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

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

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

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

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

_Ayes_.

Brazil, San Domingo.

France,

_Noes_.

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

Russia,

Twenty-one noes and three ayes.

The PRESIDENT. The resolution is, therefore, lost.

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 President, in presenting again the resolution which was withdrawn by me to give place to the resolution offered by our colleagues from France, having taken the advice from several members of the Conference with whom I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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The proposition to count longitude from a point 180 degrees from the meridian of Greenwich appears to them not to be accompanied by any advantage whatever. On the contrary, it must lead to inconvenience.

You do not, by adopting the meridian opposite Greenwich, get rid of the nationality of the meridian. If there is objection to the meridian of Greenwich on account of its nationality, the meridian of 180 degrees from Greenwich is subject to the same objection. The one half is just as national as the other half.

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

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

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

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

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

Therefore, I think that they should be divided, for they are not appropriate in the form in which they are presented.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Greenwich meridian, says that report, corresponds to an empire that embraces twenty million square kilometres and a population of two hundred and fifty millions. Her merchant marine, which counts 40,000 ships of a tonnage from six to nine million tons, and crews of 370,000 men, surpa.s.ses in importance all the other marines put together. Other States, equally important by their merchant marine, especially the United States, make use of the Greenwich meridian.

Well, gentlemen, if we weigh these reasons--the only ones that have been set forth, the only ones that at present militate for the Greenwich meridian--is it not evident that these are material superiorities, commercial preponderances that are going to influence your choice? Science appears here only as the humble va.s.sal of the powers of the day to consecrate and crown their success. But, gentlemen, nothing is so transitory and fugitive as power and riches.

All the great empires of the world, all financial, industrial, and commercial prosperities of the world, have given us a proof of it, each in turn.

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

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

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

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

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