;-NRLF 
 
 SB EM 
 
 ETRIC 
 
 >O> 
 
 DALE 
 
 D.VAN NOSTRAND COMPANY 
 
A& 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, 
 
 Gl FT OF 
 
 Class 
 
 :r^fc*<r4x^u-j 
 
 

 
"It is a tormenting of the people for mere trifles." 
 
 NAPOLEON. 
 
 "Compare the uniformity that you must lose with the 
 iniformity that you may gain." 
 
 " The substitution of an entire new system of weights and 
 measures instead of one long established and in general use, 
 is one of the most arduous exercises of legislative authority. 
 There is, indeed, no difficulty in enacting and promulgating 
 the law, but the difficulties of carrying it into execution are 
 always great and have often proved insuperable." 
 
 " The legislator * * * finishes by increasing the diver- 
 sities which it was his intention to abolish, and by loading 
 his statute books only with the impotence of authority and 
 
 the uniformity of confusion." 
 
 JOHN QUINCY ADAMS. 
 
THE METRIC FALLACY 
 
 BY 
 
 FREDERICK A. HALSEY 
 
 AND 
 
 THE METRIC FAILURE 
 
 IN THE TEXTILE INDUSTRY 
 
 BY 
 
 SAMUEL S. DALE 
 
 NEW YORK 
 
 D. VAN NOSTRAND COMPANY 
 
 23 MURRAY AND 27 WARREN STS. 
 
 1904 
 
V 
 
 COPYRIGHT, 1904, 
 
 BY 
 D. VAN NOSTRAND COMPANY. 
 
 143 
 
PKEFACE. 
 
 This book is an outgrowth of a paper presented to the American 
 Society of Mechanical Engineers at its December, 1902, meeting 
 and the discussion which followed, and by permission of the 
 Council of that Society much of the paper is here included. The 
 points raised in the discussion have been rewritten and placed 
 in their appropriate places. The list of countries in which it was 
 shown in the paper that old units continue in use has been about 
 quadrupled, while new chapters have been added on The Reasons 
 for the Failure of Compulsory Laws, Scientific and Industrial 
 Measurements, Scientific and Industrial Difficulties, " The Govern- 
 ment Will Pay the Cost," The " Confusion " of our Weights and 
 Measures, The Complications Due to a Mixture of Units, The 
 Inaccuracy of the Meter, The Abandoned Portions of the Metric 
 System and The Object of the Bill. 
 
 Part II. on The Metric Failure in the Textile Industry has 
 also been entirely rewritten and is believed to be the first critical 
 anti-metric analysis of the system from the standpoint of the 
 textile industry that has been made. 
 
 The table of Continental systems of numbering spun yarn 
 has been compiled from the latest French, German and Spanish 
 authorities and submitted to several practical French and Ger- 
 man textile manufacturers and merchants for examination and 
 criticism. One of them, a large dealer in yarns and the pro- 
 prietor of a German conditioning house, returned the list with a 
 suggestion which has been adopted, as to the method of express- 
 ing the equivalents of each system, and added this remark : " The 
 work is very useful and instructive." 
 
 This table is believed to be the most complete of its kind ever 
 published. Care has been taken to eliminate all systems not in 
 actual use. The list will therefore be useful not only in showing 
 the Continental chaos of textile weights and measures, but also 
 in aiding the unfortunate Continental manufacturers in finding 
 the reciprocal equivalents of the multifarious systems of yarn 
 counts with which they are now tormented. 
 
 Should the reader be surprised at the facts regarding the lim- 
 
 163860 
 
4 PREFACE. 
 
 ited use of the metric system herein given, he should remember 
 that no proof of anything to the contrary has ever been offered. 
 Whenever the metric advocates have learned that a government 
 has passed a law favorable to the system, they have straightway 
 conveniently assumed that it has become the common system in 
 trade and commerce. They have not inquired into the working 
 of these laws nor into their scope or nature. Their logic has 
 been, " Such a country has passed a metric system law, therefore 
 the people of the country have dropped their old units and taken 
 up the new." Their stories of the imposing number of hundreds 
 of millions of people who use the system have no other basis than 
 this. They have simply added the figures for the population of 
 those countries which have passed some kind of a metric law, 
 including those in which the laws are simply permissive, and 
 those in which the system has been adopted for government pur- 
 poses alone. If the facts which are given in these pages turn 
 their case to ridicule, they have nothing to thank but their own 
 credulous willingness to believe anything favorable to their 
 system and to their free use of their own imagination without 
 regard to facts. 
 
 The assertions of the wide use of the system have been repeated 
 so many times that they have come to be generally believed, but 
 the mere repetition of an untruth does not make it a truth. The 
 reader should, therefore, reverse his attitude of mind at the start 
 and regard the extensive use of the system not as a fact but as 
 an unproven assumption. Kemembering that assertions have no 
 weight as against facts, he will then be in a position to form a 
 just estimate of this the only considerable collection of facts 
 relating to the use of the system that has ever been published. 
 
 The reader will not fail to note the numerous countries in 
 which the system has been adopted for government purposes for 
 many years, but in which government use has failed to bring 
 about the general adoption of the system in trade and commerce. 
 As this is precisely the programme which is relied upon to bring 
 about the general adoption of the system by the American people, 
 the experience of these countries is of immediate and obvious 
 application. 
 
 The chapter on Reasons for the Failure of Compulsory Laws 
 has equal application to the conditions of the British Empire, 
 where the metric programme is based upon avowed compulsion. 
 It is shown in this chapter that general compulsory laws have no 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 jurisdiction over factory measurements, and that the only effect 
 of such laws will be to plaster a set of commercial metric units 
 over a set of factory English units, leading to nothing but what 
 John Quincy Adams so aptly calls " the uniformity of confusion." 
 The authors will be glad to receive additional information 
 from any part of the world for incorporation in future editions. 
 They may be addressed in care of the publisher. 
 
ERKATA. 
 
 Page 146, 8th line, decigramme to decimetre. 
 
 " 146, 8th line, centigramme to centimetre. 
 
 " 195, 6th line, kilogramme to 453.59 grammes. 
 
 *' 195, 8th line, " " " " " 
 
 " 195, 10th line, 
 
 " 203, 5th line from bottom, grammes to grains. 
 
 ' 203, 5th line from bottom, centimetres to inches. 
 
 " 210, 17th line, 8.95 to 8.92. 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
 THE METRIC FALLACt 
 
 Introduction 11 
 
 The Pro-Metric Argument 13 
 
 The Anti-Metric Argument 16 
 
 Errors of and Misrepresentations by the Metric Advocates ... 18 
 
 The Persistence of Old Units in German Textile Industries ... 24 
 
 The Persistence of Old Units in French Textile Industries ... 28 
 
 The General Persistence of Old Units in France ..... 33 
 
 The Persistence of Old Units in German Mechanical Industries . . 39 
 
 The Persistence of Old Units in Scandinavia 45 
 
 The Persistence of Old Units in Greece ....... 46 
 
 The Persistence of Old Units in Turkey 47 
 
 The Persistence of Old Units in the Treaty Ports of China ... 48 
 
 The Persistence of Old Units in Japan 49 
 
 The Persistence of Old Units in Egypt , 51 
 
 The Persistence of Old Units in the Philippine Islands . . . . 52 
 
 The Persistence of Old Units in Spain ' 53 
 
 The Persistence of Old Units in Mexico ....... 55 
 
 The Persistence of Old Units in Cuba 57 
 
 The Persistence of Old Units in Other Spanish-American Countries . 58 
 
 The Persistence of Old Units in Metric Countries Generally . . 60 
 
 Reasons for the Failure of Compulsory Laws ...... 76 
 
 Reasons for the Length of the Transition Period ... . . 78 
 
 Scientific and Industrial Measurements . . . i . . . . 81 
 
 Scientific and Industrial Difficulties . 85 
 
 The Adoption of the Metric System Necessitates Abandoning Mechanical 
 
 Standards 88 
 
 The Value of Mechanical Standards . . . . . 97 
 
 "The Government Will Pay the Cost" 101 
 
 The Inaccuracy of the Metre ^T03 
 
 The Abandoned Portions of the Metric System 105 
 
 The "Confusion" of Our Weights and Measures 108 
 
 The Complications Due to a Mixture of Units . . . . . 112 
 
 Examination of the Claims of Superiority for the Metric System . . 115 
 
 The Foreign Trade Argument 122 
 
 Analysis of the Bill 128 
 
 The Object of the Bill 132 
 
 Conclusion ... . . . 137 
 
 THE METRIC FAILURE IN THE TEXTILE INDUSTRY 
 
 The Metric Fallacy as to Textiles 141 
 
 Textile Weights and Measures 155 
 
 The Continental Chaos 167 
 
 The English and the Metric Systems Compared 197 
 
 Conclusion ............. 221 
 
 APPENDIX 
 
 Action of Various Associations on the Metric System Bill which was re- 
 ported favorably to the Fifty-seventh Congress .... 228 
 
THE METRIC FALLACY 
 
INTRODUCTION". 
 
 The English system of weights and measures is the exclusive 
 standard of all English-speaking countries, while the metric 
 system is the exclusive standard of no nation on earth. Anglo- 
 Saxon nations are blessed with substantial uniformity of weights 
 and measures, while others are cursed with a confusion that is a 
 reproach to their civilization. 
 
 The Anglo-Saxon nations are the only ones that have ever 
 dealt with the subject of weights and measures in a rational 
 manner. For centuries, while these matters were elsewhere 
 drifting into worse and worse confusion, England, by fostering 
 that process of development which has always characterized the 
 Anglo-Saxon race, was giving heed to the injunction, " Prove 
 all things, hold fast that which is good." The United States in 
 turn not by legislative interference, but by the spontaneous 
 action of the community has followed the same process and 
 eliminated some of the superfluous units which are still current 
 in England. 
 
 In no matter does the contrast between the Anglo-Saxon and 
 the Latin races show to better advantage or more characteristi- 
 cally than in this. In France the policy of drift had, at the time 
 of the Revolution, brought about a state of things which can 
 only be described as chaos, and in true French style the remedy 
 was sought not in evolution but in revolution, and the result 
 was the metric system. 
 
 The history of the system elsewhere is the same. Throughout 
 the German Empire and throughout Spanish-speaking countries 
 the same intolerable confusion reigned, and the same remedy was 
 sought. At its birth the offspring of revolution, it has remained 
 the foster child of force. While proclaiming it as the perfect 
 thing, its friends have relied not on its merits but have every- 
 where resorted to compulsion. In the United States they dis- 
 claim compulsion, it is true, but they have nevertheless intro- 
 duced in Congress a bill which is compulsory to the limit per- 
 mitted by the Constitution; while in England, Canada and 
 
12 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Australia, where such limitations do not exist, they urge compul- 
 sion without disguise. 
 
 Nowhere has the system made material progress in industry 
 except when backed by the policeman's club. For more than a 
 century it has been the pet of the legislator, and with the result 
 that in France to-day its most ardent advocates are calling for 
 more laws to compel its use by whole industries that do not, 
 and by the testimony of these same advocates will not, use it 
 unless compelled to do so. 
 
 With their system of weights and measures as a foundation, 
 the English-speaking peoples have built up the greatest commer- 
 cial and industrial structure the world has known. This system 
 they are asked to abandon for the benefit of others at a cost that 
 is beyond estimate, and for compensating advantages that to them- 
 selves are wholly trivial and imaginary. 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 industrial fabric in order that 
 they may assist in weaving another of alien origin and with no 
 resulting gain except to aliens. 
 
 We hear much of the unity of the Anglo-Saxon race unity in 
 language, in customs, in laws, in popular government, in progress, 
 in ideals, in civilization. In nothing is this unity more marked 
 than in weights and measures the foundation of that commercial 
 and industrial structure which others may imitate but cannot 
 copy. Representative of their historic methods of development, 
 foundation of their industrial life and bond of union between all 
 sections shall all these be destroyed for this French fad ? 
 
THE PEO-METKIC ARGUMENT. 
 
 The argument for the adoption of the metric system by the 
 American people is based upon the tacit assumption that they 
 can do it, and do it easily. The statements made at the hearings 
 of the House_Committee on Coinage, Weights and Measures of 
 the 57th Congress are sprinkled with opinions that the change 
 is an easy one, and that the period of transition will be short. 
 Thus Professor Elihu Thompson (page 2*) said: 
 
 " I think the government could begin right off and should give the 
 manufacturers about two years for preparation in getting their new 
 gauges and in making plans for new work in the metric system." 
 
 Mr. F. O. Blackwell (page 2) thought time should be allowed, 
 " say five or six years." Mr. E. M. Hewlett thought (page 3) 
 that " two or three years would be required for the change pro- 
 vided manufacturers from whom raw materials are obtained 
 cooperate." Mr. H. G. Reist (page 3) thought that " two to five 
 years time should be allowed for the change." Mr. Christie (page 
 8) thought that " perhaps a few years might occur before the 
 transformation was entirely effected." Mr. William Whitman 
 (page 17) said: 
 
 " I think at least two years' notice ought to be given * * * During 
 those two years there would be ample time for all the necessary prepara- 
 tion and discussion. * * * I do not apprehend any difficulty in bring- 
 ing about the change." 
 
 Dr. H. W. Wiley (page 52) said : 
 
 " If you can put it in here two or three years or four or five years 
 ahead, everybody can accommodate himself to that." 
 
 Mr. Jas. K. Taylor (page 58) said: 
 
 " I would strongly favor it except that I should say that there were 
 difficulties ahead for about two years." 
 
 * Unless otherwise specified or obvious from the context, all page refer- 
 ences in this book are to the pamphlet containing the statements made 
 before the House Committee on Coinage, Weights and Measures. 
 
THE METRIC FALLACY. 
 
 Mr. Bates, in questioning Mr. Bond (page 92), asked: 
 
 " During the period of transition can you not use interchangeable terms 
 for a year or two in both systems? " 
 
 Mr. G. L. Cabot, after stating that " in the case of Germany 
 and Austria only between two and three years were required to 
 make the complete change (page 135), added: 
 
 " It seems to me reasonable to suppose that in this country the change 
 could be made quite as speedily." 
 
 Professor Stratton, when addressing the Western Society of 
 Engineers in May, 1902, said: 
 
 " The experience of other countries has shown that the inconvenience 
 and expense has been greatly over-estimated." 
 
 Professor Simon Newcomb (page 72) said : 
 
 " My conclusion is that the system can be introduced with great ad- 
 vantage to all concerned, and if once introduced we will in five or ten 
 years be ready to wonder that we were ever willing to use any other 
 system." 
 
 At the discussion of the Mechanical Engineers * Mr. E. J. 
 Miller quoted Lord Kelvin thus: 
 
 " I believe that in a fortnight people would become so accustomed to 
 the perfect simplicity and easy working of the metrical system that they 
 will feel that instead of its being a labor to pass from one system to the 
 other it will be less than no labor." 
 
 The metric case is again based upon the convenient assumption 
 that the old units will disappear with the adoption of the system, 
 whatever that word may mean, whereas, as a matter of fact, in 
 no country of the world is the change complete nor is the end 
 in sight. 
 
 The pro-metric argument is, substantially, an a priori argu- 
 ment. The metric advocates adopt the methods of the old 
 philosophers 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. For instance, they tell us how easily 
 
 * This discussion of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers took 
 place at its meeting of December, 1902T~It will be referred to repeatedly 
 in these pages. 
 
THE METRIC FALLACY. 15 
 
 and how quickly this nation ought to make this change; I shall 
 show how slowly and laboriously France and Germany have made 
 the change. They will say that we ought to adopt this system 
 to please our foreign customers ; I shall show that our foreign cus- 
 tomers do not care one picayune whether we adopt it or not, and 
 I shall prove it by a flood of evidence. 
 
THE ANTI-METEIC ARGUMENT. 
 
 This book is an attempt to establish the following leading prop- 
 ositions : 
 
 1. That as shown by the experience of other countries, the 
 changing of a people's system of weights and measures is a task 
 of enormous difficulty, and is attended with wide-spread con- 
 fusion. A few general denials of the facts regarding the per- 
 sistence of old units in metric countries were made in the 
 discussion before the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 
 to wh'ich Society a portion of this volume was originally contrib- 
 uted as a paper; but the facts are overwhelming, and are of such 
 a nature that they scarcely admit of being answered. It may, 
 then, be considered as provep that with us, and especially without 
 general compulsory laws, which the metric advocates disclaim, 
 the change is impossible. 
 
 2. That the adoption of the metric system, meaning by that 
 term the retirement of the inch and the substitution therefor 
 of the millimetre, involves the destruction of all mechanical 
 standards. Mr. F. J. Miller, in the above mentioned discussion, 
 said that he did not believe this, and, no doubt, Mr. G. C. Hen- 
 ning considers his table of approximate equivalents* to apply 
 here; but there has been no effective rebuttal of the position 
 taken in the paper, which, therefore, I regard as established. 
 
 3. That the prosperity of foreign trade in nowise requires the 
 adoption of the system as a basis of manufacture.! With the 
 exception of a single reecho of the old assertions to the contrary 
 by one of Mr. Miller's correspondents, there was not in this whole 
 discussion a syllable of disproof of this contention, while the con- 
 firmation of it by the experience of machinery manufacturers is 
 overwhelming. This proposition may, therefore, be regarded as 
 not only proven, but as accepted by the metric advocates. 
 
 * Reproduced and discussed on a later page. 
 
 fThis is not to be understood as referring to its use in commercial 
 literature and correspondence. It is the commonest of common sense to 
 say that commercial information for metric countries should be given in 
 metric units. 
 
THE METRIC FALLACY. 17 
 
 4. That the bill now before Congress is a compulsory measure, 
 so far as it relates to those who do business with any of the depart- 
 ments of the government. No reply was made to this, in the 
 above-mentioned discussion, and, indeed, its truth was virtually 
 admitted by Mr. Southard.* It therefore may be regarded as 
 established. 
 
 5. That the metric system has for industrial 'purposes no such 
 superiority as is claimed, and that the claims for the saving of 
 time in calculations and in the school life of children are com- 
 pletely negatived by the certainty that, here as elsewhere, the old 
 units will persist in use and must be learned. This again was sub- 
 stantially ignored in the discussion of the Mechanical Engineers 
 and may be regarded as proven. 
 
 6. That the confusion which is said to prevail in our weights 
 and measures is a fiction. 
 
 7. That, measured by the number of units in common use, and 
 by their uniform value in all sections and all industries, we have 
 the simplest and the most uniform system of weights and meas- 
 ures of any country in the world. 
 
 * Chairman of the House Committee on Coinage, Weights and Measures 
 of the 57th Congress. 
 
EKKOKS OF AND MISEEPEESENTATIONS BY THE 
 METKIC ADVOCATES. 
 
 In their efforts to show how easily the metric system may be 
 adopted by this country, the metric advocates endeavor to create 
 the impression that it has already made considerable progress. 
 Thus Mr. Stratton, Director of the National Bureau of Stand- 
 ards, stated at the hearings of the House Committee, that the 
 Carnegie Steel Company were about to issue a metric edition of 
 their hand-book. I quote here because this is too important to be 
 treated in any other way. In questioning Mr. Linnard Mr. 
 Stratton said (page 182) : " And that the Carnegie people are 
 about to issue a hand-book in which all the formulae are printed 
 in the metric system ? Has that been called to your attention ? " 
 
 Following is an extract from a letter by the Carnegie Steel 
 Company : 
 
 " In reply to your inquiry, we beg to advise that we have not issued a 
 hand-book containing formulae according to the metric system, and have no 
 present expectation of doing so." 
 
 Mr. Stratton repeated this statement before the Western So- 
 ciety of Engineers,* and with it made another, his words being as 
 follows : " The National Tube Works has one of its largest mills 
 fitted up for the system. The Carnegie people are getting out 
 their hand-book in the metric system. 7 ' 
 
 Following is a letter from Mr. P. C. Patterson, Mechanical 
 Engineer of the National Tube Company : 
 
 " I find the following conditions prevailing in regard to the use of the 
 metric system in this company's business: 
 
 " Lap-welded pipe for foreign countries using the metric system is made 
 to either the American or English standard. Special lap-welded goods 
 ordered to metric measurements are made to the nearest fraction of an 
 inch, no attempt being made to get closer that within i^-inch of the 
 dimension called for. 
 
 * See Journal of the Western Society of Engineers, August, 1902, page 
 344. 
 
THE METRIC FALLACY. 19 
 
 '' Seamless tubes are made to exact metric measurements when ordered 
 by metric measurements." 
 
 In a more recent letter Mr. Patterson says : 
 
 " This company is not in favor of any movement looKing toward a 
 radical change in the standard of measurements." 
 
 On page 11 will be found the following dialogue : 
 
 Mr. Shaffroth. Do the jewellers use the metric system in France? 
 Mr. Troemner. In France? Oh, yes. 
 
 Mr. Shaffroth. And wherever the metric system is adopted? 
 Mr. Troemner. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Shaffroth. Wherever the metric system is adopted and is in prac- 
 tical operation is there any other system at all used? 
 Mr. Troemner. None that I know of. 
 
 While more will follow later, the following extract from a 
 letter by Tiffany & Company will supply Mr. Troemner with the 
 information which he now lacks : 
 
 "In reply to your letter, which we referred to our Mr. Kunz, we beg to 
 state that the carat is the standard of weight for gems all over the world." 
 
 The above letter was written in reply to the categorical ques- 
 tion : Do French and German jewellers use the gram or the carat 
 in weighing diamonds? 
 
 At the hearings of the House Committee Mr. William Whit- 
 man said (page 17) : 
 
 " On behalf of the New England Cotton Manufacturers Association, of 
 which Mr. Charles H. Fitch is president and Mr. C. J. H. Woodbury is the 
 secretary, I recommend the adoption of the system." 
 
 The assertion that the New England Cotton Manufacturers' 
 Association has endorsed the system appears a second time on 
 page 203 of the pamphlet containing the proceedings of the House 
 Committee, and it has, in fact, been repeated far and wide. Thus 
 at the discussion of the Mechanical Engineers, Professor W. W. 
 Crosby said: 
 
 " The New England Cotton Manufacturers' Association is on record as 
 favoring the international standard (the base is the metric system), for 
 numbering yarns." 
 
 Following is a letter from Mr. C. J. H. Woodbury, secretary 
 of this association, to Mr. S. S. Dale : 
 
 " In reply to your inquiry of the 6th inst., I would say that the Asso- 
 ciation never committed itself to the metric system of measuring yarn." 
 
20 THE METRIC FALLACY. 
 
 At the hearings of the House Committee Dr. A. E. Kennelly 
 (page 13) stated that, 
 
 " The system we use has about 64 units. The metric employs 5 or 6." * 
 
 By the report of the bi-partisan committee of the American 
 , Society of Mechanical Engineers it will be seen that according 
 to the count of the anti-metric members the units in common use 
 in this country number but 19, while those in common use in 
 metric countries number 30. Many of our supposed units are 
 obsolete and exist in school books only.f Others are obsolescent, 
 and still others (like the apothecary's weights) are of such special 
 use as to be of no importance to the public at large. 
 
 A favorite diversion of the metric advocates is to represent the 
 famous report of John Quincy Adams as strongly pro-metric. 
 Thus Mr. Tittman (page 32) said : " Mr. John Quincy Adams, who 
 gave four years to the preparation of his report, speaking in the 
 most glowing terms of the metric system, said that if it could only 
 be adopted it would be an ideal one/ 7 Again in the report of the 
 House Committee + appears the following : 
 
 " He [J. Q. A.], however, advised delay until the metric or international system, 
 which was then in its infancy, had been more fully tried, and to which he referred 
 in a most glowing tribute as possessing all the requisites of a simple, uniform, 
 and workable system of weights and measures." 
 
 Following are a few extracts from Mr. Adams' report : 
 
 "The metrology of France is a new and complicated machine, formed upon 
 principles of mathematical precision, the adaptation of which to the uses for which 
 
 * While this statement came from Dr. Kennelly he should not be held 
 responsible for it. This number 64 has become a classic in pro-metric 
 literature. 
 
 t For example the league, the furlong, the barleycorn, the rood, the 
 chaldron, the quarter, the sack, the dry gallon. 
 
 | This report may be found in full in the Journal of the Western Society of 
 Engineers for August, 1902. The present quotation is from page 351. 
 
 This famous paper is not out of date nor will it ever be. It may be found 
 in The Metric System, by Charles Davies, to which the page numbers refer, a 
 book which is out of print and scarce. The quotations in the text were obtained 
 from a copy in the Boston Public Library: 
 
 The book by Professor Davies (he of the mathematical text books of a gener- 
 ation ago) is the report of himself and Robt. S. Hale as a committee of the Uni- 
 versity Convocation of the State of New York. It gives the conclusions of an 
 investigation made at the request of Hon. J. A. Kasson, Chairman of the House 
 Committee on Coinage, Weights and Measures in 1866. In the' cases of Messrs. 
 Davies and Hale, it is to be noted also that they began the investigation as metric 
 
THE METRIC FALLACY. 21 
 
 it was devised is yet problematical and abiding, with questionable success, the 
 test of experiment." (Page 178.) 
 
 " The decimal numbers applied to the French weights and measures form one 
 of its highest theoretic excellences. It has, however, been proved by the most 
 decisive experience in France that they are not adequate to the wants of man in 
 society." (Page 197.) 
 
 " This illustration * * * will disclose to our view the causes which limit the 
 exclusive application of decimal arithmetic to numbers, and admit only a par- 
 tial and qualified application of them to weight and measure." (Page 198.) 
 
 "Thus, then, it has been proved by the test of experience that the principle 
 of decimal divisions can be applied only with many qualifications to any general 
 system of metrology ; that its natural application is only to numbers ; and that 
 time, space, gravity, and extension inflexibly reject its sway." (Page 202.) 
 
 " Nature has no partialities for the number ten, and the attempt to shackle her 
 freedom with them (sic) will forever prove abortive." (Page 204.) 
 
 * * * As this system is yet new, imperfect, susceptible of great improve- 
 ment, and struggling for existence even in the country which gave it birth* 
 * * * " (Page 217.) 
 
 "But were the authority of Congress unquestionable * * * it is believed 
 that the French system has not yet attained that perfection which would justify 
 so extraordinary an effort of legislative power at this time." (Page 268). 
 
 " For all the professions concerned in ship or house building and for all who 
 have occasion to use mathematical instruments it [the metre] is quite unsuitable 
 * * * This inconvenience, great in itself, is made irreparable when combined 
 with the exclusive principle of decimal divisions. * * * This decimal 
 despotism was found too arbitrary for endurance. * * * The choice of the 
 kilogram or cubical decimetre of distilled water as the single standard unit of 
 weight with the application to it of the decimal divisions was followed by similar 
 inconveniences * * * But on the other hand, decimal divisions are still more 
 inapplicable to measures of capacity for liquids than to linear measures or 
 weights." (Pages 199, 200, 201.) 
 
 Mr. Adams had great admiration for the conception and for 
 the efforts of the French Government in its endeavor to establish a 
 universal system of weights and measures. There are also in the 
 report expressions of approbation for the system which certainly 
 do not seem to be consistent with the above citations, but that the 
 report as a whole can be considered as an endorsement of the sys- 
 tem in " glowing " or any other terms is simply not so. 
 
 What is now the chief argument against the adoption of the 
 system the anchoring of existing units in manufacturing in- 
 
 advocates and finished it as metric opponents. Could these reports be circulated 
 as they deserve to be, the metric agitation would die a natural death. 
 
 * Note the words " struggling for existence " after twenty-seven years of " the 
 most stupendous and systematic effort ever made by a nation to introduce uni- 
 formity in their weights and measures." (Mr. Adams, page 174.) And yet the 
 metric advocates represent Mr. Adams as endorsing the system in " the most 
 glowing terms " and profess to believe that we can make this great change in 
 from three to five years. 
 
22 THE METRIC FALLACY. 
 
 dustry is chiefly a growth since Mr. Adams' time ; but, never- 
 theless, he saw clearly the difficulty of the change, and much of 
 his report is devoted to this as distinguished from his strictly 
 judicial analysis of the merits and demerits of the system. To 
 illustrate this difficulty he (page 150) draws a striking picture of 
 the then far from complete adoption of our system of currency 
 (already thirty years old), and on page 149 he refers to a change 
 of this kind as " a revolution by all experience known to be in- 
 finitely more easy to accomplish than that of weights and meas- 
 ures." 
 
 In the English brochure, The Coming of the Kilogram, by Mr. 
 H. O. Arnold-Foster, the following may be found : 
 
 " There are now no longer a great number of sets of weights and 
 measures in use among the civilized peoples of Europe; there are really 
 for all useful purposes two only. These are the weights and measures 
 used by the people of the United Kingdom on the one hand and the 
 weights and measures used by all the other civilized people of Europe 
 on the other. 
 
 " We may travel from end to end of the great German Empire and in 
 very part of it we shall find * * * the same weights and measures 
 used in all the factories." 
 
 In the pamphlet containing the statements of those who ap- 
 peared before the House Committee on Coinage, Weights and 
 Measures, the following statement and table appear in an 
 appendix on page 204: 
 
 The metric system has been adopted by the following countries: 
 
 Argentina. Germany. 
 
 Austria-Hungary and territories. Greece. 
 
 Belgium. Gautemala (Republic of). 
 Bolivia, Haiti. 
 
 Brazil (Republic of). Holland and dependencies. 
 
 Bulgaria. Honduras. 
 
 (Central America.) Italy and dependencies. 
 
 China (28 ports). Japan. 
 
 Chile. Java. 
 
 Colombia. Mauritius and dependencies. 
 
 Costa Rica. Mexico. 
 
 Cuba. Nicaraugua. 
 
