202 
our currency system furnishes a_ useful 
example of what may be expected. More 
than a generation elapsed after it became 
the legal system of the nation before its use 
was even approximately universal. 
There is another objection to the metric 
system important enough to deserve exam- 
ination, and that is the alleged difficulty of 
understanding it and of becoming accus- 
tomed to its use, and it has been affirmed 
that this difficulty would be especially 
marked among mechanics and workmen of 
all classes who make frequent use of weights 
and measures. Here, again, we may best 
appeal to experience. To Germany, Austria, 
Italy, Spain and other European nations 
outside of France the metric system came 
as a foreign innovation, but nowhere was 
any serious difficulty experienced. The 
same may be said of practically every 
nation on the American continent, except- 
ing the United States and Canada. Beforea 
Parliamentary Committee, Siemens testified 
concerning its introduction in his own works 
in Germany, that “it was all a matter of 
about a fortnight or three weeks; then the 
people were accustomed to it and did not 
ask for any more of the old measures, but 
asked for the new.’ In Germany the 
Adopting Act was passed in 1868, and the 
use of metric measures was made compul- 
sory in 1872. Siemens testified that this 
actual adoption took place mostly between 
January 12,1870, and January 1, 1872, and 
that when the compulsory time came there 
was nobody to be compelled. Other Ger- 
man testimony was of the same character, 
that knowing they had to be ready when 
the time came they were ready before the 
time came. Professor Foerster, Chief of 
the German Bureau of Weights and Meas- 
ures, under whose direction the introduc- 
tion of the metric system was made, has 
furnished us a most interesting account of 
how it took place. In speaking of the 
complaint, then common in Germany, as it 
SCIENCE. 
[N.S. Von. X. No. 242. 
has been here, that the metre was too 
long, that ‘‘we can estimate by the foot 
and not by the metre,” he makes the very 
suggestive remark that ‘experience has 
shown that here too many people have only 
hung a cloak around habit in order to hide 
its nakedness.’”?’ You are doubtless all 
aware that a few years ago in the great 
English engineering establishment of Wil- 
lans & Robinson the metric system was 
adopted to the entire exclusion of British 
measure. Their testimony is strongly in 
its favor and shows that English workmen 
very quickly adapt themselves to its use, 
and when once they understood it allagreed 
that it was much easier to work to than the 
English system. The head of their tool 
room testified that ‘‘it was a littleawkward 
for a time,’ but this lasted only about two 
days. Some of our own large manufactur- 
ing establishments having branches in 
Europe, such as the General Electric Com- 
pany, have declared that they found a 
decided advantage in making and working 
to metric drawings. Indeed, there is an 
‘embarassment of riches’ in testimony of 
this kind, and I feel that I ought rather to 
apologize for bringing any of it before this 
body. We may justly regard the case as 
proven and the controversy closed, except 
as to the question of ways and means. If 
it be affirmed that there is no demand for 
the change I could deluge the Society with 
resolutions of chambers of commerce, boards 
of trade, manufacturers’ associations, engi- 
neers’ clubs and societies, builders’ ex- 
changes, architects’ clubs, pharmaceutical 
associations, trades unions, educational and 
scientific bodies and other public organi- 
zations too numerous to even name. In 
England the past five years have witnessed 
what is little short of a revolution of senti- 
ment on this question, the result of an agi- 
tation originating not among scientific men, 
but with the so-called practical people. It 
is there, as it must soon be here, a question 
