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

Commander SAMPSON, Delegate of the United States. Mr. President, while
I think the question of reckoning longitude is a matter of detail, I
think it devolves upon us to decide it one way or the other.
Navigators are more interested in the question than mathematicians,
and the longitudes must be engraved upon our hydrographic charts.

Now, as the learned Delegate of Great Britain, Prof. ADAMS, who has
just spoken, has stated, the principle involved is the same, whether
we reckon east or west, or reckon continuously in the same direction.
It seems to me, however, that when we come to consider the reckoning
of longitude in connection with the adoption of a universal day, we
should then make a decided choice in favor of counting longitude from
zero to 360 degrees. If we adopt the resolution which my friend, the
Delegate of the United States, Mr. RUTHERFURD, has offered, it will be
in perfect conformity with the habits of the world. For that reason,
and it is a very strong reason, I think it might be adopted; but a
little consideration will show that if we reckon the longitude from
zero to 360 degrees, east to west, then we will change the existing
practice of reckoning longitude; but, of course, only in one
hemisphere, and that will be eastward of the prime meridian; but, as
we shall all remember, to the eastward of the prime meridian we have
the main portions of the continents of Asia, Europe, and Africa, and
in all the navigable water lying in the other hemisphere the longitude
will continue to be reckoned as now. To navigators of the water lying
to the eastward of the prime meridian there will be a change in the
method of counting longitude both ways, it would be necessary to adopt
two different rules for converting local into universal time.

Prof. ADAMS, Delegate of Great Britain. Oh! no; by no means.

Commander SAMPSON, Delegate of the United States. For although one
rule would answer, by having regard to the algebraical sign affecting
the longitude, it must be remembered that this rule is to be applied
by many who are not accustomed to distinguishing east and west
longitudes by a difference of sign, and who would therefore require
one rule when the longitude is east and another when it is west. If,
however, we adopt the method of reckoning from zero to 360 degrees,
from east to west, the relation existing between the local and the
universal time becomes the simplest possible. To obtain the universal
date and hour, under these circumstances, it only becomes necessary to
add the longitude to the local time, understanding by local time the
local date as well as the local hour. I think, for this reason, it
will be preferable to reckon the longitude in one direction from east
to west, instead of west to east.

Sir FREDERICK EVANS, Delegate of Great Britain. I would like to
present a few words on behalf of seamen. There is clearly an important
change proposed by the amendment. In the resolution before us it is
simply a question of the reckoning of longitude as now employed by
seamen of all nations, and I think it would be well to keep that fact
separate from the reckoning of time.

The PRESIDENT. The Chair begs to state that the discussion is now upon
the amendment of the Delegate of Sweden, Count LEWENHAUPT, to adopt
the fourth resolution of the Congress at Rome.

Sir FREDERICK EVANS, Delegate of Great Britain. Then I consider that,
in the interest of seamen, it would be very undesirable to accept the
amendment. We must recollect that an immense deal of the world's
traffic is carried around the world entirely by sea, and that this
proposed dislocation of the methods of seamen by reckoning longitude
in one direction only would, to say the least, be extremely
inconvenient, and it would require considerable time for them to get
into the habit of doing so. I think, however, that as to the question
of time, there would be no difference of opinion; doubtless, it is the
easier method; but, as we have to look at the practical side of this
calculation of longitude, I must certainly disagree with the amendment
and vote for the original resolution.

Mr. JUAN PASTORIN, Delegate of Spain, then presented the following
amendment:

"_Resolved_, That the Conference proposes to the Governments
here represented that longitude shall be counted from the
prime meridian westward, in the direction opposite to the
terrestrial rotation, and reckoned from zero degrees to 360
degrees, and from zero hours to 24 hours."

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 deg. in each direction or up to 360 deg.
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 passing
around the world.

No matter how longitude is calculated, you must necessarily arrive at
discontinuity at some point in passing 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.
Japan: 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.

The PRESIDENT:

The Chair begs leave to announce that, in the regular order of
business, the first matter before the Conference to-day would have
been the proposition of the Delegate of Great Britain, Mr. SANDFORD
FLEMING, that a committee be appointed to consider a report upon the
resolution offered by him yesterday. The Chair understood, however,
from Mr. FLEMING this morning that he had no desire to press that
proposition, and, therefore, it may be considered as withdrawn.