 Ecuador. Norway and Sweden. 
 
 Egypt. Ottoman Empire. 
 
 Finland (Grand Duchy of). Peru. 
 
 France. Philippines. 
 
 French Colonies including Mada- Porto Rico. 
 
 gascar. Portugal, Azores, and Madeira. 
 
THE METRIC FALLACY. 23 
 
 Roumania. Spain and colonies. 
 
 Russia. Switzerland. 
 
 Salvador. Uruguay. 
 
 San Domingo (Republic of). Forty-three countries. 
 
 Servia. 
 
 The series of questions sent to manufacturers by the Franklin 
 Institute in a circular letter dated October, 1902, contains the 
 following (italics mine) : 
 
 In view of the fact that the following countries officially and customarily 
 employ the metric system of weights and measures, namely, France, Ger- 
 many, Austria-Hungary, Norway and Sweden, Grand Duchy of Finland, 
 Holland, Belgium, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Servia, Roumania, 
 Bulgaria, Greece, the Ottoman Empire, Japan, China (28 ports), Egypt, 
 Mexico, the Central American and South American Countries, the depend- 
 encies of the above-mentioned countries and the Latin acquisitions of the 
 United States, do you not consider that it would be desirable to adopt the 
 metric system in the United States with a view to bringing about inter- 
 national uniformity in weights and measures? 
 
 The preamble of the resolutions passed by the Engineers' 
 Society of Western Pennsylvania contains the following: 
 
 " Whereas the metric system has been adopted by all except two of the 
 civilized nations of the world." 
 
 The* report of the House Committee on Coinage, Weights and 
 Measures by which the pending bill was recommended to passage 
 contains the words : 
 
 " It is now used by about two-thirds of the people of the world." . 
 
 No man living or dead has even seen the first scintilla of evi- 
 dence that these statements are true. They have no foundation 
 in fact, and no foundation of any kind except simple assumption 
 combined with credulous willingness to believe anything what- 
 ever favorable to the system. Having made the initial assump- 
 tion that this change is an easy one, the metric advocates follow 
 it by another that it has been accomplished in all countries 
 which have passed any kind of a law favorable to the system. 
 How far from true this assumption is will appear from the suc- 
 ceeding sections. 
 
THE PERSISTENCE OF OLD UNITS IN GERMAN 
 TEXTILE INDUSTRIES. 
 
 The testimony before the House committee is sprinkled with 
 opinions that this great change can be made in from three to five 
 years (Mr. Bates, page 92, seems to think " a year or two " will 
 be sufficient). In this matter we do not, however, need to re- 
 gard opinions at all, but may apply the scientific method at once 
 and consult the facts. 
 
 At the discussion of the Mechanical Engineers there was ex- 
 hibited a collection of French and German books from the 
 library of the Textile World. These books present a condition 
 of things which is absolutely startling. As instructive as any is 
 a little German book of 105 pages, " Kalkulator fur Artikel der 
 Textilbranche " (Calculator for Articles in the Textile Industries), 
 by Friedrich Frowein, third edition, 1901. The object of this 
 book is to give a simplified system of calculating for textile fabrics, 
 and it discloses a condition of things in German-speaking Europe 
 compared with which our own is simple indeed. This condition 
 is due to the fact that there are still in use nine different ells in 
 addition to the metre and the English yard. These ells are divided 
 into inches, an inch ranging all the way between ^V and 3^- of an 
 ell, and such extraordinary ratios as these being still in use : 
 
 Prussian ell 25J inches. 
 
 Wurtemberg ell 34 J inches. 
 
 Vienna ell 29J inches. 
 
 In brief the book shows that there is still in use in German 
 textile mills an absolute medley of ells, inches, yards, metres, kilo- 
 grams, and pounds, combined with a vast number of systems of 
 yarn numbering based upon these different units of length and 
 weight, while towering above all these systems of yarn numbering 
 are found the English yard and pound in all branches except the 
 silk industry, in which the metric system cuts a very small figure. 
 
 In the Textile World for October, 1902, is an article into 
 which has been lifted bodily the following specimen of Frowein's 
 simplified calculations of the cost of a piece of worsted cloth : 
 
THE METRIC FALLACY. 25 
 
 Kalkulation. 
 
 Ein Stiick einen Meter breit und hundert Meier fang. 
 
 K e 1 1 e per cm 24 Faden 48r_\yeft IDouble). 
 Einschuss per cm 28 5chuss~jWr_^Smgle_Weft (einfach). 
 Kieth (Blalt) per cm 12 Rohr 2fadig. 
 
 E nglische _We ife. 
 K e 1 1 e 18x Weft A~100 Meter 3 3 / 4 Gr. 
 
 2400 Faden = 240000 Meter = = 9000 Gr. 
 
 Verschmalerung 4 %, 96 Faden = 9600 Meter = 360 . = 9360 Gr. 
 Einkreuzcn 8% = 19968 Meter 749 , 
 
 10109 Gr. 
 
 Stoft_per_engl._Pd. Mk. 3.- 
 Farbrn", " . -.20 
 
 1_engl._P_fd. Mk. 3.20, daher obige 10109Gr. Mix. 71,89 
 
 Einschuss: fOj^Sjnglc. Weft a 100 Meter 2V 4 Gr. 
 28 Schuss per cm = 280000 Meter = 6300 Gr. 
 Einkreuzen 2% 5600 Meter = 126 , = 6426 Gr. 
 
 toff cr_engl.. Pfd. Mk. 2. 
 'aTben , ," -.20 
 
 1 engl^PW. Mk. 2.20, daher obige 6426 Gr. 31.42 
 
 Mk. 10331 
 
 Verlust 6 % 6.20 
 
 Mk. 109.51 
 
 Fingirter Satz iehe erste Kalkulation 50 % 54.76 
 
 Mk. 164.27 
 
 Spesen und Zinsen 10 % 16.43 
 
 Herstellungskosten Mk. 1JJ0.70 
 
 Zu obigem Stuck sind erforderlich : 
 
 Kette 269568 Meter = 294933. Yards_4_56p_Yards 1 Zahl_^_526j/, Zajilen 
 Einschuss 285600 , =312473 a 560 "" 1 " " =558 
 
 A GERMAN ESTIMATE OP COST OP A WORSTED FABRIC AT THE PRESENT TIME. 
 THE ENGLISH STANDARDS ARE MARKED WITH DOTTED LINES. 
 
 Mr. Dale describes the operations performed in this illustration 
 thus: 
 
 " The raw material is purchased by the English pound. The finished goods are 
 sold by the French metre. The yarn counts are English, while the length and 
 width of the finished goods are metric. The length of the yarn is expressed in 
 metres, while the counts are English, based upon the yard and the pound. 
 From this hodgepodge the weight of the yarn is calculated in grams, which is 
 extended by another arithmetical somersault at a price given in marks per 
 English pound, and to cap the climax the total length of the yarn in metres 
 is reduced to English yards and then to English skeins of 560 yards each. 
 
 "There is no theory here. This estimate is an example of German practice at 
 this moment, and yet men can be found who say that the metric system was 
 adopted in Germany in two years without inconvenience, some asserting they 
 were present when the trick was done ; and stranger still, other meu can be found 
 who believe it." 
 
26 THE METRIC FALLACY. 
 
 Note that this example is relatively a simple one, because it 
 contains none of the ells nor inches, but relates to yards, metres, 
 pounds, and grams only. It hence represents exactly the condi- 
 tion which the adoption of the metric system would bring about in 
 our own mills. 
 
 A second German book is " Garn-Nummerirungen, Haspe- 
 lungen und Vergleichende oder Umrechnungstabellen " (Yarn 
 Numbering, Keeling, and Comparative Reckoning Tables), by 
 Heinrich Kutzer, 1901. This book contains a great number of 
 tables for comparing and reducing the numerous units of length 
 and weight, and is of wider scope, geographically, than the first one 
 cited. It shows that 21 ells are in use in European countries in 
 which the metric system is nominally established. 
 
 A third German book is " Methodik der Bindungslehre und De- 
 composition f iir Schaf tweberei " (A System of Weaves and Analy- 
 sis for Harness Weaving), by Franz Donant, 1901. This con- 
 tains an explanation of the various systems of yarn numbering 
 used in German-speaking countries. It is chiefly significant be- 
 cause of the order in which these systems occur, as the English 
 system heads every list except the last, in which there is no Eng- 
 lish system. Following are the lists : 
 
 Cotton English, French, metric (note the French}. 
 
 Linen English, Austrian (no metric). 
 
 Jute English only. 
 
 Worsted English, metric. 
 
 Woollen English, Austrian, Prussian, Saxon, metric. 
 
 Silk Milan, Turin, Lyons, metric. 
 
 11. A fourth German book is " Mechanische Technologie der 
 Weberei " (Mechanical Technology of Weaving), by G. Herman 
 Oelsner, eighth edition, 1902. 
 
 This is an elaborate and beautifully printed treatise of 942 
 pages. In it page after page is devoted to conversion tables 
 giving metric equivalents of Rhenish, Leipsic, and English inches, 
 as well as of Leipsic and Berlin ells and of English yards. 
 
 On page 130 may be found the metric equivalents of the follow- 
 ing ells: Prussian, Saxon, Brabant, Bavarian, Wurtemberg, Baden, 
 Vienna, English, Danish, Swedish, Russian. On page 74 he refers 
 to the Cockerill system of yarn numbering used in Belgium, and 
 which is based OR the length of 2,240 Berlin ells. 
 ' On page 75 he refers to six systems of numbering for carded 
 
THE METRIC FALLACY. 
 
 woollen yarn as follows: Prussian, Saxon, Austrian, English, El- 
 bceuf, Sedan. 
 
 On page 121 are some striking illustrations of the annihilation 
 of vulgar fractions by the metric system. In a table giving the 
 number of threads per French inch and per centimetre the follow- 
 ing mixed numbers occur in the first line: ll-j^V, 31^, 24|j>f, 67/g 
 A footnote to this page states that the French inch is used for 
 gauging the set of fabrics in Switzerland. 
 
 In this connection I clip (italics mine) the following from the 
 Textile World for September, 1902 : 
 
 " A writer in the Leipziger Monatschrift fuer Textil-Industrie expresses his con- 
 viction that German cotton manufacturers must abandon the hope of driving 
 from that country the English system of yarn numbering. This view has been 
 strengthened, undoubtedly, by the action of the tariff committee of the Reichstag, 
 which, owing to the strong opposition of German mill owners, has rejected the 
 proposal to compel the exclusive use of the metric system for yarn, and has ar- 
 ranged the yarn .schedules in the new tariff bill in accordance with the English 
 counts, thus continuing the official German sanction of the English system." 
 
 The English system of yarn counts carries with it the yard and 
 the pound, and this recognition of them is an official confession 
 that twenty-eight years of effort to introduce the metre and the 
 kilogram as a basis of yarn counts has resulted in failure. 
 
 I also give without comment, except italics, the following from 
 Wochenberichte Handelsblatt der Leipziger Monatschrift fuer 
 Textil-Industrie^ July 16, 1902: 
 
 " At the session of the [German] Tariff Commission on the 24th of June, the 
 question came up regarding the employment of the metric system for cotton 
 yarn. According to one delegate, Muench-Ferber, who is also a partner in a 
 woollen and cotton weaving mill, ' the use of the metric system for yarn would 
 lead to ungodly disorder (heillose Verwirrung) in the domestic weaving in- 
 dustry, since our machines are constructed for the use of the English numbers.' " 
 
THE PERSISTENCE OF OLD UNITS IN FRENCH 
 TEXTILE INDUSTRIES. 
 
 In France the condition is, if possible, still worse. Illustrat- 
 ing this may be cited " Traite Theoretique et Pratique de Tissage " 
 (Theoretical and Practical Treatise on Weaving), by Paul Lamoi- 
 tier, 1900. This is a standard French work on textiles of 573 
 pages. On page 27 may be seen a comparative yarn table giv- 
 ing equivalents of the following systems of yarn counting, which 
 are thus compared because they are still in use : 
 
 Worsted Metric, Roubaix, Reims, Fourmies, English, Ger- 
 man. 
 
 On page 52 is a similar table for 
 
 Silk Lyons, Italian, metric. 
 
 On page 60 is a table for 
 
 Cotton English, French, metric (note the French again). 
 
 On page 63 is an illuminating sentence. Opening a section on 
 yarn numbering for linen, hemp, and jute is this sentence : " On 
 emploie le titrage anglais " (We use the English system of num- 
 bering yarn). Following this comes the following beautiful ex- 
 ample of how the decimal system has swept all before it in France : 
 
 "The lea is 300 yards, or 274.2 metres; 12 leas make a skein of 3,600 yards; 
 100 skeins a bundle of 360,000 yards." 
 
 On page 88 the author gives a table showing the weight of 
 weft or filling for one metre of worsted cloth by the Fourmies 
 (an old French) system, and on page 87 states that " this table 
 is given because the Fourmies is used to a greater extent than 
 any other system of yarn numbering for worsted." 
 
 In the early part of the book, on page 24, the following may 
 be seen: 
 
 " We shall further on study the counts of silk, cotton, linen, etc. We regret 
 extremely these anomalies which obstruct business, lead to serious errors, and 
 wantonly complicate all calculations." 
 
 Perhaps the most curious example of all in the French textile 
 industries is the count of the weft threads in the fabric the 
 
THE METRIC FALLACY. 29 
 
 number of " picks " of the loom. Here, if anywhere, it would 
 seem to be easy to introduce the centimetre, but nevertheless the 
 French weaver counts his picks by the inch (pouce), and (save 
 the mark!) 37 French inches equal 1 metre. On page 90 of the 
 book under notice is the following: 
 
 "The filling is ordinarily reckoned arbitrarily by the quarter inch, and it is 
 necessary, before the calculation of a fabric, to convert the picks per quarter inch 
 into picks per centimetre. There are 148 quarters of an inch in a metre; 1 centi- 
 metre is equal to 1.48 quarters of an inch; 5 picks per quarter inch are equal to 
 7 1*0 picks per centimetre." 
 
 In U Industrie Textile, the leading French textile journal, for 
 August. 15, 1902, is a four-page description of a new worsted-spin- 
 ning frame, and an account of a test of it. At the conclusion of 
 the mechanical description the capacity of the machine is given for 
 different sizes of yarn. These sizes are given in the Roubaix sys- 
 tem, under which the test was made, which figures are then trans- 
 lated into the metric system. 
 
 It is wholly impossible in a few paragraphs to even indicate 
 the confusion and complexity which are shown by these books to 
 prevail in the weights and measures of metric Europe. The 
 complications introduced by them into textile calculations are 
 beyond belief. 
 
 In these books are pages after pages of conversion tables be- 
 tween the various ells and between the ells and the yard and 
 metre, added to which are conversion formulas making a total 
 which is fairly maddening. These comparative calculations and 
 reductions are an essential part of all French and German textile 
 literature. A French or German work on textiles dealing with 
 metric weights and measures alone would be worthless to 99 per 
 cent, of the French and German textile industry. Note that all 
 looks cited are modern. 
 
 They are but a small portion of those in the possession of the 
 Textile World, the whole collection offering, in fact, an em- 
 barrassment of illustrative material. 
 
 A concise statement of present-day French practice from" a 
 recognized French authority will, no doubt, be considered by some 
 to possess greater weight than the most obvious deductions from 
 books, and, very opportunely, M. Paul Lamoitier, the author of 
 the book last above cited, publishes a leading article on " The Uni- 
 fication of Yarn Numbering " in U Industrie Textile for October 
 15, 1902, of which journal he is, I believe, the associate editor. 
 
30 THE METRIC FALLACY. 
 
 From advance sheets of the Textile World for December I make 
 the following extracts from a translation of this article : 
 
 " It is absolutely unworthy of us French who were the first to find and apply 
 the metric system to retain the aune and the denier for measuring silk. Ah ! these 
 Americans are not considerate of our feelings and they are right. We are as 
 much in the anarchy of weights and measures for the textile industry as at the 
 time of the Revolution, for we have the denier of Montpel-ier and of Milan, for silk, 
 with the aune as a unit of length. We still have the diverse standards of Roubaix, 
 Fourmies and Reims for worsted, the moque of Sedan, the lime, the quart and the 
 sows of Elboeuf , the yard for linen, etc. Ah ! the famous aune, do you know its 
 equivalent? Exactly 3 feet 7 inches 10 lines and 10 points, or in other words, 
 1.188447 metres, the foot being equal to .324839 metres and divided into 12 inches, 
 the inch into 12 lines and the line into 12 points. [The foot and inch referred to 
 here are obviously the French foot and inch.] 
 
 "The yarn count in the north of France is a length and in the centre, a weight. 
 I will take my oath that the manufacturer of Rouen, if he has not studied each 
 section separately, has no idea what is the standard of Reims or the denier 
 of Lyons or Milan. And on the other hand, the manufacturers of Reims and 
 Lyons are likewise puzzled in making comparisons of the diverse numberings of 
 the diverse materials. 
 
 "And this is the reason why they are right in mocking us when they say we do 
 not use the metric system for numbering yarn and for weaving calculations. 
 Nothing is more arbitrary than to reckon the yarn by the thousand metrss and 
 the width of the cloth and the picks of the filling by the inch. It is nonsense and 
 a derision. Note also that, while I speak here only of France, I could say as 
 much of all Europe." 
 
 Later in the article the author calls for a compulsory law to com- 
 pel the use of the metric system in French textile industries, and 
 adds: 
 
 " The advantages? It would put a stop to the chaos which the Americans ridi- 
 cule. * '* * In short, they would not ridicule us any more. It is not pleas- 
 ant to be thus continually ridiculed by foreigners, especially when they have good 
 reason for doing so. * * * In the face of foreign sarcasm it [the metric sys- 
 tem of yarn numbering] should be established at the earliest possible moment." 
 
 In the November issue of U Industrie Textile, M. Lamoitier 
 has another article in which he points out an " annoying anomaly," 
 namely, the fact that French loom widths are expressed in quarter 
 yards.' Eef erring to the results of a change in these widths to 
 metric dimensions he adds (italics mine) : 
 
 " We have now a confusion which will spread throughout the world and increase 
 with the general adoption of the metric system." 
 
 The references to American criticism of French practice in the 
 
THE METRIC FALLACY. 31 
 
 above relate to articles in recent issues of the Textile World. The 
 anti-metric fight which Mr. Dale has conducted in the columns 
 of that journal, as well as his assistance in the preparation of this 
 paper, deserves all the recognition which I can give. 
 
 At this point it is interesting to quote the testimony of Dr. 
 Wiley (page 51): "There is only one great objection to the 
 metric system, and that is, it is going to weaken our mathemati- 
 cal abilities, because we will not have this immense practice in 
 computation which we have to have now." The system seems 
 not to have had that effect in France and Germany. 
 
 In the simplicity and uniformity of its weights and measures 
 this country is fortunate beyond comparison with Continental 
 Europe. 
 
 The meaning of all this, and the lesson to be learned from it, 
 is not, however, that the textile industries of France and Ger- 
 many are infinitely worse off than our own as regards their sys- 
 tems of weights and measures, nor that their textile calculations 
 are infinitely more laborious than ours (both of which, however, 
 are facts), but that twenty-eight years after the compulsory adop- 
 tion of the metric system in Germany the old units still persist to 
 an extent calling for such books, and that, in France, a hundred 
 years of time, national pride, and a despotic government com- 
 bined have not succeeded in killing the old units. The only 
 effect of the adoption of the metric system in both of these coun- 
 tries has been to add a new set of units to the old ones. Shall 
 history repeat itself here? 
 
 If the reader wishes further confirmation of these facts, he 
 may find it in the " Report of the International Congress for the 
 Unification of the Numbering of Yarn," held at the Paris Exposi- 
 tion of 1900. From Mr. C. J. H. Woodbury's translation I make 
 the following, extracts : 
 
 M. De Pacher " believed that the numbering of yarns could not be introduced 
 in every country except by the authority of a law positively ordering its use to 
 take place on a certain date for all textile industry and for all commerce in every 
 kind of yarn. The change would be made by a law, or it would not be made at 
 all. He was convinced that the spinners who commenced to wind and to number 
 their products according to the resolutions of the Congress before a law should be 
 enacted to forbid the sale of yarns wound and numbered according to the old way, 
 would probably keep their yarns and would be obliged to sell at a loss." 
 
 Note the agreement of this speaker with M. Lamoitier, that 
 after 110 years of the metric system in France more compulsory 
 law is needed. 
 
32 THE METRIC FALLACY. 
 
 Said the Corresponding Secretary of the Congress, M. Ferdi- 
 nand Roy (italics mine) : 
 
 At present, one of the arguments of the English Government is this : the inter- 
 national commerce is carried on under the English numbering and this proves 
 how much this numbering has entered into the customs so that even in certain 
 countries where the metric system is obligatory, the custom tariffs are established for 
 yarns according to the English numbering. * * * For raw and finished silk, 
 France has maintained up to the present time the old standard; the grain or 
 denier (a copper coin weighing 1 grammes) being the unit of weight and the ell 
 being the unit of length. The legal standard indicated by the law of June 13, 
 1866, and expressing the weight in grammes of a small skein of 500 metres has 
 never been adopted by commerce. 
 
 Said M. Edouard Simon, Secretary of the Commission of Organi- 
 zation (italics mine) : 
 
 "We have thought that there would also be an opportunity to modify, in con- 
 'ormity with the conclusions of the former Congresses, the French law of June 13, 
 1866, in accordance with which the standard of silk is represented by the mean 
 weight expressed in grammes of a small skein of 500 metres, the sample being 
 made upon 20 small skeins of the same length. 
 
 '' This legal standard has remained a dead letter." 
 
 Contrast this experience with the expectations of the pro- 
 metric witnesses before the House Committee on Coinage, Weights 
 and Measures, that our law will effect the transformation in from 
 three to five years. 
 
 The secretary also read from a former opinion of M. De Pacher, 
 as follows : 
 
 " It is certain that yarns divided and numbered after the metric system will be 
 unsalable in the greater part of European markets as long as it is permissible to 
 buy or sell yarns divided according to the old systems to which many generations 
 have been accustomed." 
 
 Said the English delegate, Mr. Brigstocke : 
 
 " The international unification of the numbering of yarns based on the metric 
 system, according to the opinion of the English Government, is not, under the 
 present circumstances, acceptable with us, and I should add that this opinion is 
 participated in almost unanimously by the English spinners themselves." 
 
 Contrast this with the opinion of so many (including Lord 
 Kelvin), that if we will only jump into this bottomless pit England 
 \vill be sure to follow. 
 
THE GENERAL PERSISTENCE OF OLD UNITS IN 
 
 FRANCE. 
 
 From M. Laurence V. Benet, artillery engineer for Hotch- 
 kiss & Cie., of Paris, I have the following: 
 
 " Outside of Paris, and the other large cities in France, the trades-people * con- 
 sistently violate the law by using the old measures, the only exception being the 
 locksmiths, bellhangers, etc. 
 
 " My experience has been, that every Frenchman, when questioned, will start 
 out by saying that the metric system is universally used, and is giving perfect 
 satisfaction, but when pressed closely will readily admit that among the lower 
 classes, the old weights and measures still persist." 
 
 From M. L. H. de 'L'Espee, a French mining engineer and be- 
 liever in the metric system who is now connected with the National 
 Association of Manufacturers, I have the following : 
 
 " Of course, there is everywhere to be found a spirit of routine, 
 and perhaps stronger in France than anywhere else. People who 
 have been used to certain standards during their whole life, are 
 not willing to change them at once. There is no doubt that old 
 measuring standards are still largely in use in many parts of 
 France. 
 
 " In the matter of length measurements, the size of a man will 
 be expressed in pieds (feet) of tener than in metres, in the familiar 
 language. The aune (1.20 metre) is still often used in measuring 
 dry goods, in some provinces. The lieue (league) of 4 kilometres is 
 often spoken of in computing distances. As to the mille marin or 
 noeud (knot), the predominance of England in all matters per- 
 taining to navigation is sufficient explanation for its retention in 
 naval vocabulary. 
 
 " In the matter of area measurements, the arpent, equal to about 
 ^ hectare, is still largely used. However, its value is variable in 
 the different provinces, which goes to show the usefulness of the 
 hectare provided by the metric system. In Lorraine, the jour (one 
 man's day work) is still the predominant unit in farm measure- 
 ments. 
 
 * I infer that this word refers to mechanics and not to merchants. 
 
34 THE METRIC FALLACY. 
 
 " For grain measurement, the bushel (boisseau) is still used in 
 many provinces. For liquid measurements, there is still an endless 
 variety of standards, the piece of 228 litres and the tonneau of 
 4 pieces in the Bordeaux region ; the f euillette of 105 litres in Bur- 
 gundy; the mesure of 44 litres in Lorraine. Wine crops in Lor- 
 raine will invariably be computed in so many mesures par jour. 
 Even in Paris wine is often retailed by the setier. 
 
 " For lumber and firewood measurements, the metric stere has 
 never proved a favorite. Firewood is almost exclusively sold by 
 the cord, and lumber is usually sold by the dozen of solives, 
 madriers or planches, each of these denominations having fixed 
 sizes as to length, width and thickness." 
 
 Following are extracts from a letter by an American engi- 
 neer who has lived in Paris for some years and whose experience in 
 Continental Europe dates from 1889. He is a graduate of the 
 Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and occupies a leading 
 position ; but his connections are such that he desires that his name 
 be not mentioned. 
 
 " It is rather singular that the decimal division and multiplica- 
 tion of the metre or kilogramme do not appear to suit various in- 
 dustries for widely different reasons. In order to give you a few 
 examples of this I have extracted some paragraphs from a well- 
 known and very useful handbook in the French language, entitled 
 Formulaire de TElectricien, edited by M. Hospitalier, who happens 
 to be an authority on the subject we are now discussing. 
 
 " The most striking example and one which appears to provoke 
 the wrath of M. Hospitalier is the Cheval-vapeur corresponding to 
 the English horse-power. You will see that he considers the 
 cheval-vapeur an empirical unit. M. Hospitalier's contention is 
 that the Poncelet or 100 kilogrammetres per second, the metric 
 and decimal unit of power and not the cheval-vapeur or 75 kilo- 
 grammetres per second, should be adopted. You will see that 
 M. Hospitalier hoped to see this logically defined unit accepted 
 by the International Congress of 1900. As he states, routine got 
 the better of logic in the discussion, and the cheval-vapeur obtained 
 the sanction of the Congress.* 
 
 " The other extracts concerning Elasticite and Unite de 
 
 * Fancy changing the value of the horse-power at this late date ! The prop- 
 osition is no more absurd than the proposition to change other established units, 
 but it should assist engineers in classifying this movement as a simple fad. 
 
THE METRIC FALLACY. 35 
 
 Clialeur refer to the confusion resulting from the use of several in- 
 dustrial units. I have also extracted the paragraphs on Unite de 
 Longueur and Unite de Masse since they very clearly set forth the 
 difference between the theoretical metric units of length and mass 
 and the arbitrary standards on which the metric system is based. 
 
 " I send you, by this same mail a copy of Le Matin , a Paris 
 morning paper of good standing. If you will refer to the blue 
 pencil marks you will probably be surprised to find so many in- 
 dustrial units of measure which are neither decimal nor metric. 
 
 " Of course, when it comes to making out a bill or any business 
 document where the amounts of material are specified, it is neces- 
 sary, according to French law, to use the units of the metric system 
 in conveying this information. If this is not done you run the risk 
 of a fine. 
 
 " On page 5 under the heading Bulletin Commercial du 5 
 Janvier, you will find short paragraphs on the trade in various 
 merchandise. In the paragraph Spirit ueux you will find the stock 
 is 11,800 pipes and that the sales were 535 pipes. The pipe is, of 
 course, an English measure, equivalent to 105 gallons. When- 
 ever it is necessary to refer to its contents for the purpose of billing 
 or measuring, the litre measure is of course employed. 
 
 u In the paragraph Sucres the trade unit is the sac, and under 
 the heading Depeches Commerciales, you will find the sales of 
 cotton given in balles, and of coffee in sacs. It is more than prob- 
 able that the sacs of sugar and of coffee do not contain the same 
 number of kilogrammes of material any more than they contain 
 the same number of pounds. They are nevertheless non-decimal 
 units and, like many others I could find, if I had the time, are 
 sanctioned in French commercial affairs. It could not well be 
 otherwise. 
 
 " I received recently an advertisement of a coal and wood mer- 
 chant who classified his wood as follows : 
 
 Bois (1) traits = - - = .m 57 
 
36 THE METRIC FALLACY. 
 
 " The industrial non-decimal unit in this case is the trait. 
 The stere is the decimal unit of wood measure of the metric system, 
 equal to one cubic metre, and measures 1.14 metres in length of 
 wood by 0.88 metre by 1.0 metre. Consequently one trait refers 
 to the piece of wood which is obtained by cutting the piece of 1.14 
 metres into two equal parts. The piece known as 2 traits is ob- 
 tained by cutting the 1.14 metre piece into three equal parts, etc. 
 Although the stere is the decimal unit of wood measure in the 
 metric system, the manner of making up the cubic metre clearly 
 indicates that the old-fashioned method of cutting wood to a length 
 of I.ml4 has not been superseded by cutting to 1 metre lengths. 
 The only thing to do in this case was to make the w r ood pile O.m88 
 high to obtain the cubic metre or stere. It seems to me that this 
 is an instance of adhering to an old well-established practice in 
 spite of the supposed advantages of the decimal units of the metric 
 system. The wood merchant has taken the precaution to give the 
 lengths of his wood in metric measure O.m57, O.m38, etc., probably 
 to avoid the fine. 
 
