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.

Prof. ABBE, Delegate of the United States, stated that the Delegate of
France, Mr. JANSSEN, had made a very important proposition to the
Conference: That the meridian adopted should be a neutral one. He said
that he had endeavored to determine what a neutral meridian is. On
what principle shall the Conference fix upon a neutral meridian, and
what is a neutral meridian? Shall it be historical, geographical,
scientific, or arithmetical? In what way shall it be fixed upon? He
looked back a little into the history of an important system adopted
some years ago. France determined to give us a neutral system of
weights and measures, and the world now thanks her for it. She
determined that the base of this neutral system should be the
ten-millionth part of a quadrant of the meridian. She fixed it by
measurement, and to-day we use the metre as the standard in all
important scientific work; but is that metre part of a neutral