International Conference Held at Washington Part 9

Liberia: Mr. WILLIAM COPPINGER.

Mexico: Mr. LEANDRO FERNANDEZ and Mr. ANGEL ANGUIANO.

Netherlands: Mr. G. DE WECKHERLIN.

Paraguay: Capt. JOHN STEWART.

Russia: Mr. C. DE STRUVE, Major-General STEBNITZKI, and Mr. J. DE KOLOGRIVOFF.

San Domingo: Mr. M. DE J. GALVAN.

Spain: Mr. JUAN VALERA, Mr. EMILIO RUIZ DEL ARBOL, and Mr. JUAN PASTORIN.

Sweden: Count CARL LEWENHAUPT.

Switzerland: Col. EMILE FREY.

Turkey: Mr. RUSTEM EFFENDI.

Venezuela: Dr. A. M. SOTELDO.

United States: Rear-Admiral C. R. P. RODGERS, Mr. LEWIS M. RUTHERFURD, Mr. W. F. ALLEN, Commander W. T.

SAMPSON, and Prof. CLEVELAND ABBE.

Absent:

Denmark: Mr. C. S. A. DE BILLE.

Salvador: Mr. A. BATRES.

The PRESIDENT. In view of the many communications addressed to the President of this Conference, having reference to the business before it, presenting statements and arguments in relation thereto, the Chair asks that a committee be appointed, to which shall be referred all such communications, and that the committee be instructed to make such report upon them as it may deem advisable.

Count LEWENHAUPT, Delegate of Sweden. I beg leave to propose to the Conference that the appointment of this committee be left to the President.

Mr. SOTELDO, Delegate of Venezuela. I second the motion of the Delegate of Sweden.

Mr. DE STRUVE, Delegate of Russia. I entertain the same opinion, and I support the motion.

The motion was then unanimously adopted.

The PRESIDENT. I will name as the members of the Committee the Delegate of Great Britain, Professor ADAMS; the Delegate of Germany, Mr. HINCKELDEYN; the Delegate of the United States, Professor ABBE; the Delegate of j.a.pan, Mr. KIKUCHI; and the Delegate of Costa Rica, Mr. ECHEVERRIA.

PRESIDENT. Alter a discussion of only three hours this Conference adjourned a week ago to-day, subject to the call of its President.

Owing to the want of a French stenographer to report the words that were spoken in French, there has been much delay in preparing the protocol, which has not yet been completed. Fortunately, an experienced French stenographer has been procured through the kind intervention of Mr. SANDFORD FLEMING, of the delegation from Great Britain, and Mr. WILLIAM SMITH, Deputy Minister of Marine for the Dominion of Canada. We may now hope to have a fairly accurate report of what is said, both in French and English, needing only slight verbal corrections, and the Chair trusts that delegates may find it convenient to make the corrections very promptly, so that the protocols may be printed and verified as speedily as possible.

Should any delegate, who has not yet spoken, desire to address the Conference upon the resolution of the Delegate from France, his remarks will now be received, and when the mover of the resolution shall close the debate, the vote will be taken, if such be the pleasure of the Conference.

Mr. SANDFORD FLEMING, Delegate of Great Britain. I have listened with great attention and deep interest to the remarks which have fallen from the several gentlemen who have spoken, and I desire your kind indulgence for a few moments while I explain the views I have formed on the motion of the distinguished Delegates from France.

I feel that the important question which this Conference has to consider must be approached in no narrow spirit. It is one which affects every nationality, and we should endeavor, in the common interest, to set aside any national or individual prejudices we possess, and view the subject as members of one community--in fact, as citizens of the world. Acting in this broad spirit, we cannot fail to arrive at conclusions which will promote the common good of mankind.

In deliberating on the important subject before us, it seems to me there are two essential points which we should constantly bear in mind.

1. We should consider what will best promote the general advantage, not now only, but for all future years, while causing at the present time as little individual and national inconvenience as possible.

2. We should, in coming to a determination on the main question for which this Conference is called, leave nothing undone to avoid offence, now or hereafter, to the sensitiveness of individual nations.

The motion is, that the initial meridian to be chosen should be selected on account of its neutrality. This undoubtedly involves the selection of an entirely new meridian, one which has never previously been used by any nation, as all initial meridians in use are more or less national, and, as such, would not be considered neutral in the sense intended by the honorable Delegates from France.

