore, that in the present condition of affairs we have only to maintain the attitude which we have taken and the votes which we have given.

The PRESIDENT. The Chair will simply say to the Conference that he very informally alluded to the letter that he had received from Sir William Thomson, and the Chair would also say in answer to the Spanish Minister that the rule in this Conference, a simple one, is to discuss the last amendment offered and dispose of it, instead, as suggested by the Delegate of Spain, of taking up the one most important in its character. It would be somewhat difficult for the Chair to decide on all occasions which amendment is the most important. I think, therefore, as Chairman, that I will pursue the rule in force in this country, and, unless the Conference order otherwise, shall present the amendment which is the last offered.

Mr. RUIZ DEL ARBOL, Delegate of Spain. Mr. Chairman, the Spanish Minister has not referred to the most important amendment, but to the most radical. For instance, here there are several propositions to select a meridian; one of them must be considered, and it seems to me that my amendment, which is the most radical, is the one to be first presented to the Conference.

The PRESIDENT. Unless the Conference shall direct otherwise, the Chair must pursue the principle on which it has acted hitherto, taking the amendments in the order in which they are offered, and presenting them inversely for the action of the Conference. The proposition before the Conference, therefore, is the amendment offered by the Delegate of Spain, Mr. ARBOL, which is as follows:

"Having accepted the meridian of Greenwich to account the longitudes, as a general need for practical purposes, but thinking that the introduction of any new system of time-reckoning is far more scientific and important, and liable to great difficulties and confusion in the future, we propose the following resolution:

"Resolved, The Congress, taking in consideration that there is already a meridian tacitly accepted by almost all the civilized nations as the origin of dates, the anti-meridian of Rome, abstains from designating any other meridian to reckon the universal time."

Mr. RUIZ DEL ARBOL, Delegate of Spain. It is proposed to introduce an absolute universal or cosmopolitan system of time-reckoning, which, it is hoped, will, at a more or less distant day, be generally adopted, not only for scientific purposes, but for all the ordinary purposes of life for which it can possibly be used; and it is further proposed to designate a meridian at which this cosmopolitan time-reckoning is to begin. What I have to state is, that this method of absolute time-reckoning already exists, (although we do not use it,) as does this universal meridian which has been tacitly chosen by almost all civilized nations—that is to say, by all such as have adopted the Julian calendar, with or without the Gregorian correction. Thus it is that anything involving even a slight modification of our present system is nothing more than a chronological reform, which I do not feel certain that it will be well for us to introduce or recommend, and with regard to which I have my doubts whether it will be received with unanimous or hearty approval.

In fact, gentlemen, all nations that have adopted the Julian and Gregorian systems of time-reckoning have necessarily accepted their consequences, and these consequences are, as Rome told us in the time of Caesar and in that of Gregory XIII, that we must reckon our days according to certain fixed dates; some part of the world had to reckon their dates before all the rest, and as Rome consented that countries situated to the east of it should reckon their date before it and countries situated to the west after it, it is evident that both reckonings had to meet at some point on some meridian, which was and could be no other than the anti-meridian of Rome. Nature itself seems to have lent its sanction to this, since the anti-meridian of Rome crosses no continent, and, probably, no land whatever.

Let us suppose, for the sake of illustration, that it were agreed to abandon the Gregorian system of reckoning at a given moment, and to adopt another; that it were agreed to abandon it at all points on the globe when the hour should be twelve o'clock at noon at Greenwich, on the first day of January, 1885; and let us suppose that for historical or scientific purposes we were interested in knowing exactly how long the Gregorian system had been in use. Is it possible to ascertain this? It is; and very easily. Using that system of universal time-reckoning which it is proposed to establish, but logically referring it to the origin of that cosmopolitan reckoning which really exists, that is to say, to the anti-meridian of Rome, we shall find that 1885 years have been reckoned according to the Gregorian system, plus the difference of longitude between the anti-meridians of Greenwich and Rome. Nothing is more certain than this, and there is no other way of solving the problem. As I have already shown, when the Gregorian correction was made, the day which, according to the old mode of reckoning, would have been the 5th of October, was called the 15th of October, 1582; the countries situated to the east of Rome had, however, previously begun to reckon according to the new system (previously in absolute time I mean,) and the countries situated to the west adopted it successively afterwards. Now, then, as that portion of the globe which lies to the east of any given point or meridian is nothing more or less than one hemisphere, and as that which lies to the west is another hemisphere, it is evident that, at the anti-meridian of Rome, the two meridians, which constantly differ by one day in their dates, are confounded, and that the anti-meridian of Rome, being the first one in the world that adopted the Julian and the Gregorian systems of reckoning, is the prime meridian of the world, the meridian by which we now reckon, and ought to reckon universal time, until the establishment of a different system. If we had, at the present time, to settle any question depending on dates, in the region where there is some confusion in regard to them, we should have to do so on this principle. If we desired to compel the entire world to keep a regular and logical account of dates, we should have to do so by compelling all the nations to the west of the anti-meridian of Rome to go on reckoning their dates uninterruptedly after they have begun to be reckoned at the said anti-meridian, and by forbidding all the nations to the east of it to reckon any date until it has been reckoned at the anti-meridian of Rome. For this reason I say that the express designation, for the reckoning of universal time, of the meridian of Greenwich or of any other than the anti-meridian of Rome, involves a chronological reform, inasmuch as it will involve the abandonment of the system to which we now adhere, and which we now use by common consent.

This reform will cause a change of nearly 13 hours—that is to say, 12 hours plus the difference of longitude between Rome and Greenwich, if the meridian of Greenwich is designated as the new initial point of the universal date. I do not believe, however, that you will adopt this choice irrevocably, since its curious and strange consequences may be shown by one example, which I will adduce: This table is of about sufficient extent to allow the difference between the geographical longitude of its two ends to be observed and appreciated. Let us suppose that these sessions were held at Greenwich, and that the table were placed east and west, so that the meridian intersected it lengthwise; let us further suppose that we had agreed to reckon the new universal time by this meridian—that is to say, by that of Greenwich—and that, in signing the protocol, we wished to set an example to the world by using the universal date, the present civil date and the future civil date, which, by the daily use of the universal date, the nations will or may finally accept, to the exclusion of all others, for the ordinary purposes of life. Well, now, gentlemen, we should bring our own choice into discredit. We could not sign, according to these three dates. As regards the last, we should find that half the table and half the Congress were under one date, and the other half under another; even our chairman, if seated in the middle, would find that he had been presiding over our sessions with his right side in one day and his left in the next.