 " If you will refer to page 6 of the Maiin, you will find sev- 
 eral advertisements of wine dealers or producers. Four of them re- 
 fer to the piece and only one gives the contents, stating that his 
 piece contains 22 8 litres. Three offer their wine in quantities of 109, 
 215, 218 and 228 litres; the first figure representing the demie- 
 piece and the other three figures representing the piece, the con- 
 tents of which varies throughout France, and which is fixed in 
 certain territories only. That is, a piece of Bordeaux would con- 
 tain (according to law) a certain number of litres and a piece 
 of Burgogne contains another number of litres. The content 
 is evidently measured in litres, but these units of demie-piece 
 and piece may be considered as non-decimal industrial units of 
 liquid measure. 
 
 " Since writing the above I have visited one of my friends in 
 the country, about one hour's ride on the railway from Paris. I 
 find the following units in current use in this market town. 
 
 " The setier containing 156 litres is used for the sale of agri- 
 cultural product, as grain, potatoes, etc. ; the minot, equal to -| mine 
 or 39 i litres, for the sale of apples ; the quarteron for the sale of 
 eggs or nuts, equal to 26 of each ; the f euillette of wine, containing 
 135 litres. For sale of land the non-metric units of perche and 
 arpent are still used. Land is also measured in journaux (plural), 
 journal (singular), non-decimal industrial units of land measure. 
 
THE METRIC FALLACY. 37 
 
 These words are used in the printed notices of sales posted up by 
 the Notaries Public, and are always followed by the content in 
 metric measure. I was shown some recent catalogues of brushes 
 In which everything was sold by the ligne, the pouce and the 
 douzaine. For that matter many things are sold by the dozen and 
 gross in France and not by dizaines or 10's. 
 
 kk If you will refer to stock exchange quotations in the Matin 
 you will find a curious condition of affairs which can be easily 
 explained. At bottom of page 3 under the heading Change you 
 will find all values given in whole numbers and fractions, as ^, ^ 
 J, T V and ^V Ditto for the New York and Chicago quotations in 
 the same column. On page 5 after the heading Cloture des 
 Bourses Europeenes, you will find a mix-up of these fractional 
 parts and decimals. One strange example is the " Exter Espag- 
 nols " quoted at 86f at Bruxelles. This same value under the 
 heading Bourse de Paris (Kentes Etrangeres) is quoted 87.95 and 
 88.02, that is, decimally. Evidently these are matters of custom 
 but it goes to show that there is no great difference in the use of 
 fractional or decimal values, since both are found indiscriminately 
 on the same page. 
 
 " I enclose a paragraph which I have torn out of Le Temps 
 for December 23, 1902, relative to one of the proposed types of 
 French cruisers. You will see that the maximum speed of the 
 cruiser is expressed in knots, and the maximum possible cruising 
 distance, in sea-miles.* 
 
 " I have given you examples of a number of non-decimal in- 
 dustrial units with names which are, of course, not found in the 
 terminology of the metric system of measures and weights. They 
 are evidently old measures and old names and their values are ex- 
 pressed, whenever necessary (for special reasons to comply with the 
 law on the obligatory use of the metric system) in the units of the 
 metric system. Others are decimal and metric, but retain the old 
 names for the industrial unit, as quintal for example, and not one of 
 the series of prefixes characterizing the metric units as deca, hecto, 
 kilo, myria, etc. Other units mentioned are supposed to be obso- 
 
 * Following is the paragraph in question : " Le cuirasse type Patrie, on le sait, a 
 une longueur de 133 m. 80, une largeur de 24 m. 25 et un tirant d'eau de 8 m. 376, 
 avec un deplacement de 14,865 tonnes. Sa vitesse maxima est de 18 noeuds, et sa 
 provision de charbon, qui peut-etre portee a 1,825 tonnes, lui donne une distance 
 franchissable de 1,880 milles a la vitesse maxima." Note that this is a govern- 
 ment, not a merchant ship. 
 
38 THE METRIC FALLACY. 
 
 lete or prohibited by law. All this tends to show that certain coin- 
 promises have been made and that old industrial non-decimal units 
 are respected in France, although their exact values are expressed 
 in metric units whenever necessary. This is the situation some 
 65 years 45 after the adoption and use of the metric system was 
 voted obligatory, and rather tends to show the difficulty exper- 
 ienced in introducing a new system of measures and weigths." 
 
 * The system was originally adopted in 1793. In 1812 this law was repealed, 
 but was reenacted in 1837, and took effect in 1840. During the interval 1812- 
 1840 the system remained the " legal system," but its use was not obligatory. 
 
PERSISTENCE OF OLD UNITS IN GERMAN 
 MECHANICAL INDUSTRIES. 
 
 In the American Machinist for May 3, 1900, is an article by 
 Mr. Henry Hess, of Berlin, Germany, on metric screw threads. 
 Mr. Hess is a personal friend and an accomplished engineer, a 
 fact which is attested by his position. He was formerly with 
 the Niles Tool Works of Hamilton, Ohio, and when that corpora- 
 tion established its great branch works in Berlin, under the name 
 of the German Niles Works, he was selected to go to Germany, 
 in order to carry American practice and American methods there, 
 and form a connecting link between the two companies. Please 
 remember that he is actively engaged in machine construction; 
 not in a business capacity, but as a designer and constructor, and 
 he knows the facts from the inside. 
 
 Mr. Hess writes (italics mine) : 
 
 " To work with both millimetres and inches in the same shop, and not infre- 
 quently on different portions of a single piece, is too illogical an arrangement to 
 maintain itself. A further complication is brought about by the fact that, 
 though like in name, an inch is a widely varying quantity in different sections. In 
 Germany alone there are at least half a dozen, of which two, the Rhenish and the 
 English, are in such very general use as to cause great confusion." 
 
 I have a personal letter from Mr. Hess dated at the 1 German 
 Niles Works, September 15, 1902, from which I quote the follow- 
 ing (italics mine) : 
 
 "It is quite true that the great majority of these [old provincial inches] are 
 no longer in use; still it is to-day necessary to be very careful in using rules 
 that are purchasable in every hardware store, to make sure whether the inches 
 that are given on the reversed side are Rhenish or English inches. 
 
 " Nearly universally the carpenters and, other building mechanics use the Rhenish 
 inch, and we have occasionally found that men in OUT shops have made use of 
 their private Rhenish foot-rules. 
 
 " As to this matter in France I cannot tell you very definitely, but I believe 
 that similar conditions exist there, though not to as great an extent." 
 
 At my request Mr. Hess has sent me a collection of these 
 German-made scales, which, in addition to the sacred millimetre, 
 
THE METRIC FALLACY. 
 
 give upon their various edges the English, the Khenish, and the 
 Trench inch, the latter measuring 37 to the metre, as already ex- 
 
 M'M|i|!|i M I'l'I'MIHilMJI'lU'l'I'l'I'I'I'MI'I'l 1 !'!' 
 
 O G j b "I O X~N 
 
 i.n.,1.. i , , i. Pig j , ,!,, I pi , , , , , , t ,, ,t|s ,,,,,, 
 
 American Machinist, 
 
 
 i 6 i 7 i 8 i 9 
 
 I ! . ! . I II . I I .. . , I ! I t . I I . . I I . 1 I I I II I I I I I i I 
 
 A COLLECTJON OF INCHES. 
 
 plained., One of these scales is shown in the illustration. In 
 an accompanying letter, after saying that the purchase was made 
 " in one of the larger retail hardware shops in Berlin, located in 
 the manufacturing district/ 7 Mr. Hess goes on to say : 
 
 " In talking with the proprietor, I learned that practically all of the small trades- 
 men* with whom he has to deal still stick to the use of the inch, and when they want 
 to sell them anything according to metres, they are informed that they are used 
 to the inch and foot and do not wish to be bothered with the metre." 
 
 To understand the full force of this it must be remembered that 
 to sell goods by other than metric measures in Germany is a fin- 
 able offence, and Mr. Hess's informant has, in fact, paid such fines 
 for acceding to his customers' demands. 
 
 * Mr. Hess informs me that by this word he means mechanics, not merchants. 
 
THE METRIC FALLACY. 41 
 
 "We have also the testimony of Mr. J. H. Linnard, a naval 
 architect of the Navy Department, whose testimony before the 
 House committee is referred to at length farther on. I have a 
 letter from Mr. Linnard dated at Washington, September 5, 1902, 
 in which, after saying, " I recently made a short trip to Ger- 
 many," he goes on to say: 
 
 "The visit I made to Germany was in connection with visits to ship-building 
 yards, and I did not come in contact with other merchants or manufacturers. I 
 made inquiry, however, in the ship-building yards whether the use of the metric 
 system was universal in Germany. I found that in all government work it was 
 universal, but that two yards, one of considerable importance at Flensburg, and 
 one at Hamburg, still use the English system of measurement for their ship 
 work." 
 
 At the hearings of the House committee Prof. Elihu Thomp- 
 son, in the course of his pro-metric testimony, read in abstract 
 a letter from Mr. A. H. Moore (page 4), saying : 
 
 n Speaking from practical experience of the use of the metric standard in Ger- 
 many, he says that the Whitworth thread is in almost universal use in Germany 
 and central Europe. * * * * Others [other machines] were designed in 
 Berlin and figured in millimetres, but in these the drill and tap holes were figured 
 in inches. The peculiar reason for this was that, no good twist drills having milli- 
 metre dimensions were to be had, while American twist drills were very cheap." 
 
 The general use of English pitch threads in Germany is, of 
 course, well known, but it will do no harm to take the fact from 
 a metric advocate's mouth. The discriminating engineer will re- 
 call that English sized twist drills make English sized holes, and 
 he will take the use of English sized screws and twist drills as addi- 
 tional evidence that the millimetre has not yet driven the inch 
 from German machine shops, and that Germany is still in the 
 transition period. 
 
 In Zeitschrift des Vereines deutsclier Ingenieure for Septem- 
 ber 5, 1903, may be found the official report of the forty-fourth 
 general meeting of the Society of German Engineers, June 30, 
 and July 1 and 2, 1903. On page 1320 of this report may be 
 found an action taken by the Society on Gas Pipe Threads 
 wherein may be found the following: 
 
 " The following rules and figures for wrought iron, gas and water pipes 
 have been presented by a committee consisting of representatives of the 
 Society of German Engineers, the Society of German Gas and Waterworks 
 Industries, The Society for Central Heating and the Syndicate of Tube 
 Manufacturers : 
 
 OF THE 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
THE METRIC FALLACY. 
 
 Trade designation 
 of the pipe according to 
 inside diameter. 
 English inches. 
 
 Outside diameter 
 of pipe and thread. 
 Millimeters. 
 
 Number of threads 
 per English inch. 
 
 Diameter at 
 the root of the thread. 
 Millimeters. 
 
 i 
 
 13 
 
 19 
 
 11.3 
 
 1 
 
 16.5 
 
 19 
 
 14.8 
 
 i 
 
 20.5 
 
 14 
 
 18.2 
 
 I 
 
 23 
 
 14 
 
 20.7 
 
 * 
 
 26.5 
 
 14 
 
 23.2 
 
 1 
 
 33 
 
 11 
 
 30 
 
 1$ 
 
 42 
 
 11 
 
 39 
 
 U 
 
 48 
 
 11 
 
 45 
 
 If 
 
 52 
 
 11 
 
 49 
 
 2 
 
 59 
 
 11 
 
 56 
 
 3* 
 
 70 
 
 11 
 
 67 
 
 24 
 
 76 
 
 11 
 
 73 
 
 3 
 
 89 
 
 11 
 
 86 
 
 3* 
 
 101.5 
 
 11 
 
 98.5 
 
 4^ 
 
 114 
 
 11 
 
 111 
 
 A NEW GERMAN PIPE AND PIPE THREAD STANDARD.* 
 
 " In conformity with the Council the general meeting accepted the pro- 
 posals of the committee." 
 
 And so this delightful hodge podge of inches and millimeters 
 is the best pipe and thread standard which the Society of Ger- 
 man Engineers can evolve in this year of grace, 1903. The tech- 
 nical reader will of course 'recognize it as little more than the 
 Whitworth standard which the German Engineers thus acknowl- 
 edge they cannot change. 
 
 From Mr. R. T. Wingo, of the Browne and Sharpe Manu- 
 facturing Company, I have the following: 
 
 " My experience with the metric system in Europe dates from April, 
 1893, to August, 1895, while I was connected with one of the best known 
 machine shops in Germany, as a mechanical engineer, and during that 
 time I had considerable practical experience with the metric system in 
 engineering. Before going to Europe I had been led to believe that the 
 European countries were using the metric system entirely, but I soon 
 found that such was not the case, as some of the old systems are still 
 used. In the larger machinery manufacturing centres they have ac- 
 complished the most in the way of using the metric system, but even in 
 these centres the people do not confine themselves entirely to it, as fre- 
 quent use is made of the inch, foot, pound, etc. In the smaller towns and 
 cities, and in the repair shops, there is a great confusion of systems aris- 
 ing, I suppose, from the fact that there are so many repairs that must be 
 
 * The table above is complete. The original contains no columns of 
 metric equivalents for the English dimension columns. 
 
THE METRIC FALLACY. 4:3 
 
 made on old machines that were built according to the old systems of 
 measurements, and I suppose that there are still enough of those old 
 machines in use requiring repairs to keep up the old systems of measure- 
 ments in this one case for an indefinite time." 
 
 The letter from M. Benet, of Paris, from which extracts were 
 given in the previous section contains the following: 
 
 " In my own experience, I recently had to order a quantity of hardened 
 steel balls from the Waffenfabriken at Berlin in metric Germany. The 
 sizes of these balls were given in |, , , and ^ inch, etc., and the balls 
 delivered to me accurately gauged to English, and not to metric dimen- 
 sions. To cap the climax, the quotations up to Winch were so much per 
 gross, after that so much per hundred." 
 
 Finally, recall Mr. Patterson's letter, which has already been 
 given in correction of Mr. Stratton's mistake. While this letter 
 uses the word pipe only, it is a fact that the National Tube Com- 
 pany have a large trade in France and Germany in both boiler 
 tubes and pipe, which, as Mr. Patterson's letter shows, are made 
 to English dimensions. This can only be interpreted as meaning 
 that a good deal of boiler and pipe work is done in those countries 
 on the inch basis. 
 
 Do not forget that this condition of things obtains twenty-eight 
 years after the system was made compulsory in Germany. 
 
 Our manufacturing interests and methods are immensely more 
 developed than those of Germany twenty-eight years ago, with 
 a corresponding increase of difficulty in changing, and yet, with 
 the change incomplete, in Germany after twenty-eight years, 
 these people go to Washington and give it as their opinion that 
 with us, and without compulsion, three to five years will do it all. 
 We are told that we have three kinds of gallons and two kinds of 
 pounds, and must therefore add the litre and the kilogram to the 
 list, but how does our situation compare with 10 ells and half a 
 dozen inches? 
 
 In the face of such facts as these what shall be said of such tes- 
 timony as that of Mr. G. L. Cabot (page 135), that " in the case 
 of Germany and Austria only between two and three years were 
 required to make the complete change, and with highly satisfac- 
 tory results " ? What shall be said of the testimony of numer- 
 ous United States consuls quoted at such length by Mr. Stratton 
 (pages 163, 164)? A consul sees that the dry goods merchants 
 have changed the tacks upon their counters with which they 
 measure cloth and ribbon, that the grocers have metric weights 
 
4:4 THE METRIC FALLACY. 
 
 alongside their balances, and that invoices and bills of lading are 
 made out in metres and kilogrammes, and he concludes that the 
 metric system is in universal use. He can know nothing of the 
 production side of the matter, and a native of France or Germany 
 in many walks of life need know no more. It is, however, on such 
 evidence as this that this case largely rests. 
 
 Moreover, what shall be said of such negative testimony as 
 that of Mr. Henning (page 600, vol. xviii., of the Transactions 
 of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers) : " I have 
 been abroad some,, but I have never heard of the English inch 
 being used as a standard in any of the countries I have visited, 
 except, of course, England." As one who is accustomed to weigh 
 scientific data, Mr. Henning will be the first to see that, in view 
 of the fact that others find inches in use everywhere, his own 
 failure to find them counts for nothing. 
 
THE PERSISTENCE OF OLD UNITS IN SCANDINAVIA. 
 
 At the annual meeting of the Engineers' Society of Western 
 New York for 1902, Mr. Chas. H. Tutton read a paper upon 
 this subject, and in discussing the paper, Mr. S. M. Kielland, a 
 native of Norway, said: 
 
 " When I went over to Norway, Sweden and Denmark, a few years ago, 
 after having been away about twenty-five years, I found the common or 
 old measures as well as the metric measures in use by the common people, 
 especially amongst the traders and peasantry. The most of their trade 
 and dealing is done by the old system the same as they used to do before 
 the metric system was adopted. Of course,. if we want these difficulties 
 and complications by the use of two or more systems which Mr. Tutton 
 has so well pointed out, we can have them by making use of the metric 
 system compulsory in the United States." 
 
THE PERSISTENCE OF OLD UNITS IN GREECE. 
 
 In the Bulletin de la Societe d* Encouragement pour Industrie 
 Nationale for June 30, 1893, is an extended article entitled La 
 Convention du Metre et le Bureau International des Poids et 
 Mesures. The article has several appendices, one of which is a 
 " Resume of Legislation Relative to Weights and Measures/' from 
 which are taken the following quotations relative to the persist- 
 ence of old units in Greece, Turkey, Egypt and Central Amer- 
 ica.* Coming, as this testimony does, from the metric head- 
 quarters of the world, the metric advocates can scarcely question 
 its accuracy: 
 
 "The metric system was made optional (in Greece), by a royal decree 
 of 1836. The metric units have since then been used in the acts of the 
 government at least for lineal (' itinerary') and superficial measurements, 
 but among the people the decree has remained a dead letter. At various 
 times since, the Greek government has discussed the advisability of making 
 the system obligatory, but thus far it has retreated before the resistance 
 of the rural population." 
 
 * The last given for convenience of classification in the section The 
 Persistence of Old Units in other Spanish American countries. 
 
THE PERSISTENCE OF OLD UNITS IN TURKEY.* 
 
 " A law of the year 1886 rendered the metric system obligatory 
 at Constantinople after an interval of five years. In conse- 
 quence of this law the old measures were confiscated and 
 destroyed in the capital, but no attempt was made to introduce 
 the new system in the provinces. At Constantinople even the 
 measures of the old system reappeared little by little, and in spite 
 of an energetic attempt in favor of the metric system the Council 
 of State, recognizing that it was impossible to use rigor, author- 
 ized anew the employment of the old Turkish system. At the 
 present time the two systems are optional/' 
 
 Thus it appears that this task, upon which our metric advocates 
 would have our government enter so lightly, is one before which 
 the despotic government of Turkey was compelled to confess 
 defeat. 
 
 * From the same source as the sections on Greece and Egypt. 
 
THE PERSISTENCE OF OLD UNITS IN THE TEEATY 
 PORTS OF CHINA. 
 
 The following letter from Mr. L. Wing, Chinese Vice-Consul at 
 New York, is a reply to a letter of mine asking the facts about 
 the use of the metric system in the treaty ports of China. While 
 the letter does not mention the treaty ports, it relates to them 
 and to nothing else, because the letter to which it is an answer 
 asked about nothing else. 
 
 " I can only state to my knowledge that the metric system is not used 
 so much as it is supposed. Among our people the Chinese weight and 
 measure are used; among the foreigners the English weight and measure, 
 but when natives and foreigners trade with each other the Chinese 
 standard of measurement is used if the merchandise is Chinese and vice 
 versa. The tariff schedule is based on the Chinese standards of weight 
 and measurement." 
 
THE PERSISTENCE OF OLD UNITS IN JAPAN. 
 
 At the discussion of the Mechanical Engineers Mr. F. H.' 
 Colvin gave the result of an examination of recent volumes of 
 the government publication Commercial Relations. Regarding 
 Japan his findings from the reports of an American consul in 
 Japan were : 
 
 " But Japan leads them all in mixing up custom and science, the past 
 and the future (perhaps). The official table of imports into Yokohama 
 gives a choice collection of piculs, kin, milles, tons, square yards, gallons, 
 litres, square feet, gross, sho, etc., with piculs and kins in the lead, and 
 litres notable by their scarcity. 
 
 ' Building sites are also mentioned as being rented for from 5 to 8 
 cents" per 'tsubo,' which equals 36 square feet. No ' centiare ' about this. 
 
 " The consul also says : ' The Japanese have not abandoned their old 
 weights and measures in favor of the metric system but have legalized 
 the employment of the two side by side with the proviso that the Japanese 
 weights shall be taken as the standard. The metric system has not come 
 into general use. The engineers, mechanics and artisans of all kinds use 
 the native measurements in preference.' " 
 
 This quotation from the American Consul was submitted 
 to Mr. Sadazuchi Uchida, Japanese Consul General, New York, 
 with a request for information regarding the accuracy of the 
 statements, and for such further information as might be per- 
 tinent. The following is an extract from his reply : 
 
 " As to the system of weights and measures used in Japan the state- 
 ment of your consul seems to be generally correct. 
 
 " By a law passed in March, 1891, shaku was determined as the unit of 
 measure and kwan as the unit of weight, definitions being given to both 
 these units. Although they had been in use for many years past they 
 were not considered the units, and the making of these instruments was 
 not strictly regulated by law until that year. The same law fixed the 
 ratio of shaku and kwan to the metric system and vice versa, legalizing 
 the use of the metric system. 
 
 " But in the ordinary trade and industries our own weights and meas- 
 ures are commonly used instead of the metric system, although in the 
 army and navy they generally use the English or metric system. 
 
 " In our government statistical publications anything other than our 
 own weights and measures is very rarely used. 
 
50 THE METRIC FALLACY. 
 
 " In our tariff schedules specific duties are mostly fixed by our own 
 weights and measures, but some articles pay duties by gallons, feet, yards, 
 litres, tons, etc." 
 
 An examination of the Japanese tariff schedule published by 
 the Philadelphia Commercial Museum, and brought down to 
 April 1, 1903, discloses a total of nine items in which the duties 
 are levied in metric units, which items relate exclusively to 
 alcohol, tinctures, wine, spirits and malt liquors. There are also 
 five additional items in which the duties are levied by the case, 
 but in which the size of the bottles is specified in litres. In the 
 same schedule fifty-three items appear in which the duties are 
 levied by the square yard. Neither meter nor kilogram appear 
 in the schedule. The large majority of the specific duties are 
 levied per kin or per 100 kin, the value of the kin being 1,325 
 pounds. 
 
 ~No better illustration of the simple credulity with which the 
 metric advocates accept any statement favorable to their system 
 could be given than the following from The Coming of Hie Kilo- 
 gram by Mr. H. O. Arnold-Foster (page 122) : 
 
 " It [the list of metric countries] contains the names not only of great 
 and highly civilized countries but of countries that can hardly be called 
 civilized, such as Turkey; it contains the name of Japan, the populous and 
 busy country, etc." 
 
THE PERSISTENCE OF OLD UNITS IN EGYPT.* 
 
 " A decree of the year 1875 introduced the metric system, 
 in an optional way, in all the territory of Egypt. In 1892 
 further progress was accomplished by requiring the use of the 
 system in all transactions of the government with individuals. 
 The old agrarian measures have been preserved and the old units 
 of mass are still in current use in commerce. The metric system 
 is taught in the state schools." 
 
 * From the same source as the sections on Greece and Turkey. 
 
THE PERSISTENCE OF OLD UNITS IN THE 
 PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 
 
 The following are extracts from two letters from Rev. George 
 D. Rice, who is chaplain of an American regiment in the Philippines: 
 
 In nearly every business house, manufacturing establishment and govern- 
 ment institution here, scales are used with pounds on one . side of the bal- 
 ancing arm and kilos on the other. 
 
 I find that this state exists everywhere in the islands. This is necessary 
 because sometimes the metric system is required. The little railway of 
 
 i i n 
 
 01234 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Ai 
 
 1 
 
 5789 
 ro. 2 
 
 1 
 Ai 
 
 1 12 13 1 
 
 ro. 
 
 4 
 3 
 
 16 17 18 19 
 Arro. 4 Arro. 
 
 SCALE BEAM IN COMMON USE IN THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 
 
 Luzon will not receive goods unless the invoices are given with weights in 
 kilos. 
 
 Yesterday I visited the Chinese scale makers of Manila. They have quite 
 extensive works. I found them making most of the scales as per enclosure 
 [a sketch of a scale beam, reproduced herewith]. The balance beam is 
 marked with American pounds and with Spanish characters. There are 
 five American pounds to each Spanish arro. These scales are cheap and ex- 
 tensively used in the shops, stores and plantations of the islands. 
 
 The reader will not fail to note the unconscious sarcasm of the 
 word " sometimes." It is perhaps the best bon mot which this in- 
 quiry has developed. 
 
THE PERSISTENCE OF OLD UNITS IN SPAIN. 
 
 From Mr. John H. Ball, of Barcelona, Spain, manufacturer 
 of machine tools, I have the following : 
 
 " Your paper on the metric system is at hand, and I cordially 
 agree with your conclusions. . . . For the two countries 
 [England and the United States] who do more trade between them 
 than all the rest of the world put together, to take on the mixture 
 of the so-called metric countries would be an absurdity. 
 
 " Spain is included among the countries whose legal weights 
 and measures follow the metric system. As prior to the passing of 
 the law, each province, and indeed, nearly every town of any im- 
 portance had its own local scale, the unification of these numerous 
 and bewildering scales by the introduction of the metric system to 
 displace the oldest measures, was a step in the right direction. But 
 between passing a law and compelling its carrying out, there is a 
 wide gulf fixed. Thus while the metric system is universally 
 understood, and nominally reigns, not more than half the everyday 
 business transactions are carried out on a metric basis. Land con- 
 tinues to sell by the ' palmo ? or span. Lineal and superficial 
 measures include the ' palmo, 7 the i vara/ or yard, which like 
 most of the old measures differs with every province, the i cana/ 
 about 1-J metres, the ' destre ' of from 2.829 metres to 4.214 
 metres. Oils and wines sell by the ' cuarto, 7 ' arroba/ 'cantara ' 
 and several other measures ; cereals by ' f anegas ' and ' f er- 
 rados ' ; coal and coke by the ' arroba/ ' quintal ' or f tonelada/ 
 and the last mentioned is the only one of the lot that is approxi- 
 mately an exact metric measure, while there are about 20 different 
 ' libras/ or pounds, in use, ranging from 0.350 kilogram to 0.579 
 kilogram, each of which is common to its town or province. 
 
 " The rule generally used in the shops is a many-jointed fold- 
 ing ( metro ' of wood, which carries metric and English measures, 
 but there are large numbers sold also of French make, and which 
 carry the French inches in addition to the English and metric. In 
 regard to the change from English to metric measures proposed in 
 
54: THE METRIC FALLACY. 
 
 the United States and being agitated in England, it surely would 
 be a great pity to throw deliberately away the uniformity at pres- 
 ent reigning in those countries. However great may be the theo- 
 retical advantage of the metric system, the matter resolves itself 
 entirely into one of use or practice. After four and a half years 
 in a professedly metric country, the English system is still to me 
 the easier, owing to the greater number of years of practice I have 
 had with it. After some forty or more years of metric system in 
 this country the mixture is, after all these years, an abominable 
 mixture still, and bids fair to continue so for very many years 
 more. 
 
 " As evidencing the nuisance now caused, I may quote the fol- 
 lowing: I recently bought a French lathe, constructed in Paris, 
 and nominally of the latest model. The 'lead screw is 4 per inch, 
 the gearing cut to Brown & Sharp formula, all outside bolts are 
 English pitch, but the countersunk screws in the saddle are 
 f diameter by 1J mm. pitch, which cannot be cut by any combina- 
 tion of gears supplied with the lathe, so that, one being lost, I have 
 either to make a 127-tooth wheel, or get a special screw from the 
 makers of the lathe." 
 
THE PERSISTENCE OF OLD UNITS IN MEXICO. 
 
 The most recent star example of quick change, in weights and 
 measures to which the metric advocates point is Mexico. Mr. 
 Troemner testified before the House Committee on Coinage, 
 Weights and Measures (p. 11) : " Only recently, within the past 
 two weeks, I talked with the Commissioner of Mines of Mexico, who 
 visited me, and he told me the metric system was working mag- 
 nificently in Mexico and that they had made the jump at once 
 from one standard to the other." 
 
 Following is an extract from a letter from the Superintendent 
 of Machinery of the Mexican Central Railway Mr. Ben Johnson. 
 The letter is dated at Mexico City, October 7, 1902: 
 
 "We use nothing whatever but American measurements in the work of the 
 mechanical department. Our drawings of locomotives and cars and our shop tools 
 are all in American measurements, and as far as my information goes, this is the 
 case with nearly all railroads in Mexico." 
 
 The Mexican Commissioner of Mines has, it is clear, no knowl- 
 edge of the practice of Mexican railroads. What reason is there 
 for supposing that he has any knowledge of other interests outside 
 his immediate personal experience? 
 