Let us suppose that this Conference adopted the motion. Let us suppose, further, that we found a meridian quite independent of and unrelated to any existing initial meridian. Would we then have accomplished the task for which we are met? I ask, would the twenty-six nations here represented accept our recommendation to adopt the neutral meridian? I greatly fear that the pa.s.sing of the resolution would not in the least promote the settlement of the important question before the Conference. The world has already at least eleven different first meridians. The adoption of the new meridian contemplated by the Delegates from France would, I apprehend, simply increase the number and proportionately increase the difficulty which so many delegates from all parts of the earth are a.s.sembled here to remove.

This would be the practical effect of the pa.s.sing of the resolution.

If it had any effect, it would increase the difficulty, and I need not say that is not the object which the different Governments had in view when they sent delegates to this Conference. The President has well pointed out in his opening address the advantages which would be gained, and the great dangers which, at times, would be avoided by seafaring vessels having one common zero of longitude. Besides the benefits which would accrue to navigation, there are advantages of equal importance in connection with the regulation of time, to spring, I trust, from our conclusions.

It does not appear to me that the adoption of the motion would in any way advance these objects. I do not say that the principle of a neutral meridian is wrong, but to attempt to establish one would, I feel satisfied, be productive of no good result. A neutral meridian is excellent in theory, but I fear it is entirely beyond the domain of practicability. If such be the case, it becomes necessary to consider how far it would be practicable to secure the desired advantages by adopting as a zero some other meridian which, while related to some existing first meridian, would not be national in fact, and would have the same effect as a perfectly neutral meridian in allaying national susceptibilities.

The selection of an initial meridian related to meridians now in use gives us a sufficiently wide choice. Allow me to read the following list, showing the number and the total tonnage of vessels using the several meridians named, in ascertaining their longitude.

====================================================================== s.h.i.+PS OF ALL KINDS. PER CENT.

INITIAL MERIDIANS. +---------------------+-------------------- Number. Tonnage. s.h.i.+ps. Tonnage.

---------------------------+---------+-----------+--------+----------- Greenwich.................. 37,663 14,600,972 65 72 Paris...................... 5,914 1,735,083 10 8 Cadiz...................... 2,468 666,602 5 3 Naples..................... 2,263 715,448 4 4 Christiana................. 2,128 695,988 4 3 Ferro...................... 1,497 567,682 2 3 Pulkova.................... 987 298,641 11/2 11/2 Stockholm.................. 717 154,180 11/2 1 Lisbon..................... 491 164,000 1 1 Copenhagen................. 435 81,888 1 1/2 Rio de Janeiro............. 253 97,040 1/2 1/2 Miscellaneous.............. 2,881 534,569 41/2 21/2 ---------+-----------+--------+----------- Total ............... 57,697 20,312,093 100 100 ---------------------------+---------+-----------+--------+-----------

It thus appears that one of these meridians, that of Greenwich, is used by 72 per cent. of the whole floating commerce of the world, while the remaining 28 per cent. is divided among ten different initial meridians. If, then, the convenience of the greatest number alone should predominate, there can be no difficulty in a choice; but Greenwich is a national meridian, and its use as an international zero awakens national susceptibilities. It is possible, however, to a great extent, to remove this objection by taking, for a zero of longitude and time, the meridian farthest distant from Greenwich. This being on the same great circle as Greenwich, it would not require the establishment of a new observatory; its adoption would produce no change in charts or nautical tables, beyond the notation of longitude.

It would possess all the advantage claimed for the Greenwich meridian in connection with navigation, and as a zero for regulating time it would be greatly to be preferred to the Greenwich meridian. This Pacific meridian being accepted as the common zero, and longitude being reckoned continuously in one direction, there would be an end to the necessity of any nation engraving on its charts the words "longitude east or west of Greenwich." The one word "longitude" would suffice. The zero meridian would be international and in no respect national. Even on British charts all reference to Greenwich would disappear.

This view of the question is sustained by many distinguished men. I shall only ask permission to read the opinion of Mr. Otto Struve, Director of the Imperial Observatory at Pulkova, than whom there is no higher authority.

