Chapter M: Miles Rock, (2)

Austro-Hungary: Baron IGNATZ VON SCHÆFFER.
Brazil: Dr. LUIZ CRULS.
Colombia: Commodore S. R. FRANKLIN.
Costa Rica: Mr. JUAN FRANCISCO ECHEVERRIA.
France: Mr. A. LEFAIVRE, Mr. JANSSEN.
Germany: Baron H. VON ALVENSLEBEN, Mr. HINCKELDEYN.
Great Britain: Capt. Sir F. J. O. EVANS, Prof. J. C. ADAMS,
Lieut.-General STRACHEY, Mr. SANDFORD FLEMING.
Guatemala: Mr. MILES ROOK.
Hawaii: Hon. W. D. ALEXANDER, Hon. LUTHER AHOLO.
Italy: Count ALBERT DE FORESTA.
Japan: Professor KIKUCHI.
Mexico: Mr. LEANDRO FERNANDEZ, Mr. ANGEL ARGUIANO.
Paraguay: Capt. JOHN STEWART.
Russia: Mr. C. DE STRUVE, Major-General STEBNITZKI, Mr.
KOLOGRIVOFF.
San Domingo: Mr. DE J. GALVAN.
Salvador: Mr. ANTONIO BATRES.
Spain: Mr. JUAN VALERA, Mr. EMILIO RUIZ DEL ARBOL, Mr.
JUAN PASTORIN.
Sweden: Count CARL LEWENHAUPT.
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: Dr. A. M. SOTELDO.

Mr. RUTHERFURD, Delegate of the United States, said that the resolution offered by him at the last meeting omitted to state that the proposed meridian was for longitude, and he would offer the following as a substitute therefor:

"_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 standard meridian for
longitude."

The PRESIDENT then asked if the Conference would permit the substitution to be made, and it was unanimously agreed to.

Mr. RUTHERFURD, Delegate of the United States, stated that he did not propose to press the resolution to an early vote, but that it was offered simply to elicit the opinions of Delegates on the subject. He further stated that, having heard that the Delegates of France, Mr. LEFAIVRE and Mr. JANSSEN, desired to present certain propositions, he would, for that purpose, move to withdraw for the time being the resolution offered by him.

No objection being made, the resolution was temporarily withdrawn.

Mr. LEFAIVRE, Delegate of France, then made the following statement:

Our colleague, Mr. RUTHERFURD, having withdrawn his motion for the adoption of the meridian of Greenwich, we, the Delegates of France, after consultation with him, submit the following motion:

"_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 in particular
especially should cut no great continent--neither Europe nor
America."

Sir F. J. O. EVANS, Delegate of Great Britain, then stated that he presumed the Conference could hardly pass by the important meeting held at Rome, where twelve of the thirty-eight Delegates were directors of national observatories, and where the subject of the conditions which should attach to a prime meridian were discussed without reference to any particular nationality; that these learned gentlemen came to the conclusion (which he thought was a very wise one) that the necessity existed for a prime meridian that it should pass through an astronomical observatory of the first order; that modern science demanded such precision, and therefore they excluded all ideas of a meridian being established on an island, in a strait, on the summit of a mountain, or as indicated by a monumental building. Looking at the subject in its various aspects, they came to the conclusion that there were only four great observatories which in their minds combined all the conditions, and this decision was unanimously received by that Conference. Those great observatories were Paris, Berlin, Greenwich, and Washington. He stated further that, having this in view, he thought this Conference should be particularly guarded, looking at the question from a scientific point of view, not to depart from the conditions laid down by the Conference at Rome; that he had no desire to advocate any one of the places enumerated, but merely mentioned them as satisfying all the conditions of science, which was so brilliantly represented at Rome.

Commander SAMPSON, Delegate of the United States, then said:

I can only attempt to anticipate the arguments which may be advanced by the learned Delegate from France in support of his resolution to adopt a neutral meridian. But it is our simple duty, in our present judicial capacity, to examine the question of a prime meridian from all points of view. With the object, then, of considering the question from another stand-point, I ask your attention for one moment. This Congress, at its last meeting, by a unanimous vote, declared its opinion that it was desirable to adopt a single prime meridian for the purpose of reckoning longitude. Further, it is fair to assume that the delegates here assembled, in answer to a specific invitation from the Government of the United States, and for a stated purpose, have come empowered by their respective governments to act upon the questions submitted for their consideration in the invitation.

At the last meeting, the Delegates from France left us somewhat in doubt regarding their views upon this important question of the powers of the delegates, or at least of their own delegation. But as they have to-day advocated the adoption of a neutral meridian, we may conclude that they have the necessary delegated power to fully consider and determine the main question before us--the selection of a prime meridian.

