n
that they do not fall within the limits indicated by the
instructions which we have received from our respective
governments, and that, therefore, any discussion of them
would only be of a purely academical character, and could
lead to no practical result. Such a discussion would be sure
to elicit great differences of opinion, and would,
therefore, occupy a considerable time.

Hence, your Committee think that it would be very
undesirable for the Conference to enter upon it.

No. 4 is a letter from Mr. Spofford, Librarian of Congress,
including a communication of Mr. J. W. Stolting, Dobbs'
Ferry, N. Y. The author recommends the adoption of the
meridian 162 deg. W. from Greenwich as the prime meridian; he
proposes further, not to say east or west, but first or
second half, and also recommends the adoption of a universal
time, not to interfere with local or other standard time,
and to reckon from "1 to 24." He expresses no opinion as to
whether the day should begin at noon or midnight. There
seems to be nothing in the communication to influence the
decisions of the Conference.

No. 5. See report as to letter No. 1.

No. 6 suggests that the prime meridian should be 180 deg. from
Greenwich, and that longitude should be reckoned from 0 deg. to
360 deg.. This proposition has been already considered and
rejected by the Conference.

No. 7. This communication proposes "to adopt as the prime
meridian the frontier line between Russia and the United
States, as defined in the treaty of March 30, 1867." As the
initial meridian has already been agreed to by the
Conference, this proposition needs no further notice.

No. 8. This communication refers to an invention which has
no bearing on the question before the Conference. The
committee therefore abstain from expressing an opinion as to
its merits.

No. 9. Two letters from Mr. E. R. Knorr, of Washington,
D.C., advocating the advisability of reckoning longitude
"westward from 0 deg. to 359 deg.," and marking them on charts by
time instead of by degrees. The Conference has already taken
action on the question involved.

No. 10. A letter from Prof. Hilgard, enclosing a pamphlet by
Lt. C. A. S. Totten on the metrology of the great pyramid, a
subject which does not fall