Part 9 (1/2)
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