In the absence of any declared opinion to the contrary, we may take it for granted that the Delegates from all States here represented are deputed to "fix upon a meridian proper to be employed as a common zero of longitude throughout the globe," and to recommend the same for adoption to their respective Governments.

If, then, we are of one mind as to the desirability of a single prime meridian, and if we are fully empowered to make the selection, which may be taken as another way of saying that we are directed by our respective Governments to make the selection, we may proceed directly to the performance of this duty.

In the choice of a prime meridian, there is no physical feature of our earth which commends itself above others as the best starting point; nor does the form of the earth itself present any peculiarity which might be used as an initial point. If the refinements of geodesy should finally lead to the conclusion that the figure of the earth is an ellipsoid with three axes, yet the question of the direction of either of the equatorial axes must remain to such a degree uncertain that the extremity of the axis could not be assumed as the point of departure for counting longitude. Indeed, as an initial meridian must above all things be fixed in position, it would not answer to make its position depend upon any physical constant which is itself in the slightest degree uncertain; for in these days, when refinements in physical measurements are constantly leading to more and more accurate results, each advance in accuracy would necessitate an annoying change in the initial meridian, or, what would more probably result, the retention of the first chosen meridian, which would thus lose its dependence upon the original definition, and become as arbitrary as if taken by chance in the first instance.

We may then say that, from a purely scientific point of view, any meridian may be taken as the prime meridian. But from the standpoint of convenience and economy there is undoubtedly much room for a choice.

Considering this question of convenience in connection with the necessary condition of fixity already referred to, the prime meridian should pass through some well-established national observatory.

In making the choice of a prime meridian which is to serve for a great period of time, it is important to so fix and define it that the natural changes of time may not render it in the least degree uncertain. To this end, the nation within whose borders the chosen point may fall should engage to establish it in the most enduring manner, and protect it against all possible causes of change or destruction.

When taken in connection with other requirements, to be mentioned hereafter, this character of permanence will be best secured by making the adopted meridian pass through an observatory which is under the control of the Government.

Such observatory should be in telegraphic communication with the whole world, in order that the differences of longitude from the prime meridian may be determined for any point. These conditions of convenience are so important that they may fairly be considered imperative. To fulfil them one of the national meridians now in use should be selected. To select any other than one of these meridians, or a meridian directly dependent upon one of them, and defined simply by its angular distance from one of these national meridians, would be to introduce endless confusion into all charts and maps now in use.

To select as a prime meridian one which shall be a defined angular distance from one of the national meridians, must have for its object either to remove some inconvenience which results from the use of the national meridian itself, or it must be to satisfy a desire to deprive the selected meridian of any nationality.

The inconvenience of east and west longitudes, which results from having the prime meridian pass through a thickly populated portion of the world, will be removed by reckoning the longitude continuously from O° to 360°. At the same time an important advantage is secured by having the prime meridian occupy a central position with regard to the most densely populated part of the earth; because the distances which will then separate the various points from the central observatory marking the initial meridian will be a minimum, and consequently less liable to error in determination. The selection of a meridian by calculation, defined as a certain number of degrees east or west of one of the national meridians, would not thereby deprive the meridian thus selected of a national character; for though we may reckon longitude from a meridian passing through the Atlantic or Pacific Ocean, yet the initial point from which all measurements of longitude must be made would still remain one of the national meridians. Again, if any other than one of the national meridians were selected, or a meridian dependent upon one of them, as, for example, a neutral meridian in the Atlantic or Pacific Ocean, it would necessitate a change in all charts and maps.

It is hardly necessary to say that no scientific or practical advantage is to be secured by adopting the meridian of the great pyramid, or by attempting to establish permanent meridian marks over a great length of the selected meridian, for even in the present advanced condition of astronomical and geodetic science it is not practicable to establish two points on the same meridian at a considerable distance from each other with such a degree of accuracy as would warrant the use of them indifferently as the initial point.

As a matter of economy as well as convenience that meridian should be selected which is now in most general use. This additional consideration of economy would limit our choice to the meridian of Greenwich, for it may fairly be stated upon the authority of the distinguished Delegate from Canada that more than 70 per cent. of all the shipping of the world uses this meridian for purposes of navigation.

The charts constructed upon this meridian cover the whole navigable globe. The cost of the plates from which these charts are printed is probably 75 per cent. of the cost of all plates in the world for printing mariners' charts, and is probably not less than ten millions of dollars. As a matter of economy, then, to the world at large, it would be better to permit those plates to remain unchanged which are engraved for the meridian of Greenwich and to make the necessary changes in all plates engraved for other meridians.

A very natural pride has led the great nations to establish by law their own prime meridian within their own borders, and into this error the United States was led about 35 years ago.

