REFORM  IN  WEIGHTS  AND  MEASURES. 
39 
part  of  the  New  York  dry  bushal — which  bushel  is  not  a  stand- 
ard in  many  other  States. 
The  following  table  shows  the  relative  value  of  Apothecaries' 
and  minim-unit  standard  measures,  in  distilled  water  at  60?  F. : 
1  minim  =  .9493  of  1  minim. 
1  fluid  drachm  =  .569  of  1  fluid  dram, — about  5.7  scruples. 
1  fluid  ounce  =  .455  of  1  fluid  ounce,  or  4  dr.  5.5  scruples. 
1  pint  =  .7291  of  1  pint,  or  7  fluid  oz.  2  fluid  dr.  9.1  scr. 
1  gallon  =  .58328  of  1  gallon,  or  5  pints  8  fl.  oz.  3  dr.  2.8  scr. 
— and,  by  comparing  the  following  table  of  Apothecaries'  mea- 
sure — 
1  minim  =  .9493  grains. 
60  minims             =    1  fluid  drachm  =  56.9  " 
8  fluid  drachms      =    1  fluid  ounce  (480  m.)  =  455.6  " 
16  fluid  ounces       ==    1  pint  (7680  m.)  =  7291.1  " 
8  pints                   =    1  gallon  (60,440  m.)  =  58328.8  " 
—with  that  given,  with  the  liquid  grains  for  a  unit,  the  contrast 
shows  the  glaring  ununiformity  of  the  latter  and  the  simplicity 
of  the  other. 
Now  let  us  see  the  beautiful  uniformity  of  correspondence 
between  the  systems  of  decimal  weight  and  measure,  and  our 
present  currency — taking  for  example  an  article,  liquid  or  solid, 
valued  at  one  dollar  per  ounce. 
1  grain, 
1  scruple, 
or 
1  minim 
costs 
1  mill. 
or 
1  fluid  scruple, 
u 
1  cent. 
1  dram, 
or 
1  fluid  drachm, 
it 
1  dime. 
1  ounce, 
or 
1  fluid  ounce, 
a 
1  dollar. 
1  pound, 
or 
1  pint, 
1  gallon, 
it 
1  eagle. 
1  stone, 
or 
a 
10  eagles. 
1  hundred  weight, 
or 
1  anker, 
n 
100  eagles. 
1  ton, 
or 
1  tun, 
it 
1000  eagles. 
I  would,  in  conclusion,  refer  those  interested  in  this  much- 
needed  reform  to  the  sources  which  have  led  to  the  foregoing 
remarks — the  report  of  M.  Lefferts  to  the  New  York  Chamber 
of  Commerce,  and  that  of  Dr.  Guthrie  to  the  ximerican  Phar- 
maceutical Association.  These  contain — together  with  matter 
not  appropriate  for  comment  in  a  paper  of  this  kind — interest- 
ing historical  information,  and  many  unanswerable  arguments 
in  favor  of  the  early  introduction  of  the  decimal  arrangement 
into  our  scales  of  weights  and  measure.* — Medical  Independent, 
December  1857. 
*  [See  vol.  ii  (July  and  Oct.,  1830)  of  this  Journal  for  an  admirable  paper 
on  the  Weights  and  Measures  of  England  and  France. — Editor.] 
