THE METRIC SYSTEM. 405 



for this purpose. It would require the majority of the nations of the 

 civilized world to change their standard, with all the expense that this 

 implies, for the sake of saving expense to English and American 

 mechanical engineers and capitalists. For the sake of international 

 uniformity such a conference might well be undertaken, although with 

 the assurance that the continental engineers and capitalists would not 

 regard the subject from our standpoint. 



Objection has often been made to the nomenclature of the metric 

 system, which is thought to be too diffuse, too high sounding and 

 scholastic to appeal to the masses. Such names as hectare and kilo- 

 meter are unwelcome to the farmer, who is well satisfied with his acres 

 and miles. There is no good reason to prevent any needed modification 

 in nomenclature so long as the fundamental units and the decimal rela- 

 tion between them are preserved. In our decimal currency the eagles, 

 dimes and mills are for the most part forgotten, while dollars and cents 

 are enough for most purposes. No great inconvenience has resulted 

 from the use of the word 'nickel' for a five-cent piece, or the alleged 

 'pennies' and Calif ornian 'bits' in the nomenclature of small change. 

 Those who are habituated to the use of the metric system rarely ever 

 speak of decimeters or dekameters, or decigrams or myriagrams. The 

 fathers could not provide for an indefinite future. Elasticity is neces- 

 sary, and new subordinate units are certainly allowable as long as they 

 serve any useful purpose. 



In conclusion, those who advocate the introduction of the metric 

 system will need to be patient and considerate. Those who oppose it 

 must look to the future as well as the present. The well-worn query, 

 'What has posterity done for me?' is good enough for the local poli- 

 tician but unworthy of the statesman. 





/ • 



<M/ 



V "^^ 