Should any of us now hesitate in the adoption of a particular meridian, or should any nation covet the honor of having the selected meridian within its own borders, it is to be remembered that when the prime meridian is once adopted by all it loses its specific name and nationality, and becomes simply the Prime Meridian.

Mr. RUTHERFURD, Delegate of the United States, stated that he did not propose to take up much of the time of the Conference; that he had listened with great pleasure to the exhaustive speech of his colleague, Commander SAMPSON, but that he wished to say a few words about the conditions of permanence in the prime meridian to which allusion had just been made. He said that he would call attention to the fact that the observatory at Paris stands within the heart of a large and populous city; that it has already been thought by many of the principal French astronomers that it should no longer remain there; that it has been, interfered with by the tremors of the earth and emanations in the air, which prevent it from fulfilling its usefulness; that for several years past strenuous efforts have been made to remove the observatory from Paris to some other place where it may be free to follow out its course of usefulness, and that the only thing which keeps it there is the remembrance of the honorable career of that observatory in times past. He added that he was sure that there was no one here who failed to recognize its claims to distinction; that there was no one here acquainted with the past history of astronomy but looks with pride upon the achievements of the human intellect effected there. At the same time, however, if a change is to be made, if sentiment should give way to practical reason, a locality, no doubt, will be found which may be calculated to fulfil the requirements of a prime meridian better than that one.

As to the fitness of Greenwich, he said that the observatory was placed in the middle of a large park under the control of the Government, so that no nuisance can come near it without their consent, and that it was in a position which speaks for itself; that he would only add one word more in regard to this matter, and that is, that the adoption of the meridian of Greenwich as the prime meridian has not been sought after by Great Britain; that it was not her proposition, but that she consented to it after it had been proposed by other portions of the civilized world.

Mr. JANSSEN, Delegate of France, said: We do not put forward the meridian of the observatory of Paris as that to be chosen for the prime meridian; but if it were chosen, and we wished to compare it with that of Greenwich as to the accuracy with which it is actually connected with the other observatories of Europe, it would not lose by the comparison. The latest observations of the differences of longitude made by electricity by the Bureau of Longitudes of France and our officers have given very remarkable results of great accuracy. It is well known that what is important for a starting point in reckoning longitude is, above all things, that it should be accurately connected with points whose positions have been precisely fixed, such as the great observatories. There is, therefore, a slight confusion on the part of my eminent colleague, namely, that of not distinguishing between the conditions which require the exact connection of the starting point of longitudes with observatories, and the merits of the position of such a point in an astronomical aspect, which is here a matter of secondary importance.

Mr. LEFAIVRE, Delegate of France, said that he did not not know if his observation was well founded, but it seemed to him that what the Delegates of France had proposed had not been contested, but that the arguments used had rather been those in favor of the adoption of the meridian of Greenwich.

Mr. RUTHERFURD, Delegate of the United States, said that the observations which he had made were merely to be regarded as a negative of the proposition made by the Delegates of France, and not as a statement of the arguments in favor of the adoption of Greenwich.

The PRESIDENT said that the remarks of the Delegate of the United States were not out of order, inasmuch as they were intended to combat the proposition brought forward by the Delegate of France.

Mr. JANSSEN, Delegate of France, then spoke as follows:

GENTLEMEN: At the last session, when a proposition was made by my eminent colleague and friend, Mr. RUTHERFURD, to discuss and vote upon the adoption of the meridian of Greenwich as the common prime meridian, I thought it necessary to say that the proposal appeared to me prematurely made, and that we could not agree to the discussion proceeding in that manner. Mr. RUTHERFURD has informed me that he would withdraw his proposition for the present, in order to permit me to direct the discussion, in the first place, to the principle which should direct the choice of a common prime meridian. I here take the opportunity of thanking Mr. RUTHERFURD for his courtesy, and I no longer object to proceeding with the debate.

What we ask is, that after the general declaration of the second session as to the utility of a common prime meridian, the Congress should discuss the question of the principle which should guide the choice of that meridian.

Being charged to maintain before you, gentlemen, the principle of the neutrality of the prime meridian, it is evident that if that principle was rejected by the Congress it would be useless for us to take part in the further discussion of the choice of the meridian to be adopted as the point of departure in reckoning longitude.

We think, gentlemen, that if this question of the unification of longitude is again taken up after so many unsuccessful attempts to settle it as are recorded in history, there will be no chance of its final solution unless it be treated upon an exclusively geographical basis, and that at any cost all national competition should be set aside. We do not advocate any particular meridian. We put ourselves completely aside in the debate, and thus place ourselves in a position of far greater freedom for expressing our opinion, and discussing the question exclusively in view of the interests affected by the proposed reform.