 In the journal of the Franklin Institute for November, 1902, 
 I find a letter from Mr. R. C. Canby, who has lived in Mexico 
 for four and a half years, where he is in charge of the works of 
 the Montezuma Lead Co., of Santa Barbara, Chihuahua. From 
 this letter I make the following extract: 
 
 " About a year ago I was sent by the company to the State of Chihuahua to 
 superintend some new metallurgical operations, and it is surprising to me at this 
 time to see the Babel of standards. The survey of the land upon which the works 
 are built, as well as all levels, are in the metric system. The plans for all build- 
 ings and machinery are in the American system. A building so many feet long 
 and so many feet wide is on such and such a metre level. All lumber ordered 
 from Texas or from the mills in the Sierra Madre is ordered so many inches by so 
 many feet in customary United States sizes. Local dealers sell you so many 
 metres of such or such inch pipe, and the bill so reads. All valves and fittings 
 come in inches. Of merchant iron you buy so many kilos of the dimensions given 
 in inches, and I have a list-card from one of the Mexican manufacturers of bar and 
 
56 THE METRIC FALLACY. 
 
 sheet-iron giving the dimensions in , , and ^ of an inch, that would suit the 
 most conservative of your correspondents. Obliging salesmen in the stores can 
 always give you the price in ' metres' or ' varas.' Your cordwood has to be con- 
 verted from ' cargas ' and your hay or straw from ' arrobas.' " 
 
 My friend and former associate in the business of the Hand 
 Drill Company Mr. V. M. Braschi, now and for twelve years in 
 the mining machinery and supply business in the city of Mexico 
 tells me the same story as that given in Mr. Canby's letter. He 
 sells, for example, so many metres of -J-inch wire rope. The di- 
 mension which the merchant measures off, and by which he sets his 
 price is metric, but other dimensions may be in any unit which may 
 be convenient. What a tremendous saving of time in calculations 
 this must lead to ! 
 
 Mr. J. Parke Channing, President of the Tennessee Copper 
 Company, who, as a mining engineer, has seen much of Mexican 
 mining and smelting practice, furnishes the following account of 
 the method of determining the value of a lead ore carrying gold 
 and silver in Mexican smelters : 
 
 " When the ore contains 5 per cent, or more of lead it is paid for at 
 1 cent U. S. currency per pound when soft Spanish lead is quoted in 
 London at 13 pounds sterling per ton of 2,240 pounds. For each advance 
 or decline of 1 shilling, 3 pence in the London quotation, 1 cent U. S. 
 currency .per 100 pounds for lead contents will be added or deducted. 
 
 " The ore, however, is weighed an deliveries are made in kilos and 
 assays are reported per metric ton of 1,000 kilos. 
 
 " The silver is paid for at 90% per cent, of New York quotation which 
 is in U. S. currency per troy ounce. The gold, however, is paid for at 
 $0.6269 U. S. currency per gram. 
 
 " Freight and treatment charges are $24.50 Mexican currency per ton of 
 2,000 pounds avoirdupois." 
 
 Mr. Channing also informs me that in Mexico lumber is sawn 
 to English dimensions in length, breadth and thickness, but that 
 the bill for a purchase of lumber will call for so many square 
 metres of one-inch boards. 
 
 And all this is in Mexico, where the metric system is " working 
 magnificently," and where it has been illegal to use any other 
 weights and measures since January 1, 1884. 
 
THE PEKSISTENCE OF OLD UNITS IN CUBA. 
 
 From a letter by Mr. Alberto de Verastegui, formerly Cuban 
 agent of the Babcock and Wilcox Co., to Mr. H. F. De Puy, 
 secretary of that company, I extract the following regarding the 
 conditions in Cuba : 
 
 " The metric system was established [in Cuba] by the Spanish govern- 
 ment as a standard for the payment of custom house duties and for all 
 official purposes, but was not made obligatory for trade, and the conse- 
 quence was the greatest confusion, because every trade stuck to its old 
 custom. So the hardware people used the English foot as a standard of 
 length, and the Spanish pound as a standard of weight, while the dry 
 goods people buy their goods by the yard in England and the United 
 States, by the metre in France, and retail them in Cuba by the Spanish 
 yard. 
 
 " In the sugar industry, although in buying land they are compelled 
 by law to use the metric system as a standard, they are not forced to use 
 it in private transactions, and the consequence is that as they cannot see 
 as yet in their minds what an hectarea represents, they stick to the old 
 unit called caballeria, which is equivalent to about 33% acres. 
 
 " In buying and selling cane in the eastern part of the island, the ton 
 is the standard of weight, but by a ton they mean 2,500 Spanish pounds, 
 while in the western part the truck-load is the unit. 
 
 " In selling sugar in the Cuban market, the standard is the Castilian 
 arroba, of 25 Spanish pounds, and the quotations are made in reales, an 
 obsolete coin equivalent to 12% cents in gold, and to the American market 
 it is sold in dollars and cents of American money." 
 
 The above quotation shows, of course, how promptly the 
 people follow the lead of the government in these matters, and 
 how the adoption of the system by the government introduces 
 " uniformity." 
 
 In the Report on Cuba, made by Mr. H. D. Dumont as a 
 delegate of the Merchants Association of New York, the output 
 of plantations is given in hogsheads and tons,* and again in 
 arrobas per caballeria, the size of tobacco plantations in caballe- 
 rias, the price of tobacco at Cienfuegos in hundredweights, 
 coffee production in quintales, the production of cacao in quin- 
 tales per caballeria, of malagas in arrobas per acre, and the profit 
 on pineapples and bananas is calculated per caballeria. Xowhere 
 in the report is there a reference to any metric unit. 
 
 * Note that by the previous letter a ton means 2,500 Spanish pounds. 
 
THE PERSISTENCE OF OLD UNITS IN OTHER SPANISH- 
 AMERICAN COUNTRIES. 
 
 The conditions in Brazil are thus explained by M. de L'Espee, 
 who has already been quoted regarding conditions in Erance : 
 
 " In South America, the progress with the general public has been slower, as 
 could have been expected. In Brazil, a country I know well,* outside of the large 
 cities metric units are in but little use, and the variety of standards is practically 
 unlimited. Most books give such units as vara, etc., which I never saw em- 
 ployed. Those I saw in use are the following : 
 
 "Length: The pollegada (inch); the palma (the old French palme of 22 
 centimeters) ; the pe (foot) ; the braca (brasse) ; the legua (league) of 6,600 metres. 
 
 " Area : The alquiere, containing 8 salamis, and varying widely in size from 
 one place to another; it is equal to 2.2 hectares in Minas Geraes. 
 
 " Volumes : The alquiere of 33 litres is used for grain, as well as the carro, or 
 load of a bullcart. For liquids, the pipa of some 600 litres, and the cargueiro or 
 mule load, consisting of 2 small barrels of 40 litres each. 
 
 . " Weights: The arroba of 15 kilos is generally used, to such an extent that the 
 Rio Janeiro Exchange has to mark coffee quotations in arrobas, whereas the 
 Santos market gives quotations per 10 kilos. Gold is uniformly sold by the 
 oitava ( J oz.) 
 
 Following are extracts from a letter by Mr. D. S: Iglehart, of 
 the export house of W. R. Grace & Co. He lived for a time in 
 Peru, and has fortified his recollection of the facts by consulting 
 the Peruvian Consul General: 
 
 "I have to-day seen the Peruvian Consul-General, who advises me that the 
 metric system of weights and measures was established as the legal standard in 
 Peru, November 29, 1862. 
 
 "As regards the system used in length measurements among merchants, the 
 standard almost universally employed is the vara (.836 metres) . This is especially 
 true of the retail trade. Among wholesale merchants the metre is at times em- 
 ployed, as is also our yard. Feet and inches are used in connection with the 
 vara. 
 
 " What I have said regarding Peru is more or less true of Chile, although I think 
 that there the metric system is a little more extensively employed." 
 
 At the Indianapolis (1892) meeting of the National Associa- 
 * M. de L'Espee lived four years in Brazil. 
 
THE METRIC FALLACY. 59 
 
 lion of Manufacturers I had a long conversation with Mr. Rudolf 
 Dolge, who, as a representative of that association, has travelled 
 extensively in Europe, China, and Venezuela, in which last 
 country he has lived for four years. He has acted in almost every 
 conceivable commercial capacity for almost every conceivable kind 
 of business, having had charge of the warehouse of the associa- 
 tion at Caracas, Venezuela, and his opportunities for observation 
 have thus been unique. His story is the same as that of Mr. Igle- 
 hart in Venezuela the metre is practically unknown, the old vara 
 being the commercial unit of length. He reports the same con- 
 dition in China, where he lived for two years. For the claim that 
 the metre is, in any real sense, established as an international 
 unit he has nothing but contempt. 
 
 As I read the testimony of Mr. Iglehart and Mr. Dolge, the dry- 
 goods merchants of Peru and Venezuela have not yet changed 
 the tacks upon their counters wherewith they measure ribbon. 
 
 In the article, La Convention du Metre et le Bureau Inter- 
 national des Poids et Mesures, published in the Bulletin de la 
 Societe d* Encouragement pour T 1 Industrie Nationale for June 30, 
 1893, is the following statement of the conditions prevailing in 
 Central America : 
 
 " The metric system is little employed in Central America. The govern- 
 ments of Guatemala, Costa Rica, Nicaragua and San Salvador have in- 
 troduced it in the customs and made it optional, but the law has remained 
 without great effect in commerce. Honduras has remained thus far a 
 stranger to the system." 
 
 The case against the metric system in Spanish America is com- 
 pletely confessed by the Monthly Bulletin of the International 
 Bureau, of the American Republics, which publishes regularly, 
 apparently from standing type (for instance, page xvii of the 
 issue for September, 1903), and with the usual metric units, a 
 table of forty-seven non-metric units, some of which are credited 
 tc every Spanish- American country. The caption of this table 
 reads : " The following table gives the chief weights and measures 
 in commercial use in Mexico and the Kepublics of Central and 
 South America." 
 
THE PEKSISTENCE OF OLD UNITS IN METEIC 
 COUOTKIES GENEKALLY. 
 
 In Special Consular Keports, vol. xvi., issued by the Bureau 
 of Foreign Commerce of the State Department, Washington, I find 
 a table of " Equivalents of Domestic and Foreign Weights and 
 Measures as Established by Law or Custom." Following is an ab- 
 stract of as much of this table as relates to non-metric units used 
 in metric countries* 
 
 NON-METRIC UNITS USED IN METRIC COUNTRIES. 
 
 COMPILED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON. 
 
 Denominations. 
 
 Where used. 
 
 American equivalents. 
 
 Aam (wine). 
 
 Amsterdam 
 
 41 gallons 
 
 Aam (oil) 
 
 do 
 
 37 73 gallons 
 
 Aam 
 
 Antwerp 
 
 57 5635 gallons 
 
 Do 
 
 Rotterdam 
 
 40 559 gallons 
 
 Achtel : 
 Dry 
 
 Austria 
 
 2181 bushel 
 
 Solid . . 
 
 Prussia 
 
 2083 bushel 
 
 Alim (liquor) . . 
 
 Amsterdam 
 
 40 00 gallons 
 
 Do 
 
 Hamburg 
 
 38 1473 gallons 
 
 Do 
 
 Hanover 
 
 41 4395 gallons 
 
 Do 
 
 Leipsic 
 
 40 0769 gallons 
 
 Ahm (liquor) . . 
 
 Lubeck 
 
 39 5739 gallons 
 
 Almude 
 
 Canary Islands 
 
 1481 bushel 
 
 Do 
 
 Lisbon 
 
 4 3697 gallons 
 
 Do 
 
 Oporto . 
 
 6 731 gallons 
 
 Do 
 
 Sicily 
 
 4 896 gallons 
 
 Aln 
 
 Sweden ....... 
 
 6494 yard 
 
 Alqueire (dry) . . 
 
 Brazil .... 
 
 1.1042 bushels 
 
 Alqueire 
 
 Lisbon 
 
 2. 1848 gallons 
 
 Alqueire (dry) .... 
 
 do 
 
 0.3837 bushel 
 
 Alqueire.. . .... 
 
 Oporto 
 
 3.3128 gallons. 
 
 Do 
 
 Portugal ' 
 
 2 1848 gallons 
 
 Alqueire (dry) 
 
 do 
 
 4 75 bushels 
 
 Am or ahm . 
 
 Sweden 
 
 41 4432 bushels 
 
 Aniola 
 
 Genoa 
 
 2175 bushel 
 
 Anker . . 
 
 Amsterdam 
 
 10 25 gallons 
 
 Do ... 
 
 Hamburg 
 
 9 5368 gallons 
 
 Do 
 
 Riga 
 
 10 333 gallons 
 
 Do 
 
 Rostock 
 
 9 562 gallons 
 
 Do , 
 
 Rotterdam 
 
 10 1392 gallons 
 
 Do 
 
 Sweden 
 
 13 3608 gallons 
 
 Do 
 
 Alexandria 
 
 7 6907 bushels 
 
 Do 
 
 Cairo 
 
 5 1649 bushels 
 
 
 
 
 * Examination of this table will show that strict accuracy in the selections is 
 not easy. Owing to this difficulty, I have endeavored to resolve all doubts in 
 favor of the metric system and following this policy have omitted all Russian and 
 Danish units. In spite of this policy it is possible that the table may contain a 
 few units which should have been excluded ; but for every such unit there are not 
 less than three which belong in the table, but which because of the above named 
 policy have been excluded. The reader will note the numerous German units. 
 
THE METRIC FALLACY. 
 
 61 
 
 NON-METRIC UNITS USED IN METRIC COUNTRIES- Continued. 
 
 Denominations. 
 
 Where used. 
 
 American equivalents. 
 
 \rratel 
 
 Brazil .... 
 
 1.0 19 pounds. 
 
 Do 
 
 Portugal 
 
 1.012 pounds. 
 
 Arroba 
 
 Argentina 
 
 25.32 pounds. 
 
 Do 
 
 Bolivia 
 
 25.3537 pounds. 
 
 Do 
 
 Brazil 
 
 32.38 pounds. 
 
 Do 
 
 Buenos Ayres . . . 
 
 25.36 pounds. 
 
 Do 
 
 Canary Islands . 
 
 4.245 gallons. 
 
 Do 
 
 Cuba 
 
 25.4375 pounds. 
 
 Do 
 
 do 
 
 4. 1 gallons. 
 
 Do ... 
 
 Mexico 
 
 25.365 pounds. 
 
 Do .... 
 
 Chile . . ..... 
 
 25.365 pounds. 
 
 Do 
 
 Portugal 
 
 32.38 pounds. 
 
 Do 
 
 Spain . 
 
 25.36 pounds. 
 
 Do 
 
 ^ j 
 do 
 
 4.2630 gallons. 
 
 Arsin 
 
 Hungary 
 
 0.6392 yard. 
 
 Aune 
 
 Basel 
 
 1.2833 yards. 
 
 Do 
 
 Belgium . 
 
 7611 yard. 
 
 Do 
 
 France 
 
 1 25 yards 
 
 Do 
 
 Geneva 
 
 1 25 yards 
 
 Bambou 
 
 Madagascar 
 
 0.0576 bushel. 
 
 Barile 
 
 Argentina .... 
 
 20.0768 gallons. 
 
 Barile (oil) 
 
 Genoa . 
 
 17 0835 gallons. 
 
 Barile (wine) .... . . 
 
 do 
 
 19.61 gallons. 
 
 Barile ... 
 
 Malta 
 
 1 1 gallons. 
 
 Do 
 
 Mexico 
 
 20 gallons. 
 
 Do 
 
 Naples. 
 
 11. 5732 gallons. 
 
 Barril (honey) 
 
 Havana . 
 
 6 gallons. 
 
 Barril 
 
 Lisbon . 
 
 78. 655 gallons. 
 
 Barril (raisins) 
 
 Malaga 
 
 50 6 pounds. 
 
 Barique (wine) 
 
 Bordeaux 
 
 60 gallons. 
 
 Do . . 
 
 Nantes 
 
 63 405 gallons. 
 
 Do 
 
 Rochelle 
 
 46.04 gallons. 
 
 Batman . ... 
 
 
 
 Do 
 
 Constantinople . ... 
 
 19. 132 pounds. 
 
 Boccale 
 
 Bologna 
 
 0.346 gallon. 
 
 Do 
 
 Leghorn 
 
 301 gallon 
 
 Do ... 
 
 Milan . 
 
 208 gallon 
 
 Do 
 
 Venice . . . 
 
 267 gallon 
 
 Bota . . 
 
 Portugal 
 
 113.631 gallons? 
 
 Do 
 
 Spain . . 
 
 127.89 gallons. 
 
 Botta 
 
 Messina 
 
 108 gallons. 
 
 Do 
 
 Naples 
 
 128.879 gallons: 
 
 Do 
 
 Rome 
 
 246 6 gallons. 
 
 Box: 
 Raisins . . 
 
 Malaga " 
 
 44 pounds. 
 
 Do 
 
 Deiaa and Valencia 
 
 56 pounds. 
 
 Braccio 
 
 Basel . . . 
 
 0.5951 yard. 
 
 Do 
 
 Leghorn 
 
 6383 yard 
 
 Do 
 
 Milan . . . . 
 
 1 0936 yards 
 
 Caban : 
 Cocoa . 
 
 Manila 
 
 83 50 pounds. 
 
 Rice 
 
 do .... 
 
 133 pounds. 
 
 Canada. 
 
 Bahia 
 
 1.8727 gallons. 
 
 Do 
 
 Rio Janeiro 
 
 3641 gallon 
 
 Canna . . 
 
 Genoa 
 
 2 4518 yards 
 
 Do 
 
 Leghorn . . . 
 
 2 553 yards 
 
 Do 
 
 Messina .... 
 
 2.31 11 yards. 
 
 
 
 
THE METRIC FALLACY. 
 
 NON-METRIC UNITS USED IN METRIC COUNTRIES- Continued. 
 
 Denominations. 
 
 Where used. 
 
 American equivalents. 
 
 Cantara (maximum) 
 
 Spain 
 
 4 8714 gallons 
 
 Cantara (mean) 
 
 do .... 
 
 3 3753 gallons 
 
 Cantaro 
 
 Cairo 
 
 95.0312 pounds 
 
 Do 
 
 Constantinople 
 
 140.3008 pounds 
 
 Do ... 
 
 Cuba 
 
 4.1 gallons 
 
 Cantaro (grosso) 
 
 Genoa . 
 
 115.31 pounds 
 
 Cantaro (sottile) . . 
 
 do 
 
 104.83 pounds 
 
 Carga (raisins) 
 
 Malaga .... 
 
 177.5 pounds 
 
 Carga (raisins) 
 
 Valencia . . 
 
 338.44 pounds 
 
 Carga (wine) 
 
 Barcelona 
 
 31. 8493 gallons 
 
 Carjja (oil) . 
 
 .. .do 
 
 32.6524 gallons. 
 
 Carrata : 
 Marble 
 
 Carrara 
 
 2,240 pounds. 
 
 Solid 
 
 . do 
 
 7. 1268 cubic feet. 
 
 Carreau (stone) 
 
 France 
 
 3 632 cubic feet 
 
 Carro (dry) 
 
 Naples 
 
 56.3258 bushels. 
 
 Do 
 
 do . . 
 
 257 757 gallons 
 
 Catty 
 
 China 
 
 1.3333 pounds. 
 
 Do 
 
 Japan . 
 
 1.3085 pounds 
 
 Do ... 
 
 Java 
 
 1.356 pounds 
 
 Cavezzo 
 
 Florence 
 
 3.8257 yards. 
 
 Do 
 
 Venice 
 
 2.2818 yards. 
 
 Centner . . . 
 
 Bremen 
 
 127.5 pounds. 
 
 Do 
 
 Norway . . . 
 
 110.11 pounds 
 
 Do 
 
 Nurnberg . . .... 
 
 112. 43 pounds. 
 
 Do 
 
 Prussia ... .... 
 
 113.44 pounds. 
 
 Do 
 
 Sweden 
 
 112 512 pounds 
 
 Do 
 
 Vienna 
 
 123 4677 pounds 
 
 Chenng .... 
 
 Canton 
 
 4. 1007 yards. 
 
 Do 
 
 Pekin 
 
 3.6458 yards 
 
 Chik or Chih 
 
 China 
 
 0.3917 yard 
 
 Corba 
 
 Bologna 
 
 20.7618 gallons 
 
 Drv 
 
 do 
 
 2.231 7 bushels 
 
 Coupe . . . 
 
 Geneva 
 
 2.2036 bushels. 
 
 Covid 
 
 
 
 Do 
 
 China 
 
 0.3907 yard. 
 
 Do 
 
 Java 
 
 0.75 yard. 
 
 Cubic foot (marble) 
 
 Carrara 
 
 185 pounds. 
 
 Cubic foot (onyx) 
 
 Mexico . . . 
 
 215 pounds. 
 
 Cubic palmo (marble) 
 
 Italy 
 
 0.555 cubic foot. 
 
 Derah 
 
 Cairo 
 
 0.708 yard. 
 
 Dirhem 
 
 
 
 Do 
 
 Constantinople 
 
 49.5 grains. 
 
 Drachma 
 
 Cairo 
 
 48.6 grains 
 
 Do 
 
 Hungary 
 
 48.62 grains. 
 
 Do 
 
 Vienna 
 
 67.69 grains. 
 
 Dragma 
 
 Amsterdam .... 
 
 59.32 grains 
 
 Dreiling 
 
 Vienna 
 
 448.5741 gallons 
 
 Duim 
 
 Holland 
 
 1.094 yards. 
 
 Eimer 
 
 Austria 
 
 14.9526 gallons. 
 
 Eimer (beer) 
 
 Bavaria 
 
 18.0751 gallons. 
 
 Eimer (wine) 
 
 Bavaria 
 
 16.9444 gallons. 
 
 Eimer 
 
 Berlin 
 
 18. 1464 gallons. 
 
 Do ... 
 
 Hamburg ... 
 
 7.6295 gallons. 
 
 Do 
 
 Leipsic 
 
 20.0384 gallons. 
 
 Do 
 
 Nurnberg 
 
 18.2233 gallons. 
 
 Do 
 
 Prague 
 
 16.9515 gallons. 
 
 
 
 
THE METRIC FALLACY. 
 
 63 
 
 NON-METRIC UNITS USED IN METRIC COUNTRIES- Continued, 
 
 Denominations. 
 
 Where used. 
 
 American equivalents. 
 
 Eimsr 
 
 Rostock 
 
 7 6506 gallons 
 
 Eimer (lauter-mass) 
 
 Zurich 
 
 28.9275 gallons. 
 
 Eimer (triiber-mass) 
 
 do 
 
 30.866 gallons. 
 
 Ell 
 
 Holland 
 
 1.094 yards. 
 
 Elle' 
 
 Austria 
 
 0.8522 yard. 
 
 Do 
 
 Basel 
 
 1.2337 yards. 
 
 Do 
 
 Bavaria 
 
 0.911 yard 
 
 Do 
 
 Berlin . 
 
 0.7293 yard 
 
 Do 
 
 Bremen 
 
 0.6438 yard 
 
 Do 
 
 Dresden 
 
 0.6 196 yard. 
 
 Do 
 
 Frankfort-on-the-Main 
 
 0.5986 yard. 
 
 Elle (silk) 
 
 Hamburg 
 
 0.6266 yard. 
 
 Elle (wool) 
 
 do 
 
 0.7562 yard. 
 
 Elle 
 
 Munich . 
 
 0.9 11 yard. 
 
 Do 
 
 Prague 
 
 0.6496 yard 
 
 Do 
 
 Rostock 
 
 0.6325 yard 
 
 Do 
 
 Zurich 
 
 0.6563 yard 
 
 Embar 
 
 Sweden 
 
 20.7327 gallons. 
 
 Emmer 
 
 Antwerp 
 
 8.8059 gallons. 
 
 Estado 
 
 Spain . 
 
 1.8547 yards. 
 
 Fanega 
 
 Buenos Ayrcs 
 
 3.75 bushels. 
 
 Do 
 
 Chile 
 
 2 838 bushels 
 
 Do 
 
 Havana 
 
 3 11 02 bushels 
 
 Do 
 
 Maderia 
 
 1 601 bushels 
 
 Do 
 
 Mexico 
 
 1.5473 gallons. 
 
 Do 
 
 Montevideo 
 
 3.868 gallons. 
 
 Do 
 
 Spain 
 
 1.5753 bushels. 
 
 Do 
 
 Valparaiso .... 
 
 2.5753 bushels. 
 
 Fanga 
 
 Azores Islands 
 
 1.36 bushels. 
 
 Do 
 
 Lisbon 
 
 1 5347 bushels 
 
 Do 
 
 Oporto 
 
 1 9374 bushels 
 
 Do 
 
 Rio Janeiro. 
 
 1.5347 bushels. 
 
 Fass . 
 
 Berlin. . 
 
 60.497 gallons. 
 
 Do 
 
 Bohemia .... . 
 
 64.56 gallons. 
 
 Fass (oil) 
 
 Hamburg 
 
 38.2556 gallons. 
 
 Fass (dry) 
 
 .... do 
 
 1.4941 bushels. 
 
 Fass (wine) 
 
 Leipzig 
 
 100 1737 gallons 
 
 Fass (beer) 
 
 do 
 
 95.4052 gallons. 
 
 Fass . 
 
 Prague .... 
 
 67.806 gallons 
 
 Fass (dry) 
 
 Rostock 
 
 0.2758 bushel. 
 
 Fass (wine) 
 
 Vienna 
 
 153.2629 gallons. 
 
 Fass (beer) 
 
 do . 
 
 31 7727 gallons 
 
 Fjerding 
 
 Finland. 
 
 8 2931 gallons 
 
 Do 
 
 Sweden 
 
 8 29 gallons 
 
 Fierding (dry) 
 
 do 
 
 5 196 bushel 
 
 Fot 
 
 Sweden 
 
 0.9714 foot 
 
 Frasco 
 
 Brazil 
 
 0.5625 gallon. 
 
 Fuder .... 
 
 Berlin 
 
 217 7883 gallons 
 
 Do 
 
 Copenhagen 
 
 237 3375 gallons 
 
 Do 
 
 Frankfort-on-the-Main 
 
 227 3462 gallons 
 
 Do 
 
 Hamburg 
 
 229 7791 gallons 
 
 Do 
 
 L/eipzig 
 
 240 4612 gallons 
 
 Do 
 
 Rostock 
 
 229 5 178 gallons 
 
 Do 
 
 Sweden 
 
 258 8028 gallons 
 
 Do 
 
 Vienna 
 
 478 479 bushels 
 
 Fuss 
 
 Yntwerp 
 
 3 123 yard 
 
 Do 
 
 Berlin . . 
 
 3432 yard 
 
 
 
 
64: 
 
 THE METRIC FALLACY. 
 
 NON-METRIC UNITS USED IN METRIC COUNTRIES Continued. 
 
 Denominations. 
 
 Where used. 
 
 American equivalents. 
 
 Fuss 
 
 Bremen 
 
 3 163 yard 
 
 Do 
 
 Frankfort 
 
 0.31 13 yard 
 
 Do 
 
 Hamburg 
 
 0.3 133 yard 
 
 Do 
 
 Hungary 
 
 0.3457 yard 
 
 Do 
 
 *r i_ 
 
 Munich 
 
 0.3 192 yard 
 
 Do . . . 
 
 Vienna 
 
 3457 vard 
 
 Hok (dry) 
 
 China 
 
 1.0887 bushels 
 
 Ikje 
 
 Japan 
 
 2 3165 yards 
 
 Ink 
 
 Japan 
 
 2 0785 yards 
 
 Kan 
 
 China 
 
 1 3333 pounds 
 
 Do 
 
 Holland 
 
 2642 gallon 
 
 Kande 
 
 Norway. 
 
 5104 gallon 
 
 Kanne 
 
 Batavia 
 
 3939 gallon 
 
 Do 
 
 Hamburg 
 
 4782 gallon 
 
 Do 
 
 Leipzig 
 
 3181 gallon 
 
 Do 
 
 Rostock 
 
 0.4349 gallon 
 
 Kanne (butter) .... 
 
 Saxony 
 
 24 7344 pounds 
 
 Kanne 
 
 Vienna 
 
 0.1873 gallon 
 
 Kasten .... 
 
 Wurtemberg 
 
 4.0047 bushels 
 
 Knital 
 
 Constantinople 
 
 124.564 pounds 
 
 Klafter . . 
 
 Basel 
 
 1.2893 yards 
 
 Klafter (solid) .... 
 
 Basle 
 
 128 cubic feet 
 
 Klafter . . 
 
 Berlin . . 
 
 2.0595 yards 
 
 Klafter (solid) . . . 
 
 do 
 
 117. 907 cubic feet 
 
 Klafter . . 
 
 Bremen 
 
 189.77 yards 
 
 Do 
 
 Hamburg 
 
 1.8799 yards 
 
 Do 
 
 Leipzig 
 
 1.8547 yards 
 
 Klafter (solid) . . 
 
 do 
 
 100 49 cubic feet 
 
 Klafter . . 
 
 Vienna 
 
 2.0742 yards. 
 
 Do 
 
 Wurtemberg 
 
 1 88 yards 
 
 Klafter (solid) . . 
 
 do 
 
 119 583 cubic feet. 
 
 Kong-pu 
 
 China 
 
 0.3347 yard 
 
 Kopf 
 
 Zurich 
 
 9643 gallon. 
 
 Korb 
 
 Zurich 
 
 10.538 bushels 
 
 Kumme 
 
 Berlin . . 
 
 26 841 cubic feet. 
 
 Kwan 
 
 China . . . 
 
 40 pounds. 
 
 Lagel (steel) 
 
 Prussia 
 
 103. 1156 pounds. 
 
 Landfass 
 
 Berne 
 
 264.971 gallons. 
 
 Last 
 
 Amsterdam 
 
 85.2457 pounds. 
 
 Last 
 
 Bremen 
 
 329.718 pounds. 
 
 Last (dry) . 
 
 do 
 
 84.078 bushels. 
 
 Last 
 
 Hamburg 
 
 89.8163 bushels. 
 
 Do ... 
 
 Prussia 
 
 112.292 bushels. 
 
 Lastre 
 
 Argentina 
 
 58.404 bushels. 
 
 Legger (arrack) 
 
 Amsterdam . 
 
