608 



SCIENCE. 



[N. S. Vol. XX. No. 514. 



But worse than the ill-founded hypotheses 

 of the head of one of the most important bu- 

 reaus of the Department of Agriculture, 

 which, moreover, receives and spends one of the 

 largest appropriations in the budget of that 

 department, is the return to medievalism indi- 

 cated in the case before us. It is not only that 

 of a deliberate attempt to suppress the truth, 

 but it indicates on the part of the morally 

 responsible head of that bureau a more than 

 child-like confidence in the permanent success 

 of the obscurantist regime such as is practiced 

 and defended by Pobyedonostseff. Tet it is 

 doubtful that even the latter, or the puissant 

 head of the Russian Empire himself, would 

 undertake to pass the censor's black brush over 

 inductive scientific papers like these of King. 



It is impossible to conceive that in the 

 twentieth century, and especially in a country 

 claiming to be progressive par excellence, such 

 a regime should be allowed to continue for 

 any length of time. King has uttered his 

 ' e pur si muove ' by the publication of his re- 

 jected papers; it now behooves the scientific 

 men of the country to voice their emphatic 

 protest against the dictation of ofiicial ortho- 

 dox science of any kind, from headquarters at 

 Washington. E. W. Hilgard. 



Berkeley, Calif., 

 September 29, 1904. 



' THE METRIC FALLACY,' ONCE MORE. 



To THE Editor of Science: It is not un- 

 common for professors of linguistic science to 

 be asked the question, ' What do you think will 

 be the common language of the civilized world 

 when the different peoples adopt one?' 

 Despite the impossibility of direct knowledge 

 on such a subject, conjecture is easy. Prob- 

 ably the most plausible of such conjectures is 

 that the Teutonic and Eomanoe languages 

 will continue the present process of inter- 

 mingling indefinitely until a common lan- 

 guage becomes the result, difference of lan- 

 guage diminishing into mere difference of 

 dialect. It may be fair to assume that the 

 English language, now the one most widely 

 in use, will be the most important of the dif- 

 ferent components of the future language of 

 civilization, though we have to admit the 



possibility that the Anglo-Saxon may give 

 place within a few centuries to some pro- 

 gressive competitor, such as the Japanese. 

 Supposing an international language thus to 

 become developed by common consent due to 

 common interests, international business both 

 political and commercial will be facilitated. 

 But even apfiroximate uniformity of thought, 

 of custom, of interest, has never yet received 

 practical demonstration as a human possibility. 

 If the future should develop a single universal 

 language, it must be universal only in the 

 sense of being a recognized standard from 

 which many local offshoots will grow. No 

 other view seems consistent with the continued 

 existence of a reasonable degree of personal 

 liberty. 



Now, assume that a similar question is 

 asked about the future coinage, weights and 

 measures of the civilized world. The present 

 chaos is bad enough, but far from being so 

 bad as it was a century ago. Tne tendency 

 has been unmistakably toward unification, but 

 with the goal still far away. Any one who 

 imagines that either the metric system or the 

 British system, as formulated to-day, will 

 meet all the requirements of both science and 

 commerce a century or two hence, may be 

 happy in his optimism, but he can not be 

 credited with much appreciation of what ex- 

 perience has hitherto shown to be the processes 

 of natural evolution. 



In a recent communication (Science, Sep- 

 tember 16, p. 373) Mr. F. A. Halsey, writing 

 in response to my criticisms of the attack 

 upon the advocates of the metric system by 

 Messrs. Halsey and Dale, says, " My purpose in 

 writing this letter is to point out that Pro- 

 fessor Stevens's admissions are of far greater 

 importance than he seems to suspect." He 

 considers me to have ' admitted pretty much 

 all ' that the antimetric contestants have con- 

 tended for; but he admits that two important 

 differences still exist. One is that I regard 

 the change to the metric system as worth the 

 cost, while he and Mr. Dale think it is not. 

 The other is that I regard the change feasible, 

 while he and Mr. Dale think it impossible. 

 These two statements certainly indicate a con- 

 siderable gulf between us, whatever may have 



