200 
THE UNIVERSAL MERIDIAN! 
Il. 
‘ TF, now, we examine the question of changes to be 
introduced into existing charts, these would, in 
accordance with our proposal, be imposed on the whole 
world ; they might be greatly reduced, especially if people 
restricted themselves to what would be sufficient for a 
beginning, that is, by tracing on the existing plans only 
sufficient to allow us to make an immediate use of 
the international meridian. Later on, and in pro- 
portion as new plates were engraved, a more complete 
scale would be given; yet, in my opinion, it would 
always be of advantage to keep the two frameworks—the 
national and international—according to the example of 
what is done in several atlases. 
“Tf, at the present time, it is necessary to facilitate 
external relations, it is also good for each people to main- 
tain all the manifestations of its personal life and to 
respect the signs representing its traditions and its past. 
“T do not insist on the details of the establishment of 
such a meridian. All we have to support before you is 
the principle of its acceptation. 
“Tf this principle were admitted by the Congress, we 
are charged to inform you that you would there find a 
ground of agreement with France. 
“ Undoubtedly by reason of our long and glorious past, 
our great publications and our considerable hydro- 
graphic labours, a change of meridian would entail on us 
heavy and cruel sacrifices. Yet if one came to us, setting 
us an example of self-sacrifice, and thereby proving his 
sincere desire of the public weal, France has already 
given such proof of her love of progress that no doubt 
need be entertained of her concurrence in such an enter- 
prise. 
“But we should have to regret our inability to associate 
ourselves with a combination which, in order to safeguard 
the interests of one part of the contractors, sacrificed the 
higher scientific character of the institution, a character 
which in our opinion is indispensable if it would claim 
the right of imposing itself on all, and if it would secure 
to itself a definitive success.” 
Immediately after this discourse the general discussion 
was entered into, in which all the English and American 
delegates, and the Americans distinguished in science who 
had been invited, successively argued against the pro- 
posal of the French delegate. The latter had to reply 
successively to half a score of speeches embracing various 
phases of the question according to the various provinces 
of the speakers. It is, perhaps, allowable to say that 
notwithstanding the authority, talent and number of the 
distinguished speakers contending against the principle of 
the neutrality of the meridian, the principle withstood all 
those shocks without being shaken, and without suffering 
any scientific breach. The meridian proposed by France 
will remain always as representative of the impartial, 
scientific, and definitive solution of the question. We 
think it was a honour to our country to have defended 
this cause. 
Before the vote, M. Cruls, the learned director of the 
Observatory of Rio de Janeiro, and delegate of Brazil, 
informed the French delegation that he had received 
instructions from the Emperor to vote with France. We 
were very glad at this concurrence of sentiment, and 
begged to be allowed to congratulate the august foreign 
associate of the Institute of France on his resolutions. 
The following are the principal passages in the speech 
in which M. Cruls set forth the reasons of his vote :— 
“Down to the present one point, and that of great import- 
ance, has been settled by the discussion—the necessity, 
namely, of fixing a single initial meridian. This point 
has, in fact, obtained the adhesion of all the delegates 
present at the Conference. This necessity recognised, it 
* Lecture by Dr. Janssen at the Paris Geographical Society. Continued 
from p. 151. 
NATURE 
[Fuly 2, 1885 
is proper to take a step farther, and to determine which 
shall be this meridian. An election of this kind forms at 
this moment the object of our debates, and a question on 
which we should have to pronounce our opinion. 
“Our honourable colleague, Mr. Rutherfurd, delegate 
of the United States, has made a motion proposing the 
adoption of the meridian of Greenwich—a motion for the 
moment eliminated from our debates, its author having 
decided to withdraw it temporarily. 
“The motion which was made at the last sitting, and 
formed the subject of numerous and interesting debates, 
is that formulated by our honourable colleague, M. 
Janssen, delegate of France, proposing that the meridian 
to be adopted should have a neutral character, and 
should not touch either of the great continents of Europe 
and America. This proposal has been strongly com- 
bated by the delegates of England and the United States, 
and valiantly defended by the delegate of France, and the 
debates thus arising on the question have furnished us 
with the opportunity of witnessing a scientific tournament 
of the highest interest. The speakers we have had the 
honour of hearing seem to me to have exhausted the 
whole series of arguments for and against ; and at this 
stage I presume that the debates have enabled us, in full 
knowledge of the case in dispute, to form each his own 
opinion on the question on which we are called to vote. 
“For my part I am anxious to have clearly defined the 
attitude which in my opinion Brazil is called upon to take 
in the midst of this assembly. This attitude is one of 
absolute neutrality so far, be it understood, as it is a 
question of choosing a national meridian—a question 
which may provoke among certain nations very legitimate 
personal rivalries. 
“ Now, till the day when the Conference assembled for 
the first time, I was in hopes that these debates, entered 
into under the influence of a generous aspiration, and 
with the single object of arriving at the establishment of 
a measure, the necessity of which is warmly proclaimed 
by manifold interests of diverse nature, might conduct us 
to a complete and definitive solution of the question. 
Unhappily, and to my great regret, | am compelled to 
add that the differences which have manifested them- 
selves in the midst of the assembly do not allow this hope 
to be maintained. 
“That which for my part I am not able to lose from 
view is the fact that it is indispensable that the solution 
of the question for which the Conference is assembled 
should be complete ; or the end of this Conference would 
not be attained. Now, since the delegates of France 
have from the beginning of our debates manifested their 
Opposition to the adoption of any meridian invested with 
a national character, an opposition which gave rise to the 
motion presented by M. Janssen, it follows that any 
measure voted by the Conference and tending to the 
adoption of a national meridian would, by the very fact 
of the abstention of France, be an incomplete measure, 
not corresponding with the object pursued by the Con- 
ference. I hasten to add, for fear of any erroneous inter- 
pretation being given to my words, that the same objec- 
tion would apply, if, for example, the meridian of Paris 
were proposed, and any great maritime nation, such as 
England, the United States, or any other abstained from 
its adoption. Insuch a case, likewise, my line of conduct 
would be fully indicated. 
“In short, I will say that the immense benefits which 
would accrue. to the whole world from the adoption of a 
single prime meridian would be forthcoming in all their 
plenitude only in so far as the measure was unanimously 
accepted by the most important maritime nations. In 
every other case I am for my own part absolutely con- 
vinced that the measure would be in part inefficacious, its 
adoption not being general, and that everything would 
have to be done over again in a more or less distant 
future. 
