Charles A. Beard and Mary R. Beard - "History of the United States"

Peter Newell - "The Slant Book"

E. Phillips Oppenheim - "A Prince of Sinners"

James Richardson - "Narrative of a Mission to Central Africa Performed in the Years 1850 51, Volume 1"

Books of The Times: It’s Still Making the World Go ’Round
Becky Saletan, publisher of the adult trade division, will leave next week in a sign of further unraveling at the publisher.

Houghton Mifflin Publisher Resigns
Michael Wolff has written a supercilious yet star-struck portrait of Rupert Murdoch, the planet’s most notorious press baron.

Books of The Times: A Media Mogul With Relentless Moxie
Mr. Friedlaender was a book-loving lawyer and financial adviser whose collection of early printed books caused a stir in bibliophilic circles when it went to auction.

Various - International Conference Held at Washington for the Purpose of Fixing a Prime Meridian and a Universal Day. October, 1884.

V >> Various >> International Conference Held at Washington for the Purpose of Fixing a Prime Meridian and a Universal Day. October, 1884.




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.

Copyright (c) 2007. topmasterworks.com. All rights reserved.