I may be told that this would happen, whatever might be the meridian chosen, but we could afford to allow it to happen at sea, or in some isolated and uninhabited region where congresses never sit, and where no ray of civilization ever penetrates.

But to return to the reform, what are you going to do? I will say that if, instead of the meridian of Greenwich, you designate the anti-meridian for the reckoning of universal time and for the initial point of cosmopolitan dates for the present, but for the future as the initial point also of local dates, the reform will amount to about an hour only, but it will still be a reform. In a word, the anti-meridian of Rome is the one which now furnishes dates to the entire world, and you propose to make the meridian of Greenwich or the anti-meridian do so in future.

I therefore tell you, if you desire a common hour for postal and commercial purposes, designate no meridian at all; let the railway and telegraph companies, the postal authorities and the governments make an arrangement and select an artificial hour, so to speak, whatever it be the hour of Rome, London, Paris, or even that of Greenwich, but do not make a premature declaration which will be an authoritative one as emanating from this Congress, an apparently insignificant reform, but in reality one of very great importance, since, giving the preference to determinate localities in the face of what is scientific, historical, and logical, you render difficult, in the future, the adoption of that very reform, which will, perhaps, then be more necessary, and which can perhaps then be introduced more intelligently.

You see that I am not speaking in behalf of any special meridian, not even that of Rome, since I admit that the reform may be necessary. You see, and I assure you, that I have not the slightest wish that the meridian which is to be the initial point of universal time should bear the name of any observatory or place in Spain, although that nation discovered the New World in which this Congress is holding its sessions, and although it may be said of that nation that it discovered those very meridians concerning which we are now speaking, inasmuch as terrestial meridians were indefinite and unknown lines, and were even without form until one was given them by Sebastian Elcano. I therefore hope that if you do not honor my proposition by accepting it, you will at least do justice to my intentions.

Prof. ADAMS, Delegate of Great Britain. Mr. President, I shall be very short in any remarks which I may make upon the proposition before us.

As far as I understand it, it is that, although we have adopted the meridian of Greenwich as a prime meridian from which to count longitudes, we should begin to count our time according to the meridian at Rome. I cannot consent to that proposition. It appears to me to be wanting in every element of simplicity, which should be our chief aim in this Conference. To count longitude from one meridian and time from another, is something that will never be adopted. I do not understand that that was at all the proposition recommended by the Roman Conference. On the contrary, I think that it was quite a different one.

Mr. RUIZ DEL ARBOL, Delegate of Spain. Mr. President, I do not in reality propose to adopt the meridian or anti-meridian of Rome. What I have been contending for is that we should abstain at present from adopting any meridian as a point of departure for the calculation of time; otherwise, we introduce a new element of confusion for the future. We should change the chronological reckoning which is now in vogue, and I contend that we have no right, scientific or historical, to make that change now. According to my views, the meridian of longitude is relatively an unimportant affair. It is a practical one; it cannot be changed in twenty years, probably, and it will take that time to correct all existing charts. But if you adopt a meridian for time, it will be very difficult to alter it in the future. I cannot now clearly see what the difficulties will be, but I apprehend that the application of this new principle to the various details of scientific and civil matters will necessarily be attended with great inconvenience, and may result in proving to be quite impracticable. I understand it very well that it is proposed to confine this principle to certain subjects, and that it is adopted for the purpose of avoiding dangers in communications, in navigation, in railways, and in transmitting telegrams, &c.; but this is purely an administrative matter, and can be left for settlement to other bodies.

The PRESIDENT. The Chair would remind the Delegate of Spain, Mr. RUIZ DEL ARBOL, that at its last session the Conference resolved, with singular unanimity, that it was expedient to adopt "a universal day for all purposes for which it may be found convenient, and which shall not interfere with the local or other standard time where desirable." The Chair would politely suggest that the subject now under consideration is the adoption of the proposition recommended by the Conference at Rome, and which has been presented here by the Delegate of Sweden, Count LEWENHAUPT.

Mr. RUIZ DEL ARBOL, Delegate of Spain. My proposition is to abstain from the adoption of any one meridian, and that we leave the matter to some other Congress, organized with the special object of regulating this question.

Commander SAMPSON, Delegate of the United States. Mr. President, as near as I can follow the Delegate of Spain, he seems to be under the apprehension that by the adoption of the universal day, which has been proposed here, we should either gain or lose time in our chronology; that we should skip 12 hours, more or less. But, of course, that is not the case. Any event which has occurred, or which will occur, at the time of the adoption of the universal day will be expressed just as exactly with reference to time as if the time had been calculated from the beginning of the Christian era. There will not only be no confusion, but it seems to me the adoption of the universal day will tend to avoid confusion hereafter, because confusion must exist where we have so many standards of time. Now, if any event which is taking place, or has taken place at any past time in the history of the world, is referred to the prime meridian, or is expressed in the time of any locality or of several localities, these times will all be different. The adoption of the universal day is to avoid any difficulty of that sort, and any event which has transpired will, when expressed in the time of the universal day—that is, according to the universal method—represent exactly the interval of time which has elapsed since the beginning of the Christian era. Nothing is gained or lost.

General STRACHEY, Delegate of Great Britain. It seems to me that the Congress having accepted the resolution to which reference was made a little while ago, adopting the universal day, it is incumbent upon us, in the nature of things, to determine when that universal day shall begin. The resolution presented by the Delegate of the United States proposes to define how that universal day shall be reckoned; that is, when it shall begin and how its hours shall be counted.

It was explained by him that the difference between his proposition and the proposition made at Rome consisted in altering the time of the commencement of the so-called universal day from noon at Greenwich to the commencement of the civil day. Certainly what Commander SAMPSON just said is perfectly true. The adoption of this so-called universal day will not interfere in the smallest degree with any purpose for which time is employed in civil life. The two objects are entirely distinct. It is obvious that the conception of the necessity of having a universal day has arisen from the more clear conception of the fact that time on the globe is essentially local; that the time upon any given line (supposing it to be a meridian) is not the time at the same moment on either side of that line, however small the departure from it may be; and for scientific accuracy it has, therefore, been thought desirable to have some absolute standard to which days and hours can be referred. Up to the present time it has been the practice to say, in an indefinite way, that an event happened, say, on the 1st of January at 6 o'clock in the morning, and such a statement of the time has been considered sufficient; but, in truth, this does not completely describe a definite epoch of time, for if the event occurred at Madrid and was so reported, that report would not designate the same moment as a report of an event which was described to have occurred at precisely the same date and hour at Greenwich, or Rome, or Washington. What is required and desired is that we should have an absolute and definite standard for reckoning events of a certain description, for which complete precision is desirable. I consider, therefore, that the Delegate of Spain leads us astray in the proposition which he has offered, by which he virtually proposes to nullify the resolution already adopted. We have already decided that a universal day was expedient, and it is for the Conference to settle now when that universal day shall begin.