The history of geography shows us a great number of attempts to establish a uniformity of longitude, and when we look for the reasons which have caused those attempts (many of which were very happily conceived) to fail, we are struck with the fact that it appears due to two principal causes--one of a scientific and the other of a moral nature. The scientific cause was the incapacity of the ancients to determine exactly the relative positions of different points on the globe, especially if it was a question of an island far from a continent, and which consequently could not be connected with that continent by itinerary measurements. For example, the first meridian of Marinus of Tyre and Ptolemy, placed on the Fortunate Isles, in spite of its being so well chosen at the western extremity of the then known world, could not continue to be used on account of the uncertainty of the point of departure. That much to be regretted obstacle caused the method to be changed. It became necessary to fall back on the continent. But then, in place of a single common origin of longitude indicated by nature, the first meridians were fixed at capitals of countries, at remarkable places, at observatories. The second cause to which I just now alluded, the cause of a moral nature--national pride--has led to the multiplication of geographical starting-points where the nature of things would have required, on the contrary, their reduction to a single one.

In the seventeenth century, Cardinal Richelieu, in view of this confusion, desired to take up again the conception of Marinus of Tyre, and assembled at Paris French and foreign men of science, and the famous meridian of the Island of Ferro was the result of their discussions.

Here, gentlemen, we find a lesson which should not be lost sight of. This meridian of Ferro, which at first had the purely geographical and neutral character which could alone establish and maintain it as an international first meridian, was deprived of its original characteristic by the geographer Delisle, who, to simplify the figures, placed it at 20 degrees in round numbers west of Paris. This unfortunate simplification abandoned entirely the principle of impersonality. It was no longer then an independent meridian; it was the meridian of Paris disguised. The consequences were soon felt. The meridian of Ferro, which has subsequently been considered as a purely French meridian, aroused national susceptibilities, and thus lost the future which was certainly in store for it if it had remained as at first defined. This was a real misfortune for geography. Our maps, while being perfected, would have preserved a common unit of origin, which, on the contrary, has altered more and more.

If, as soon as astronomical methods had been far enough advanced to permit the establishment of relative positions with that moderate accuracy which is sufficient for ordinary geography, (and that could have been done at the end of the 17th century,) we had again taken up the just and geographical conception of Marinus of Tyre, the reform would have been accomplished two centuries sooner, and to-day we should have been in the full enjoyment of it. But the fault was committed of losing sight of the essential principles of the question, and the establishment of numerous observatories greatly contributed to this. Furnishing naturally very accurate relative positions, each one of these establishments was chosen by the nation to which it belonged as a point of departure for longitude, so that the intervention of astronomy in these questions of a geographical nature, an intervention which, if properly understood, should have been so useful, led us further away from the object to be attained.

In fact, gentlemen, the study of these questions tends to show that there is an essential distinction between meridians of a geographical or hydrographical nature and meridians of observatories. The meridians of observatories should be considered essentially national. Their function is to permit observatories to connect themselves one with another for the unification of the observations made at them. They serve also as bases for geodetic and topographical operations carried on around them. But their function is of a very special kind, and should be generally limited to the country to which they belong.

On the contrary, initial meridians for geography need not be fixed with quite such a high degree of accuracy as is required by astronomy; but, in compensation, their operation must be far reaching, and while it is useful to increase as much as possible the number of meridians of observatories, it is necessary to reduce as much as we can the starting points for longitudes in geography.

Further, it may be said that as the position of an observatory should be chosen with reference to astronomical considerations, so an initial meridian in geography should only be fixed for geographical reasons.

Gentlemen, have these two very different functions been always well understood, and has this necessary distinction been preserved? In no wise. As observatories, on account of the great accuracy of their operations, furnish admirable points of reference, each nation which was in a condition to do it connected with its principal observatory not only the geodetic or topographical work which was done at home--a very natural thing--but also general geographical or hydrographical work which was executed abroad, a practice which contained the germ of all the difficulties with which we are troubled to-day. Thus, as maps accumulated, the need of uniformity, especially in those that referred to general geography, was felt more and more.

This explains why this question of a single meridian as a starting point has been so often raised of late.

Among the assemblies which have occupied themselves with this question, the one which principally calls for our attention is that which was held at Rome last year; indeed, for many of our colleagues the conclusions adopted by the Congress of Rome settle the whole matter. These conclusions must, therefore, receive our special attention.

In reading the reports of the discussions of that Congress, I was struck with the fact that in an assembly of so many learned men and eminent theorists it was the practical side of the question that was chiefly considered, and which finally determined the character of the resolutions adopted.

