942 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XXXVII. No. 964 



The very general objection of the American 

 machinery constructors to the introduction of 

 the metric system is based upon the belief 

 that the capital above referred to would be 

 thereby sacrificed. A curious feature of the 

 case, however, is that it has been, and can at 

 any time be demonstrated that no such sacri- 

 fice would be involved, and therefore the 

 serious objection, which comes from machin- 

 ery-building interests, to the taking of any 

 step toward the introduction of the metric 

 system, is based upon an entire misconcep- 

 tion. This misconception is due chiefly to the 

 fact that most machinery manufacturers do 

 not themselves take the time and trouble nec- 

 essary to look into this matter, but have taken 

 at par the statements of one or two extreme 

 opponents of the present heterogeneity called 

 a system. These opponents have represented 

 and have made many others believe that the 

 change to the use of the metric system would 

 necessarily mean an alteration in the actual 

 dimensions of machinery now built, and of 

 the tools used in connection with that ma- 

 chinery. 



The fact that machinery-building estab- 

 lishments in this country are regularly using 

 the metric system, and are applying it to the 

 identical machines previously made to the 

 English system, without any alteration what- 

 ever in the machines themselves, or in the 

 tools for making them, seems to have no 

 weight, and because a matter of dollars and 

 cents is involved, and deep-seated prejudices 

 have been aroused, practically no hearing can 

 be obtained for the manifest advantages of 

 the metric system. The columns of the trade 

 journals are practically closed to all discus- 

 sions of it, and whenever the subject is up for 

 discussion, by a committee of congress, repre- 

 sentatives of, or those professing to represent, 

 the machinery-building interests, will oppose 

 any step taken toward progress in this matter. 



Even when it was proposed simply that the 

 various departments of the United States 

 government should make use of the metric 

 system, it was strenuously opposed on account 

 of what it was feared it would lead to, al- 

 though it was evident that whatever of extra 



expense might have been involved in the use 

 of the metric system by the government de- 

 partments would have been borne by the gov- 

 ernment itself, and would, therefore, have 

 been distributed in such a way as to have been 

 unperceived; even granting that there would 

 have been any extra expense, which is by no 

 means demonstrated and is doubtful. 



I mention this matter only to show what 

 the natiire of the opposition to the metric 

 system is, and from whence the strength of 

 such opposition comes. It is based upon 

 primary considerations which would be justifi- 

 able, or at least quite excusable, if there were 

 any foundation for them. It is my belief that 

 there is practically no foundation for them. 

 Fred J. Miller 



THE TEACHING OF ENGLISH COMPOSITION 



To THE Editor of Science: I sympathize 

 with Professor Robinson in his concern over 

 the unhappiness of the teacher of English 

 composition, and approve of all he says; but 

 he does not go far enough. He does not 

 answer his own question : " What are we to 

 do to keep him [the teacher] happy in Eng- 

 lish composition ? " 



He divides the men in charge of classes in 

 English into two types : the " educator " — who 

 " di'aws out " his pupils, reads themes less 

 and plays golf more, and from whom the 

 students draw culture in the vaguer sense, a 

 dissemination of sweetness and light — and the 

 " teacher," whose conference work is " con- 

 fined mostly to grammar, punctuation and the 

 split infinitive; but in the class he finds noth- 

 ing to do that he considers worth while." 



It is a common fault of teachers and of 

 scientific men that they are always trying to 

 divide things, and men, into types and classes, 

 to put them into pigeonholes and label them. 

 What Professor Robinson should do is to try 

 to discover a man who combines the best char- 

 acteristics of both " educator " and " teacher " 

 and who can not be put in the pigeonhole with 

 either label. If there is no such man to be 

 found, perhaps one can be made. Start with 

 a " teacher " who " hates inexactness and 

 vagueness," and " loves to enforce a clear 