Mr. RUIZ DEL ARBOL, Delegate of Spain. I understand that the consequences, perhaps, would not be troublesome at first; but who can look into the future and say, if we take the meridian of Greenwich as the standard of time, what difficulties we may be driven into? Every country will be obliged to count both ways. They will have to use civil time and universal time. Perhaps all countries may get accustomed to this radical change sooner or later, but we cannot foresee the difficulty now. I have here a treatise (a book) on "Analytic Chronology," showing the rules by which to bring into accord different dates of different calendars and eras, and I do not know how they would be affected by this universal time; but it is unnecessary for me to speak of that, as I think you are acquainted with the subject.

Mr. JUAN PASTORIN, Delegate of Spain. The Congress has already come to very important decisions on the subject of the reckoning of longitude, and it will also certainly approve to-day those which have just been submitted on the subject of the universal day.

I say certainly, because the result of the former votes being already known, it cannot be doubted on which side the majority will be, and because, from a scientific point of view, having chosen Greenwich as the prime meridian for the calculation of longitude, and having decided to reckon longitude in two directions from zero hours to twenty-four hours, with the sign plus towards the east and minus towards the west, it will be advantageous to make the civil day of Greenwich coincide with the universal day, if we would have an easy formula for passing from local to cosmic time.

So many of the resolutions submitted to the Congress by Mr. RUTHERFURD having been approved one after another, the plan that our colleague has carefully studied will be accepted in its entirety; but it will be impossible for the Conference to know in all their details other plans which, perhaps, would not be less worthy of attention.

Is the resolution adopted by a majority of the Congress the best? Should we reach the end of the reform in complete harmony with the hopes of all the governments represented here? On the contrary hypothesis, it seems to me, that the sessions of this Congress will only be another step towards that reform, but not the reform itself.

If the majority of the Congress, in accordance with the logical consequence of its work, adopts as the cosmic time the civil time of Greenwich, that decision will be contrary to the most ancient ideas of the human race. For many centuries the day has been reckoned as starting from the east, and the world will not easily abandon the traditions of its predecessors.

The civil day of the world commences near the anti-meridian of Rome, Greenwich, or Paris. Therefore it is not natural that one of these meridians should be chosen as the point of departure of dates.

Really, one phenomenon cannot be the commencement of a series of phenomena if there is another which precedes it periodically.

If the majority, as is logical, adopts the formula, "cosmic time=local time-longitude," and applies in the calculation longitude with the signs plus and minus, according as the longitude is east and west, the system will be source of frequent mistakes, and those, in their turn, will be the cause of disastrous accidents, especially on railroads.

Let us take the 31st of December, for instance. It is three o'clock at a point nine hours east of Greenwich; at the same moment they will count at Greenwich eighteen civil hours of the 30th of the same month, after the actual manner of reckoning the civil day, and that civil time of Greenwich will be the cosmic time.

Apply to the proposed example the formula which I suppose the majority of the Congress will adopt, and the result will be a negative quantity, minus six hours—a result not sufficiently comprehensible in itself, and one that could not be easily applied by the general public.

Can a majority prevail in questions, such as those we are speaking of, simply by the force of numbers? The whole world for several centuries thought that the earth was the centre of our planetary system; in fact, until an insignificant minority rose against this theory, for a long time considered by their ancestors indisputable.

I will conclude by expressing my opinion upon the subject with which the Congress is occupied. My opinion is not new, in spite of its having been modified in the course of our sitting. The works of our eminent colleague and indefatigable propagandist, Mr. SANDFORD FLEMING, the resolution of the Conference at Rome, the valuable opinions of Messrs. Faye, Otto Struve, Beaumont de Boutiller, Hugo Gylden, the scientific work of Monsieur Chancourtois, and the report which M. Gaspari has just presented to the Academy of Sciences of Paris are the text upon which I base the simplest and most practical method of solving the problem, namely, to adopt as the prime meridian for cosmic time and longitude a meridian near the point at which our dates change, and to reckon longitude from zero hours to twenty-four hours towards the west, contrary to the movement of the earth. The formula would be then: Cosmic time = local time + longitude.

I think that the best way of finding cosmic time in relation to local time and longitude is to add a quantity to the civil hour of each point of the globe.

But as the majority of this Congress, so worthy of respect, admits no modifications of the system which we may call Greenwich, let us lay aside the question of longitude and consider cosmic time separately.

I have the honor, therefore, to present the following resolutions, and I ask the Congress to consider them, and to accept them as a means of compromise:

I. We agree to choose as the prime meridian for cosmic time that meridian near which the civil day of the world commences, namely, the anti-meridian of Rome, Greenwich, or Havre.

II. The cosmic day consists of twenty-four hours, and commences at midnight of the prime meridian.

III. The earth is divided from the initial meridian into twenty-four hour-spaces, counted in a direction contrary to the movement of the earth from 0h. to 24h.

We shall, then, have the following formula: T = t + R, where R represents the difference reckoned from 0h. to 24h. between the local time of the prime meridian and the local time of each point of the globe; T the Cosmic Time and t the local time.

The PRESIDENT. The Chair would ask the Delegate of Spain, Mr. PASTORIN, whether he offers his resolution as an amendment to that offered by his colleague, Mr. RUIZ DEL ARBOL.

Mr. RUIZ DEL ARBOL, Delegate of Spain. Mr. Chairman, the amendment last offered is not intended to interfere with my proposition.

The PRESIDENT then put the question to the Conference upon the amendment offered by the Delegate of Spain, Mr. RUIZ DEL ARBOL.

Upon a vote being taken, the amendment was lost.

