164 



The National Geographic Magazine 



THE REASON WE DID NOT ADOPT THE) 



METRIC SYSTEM WHEN WE ADOPTED 



DOLLARS AND CENTS 



It has always been a matter of wonder 

 to me why the United States, when it 

 changed from the old system of pounds, 

 shillings, and pence to the present dollars 

 and cents, did not at the same time go the 

 whole way and adopt the metric system 

 of weights and measures. The answer, 

 however, is simple. The metric system 

 had not then been invented, or rather had 

 not anywhere come into use. Proposi- 

 tions foreshadowing its advent were un- 

 der consideration, but the metric system 

 as we know it did not appear until after 

 the passage of our coinage act of 1792. 

 It was only adopted by France about the 

 beginning of the nineteenth century, and 

 if I remember rightly — and if not Mr. 

 Stratton will correct me — the first 

 standard kilogram and the first standard 

 meter were not deposited until 1830. 



Mr Stratton:* It was just about the 

 time that we made the change in coinage 

 that they were considering this system. 

 Congress directed John Quincy Adams, 

 the Secretary of State, to make an in- 

 vestigation in regard to the matter, and 

 he did so, and he made a report in which 

 he called attention to the fact that the 

 metric system was then being developed ; 

 and he advised us to watch it closely, and 

 he said that it was in his opinion a thing 

 we ought to adopt if it proved successful. 



Mr Bell: In 1790 Jefferson advised a 

 decimal system of weights and measures 

 and suggested the length of a second 

 pendulum as a unit. 



The Chairman: Of course he could not 

 recommend the metric system because it 

 had not been invented. 



Mr Bell: No; it was not introduced 

 until later. Some action was taken by 

 France in 1795, and in 1798 it was con- 

 sidered by some international gathering, 

 but it was not legalized in France until 



* S. W. Stratton, Director of Bureau of 

 Standards. 



1 80 1, and many years elapsed before 

 legal standards were prepared. 



OUR WHOLE SYSTEM OF ARITHMETIC IS 

 DECIMAL 



There is one other point to which I 

 desire to call attention, which seems to me 

 to lie at the root of any proposed change 

 in our methods of measurement in the 

 direction of simplicity and ease of appli- 

 cation, and it is this : We employ a deci- 

 mal system of arithmetic; from which it 

 follows that a decimal system of meas- 

 urement will be more easy for us to 

 handle than any system in which the units 

 of measurement do not progress by tens. 



Our whole system of arithmetic itself 

 is decimal in character. In counting we 

 employ 10 figures : o, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 

 and 9. We then repeat these in groups 

 of 10, advancing from 10 to 20, 30, 40, 

 etc., up to 99. We then advance by 

 groups of 10 times 10, namely, 100, 200, 

 300, etc., to 999; then by groups of 10 

 times 100, namely, 1,000, 2,000, 3,000, 

 etc., etc. 



From this peculiarity in our method of 

 numeration it follows that any system in 

 which the units of measurement advance 

 by tens is specially suited to our system 

 of arithmetic. It enables us to change 

 from one denomination to another in the 

 system, as desired, without special calcu- 

 lation, by simply changing the place of 

 the decimal point. Now the metric sys- 

 tem is a decimal system of this character. 

 It has already found favor with the world 

 at large, and I think America should 

 adopt it and make it her own. It really is 

 astonishing, when you come to work out 

 complicated problems involving cubical 

 measure, specific gravity, and the relation 

 of volume to weight, how much labor of 

 calculation is saved by the use of the 

 metrical measures. 



The Chairman: If you will point out 

 what that relation is specifically, perhaps 

 it would be interesting. The members of 

 the committee may understand, but I 

 would like to see it. 