 153.752 gallons. 
 
 Do 
 
 Batavia . ...'..... 
 
 160 gallons. 
 
 Leung 
 
 China 
 
 0.0833 pound. 
 
 Libbra 
 
 Bologna 
 
 0.7984 pound. 
 
 Libbra(old) 
 Libra 
 
 Italy 
 Chile 
 
 0.8146 pound. 
 1.0141 pounds. 
 
 Do 
 
 Cuba 
 
 1.0161 pounds. 
 
 Do 
 
 Mexico 
 
 1.01465 pounds. 
 
 Do 
 
 Peru 
 
 1.0 143 pounds. 
 
 Do 
 
 Spain . 
 
 1.0143 pounds. 
 
 Do 
 
 United States of Colombia . . 
 
 1.0143 pounds. 
 
 Do 
 
 Uruguay 
 
 1.0143 pounds. 
 
 Do 
 
 Venezuela 
 
 1.0143 pounds. 
 
 
 
 
THE METRIC FALLACY. 
 
 65 
 
 NON-METRIC UNITS USED IN METRIC COUNTRIES Continued. 
 
 Denominations. 
 
 Where used. 
 
 American equivalents. 
 
 Libra 
 
 Porto Rico 
 
 1 0161 pounds 
 
 Lispund 
 
 Norway 
 
 17 6158 pounds 
 
 Lispund (metal) 
 
 Sweden 
 
 14.9965 pounds 
 
 Lispund (viktualie) 
 
 do 
 
 18.7457 pounds. 
 
 Litra 
 
 Greece . . 
 
 0.2642 gallon. 
 
 Livre 
 
 Antwerp 
 
 1 037 pounds 
 
 Do . 
 
 Bordeaux 
 
 1 1024 pounds 
 
 Do 
 
 Brussels 
 
 1.0311 pounds 
 
 Do 
 
 Geneva 
 
 1.2 142 pounds 
 
 Livre (silk) 
 
 Lyons 
 
 1.01 18 pounds 
 
 Maas 
 
 Austria 
 
 0.373 gallon. 
 
 Do 
 
 Bavaria . 
 
 0.2824 gallon. 
 
 Maat (salt) 
 
 Amsterdam 
 
 1.745 bushels. 
 
 Mallal 
 
 Barcelona 
 
 3 9812 gallons 
 
 Malter 
 
 Baden 
 
 4 2567 gallons 
 
 Do 
 
 Prussia 
 
 18 7164 bushels 
 
 Do 
 
 Zurich 
 
 9 44 16 bushels 
 
 Mass 
 
 Austria 
 
 0.373 gallon 
 
 Do ... 
 
 Bavaria 
 
 0.2824 gallon 
 
 Medida 
 
 Brazil 
 
 0.7331 gallon 
 
 Metical 
 
 Constantinople 
 
 74.25 grains. 
 
 Metze 
 
 Austria 
 
 1.7454 bushels. 
 
 Do 
 
 Hungary 
 
 1.774 bushels. 
 
 Mezzaruola 
 
 Genoa. . . . 
 
 39.2172 gallons. 
 
 Mina 
 
 Genoa 
 
 3.4257 bushels. 
 
 Do 
 
 Greece 
 
 2 2046 pounds 
 
 Do ... 
 
 Milan 
 
 2 6418 gallons 
 
 Moegio 
 
 Venice 
 
 9.081 bushels. 
 
 i i 6 
 JVloio . . . 
 
 Lisbon 
 
 23.0202 bushels 
 
 Monkelzer 
 
 Persia 
 
 0.7836 yard 
 
 Monme 
 
 Japan .... 
 
 3.750 grammes 
 
 Mudde 
 
 Holland 
 
 2.8378 bushels 
 
 Muid 
 
 French Guiana . 
 
 70.8552 gallons. 
 
 Do 
 
 Brussels 
 
 8.032 bushels. 
 
 Do 
 
 Paris 
 
 53. 1579 bushels. 
 
 Mutt . . 
 
 St. Gall 
 
 2.344 bushels. 
 
 Do 
 
 Zurich 
 
 2.3304 bushels. 
 
 Ocquich 
 
 Cairo 
 
 1504 ounce 
 
 Ohm 
 
 Baden 
 
 39 6267 gallons 
 
 Do 
 
 Basel 
 
 13 4459 gallons. 
 
 Do 
 
 Berlin . . 
 
 49.8197 gallons. 
 
 Do 
 
 Bremen 
 
 38.2965 gallons. 
 
 Do 
 
 Frankfort 
 
 37.891 gallons. 
 
 Do 
 
 Lubeck 
 
 38 4394 gallons 
 
 Oka 
 
 Cairo 
 
 2 7771 pounds 
 
 Do . ... 
 
 Constantinople 
 
 2 8342 pounds 
 
 Do 
 
 EffVDt 
 
 2 7235 pounds 
 
 Do 
 
 Greece 
 
 3 371*4 pounds 
 
 Do 
 
 Hungary 
 
 3 08 17 pounds. 
 
 Orcio (oil) 
 
 AJ.UllgO.lJ 
 
 r lorence 
 
 8.8315 gallons. 
 
 Ottingkar 
 
 Finland .... 
 
 4. 1476 gallons. 
 
 Outava (precious stones) 
 
 Brazil . . , 
 
 0.1 307 ounce. 
 
 Oxhoft 
 
 Berlin 
 
 54 4391 gallons 
 
 Do 
 
 Dresden 
 
 53 43 gallons 
 
 Do 
 
 Hamburg 
 
 57 221 gallons 
 
 Do 
 
 Hanover . .... 
 
 62. 1593 gallons 
 
 Oxhoft (brandy) . . 
 
 Leipsic 
 
 60. 11 53 gallons 
 
 
 
 
THE METRIC FALLACY. 
 
 NON-METRIC UNITS USED IN METRIC COUNTRIES -Continued. 
 
 Denominations. 
 
 Where used. 
 
 American equivalents. 
 
 Oxhoft (wine) 
 
 Leipsic k . 
 
 53.4358 gallons. 
 
 Oxhoft 
 
 Rostock 
 
 57 3822 gallons 
 
 Oxhufwud 
 
 Sweden 
 
 62 1980 gallons. 
 
 Palme 
 
 Belgium 
 
 3 937 inches. 
 
 Palmo 
 
 Brazil 
 
 8.5592 inches. 
 
 Palmo (marble) 
 
 Carrara ... 
 
 9.592 inches. 
 
 Palmo 
 
 Leghorn .... 
 
 11. 4884 inches. 
 
 Pecul 
 
 China 
 
 133.3333 pounds. 
 
 Do 
 
 Japan 
 
 130 pounds. 
 
 Do 
 
 Malacca 
 
 135 pounds. 
 
 Do 
 
 Manila 
 
 140 pounds. 
 
 Pfund 
 
 Austria 
 
 1.2347 pounds. 
 
 Do 
 
 Baden 
 
 1.1 024 pounds. 
 
 Do 
 
 Basel 
 
 1.0792 pounds. 
 
 Do 
 
 Bavaria 
 
 1.2347 pounds. 
 
 Do 
 
 Berlin . . 
 
 1.0312 pounds. 
 
 Do 
 
 Bremen 
 
 1.0991 pounds. 
 
 Do 
 
 Brunswick . . . . 
 
 1.0296 pounds. 
 
 Do 
 
 Frankfurt 
 
 1.1141 pounds. 
 
 Pfund (zoll) 
 
 Germany 
 
 1.1025 pounds. 
 
 Pfund 
 
 Hambur " 
 
 1 0679 pounds 
 
 Do 
 
 Hanover 
 
 1.0794 pounds. 
 
 Do 
 
 Leipsic 
 
 1.0306 pounds. 
 
 Do 
 
 Prussia 
 
 1.0312 pounds. 
 
 Do.. . 
 
 Rostock 
 
 1.1 205 pounds. 
 
 Do 
 
 Vienna 
 
 1 2347 pounds 
 
 Do 
 
 Zurich 
 
 1.1651 pounds. 
 
 Pfundschwer 
 
 Bremen 
 
 329 57 pounds 
 
 Do 
 
 Cairo 
 
 0.7404 yard. 
 
 Do . ... 
 
 Constantinople 
 
 7317 yard 
 
 Pi6 
 
 Argentina 
 
 0.3159 yard. 
 
 Do 
 
 Cuba 
 
 0.3091 yard. 
 
 Do 
 
 Curacao 
 
 3090 yard 
 
 Do 
 
 Mexico 
 
 0.3091 yard. 
 
 Do 
 
 Spain 
 
 3091 yard 
 
 Do 
 
 Venice 
 
 0.3803 yard. 
 
 Ping . . 
 
 China 
 
 17.4186 bushels. 
 
 Pipa 
 
 Canary Islands 
 
 120 gallons. 
 
 Do 
 
 Lisbon 
 
 135 gallons. 
 
 Do 
 
 Madeira 
 
 110 gallons. 
 
 Do 
 
 Rio Janeiro 
 
 132 089 gallons 
 
 Do 
 
 Sweden 
 
 124.3961 gallons. 
 
 Pipe (brandy) 
 
 Bordeaux 
 
 99.5951 gallons. 
 
 Do . . 
 
 Cognac .... 
 
 152.7821 gallons. 
 
 Pond (Brabant) 
 
 Amsterdam 
 
 1.0371 pounds. 
 
 Pond (Troy) 
 
 do 
 
 1.0847 pounds. 
 
 Pot 
 
 Antwerp 
 
 0.363 gallon. 
 
 Pot (beer) ' 
 
 Brussels 
 
 0.3435 gallon. 
 
 Pot (wine) 
 
 do 
 
 0.3578 gallon. 
 
 Pott . ... 
 
 Basel . ... 
 
 0.1051 gallon. 
 
 Do 
 
 Denmark 
 
 2552 gallon 
 
 Do 
 
 Norway 
 
 2552 gallon 
 
 Quardeel (oil) 
 
 Amsterdam 
 
 98. 1421 gallons. 
 
 Quarto (oil) 
 
 Genoa 
 
 4.2709 gallons. 
 
 Quene 
 
 Burgundy 
 
 106.2841 gallons. 
 
 Quilate (precious stones) .... 
 
 Brazil . . . 
 
 3.075 grains. 
 
 Quintal 
 
 Argentina 
 
 101 27 pounds. 
 
 
 
 
THE METRIC FALLACY. 
 
 67 
 
 NON-METRIC UNITS USED IN METRIC COUNTRIES- Continued. 
 
 Denominations. 
 
 Where used. 
 
 American equivalents. 
 
 Quintal 
 
 Brazil 
 
 130 0604 pounds 
 
 V Do" 
 
 Chile 
 
 101 6097 pounds 
 
 Do 
 
 Mexico 
 
 101 6097 pounds 
 
 Do 
 
 Peru .... 
 
 101 6097 pounds 
 
 Do 
 
 Spain 
 
 101 6097 pounds 
 
 Do 
 
 Valencia 
 
 109 7285 pounds. 
 
 Raza (salt) 
 
 Oporto 
 
 1 2509 bushels 
 
 Raziere 
 
 Antwerp 
 
 2 2597 bushels 
 
 Rebeb 
 
 Alexandria 
 
 4 4582 bushels 
 
 Rjoo 
 
 Japan 
 
 1659 pound 
 
 Rotl 
 
 Cairo 
 
 9804 pound 
 
 Rottel . 
 
 Turkey 
 
 1 247 pounds 
 
 Rubbio 
 
 Leghorn 
 
 7 7767 bushels 
 
 Do 
 
 Rome 
 
 8 3553 bushels. 
 
 Ruthe 
 
 Bavaria 
 
 3 1919 yards. 
 
 Do 
 
 Bremen 
 
 5.0604 yards. 
 
 Do 
 
 Lcipsic 
 
 4 945 yards 
 
 Do 
 
 Prussia 
 
 4 119 yards 
 
 Do 
 
 Zurich . 
 
 3 296 vards 
 
 Do 
 Sac (wheat and flour) 
 
 Geneva 
 Paris 
 
 2.204 bushels. 
 5.9987 bushels. 
 
 Sacco 
 
 Leghorn . ... 
 
 2 0746 bushels 
 
 Do 
 
 Milan 
 
 4 151 bushels 
 
 Do 
 
 Nice 
 
 3 4054 bushels. 
 
 Do 
 
 Turin 
 
 3 2635 bushels. 
 
 Sack 
 
 Basel 
 
 3 8781 bushels. 
 
 Salma . 
 
 Naples 
 
 40.2726 gallons. 
 
 Salma (oil) 
 
 do 
 
 42 1667 gallons 
 
 Salma, (wine) 
 
 Sicily 
 
 22 gallons 
 
 Salma (dry) 
 
 do 
 
 7 8 bushels 
 
 Salma (grosso) 
 
 do 
 
 10 bushels 
 
 Sals 
 
 Japan .... 
 
 33 14 yard 
 
 Saum 
 
 Austria 
 
 275 pounds 
 
 Do 
 
 Basel 
 
 40 3377 gallons 
 
 Do 
 
 St. Gall 
 
 44.371 gallons 
 
 Do 
 
 Switzerland 
 
 441 8293 pounds 
 
 Do 
 
 Vienna 
 
 339 5357 pounds 
 
 Scheffel 
 
 Bavaria 
 
 6 31 bushels 
 
 Do 
 
 Bremen 
 
 2 102 bushels 
 
 Do 
 
 Dresden 
 
 2 9485 bushels 
 
 Do 
 
 Hamburg 
 
 2 9884 bushels. 
 
 Scheffel (barley) .... 
 
 do 
 
 4 4823 bushels. 
 
 Scheffel 
 
 Leipsic 
 
 2.9485 bushels. 
 
 Do 
 
 Prussia 
 
 1.5597 bushels. 
 
 Do 
 
 \Veimar 
 
 2 1841 bushels 
 
 Do 
 
 Wurttemberg 
 
 5 0292 bushels 
 
 Schepel 
 
 Holland 
 
 2838 bushel 
 
 Schifflast 
 
 Berlin 
 
 4 124 72 pounds. 
 
 Schiffpfund 
 
 do . 
 
 340 41 14 pounds 
 
 Do 
 
 Bremen 
 
 318 7274 pounds. 
 
 Do 
 
 Hamburg 
 
 299 0082 pounds. 
 
 Schippond 
 
 Amsterdam 
 
 326.742 pounds. 
 
 Do 
 
 Antwerp 
 
 310 974 pounds 
 
 Schoppen 
 
 Basel . . 
 
 0991 gallon. 
 
 Do 
 
 Frankfort 
 
 0.1 184 gallon. 
 
 Schragen 
 
 Leipsic 
 
 30 1.47 cubic feet. 
 
 Schuh. . 
 
 Basel.. 
 
 0.331 vard. 
 
68 
 
 THE METRIC FALLACY. 
 
 NON-METRIC UNITS USED IN METRIC COUNTRIES- Continued. 
 
 Denominations. 
 
 Where used. 
 
 American equivalents. 
 
 Sei 
 
 China 
 
 3.47 16 bushels. 
 
 Sextingkar 
 
 Finland 
 
 2.0733 gallons 
 
 Shik: 
 Tsong 
 
 China 
 
 160 pounds 
 
 Shi 
 
 do 
 
 2. 1773 bushels 
 
 Sjoo . . . 
 
 Japan 
 
 4591 gallon 
 
 Skalpund . ... 
 
 Sweden 
 
 9361 pound 
 
 Skeppund : 
 Metal 
 
 . .do 
 
 299.931 pounds 
 
 Viktualie 
 
 do 
 
 374.9136 pounds. 
 
 Stab 
 
 Frankfort 
 
 1 3124 yards 
 
 Do . ... 
 
 Hungary 
 
 1 7285 yards 
 
 Do 
 
 Leipsic 
 
 1 2365 yards 
 
 Do 
 
 St Gall 
 
 1 3 124 yards 
 
 Stajo . . 
 
 Leghorn 
 
 69 16 bushel 
 
 Stajo or staro 
 
 Naples 
 
 2.6163 gallons 
 
 Stangr 
 
 Sweden 
 
 5 181 yards 
 
 Steekan 
 
 Amsterdam 
 
 5 1251 gallons 
 
 Stein 
 
 Berlin . . . . 
 
 22 686 pounds 
 
 Stein (flux) 
 
 Bremen . 
 
 21 9812 pounds 
 
 Do . . 
 
 Hamburg 
 
 21 3577 pounds 
 
 Do . 
 
 Rostock 
 
 24 65 pounds 
 
 Stein 
 
 Vienna 
 
 24 65 pounds 
 
 Sten 
 
 Sweden 
 
 29 993 pounds 
 
 Stop 
 
 Sweden 
 
 3454 gallon 
 
 Strich 
 
 Prague 
 
 2 6562 bushels 
 
 Stiickfass 
 
 Frankfort 
 
 303 1283 gallons 
 
 Stiitz 
 
 Neufchatcl 
 
 4 0246 gallons 
 
 Talanton 
 
 Greece 
 
 330 607 pounds 
 
 Tarn 
 
 China 
 
 133 3333 pounds 
 
 Tass (figs) 
 
 Portugal 
 
 33 pounds. 
 
 Tercio (tobacco) .... 
 
 Cuba 
 
 160 pounds 
 
 Tomolo 
 
 Naples 
 
 1 5646 bushels. 
 
 Tonelada 
 
 Argentina 
 
 29 202 bushels 
 
 Tonne (beer) 
 
 Berlin . . 
 
 30 2484 gallons. 
 
 Do ....... 
 
 Bremen 
 
 43 8361 gallons. 
 
 Do 
 
 Germany 
 
 2 204.6212 pounds. 
 
 Do 
 
 Hamburg .... 
 
 45.7771 gallons. 
 
 Do 
 
 Rostock 
 
 30 6192 gallons 
 
 Tun (oil) 
 
 Malaga .... 
 
 2.233 pounds. 
 
 Tunna 
 
 Sweden 
 
 33 1596 gallons 
 
 Dry 
 
 do 
 
 4.1571 gallons. 
 
 Uper 
 
 Belgium 
 
 9075 gallon 
 
 Urna ... ... 
 
 Hungary 
 
 14 3053 gallons. 
 
 Vaam 
 
 Holland 
 
 2 0594 yards. 
 
 Vara .... 
 
 Argentina 
 
 9478 yard. 
 
 Do 
 
 Chile 
 
 9164 yard. 
 
 Do 
 
 Cuba 
 
 9271 yard. 
 
 Do 
 
 Mexico 
 
 0.9139 yard. 
 
 Do 
 
 Peru ... . . 
 
 0.9164 yard. 
 
 Do 
 
 Portufdl 
 
 1 203 yards 
 
 Do 
 
 Spain . . . 
 
 0.9141 yard. 
 
 Do 
 
 Venezuela 
 
 9141 yard 
 
 Velt . 
 
 Antwerp 
 
 2 gallons 
 
 Velt (brandy) 
 
 France 
 
 2 gallons. 
 
 Velt 
 
 Paris 
 
 1 9683 gallons. 
 
 Viertel . . 
 
 Amsterdam . . 
 
 1.9524 gallons. 
 
THE METRIC FALLACY. 
 
 NON-METRIC UNITS USED IN METRIC COUNTRIES Continued. 
 
 Denominations. 
 
 Where used. 
 
 American equivalents. 
 
 Viertel 
 
 Basel 
 
 1.5028 gallons. 
 
 Do 
 
 Bremen 
 
 1.9148 gallons. 
 
 Do 
 
 Hamburg 
 
 1.9074 gallons. 
 
 Do 
 
 Rostock 
 
 1.9 137 gallons. . 
 
 
 do 
 
 7.6548 gallons. 
 
 Viertel 
 
 Vienna 
 
 3,7361 gallons. 
 
 Wisnel frve') 
 
 Hamburg 
 
 29.8811 bushels. 
 
 Yin . . . . 
 
 China 
 
 2.6667 pounds. 
 
 Zak 
 
 Holland 
 
 2.8378 bushels. 
 
 
 
 
 Regarding the use of these units and of this table, I quote as 
 follows from three letters from Mr. Emory, Chief of the Bureau 
 of Foreign Commerce, whose opportunity for obtaining informa- 
 tion on this subject is unique. 
 
 It [the table] is in daily use in this Bureau in the reduction of foreign weights 
 and measures to United States equivalents. 
 
 While the metric system is legal in the countries you mention [my reference 
 was to metric countries in general], the old units are also very widely used. In 
 the statements of imports and exports, the metric system is commonly employed ; 
 in business transactions in the interior, the other units. 
 
 In South American countries especially, although the metric system has been 
 introduced and is in use for customs transactions, the non-metric units, native to 
 the countries, are often employed in domestic transactions. These units fre- 
 quently appear in the reports of Consular Officers, and I will mention a few. 
 
 The Spanish or Castilian quintal of 101.61 pounds is used in Chile (Commer- 
 cial Relations, 1900, vol. i., p. 789); the measure "zeroons" (meaning un- 
 known) occurs in the same volume, p 823; the arroba, the cuadra, and the lino 
 are used in Paraguay (Commercial Relations, 1899, vol. i., page 687), meaning 
 10,000 square yards, 25 pounds, and 100 yards, respectively. The quintal in 
 Guatemala, in the export of coffee, is "about 100 pounds" (Commercial Rela- 
 tions, 1898, volume i., p. 650) ; the finca is used in Costa Rica to designate " any 
 area of land" (Commercial Relations, 1896-97, p. 531). The cantar is employed 
 in Sicily in the export of sulphur; it is equivalent to 175 pounds (Commercial 
 Relations, 1901, vol. ii., p. 429). These are only some instances that I happen 
 to recall; a search through the Consular Reports would show many others. See 
 also the Statesman's Year Book, 1902, p. 481 : " The French metric system . . . 
 is used in official departments (in Brazil), but the ancient weights and measures 
 are still partly employed. They are the libra, the arroba, the quintal, etc." Page 
 492 : " The metric system is legally established in Chile since 1865, but the old 
 Spanish weights and measures are still in use to some extent." Page 517 : " The 
 metric system was introduced into the Republic (of Colombia) in 1857 ; in custom 
 house business, the kilogramme ... is the standard ; in ordinary commerce the 
 arroba, carga, etc., are generally used." These quotations could be multiplied. 
 I send you copies of the Commercial Relations, above referred to, and would re- 
 peat that an examination of the volumes will show other instances of the use of 
 native weights and measures. 
 
TO THE METRIC FALLACY. 
 
 The examination of Consular Relations suggested by Mr. 
 Emory has been made by Mr. F. H. Colvin, using the latest ob- 
 tainable volumes, those for 1900 and 1901, and with the follow- 
 ing results which were given at the discussion of the Mechanical 
 Engineers : 
 
 4.mong the South American countries, which are held up as 
 shining examples of knowing a good thing in the way of scientific 
 measurements when they see it, I first found a report from the 
 statistical office of Bolivia. The compiler had evidently over- 
 looked the fact that this was a metric country, for railroad ex- 
 tensions were given in miles, mine products in pounds and tons, 
 and the height of mountainous mines in feet. 
 
 Reports from Peru give lumber in feet, mine products in tons, 
 while the detailed report of the superintendent of the Central 
 Railway, concerning his road, gives everything in English 
 measures. 
 
 Official reports from Uruguay are metric, but judging from 
 the Consular reports, the native units are used in every-day life. 
 There is also an exhaustive statement by the large house of Huf- 
 nagel, Plattier & Co., in Paysandu, Uruguay, as to the imports 
 and exports, in which feet, kilos and pounds are hopelessly mixed. 
 
 From Venezuela there are reports from Maracaibo and Puerto 
 Cabello, and not a mention of metric measure in the lot. 
 
 Consular reports from Mexico fail to mention metric measures 
 in a single instance except when quoting government reports, in- 
 dicating that its use is entirely official instead of popular. Rail- 
 road extensions and similar measurements are always given in feet. 
 
 Going to Spanish reports we find a quotation from a Valencia 
 paper pointing out the increased competition of American fruit 
 in their home market, and in France as follows : " Their oranges, 
 apples, peaches, etc., reach Paris after traversing 6,000 miles, 
 in a more attractive condition than ours after a journey of only 
 490 miles" Not kilometres but miles. 
 
 Consul-General Hay from Barcelona says, " that to gain this 
 trade we must print catalogues in Spanish, as the Germans and 
 English do " but he entirely neglects to mention the necessity 
 or advantage of having metric measures. Raisins are quoted in 
 " arrobas " of 25 pounds each. 
 
 A report of navigation from Trieste, Austria, is in tons, rates 
 in shillings per ton, battle-ships in tons displacement. Now these 
 may be metric tons, and as the harbor improvements are given 
 
THE METRIC FALLACY. 71 
 
 partly in feet and partly in metres, you can decide either way you 
 like. Length of railways is given in miles, while the rates are in 
 kilogrammes. The imports are in quintals, pounds and tons 
 makes a scientific system. 
 
 Belgium makes a bad showing for those advocates who think it 
 can be assimilated in two or three years. Government reports are 
 metric as a matter of course, but commercial houses give imports 
 in pounds, cords and gallons. Crop reports in the Antwerp district 
 are given in bushels and tons of 2,240 pounds. Lumber, however, 
 is given in metres, while imports of cereals are in bushels. An- 
 other table giving the crops per hectare (2.471 acres), as follows: 
 
 Wheat (in bushels) 66.21 
 
 Potatoes (in kilogrammes) 38,911 
 
 (Note the inconveniently large figures owing to the unit being so 
 small.) 
 
 Beet roots and tobacco are also honored with the scientific 
 system, while all the rest must be content with the old units. 
 
 Imports of wood, both from America and other countries are 
 given in cubic metres, while imports of rubber are in pounds. Both 
 systems are used all through, lumber being given in cubic yards 
 in one place. 
 
 Swedish reports give tables with pounds, metric tons, bushels, 
 long tons, gallons, pounds and hundredweight. Other reports use 
 kilos and pounds. 
 
 Germany. In mentioning Agrarian legislation, bushels and hec- 
 tolitres, English tons and metric tons all seem to have equal chance. 
 Structural iron and steel are quoted in sixteenths and eighths of an 
 inch. Textiles are quoted in hundredweights. 
 
 Italy. Imports at Leghorn are given in hundredweights and 
 tons, in other places in kilos. Exports are largely in pounds. Wine 
 is quoted at so many " lire " per cask of 100 quarts. 
 
 In reports from Chile, Valparaiso, do not mention metric, but 
 figures are given in pounds, tons and quarts. In Iquique prices 
 are given in shillings per hundredweight, and Spanish quintals are 
 also mentioned. 
 
 In the report from Bogota, United States of Colombia, yards and 
 pounds are used, and there is also a quotation from a French paper 
 regarding the mines of Muzo and Cosconeg, in which the distances 
 are given in yards and miles. Still another report uses metric and 
 English measures indiscriminately. 
 
72 THE METRIC FALLACY. 
 
 From Holland the annual circular of the Hide, Skin and 
 Leather Co. gives imports of hides in " piculs," and translates it 
 into pounds, although official reports use kilogrammes. Harbor im- 
 provements are given in metres in some places, and feet in others. 
 
 These examples can be multiplied many times by those who 
 have the time to examine the records. It should also be noted that 
 these are not old reports but the latest obtainable. I may also 
 add that no cases have been mentioned where there was any chance 
 of confusing the English and metric ton, or other measurements 
 as in tonnage of shipping in ports of metric countries. 
 
 It has been assumed that consuls give the units in use in the 
 country as there is nothing to indicate any translations, and con- 
 suls, as a rule, are not given to translating page after page of dry 
 statistics. In the cases where native units are given, this is ample 
 proof that there was no consular interference, for if translating it 
 would be into English and not into native units.* 
 
 Among mechanical engineers no name stands higher as a col- 
 lector and publisher of exact engineering facts and data than that 
 of D. K. Clark, whose Mamial of Rules, Tables and Data for 
 Mechanical Engineers is a monumental collection of that kind. 
 In his Mechanical Engineer's Pocket Boole of Tables, Formula, 
 Rules and Data, third edition, 1903, beginning on page 165, may 
 be found a section giving in the severely brief manner of an 
 engineer's reference book the leading facts regarding the weights 
 and measures of many countries. The statements made substan- 
 tiate what has been given above regarding China, Greece, Turkey, 
 Japan, Egypt, Spain, Mexico, Cuba, Brazil, Venezuela, Peru, 
 Guatemala, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, San Salvador and Honduras. 
 
 The following quotations give Mr. Clark's statements regard- 
 ing some of these countries: 
 
 China. "The chili of 14.10 English inches is the legal standard in 
 the tariff settled by treaty between Great Britain and China," etc., followed 
 by the values of many Chinese units, including those of surface, capacity 
 and weight, none of which are metric. 
 
 Spain. " The old system continues largely in use." 
 
 Turkey. A table of Turkish weights and measures is given but no 
 mention is made of the use of the metric system. 
 
 Japan. This country is treated precisely like Turkey. 
 
 * That the English units used are not consular translations is shown by 
 the publication of page after page of government reports of imports and 
 exports in metric units without any attempt at translation. 
 
THE METRIC FALLACY. 73 
 
 Egypt. " In the old system in general use the pik is the unit of length," 
 etc. 
 
 Costa Rica. " The old weights and measures of Spain are in general 
 use." 
 
 Cuba. " The old weights and measures of Spain are in general use." 
 
 Guatemala. " The old weights and measures of Spain are in general 
 use." 
 
 Honduras. " The old weights and measures of Spain are in general 
 use." 
 
 Mexico. " The old Spanish measures are still in use." 
 
 Nicaragua. " The system of weights and measures is that of the old 
 weights and measures of Spain." 
 