The PRESIDENT. The question now recurs upon the amendment offered by the Delegate of Spain, Mr. PASTORIN. That amendment runs as follows:

"I. We agree to choose as the prime meridian for cosmic time that meridian near which the civil day of the world commences, namely, the anti-meridian of Greenwich or Havre.

"II. The cosmic day consists of twenty-four hours, and commences at midnight of the prime meridian.

"III. The earth is divided from the initial meridian into twenty-four hour spaces, counted in a direction contrary to the movement of the earth.

"We shall, then, have the following formula: F = A + R where R represents the difference reckoned from 0h. to 24h. between the local time of the prime meridian and the local time of each point of the globe; F the cosmic time, and A the local time."

The PRESIDENT. In order that this amendment may be presented more clearly to the Conference, I would propose a recess for a few minutes. If there be no objection, a recess will be taken.

No objection being made, the Conference took a recess.

* * * * *

The PRESIDENT having called the Conference to order stated that, unless further remarks were presented, the vote would be taken upon the resolution offered by the Delegate of Spain, Mr. PASTORIN.

No objection being made, the vote was then taken upon the amendment, and it was lost.

The PRESIDENT. The question now recurs upon the resolution offered by the Delegate of Sweden, Count LEWENHAUPT, which will again be read. The resolution is as follows:

"The Conference recommends as initial point for the universal hour and the cosmic day the mean mid-day of Greenwich, coinciding with the moment of midnight or the beginning of the civil day at the meridian 12 hours or 180 deg. from Greenwich. The universal hours are to be counted from 0 up to 24 hours."

Professor ADAMS, Delegate of Great Britain. Mr. President, I intended to speak on the resolution offered by the Delegate of the United States, Mr. RUTHERFURD, but the remarks which I have put together apply equally well to the amendment to that resolution now offered by the Delegate of Sweden, which is identical with one of the recommendations of the Conference at Rome, because, in fact, in my remarks I discuss these propositions alternatively. Therefore, with your permission, I will lay before you the observations which I wish to make.

I beg leave to express my entire approval of the resolution which has been laid before the Conference by Mr. RUTHERFURD. There is only one point involved in the resolution which seems to call for or even to admit of any discussion.

It appears evident that the universal day and date should coincide with the day and date of the initial meridian. The only question, therefore, which we have now to decide is, when shall this day of the initial meridian be considered to commence? And the proper answer to be given to this question does not appear to me in any degree doubtful.

In modern times it is the universal practice to reckon dates by days and not by nights. The word "day" is used in two different significations, being sometimes applied to the period of daylight and sometimes to the period of 24 hours, including both day and night; but in whichever of these senses the word day is employed, the term mid-day has one and the same signification, viz., the instant of noon or of the sun's passage over the meridian. In the present case, where we are concerned with mean time, mid-day means the instant of mean noon, or of the passage of the mean sun over the meridian.

Accordingly, the civil day, by which all the ordinary affairs of life are regulated, begins and ends at midnight, and has its middle or mid-day at noon.

It appears, then, most natural that the universal day should follow this example, and should begin and end at the instant of mean midnight on the initial meridian, and should have its middle at the instant of mean noon on the same meridian.

I fail, therefore, to see the force of the reasons which induced the Conference at Rome to recommend that the universal day should commence at noon on the initial meridian.

The only ground for making this recommendation is that astronomers, instead of adopting the use of the civil day, like the rest of the world, are accustomed to employ a so-called astronomical day, which begins at noon. The advantage thus gained is that they avoid the necessity of changing the date in the course of the night, which is the time of their greatest activity; but this advantage is surely very small when compared with the inconvenience of having two conflicting methods of reckoning dates, and of being obliged to specify, in giving any date, which mode of reckoning is adopted. If this diversity is to disappear, it is plain that it is the astronomers who will have to yield. They are few in number compared with the rest of the world. They are intelligent, and could make the required change without any difficulty, and with very slight or no inconvenience.

The requisite changes in the astronomical and nautical ephemerides would be easily made. As these ephemerides are published several years in advance, there would be plenty of time for navigators to become familiar with the proposed change in time-reckoning before they were called upon to employ it in their calculations.

I believe that they would soon come to think it more convenient and natural to reckon according to civil time than according to the present astronomical time. I am told that this practice is already universally adopted in keeping the log on board ship. To avoid any chance of mistake, it should be prominently stated on each page of the ephemerides that mean time reckoned from mean midnight is kept throughout.

Whether or not astronomers agree to adopt the civil reckoning, I think we ought to adopt the instant of midnight on the initial meridian as the commencement of the universal day.

The relation between the local time at any place and the universal time would then be expressed by the simple formula:

Local time = universal time + longitude.

Whereas, if the proposition of the Roman Conference were adopted, we should have to employ the less simple formula:

Local time = universal time + longitude - 12 hours.

In recommending the mean noon at Greenwich as the commencement of the universal day and of cosmopolitan dates, the Roman Conference refers to this instant as coinciding with the instant of midnight, or with the commencement of the civil day, under the meridian situated at 12 h. or 180 deg. from Greenwich. Now, this reference to the civil day and date on the meridian opposite to Greenwich appears not only to be unnecessary and to be wanting in simplicity, but it may also lead to ambiguity in the date, as expressed in universal days, unless this ambiguity be avoided by making an arbitrary assumption. No doubt the Greenwich mean noon of January 1 coincides with midnight on the meridian 12 h. from Greenwich, but with what midnight. What shall be its designation and the corresponding date given to the universal day? Shall we call the instant above defined the commencement of the universal day denoted by January 1 or by January 2? Each of these dates has equal claims to be chosen, and the choice between them must clearly be an arbitrary one, and may, therefore, lead to ambiguity.

By adopting Greenwich mean midnight as the commencement of the universal day, bearing the same designation as the corresponding Greenwich civil day, all ambiguity is avoided, and there is no need to refer to the opposite meridian at all.

Those are the ideas I wish to express with regard to the commencement of the universal day.

I may mention in connection with this subject that Professor Valentiner is one of the gentlemen who were invited, a week or two ago, to attend the meetings of this Conference, in order that, if requested, they might express their opinions from a scientific standpoint upon the questions before it; but as Professor Valentiner had to leave Washington before our sessions were at an end, I thought it would be expedient to ask him for his opinion in writing upon the matter which is now pending before this Conference. He has written a letter in German, expressing his opinion. I have caused that letter to be translated into English, and if the Conference allows me I will read it.