Thus, instead of laying down the great principle that the meridian to be offered to the world as the starting-point for all terrestrial longitudes should, have above all things, an essentially geographical and impersonal character, the question was simply asked, which one of the meridians in use among the different observatories has (if I may be allowed to use the expression) the largest number of clients? In a matter which interests geography much more than hydrography, as most sailors acknowledge, because there exist really but two initial hydrographic meridians, Greenwich and Paris, a prime meridian has been taken, the reign (practical influence) of which is principally over the sea; and this meridian, instead of being chosen with reference to the configuration of the continents, is borrowed from an observatory; that is to say, that it is placed on the globe in a hap-hazard manner, and is very inconveniently situated for the function that it is to perform. Finally, instead of profiting by the lessons of the past, national rivalries are introduced in a question that should rally the good-will of all.

Well, gentlemen, I say that considerations of economy and of established custom should not make us lose sight of the principles which must be paramount in this question, and which alone can lead to the universal acceptance and permanence of its settlement. Furthermore, gentlemen, these motives of economy and of established custom, which have been appealed to as a decisive argument, exist, it is true, for the majority in behalf of which they have been put forward, but exist for them only, and leave to us the whole burden of change in customs, publications, and material.

Since the report considers us of so little weight in the scales, allow me, gentlemen, to recall briefly the past and the present of our hydrography, and for that purpose I can do no better than to quote from a work that has been communicated to me, and which emanates from one of our most learned hydrographers. "France," he says, "created more than two centuries ago the most ancient nautical ephemerides in existence. She was the first to conceive and execute the great geodetic operations which had for their object the construction of civil and military maps and the measurement of arcs of the meridian in Europe, America, and Africa. All these operations were and are based on the Paris meridian. Nearly all the astronomical tables used at the present time by the astronomers and the navies of the whole world are French, and calculated for the Paris meridian. As to what most particularly concerns shipping, the accurate methods now used by all nations for hydrographic surveys are of French origin, and our charts, all reckoned from the meridian of Paris, bear such names as those of Bougainville, La Pérouse, Fleurieu, Borda, d'Entrecasteaux, Beautemps, Beaupré, Duperrey, Dumont d'Urville, Daussy, to quote only a few among those who are not living.

"Our actual hydrographic collections amount to more than 4,000 charts. By striking off those which the progress of explorations have rendered useless, there still remain about 2,600 charts in use. Of this number more than half represent original French surveys, a large part of which foreign nations have reproduced. Amongst the remainder, the general charts are the result of discussions undertaken in the Bureau of the Marine, by utilizing all known documents, French as well as foreign, and there are relatively few which are mere translations of foreign works. Our surveys are not confined to the coasts of France and of its colonies; there is scarcely a region of the globe for which we do not possess original work--Newfoundland, the coasts of Guiana, of Brazil, and of La Plata, Madagascar, numerous points of Japan and of China, 187 original charts relative to the Pacific. We must not omit the excellent work of our hydrographic engineers on the west coast of Italy, which was honored by the international jury with the great medal of honor at the Universal Exhibition of 1867. The exclusive use of the Paris meridian by our sailors is justified by reference to a past of two centuries, which we have thus briefly recalled.

"If another initial meridian had to be adopted, it would be necessary to change the graduation of our 2,600 hydrographic plates; it would be necessary to do the same thing for our nautical instructions, (sailing directions,) which exceed 600 in number. The change would also necessarily involve a corresponding change in the _Connaissance des Temps_."

These are titles to consideration of some importance. Well, if under these circumstances the projected reform, instead of being directed by the higher principles which ought to govern the subject, should take solely for its base the respect due to the established customs of the largest number and the absence on their part of all sacrifice, reserving to us alone the burden of the change and the abandonment of a valued and glorious past, are we not justified in saying that a proposition thus made would not be acceptable?

When France, at the end of the last century, instituted the metre, did she proceed thus? Did she, as a measure of economy and in order to change nothing in her customs, propose to the world the "Pied de Roi" as a unit of measure? You know the facts. The truth is, everything with us was overthrown--both the established methods and instruments for measurement; and the measure adopted being proportioned only to the dimensions of the earth, is so entirely detached from everything French that in future centuries the traveller who may search the ruins of our cities may inquire what people invented the metrical measure that chance may bring under his eyes.

Permit me to say that it is thus a reform should be made and becomes acceptable. It is by setting the example of self-sacrifice; it is by complete self-effacement in any undertaking, that opposition is disarmed and true love of progress is proved.

I now hasten to say that I am persuaded that the proposition voted for at Rome was neither made nor suggested by England, but I doubt whether it would render a true service to the English nation if it be agreed to. An immense majority of the navies of the world navigate with English charts; that is true, and it is a practical compliment to the great maritime activity of that nation. When this freely admitted supremacy shall be transformed into an official and compulsory supremacy, it will suffer the vicissitudes of all human power, and that institution, (the common meridian,) which by its nature is of a purely scientific nature, and to which we would assure a long and certain future, will become the object of burning competition and jealousy among nations.

