AuGustT 18, 1899. ] 
ably fixed itself upon us for an indefinite 
future, but it is absurd to argue that metro- 
logical form must wait upon a notational 
revolution. The probability of the latter 
is almost infinitely small, at least for cen- 
turies to come, while already a majority of 
civilized nations have adopted the decimal 
system of weights and measures. The 
other great fact on which the superiority of 
that system depends is the beautifully 
simple inter-relation of units, resting upon 
constant physical properties of matter. No 
other system is for a moment comparable 
with it in this respect, and this alone would 
entitle it to consideration and adoption by 
all progressive communities. I pass over 
many more or less trivial objections to the 
metric system, all of which have been suc- 
cessfully answered many times, to take up 
one which is of far greater importance than 
all others, although it is not really a fault 
in the system itself. Itis urged that the 
adoption of the system in this country 
must be accompanied by very large loss, 
especially among machinists and manufac. 
turers, of accumulated material in the form 
of tools, machines, patterns, etc., which 
have been designed and made upon a basis 
of the foot or inch unit of length and which 
would be rendered useless by the introduc- 
tion of the metre or centimetre. It is also 
argued that there would be great loss occa- 
sioned by the disuse of scales, balances, 
weights, etc., which would necessarily be 
replaced by metric measures. On these 
grounds several very able engineers have 
based a strenuous opposition to the proposed 
reform, and their influence is freely ad- 
mitted to be the most serious obstacle to 
its progress. 
Against this argument a few incontro- 
vertable facts are put. One of these is that 
only a relatively small proportion of tools 
and machines are in any way effected by 
the question of standards; another is that 
the life of a tool or machine in these days 
SCIENCE. 
201 
is comparatively short, not only on account 
of deterioration from use, but as well 
because of continual improvements which 
render designs only a few years old prac- 
tically worthless. Much has been: said 
about the enormous value of patterns for 
machinery and machine tools which have 
accumulated during a period of years and 
which would be rendered useless by the in- 
troduction of new standards. Concerning 
this it may be said that in many of the 
most extensive manufacturing establish- 
ments in this country patterns once used 
are not considered as assets at all, the 
chances being that, through the rapid im- 
provement in design constantly going on, 
they will shortly become obsolete. There 
is also the further fact, testified to by some 
important establishments in which the 
metric system has already replaced the old, 
that there is almost invariably enough to 
spare in a casting which is to be machine 
finished to make it possible to work it to 
metric dimensions. In a similar way the 
possible cost of the reform due to the 
necessary change in apparatus and 
standards for weighing and measuring has 
been grossly overestimated. Balances will 
be, of course, not affected at all; platform 
and other scales can readily and cheaply be 
adapted to the new units. Those who have 
maintained a somewhat bitter opposition, 
based on this question of cost, to all sug- 
gested legislation looking to metrological 
reform, seem to have ignored two impor- 
tant considerations; the first is that the 
thing which they proclaim to be so difficult 
that it is practically impossible has already 
been accomplished and many times, by 
different European nations with almost no 
difficulty and under conditions vastly less 
favorable than those existing with us. The 
second is that no reasonable advocate of 
the metric system expects the transforma- 
tion to be made in a night or in a month 
ora year. The history of the adoption of 