The PRESIDENT. If there be no objection to the proposition of the Delegate of Great Britain the letter will be read.

No objection being made, Professor ADAMS continued: It is well known that Professor Valentiner is an eminent practical astronomer, and I think that any opinion coming from him on this subject, which interests astronomers very much, will be considered of great weight. The letter runs as follows:

CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA., October 12th, 1884.

HONORED SIR: You had the kindness to ask me for my views as to the choice of the moment for the beginning of the day. As I cannot remain longer in Washington, I allow myself thus briefly to write to you.

When, as in the present case, the object is to introduce uniformity in the time-reckoning of the astronomical and the civil world, I am of the opinion that it is the astronomer only that must give way. For all purposes of civil life one cannot begin the day in the middle of the day-light—that is to say, in the middle of that interval during which work is prosecuted. In general it appears to me natural that the middle of the day, and not the beginning of the day, should be indicated by the highest position of the sun which governs all civil life. In fact, it would in civil life be simply impossible to bring about a change of date in the middle of the daylight. For the astronomer there certainly exist difficulties. His activity occurs mostly in the civil night, and he, therefore, has to make the change of date in the midst of his observations; and this difficulty is increased, since he almost exclusively observes according to sidereal time, so that often a computation must be made in order to ascertain whether the observations were made before or after the midnight or moment of change of date. However, this difficulty can be overcome by habit, and I believe that scarcely any doubt will occur as soon as a uniformnity of expression has established itself through the astronomical world. As regards the ephemerides, we already employ, in fact, the beginning of the date at midnight, since the places of planets and comets, are generally computed for 12 o'clock midnight of Berlin or Greenwich or other places. But these are points that have themselves long since been discussed.

I scarcely need to say anything further. I would not hesitate for a moment to give the preference to making the change of date take place at midnight, according to civil reckoning, in order to establish a uniformity with the customs of civil life.

It, perhaps, may be important to remark that we could not introduce this change immediately, since the ephemerides are already computed and published for three or four years in advance. It would, therefore, be well to fix the epoch of change of normal dates to some distant time, such as 1890.

I remain, very respectfully yours,

W. VALENTINER.

I may also mention that the practice that prevails among astronomers at the present time of reckoning the day from noon is by no means without exceptions. There are very important astronomical tables which reckon the day from midnight; for instance, in Delambre's Tables of the Sun; in Burg's, Burckhardt's and Damoiseau's Tables of the Moon; in Bouvard's Tables of Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus, and in Damoiseau's Tables of Jupiter's Satellites, mean midnight is employed as the epoch of the tables. I may also mention that Laplace, in his Mecanique Celeste, adopts the mean midnight of Paris as the origin from which his day is reckoned. Hence there are great authorities, even among astronomers, in favor of commencing the day at midnight.

General STRACHEY, Delegate of Great Britain. Sir, I observe that a very eminent American authority is present in this room, I mean Professor Hilgard. As he was invited to attend the meeting of this Conference, I suggest that the views of the Conference may be taken, whether he may not be invited to express his opinion on the point now under consideration.

The PRESIDENT. With the concurrence of the Conference, the Chair will be most happy to ask Professor Hilgard to do us the favor to give us his opinion upon the question now before the Conference.

No objection was made to the proposition of the President.

Professor HILGARD arose and said. I thank you and the Conference very much for this invitation, and General STRACHEY for having proposed it to the Conference, but my opinion has been squarely expressed both in French and English in the report of a certain committee, that I am in favor of midnight at Greenwich as the beginning of the universal day, and of longitude being calculated both ways from Greenwich. I really cannot add anything to what has been said in the arguments already presented by Professor ADAMS, and I do not think that I ought to detain this Conference a moment by repeating the opinion he has expressed to all the experts in this matter.

I beg you will excuse me for not further ventilating my views. Absence from the city, I regret, has prevented me from availing myself of the invitation earlier.

Sir FREDERICK EVANS, Delegate of Great Britain. I have the honor to address the Conference once more upon the practical aspect of the subject before us as affecting the large body of navigators. I wish to say upon this point that there appears to me, in the address of my colleague, Professor ADAMS, somewhat of a mixing together of two subjects.

The question immediately before us, as I understand it, is whether the commencement of the universal day shall be midnight or noon of the initial meridian. That is what we practically have to decide. Now, I gather from Professor ADAMS' remarks that upon this question the ephemerides which we now employ have some important bearing. I do not think that that should influence us, for this reason, that the next resolution which will come before the Conference "expresses the hope that as soon as may be practicable the astronomical and nautical days will be arranged everywhere to begin at midnight."

This resolution, so far as I understand it, will be the warning to astronomers to begin to make the changes growing out of this resolution which may be necessary for seamen. Therefore, I consider that we may at once proceed to vote upon the question whether the day is to commence at midnight or noon, without any reference to the practice or interests of navigation. In reality, it does not appear to me to affect that subject at all.

I have given some consideration to the practical bearings of this question—whether it should be midnight or noon. What we ought to decide is what will be the least inconvenience to the world at large. I have ascertained from two of my colleagues, who have given this matter the greatest consideration, that the adoption of midnight will really cause less confusion than noon, for this reason, that all the great colonies of the world would be less affected; that is to say, that the times they are using now would be less affected by midnight than by noon. That being so, it appears to me to be an essential point in coming to a settlement of this question.

Mr. RUIZ DEL ARBOL, Delegate of Spain. I have only to say that I have listened to the remarks about navigators changing the reckoning of time. I do not know whether there are many navigators here, but it is a fact that seamen reckon the day from noon.

The PRESIDENT. I beg the pardon of the Delegate of Spain; but, in the United States navy, we reckon the day from midnight.

Mr. RUIZ DEL ARBOL, Delegate of Spain. I am speaking generally. Now, there is some reason for this rule among seamen, for the only way to find out the position of a ship is to observe the meridian altitude of the sun; and everybody requires to know, at sea, what has taken place in the course of every day, from the beginning to the last moment of the day; and I think that whatever the rule may be in the United States navy, navigators generally will count their time as they count it now.

I think that navigators will not change the rule now in force, no matter what we may adopt in this Conference.