All this shows, gentlemen, how much wiser it would be to take for the origin of terrestrial longitude a point chosen from geographical considerations only. Upon the globe, nature has so sharply separated the continent on which the great American nation has arisen, that there are only two solutions possible from a geographical point of view, both of them very natural.

The first solution would consist in returning, with some small modification, to the solution of the ancients, by placing our meridian near the Azores; the second by throwing it back to that immense expanse of water which separates America from Asia, where on its northern shores the New World abuts on the old.

These two solutions may be discussed; this has been often done, and again quite recently, by one of our ablest geologists, M. de Chancourtois.

Each of these meridians combine the fundamental conditions which geography demands and upon which there has always been an agreement when national meridians are set aside from the discussion. As to the determination of the position of the point which may be adopted, the present excellent astronomical methods will give it with a degree of exactness as great as that which geography requires.

But what is the necessity for a special and costly determination of the longitude of a point which can be fixed arbitrarily, provided this be done within certain limits, as for instance by satisfying the conditions of passing through a strait or an island. We may be content with fixing the position of the point adopted in an approximate manner. The position thus obtained would be connected with certain of the great observatories selected for the purpose from their being accurately connected one with another, and the relative positions thus ascertained would supply the definition of the first meridian. As to any material mark on the globe, if one be desired, though it is in no manner necessary, it would be established in conformity with this definition, and its position should be changed until it exactly complied with it.

As to the question of the changes to be introduced in existing maps and charts which, by our proposition, would be imposed upon everybody, they could be very much reduced, especially if it were agreed--which would be sufficient at first--to draw upon existing charts only a subsidiary additional scale of graduation which would permit immediate use of the international meridian. Later, and as new charts were engraved, a more complete scale of graduation would be given; but I think that it would always be desirable to preserve in the manner now done in many atlases both systems of reckoning longitude--the national and international. If it be necessary at the present time to facilitate the external relations of all nations, it is also well to preserve among them all manifestations of personal life, and to respect the symbols which represent their traditions and past history.

Gentlemen, I do not propose to dwell upon the details of the establishment of such a meridian. We have only to advocate before you the principle of its acceptance.

If this principle be admitted by the Congress, we are instructed to say that you will find in it a ground for agreement with France.

Without doubt, on account of our long and glorious past, of our great publications, of our important hydrographic works, a change of meridian would cause us heavy sacrifices. Nevertheless, if we are approached with offers of self-sacrifice, and thus receive proofs of a sincere desire for the general good, France has given sufficient proofs of her love of progress to make her co-operation certain.

But we shall have to regret that we are not able to join a combination which to protect the interests of one portion of the contracting parties would sacrifice the more weighty scientific character of the meridian to be adopted, a character which in our eyes is indispensable to justify its imposition upon all, and to assure it permanent success.

Prof. J. C. ADAMS, Delegate of Great Britain, stated that if he were allowed to offer a few observations upon the eloquent address made by his colleague, the representative of France, Mr. JANSSEN, he would remark that, so far as he could follow that discourse, it seemed to him to turn almost entirely on sentimental considerations; that it appeared to him that the Delegate of France had overlooked one great point which was correctly laid down by the President in his opening address, viz., that one of the main objects to be kept in view in the deliberations of this Conference would be, how best to secure the aggregate convenience of the world at large--how we should choose a prime meridian which would cause the least inconvenience by the change that would take place. Of course, any change would necessarily be accompanied by a certain amount of inconvenience, but our object, as he understood it, was to take care that that inconvenience should be as small in its aggregate amount as possible.

He stated that if that were taken as the ground of consideration by this Conference, it appeared to him that the question was narrowed to one of fact rather than to be one of sentiment, which latter would admit of no solution whatever; for it was quite clear that if all the Delegates here present were guided by merely sentimental considerations, or by considerations of _amour propre_, the Conference would never arrive at any conclusion, because each nation would put its own interests on a level with those of every other.

He added that if the Conference should be able to agree in the opinion that the adoption of one meridian (for his part he did not undertake to say what meridian) would be accompanied by a greater amount of convenience in the aggregate than the adoption of any other, he thought that this should be the predominant consideration in guiding the decision of this Conference, on the question referred to them, and it appeared to him that this is a consideration which the Delegate of France has not put before this Conference, at least not in a prominent way. It is clear that the inconvenience caused to any one nation by the adoption of a new neutral meridian would not be lessened by the fact that all other nations would suffer the same inconvenience.

With respect to the question of a neutral meridian, Professor ADAMS wished to call the attention of the Congress to the fact that the Delegates here present are not a collection of representatives of belligerents; that they are all neutral as men should be in a matter purely scientific, or in any other matter which affects the convenience of the world at large, and that this Conference is not met here at the end of a war to see how territory should be divided, but in a friendly way, representing friendly nations.

