You do not count on after you have completed one revolution, but have to drop the 360 degrees and start again at zero.  But this is attended with great inconvenience, because this break in counting occurs in countries which are thickly inhabited.  The longitude would be a little less than 360 degrees on one side of the prime meridian, and on the other side the longitude would be a small angle.  This seems to me very inconvenient.

On the other hand, if you count longitudes in one direction from zero to 180 degrees as positive, and in the opposite direction from zero to 180 degrees as negative, you are, no doubt, obliged to make a break in passing abruptly from plus 180 degrees to minus 180 degrees.  But the break would then occur where it would cause the least inconvenience, viz., in mid-ocean, where there is very little land and very few inhabitants, and where we are accustomed to make the break now.  This will require no change in the habits and customs of the people, and no inconvenience whatever would be caused by the action of the Conference if it decides on this method, which also has the minor advantage of not requiring the use of such large numbers as the other.  But to adopt the reckoning of longitude from zero to 360 degrees would involve a very considerable change, and I think it may be doubted whether it would be generally accepted.  Under the circumstances, I think the resolution contains the most expedient course for us to adopt.  I do not object to anybody who chooses to do so reckoning on, for certain purposes, from zero to 360 degrees, but I do not think it would be well to make it compulsory.

With regard to the proposal of the Delegate of Great Britain, Mr. FLEMING, I would say that it would be attended with great inconvenience, because it departs from the usages and habits now existing.  That, to my mind, is a very great and insuperable objection, and I do not see any countervailing advantage.

With regard to the subject of time that Mr. Fleming is anxious to take into consideration, I think that nothing can be simpler, if I may be allowed to deal with the question of time, than the relation between time and longitude which is proposed to be created by the resolution of Mr. RUTHERFURD.

By that resolution the longitude indicates the relation between the local time and the universal time in the simplest possible way.  What can be easier than the method involved in the resolution of Mr. Rutherfurd?  It is this:  Local time at any place is equal to universal time plus the longitude of the place, plus being understood always in a mathematical sense.  The longitude is to be added to the universal time if it is positive, and subtracted if it is negative.  That is very simple, the whole being involved in one general formula.

Now, I think it is perfectly impossible for Mr. Fleming to make a more simple formula than that.  The formula laid down in the proceedings of the Roman Conference was far less simple, as it involved an odd twelve hours.  You got the universal time equal to the local time, minus the longitude, plus twelve hours.  This is far from simple.  It makes the calculation more complicated, and it seems to me that for other reasons it is objectionable.