November 4, 1904.] 



SCIENCE. 



609 



been the admissions made with a view to 

 impartiality. The gulf seems incapable of 

 being bridged by any structure built on the 

 foundations set forth in Mr. Halsey's book. 

 His self-complacent conclusion is, perhaps, 

 the outcome of the fact that he is an avowed 

 special advocate representing pecuniary inter- 

 ests that would suffer by the change considered, 

 and that an advocate must claim everything in 

 sight. His attitude can not possibly be 

 judicial unless some miracle should suddenly 

 bring about such a change of heart as to evoke 

 words of penitence for his lack of appreciation 

 of metric righteousness and of horror at his 

 own British sinfulness. 



What has been written by me about the 

 metric system sets forth my own views alone. 

 It was not intended to be representative of 

 any other person or any pecuniary interests. 

 It was an attempt to be fair, and as nearly as 

 possible non-partisan, however cordial would 

 be my welcome to the exclusive adoption of 

 the metric system everywhere, if such were 

 possible. There are doubtless many other 

 metric advocates who do not share some of 

 my views, and for whose opinions I entertain 

 the highest respect. We may differ regard- 

 ing the ease with which the change can be 

 introduced, or as to the number of years of 

 grace that should be allowed between initial 

 and final legal enactments. The fact that my 

 estimate regarding the limits of this period 

 greatly exceeds that of some distinguished men 

 does not in the least justify Mr. Halsey's as- 

 sumption that I regard their view as ' worth- 

 less,' however limited may be the value of his 

 own conclusion that the British inch is im- 

 movable, even ' until doomsday ' — an infinity 

 of years of grace. If my estimates are too 

 liberal no one can hail the demonstration of 

 such a mistake with more pleasure thati my- 

 self. 



My admission that among the uneducated 

 on the continent of Europe the use of non- 

 metric names and units is still common does 

 not invalidate the claim of the metric advo- 

 cates that the use of the metric system has 

 become fairly well established among a ma- 

 jority of the educated classes in the same 

 countries. Metric advocates who claim more 



than this are probably exceptional. They 

 certainly would not reverse their opinions 

 because the peasantry are now, have always 

 been and can always be expected to be ex- 

 tremely conservative. Mr. Halsey devotes 

 four fifths of the space in his book to a demon- 

 stration of the persistence of old units every- 

 where in spite of legislation. No such demon- 

 stration would be necessary for any reader 

 who has paid reasonable attention to history, 

 or who has had the opportunity to observe the 

 uneducated in our ovsm country. He gives a 

 list, nine pages in length, of ' non-metric units 

 used in metric countries,' with their American 

 equivalents. M. Guillaume, of the Inter- 

 national Bureau of Measures, has recently 

 shown (Physical Review, September, 1904, pp. 

 234^237) that much of this table is worthless, 

 not only containing information that is false, 

 but quoting as non-metric the local names of 

 units which are in value identical with metric 

 units. Out of nearly five hundred entries in 

 this table it is safe to say that a majority are 

 local and almost unknown to international 

 commerce. This grand parade of misinfor- 

 mation is sufficiently in accord with Mr. 

 Halsey's assertion, ' We have the simplest and 

 the most uniform system of weights and meas- 

 ures of any country in the world.' 



It is quite possible for metric advocates to 

 recog-nize the force of conservatism and vested 

 interests, and yet to have faith in the future 

 approach toward international unification of 

 weights and measures. Even if this should 

 be accomplished by legislation and sustained 

 by public demand in all the great commercial 

 centers of the world, the peasantry can be 

 depended upon to hold on to their local in- 

 herited units and to furnish the data for such 

 a table as Mr. Halsey has collected with so 

 much care. 



Mr. Halsey is disappointed that no special 

 notice was taken of two chapters which he re- 

 garded the best in his book. He endeavors to 

 make a sharp line of division between scien- 

 tific men and manufacturers. Of the former 

 he says : " They are measures, not makers, 

 and their opinions have no value and no appli- 

 cation as related to manufacturing." This 

 estimate likewise is not surprising in view of 