He stated that he hoped the Delegates would be guided in their decision by the main consideration, which was, What will tend to the greatest practical convenience of the world? That he need not address a word to the other part of the argument which he thought at first of commenting upon a little, for the Delegate of the United States, Commander SAMPSON, who spoke first, had put his views so clearly before the Conference that he (Professor ADAMS) would not detain it longer.

He would add, however, that if the Conference is to take a neutral meridian they must either erect an observatory on the point selected, which might be very inconvenient if they should choose such a point as is alluded to by the Delegate of France, or if some such place was not selected, we should merely have a zero of longitude by a legal fiction, and that would not be a real zero at all; that they would have to select their zero with reference to a known observatory, and that, for instance, supposing they took a point for zero twenty degrees west of Paris, of course that would be really adopting Paris as the prime meridian; that it would not be so nominally, but in reality it would be, and he thought that we now-a-days should get rid of legal fictions as much as possible, and call things by their right names.

Mr. JANSSEN, Delegate of France, said:

My eminent colleague, whose presence is an honor to this Congress, Professor ADAMS, thinks that I overlook too much the practical side of the question; namely, how a prime meridian can be established so as to cause the least inconvenience. He says that I pay too much attention to what he calls a question of sentiment, and he concludes by expressing the hope that all nations will lay aside their national pride and only be guided by this consideration: What meridian offers the greatest practical advantages? My reply is that I intend no more than Professor ADAMS to place the question upon the ground of national pride; but it is one thing to speak in the name of national pride and another to foresee that this sentiment common to all men, may show itself, and that we should avoid conclusions likely to arouse it, or we may compromise our success. That is all our argument; and the history of the great nation to which Professor ADAMS belongs furnishes us with examples of considerable significance, for the French meridian of Ferro was never adopted by the English, notwithstanding its happy geographical situation, and we all still awaiting the honor of seeing the adoption of the metrical system for common use in England.

But let us put aside these questions which I would not have been the first to touch upon, and place ourselves upon the true ground of the importance of the proposed reform, which is the only one worthy of ourselves or of this discussion. We do not refuse to enter into an agreement on account of a mere question, of national pride, and the statement of the changes and expenses to which we should have to submit in order to accomplish the agreement is a sufficient proof of this.

But we consider that a reform which consists in giving to a geographical question one of the worst solutions possible, simply on the ground of practical convenience, that is to say, the advantage to yourselves and those you represent, of having nothing to change, either in your maps, customs, or traditions--such a solution, I say, can have no future before it, and we refuse to take part in it.

Prof. ABBE, Delegate of the United States, stated that the Delegate of France, Mr. JANSSEN, had made a very important proposition to the Conference: That the meridian adopted should be a neutral one. He said that he had endeavored to determine what a neutral meridian is. On what principle shall the Conference fix upon a neutral meridian, and what is a neutral meridian? Shall it be historical, geographical, scientific, or arithmetical? In what way shall it be fixed upon? He looked back a little into the history of an important system adopted some years ago. France determined to give us a neutral system of weights and measures, and the world now thanks her for it. She determined that the base of this neutral system should be the ten-millionth part of a quadrant of the meridian. She fixed it by measurement, and to-day we use the metre as the standard in all important scientific work; but is that metre part of a neutral system? Is our metric system neutral? It was intended to be, but it is not; we are using a French system. Had the English, or the Germans, or the Americans taken the ten-millionth part of the quadrant of the meridian, they would have arrived at a slightly different measure, and there would have been an English, a German, and an American measure. We are using the French metric system. It was intended to be a neutral system, but it is a French system. We adopt it because it deserves our admiration, but it is not a neutral system. The various nations of the world might meet and agree upon some slight modification of this metric system which would agree with the results of all scientific investigations, and thus make it international instead of French; but we do not care to do that, and are willing to adopt one system, taking the standard of Paris as our standard. How shall we determine a neutral system of longitude? The expression "neutral system of longitude" is a myth, a fancy, a piece of poetry, unless you can tell precisely how to do it. He would vote for a neutral system if the French representatives can tell the Conference clearly how to decide that it is neutral, and satisfy them that it is not national in any way.

Mr. JANSSEN, Delegate of France, said:

I perfectly understand the objection of my honorable colleague, Prof. ABBE. He asks what is a neutral meridian, and adds that the metre itself does not appear to him to be a neutral measure, but to be a French measure. He relies upon the consideration that if the English, the Americans, and Germans, in adopting a definition of the metre, had measured it for themselves, they would have arrived each at a slightly different result, which would have given us an English, American, and German metre; nevertheless, he adds, we use the French metre, because we find it so admirable.