 Peru. " The French metric system was established in 1860 but is not 
 yet in common use except for the customs tariff." 
 
 Venezuela. " The system in general use is the same as that of Co- 
 lombia." 
 
 The following extracts relate to countries that have not previ- 
 ously been mentioned: 
 
 Bolivia. "The vara = .927 yard; the gallon .74 imperial gallon; the 
 arroba = 25.30 pounds avoirdupois; the arroba for wines and spirits = 6.7 
 imperial gallons; the ounce = 1.014 ounce avoirdupois; 16 ounces = 1 
 libra = 1.014 pound." (Mr. Clark has nothing to say about the use of 
 the metric system in Bolivia.) 
 
 Chile. " The French metric system has been legally established in 
 Chile; but the ancient weights and measures are still in use. These are 
 the same as those of Bolivia." 
 
 Colombia. " The French metric system is legally established in Co- 
 lombia. In custom house business the kilogram is the standard of weight. 
 The old weights and measures continue in use in ordinary commerce." 
 [And then follows a list of the old units.] 
 
 St. Domingo. The old Spanish weights and measures are in general 
 use. The French metric system also is in use." 
 
 Uruguay." The French metric system has been officially adopted but 
 it is not in general use. The old weights and measures are the same as 
 those of the Argentine Republic." 
 
 Portugal. " The French metric system is the legal standard. The old 
 measures principally still in use are: the libra = 1.012 pounds; the almude 
 of Lisbon = 3.7 gallons; the almude of Oporto 5.6 gallons," etc. 
 
 Roumania. " The French metric system is in force in Roumania. Turk- 
 ish weights and measures are largely in use by the people." 
 
 Switzerland. " The French metric system has been generally adopted 
 in Switzerland with some changes of names and sub-divisions: 
 
 Length: 10 zoll = 1 fuss (3 decimetres;* 
 6 fuss = 1 klafter * 
 
 * Note the strictly decimal ratios: 1 fuss = 3 decimetres; 1 klafter = 
 18 decimetres; 1 square fuss = 9 square decimetres and (save the mark!) 
 16 ounces = half a kilogram! ! ! 
 
74: THE METRIC FALLACY. 
 
 10 fuss = 1 ruthe 
 1,600 ruthen - 1 lien 
 Surface: 100 sq. fuss = 1 sq. ruth 
 400 sq. ruthen = 1 juchart 
 Weight: 16 unzen = 1 pfund (% kilogram)."* 
 
 Java. " The legal weights and measures of Dutch India are those of 
 the Netherlands. In Java other measures are in common use. The duim 
 = 1.3 inches; the ell =27.08 inches; the djong of 4 banu = 7.015 acres" 
 [etc., etc., for measures of weight and capacity]. 
 
 Additional facts regarding the use of old units in metric coun- 
 tries are given in the following letter from the Collector of the 
 Port of New York: 
 
 I have to state that this office is in receipt of a large number of invoices 
 received from France, wherein the measurements of the textile fabrics 
 covered by said invoices are expressed in aunes, and also from Switzer- 
 land covering embroideries wherein the measurements are expressed in 
 aunes. 
 
 I have caused to be taken from the files of this office a number of in- 
 voices from Spain, Italy, Holland and Belgium, and find as follows: Prom 
 Spain, 233 invoices, thirty-seven of which the weights are expressed therein 
 as pounds, the remainder being made out according to the metric system; 
 from Italy, fifteen invoices, the weights therein expressed in the metric 
 system; from Holland, fifty-five invoices, fourteen of which the weights 
 are expressed therein as pounds; eleven of the fourteen are expressed as 
 pounds avoirdupois, and the other three invoices not stating the kind of 
 pound, the remainder of the invoices being made out according to the 
 metric system; from Belgium, one hundred and twenty-six invoices, four- 
 teen of which the weights are expressed in pounds, thirty-one in feet or 
 inches, two in yards and one in gallons, the remainder being made out 
 according to the metric system. 
 
 In conclusion, I have to state that in many of the invoices received at 
 this office from countries in South America, the weights are made out in 
 the old Spanish pound. 
 
 And now, kind reader, how much remains of that imposing 
 list of forty-three " metric " countries given on page 22 ? Those 
 in which the old units have been shown to be in use are indi- 
 cated by a dash at the left. Those that are unmarked remain for 
 future investigation. 
 
 Is it not perfectly clear that the metric advocates have drawn 
 on their imaginations for supposed facts, that the claims made 
 for the universality of the system are based, to use the most 
 
 * See note on preceding page. 
 
THE METRIC FALLACY. 75 
 
 charitable possible construction, on simple assumption and 
 credulity ? 
 
 The fatal mistake of the metric advocates and the weakness of 
 their case lies in their assumption that the statute book is an index 
 of the practice of the people. 
 
 The arguments for the saving of time in calculation,, for the 
 simplification of our weights and measures and for the saving of 
 time by school children are all based on the tacit assumption that 
 the old units are to disappear. As they have not done so else- 
 where they will not do so here, and every one of these arguments 
 falls to the ground. The whole metric case is riven into shreds 
 by the simple fact that these old units will not die. 
 
 Shall we carry our heads in the clouds of speculation, or shall 
 we consult the experience of others? Shall we join in the chase 
 of this will-o'-the-wisp which no nation has ever caught? That 
 and that only is the metric question of the hour. Arguments 
 based on the " beautiful interrelation and correlation of the 
 units " have little more application than a philosophical specula- 
 tion regarding the appearance of the back side of the moon. 
 
REASONS FOE THE FAILURE OF COMPULSORY LAWS. 
 
 The reasons why compulsion has failed and must always fail 
 to do more than bring about a superficial use of the system, and 
 thus, in the words of John Quincy Adams, " increase the diver- 
 sities which it was the intention to abolish/' are not far to seek. 
 
 The law may undoubtedly prescribe the units of weight and 
 measure that, in the absence of understanding to the contrary, 
 shall be used in commercial transactions, just as it may prescribe 
 the units of value that shall be used in the same transactions, 
 but in any country in which the individual has any rights what- 
 ever it can have no jurisdiction over measurements made in 
 factories in advance of the sale of the product. In the case of 
 manufactured goods made for the open market they are, during 
 manufacture and until sold, the property of the maker. There 
 being no transaction between individuals, the goods may obvi- 
 ously be made according to the maker's own sweet will, provided 
 the future customer will accept them. In the case of machinery 
 made for the open market, the law may require that such partic- 
 ulars as appear in contracts relating to the capacity, the weight 
 and the over-all dimensions shall be given in certain units, but 
 it can have no control over the many-fold greater number of 
 constructive measurements made while the machine was the 
 property of the maker and that do not appear in any contract. In 
 the case of machinery made to order a greater number of dimen- 
 sions usually appear in the contract, but even these are few com- 
 pared with the dimensions of constructive details, and hence, 
 even in such cases, the jurisdiction of the law is extremely nar- 
 row. Thus we see the explanation of the apparent anomaly that 
 the fabrics that are sold over the shop counters of Paris by the 
 metre are made in the mills of Lyons by the aune. 
 
 Again, the thousands of measurements made by mechanics in 
 the erection of buildings do not appear in any paper connected 
 with the contract for the erection of the buildings, or with the 
 sale thereof. It is manifestly of no importance to the owner 
 whether the dimensions of the bricks, the thickness of the lumber 
 
THE METRIC FALLACY. 77 
 
 or the cross sections of the timbers be measured in metric or 
 other units, and hence we see the reason why, as stated by Mr. 
 Hess (page 39, ante), German building mechanics " nearly uni- 
 versally use the Rhenish inch." 
 
 Again, even in commercial transactions the law may specify 
 those units only which are used in the measurements made by 
 the merchant. In the sale of one-inch bar iron by the kilogram 
 in Mexico we see the effect of the law in compelling the merchant 
 to sell his iron by the kilogram instead of the pound. The figure 
 for the weight forms the multiplier which must be multiplied by 
 the price per unit in order to obtain the amount of the charge. 
 This unit the law may regulate, but it can do no more. The 
 figure for the diameter is merely descriptive of the goods, and 
 over it the law does not extend. 
 
 The use of English screw and pipe standards in Germany is 
 another illustration of the same kind. The purchase of these 
 commodities must be by the kilogramme and the metre, but their 
 dimensions may be in any units that are satisfactory to the con- 
 sumer. The distinction that runs through all these illustrations 
 is that while the commercial units are metric the mill units are 
 not. 
 
 It is thus plain that while the law may force the new units into 
 use, it cannot force the old ones out of use. Its effect, therefore, 
 is merely to add to whatever confusion may have prevailed before 
 its action was invoked. 
 
 We thus see why, in the words of John Quincy Adams, " The 
 legislator finishes by increasing the diversities which it was his 
 intention to abolish, and by loading his statute books only with 
 the impotence of authority and the uniformity of confusion. '* 
 
KEASONS FOE THE LENGTH OE THE TBANSITION 
 
 PEKIOD. 
 
 An essential feature of the scientific method is the explanation 
 of the facts as found, and it is easy to show why the period of 
 transition must be so long. The pamphlet containing the testi- 
 mony before the House committee contains a letter from the 
 Brown & Sharpe Manufacturing Company, which contains a 
 sentence embodying more wisdom and knowledge of the subject 
 than all the pro-metric testimony. I quote (page 190) : " The 
 question of weights deals rather with the future, but . . 
 linear measures are tied irrevocably to the past." The man who 
 wrote that sentence was inspired, and for a time it will become 
 my text. 
 
 If this system were made compulsory to-morrow, and the 
 people were to receive it with enthusiasm, the gas pipes in the 
 ceilings of our homes alone would keep the old system alive for 
 fifty years. In the following pages it will be shown that the 
 metric system necessitates metric sizes. Now make the gas tips 
 which we replace so often with metric threads, and there isn't a 
 chandelier in this country that will take them. Make the 
 chandeliers with metric threads, and there isn't a gas pipe end 
 projecting from a single ceiling in this country which will take 
 them. A fair question to ask here is, how long does it take on the 
 average for a gas pipe to wear out ? Our friends tell us that for 
 a time we will use transition fittings with English threads at one 
 end and metric threads at the other, but this begs the whole 
 question. The transition fittings must be made. The length of 
 the pipe does not alter the thread or the tools for making it. The 
 tools and the equipment must be preserved. But why make a 
 transition fitting at extra cost and serving no purpose except to 
 furnish an added joint to leak ? We may be sure that so long as 
 pipes with English threads endure in our ceilings, chandeliers 
 will be made with English threads to fit them. Why is this ? 
 Because " measures of length are tied irrevocably to the past." 
 
 In the discussion before the Mechanical Engineers, Mr. Gus 
 
THE METRIC FALLACY. 79 
 
 C. Kenning endeavored to minimize the change in gas pipe 
 standards by showing how trifling a thing is a transition nipple, 
 thereby acknowledging that the change is to be made. 
 
 There is no better illustration of the confusion of the transition 
 period than that furnished by pipe fittings, because not only must 
 we have two standards of threads and fittings on our hands, but 
 a third and far more numerous set of transition fittings as long 
 as existing pipes endure. Our existing fittings are numerous 
 enough, but they must not only be duplicated in metric fittings 
 but more than duplicated in transition fittings. It is easy to 
 make light of a transition nipple, but the proposition involves 
 transition ells, tees and other fittings. For each straight tee of 
 which we now have one, we should require during the transition 
 period the following combinations: 
 
 M M E E MM E E ME EM 
 
 M E E M M E 
 
 For each simple reducing bushing we would require four com- 
 binations thus : English inside and outside ; metric inside and out- 
 side; English outside and metric inside; and English inside and 
 metric outside. For each plain ell that we now have we should 
 need three and for each reducing ell, four. If the reader will go 
 to a pipe-fitting factory or store, note the number of fittings neces- 
 sary to make an assortment and reflect that during this transition 
 period this number will be multiplied by not less than three and 
 probably by four, he will recognize what Mr. Henning's playful 
 suggestion grows into. I have often said, and I believe it to be 
 true, that all the advantages of the metric system combined would 
 not recompense us for the confusion of changing our standard of 
 pipes and pipe threads alone. 
 
 The fact that actual pipe sizes are other than the nominal sizes 
 is a favorite citation of the metric advocates but it has no applica- 
 tion whatever. The trouble lies in changing an established stand- 
 ard. Entirely apart from the discussion of this subject, a friend 
 once remarked, " Our pipe and pipe-thread standard is, per se, 
 about as bad as it could be, but, established as it is, the man who 
 would attempt to change it deserves to be hung." 
 
 Every factory contains overhead lines of shafting which with 
 the pulleys to fit are a standardized line of manufacture. With 
 
80 THE METRIC FALLACY. 
 
 standard fits pulleys may be changed from place to place by 
 simply removing and replacing. Put up a metric line shaft, and 
 not a pulley in this country will fit it, nor will any metric pulley 
 fit an English line shaft. A line of shafting was scarcely ever 
 known to wear out. I know one which is forty years old, and 
 it was, I believe, second-hand when I made its acquaintance. So 
 long as existing shafts endure we may be sure English dimension 
 pulleys will be made to fit them. Why? Again, because " meas- 
 ures of length are tied irrevocably to the past." 
 
 They tell us that we may continue to use the old units in re- 
 pairs. Consider the couplings which connect the air-brake hose 
 on all railroad cars. A new coupling on one car connects with 
 the old one on another car. The time will never come when that 
 can be changed, unless they are all changed at once. Why? Be- 
 cause " measures of length are tied irrevocably to the past." 
 
 At the hearings of the House committee a curious fact was 
 developed (Mr. Buck, page 145). The older part of Philadel- 
 phia was laid out by a defective surveyor's chain which, instead 
 of being 100 feet long, was in reality 100 feet 3 inches, and in 
 that part of the city to-day 100 feet 3 inches is legally 100 feet. 
 By a curious process of reasoning this was made to appear as an 
 argument for the metric system, though how the adoption of that 
 system is to change the layout of the streets I do not quite see. 
 Why does this anomaly, this nuisance, persist, and why is it im- 
 possible to get rid of it? Because " measures of length are tied 
 irrevocably to the past." 
 
 There is, however, another possible explanation of the fact that 
 the people continue to use the old units after, in France, a 
 century of experience with the new, namely that they prefer the 
 old. 
 
 These two explanations exhaust the possibilities either the 
 change is too difficult to be made or a century of experience has 
 not sufficed to demonstrate the superiority of the metric system. 
 Of these two possible explanations the metric advocates may take 
 their choice. 
 
SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL MEASUREMENTS. 
 
 Nothing is more important at this stage of the controversy 
 than an explanation of the undoubted fact that while scientific 
 men favor the metric system manufacturers and constructors 
 oppose it. This explanation lies in the fundamentally different 
 character of scientific and industrial measurements: 
 
 The scientific use of measurements consists in measuring existing 
 tilings the industrial use of measurements consists in making thirty* 
 to a required size. 
 
 A typical illustration of the scientific use of weight and meas- 
 ure is found in the chemist's balance. The chemist places a sub- 
 stance on one pan and proceeds to balance it with his weights 
 and rider. This is the exact opposite of the grocer's use of his 
 scales. The grocer places his weight in the scale pan first and 
 then proceeds to balance it with a required amount of material. 
 The chemist finds the weight of a given mass of material; the 
 grocer finds the mass of material which shall have a given weight. 
 
 Because of this difference the grocer has but few weights. 
 He deals with halves and quarters of a pound or ounce as 
 the case may be, and with no other fractions whatever. The 
 chemist, on the contrary, must be prepared to deal with all pos- 
 sible fractions and with the same degree of facility in all cases. 
 
 This difference runs through all scientific and industrial appli- 
 cations of weight and measure. As in the case of the chemist, 
 the scientist must always be prepared to handle all possible 
 quantities within the range and capacity of his apparatus. In 
 manufacturing, on the contrary, as in the case of the grocer's few 
 weights, it is the starting point of all organized industry that 
 of the immense number of possible sizes but few shall be actu- 
 ally used. Thus, measuring to thousandths only, we might have, 
 between one and two inches, a thousand diameters of screw 
 threads, whereas, in point of fact, of standard threads we have 
 but eight, while of standard shafting we have but four, and of 
 gas and water pipe but three. 
 
 This limitation of manufactured things to a few only of many 
 
82 THE METRIC FALLACY. 
 
 possible sizes characterizes all branches of manufacturing and has 
 always done so. We see it in our wearing apparel. Collars, cuffs, 
 shoes, hats and gloves all illustrate the same principle. 
 
 Moreover, the comparatively few sizes which are thus used in 
 manufacturing are the result of deliberate selection. That is, 
 the constructor deliberately chooses the sizes which he shall meas- 
 ure while the scientist has no choice, for, as has been stated, he 
 is quite as likely to be called upon to measure one size as another. 
 When we inquire into the sizes which in this exercise of choice 
 have been selected for use in manufacturing we find that man- 
 kind has always and everywhere selected those parts of units 
 which are obtained by successive halvings, a striking feature of 
 which is that they are expressed more clearly and more simply 
 by vulgar fractions than by decimals, as will be seen by the 
 following illustrative table : 
 
 i= .25 f= .75 
 
 i=.125 | =.375 
 
 -iV= .0625 f 6 = .1875 
 
 & = .03125 &= .09375 
 
 The vulgar fractions are the simpler, whether we regard them 
 from the mechanical standpoint of the number of figures involved 
 or whether we regard them from the much more important stand- 
 point of the clearness of the impression which they make upon 
 the mind. The vulgar fractions impress their meaning upon the 
 mind at once while the decimals do not until after a distinct 
 mental effort. The average man makes no attempt to form a 
 mental impression of the value of the decimals, but reads them 
 mechanically as the proofreader does, thus : " point naught three 
 one two five/' giving up the attempt to form a mental picture of 
 their value in advance. 
 
 The reason why the vulgar fractions are the simpler is that 
 they are in their lowest terms while the decimals are far from 
 their lowest terms. When we say that we will use nothing but 
 decimals we simply deny to ourselves the right to reduce fractions 
 to their lowest terms. We say in effect that we will use no 
 denominator between ten and a hundred and none between a 
 hundred and a thousand. 
 
 Even in addition, in 'which decimals possess an undoubted 
 superiority over vulgar fractions in general, they have a close 
 competitor in binary fractions which, among vulgar fractions, 
 
THE METRIC FALLACY. 83 
 
 form a class by themselves. The chief reason why decimals pos- 
 sess this superiority in addition is that they avoid reduction to a 
 common denominator, but this is equally true of binary frac- 
 tions, the addition of which is closely analogous to the addition 
 of decimals, the chief difference being that we carry by twos 
 instead of by tens, as every draughtsman knows. 
 
 It may be said with perfect truth that if we used the decimal 
 scale we would not have the above expressions. This, however, 
 does not meet the point. Mankind prefers to use in construc- 
 tion not the decimal scale but the binary scale, and for the sizes 
 thus obtained the vulgar fractions are the simpler. Certain sizes 
 are expressed more simply by decimal than by vulgar fractions 
 while others are expressed more simply by vulgar fractions than 
 by decimals. The former are preferred for measuring things 
 while the latter are preferred for making things. 
 
 The reason for the difference in the attitude of the two parties 
 is now clear. With the miscellaneous quantities with which he 
 must deal the scientist would find vulgar fractions almost unman- 
 ageable, and he is practically driven to the use of decimals, while 
 the constructor, through his power of choice, selects such sizes 
 that decimals may be avoided. 
 
 This limitation of manufactured things to a few of many pos- 
 sible sizes has many important results. Having but few sizes, it 
 is possible to spend an amount in standardizing each one that 
 would be impossible if the number were largely increased, and 
 we thus have the feature of standardization which is entirely 
 foreign to scientific measurements such a thing as a standard 
 weight or measure being exactly what the scientific measurer does 
 not expect to find. Again, with this introduction of standard 
 gauges workshop measurements came to be as they are to-day, 
 essentially the duplication of standards, to which again there is 
 nothing to compare in the scientific use of measurements. 
 
 The further the comparison is pushed the more unlike do scien- 
 tific and industrial measurements become. 
 
 The constructor's exercise of choice in the measurements which 
 he shall make explains the difference between the experiences of 
 constructors and of scientists in the comparative economy of 
 time in calculations due to the use of the two. systems. In a suc- 
 ceeding chapter we shall see the experiences of Mr. Linnard, Mr. 
 Hess, Mr. Reed and Mr. Eeymann, who with unexcelled oppor- 
 tunities for making comparisons, have been unable to find the 
 
84 THE METRIC FALLACY. 
 
 saving of time in engineering and mechanical calculations which 
 is claimed for the metric system, while the testimony of scientific 
 men is uniformly to the contrary. With the quantities with 
 which he has to deal, the scientific man finds great economy of 
 labor by the use of decimals, especially in the addition and 
 averaging of data from observations, of which he has much to do, 
 while the constructor, exercising the liberty of choice in the sizes 
 with which he deals, selects those in the handling of which 
 decimals, even in addition, give no appreciable advantage. Again, 
 the interrelations and correlations of the units are of some im- 
 portance in the laboratory, while they are of little or no import- 
 ance in the engineer's office. 
 
 " For practical purposes the relation of the specific gravity of water to 
 the units of weight, and measure is, for all purposes outside the laboratory, 
 of about the same practical application as the relation between the metre 
 and the circumference of the earth." 
 
 Much use has been made of the employment by civil engineers 
 of decimal divisions of the foot. This use is limited to surveying 
 that is, measuring and to calculations based thereon. In. 
 bridge and structural work the civil engineer divides his foot into 
 inches. His work comprises to an unusual degree the two func- 
 tions of measuring and making. For the former he follows the 
 practice of the scientist, while for the latter he follows the practice 
 of all other constructors. So far from his practice being an in- 
 dorsement of decimal divisions, it serves only to emphasize the 
 distinction between measuring and making. 
 
 Whatever may be the explanation of the preference of mankind 
 for binary divisions, the fact is universal. To the scientific man 
 who looks upon survival in the struggle for existence as at least 
 presumptive evidence of fitness, and upon failure to survive as 
 presumptive evidence of unfitness, it would appear to others to be 
 a little difficult for him to reconcile his belief in the superiority of 
 decimal divisions with the fact that no one can be induced to use 
 them in construction except by the force of law. 
 
SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL DIFFICULTIES. 
 
 The scientific man being, from our present standpoint, essen- 
 tially a measurer, we should expect him in this discussion to give 
 undue prominence to the difficulties of the measurer, and we find 
 that not only is this the case but that, more unjustly still, he sub- 
 stantially ignores all other difficulties. 
 
 The chief difficulty which the measurer has to face is the psycho- 
 logical difficulty, that is, learning to think in a new set of units, 
 and he uniformly considers this as the chief difficulty which 
 others have to face, although it is, in fact, near the bottom of the 
 constructor's list. 
 
 The chief difficulties which the scientific man must face in 
 connection with this change are those growing out of a change 
 in the set of units with which he measures things. The con- 
 structor, on the contrary, must face not only these but the 
 thousandfold more important difficulties growing out of a change 
 in the set of sizes by which he makes things. In scientific work 
 this change involves a change in measuring instruments only, 
 while in industrial work it involves also a change in the thing 
 measured that is, in the sizes of the things made. 
 
 This change in the set of sizes to which things are made is 
 the physical difficulty of the manufacturer, and it is this which 
 all scientific discussions of this subject substantially ignore. 
 
 No better illustration of the manner in which scientific men 
 imagine their own chief difficulty to be also the chief difficulty 
 of others could be given than the following statement made by 
 Professor Stratton at the hearings of the House Committee (page 
 153): 
 
 " Let us take for example the most serious objection of all, which is 
 that we have learned to think in the old system of weights and measures." 
 
 Again Dr. Pritchett, at the discussion of the Mechanical En- 
 gineers, said : 
 
 " The argument for the preservation of old and inconvenient standards 
 rests on no other basis than this inertia of the general mass of mankind." 
 
86 THE METRIC FALLACY. 
 
 Again Lord Kelvin has said: 
 
 " I believe that in a fortnight people would become so accustomed to 
 the perfect simplicity and easy working under the metrical system that 
 they will feel that, instead of its being a labor to pass from one system to 
 the other, it will be less than no labor." 
 
 What the above shows in sniall compass may be seen in much 
 larger compass in " The Metric System of Weights and Meas- 
 ures" by Dr. F. A. P. Barnard, which, from beginning to end, is 
 a measurer's argument. There could scarcely be a better illus- 
 tration of the manner in which a man may discuss a subject to 
 the end as he thinks with scarcely so much as a recognition of the 
 chief point at issue.* 
 
 The chief difficulty of this change lies in the changing of con- 
 structive sizes of which all scientific discussions fail to recognize 
 not only the importance but, as a rule, even the existence. The 
 proposition before the country is that we adopt this system in 
 making things. It should be settled by those who have the 
 problems to face and the bills to pay. The attempt to bring about 
 a change in the system of factory measurements by those who 
 have no knowledge of the difficulties involved is a simple im- 
 pertinence. The attempt to foist this thing upon the industrial 
 world by the scientific and political worlds will yet be looked 
 upon as the monumental piece of assurance of the nineteenth 
 century. 
 
 Much effort has been expended in showing that workmen ex- 
 perience little difficulty in using metric scales, and there is no 
 reason why they should. The psychological difficulty from the 
 designer's standpoint that is, the formation of mechanical judg- 
 ment of dimensions in millimeters, is, however, another matter. 
 Thus Mr. Henry Hess tells me that after four years constant use 
 of the system as the chief designer in the drawing office of a 
 German machine shop, he still found himself without such judg- 
 ment, and Mr. J. H. Ball (page 54, ante) says, " After four and a 
 half years in a professedly metric country the English system is 
 still to me the easier." 
 
 The magnitude of the psychological difficulty in another aspect 
 is completely confessed by at least one metric advocate. In the 
 
 * The same remark applies to " The Coming of the Kilogram " by Mr. H. 
 O. Arnold Poster, which ignores the real difficulties of the problem in a 
 manner that is really sublime. 
 
THE METRIC FALLACY. 87 
 
 Proces-Verbal de la Seance du ler Mai, 1893, of the Societe des 
 Ingenieurs Civils de France, I find Captain Mahan's remarks 
 reported thus: 
 
 " Although he is an earnest partisan of the system, which he has used 
 freely for thirty years, he always finds difficulty in thinking in the 
 system. Stating resistances in kilogrammes per square centimetre conveys 
 no meaning to his mind; it is necessary to convert the expression into 
 pounds per square inch." 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
THE ADOPTION OF THE METRIC SYSTEM NECESSI- 
 TATES ABANDONING MECHANICAL STANDARDS. 
 
 As has been pointed out, the leaders of this movement have 
 no knowledge of mechanical standards nor of the difficulty of 
 changing them, and there is no doubt that, so far as they have 
 considered the matter at all, they expect existing standards to be 
 retired as a matter of course. Thus Mr. Shaffroth, in question- 
 ing Admiral Melville at the hearings of the House Committee 
 (pages 118, 119) said (the admiral's answers are omitted) : 
 
 Do you not think that a truly international system of screws, nuts, bolts, 
 etc., would be desirable? Is not the absence of such a universal system at present 
 due to the fact that England and America have not yet adopted the metric sys- 
 tem? Would not the adoption of the metric unit as the basis of the dimensions 
 of screw threads, and the adoption of the American form as the standard, be a 
 fair concession from both sides? 
 
 Again, Mr. Stratron testified (page 155) : 
 
 A change to the metric system of weights and measures would undoubtedly 
 bring about, in time, a change in our system of screw threads, but only at the 
 suggestion and convenience of manufacturers and engineers, as heretofore. 
 
 This " convenience of manufacturers " will be reached when 
 the use of a mixed system has become no longer tolerable, for 
 this country will not change its screw threads until compelled 
 to do so. Of all the difficulties of the subject, the greatest centre 
 about screw threads, and our friends show here a distinct disposi- 
 tion to " hedge." Their action, however, is nothing but con- 
 venient postponement and evasion, which will not do. They 
 draw pictures of the danger of delay (Mr. Shaffroth, page 44). 
 They point out how much easier the change would have been 
 twenty years ago than now, and how much more difficult it will 
 be twenty years hence than now. If that is true of the general 
 proposition, it is equally true of screw threads. The problem, is 
 made no easier by relegating the worst of it to the indefinite 
 future. When we contemplate the adoption of the metric sys- 
 tem we must contemplate the adoption of the metric system, for 
 the ultimate result is the same, no matter how easy the approach 
 nor how thin the entering wedge. 
 
THE METRIC FALLACY. 89 
 
 Among the few converts to the system from the ranks of 
 constructors the value of standards is of course better appreciated. 
 The plan which is usually offered by them for the preservation 
 of standards is that we continue to use existing sizes but measure 
 them in metric units. The best statement of this is perhaps 
 that of Mr. Geo. S. Morrison at the discussion of the Mechanical 
 Engineers : 
 
 " The question is not of changes of sizes or standards but it is a question 
 of adopting another method of measuring existing standards." 
 
 In other words they tell us that the difficulty of changing the 
 adopted set of sizes used in construction is to be met by not 
 changing them the sizes now used being continued but measured 
 in millimetres instead of inches. 
 
 Obviously but two courses of action are open we must change 
 existing sizes or not change them. The scientific advocates of the 
 system expect us to change, while those who understand the diffi- 
 culties expect us to make no change. No intelligent constructor 
 can seriously contemplate the scientific plan of retiring existing 
 standards. If existing standards are to be retained they must be 
 measured either in inches or in millimetres. Since the object of 
 this movement is to retire the inch, the irreducible minimum of 
 the metric case is this plan of measuring existing sizes in milli- 
 metres, the feasibility of which becomes, therefore the dividing 
 line of all intelligent opinion upon this subject. T;ie shop case 
 for the metric system rests absolutely on the answer to the 
 question: Is it or is it not feasible to measure existing sizes in 
 millimetres ? 
 
