June 23, 1922] 



SCIENCE 



665 



Chemical Society, etc., liave repeatedly passed 

 strong resolutions in favor of the metric system 

 and if we have been duped it is time to know it, 

 because scientific men and teachers do have 

 something at stake in the prosperity of 

 America. We should be informed as to who 

 these propagandists are who are spreading 

 ignorance, what their motive is, and convincing 

 evidence should be given and not merely dog- 

 matic affirmations. 



Practically all the real sentiment in favor of 

 a change . . . comes from teachers, scientists, 

 some engineers and from a few manufacturers 

 making refined instruments or other articles re- 

 quiring a minuteness of measurement, p. 194. 

 Science stands in a unique position. Its methods 

 are ever changing and are easily changed. . . The 

 number of persons and interests involved in the 

 field of scientific activity are small compared with 

 those involved in other fields. For these rea- 

 sons, . . . the usefulness of parts of the metric 

 system in scientific work and in fine instrument 

 making can not be taken as an indication of the 

 advisability of adopting it gradually in the United 

 States, p. 145. In fact, it is the so-called 'abso- 

 lute' or eentimeter-gram-second (C. G. S. ) system 

 rather than the metric system which is actually 

 employed in scientific work. p. 145. In engi- 

 neering practice it is, as in scientific work, a mix- 

 ture of other units that is used and has been 

 found of advantage in some connections rather 

 than the metric system exclusively. This is dem- 

 onstrated in electrical engineering . . . where a 

 'mongrel system' comprising the 0. G. S. or abso- 

 lute system, the metric system with the centimeter 

 instead of the millimeter as a unit, and English 

 feet, inches and square inches, is used. The units 

 of electrical measurement, the ohm, ampere, volt 

 and others . . . are not intrinsically more metric 

 than English, p. 147. 



Whether the absolute system bears the stigma 

 of a "mongrel" system because of the use of 

 the centimeter instead of the millimeter or 

 because of the character of the gravitation con- 

 stant or because there are 60 seconds in the 

 minute is not clear, but it is hardly an argu- 

 ment against the adoption of the metric system 

 in any case. 



English measures and weights are no hap- 

 hazard modern invention, but have come down to 

 us from prehistoric times, p. 4. 



This will be news to many Avho have been led 



to suppose^ that the English yard has been 

 recently established on the basis of the standard 

 meter, replicas of which are kept by the U. S. 

 Bureau of Standards. But the report says: 



In fact, the Anglo-Saxon measures of length 

 do-ivn to the present have remained on the same 

 basis as is given in the statute of Edward II 

 (1324) where a statement in statutory form of 

 what has since become the well-known rule that 

 'three barley corns round and dry make an inch, 

 etc' p. 5. 



' ' The organic growth and selection of the 

 fittest units in the English system make it infinite- 

 ly better adapted to different uses than the metric 

 system, p. 138. In short, from every angle, 

 the metric system is devoid of the BngHsh sys- 

 tem's handiuess and convenience; its units are 

 either too large or too small for general every- 

 day requirements. . . . The character and names 

 of its units are so tied in with every-day experi- 

 ence that they are readily learned and retained; 

 and the features just mentioned make the English 

 system, as compared with the rigid and infiexible 

 metric system, much more comprehendible to the 

 average mind, and more convenient, adaptable, 

 and comprehensive in filling the needs a system of 

 weights and measures is called upon to fill. p. 140. 



The current extensive use of decimals in con- 

 nection with English units in modern calculations 

 has made the work of computations in that system 

 as easy as in the metric system. The rapid devel- 

 opment and extensive use or calculating machines, 

 slide-rules, etc., has . . . enabled computations of 

 whatever kind to be made with equal ease in any 

 system, so that the metric and English systems 

 have in present practice been put on the same 

 footing in this regard. . . . Supporters of the 

 English system deny that there would be any 

 saving of time through the more general use of 

 the metric system in the schools, p. 143. 



1 U. S. Bureau of Standards Bulletin 1, 380 

 (1905). 



"History of Standard Weights and Measures 

 of the United States," by L. A. Fischer. 



The United States yard and the British imperial 

 yard were found to differ in length by one ten- 

 thousandth of an inch, but the imperial yard 

 differs in length from its authentic copies by 

 amounts which are at least as great as this. Con- 

 sequently, it was hopeless to obtain the exact 

 length of the yard and on April 5, 1893, the meter 

 was taken as the standard unit of length for the 

 English system in the United States and contain- 

 ing exactly 39.37 inches. 