I would answer, first, that the metre, as far as the measure is derived from the dimensions of the earth, is not French, and it was precisely to take away this character of nationality that those who fixed on the metre sought to establish it on the dimensions of the earth itself. What is French is the particular metre of our national archives, which exhibits a very slight difference from that which our actual geodesy would have given us. Also, I think that if, at the time of the adoption of the Convention du Mêtre, in which the nations of Europe participated, we had slightly changed the length of our standard to make it agree with the result of actual geodetic measurements, we should have done an excellent thing in depriving this measure of any shadow of nationality. I agree with my honorable colleague that if a few slight changes adopted by common accord could perfect the metrical system, we French ought to have no motive for opposing it. We have the honor of having invented a system of measures which, being based upon considerations of a purely scientific nature, has been accepted by all. Therefore if it can be said with truth that the metre of the Archives of Paris is French, (not intentionally, but because it bears the mark of an error of French origin,) it is an international metre, by the same title that the discovery of the satellites of Mars made by my friend, Prof. Asaph Hall, whom I have the pleasure of seeing here, is scientific and of a universal nature. The metre--equal to the ten-millionth part of the distance from the equator to the pole--is no more French than that distance itself, and, nevertheless, if the Americans, English, or Germans had measured it, they would each have arrived at a slightly different metre.

Now, my honorable colleague adds that a neutral meridian appears to him a myth, a fancy, a piece of poetry, so long as we have not exactly settled the method of determining it. I shall disregard the expressions which my honorable colleague has thus introduced into the discussion, because this discussion should be serious. It is plain that Prof. ABBE did not thoroughly apprehend the explanations which I gave of the proper methods of fixing the initial meridian, and of the conditions which make a meridian neutral; but I return to them, since I am invited to do so. Our meridian will be neutral if, in place of taking one of those which are fixed by the existing great observatories, to which, consequently, the name of a nation is attached, and which by long usage is identified with that nation, we choose a meridian based only upon geographical considerations, and upon the uses for which we propose to adopt it.

Do you want a striking example of what differentiates a neutral meridian from a national meridian? In order to avoid the confusion which existed in geography at the beginning of the seventeenth century, on account of the multiplicity of initial meridians then in use, a congress of learned men, assembled in Paris at the instance of Richelieu to select a new common meridian, fixed its choice on the most eastern point of the Island of Ferro. This was a purely geographical meridian, being attached to no capital, to no national observatory, and consequently neutral, or, if you please, purely geographical. Later, Le père Feuillet, sent in 1724 by the Academy of Sciences to determine the exact longitude of the initial point, having given the figure 19° 55' 3" west of Paris, the geographer, Delisle, for the sake of simplicity, adopted the round number 20°; and, as I stated a little while ago, this alteration completely changed the character of this prime meridian. It ceased to be neutral, and became merely the meridian of Paris disguised, as has been truly said, and the English, notably, never adopted it. Here is the difference, gentlemen, between a neutral meridian and a national meridian.

And, parenthetically, you see, gentlemen, how dangerous it is to awaken national susceptibilities on a subject of a purely scientific nature. Now allow me to add that, if in 1633 it was possible to find a neutral meridian, a purely geographical meridian, an independent meridian, it may easily be done in 1884 if we wish to do so; and that a point chosen on purely geographical considerations, either in Behring's Strait or in the Azores, could be much better determined now than was possible to Father Feuillet in 1724, and could take the position which the meridian of Ferro would not have lost had it not been confounded with the meridian of Paris.

Professor J. C. ADAMS, Delegate of Great Britain, stated that he merely desired to refer to one subject touched on by the Delegate of France, Mr. JANSSEN, whose opinion he thought could hardly be supported, and that was that the question of longitude was purely one of geography. He desired to controvert that, and to hold that the question of longitude was purely one of astronomical observation. The difference of longitude between two places could not be determined by geodetic observations, because to do this you must take hypothesis as to the figure of the earth, and the figure of the earth is not a simple figure. You may take as hypothesis that the figure of the earth is spheroidal, and that the ratio of the axes is exactly defined. Now, in the first place, we are not agreed as to the exact ratio of the axes, nor are we agreed as to the exact figure of the earth. If an attempt is made to measure the difference of longitude between two points on the earth's surface, especially when they are a considerable distance from each other, it is necessary to depend upon astronomical observations. In attempting to deduce the difference of longitude from geodetic measures, you must assume that the true figure and dimensions of the earth are known, which is far from being the case. The theory that the prime meridian is a matter purely of a geographical nature is liable to the fatal objection that the determination of the difference of longitude between one place and the other is really the determination of the difference of time of the passage of a star across the meridian of the two places concerned. That is very definite. You observe the transit of the star at one place, and you observe the transit of the star at the other place, and by means of telegraphic communications you are able to determine their difference of longitude independent of the figure of the earth. He said, in conclusion, that he thought the honorable Delegate of France was mistaken upon the main point which he had just referred to, if, indeed, he had rightly understood him.