 The basic feature of the use of any system of measurements 
 in construction is the use of such sizes as are represented by the 
 lines on scales graduated in the system used. English sizes are 
 not and cannot be thus represented by the lines on metric scales. 
 
 This is the essential difference between the practice of Eraiice 
 and Germany on the one hand and of England and the United 
 States on the other. This is the essential difference between the 
 injector department and the other departments -of William Sellers 
 & Co., as it is the essential difference between the old and new 
 engines made by Willans and Robinson. The experience of 
 American machine tool builders in fitting their tools for foreign 
 trade with metric measuring and adjusting screws and of the 
 Brown and Sharpe Manufacturing Company in connection with 
 
90 THE METRIC FALLACY. 
 
 small tools is of the same kind. The fact that stands out above 
 all others is that to the extent which these manufacturers have 
 adopted the metric system to the same extent have they been com- 
 pelled to abandon English sizes and English standards. 
 
 If this metric equivalent plan is such an easy solution of the 
 problem, why is it not used? The practically universal use of 
 English pitch screw threads in France and Germany is well 
 known. Of more importance from the present standpoint is the 
 fact that not only do the French and Germans use English threads 
 but that they measure them in inches. This use of English 
 threads shows the difficulty of changing established standards 
 while the use of the inch in measuring them shows the necessity 
 of preserving the inch in order to measure standards based on the 
 inch. The fact that the Germans not only use English threads 
 but that they regularly measure them just as we do is beyond 
 controversy. I have the fact from Mr. Henry Hess and Mr. 
 H. B. Bartlett, both of whom have been connected for years with 
 German machine shops, and in leading capacities. 
 
 Now if this plan is so feasible, why do not the Germans use it? 
 We are expected to use it with all established standards. Why do 
 not the Germans use it with one? That metric countries need 
 metric threads to go with metric measurements generally is shown 
 by their efforts 'to get them efforts which are thus described by 
 Mr. Hess in the communication to the American Machinist which 
 has already teen referred to : 
 
 " Finally various engineering societies took up the matter and appointed 
 delegates to draw up and sift proposals. The work occupied a number of 
 years, and in the fall of 1898 culminated in the adoption by a congress of 
 delegates from Germany, France, Switzerland, Italy, and other countries 
 using the metric system of measurements, of a shape of thread and pitch 
 to which they assigned the name of Systme International, generally 
 known by the abbreviation S. I. or S. J." 
 
 We are told that we are to save our screw thread standards by 
 measuring them in millimetres. If an English thread can be so 
 easily converted into a metric thread why do not the nations of 
 metric Europe follow the plan instead of making these tremen- 
 dous efforts to obtain a metric standard? 
 
 Referring to page 42 ante the reader will find the recently 
 adopted pipe arid pipe thread standard of the German Society of 
 Engineers, and he will note that the only dimensions commonly 
 used by merchant, draughtsman or mechanic are given in English 
 
THE METRIC FALLACY. 91 
 
 inches. Why are they not given in metric equivalents? Our 
 metric advocates point especially to our pipe and pipe thread 
 standards as two which are to be saved by the use of metric equiv- 
 alents. Why do not the Germans use them f 
 
 With characteristic inverted logic, we are told that Germany 
 does not use metric screw threads because she does not need them 
 (Mr. Christie, page 7).* On the contrary, the need is shown by 
 the effort put forth ; the lack of accomplishment is a measure of 
 the difficulties encountered. Germany fails to use metric screw 
 threads, not because she does not need them, ~but because, with all 
 her effort, she cannot get them. Her continued use of English 
 pitch threads is but another illustration of the difficulty of chang- 
 ing a unit of length and of the length of the period of transi- 
 tion that period which, I will again remind the reader, the 
 metric advocates assure us will, with us, occupy but three to "five 
 years. 
 
 With one breath these gentlemen tell us how quickly we can 
 make this change and in the next they point with pride to the fact 
 that Germany has not yet changed her screw threads, and yet 
 they have to be told that the second statement stultifies the first. 
 
 Had Germany adopted metric threads our metric friends would 
 point to the fact at once and say : Behold how easy is the change ! 
 Germany has not adopted metric threads, and now they point to 
 that and say: Behold how easy is the change ! 
 
 Much has been made of the example of Willans and Kobinson, 
 of Rugby, England, and of the fact that they use inches and milli- 
 meters side by side. The significant thing in this connection is 
 that the inches are used in the older sizes of engines which were 
 designed before the introduction of the metric system. If this 
 plan for the use of metric equivalents is so feasible, why do not 
 Willans and Robinson adopt it and so make their works a pure 
 metric works? By changing the figures on the drawings and 
 rcstamping the sizes on the shop tools the cjiange could, were this 
 plan feasible, be completed almost at a stroke, instead of spending 
 the years which have already elapsed and those which are still to 
 come. Why is not the plan adopted ? 
 
 In Part II. of this book will be found numerous citations of the 
 use of various kinds of inches in the textile industries of metric 
 Europe. Were this plan feasible, the millimetre would become 
 
 * This and the succeeding page references of this chapter are to the pamphlet 
 proceedings of the House Committee. 
 
92 THE METRIC FALLACY. 
 
 the universal solvent of them all and they would disappear. Why 
 is the plan not used? 
 
 The reason why the Germans do not use metric equivalents for 
 English pitch screw threads and English sized gas pipe, and why 
 Willans and Robinson do not use metric equivalents for English 
 sizes is not difficult to discover. Will the reader please glance at 
 the following table of metric equivalents of a few of the usual 
 fractional sizes of an inch. 
 
 Tn^oQ Metric Tnr-v^e Metric 
 
 Equivalent. W . Equivalent. 
 
 1 25.4 2 50.8 
 
 U 28.57 2i 53.97 
 
 li 31.75 2i 57.15 
 
 If 34.92 2f 60.32 
 
 H 38.10 2* 63 5 
 
 If 41.27 2f 66.67 
 
 If 44.45 2f 69.85 
 
 1| 47.62 2| 73.02 
 
 3 76.2 
 
 Is not the point obvious at a glance ? While the law of the 
 series is simple enough, it is not obvious to the eye, and the 'man 
 does not live who can memorize the list. Only two inches of the 
 range are given, and even then only to eighths ; but remember that 
 no combination of figures repeats itself until 10 inches is reached, 
 while there is nothing in the above list to correspond to any even 
 inch between 10 and 20 except 15, nor between 20 and 30 except 
 25. The load which such a table places upon the memory is 
 limited only by its length. 
 
 Imagine this table to be a bolt list. A farmer has broken a 
 28.6 millimetre bolt and wants a larger one, but he nor any one 
 can tell what size to call for without calculation or consulting a 
 list. Are we all to carry a list of bolt sizes in our pockets ? Will 
 some one point out the gain due to calling a IJ-inch bolt a 28.6 
 millimetre bolt, or give, any reason which should lead any one to 
 use the metric figures? 
 
 In a certain stock-room the interval between the sizes of bar 
 iron carried is ^ inch. Two of the sizes in stock are 2^ and 2f 
 inches. The metric equivalent of the former is 63.5 millimetres. 
 Will some metric enthusiast, without calculation, kindly name 
 the next metric size? Will he name any metric size upon the 
 list except those corresponding to even inches? Will he say if 
 he ever expects to be able to name one-quarter of the sizes used 
 in every tool and stock room ? If he thinks he can memorize the 
 
THE METRIC FALLACY. 93 
 
 table as given, does he think he could do it after the sixteenths 
 are added ? If he does, how will the matter stand after the table 
 is extended to, say, ten inches? If he finally gives up the task 
 of memorizing the table, will he say if he intends to carry a list 
 of equivalents in his pocket, or, failing that, whether he expects 
 to use a lead-pencil or a slide rule whenever he has occasion to 
 call for a tool or a bar of iron ? He must do one or the other , 
 or else use the English figures. Do the metric enthusiasts really 
 think that during the " transition period " any one will calculate 
 metric dimensions which cannot be memorized when he can use 
 English dimensions which memorize themselves ? 
 
 If the intervals were, say, one millimetre up to 50 mm., two 
 from 50 to 100 and so on, a metric list of sizes could be mem- 
 orized as easily as our own, but with the intervals determined by 
 
 1 
 
 2, 3 
 
 iMilimlimlm, 
 
 4 
 
 o 
 
 6 
 
 7 
 
 m,lm, 
 
 1 
 
 ; 
 
 
 SCALE OF MILLIMETRES. 
 
 the English scale it is hopeless to try to memorize the metric 
 equivalents. If they cannot be memorized they will not be used, 
 and this is the end of the metric equivalent scheme. 
 
 Moreover we have an excellent illustration of the impracti- 
 cability of using such a series of decimal sizes as that given in the 
 foregoing table. The metric advocates are fond of citing the 
 fact that the actual sizes of standard pipe are different from the 
 nominal sizes, but this, like most of their citations, turns against 
 them. Why do we use the nominal and not the actual sizes? 
 Because the actual sizes are expressed by a series of decimals 
 that cannot be remembered. And yet those metric advocates 
 who believe in saving standards by the use of millimetre equiv- 
 alents propose that we shall translate these and all other stand- 
 ardized sizes into metric decimals that are just as impossible of 
 remembrance, and that we save existing standards by using them. 
 
 If the reader has any doubts about the necessity for memo- 
 rizing this table let him imagine a draughtsman equipped with a 
 metric scale as in the illustration and attempting to use it in 
 laying down a J-inch bolt, a 11-inch pipe or a 2^-inch shaft. Let 
 him attempt to lay down these sizes with this scale and he will 
 find himself entirely at sea, and he will remain at sea until he 
 has memorized this table. And to carry out this specious scheme 
 
94 THE METRIC FALLACY. 
 
 it is necessary that not only draughtsmen but all working me- 
 chanics shall perform this impossible feat of memory. 
 
 A suggestion which is occasionally heard was put on record by 
 Mr. Christie (page 6, italics mine) : 
 
 " I would make no immediate change in any of the tools, 
 simply taking them as they are and naming them to ike nearest 
 convenient metric unit. For instance, call 1 inch 25 millimetres, 
 and so on, with the multiples and subdivisions of the inch/' 
 Would he call 3 inches 75 millimetres? Its value " to the nearest 
 convenient unit" is 76. Would he call it 76? Then, 3 times 1 
 inch is not 3 inches. Would he call 10 inches 250 millimetres? 
 Its value is 254. This suggestion falls by its own weight. 
 
 Another suggestion of Mr. Christie's (page 7) is that " The 
 various pitches of screw thread are entirely arbitrary, and we 
 could distinguish the different pitches from each other by the 
 letters of the alphabet if we chose, or any other nominal distinc- 
 tion that is convenient." I suggest that Mr. Christie draw up 
 such a table of symbols, and then contemplate the task of memo- 
 rizing it. According to Mr. Christie (page 9) one of the great 
 advantages of the metric system is that it avoids any " undue 
 strain on the memory." Does Mr. Christie think that draughts- 
 men will prefer arbitrary symbols to areas and diameters when 
 figuring strengths? 
 
 In the discussion before the Mechanical Engineers, Mr. Gus 
 C. Henning put Mr. Christie's suggestion in more definite shape, 
 thus : 
 
 " Now let us take up the argument of the table of metric equivalents 
 of values of parts of inches, increasing by eighths. 
 
 " This is again an extravagant misrepresentation of difficulties. 
 
 " If the values of % inch between 1 to 3 inches be given in the nearest 
 quarters, or $fe millimetre, not one of the figures given will vary from 
 the true value by more than TI /fo of one inch, which is a matter too small 
 to observe by any person except he be provided with a micrometre caliper. 
 The table will then read: 
 
 1 25.5 H 38.00 2 51.0 2 63.5 
 
 1 28.5 If 41 25 2i 54.0 2 06.75 
 
 H 31.75 If 44.5 2i 57.25 2f 69.75 
 
 If 35.0 1 47.5 2f 60.25 21 73.00 
 
 3 76.25 
 
 " In this shape the figures can be memorized by an effort, and they will 
 be accurate for practical purposes. Let me ask the same question as 
 the author. ' Is not the point obvious at a glance? ' All I can say is, 
 ' None so blind as those who do not want to see.' " 
 
THE METRIC FALLACY. 95 
 
 Mr. Henning's table of equivalents does not look to me to be so 
 easily memorized as it seems to look to him, and if he will add the 
 sixteenths, which must be done, it will look less easy still to both of 
 us. It has, however, the fatal defect of all approximate tables 
 they are accurate enough for some purposes, but not for others. 
 Th^s table is accurate enough for bar iron, but not for reamers and 
 many other tools. Reamers could not be ground to his figures nor 
 could they safely have the figures stamped upon them. For ac- 
 curate work we must have an accurate table. That is, an approxi- 
 mate table is only an additional or supplementary table which 
 does not simplify matters, but on the contrary, makes them still 
 worse, and, moreover, opens wide the door for limitless mistakes. 
 
 It is, moreover, clear that while deceived by their own specious 
 argument, the metric advocates themselves instinctively reject it. 
 
 Metric literature is full of statements tending to show that the 
 change will cost but little if done " gradually " or " little by little." 
 We are told that tools and gauges are perishable, and that we will 
 have to do little more than replace them as they wear out with 
 metric tools and gauges. Every reference to such expedients is 
 a tacit acknowledgment that existing sizes are to be changed. In 
 one breath they tell us that there is to be no change and in the 
 next they tell us that the change will not cost much if done grad- 
 ually. 
 
 I do not, of course, wish to be understood as trying to prove 
 that the use of metric equivalents for English sizes is physically 
 impossible. Very possibly it can be shown that the German 
 people, who have this thing on their hands and must get along 
 with it in some way, use equivalents in a limited way and in 
 special cases. The habitual use of sizes, of which the list cannot 
 be memorized and nearly all of which are not indicated by any 
 mark on the scales in use, is, however, unthinkable. 
 
 It is then clear that the retirement of the inch involves the 
 retirement of all mechanical standards based on the inch. 
 
 And what is it all for ? The metric advocates can answer best. 
 Mr. Christie (page 9) * tells us : 
 
 I think one of the greatest advantages is its convenience in computation: 
 I think that is unquestionable. The next is, convenience for memorizing; it is a 
 system, which the mind can grasp and readily retain without undue strain on the 
 memory. These, I think, are the two great advantages. 
 
 * The page references are to the pamphlet proceedings of the House Com- 
 mittee. 
 
96 THE METRIC FALLACY. 
 
 Dr. Wiley (page 50) says: 
 
 Now when you see the beautiful relations which exist between the unit of 
 length, weight and capacity .... Then there is the direct relation between 
 the unit of length and the unit of weight and we have the measures of capacity 
 that come directly from it. 
 
 In answer to the question, What would be the advantage to the 
 general public the plain people throughout the country by the 
 adoption of this system? Professor Newcomb answered (page 73, 
 italics mine) : 
 
 The advantage would simply be that of simplicity. 7 : : So far as every day 
 purposes are concerned I do not know of any particular advantage. . . . 
 
 Dr. Geddings (page 75) says: 
 
 It is simple, elastic, scientific, and on the whole a beautiful structure, and the 
 interrelation and the beautiful correlation which exist between its measures of 
 weight and measures of capacity, and its measures of length and area, I think 
 only require a very limited consideration to appeal to anyone who is desirous of 
 getting into the ranks of the progress of the age. 
 
 And so on to the end of the wearisome chapter. Was there 
 ever such a case of sacrificing the greater to the lesser? 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 transcendentalists that we 
 should be swayed by such considerations? 
 
 The most terse, concise and truthful words into which the little- 
 ness of the metric case was ever condensed are those of Napoleon : 
 " It is a tormenting of the people for mere trifles." 
 
THE VALUE OF MECHANICAL STANDARDS. 
 
 If what has preceded has proven anything whatever, it is that 
 the idea of using metric equivalents for English dimensions must 
 be given up. If this idea must be given up, the inevitable con- 
 clusion is that the abandonment of the inch will involve the de- 
 struction of our existing standards. 
 
 The destruction of our existing standards! A few words, not 
 even a complete sentence. They are easily spoken, but does any 
 one who reads this paper appreciate their appalling meaning, the 
 industrial chaos to which their destruction would consign us? 
 Established industrial standards are among the most priceless of 
 material possessions, and the man who would destroy them de- 
 serves to be placed in the pillory and held up to the scorn of 
 men. 
 
 The man who can estimate or indicate in words the value of 
 mechanical standards to this country and the loss due to their 
 destruction does not live, and I shall not attempt it. The pam- 
 phlet containing the testimony before the House committee is 
 full of questions and of testimony from the metric advocates, the 
 purpose of which is to show that the cost of changing stand- 
 ardized tools is, after all, not very serious, if done gradually, but 
 nowhere is there anything to indicate that these people have any 
 idea of the value of a standard as such. For their benefit, there- 
 fore, I will explain that while the value of standardized tools in 
 this country runs into unnumbered millions of dollars, the value of 
 a standard is not chiefly or even largely represented by such tools. 
 
 The chief value of a standard lies in the fact that it is 
 adopted, that it has become a part of our daily lives, and works so 
 Bmoothly that we are scarcely aware of its existence. For example, 
 the value of pipe-thread standards is not represented by the taps 
 and dies in the hands of pipe makers and fitters, but by the fact 
 that because the threads are standardized pipe fittings can be 
 made by the million, at trifling cost, and that when we need a 
 fitting we can buy it for a few cents with the assurance that it 
 will fit, instead of having to get it cut to order to suit an odd 
 size of thread. Similarly the cost of attempting to change air- 
 
98 THE METRIC FALLACY. 
 
 brake hose couplings is not represented by the value of the tools 
 for making the couplings in the Westinghouse .Works, but by the 
 infinite confusion of the railroads in getting from one standard 
 to another. The value of the tools in this case is not many dol- 
 lars, but the cost of the change cannot be found upon any inven- 
 tory, nor can it be measured by any scale. 
 
 In this matter of air brake hose couplings, what would be 
 thought of a " gradual " change* or of a change made " little by 
 little " as has been suggested ? What would be thought of the 
 idea that the air brake factories and repair shops equip them- 
 selves with metric tools and gauges as the existing tools and 
 gauges wear out? 
 
 Is it not perfectly plain that air brake hose couplings must 
 not be changed at all, and does not this simple illustration show 
 that the above and all similar suggestions regarding all standard- 
 ized things are beside the mark? What we have to find is not 
 a means by which such things can be changed, but a means by 
 which such changes may be avoided, and such changes may be 
 avoided by preserving the inch and by no other means whatever. 
 
 Again in this illustration of a change in air brake hose coup- 
 lings, how much of an application do we see of Professor Strat- 
 ton's statement that " the most serious difficulty of all is that 
 we have learned to think in the old system," or of Dr. Pritchett's 
 statement that " the argument for the preservation of old and 
 inconvenient standards rests on no other basis than the inertia 
 of mankind " ? There could be no better illustration of the man- 
 ner in which these suggestions fall to the ground whenever they 
 are applied to a concrete case. 
 
 Similarly again, the cost of changing our pipe-thread standard 
 is not represented by the cost of new taps and dies, but by the 
 confusion involved in getting from one standard to another a 
 confusion which will last until existing steam, water, and gas 
 pipes have disappeared, and which will not be lessened by putting 
 off the change until it is brought about " at the suggestion and 
 convenience of manufacturers." 
 
 Similarly again the value of shafting and pulley standards lies 
 in the fact that by reason of them shafting and pulleys may be 
 made in large quantities and therefore cheaply; that because 
 their fitting is insured, they can be made in advance and sold 
 
 * See the succeeding footnote. 
 
THE METRIC FALLACY. 99 
 
 from stock as needed, instead of being made to order at increased 
 cost and delay; that pulleys can be changed about as needed, and 
 if thrown out of use become again available for any shaft of 
 their size, whenever wanted. Who would think of estimating 
 the value of shafting standards to the country, by the value of 
 the turning and boring tools and gauges in pulley and shafting 
 factories? Nevertheless, that is exactly what the metric advo- 
 cates do in their references to the gradual change of shop tools.* 
 Every reference to the cost of new tools tacitly assumes that 
 present standards are to ~be abandoned. 
 
 It is because of our standards and our standardized methods 
 that American mechanical industries are great. It is in this 
 that we lead, and by this sign we conquer. It is this that dis- 
 tinguishes us from the remainder of the world, and having the 
 lead which such things give us, we are asked to abandon it and 
 line up in the race afresh. And this in the name of progress. 
 
 In this matter of existing standards these people blow hot with 
 one breath and cold with the next. In the report of the House 
 committee they assure us that no change is contemplated, but 
 when driven into a corner they can only suggest that we abandon 
 the old standards and establish new ones, which will be so much 
 better, you know. Thus Mr. Stratton (page 155), quoting from 
 
 * The circular letter of inquiry sent to manufacturers by the Franklin 
 Institute contained this question (italics mine): 
 
 " If the metric system were adopted within a few years in your business 
 would its gradual adoption entail great expense? " 
 
 To this the Cincinnati manufacturers of machinery replied in part as 
 follows: 
 
 " To adopt the system gradually would involve making machines for 
 years with part English and part metric dimensions, with constant 
 change as the English dimensions are dropped that is, until the transi- 
 tion is complete. During this period there could be no standardized pro- 
 duction, but constant change. We cannot regard the use of both systems 
 on the same machine as a thing to be tolerated, much less deliberately 
 encouraged. To continue existing units on old machines while adopting 
 the metric units on new ones helps matters but little, as in all lines 
 of machines many parts are common to different sizes. Moreover, the 
 whole question is based on the idea that the sacrifice of the change is 
 measured by the cost of buying new small tools. On the contrary, the 
 chief sacrifice is in the changing of standardized things in the throwing 
 away of standards, the value of which we will not know until we lose 
 them. Into the loss due to the destruction of standards the element of 
 time does not enter, and we therefore regard the idea of a gradual change 
 as simply postponing and refusing to face the difficulties of the problem." 
 
100 THE METRIC FALLACY. 
 
 Mr. Sellers, to the effect that the cost of throwing away old taps 
 when the Sellers system of threads was introduced was a judicious 
 expenditure, added: 
 
 Does not this argument apply with still greater force in connection with a 
 universal system of screw threads which this measure does not contemplate, 
 but which is greatly to be desired, and a change to the metric system of weights 
 and measures would undoubtedly bring about in time a change in our system 
 of screw threads, but only at the suggestion and convenience of manufacturers. 
 
 In the above, Mr. Sellers describes the discarding of a miscel- 
 laneous assortment of taps in order to adopt a standard; Mr. 
 Stratton proposes to discard a standard, which has consumed forty 
 years in becoming such, in order to start a new one. In this he 
 shows that he has so little knowledge of the value of standards, 
 of the time required to get them adopted, and of the confusion 
 involved in changing them, that he takes the inauguration of a 
 standard as a precedent for discarding it. 
 
 This has been quoted before, but it will stand it again. It is 
 difficult to be patient or to use temperate language regarding 
 such a proposal. Why not throw away our standards and adopt 
 new ones? "Why not cut down the trees in Central Park and set 
 out saplings in their places? There is no doubt that, give Mm 
 time, a capable landscape architect could improve the Park. The 
 answer to each question is the same. "With trees and standards 
 alike, a generation of time is required for them to take root and 
 grow and become integral with the soil. Moreover, the old stand- 
 ards cannot be cut down. The new must grow up in the shadow 
 of the old, and saplings transplanted to the depth of an old forest 
 are not apt to thrive. Destroy our standards for the sake of new 
 ones that are no better, and that can only become really stand- 
 ard after a generation of confusion. This is the metric pro- 
 gramme of simplicity, progress, and reform. And, again, what is 
 it all for? How much compensation will there be in the " beau- 
 tiful interrelation and correlation of the units " ? 
 
" THE GOVERNMENT WILL PAY THE COST." 
 
 A favorite assertion of the metric advocates is that through the 
 operation of the proposed law, individual manufacturers will be 
 relieved of the cost of the change because the cost of new tools 
 and gauges will, they say, be included in estimates for goods sup- 
 plied to the Government, and manufacturers will thus gradually 
 accumulate a stock of such tools and gauges at the expense of 
 the Government. In this way, we are told, the cost of the change 
 will be distributed among the whole people and not be a burden 
 on individual manufacturers. 
 
 This found expression in one of the points on which the bi- 
 partisan committee of the American Society of Mechanical En- 
 gineers were able to agree, although the anti-metric half of that 
 committee has since withdrawn their approval of this point. The 
 point in question as it appears in the report of the committee is 
 as follows: 
 
 " Recognizing the well settled fact that the consumer does and must 
 pay all necessary cost of production, we believe that if the Government 
 specifies such dimensions as will materially increase cost of production, 
 the Government and not the bidder will have to pay such increased costs, 
 it being self-evident that a bidder, not compelled to bid, will not bid 
 except at a price which will afford him a profit." 
 
 The same idea found expression in the American Machinist 
 for March 20, 1903, in the following words : 
 
 " Director S. W. Stratton of the National Bureau of Standards * * * 
 believes the present bills are beneficent because they provide that after a 
 certain date the United States Government shall become a large buyer of 
 tools and machinery made in accordance with the metric system. Of 
 course, the Government will pay for this work, and all who bid upon it 
 will be upon an equal footing, so far as the use of the metric system is 
 concerned, and can make their estimates and bids in accordance with 
 whatever extra expense may be entailed thereby. Thus, then, manufac- 
 turers will be paid by the Government for the equipment that Mr. Stratton 
 and many others believe will become increasingly necessary or important 
 to the American manufacturer in carrying on his foreign trade." 
 
102 THE METRIC FALLACY. 
 
 When after the passage of this bill the Government calls for 
 bids for any manufactured article for the first time, the manu- 
 facturers will include the cost of new tools and gauges in their 
 estimates and the Government will pay for them as* claimed. 
 When, however, the Government calls for that article a second 
 time those who bid upon it will not " be upon an equal footing 
 so far as the use of the metric system is concerned," since the 
 first successful bidder will have his tools and gauges on hand free of 
 cost to himself while the others will not. Should the first successful 
 bidder take advantage of this and include as much of the cost of his 
 tools and gauges in his second bid as he thinks safe, and, by a slight 
 difference obtain the contract, he will be paid nearly twice for his 
 tools and gauges. Should he include their entire cost, and should 
 the contract go by a slight difference to another bidder, that bidder 
 will have his tools and gauges paid for by the Government. After 
 that the conditions will be those of free competition. At the 
 most two manufacturers in each line of goods will have their tools 
 and gauges paid for by the Government, and others will buy and 
 pay for their own. It is more probable, however, that the first 
 successful bidder will exclude the cost of his special equipment 
 from all bids but the first in order to make certain the obtaining 
 of later contracts, and thus the natural operation of the law will 
 be for the Government to equip one manufacturer in each line 
 of goods with special equipment for Government work. This is 
 scarcely up to the American idea of even-handed justice. 
 
 It will be observed, moreover, that the assertion that the Gov- 
 ernment will pay the cost of new tools and gauges assumes that 
 standards are to le changed, and like all the pro-metric discus- 
 sions of this phase of the subject it ignores the value of standards 
 as such and the infinite confusion due to changing them. The 
 reader will compare the assertions of some of the metric advo- 
 cates that existing standards are to be preserved by the use of 
 metric equivalents with the repeated assertion that the Govern- 
 ment is to pay the cost of new tools and gauges. Why should new 
 tools and gauges be required if standards are not to be changed ? 
 
THE INACCURACY OF THE METRE 
 
 It is, of course, well known that the metre is not what it was 
 intended it should be a ten-millionth part of the quadrant of 
 the earth's meridian. The metric advocates insist that this inac- 
 curacy is of no importance. In a letter from Captain F. A. 
 Mahan to Engineering News for April 16, 1903, the following 
 may be found: 
 
 " Now what are some of the objections made to the metric system? 
 
 " That the metre is not 1-10,000,000 of the length of the quadrant from 
 the north pole to the equator. That is granted, but to what extent does 
 that affect the system? Not in the slightest." 
 
 Professor Stratton, speaking before the Western Society of 
 Engineers at their May, 1902, meeting, said: 
 
 " Subsequent measurements of the earth's surface have shown that the 
 metre as constructed is not exactly the length as defined and this fact 
 has sometimes been used as an objection to the metric system. This, 
 however, is of little importance since the metre and kilogramme as now 
 constructed are as permanent as it is possible to make material stand- 
 ards." 
 
 Again Dr. F. A. P. Barnard wrote (The Metric System of 
 Weights and Measures, page 107) : 
 
 " I accept the metre as it is, not because it is the ten-millionth part of 
 the French quadrant but because it is the actual base of an admirable 
 system of weights and measures." 
 
 These quotations are but illustrations of the manner in which 
 the metric advocates apologize for the fact that the metre, like 
 the yard, is an arbitrary standard, and as such no better than the 
 yard. If it was to be no better than the yard why was not the 
 yard adopted and units thus obtained which at least would have 
 been commensurate with the old ? If the accuracy of the survey 
 of the meridian was of no importance why was it undertaken? 
 