"The preference given to the Greenwich meridian was based, on one side, on the historical right of the Royal Observatory of England, acquired by eminent services rendered by this establishment during the course of two centuries, to mathematical geography and navigation; on the other side, considering that the great majority of charts now in use upon all the seas are made according to this meridian, and about 90 per cent. of the navigators of long standing are accustomed to take their longitude from this meridian. However, an objection against this proposition is, that the meridian of Greenwich pa.s.ses through two countries of Europe, and thus the longitude would be reckoned by different signs in different portions of our own continent and also of Africa.

"Moreover, the close proximity of the meridian of Paris, to which, perhaps, some French geographers and navigators of other nations would still hold to, from custom, from a spirit of contradiction or from national rivalry, might easily cause sad disaster. To obviate these inconveniences, I have proposed to choose as prime meridian another meridian, situated at an integral number of hours east or west of Greenwich, and among the meridians meeting this condition, I have indicated, in the first place, the meridian proposed to-day by scientific Americans, as that which would combine the most favorable conditions for its adoption. Thus the meridian situated 180 from Greenwich presents the following advantages:--

"1. It does not cross any continent but the eastern extremity of the North of Asia, inhabited by people very few in number and little civilized, called Tschouktschis.

"2. It coincides exactly with that line where, after the custom introduced by a historical succession of maritime discoveries, the navigator makes a change of one unit in the date, a difference which is made near a number of small islands in the Pacific Ocean, discovered during the voyages made to the east and west. Thus the commencement of a new date would be identical with that of the hours of cosmopolitan time.

"3. It makes no change to the great majority of navigators and hydrographers, except the very simple addition of twelve hours, or of 180 to all longitudes.

"4. It does not involve any change in the calculations of the Ephemerides most in use amongst navigators, viz., the English Nautical Almanac, except turning mid-day into midnight, and _vice versa_. In the American Nautical Almanac there would be no other change to introduce. With a cosmopolitan spirit, and in the just appreciation of a general want, the excellent Ephemerides published at Was.h.i.+ngton, record all data useful to navigators calculated from the meridian of Greenwich.

"For universal adoption, as proposed by the Canadian Inst.i.tute, it recommends itself to the inhabitants of all civilized countries, by reason of the great difference in longitude, thus removing all the misunderstandings and uncertainties concerning the question, as to whether, in any case, cosmopolitan or local time was used.

"In answer to the first question offered by the Inst.i.tute at Toronto, I would, therefore, recommend the Academy to p.r.o.nounce without hestation in favor of the universal adoption of the meridian situated 180 from Greenwich, as Prime Meridian of the globe."

I quote from the report of M. Otto Struve to the Imperial Academy of Sciences of St. Petersburg, 30th Sept., 1880.

I respectfully submit, we have thus the means of solving the problem presented to us, without attempting to find such a meridian as that contemplated in the motion of the honorable delegates. Whatever its origin, the Pacific meridian referred to would soon be recognized as being as much neutral as any meridian could possibly be. If, on the other hand, we adopt the motion, I very greatly fear that the great object of this Conference will be defeated, and the settlement of a question so pregnant with advantages to the world will be indefinitely postponed.

Dr. CRULS, Delegate of Brazil. Gentlemen. Since the opening of this discussion more authoritative voices than mine--among others that of the Honorable Mr. SANDFORD FLEMING, Delegate of Great Britain, who has just expressed his opinion upon the question--have been heard upon the important subject which we are now called upon to discuss, and of which we should endeavor to find a full and final solution. The various aspects of the projected reform--viz., the unification of longitude, which numerous international interests recommend to our care--appear to me to have been examined, and that relieves me of the task of taking up again the question in its details, and permits me to abridge very much the considerations which I think it is my duty to present in order to explain my vote. Upon to the present moment we have settled one point, gentlemen, and it is one of great importance; that is, the necessity of adopting a common prime meridian. This point has obtained the support of all the Delegates present at the Conference. This necessity being recognized, it is proper to take another step towards the solution of the problem presented to us, and to decide what that meridian shall be. It is this choice, gentlemen, which at this moment forms the subject of our discussion, and upon which we have to decide.

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 att.i.tude that Brazil, in my opinion, must take in this Conference. That att.i.tude 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 a.s.sembled 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 a.s.sembly would see that they had due weight, and, thanks to this a.s.sembly 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.