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

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

Mr. VALERA, the Delegate of Spain. I believe the amendment proposed by my colleague, Mr. PASTORIN, Delegate of Spain, does not apply to the amendment of the Delegate of Sweden, but to the original resolution.

In order to avoid all ambiguity it would be much better to discuss them one after the other. Therefore let us decide the question whether it is better to count up to 180 in each direction or up to 360 continuously. Then we can go on to something else.

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

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

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

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

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

Or, in place of No. 2--

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. SANDFORD FLEMING, Delegate of Great Britain. I would suggest that this matter of detail can very well be discussed and arranged by a committee, otherwise, it may take up the whole time of the Conference.

I move, therefore, that a committee be appointed to take up this matter and report upon it at the next meeting.

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

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

There are only three questions before the Conference, and they come within very narrow limits. First, shall we count longitude both ways?

Second, shall we count it all around the 360 degrees? Third, if so, in which direction is the counting to take place?

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

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

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

V.

SESSION OF OCTOBER 14, 1884.

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

Present:

Austro-Hungary: Baron IGNATZ VON SCHaeFFER.

Brazil: Dr. LUIZ CRULS.

Chili: Mr. F. V. GORMAS and Mr. S. R. FRANKLIN.

Costa Rica: Mr. JUAN FRANCISCO ECHEVERRIA.

France: Mr. A. LEFAIVRE, Mr. JANSSEN.

Germany: Baron H. VON ALVENSLEBEN, Mr. HINCKELDEYN.

Great Britain: Sir F. J. O. EVANS, Prof. J. O. ADAMS, Lieut.-General STRACHEY, Mr. SANDFORD FLEMING.

Guatemala: Mr. MILES ROCK.

Hawaii: Hon. W. D. ALEXANDER, Hon. LUTHER AHOLO.

Italy: Count ALBERT DE FORESTA.

j.a.pan: Professor KIKUCHI.

Liberia: Mr. Wm. COPPINGER.

Mexico: Mr. LEANDRO FERNANDEZ, Mr. ANGEL ANGUIANO.

Netherlands: Mr. G. DE WECKHERLIN.

Paraguay: Capt. JOHN STEWART.

Russia: Mr. C. DE STRUVE, Major-General STEBNITZKI, Mr.

KOLOGRIVOFF.

San Domingo: Mr. DE J. GALVAN.

Salvador: Mr. ATONIO BATRES.

Spain: Mr. JUAN VALERA, Mr. EMILO RUIZ DEL ARBOL, Mr.

JUAN PASTORIN.

Sweden: Count CARL LEWENHAUPT.

Switzerland: Mr. EMILE FREY.

Turkey: RUSTEM EFFENDI.

United States: Rear-Admiral C. R. P. RODGERS, Mr. LEWIS M. RUTHERFURD, Mr. W. F. ALLEN, Commander W. T.

SAMPSON, Professor CLEVELAND ABBE.

Venezuela: Senor Dr. A. M. SOTELDO.

Absent:

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