Auaust 18, 1899. ] 
therefrom. As an example, an act passed 
by the State of Massachusetts only five 
years ago may be cited. It legalizes twenty- 
sia different bushels in one section, while in 
another it declares that a bushel im heap 
measure shall contain 2150.42 cubic inches, 
this being the volume of the well-known 
Winchester bushel when flat or struck, as 
used by the U. S. government and almost 
everywhere in this country. It also legal- 
izes a dry gallon of 282 cubic inches, to- 
gether with the liquid gallon of 231 cubic 
inches, which the government uses, thus 
creating an absolutely unnecessary but ex- 
tremely annoying confusion. In one State 
there is a law that innkeepers “ shall sell 
beer and ale by wine measure to all persons 
as drink it in their houses and by beer meas- 
ure to all persons as carry the same out of 
their houses’’; in another,and this in New 
England, it was enacted comparatively 
recently that in measuring certain com- 
modities ‘‘one bushel and three quarters of 
a peck shall be deemed a bushel.”’ In 
spite of legislation in many States fixing the 
value of a barrel at 314 gallons, it contains 
in these same States almost invariably 40 or 
42 gallons. In one State a gallon of milk 
must contain 231 cubic inches ; in another 
its capacity is fixed at 282 cubic inches. 
Not only is the value of a bushel when 
determined by weight different for different 
commodities, but for the same commodity 
there is great variation among different 
States of the Union, amounting, in many 
instances, to fifty and seventy-five per cent: 
Ineed not consume your time in relating 
the many other inconsistencies and absurdi- 
ties inherent in our present system, such as 
the variety of meanings attached to the 
word ton, not less than three or four in 
number; the confusion of pounds, ounces, 
etc.; the elusive and uncertain meaning of 
perch. With all of these and many others 
you are already familiar, and the whole 
system is so fearfully and wonderfully made 
SCIENCE. 
199 
that it may be safely affirmed that no man 
lives who knows and understands all of it. 
Nor is it necessary for me to consider 
the origin and nature of the system which 
those interested in metrological reform 
wish to see installed in its place. Most, if 
not all, of you know it very well and have 
been accustomed to make use of it in a 
greater or less degree. The innumerable 
advantages of a system of metrology as 
simple and as scientific as that known as 
the metric system are now all but univer- 
sally admitted. They have been written 
about and talked about and learned by 
actual use to such an extent that a pre- 
sentation of them here would be a waste 
of time. I prefer to briefly consider a few 
of the more important arguments that have 
been made against this system or against its 
usein this country. There isacertain class 
of objectors, small in number, quite un- 
worthy of serious consideration. Among 
them are those who see something sacred in 
the yard and the pound, because they are 
relics of antiquity, and something inherently 
wicked in the metre and the kilogramme 
because they originated with the French 
during the Revolution at the close of the 
last century. To some of them the very 
mention of the metric system is like a red 
flag to an anarchist, and two or three of 
them have published elaborate but tiresome 
arguments against the proposed reform, 
abounding in inaccurate statements and 
illogical and unscientific propositions. 
They mostly reveal a condition of intel- 
lectual atrophy over which it is but com- 
mon charity to draw the veil of silence. 
There are, however, some criticisms of the 
metric system that are entitled to the most 
serious consideration on the part of its 
friends, and some of them are urged by 
those who would gladly welcome metro- 
logical reform if it came in a way which 
met their approval. The advocates of 
the metric system not only do not wish to 