The question then would be upon the amendment offered by the Delegate
of Spain, Mr. JUAN PASTORIN, and if that amendment be withdrawn upon
the amendment offered by the Delegate of Sweden, Count LEWENHAUPT. The
Chair understands that both of those gentlemen desire to withdraw
their propositions temporarily, and, in that event, the first action
to be taken will be upon the resolution offered by the Delegate of the
United States, Mr. RUTHERFURD.

Mr. RUSTEM EFFENDI, Delegate of Turkey. In voting yesterday in favor
of the resolutions proposed by the Hon. Delegate of the United States,
I wish to have it well understood that my vote does not bind my
Government. I am, indeed, obliged to vote against any proposition
which would tend to bind it in any way, for I desire to leave it free
to act in the matter.

I engage to submit to my Government the result of our deliberations
and to recommend their adoption, but that is all. In other words, I
have only voted "_ad referendum_," and I ask that my statement be
entered in the protocol.

The PRESIDENT. The Chair would inform the Delegate who has just
spoken that the same statement was made by several delegates at a
former meeting of the Conference.

M. JANSSEN, Delegate of France. I believe that the very correct
doctrine just enunciated by the Delegate of Turkey, Mr. RUSTEM
EFFENDI, is the one adopted by all the members of the Congress, and
that we have all voted "_ad referendum_."

The PRESIDENT. The Chair so understood the general sense of the
Conference as expressed at one of our former meetings, when many of
the delegates made the same declaration.

Mr. ANTONIO BATRES, Delegate of Salvador. Mr. President, I could not
be present yesterday, on account of illness, and I now request
permission to register my name in favor of the resolution adopting the
meridian of Greenwich as the prime meridian.

The PRESIDENT. The Delegate of Salvador, Mr. BATRES, informs the Chair
that he was not able to be present yesterday, on account of illness,
and he desires that his name may be recorded as voting for the
meridian of Greenwich. If there be no objection to the request of the
Delegate to Salvador, his vote will be so entered.

No objection being made, the President instructed the Secretary to
make the proper entry in the protocol.

The PRESIDENT. The Delegate of Spain, Mr. PASTORIN, has withdrawn his
amendment, and the Delegate of Sweden, Count LEWENHAUPT, has also
withdrawn the amendment which he offered to the resolution of the
Delegate of the United States, Mr. RUTHERFURD. The resolution
originally offered will now be read.

The Secretary then read the resolution, as follows:

"_Resolved_, That from this meridian [_i.e._, the meridian
of Greenwich] longitude shall be counted in two directions
up to 180 degrees, east longitude being plus, and west
longitude minus."

Mr. SANDFORD FLEMING, Delegate of Great Britain, representing the
Dominion of Canada. I wish to offer some observations on the
resolution before the Conference, but I am unable to separate the
particular question from the general question. To my mind, longitude
and time are so related that they are practically inseparable, and
when I consider longitude, my thoughts naturally revert to time, by
which it is measured. I trust, therefore, I may be permitted to extend
my remarks somewhat beyond the immediate scope of the resolution. I
agree with those who think that longitude should be reckoned in one
direction only, and I am disposed to favor a mode of notation
differing in other respects from that commonly followed.

If a system of universal time be brought into use, advantages would
result from having the system of time and the system of terrestrial
longitude in complete harmony. The passage of time is continuous, and,
therefore, I think longitude should be reckoned continuously. To
convey my meaning fully, however, it is necessary that I should enter
into explanations at some length.

Ten days back I ventured informally to place my views, with a series
of recommendations on this subject, before the delegates. I hope I may
now be permitted to submit them to the Conference.

The PRESIDENT. The Chair would inquire of the Conference whether the
recommendations and remarks which were sent in print to the Delegates
a few days ago by Mr. SANDFORD FLEMING, the Delegate of Great Britain,
may be entered upon the protocol as presented to-day. Each member was,
it is understood, furnished with a copy of these papers.

Mr. TUPPER, Delegate of Chili. The Delegates of Chili have not
received them.

The PRESIDENT. The Chair will take care that they are sent.

No objection was made to the request of the Delegate of Great Britain,
Mr. SANDFORD FLEMING, who continued as follows:

The adoption of a Prime Meridian, common to all nations, admits of the
establishment of a system of reckoning time equally satisfactory to
our reason and our necessities.

