198 SCIENCE. 
reported House Bill No. 246 back, with a 
recommendation that it be referred to the 
Committee on Education ; the latter Com- 
mittee gave the bill careful consideration 
and reported ‘ the same back to the House, 
with the recommendation that the said bill 
do pass ;’ the bill was called up by the Com- 
mittee and, mirabile dictu, the bill actually 
passed that branch of the Legislature, by 
what was reported to bea good, safe ma- 
jority. Before it actually became a law, 
however, its character began to be recog- 
nized and its further progress was arrested. 
The possibility of such an incident at the 
very end of the nineteenth century is a fact 
from which some useful inferences may be 
drawn, and a just allotment of responsi- 
bility might well cause some anxiety. 
But it is not to the particular kind of 
metrological reform suggested by this in- 
cident that I desire to ask your special at- 
tention. Josephus says that Cain ‘ broke 
the tranquility of the world by introducing 
weights and measures,’ and it is perhaps 
not without significance that the first ex- 
ponent of precise measurement was also 
the first homicide. At any rate, it will not 
be denied that the welfare of mankind has 
been enormously affected by the develop- 
ment of the art of weighing and measuring, 
and the importance of this art has grown 
with the perfection and complication of en- 
lightened society. The systems of metrol- 
ogy in general use among English-speaking 
people at the present time have come to us 
from remote, almost pre-historic time, 
through Greece and Rome, and thousands 
of years have passed without any marked 
improvement in them, except in the better- 
ment of fundamental standards, the inter- 
relation of which is still as essentially il- 
logical and unscientific as in the beginning. 
As every one knows, the nineteenth cen- 
tury has witnessed a marvelous metrolog- 
ical reform among nearly all other races, 
and it is of this reform, never so important 
[N. S. Vou. X. No. 242. 
to us as just now, that I propose to speak. 
Iam glad to assume in the beginning that 
you are all quite familiar with the general 
facts relating to this controversy, and I ask 
your consideration of the subject, not be- 
cause of any lack of knowledge on your 
part, but rather because of my belief, al- 
ready expressed, that you and the work you 
stand for have failed in a large measure, 
perhaps for lack of interest, in the active 
dissemination, among the general public, of 
the principles and advantages of a refor- 
mation of vital consequence to their mate- 
rial interests. 
A brief review of existing conditions will 
be of use to those who have not given the 
subject serious thought. It is not generally 
known that the legal, fundamental stand- 
ards of length and mass in this country are 
as numerous as the States of the Union. 
It will not do to say that these are identical, 
for they are not and cannot be, and many of 
their derivatives are decidedly different. 
There is a widespread notion that there 
is a United States standard pound which is 
everywhere legal, and a yard of the same 
authoritative origin, but this is an error, 
for these are only legal in transactions to 
which the general government is a party, 
and then only by authority of the Secretary 
of the Treasury. There is but one com- 
modity which must everywhere be measured 
by one standard, and that is the coinage. 
And even this is nominally, not actually, 
referred to a material standard, legalized 
over seventy years ago, which is obsolete in 
form and construction, ‘without pride of 
ancestry or (let us be thankful) hope of 
posterity.’ Practically we ignore all legis- 
lation in the matter of fundamentals and 
universally accept standards of mass and 
length from two or three prominent makers 
who have mostly adopted those of the U. 
S. Office of Weights and Measures. There 
is much local legislation, however, on de- 
rived measures and much confusion results 
er he ee ee 
Seay 