Commander SAMPSON, Delegate of the United States. I think, Mr. President and gentlemen, that the change to the adoption of the universal day, beginning at midnight, would be a very decided advantage to navigators. The quantities as now given in the nautical ephemerides are for noon of the meridian for which they are computed, as Washington, Greenwich, &c. It is very evident that every navigator, in making use of the quantities given in the nautical almanac, must find the corresponding time at Greenwich, wherever he may be on the surface of the earth. Consequently, if we suppose that navigators are pretty equally distributed, one-half on one side of the earth and one-half on the other side, the Greenwich day for one portion would be the local night for the other.

The usual observations made by navigators at sea consist in a meridian observation of the sun for latitude, and a morning and possibly afternoon observation of the sun near the prime vertical for longitude. Consequently all navigators, when in the vicinity of the initial meridian, might have their day's work occurring in two astronomical days. On the other hand, those navigators who were in the neighborhood of the 180th meridian would have all their work of one day occurring in the same astronomical day. The first would have the advantage of interpolating for short intervals only, while the second would be obliged to interpolate for much larger intervals.

Consequently, on the whole, it would make no difference to navigators whether the quantities given in the nautical almanacs were for noon or midnight of the initial meridian. Another consideration, however, would make it very advantageous to have the quantities given for midnight. That consideration is this: if midnight were chosen, then the universal day would be identical with the nautical almanac day, and navigators would have only ship time and universal time to deal with, while, if the quantities were given for noon, they would have astronomical time, in addition to the other two. This consideration I think a very important one.

The PRESIDENT. The question will be on the amendment offered by the Delegate of Sweden, Count LEWENHAUPT, which has been read.

The vote was then taken, as follows:

States voting in the affirmative:

Austria, Sweden, Italy, Switzerland, Netherlands, Turkey.

In the negative:

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

Abstaining from voting:

France, San Domingo, Germany, Spain.

Ayes, 6; noes, 14; abstaining from voting, 4.

The PRESIDENT then announced that the amendment was lost.

The question then recurred on the original resolution offered by the Delegate of the United States.

RUSTEM EFFENDI, Delegate of Turkey. Mr. President, I have listened with a great deal of interest and attention to the learned arguments bearing upon the proposition under discussion offered by the Hon. Mr. RUTHERFURD, the Delegate of the United States for the adoption of a universal hour.

This question is of such high importance, and of such interest to every one, that I consider it my duty to make a few remarks upon the subject, as I wish to state clearly the position my government proposes to take in the matter.

I do not pretend to discuss scientifically this subject, which has already been so ably treated by several of the gentlemen present. My task is of a different and inferior order. I merely propose to briefly examine the manner in which the proposition ought to be made, in order that it may be adopted by our respective governments.

The question of a universal hour is not of equal interest and importance to all. The United States of America, although comparatively a young nation, have done so much in the pursuit of science and scientific investigation that they must have more than a common interest on the subject. The vast expanse of their country, stretching over sixty degrees of longitude, with a difference of time of more than four hours, almost compels them to adopt a universal hour. The thousands of miles of railroad tracts covering this continent, facilitating the intercourse between distant places, necessitate a uniform system to avoid confusion. It was, therefore, natural that the United States and Canada should have taken the lead in proposing such a reform, which would likewise benefit other countries, as, for instance, the British Empire, Russia, and Germany. But there are, at the same time, other countries, like France, Spain, Italy, Scandinavia, etc., that may content themselves with a national hour, owing to the small difference in time within their dominion. For them, the adoption of a universal hour would only be of secondary importance, because it would only affect their international relations.

I hope I may be permitted to remind you of the conclusions arrived at by a commission consisting of scientists, railroad and telegraph officials, &c., appointed by the French Government to express their opinion upon this subject. If I am not mistaken, they recommended a universal hour, stating, however, at the same time, that the benefit to be derived from such an hour would be only of secondary importance for their country. The learned Delegate from France, Professor JANSSEN, will probably be kind enough to inform us whether I am right or not.

The few remarks I have made bring me to the point I wanted to consider more specially. I mean that the originators of the pending proposition, and those directly interested in it, should be induced to modify their proposition somewhat if they wish it to be adopted by other countries. In other words, to leave to each country the greatest latitude possible in adopting a universal hour.

With regard to the Ottoman Empire, I must state that it is placed in a somewhat exceptional position in this respect, and is, therefore, obliged to ask for more latitude even than the other countries concerned.

In our country we have two modes of reckoning time: one from noon to noon, or from midnight to midnight, as everywhere else, (heure a la franque), the other (heure a la turque) from sundown to sundown. In this latter case the hours count from the moment when the disk of the sun is bisected by the horizon, and we count twice from 0h. to 12h., instead of counting without any interruption from 0h. to 24h. We are well aware of the inconveniences this system of counting produces, because 0h. necessarily varies from day to day, for the interval of time between one sunset and the one following is not exactly 24 hours. According to the season the sun will set earlier or later, and our watches and clocks at Constantinople will be at most about three minutes fast or slow from day to day, according to the season.

Reasons of a national and religious character prevent us, however, from abandoning this mode of counting our time. The majority of our population is agricultural, working in the fields, and prefer to count to sunset; besides, the hours for the Moslem prayers are counted from sundown to sundown.

Therefore it is impossible for us to abandon our old system of time, although in our navy we generally use the customary reckoning or "heure a la franque."

Finally, permit me to state that I am ready to cast my vote in favor of a universal hour, with the precise understanding that the universal hour will have to be limited to international transactions, and that will not interfere with the rules up to now in force in my own country.

Before resuming my seat I wish to thank the President and the members of the Conference for their kind indulgence in having listened to my remarks.

The PRESIDENT, The Chair would remind the Delegate of Turkey that the following resolution was passed at our last session:

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

The very difficulty which the Delegate of Turkey anticipates was thus carefully provided for in the resolution just read.

Mr. SANDFORD FLEMING, Delegate of Great Britain. To my mind it is of very great importance that this resolution should be adopted. I have already given generally my views on this question, and therefore I do not intend to trespass on the attention of the Conference beyond saying a very few words. From what I have already ventured to submit, it will be obvious that I hold that all our usages in respect to the reckoning of time are arbitrary. Of one thing there can be no doubt. There is only one, and there can only be one flow of time, although our inherited usages have given us a chaotic number of arbitrary reckonings of this one conception. There can be no doubt of another matter; the progress of civilization requires a simple and more rational system than we now have. We have, it seems to me, reached a stage when a unification of the infinite number of time-reckonings is demanded.

