International Conference Held at Washington for the Purpose of Fixing a Prime Meridian and a Universal Day. October, 1884. / Protocols of the Proceedings

by D.C.) International Meridian Conference (1884 : Washington

The proposition to count longitude from a point 180 degrees from the meridian of Greenwich appears to them not to be accompanied by any advantage whatever. On the contrary, it must lead to inconvenience. You do not, by adopting the meridian opposite Greenwich, get rid of the nationality of the meridian. If there is objection to the meridian of Greenwich on account of its nationality, the meridian of 180 degrees from Greenwich is subject to the same objection. The one half is just as national as the other half.

The President. The chair would say that no specific meridian is mentioned in the amendment.

Prof. Adams, Delegate of Great Britain. That is true, but, at the same time, it should be said that the meridian described is ambiguous. It is the meridian that passes through the poles and the centre of the transit instrument of the Observatory of Greenwich. That is the language of the amendment. But it is intended to apply to only one-half of the great circle passing through the poles, that is to the distant half of the meridian rather than to the nearer half. Unless it defines which half it is intended to take, the amendment is ambiguous, and it is not proper to be voted on.

Mr. Miles Rock, Delegate of Guatemala. Mr. President, It may be well to hear the words of the original resolution, in order that we can clearly see the relation of the amendment to that resolution.

The original resolution of the Delegate of the United States was then read.

Baron von Alvensleben, Delegate of Germany. Mr. President, I think that in this amendment offered by the Delegate of Great Britain two questions are mixed up together. The first thing for us to do is to fix upon a prime meridian; the second thing to settle is the question whether the adoption of a universal day is desirable or not. If we adopt this amendment, these two questions are involved in one vote. Therefore, I think that they should be divided, for they are not appropriate in the form in which they are presented.

Mr. Valera, Delegate of Spain. I ask permission to speak, in order to explain my vote. The Government which I represent here has told me to accept the Greenwich meridian as the international meridian for longitudes, but I think it my duty to say that, though the question does not arise in this debate, that Spain accepts this in the hope that England and the United States will accept on their part the metric system as she has done herself. I only wish to state this, and I have no intention of making it a subject of discussion. I shall only add that I believe Italy is similarly situated with Spain in this matter.

The President. The Chair would say with great deference to the distinguished Delegate from Spain that the question of weights and measures is beyond the scope of this Conference. The invitation given by the Government of the United States to the nations here represented was for a distinct and specific purpose, the selection of a prime meridian, a zero of longitude throughout the world and a standard of time-reckoning. So far as the Chair is informed, it would not be in order at this Conference to discuss a question of metric system.

Mr. Juan Valera, Delegate of Spain. My only intention in making these remarks was to verify a fact. I know very well that we have not to discuss that question. Besides, the Government which I represent expresses only a hope, and I know we do not insert any hopes in our protocols; but I thought it my duty to make this declaration.

Mr. Lefaivre, Delegate of France. I desire to make some remarks on the question when it is put to a vote; for the time being I shall only say a few words on the remarks of my honorable colleague, the Delegate of Spain, Mr. Valera. I believe that though the question of weights and measures is not before the Conference, it is allowable for a member to state, in the name of his Government, the conditions to which his vote has been subordinated. Even though the question is not under discussion, it may appear from such an explanation that the vote is conditional, instead of being a simple affirmation. If my honorable colleague has received from his Government instructions to subordinate his vote to such or such a condition, even when the question to which it is subordinated is not submitted to the Conference, it follows from it, according to me, and everybody will admit it, that the consequences of that vote are at least conditional.