August 5, 1904.] 



SCIENCE. 



173 



Mr. Frederick A. Halsey, associate editor 

 of the American Machinist, presented a paper 

 to the American Society of Mechanical En- 

 gineers in December, 1902, in which his aim 

 was to rebut the arguments of those who had 

 advocated the metric system, and especially 

 to show how great would be the cost of the 

 change to the mechanical industries of the 

 country. Mr. Samuel S. Dale, editor of the 

 Textile World Record, published some articles 

 with the same object in view, particularly in 

 relation to textile interests. The final result 

 is the volume now before us. 



The two parts of this volume are very dif- 

 ferent in tone, and it would be unfair to use 

 the same words of criticism for both. Mr. 

 Halsey's mental attitude is fairly indicated 

 by the following extracts from his introduc- 

 tory chapter. He says (p. 12) of the metric 

 system : " Nowhere has the system made ma- 

 terial progress in industry except when backed 

 by the policeman's club. * * * With their 

 system of weights and measures as a founda- 

 tion, the English-speaking peoples have built 

 up the greatest commercial and industrial 

 structure the world has known. They are 

 asked to enter the slough of despond in which 

 metric Europe wallows in order to help metric 

 Europe out. They are asked to destroy the 

 very warp and woof of their own vast indus- 

 trial fabric in order that they may assist in 

 weaving another of alien origin and with no 

 resulting gain except to aliens. * * * Repre- 

 sentative of their historic methods of develop- 

 ment, foundation of their industrial life and 

 bond of union between all sections — shall all 

 these be destroyed for this French fad ? " (p. 

 14). "The pro-metric argument is, substan- 

 tially, an a priori argument. The metric ad- 

 vocates adopt the methods of the old philos- 

 ophers who laboriously sought to prove what 

 ought to be. My method is that of modern 

 science, which interrogates nature in order to 

 learn what is." 



The last paragraph just cited is Mr. Halsey's 

 comment after quoting the views of a number 

 of pro-metric advocates, including such repre- 

 sentatives of science as Elihu Thomson, Har- 

 vey W. Wiley, S. W. Stratton, Simon Kew- 

 comb and Lord Kelvin. Each reader can 



draw appropriate conclusions regarding Mr. 

 Halsey's estimate of facts without any com- 

 parison of personal standing. That his atti- 

 tude is marked by judicial fairness and dignity 

 can scarcely be claimed any more than that 

 such method is ' that of modern science.' 

 The objects of his criticism are men who have 

 already manifested ability at least equal to 

 that of Mr. Halsey in interrogating nature. 

 What he writes about wallowing in a slough 

 of despond and sacrificing our advantages for 

 the benefit of aliens, all for a French fad, 

 might, perhaps, be called political claptrap 

 of the same value as the cries about ' in- 

 fant industries,' ' pauper labor ' and ' sixteen- 

 to-one.' It certainly is not argument. It 

 emphasizes, what is evident on every page 

 of his book, that he is a carping critic, much 

 given to extreme forms of expression. For 

 example, after quoting Dr. Wiley, Professor 

 Newcomb and Dr. Geddes, he criticizes in 

 these words (p. 96) : " Was there ever such 

 a case of distorted perspective? Was there 

 ever such a case of rainbow chasing? As an 

 epitome of the reasons for making this great 

 change this pamphlet is pitiful. Are we a 

 nation of dreaming idealists and transcend- 

 entalists that we should be swayed by such 

 considerations ? " The man who advocates 

 the displacement of the old standards, he 

 says (p. 9Y), ' deserves to be placed in the 

 pillory and held up to the scorn of men.' 

 Eeally, this is somewhat disturbing. It might 

 be considered intolerant if its author were not 

 so evidently a victim of what Mark Twain, 

 has aptly called ' French calm.' Such ex- 

 pressions make it hard to take seriously what 

 he writes. A wide but very uncertain margin 

 of discount is naturally suggested. The writer 

 who resorts to sarcasm whenever the chance is 

 presented, who confounds railing with argu- 

 ment, who suppresses or belittles everything 

 that tends to controvert what he wishes to 

 advocate, has only himself to blame if he for- 

 feits the confidence of those who consider 

 fairness an essential element in the effort to 

 get at the truth. 



The metric controversy may be summed up 

 in a very few words. Certain people wish to 

 give to our weights and measures the same 