This unification will be, to a large extent, accomplished if the resolution be adopted, and by adopting it, it seems to me to be in the power of the Conference to confer lasting benefits on the world.

Universal time will in no way interfere with local time. Each separate community may continue the usages of the past in respect to local time, or may accept whatever change the peculiar conditions in each case may call for. But the use of universal time will not necessarily involve a change; it will rather be something added to what all now possess. It will be a boon to those who avail themselves of it.

To the east of the prime meridian all possible local days will be in advance; to the west all possible days will be behind the universal day.

The universal day, as defined by the resolution, will at once be the mean of all possible local days, and the standard to which they will all be related by a certain known interval, that interval being determined by the longitude.

In my judgment, the resolution is an exceedingly proper one, and the Conference will act wisely in passing it.

The PRESIDENT. In taking the vote upon the resolution, it is requested that the roll be called.

The following States voted in the affirmative:

Brazil, Liberia, Chili, Mexico, Colombia, Netherlands, Costa Rica, Paraguay, Great Britain, Turkey, Guatemala, United States, Hawaii, Venezuela. Japan,

States voting in the negative:

Austria-Hungary, Spain.

Abstaining from voting:

France, San Domingo, Germany, Sweden, Italy, Switzerland. Netherlands,

Ayes, 15; noes, 2; abstained, 7.

The PRESIDENT then announced that the resolution was passed.

Mr. RUTHERFURD, Delegate of the United States. Mr. President, I now present for the consideration of the Conference the following resolution:

"Resolved, That the Conference expresses the hope that as soon as may be practicable the astronomical and nautical days will be arranged everywhere to begin at midnight."

Before action is taken upon this resolution, I would make a verbal correction. I think that the word "mean" ought to be introduced before the word "midnight" and I therefore alter my resolution in that way.

The vote was then taken upon the resolution just offered, and it was carried without division.

The PRESIDENT. The Chair begs leave to state that the protocols in French and in English of the first and second sessions of the Conference, have been examined, and are now before the Conference for adoption. If any Delegate wishes to make any correction in these protocols, he can submit it to the Conference, and, if approved, it can be immediately made.

No objection was raised, and the President put the question to the Conference on the adoption of the protocols of the first and second sessions in French and English, and they were unanimously adopted.

M. JANSSEN, Delegate of France. Mr. President, we have been directed to present for the approval of the Congress the desire that studies relative to the application of the decimal system to the division of angular space and of time should be resumed in order that this application may be extended to all cases—and they are numerous and important—where it presents real advantages.

I would say that a similar desire upon the same subject was expressed by the Conference at Rome.

You are aware, gentlemen, that at the time of the establishment of the metrical system the decimal division had been extended to the measurement of angular space and of time. Numerous instruments were even made according to the new system. As to time, the reform was introduced too abruptly, and, we might say, without enough discretion, and it came into conflict with old habits and was quickly abandoned; but as to the division of angular space, in which the decimal division presented many advantages, the reform sustained itself much better, and is still used for certain purposes. So, the division of the circumference into 400 parts was adopted by Laplace, and we find it constantly employed in the Mecanique Celeste. Delambre and Mechain used, for the measurement of the are of the meridian from which the metre was derived, repeating circles divided into "grades." Finally, in our own time, Colonel Perrier, Chief of the Geographical Division of our Department of War, has used instruments decimally divided, and at the present time logarithmic tables appropriate to that method of division are in course of calculation.

But it is especially when it is a question of making long calculations of angular space that the decimal system presents great advantages. In this respect we find, so to speak, only one opinion expressed by scientists.

The Conference at Rome, which brought together so many astronomers, geodetists, eminent topographers—that is to say, the men most competent and most interested in the question—expressed in respect to it a desire, the high authority of which it is impossible to mistake.

It is, therefore, now evident that the decimal system, which has already done such good service in the measurements of length, volume, and weight, is called upon to render analagous services in the domain of angular dimensions and of time.

I know that this question of the decimal division encounters legitimate doubts, principally as to its application to the measurement of time. It is feared that we want to destroy habits fixed for centuries, and upset established usages.

In this respect, gentlemen, I think that we ought to be fully satisfied. The teachings of the past will be respected. It will be perceived that if we failed at the time of the Revolution, it is because we put forward a reform which was not limited to the domain of science, but which did violence to the habits of daily life. It is necessary to take the question up again, but with due regard to the limits which common sense and experience would prescribe to wise and well-informed men.

I think that the character of the reform would be well defined by saying that it is intended especially to make a new effort towards the application of the decimal system in scientific matters.

But, gentlemen, I have not to discuss here the bearing of the reforms which the study of this question will lead to. It is sufficient for me to show that there is in that direction an indispensable step to be made, and to ask you to express the desire that the question should be studied. I do not think that there is anybody here who would desire to oppose a request which does not in truth commit us to any specific solution of the question, and which appears so opportune at the present time. I would ask the President to be so kind as to submit the following proposition to the Conference:

"Resolved, That the Conference expresses the hope that the studies designed to regulate and extend the application of the decimal system to the division of angular space and of time shall be resumed, so as to permit the extension of this application to all cases where it presents real advantages."

The PRESIDENT. The Chair is of opinion that the Conference was called for a special and somewhat narrow purpose, and the consideration of the decimal system, proposed by the Delegate of France, seems to it foreign to that purpose and beyond the scope of the Conference. The President, however, simply acts for the Conference, and if the Conference shall decide to take the matter up, he will acquiesce, but it strikes the Chair that the resolution is out of order.

Gen. STRACHEY, Delegate of Great Britain. Sir, I desire to express my personal views on this subject. I should be very happy to join the Delegate of France in voting for such a resolution, but I fear that there is a feeling among many of the delegates that it is not within our competence to discuss it. If that is so, I would suggest whether it might not be better that it should not be pressed to a vote. It would be a pity if there should be on the records of the proceedings of this Conference anything in the shape of a vote against the subject-matter of this resolution. I consequently think that if delegates have formed any decided opinion on the subject, they might express their opinion without voting; but I repeat that it would be a great pity if a negative vote should be taken on the subject of the decimal system of dividing the circle and time, particularly as it was received with unanimity in the Conference at Rome.

Prof. ADAMS, Delegate of Great Britain. Mr. President, I may say that while I agree with Gen. STRACHEY in thinking that I should not like to vote against the proposition brought forward by our eminent colleague, Mr. JANSSEN, yet I feel it is somewhat beyond the scope of the subjects which we have to discuss, and, therefore, I should abstain from voting. I quite recognize that, for certain purposes, the decimal division of the circle is very valuable.