At present we are without such a system. The mode of notation followed
by common usage from time immemorial, whatever its applicability to
limited areas, when extended to a vast continent, with a net-work of
lines of railway and telegraph, has led to confusion and created many
difficulties. Further, it is insufficient for the purposes of
scientific investigation, so marked a feature of modern inquiry.

Taking the globe as a whole, it is not now possible precisely to
define when a year or a month or a week begins. There is no such
interval of time as the commonly defined day everywhere and
invariable. By our accepted definition, a day is local; it is limited
to a single meridian. At some point on the earth's surface one day is
always at its commencement and another always ending. Thus, while the
earth makes one diurnal revolution, we have continually many days in
different stages of progress on our planet.

Necessarily the hours and minutes partake of this normal irregularity.
Clocks, the most perfect in mechanism, disagree if they differ in
longitude. Indeed, if clocks are set to true time, as it is now
designated, they must, at least in theory, vary not only in the same
State or county, but to some extent in the same city.

As we contemplate the general advance in knowledge, we cannot but feel
surprised that these ambiguities and anomalies should be found,
especially as they have been so long known and felt. In the early
conditions of the human race, when existence was free from the
complications which civilization has led to; in the days when tribes
followed pastoral pursuits and each community was isolated from
the other; when commerce was confined to few cities, and
intercommunication between distant countries rare and difficult; in
those days there was no requirement for a common system of uniform
time. No inconvenience was felt in each locality having its own
separate and distinct reckoning. But the conditions under which we
live are no longer the same. The application of science to the means
of locomotion and to the instantaneous transmission of thought and
speech have gradually contracted space and annihilated distance. The
whole world is drawn into immediate neighborhood and near
relationship, and we have now become sensible to inconveniences and to
many disturbing influences in our reckoning of time utterly unknown
and even unthought of a few generations back. It is also quite
manifest that, as civilization advances, such evils must greatly
increase rather than be lessened, and that the true remedy lies in
changing our traditional usages in respect to the notation of days and
hours, whatever shock it may give to old customs and the prejudices
engendered by them.

In countries of limited extent, the difficulty is easily grappled
with. By general understanding, an arrangement affecting the
particular community may be observed, and the false principles which
have led to the differences and disagreements can be set aside. In
Great Britain the time of the Observatory at Greenwich is adopted for
general use. But this involves a departure from the principles by
which time is locally determined, and hence, if these principles be
not wrong, every clock in the United Kingdom, except those on a line
due north and south from Greenwich, must of necessity be in error.

On the continent of North America efforts have recently been made to
adjust the difficulty. The steps taken have been in a high degree
successful in providing a remedy for the disturbing influences
referred to, and, at the same time, they are in harmony with
principles, the soundness of which is indisputable.

When we examine into time in the abstract, the conviction is forced
upon us that it bears no resemblance to any sort of matter which comes
before our senses; it is immaterial, without form, without substance,
without spiritual essence. It is neither solid, liquid, nor gaseous.
Yet it is capable of measurement with the closest precision.
Nevertheless, it may be doubted if anything measurable could be
computed on principles more erroneous than those which now prevail
with regard to it.

What course do we follow in reckoning time? Our system implies that
there are innumerable conceptions designated "time." We speak of
solar, astronomical, nautical, and civil time, of apparent and mean
time. Moreover, we assign to every individual point around the
surface of the earth separate and distinct times in equal variety. The
usages inherited by us imply that there is an infinite number of
times. Is not all this inconsistent with reason, and at variance with
the cardinal truth, that there is one time only?

Time may be compared to a great stream forever flowing onward. To us,
nature, in its widest amplitude, is a unity. We have but one earth,
but one universe, whatever its myriad component parts. That there is
also but one flow of time is consistent with the plain dictates of our
understanding. That there can be more than one passage of time is
inconceivable.

From every consideration, it is evident that the day has arrived when
our method of time-reckoning should be reformed. The conditions of
modern civilization demand that a comprehensive system should be
established, embodying the principle that time is one abstract
conception, and that all definite portions of it should be based on,
or be related to, one unit measure.

On these grounds I feel justified in respectfully asking the
consideration of the Conference to the series of recommendations which
I venture to submit.

The matter is undoubtedly one in which every civilized nation is
interested. Indeed, it may be said that, more or less, every human
being is concerned in it. The problem is of universal importance, and
its solution can alone be found in the general adoption of a system
grounded on principles recognized as incontrovertible.

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