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.

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17

My honorable colleague, Mr. RUTHERFURD, the Delegate of the United
States, has presented a motion proposing the adoption of the meridian
of Greenwich, a motion which is again made, having been withdrawn
temporarily from our discussion with the consent of its proposer. The
motion which was presented at the last session, and which has formed
the subject of numerous interesting discussions is that made by my
honorable colleague, Mr. JANSSEN, Delegate of France, who proposes
that the meridian adopted should have a neutral character, and should
not cross either of the great continents of Europe or America. This
proposition, gentlemen, has been strongly resisted by the Delegates of
Great Britain and the United States, and firmly maintained by the
Delegates of France, and the debates which followed gave us an
opportunity of being present at a scientific tournament of the highest
interest. The speakers whom we have had the honor of hearing seem to
me to have exhausted all the arguments for and against, and at the
present stage of the discussion I presume that these debates have
permitted each one of us to form, with a full knowledge of the case,
an opinion upon the question on which we are called to vote.

For my part, gentlemen, I desire to state clearly the attitude that
Brazil, in my opinion, must take in this Conference. That attitude is
one of absolute neutrality, inasmuch as the question is whether or not
to choose a national meridian which may provoke among certain nations
very legitimate rivalries. From the point of view only of the
interests of Brazil, the choice of one meridian rather than any other
is recommended to me by no consideration. Our local charts are
referred to the nearest meridian, that of the observatory of Rio
Janeiro, which is the point of departure in the geodetic or
hydrographic operations in course of execution in Brazil, and which
all are connected with that same meridian. The marine charts of the
coast most in use are the result of the hydrographic works executed by
the Commandant MOUCHEZ, now admiral and director of the observatory of
Paris. As to the telegraphic determination of the longitude of the
observatory of Rio, we owe it to the American Commission, directed by
Commandant GREEN, of the United States Navy. Now, gentlemen, up to the
day on which the Conference met for the first time, I had hoped that
these discussions entered upon under the influence of a generous
rivalry, and having for their only purpose the establishment of a
measure, the necessity of which is strongly sought by many interests
of a diverse nature, would lead to a complete and final solution of
the problem. Unfortunately, and I regret to be obliged to add it, the
differences of opinion which have manifested themselves in this
Congress permit scarcely a hope of this result. For my part,
gentlemen, I cannot lose sight of the fact that it is indispensable
that the question for which this Congress is assembled should receive
a complete settlement; if not, the purpose of the Congress will not be
attained. Since the Delegates of France have manifested from the
begining of our discussions their opposition to the adoption of any
meridian which had a national character, which has given rise to the
motion presented by Mr. JANSSEN, it follows that every measure voted
by the Congress tending to the adoption of a national meridian, will
be, by the very fact of the abstention of France, an incomplete
measure, and which will not answer the purpose sought by the
Conference. I hasten to add, in order to avoid all erroneous
interpretations which could be given to my words, that it would be the
same, if, for instance, the meridian of Paris was proposed, and any
great maritime nation, such as England, the United States, or any
other, should abstain from voting for its adoption. In that case,
also, the measure adopted would not be complete, and in that case,
also, my line of conduct would be the same.

To resume, I would say that the great benefits that the whole world
will receive from the adoption of a common prime meridian will not be
fully produced unless the measure is unanimously accepted by all the
most important maritime nations. In any other event, I am, for my
part, absolutely convinced that the measure adopted will be partly
inefficacious, its adoption not being general, and everything will
have to be done over again in the not distant future. The discussions
at which we have been present abundantly prove to me that it will
always be so, as long as the meridian of some great nation is
proposed. In the face of this difficulty, which appears to me
insurmountable, the only solution which, by its very nature, will not
raise exciting questions of national pride is that of a meridian
having a character of absolute neutrality. If the adoption of such a
meridian was admitted in principle, I am certain that a discussion
based upon pure science, and following the best conditions which it
should realize, would conduct us rapidly to a practical settlement of
the question.

In such a discussion the arguments which ought to prevail should be,
before everything, drawn from science, the only source of truth which
alone can enlighten us, so as to permit us to form a sound judgment,
and to decide solely upon considerations of a purely scientific
nature.

In addition to these considerations, I am not ignorant that there are
others. I refer to questions of economy of which it is necessary to
take count. As to political interests, if there are any, our eminent
colleagues who represent so worthily the diplomatic element in this
assembly would see that they had due weight, and, thanks to this
assembly of men distinguished, some in science and others in
diplomacy, there was every reason to hope that the final practical
solution of the question which we are seeking would not be long in
being made clear to us all by the discussions.

Moreover, this practical solution appears to me already to follow from
what our honorable colleague, M. JANSSEN, has told us on that subject.
The principle of the neutral meridian once adopted, there would still
to be discussed the conditions which it should fulfil and the
determination of its position. Two things must be considered, either
the meridian will be exclusively over the ocean, and then, by its very
nature, it will be neutral, or it will cut some island, and in that
case nothing would prevent an international diplomatic convention
making neutral the plot of land on which it was desirable to establish
an observatory, which would in reality be a very small matter. Of
these two solutions, both of which satisfy the conditions which the
meridian ought to fulfil in its character of neutrality and by the
requirements of science, I prefer the second. I wish merely to suggest
by what I have said how it would be possible to arrive at a practical
solution of the question, since now I am only speaking of the adoption
of the principle of the neutral meridian.

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,
Japan, 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 passing
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 passing
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 passes 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 passing 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 pronounce
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 pronounced, 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 assisted, 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 anticipate 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 assisted, it is that the
principal, 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
assertion, 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 assembly.

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, surpasses 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 vassal 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.

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17