July 29, 1904.] 



SCIENCE. 



147 



DI80US8WN AND CORItESPONDBNCE. 



THE METRIC SYSTEM. 



To THE Editor of Science : I wisli to add a 

 hearty amen to what Professor Webster has 

 said iu Science^ for June 3, 1904, in reference 

 to the timidity of a few (a very few, I think 

 and hope) of the friends of the metric system 

 of weights and measures. As it is now more 

 than a third of a century since I joined in an 

 active dissemination of information regarding 

 this system and an earnest advocacy of 

 metrological reform through its adoption, and 

 as I have enjoyed many opportunities for 

 knowing the attitude of the people on this 

 question, in various parts of the United 

 States and at various times during these years, 

 I hope I shall not be accused of extravagant 

 or careless statement when I say that there 

 are many more advocates of the adoption of 

 the metric system in the country to-day than 

 ever before, and that the opposition to it is not 

 increasing, but everywhere steadily, and in 

 some regions rapidly, decreasing. I will not 

 undertake an elaborate proof of this statement, 

 for it is quite unnecessary to do so and it 

 will be generally admitted, I think, among 

 those who have thoroughly investigated the 

 subject. This sentiment is especially reflected 

 in the general unanimity of opinion among 

 representatives in congress, coming from all 

 parts of the country and particularly in the 

 aggressive and well-organized opposition that 

 has developed within a few years. Indeed, 

 nothing has been more encouraging to the 

 friends of metrological reform than the rather 

 sudden appearance of this not inconsiderable 

 and always respectable mass of conservatism 

 in battle array, for if the metric system can 

 not stand under the most searching criticism 

 or relentless opposition, then it ought to fall. 

 Although it may be truthfully declared that 

 there is not an argument against the adoption 

 of the system that was not met and refuted 

 more than twenty years ago, the recent publi- 

 cation of papers, pamphlets, letters, etc., in 

 which the old objections have been restated 

 and the old arguments bolstered up, has served 

 a useful purpose in bringing their weakness to 

 the attention of a larger audience. The 



people will understand after a while, and they 

 are beginning to understand now, that the 

 commercial interests of the country, both 

 domestic and foreign, are bearing an enormous 

 and wholly unnecessary load on account of the 

 selfishness of a really small group of men 

 engaged in a special industry, whose opposi- 

 tion is generally not due to any objection to 

 the new system itself, but only to the alleged 

 cost of substituting it for the old. In the 

 meantime our great competitors in the world's 

 activities have learned their lesson, most of 

 them long ago ; the only one still holding fast 

 (with lis) to this relic of barbarism, a thor- 

 oughly unscientific system of weights and 

 measures, is just on the point of letting go. 

 That we must follow in the near future is cer- 

 tain and all discussion, even including unrea- 

 soning opposition, must hasten the day. 



It is of the greatest importance, however, 

 that there should be no temporizing or ' arbi- 

 tration' with the opposition to this, one of 

 the most, if not the most, important economic 

 reform yet brought to the attention of our 

 people. It would be infinitely better to wait 

 a few years longer (in which the inevitable 

 operation of natural causes , will greatly di- 

 minish the number of opponelits) than to 

 yield to any suggestion looking to the reten- 

 tion of the old units of lengths and mass or 

 to any modification, in any essential feature, 

 of the system as it is now in almost universal 

 use among civilized nations. 



There is a great necessity for a reform in 

 the method of using weights and measures in 

 ordinary commercial transactions, to which 

 the metric system lends itself, and which will 

 be one of the most important incidental ad- 

 vantages of its adoption. I refer to the more 

 general use of weight instead of capacity 

 measures. Practically, nearly every transac- 

 tion involving quantity of matter can be better 

 managed by weighing than by measuring; 

 better, because nearly always far more ac- 

 curately, and generally more conveniently. In 

 the part of the world in which I am writing, 

 the kilogram is practically the only unit 

 used in dealing with all commodities, except- 

 ing, of course, textile fabrics and the like. 

 There is nothing taking the place of the bar- 



