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.