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

According to the other method, it is not the physical point which is fixed, but simply the distance of the a.s.sumed origin from the points of comparison. For example, admit that the general definition of our prime meridian was that it should pa.s.s through the middle of Behring Straits. To obtain its theoretical definition, we should obtain a position of this point, either by summary observations of the nature of hydrographic surveys, or by the aid of existing information, and the longitude thus obtained would be connected with the observatories best connected with each other. A list of the differences of longitude would become the definition of our meridian, and not the physical point in the sea which marks the exact middle of the strait. If, now, we absolutely wished for a physical point, we have the Island of St.

Lawrence, which is cut towards its eastern part by such a meridian, and we could put a point of reference there, subject to the condition that the position of this point should conform to the definition, and that it should be removed, in one direction or the other, until it did conform to it. As to the very slight errors which might still affect the relative positions of the great observatories actually connected by electricity, they do not concern geography. If I am not mistaken, the eminent Superintendent of the American Nautical Almanac acknowledges that we could thus avoid the difficulties which might result from the changes to which the perfecting of science would in the course of time give rise in the statement of longitudes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prof. JANSSEN, Delegate of France. My honorable friend, Mr.

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

General STRACHEY, Delegate of England, remarked that he had rather hesitated about saying anything on the subject, after the expression of so many opinions of persons better qualified to speak than himself, but he felt that he ought to make a few remarks as to the distinction which Prof. JANSSEN had attempted to establish between astronomical and geographical longitude. It appeared to him that longitude was longitude. It would never do if, for geographic purposes, we are to have a second or third-cla.s.s longitude and for astronomical purposes a first-cla.s.s longitude. He said that as a geographer he repudiated any such idea. When you come to the practical application of the determination of longitude at sea for maritime purposes, it is true that a much less accurate determination suffices than would suffice for the determination of longitude for astronomical observatories; but, for all that, what is the object of a ship desiring to know what its place at sea is? Obviously to arrive at the port to which it is destined, and the object to be obtained is such a determination of the longitude as to enable that ship to arrive at its port without danger.

You obtain a comparatively imperfect determination of longitude, but it is sufficiently accurate to prevent you from striking on the solid earth. But how is the longitude of the port to be determined?

Certainly, as has been properly said, by astronomical observations, which can only be made with certainty on the earth. Consequently, it seemed to him that it is absolutely essential for fixing an initial meridian for the determination of longitude that it should be placed at an astronomical observatory which can be connected with other places by astronomical observations and by telegraph wires, and that the idea of fixing a neutral meridian is nothing more than the establishment of an ideal meridian really based upon some point at which there is located an observatory. This has been repeated once or twice before, and I need not enlarge upon it.

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

Prof. ABBE, Delegate of the United States, said that he was quite interested in the determination, if possible, of what is a neutral meridian. We are precisely in the condition in which we were years ago, when the French Inst.i.tute determined that the basis of the metric system should be the one ten-millionth of the quadrant of the globe.

Having settled upon that ideal basis, they spent years of labor, and finally legalized a standard metre, which is still preserved at Paris.

We have now the same problem to solve. We have before us the idea of a neutral meridian, and, if it be adopted, we must see that there be embodied in the system the distance of certain other important places with reference to it. The only suggestion given as to the location of this neutral meridian is Behring's Strait. This is said to be a neutral meridian, because it lies between Russia and America; but how long will it remain so? Perhaps a year or two, or perhaps fifty years.

Who knows when Russia will step over and reconquer the country on this side of Behring's Strait? Who knows when America will step over and purchase half of Siberia? At any rate, that point is not cosmopolitan; something must be found which is fixed, either within the sphere of the earth or in the stars above the earth--something that is above all human considerations--otherwise we shall fail in securing a neutral meridian.

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

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

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

A recess was thereupon taken.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The proposition of the Delegate of Sweden was then adopted.

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

IV.

SESSION OF OCTOBER 13, 1884.

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

Present:

Austria-Hungary: Baron I. VON SCHaeFFER.

Brazil: Dr. LUIZ CRULS.

Chili: Mr. F. V. GORMAS and Mr. A. B. TUPPER.

Colombia: Commodore FRANKLIN.

Costa Rica: Mr. J. F. ECHEVERRIA.

France: Mr. A. LEFAIVRE and Mr. JANSSEN.

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

Great Britain: Sir F. J. O. EVANS, Prof. J. C. ADAMS, Lieut.

General STRACHEY, and Mr. SANDFORD FLEMING.

Guatemala: Mr. MILES ROCK.

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

Italy: Count ALBERT DE FORESTA.

j.a.pan: Professor KIKUCHI.