The PRESIDENT. Unless the Conference decides to entertain this proposition, the Chair suggests that no discussion shall take place. If any member present desires to bring the matter up, he can do so by taking an appeal from the decision just made.

Gen. STRACHEY, Delegate of Great Britain. Do I understand, sir, that the subject is dropped?

The PRESIDENT. The Chair has decided that the resolution offered by the Delegate of France is out of order, and unless a difference of opinion is expressed by the Conference, the subject will be dropped. The Chair wishes to treat with the most distinguished deference the Delegate of France, because we are all most happy to do honor to him in every way. Does the Chair understand that the Delegate of France appeals from its decision, and wishes to take the sense of the Conference upon it?

Mr. JANSSEN, Delegate of France, replied in the affirmative.

Commodore FRANKLIN, Delegate of Colombia. Mr. President, I would like hear the resolution read again. If it be merely a suggestion to consider the subject of the decimal system, I should like to know it.

The vote was then taken upon the appeal of the Delegate of France from the decision of the Chair.

States voting in favor of the appeal:

Austria-Hungary, Netherlands, Brazil, San Domingo, Chili, Spain, France, Switzerland, Italy, Turkey, Japan, Venezuela. Mexico,

States voting against the appeal:

Colombia, Hawaii, Costa Rica, Liberia, Germany, Paraguay, Great Britain, United States. Guatemala,

Abstaining from voting:

Russia, Sweden.

Ayes, 13; noes, 9; abstained, 2.

The PRESIDENT. The appeal from the decision of the Chair is sustained, and the proposition offered by the Delegate of France is now before the Conference. If no delegate wishes to speak upon the resolution, the vote will be taken.

Mr. JANSSEN, Delegate of France. Mr. President, before the definitive vote I desire to again call my colleague's attention to the fact that it is a question here of the much-needed extension of the decimal system, an extension desired by a large number of the highest scientific authorities and of the most distinguished observers. As I said only a moment ago, the Congress at Rome, whose high authority in the matters which have occupied us is acknowledged, was a still higher authority as to astronomy, geodesy, topography; that is to say, in the domain to which our proposition relates. At Rome a wish, similar to that which we ask you to formulate, was expressed. Besides, if we observe that it is a question here only of expressing the desire that studies should be resumed upon the matter in question, is there anyone among us who would wish to oppose the liberal proposition which prejudges nothing in the solution of the question, but which will surely lead to important progress. I do not doubt, then, that all our colleagues will desire to unite in a resolution, which by its object and by the manner in which it is expressed, ought, it appears to me, to unite the suffrages of all.

No further remarks were made upon the resolution, and the vote was accordingly taken on the question whether it should be adopted.

States voting in the affirmative:

Austria-Hungary, Mexico, Brazil, Netherlands, Chili, Paraguay, Colombia, Russia, Costa Rica, San Domingo, France, Spain, Great Britain, Switzerland, Hawaii, Turkey, Italy, United States, Japan, Venezuela. Liberia,

States voting in the negative: None.

Abstained from voting:

Germany, Sweden. Guatemala,

Ayes, 21; noes, 0; abstained, 3.

The PRESIDENT. The resolution of the Delegate of France is, therefore, adopted.

General STRACHEY, Delegate of Great Britain. Sir, before concluding the session to-day, I hope that the Delegates will be in a position to listen to the two resolutions which I now desire to propose, and which I think will tend to clear up a good deal of the discussion which we have had. The first of these resolutions is as follows:

"The Conference adopts the opinion that, for the purposes of civil life, it will be convenient to reckon time, according to the local civil time at successive meridians destributed round the earth, at time-intervals of either ten minutes, or some integral multiple of ten minutes, from the prime meridian; but that the application of this principle be left to the various nations or communities concerned by it."

This resolution, as it stands, embraces all the practical suggestions which have been made on the subject up to the present time. The only limitation it proposes to put upon the adoption of what may be called local standard time is that the breaks shall be at definite intervals of ten minutes or more.

The second resolution which I propose is a very simple one. It is this:

"The arrangements for adopting the universal day in international telegraphy should be left for the consideration of the international telegraph congress."

There has been established by an international arrangement a congress which meets every two years to settle questions of international telegraphy, and I think that the precise manner in which universal time may be adapted to telegraphy would very properly be left to that congress.

Mr. DE STRUVE, Delegate of Russia. On behalf of the Delegates of Russia, I beg to make the following remarks:

We have already expressed the opinion that the universal time could be properly used for international postal, railway, and telegraphic communications. But it is to be understood that local or any other standard time, which is intimately connected with daily life, will necessarily be used side by side with the universal time.

It has been proposed, in order to establish an easier connection between local and universal time, to accept twenty-four meridians at equal distances of 1 hour or 15 deg., or to divide the whole circumference of the earth by meridians at distances of 10 minutes of time or 21/2 deg..

This question not yet having been made the subject of special and thorough investigation by the respective Governments, and not having been discussed at the International Conference at Rome, we believe that it would as yet be difficult to express, in regard to Europe, any positive opinion on the practical convenience of the above mentioned or other possible methods of dividing the globe into equal time-zones.

We would suggest to recommend that the system of counting the hours of the universal day from 0 to 24, which probably will be adopted for the universal day, might also be introduced for counting the local time side by side with the old method of counting the hours of 0 to 12 A. M. and 0 to 12 p. m.

Count LEWENHAUPT, Delegate of Sweden. I have had the honor to transmit to the members of the Conference a resume of a report on this subject made by Professor Gylden, an eminent Swedish astronomer, whose name, no doubt, is familiar to many of the Delegates. The system proposed by Mr. Gylden is similar to the one now proposed by the Delegate for Great Britain. The only difference is that Mr. Gylden, in explaining the system, recommends the adoption of equidistant meridians, separated by intervals of 21/2 deg., or 10 minutes of time, while the proposition of the Delegate for Great Britain is so worded that this distance may be greater than 10 minutes. This difference is, however, only a question of detail. The basis of Mr. Gylden's system is that time meridians should be separated from the standard initial meridian by either 10 or some integral multiple of 10 minutes. Therefore, I shall, with pleasure, vote for the resolution of the Delegate from Great Britain.