eminent and friendly opponents so often call to my attention. If I do
not err, the very warmth of these interesting discussions shows me
that the honor of being personally connected with a great reform
touches us more than we are willing to admit, or than practical
interests alone could effect.

Professor ADAMS himself supplies an illustration of this. He should
remember the lively discussions of the English and French press on the
occasion of the magnificent discovery of Neptune, and on the claims of
the two illustrious competitors who were then the objects of universal
admiration. If we go back in history, do we not see the friends of
Newton and of Leibnitz equally contesting with asperity the discovery
of the infinitesimal calculus. The love of glory is one of the noblest
motives of men; we must bow before it, but we must also be careful not
to permit it to produce bad fruits.

When our men of science sought, a hundred years ago, to determine a
new measure of length, some one proposed the length of the seconds
pendulum at Paris. This measure was rejected, because it introduced
the idea of time in a measure of length, and also because it was
peculiar to Paris, and because a measure acceptable to the whole world
was desired. It is important not to introduce questions of national
rivalries into a scientific reform intended to be accepted by all, and
history shows us precisely on this question of prime meridians what
active rivalries there are. There was a time when almost every nation
which had a large observatory had a meridian, and that meridian was
considered an object of national pride. There were the meridians of
Paris, of Rome, of Florence, of London, and so on, and no nation was
willing to abandon its meridian for that of another. If you please to
adopt either the meridian of Greenwich, Washington, Paris, Berlin,