 Read again the story of the conferences, discussions and delib- 
 erations of the French Academy of Sciences, assisted by repre- 
 
104 THE METRIC FALLACY. 
 
 sentatives from Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, Denmark and 
 Switzerland, and of the conclusion that the ten-millionth part of 
 the earth's quadrant should be the base of the system. Head 
 again the story of the seven years' survey prosecuted at the risk 
 of life and liberty,* and resulting in the imprisonment and ulti- 
 mate death of Menchain.f Read again the story of the manner 
 in which the calculations were verified by a committee of the 
 National Institute, and how high heaven was called upon to wit- 
 ness to their accuracy. Read again the story of the ceremonious 
 delivery of the original standards into the national archives of 
 France. Read, in short, the story of the tremendous importance 
 attached to the derivation of the original metre and then contrast 
 this with the present day assertions of the metric advocates which 
 say, in effect, that all this infinite effort was mere pother ; that the 
 inaccuracy of the metre does not affect the system " in the slight- 
 est." Does not this impress the reader as rather severe criticism 
 of the good sense of those who w r ent to these infinite pains for 
 nothing? Well may the shades of the originators of the system 
 say, " Save us from our friends." 
 
 No ridicule by either party of the position of the other can 
 equal the biting though unconscious sarcasm of the metric ad- 
 vocates in asserting that the inaccuracy of the metre is of no 
 importance. As a matter of fact they thus show how little they 
 understand the principles of their system in its integrity. 
 
 Nor is the matter helped by the retreat of the metric advo- 
 cates behind the fact that the metre may be reproduced from 
 the known length of a wave of light, since that method may be 
 applied equally well to the reproduction of the yard. By no sub- 
 terfuge of logic can the metre in the present emasculated condi- 
 tion of the metric system be shown to be in any respect superior 
 as a standard to the yard. 
 
 * The Spaniards believed the engineers to be spies or engineers of an 
 invading army of France, 
 t Not from violence, however. 
 
THE ABANDONED POKTIONS OF THE METEIC 
 
 SYSTEM. 
 
 Many are not aware that what is now called the metric system 
 is but a fragment of the system as it was originated, and that 
 portions of it are not only abandoned as failures but are well- 
 nigh forgotten. These portions relate to the divisions of the 
 year, the day, the circle and the mariner's compass, and of these 
 the divisions of the day and the circle are not mere side issues 
 but integral and essential portions of the system. 
 
 Linear and angular measurements are interrelated through 
 measurements of the earth's surface, especially in navigation. In 
 the English system linear and angular measurements are con- 
 nected by the fact that the marine mile is a minute of arc of a 
 great circle of the earth's surface.* 
 
 The originators of the metric system included in it a system of 
 angular units in which the quadrant was divided into 100 degrees, 
 and it was intended that a kilometre should equal a minute of 
 arc of the earth's surface by the new angular units just as an 
 English marine mile equals a minute by the old.f In order that 
 this should be the case accuracy in the determination of the metre 
 was imperative. No other unit was possible as the base of the 
 system and inaccuracy in the survey was a fatal defect. 
 
 Measurements of angles and of time are again interrelated 
 through differences of longitude and of time. In the old system 
 we have the simple and, to the navigator, highly important rela- 
 tion that one hour difference of time corresponds to fifteen 
 degrees of difference of longitude. The originators of the metric 
 system divided the day into ten hours ^ intending thereby to intro- 
 
 * This is a relation which is of real, and not imaginary importance, as 
 is the connection of measures of length, weight and capacity through the 
 medium of water. 
 
 t A quadrant was to equal 100 degrees of 100 minutes each, that is 10,000 
 minutes, and the same quadrant was to equal 10,000,000 metres, that is 
 10,000 kilometres. 
 
 J The use of the ten-hour day was compulsory in France for a year and 
 a half. 
 
100 THE METRIC FALLACY. 
 
 duce the relation of one hour difference of time to forty of the 
 new degrees of longitude. 
 
 These interrelations of the units of length, of angles and of 
 time will be seen to be of fundamental importance to the navi- 
 gator and it was at this point that the new system promptly 
 broke clown. The French people refused to have the ten hour 
 day. The French navigator then found himself with the com- 
 bination of the twenty-four hour day and the four hundred degree 
 circle on his hands, giving the relation of one hour difference of 
 time to 16 66' 66f" difference of longitude. It did not take 
 him long to decide between this and the ratio of one hour to 
 15 degrees by the old system, and he promptly discarded the 
 400 degree circle. He then found himself with the combination 
 of the kilometre and the 360 degree circle, giving the relation 
 one kilometre = .5396 minute of arc. Again, it did not take 
 him long to decide between this and the old system in which 1 
 marine mile = 1 minute of arc and the kilometre as a measure of 
 sea distances followed the ten hour day and the 400 degree circle 
 to the limbo of discarded things. 
 
 We thus have the striking fact that because the French 
 people a hundred years ago refused to have the ten hour day 
 the speeds of the ships of the French navy are to-day measured 
 in English knots and sea distances in English miles. 
 
 With that remarkable insight into all phases of the subject 
 which characterizes his report, John Quincy Adams referred to 
 this topic as follows : 
 
 " A.11 navigation is admeasurement * * * Yet a system of weights 
 and measures which excludes all geography, astronomy and navigation 
 from its consideration must be essentially defective in its principle of 
 uniformity. 
 
 " But if the metre and its decimal divisions are not to be applied to 
 those operations of man for which it is most especially adapted; if those 
 who circumnavigate the globe, in fact, are to make no use of it and to 
 have no concern in its proportions; if their measures are still to be the 
 nonagesimal degree, the marine league, the toise and the foot; it is surely 
 of little consequence to the farmer who needs a measure for his corn, 
 to the mechanic who builds a house or to the townsman who buys a pound 
 of meat or a bottle of wine to know that the weight or measure which 
 he employs was standarded by the circumference of the globe." 
 
 It is obvious that we cannot have one system of latitude and 
 longitude for the sea and another for the land. If the 360 
 degree circle is to be continued in navigation it must be con- 
 
THE METRIC FALLACY. 107 
 
 tinued in all terrestrial geography. If continued in geography 
 it must be continued for all other purposes, and we see at once 
 how puerile are the repeated predictions of the recrudescence 
 of the 400 degree circle.* It is safe to say that the navigator 
 will not use the kilometre until he has the 400 degree circle, 
 and that he will not use the 400 degree circle until the people 
 of the earth have accepted the ten hour day. The reader may 
 judge of the time when this is likely to be done. When it, 
 is done it will be in order to revise the length of the metre in 
 order that a kilometre may equal a centessimal minute of arc. 
 
 With their plan worked out to include interrelated units for 
 the measurement of linear distances, of angles and of time, the 
 founders of the system had some reason for proclaiming it as fit 
 to become a universal system. Since the failure of these latter 
 portions of the system their successors have had none. 
 
 When beaten at all other points of the controversy, the final 
 reserve argument with which the metric advocates seek to silence 
 all opposition to their system is the desirability of uniformity. 
 
 Throughout the world and throughout all history peoples of all 
 nationalities, races and tongues have divided the circle into 360 
 degrees. This and the division of the day into 24 hours are the 
 two existing examples of absolute uniformity. The logic of the 
 metric advocates may be equal to reconciling their great aim 
 of uniformity with their advocacy of the 400 degree circle, but 
 that of ordinary mortals is not. 
 
 * In his letter to Engineering News for April 16, 1903, the chief dif- 
 ficulty which Capt. F. A. Mahan can see to prevent the " more rapid ad- 
 vancement " of the 400 degree circle is that " The tables of sines and 
 tangents for the centessimal system have not yet been prepared with the 
 great care and accuracy which have been bestowed on those of the 90 
 degree system." 
 
THE "COKFUSION" OF OUK WEIGHTS AND 
 MEASUKES. 
 
 The metric advocates are fond of dwelling upon a supposed 
 confusion of our weights and measures which exists in their 
 imagination only. They refer to our different pints, pounds, 
 quarts, gallons, and tons as productive of a babel of confusion. 
 Except for our two tons (of which more presently) these different 
 units produce no conf^iswn because they are used for different 
 and perfectly well understood purposes. Was any reader of these 
 pages ever confused in the slightest because the quart by 
 which peanuts are sold differs from that by which milk is sold? 
 The difference between our liquid and dry measures is a favorite 
 subject of ridicule, but it loses its point in the face of the fact, 
 which is shown in preceding pages, that the French people still 
 use their old dry and liquid measures. 
 
 Few of the readers of these pages have ever seen, as I have 
 never seen, a troy pound weight, for the reason that it is prac- 
 tically non-existent. Troy weight is used for weighing gold and 
 silver, and for nothing else. Moreover, for that purpose (see any 
 statistical report of the production of these metals) the pound 
 is never used gross amounts being given in thousands of ounces, 
 never in pounds. The use of the troy ounce for this purpose is 
 strictly analogous to the use of the carat for weighing gems which, 
 as has been shown, is universal in France and Germany as it is 
 here. The apothecary's weight again is a special system, used by 
 physicians and druggists alone, and does not enter into the life 
 of the average citizen, not one in a thousand of whom knows or 
 needs to know the signs for designating the apothecary's weights. 
 If the physicians and druggists prefer to use a special system of 
 weights for their own purposes it concerns no one else, and 
 confuses no one else, while if a change would be to their ad- 
 vantage no action of Congress is needed to bring it about. 
 
 Eegarding the confusion which undoubtedly exists between our 
 two tons, will it be any less among three ? Will it be any easier 
 to get rid of our long ton after the adoption of the metric ton of 
 2,204 pounds than now? The persistence of our long ton is an 
 object lesson in the persistence of old units even when, as in this 
 case, the two units are acknowledged by all to be a nuisance. If, 
 
THE METRIC FALLACY. 109 
 
 after a half century of effort, we are unable to get rid of our 
 long ton, what prospect is there that we will ever get rid of all 
 our other units ? The long ton is a standing object lesson of the 
 difficulty of changing units of weight and measure. 
 
 It is not, however, our only object lesson. The illustration below 
 is a facsimile reproduction of the caption of a recent map of 
 Angelina County, Texas, issued by the Angelina Orchard Com- 
 pany of Boston. 
 
 ffooo VQTVS to the inch 
 
 3 varas equals afou23 ft, 
 
 * 
 
 TITLE OF A TEXAN MAP. 
 
 Texas was ceded to the United States by Mexico in 1845 but 
 land is still measured there by the Spanish vara.* 
 
 The above instances may be legitimately cited as examples of 
 confusion in our weights and measures. The sensible method of 
 getting rid of such superfluous units is to discontinue their use, 
 while the metric plan is to get rid of them by adding others. 
 Stripped of all its sophistries the metric programme says that 
 because these few cases show the enormous difficulty of changing 
 a few things, therefore let us change everything. 
 
 In a broad sense the " confusion " of our weights and measures 
 is an absolute fiction a figment of the metric imagination. 
 There is but one inch, one foot, one yard, one commercial pound, 
 one liquid and one dry quart, f used throughout this country, and 
 as has been stated above, the liquid and dry quarts produce no 
 confusion because they are used for distinct and perfectly well 
 understood purposes. For illustrations of wide-spread confusion 
 we must go to so-called metric countries. 
 
 This has been shown in previous pages, but one feature of it 
 should be emphasized the existence of numerous units of the 
 same name and used for the same purposes, but having different 
 
 * This map is not the only evidence in my possession of this fact. The 
 vara is also a legal unit of measure in California. 
 
 t The dry gallon does not exist. No American reader of these pages 
 ever bought or sold anything by the dry gallon. 
 
110 THE METRIC FALLACY. 
 
 values in different districts and even towns. This condition of 
 things may fairly be called confusion, and to it this country is, 
 and always has been, a stranger. Numerous examples of this may 
 be found in the table of Non-Metric Units Used in Metric 
 Countries (page 60 ante). The well known book, Commercial 
 Trade Requirements, published by Louis Scribner & Co., contains a 
 table of foreign units of about twice the length of the Government 
 table from which my own was drawn. 
 
 It was this condition in France which originally led to the con- 
 ception of the metric system as il; was this which has led to its 
 adoption wherever it has been adopted a statement which is 
 especially and conspicuously true of Germany a country which 
 is held up to us as our great exemplar, but the example counts 
 for nothing. When the German Empire was formed the various 
 States had each its own units, which still survive, as has been 
 pointed out. The necessity of getting rid of such a condition of 
 things was obvious. State jealousy made the adoption of the 
 system of any one State impossible, and, as the only way out, 
 the country turned to the metre. Germany adopted the metre 
 in order to do away with confusion j our adoption of it will only 
 make confusion. 
 
 The facts are thus expressed by M. de L'Espee, who has already 
 been quoted in connection with the conditions prevailing in France 
 and Brazil : 
 
 "The third advantage of the system, viz., the substitution of a uniform, 
 unchangeable standard for the endless confusion of standards that pre- 
 vailed in France and in other countries prior to its adoption, is well known 
 to have been the main cause for its creation. 
 
 " It is not necessary here, as was the case with Prance a century ago, to 
 introduce order and uniformity in an inextricable confusion of provincial 
 standards. There is as full, complete, scientific and uniform a system in 
 existence as could be wished for: the foot, the pound, the acre used in 
 Liverpool, are identical with the foot, the pound or the acre used in New 
 York or San Francisco. Thus the advantage of uniformity which France, 
 Germany, Brazil, etc., could not secure until they had adopted the metric 
 system, has already been secured here under the present system, and this 
 all-important reason in favor of a change is lacking." 
 
 Every such condition favored the change in Germany; every 
 such condition opposes it here. We have seen a little of the task 
 which the system has laid on Germany, but that task is as noth- 
 ing compared with ours. Comparison between the development 
 of German industries thirty years ago and our own day there is 
 
THE METRIC FALLACY. Ill 
 
 none, and every added industry, every mill, every machine, every 
 material thing we have, is another kedge anchor to the inch. 
 If some of our units are redundant and hence confusing the com- 
 mon-sense method of improving matters is to drop them and 
 retain the others. The metric proposition, on the contrary, is to 
 get rid of redundant units by the addition of more units. The 
 metric advocates expect to secure uniformity by introducing 
 diversity to obtain the results of subtraction by the process of 
 addition. 
 
 The change * which elsewhere it was vainly hoped might do 
 away with confusion can only produce confusion here. The 
 reasons which have led other nations to adopt the system are thus 
 exactly the reasons which should lead the Anglo-Saxon nations to 
 have nothing to do with it. So far as our metric advocates are 
 concerned, the uniformity which they seek to establish is the very 
 thing which they will in fact destroy, the confusion which they 
 seek to destroy they will in fact establish. 
 
 The metric advocates are fond of pointing to the practice of 
 weighing grain as an evidence of the confusion of our weights 
 and measures. Thus at the hearings of the House Committee 
 Mr. Shaffroth (page 14) said : 
 
 " The number of pounds vary which go into a bushel. Some States 
 have 56 pounds to the bushel and others have 60 pounds to the bushel 
 and it varies all along the line; also the number of pounds of oats to the 
 bushel varies." 
 
 The farmer naturally, and indeed necessarily, measures his 
 grain. When it gets on the railroads and in the elevators, how- 
 ever, it is as necessarily weighed. Since the density of different 
 grains varies, the weight allowed per bushel varies accordingly, 
 and likewise, since the density of the same grain grown in differ- 
 ent sections varies, the allowance per bushel varies in the different 
 States these allowances being simply attempts to average the 
 weight per bushel in the various States. This practice is incident 
 to the conversion of a primary market measure of capacity into 
 one of weight, and it could not be affected by the adoption of 
 the metric system. 
 
 The criticism of the English system because different grains 
 and the same grain from different localities possess different 
 weights per bushel is as rational as would be a criticism based on 
 the fact that iron and copper possess different weights per cubic 
 inch. 
 
THE COMPLICATIONS DUE TO A MIXTUEE OF UNITS. 
 
 Among those who really believe that there is an appreciable 
 saving of time in making calculations by the metric system it is 
 customary to assume that with the spread of the system the 
 gain will be progressive a partial use of the system giving a 
 portion of the gain. Nothing could be further from the fact. 
 The mixed use of two sets of units involves repeated conversions 
 from one to the other with a great resulting loss. 
 
 Consider the mixed use of units due to the selling of English 
 sizes of bar iron by the kilogramme, as described in Mr. Canby's 
 letter from Mexico (page 55 ante). Suppose it is desired to calculate 
 the weight in kilogrammes of a certain number of metres of !- 
 inch bar iron. In no English and in no metric table can the weight 
 of l|-inch bar iron per metre be found. The size of the bar must 
 be converted into millimetres to use a metric table, or the metres 
 of length to feet in order to use an English table. If the former 
 course be followed the resulting metric size cannot be found in 
 any metric table, because English and metric sizes are not the 
 same. The second course will therefore naturally be followed, 
 and an English table will be consulted where will be found the 
 weight of the bar per foot. This must then be multiplied by the 
 ratio between the foot and the metre, and the result by the ratio 
 between the pound and the kilogramme in order to obtain the 
 weight in kilogrammes per metre of length. That is, two multi- 
 plications are involved in finding the weight per unit of length 
 a quantity that is found directly from the tables when either 
 system is used alone. 
 
 Again it is desired to find the size of rolled I beam to carry a 
 given load, the span being in metres and the load in kilogrammes, 
 but the beam to be used is to be taken from existing American 
 sizes. No table exists in which the capacity of an American size 
 beam can be found in kilogrammes. The dimensions of the cross 
 section of the beam must be converted into millimetres or the span 
 must be converted into feet and the load into pounds. If the former 
 course be adopted the resulting metric cross section cannot be 
 
THE METRIC FALLACY. ' 113 
 
 found in any metric table and the latter course must be resorted 
 to. That is, the designer will convert his metric data into English 
 units and use his English tables as he does now, these conversions 
 representing so much added labor. 
 
 The above illustrations relate to the simplest of cases. What 
 the use of a mixture of units actually involves may be seen from 
 Mi\ Dale's description of the calculations which are to-day being 
 made in Germany in order to determine the cost of a piece of 
 worsted cloth (page 25 ante). 
 
 The above illustrations show the futility of the suggestion 
 made by Mr. Christie at the discussion of the Mechanical En- 
 gineers : 
 
 " The works of French and German engineers are at least as voluminous 
 as ours and we would need to do little more than reprint their tables." 
 
 This -suggestion is especially unfortunate. A German table of 
 the flow of water in pipes is applicable to German that is, metric 
 sizes of pipe only, and similarly, a German table of the strength 
 of beams is applicable to German that is, metric sizes only. 
 These tables could not be used in connection with our sizes of 
 pipes or beams. If we are to express volumes of water and 
 loads on beams in metric units, and continue our existing stand- 
 ards of pipes and beams, we must have new tables. When 
 our pipes and beams are changed to metric dimensions we shall 
 need a third set of tables, and during the transition period we 
 shall have repeated use for all three sets. This whole subject 
 of technical literature leads to the most hopeless confusion. 
 
 The above paragraph illustrates the fact, which has been en- 
 larged upon by Mr. Wm. Kent in Engineering News for Feb- 
 ruary 19, 1903, that during the transition period we must have a 
 system of transition technical literature a suggestion which 
 alone is sufficient to demonstrate the hopeless impracticability of 
 the scheme. 
 
 The case for technical literature was never better, albeit uncon- 
 sciously, expressed than by Dr. F. A. P. Barnard in his lifetime 
 the leader of the American pro-metric forces. In excusing the 
 failure of the centessimal division of the quadrant he said (The 
 Metric System of Weights and Measures, page 85) : 
 
 " To change the law of circular division was to introduce diversity 
 where uniformity prevailed before and also to destroy the usefulness of 
 
114 THE METRIC FALLACY. 
 
 a vast scientific literature which had been founded on the sexagessimal 
 division." * 
 
 So also to change the law of linear division will destroy the 
 usefulness of a vast technical literature which has been founded 
 on the English system. 
 
 It is not, moreover, necessary to go to technical sources for 
 these illustrations. Imagine a retail merchant to buy his goods 
 in metres and kilogrammes, and to sell them in yards and pounds, 
 or a wholesale merchant to sell to some customers by the metric 
 and to others by the English system, or a manufacturer to make his 
 goods by one system and to sell by the other as textile manu- 
 facturers are doing to-day throughout metric Europe. One or 
 all of these conditions must arise during the transition period, 
 and all would give rise to endless transformations between the 
 systems, all of which represent so much added labor. 
 
 The inevitable mixture of units negatives also the persistent 
 assertions of the metric advocates that the adoption of the system 
 is to save a valuable portion of the school life of all children. 
 If the old units are to endure for an indefinite period, as all 
 experience shows they will, they must be taught in the schools. 
 The learning of the metric system will therefore represent so 
 much added labor as the learning of the relations of the two 
 systems will represent still more. The work of the school 
 children will, therefore, be increased, not diminished. 
 
 * This is by no means the worst of Dr. Barnard's inconsistencies. His 
 Metric System of Weights and Measures contains in an appendix a dis- 
 cussion of " The Unification of Moneys." To this Dr. Barnard was op- 
 posed, his argument being based on the difficulty of the change, and this in 
 spite of the fact that, according to John Quincy Adams, a change in cur- 
 rency is " a revolution by all experience known to be infinitely more easy 
 to accomplish than that of weights and measures." 
 
EXAMINATION OF THE CLAIMS OF SUPEEIOEITY" 
 FOE THE METEIC SYSTEM. 
 
 The keynote of my argument for a time will be that the whole 
 matter is a bagatelle; that, in short, the trifling advantages, if, 
 indeed, there be any advantages at all, to be obtained by the adop- 
 tion of the metric system are not for a moment to be compared 
 with the enormous cost of making the change. Every thinking 
 man knows that a duodecimal system of numbers would be better 
 than the present decimal system, but no one is so foolish as to 
 seriously propose a change, and the cases are exactly parallel. 
 
 On its merits, then, I claim that the metric system is a bagatelle. 
 Admit all, for the sake of argument, that the metric advocates 
 have claimed regarding the fundamental superiority of the sys- 
 tem and we admit nothing. The pro-metric argument is that 
 the decimal basis and the interrelation of the units of length, of 
 capacity, and of weight greatly simplify and abbreviate calcula- 
 tions. That is all, for when it comes to actually measuring things 
 no one claims that it cannot be done just as readily by the English 
 system; and, in fact, if there is any argument from this stand- 
 point it is that the English system is better than the French sys- 
 tem. 
 
 In support of this claim of superiority for the purposes of cal- 
 culation, the standard illustration relates to the calculation of the 
 volume and weight of a tank of water; and, in fact, at the close 
 of the pamphlet giving the testimony before the House com- 
 mittee a pamphlet which, as a matter of duty, I have read from 
 the first page to the last are some comparative tables showing 
 the number of figures involved in such calculations by the two 
 systems. Now the weak point of this exhibit is that to very few 
 people is the weight of a tank of water of any consequence what- 
 ever. Of the members of this society of engineers I doubt if 
 10 per cent, ever had to determine the weight of a tank of water 
 or the pressure on its bottom. This illustration is contemptible 
 in its littleness. The calculations of this nature which engineers 
 have to make relate to the weights of masses of the materials of 
 
116 THE METRIC FALLACY. 
 
 construction iron, steel, brass, masonry, etc. and the procedure 
 is the same by either system; we multiply the length by the 
 breadth and the thickness, and then multiply the product by a 
 constant for the material. With the metric system that con- 
 stant is the specific gravity, and with the English system it is the 
 weight per cubic inch. That is all, and when summed up the 
 difference in the procedure is simply that between tweedle dee 
 and tweedle dum. 
 
 When it comes to the claim that this metric system reduces the 
 labor involved in the calculations of every-day life enough to be 
 a matter of public moment whatever, it simply is not so. 
 
 No dimension on a machine drawing above 9 millimetres (about 
 f inch) is ever expressed by a single digit, and none above 9 
 centimetres (about 3^ inches) by two digits. In English units 9 
 feet may be expressed with one figure, and 99 feet with two. 
 Talk about simplicity. A metric drawing is a wilderness of 
 figures. 
 
 Even the assumed simplicity of decimal fractions is to a large 
 degree fictitious. Compare the following table of equivalents : 
 
 i = .3333 + f - = .0166 + -jV = .0625 
 
 i = .25 -A = .0143 + - 3 Y= -03125 
 
 *=.2 A =.0126 & =.015825 
 
 i = .1666 + & = .0111 + . K = -0028 + 
 
 | =.1428+ ^=.005 ^=.0022 + 
 
 i=.125 ^=.0033+ 7rir?=.0018 + 
 = .1111 + 
 
 Read some of these expressions aloud. One-eighth equals one 
 hundred twenty-five thousandths; one sixtieth equals one hundred 
 sixty-seven ten thousandths; one thirty-second equals three thou- 
 sand one hundred twenty-five hundred thousandths. Can any 
 one say that the decimal equivalents give as clear a mental picture 
 of their value as the vulgar fractions? They never do, except 
 where the decimal is small, and this explains why people insist 
 on using vulgar fractions. 
 
 The superiority of the decimal system as applied to currency 
 is largely due to the great amount of adding to be done. With 
 day book, journal, ledger, cash book, trial balance, balance sheet, 
 invoice inward and invoice outward alike, it is add, add, add, and 
 then add some more. The amount of adding to be done in con- 
 nection with money is both relatively and absolutely out of all 
 comparison with that involved in connection with weights and 
 measures. When it comes to multiplication or division, vulgar 
 
THE METRIC FALLACY. 117 
 
 fractions are often the simpler. The comparisons drawn between 
 currency and weights and measures will not bear examination. 
 
 Some very striking testimony on the subject of the compara- 
 tive labor of calculations by the two systems was offered before the 
 House committee by Mr. J. H. Linnard, a naval architect of the 
 Navy Department, who learned his profession in France, where 
 he spent four years studying naval architecture in the metric 
 system, which profession he has practised since 1887 in this 
 country, where, of course, he has used the English system. 
 Here is a man who may fairly be said to know what he is talk- 
 ing about, and, moreover, one would expect his predilections to 
 favor the metric system, as, in his schooldays, naval architec- 
 ture and the metric system were part and parcel of the same thing. 
 Nevertheless he testified (page 183): "As far as calculations in 
 the matter of shipbuilding are concerned, it is just as convenient 
 in every way, shape, and form to use English measurements as 
 French." 
 
 Such testimony cannot be ignored. It is worth more than all 
 the essays and a priori arguments that can be written from now 
 until doomsday. There is probably no branch of engineering 
 which involves so many or such laborious calculations as ship de- 
 signing. It may be regarded as the crux of the whole matter. 
 Moreover, in connection with many of the problems of the naval 
 architect the pet tank of water illustrations would seem to apply 
 directly, but, unfortunately, the naval architect has to deal with 
 salt water, which has a greater specific gravity than fresh water, 
 and so these pretty illustrations fail to apply even here. If the 
 Creator would kindly make the earth over again and fill the seas 
 with distilled water the case might be different. 
 
 The following testimony from another article by Mr. Hess, 
 published in the American Machinist for October 16, 1902, is 
 even more striking, because Mr. Hess, before his practical ex- 
 perience with the metric system, was an advocate of it: 
 
 Some years since I was asked to sign a petition to Congress asking that the 
 metric system of measurements be officially adopted as the legal American 
 standard. In common with many others I complied, under the impression that 
 the ease of reckoning with decimals and the convenience of a logically harmonious 
 system would be sufficient to compensate for all troubles, fancied and real, 
 incidental to the change. Since then actual experience with the metric system 
 has led to a revision of views, so that to-day I am decidedly " on the fence/' 
 
 That the metric system is a really satisfactory solution of the problem is, 
 to say the least, doubtful. The convenience of its units as to size is debatable; 
 
118 THE METRIC FALLACY. 
 
 but it is very likely that no series of units can be generally satisfactory. The 
 requirements of the various arts and sciences are far too varied for that. The 
 best unit, or series of units, is one that does not involve large figures. 
 
 That argument of the advocate of the metric system that its unit, the metre, 
 is a natural one, a certain definite portion of the earth's diameter [sic], may be 
 at once dismissed; it has already been proven that the metre's relation to the 
 earth's diameter is, or was, not reliably known. 
 
 There remains the other chief claim convenience in reckoning, owing to 
 the metric system having been built up on the decimal plan. This is really 
 a very alluring claim, but will not bear close scrutiny. The decimal system is 
 only in part more convenient than a binary system, but not wholly so, or even 
 more so. It is in fact more uncertain in arithmetical operations than the decid- 
 edly faulty English system. This statement, directly opposed to my precon- 
 ceived notions of a few years ago, is advanced as a result of direct experience 
 with the metric system, extending now over three years. Having been gradually 
 led to this conclusion I determined to put it to a practical test. A certain prob- 
 lem not made up specially for the occasion, but cropping up in regular practice 
 was submitted to seven draughtsmen and designers, some of them of more than 
 average attainments, and all of them thoroughly familiar with the metric system, 
 through having used it almost exclusively in their practice and schooling. The 
 correct result was arrived at by only three of the seven men. 
 
 The problem was at first given to but one man, and only the obviously wrong 
 result led to its being handed over to the others. The difficulty lay in the cor- 
 rect location of the decimal point ; with one exception all had the correct numerals, 
 but the men were apparently lost in the maze of decimal figures. 
 
 The same problem with equivalent values in English units was then handed 
 out. The correct result was arrived at by six out of seven men in an average 
 of two-thirds the time taken for its solution in the metric system, showing that 
 the percentage of error was very much less and the time considerably less with 
 the binary system, notwithstanding the relative unfamiliarity of the men with 
 the units of the binary system. 
 
 A decimal system is not as convenient as a binary system in mathematical, 
 draughting-room or shop work at least so far as mechanical engineering is 
 concerned. 
 
 Additional testimony adverse to the claims for the saving of 
 time in calculations are given in the following extract from a 
 letter from Mr. A. M. Mattice, chief engineer of the Westing- 
 Louse Electric and Manufacturing Company: 
 
 For a number of years I have had more or less occasion to have drawings made 
 In the metric system. My experience has been that foreign draughtsmen who were 
 originally brought up in the use of the metric system, and later come to this coun- 
 try and worked in theEnglish system, and have become as skilled in the use of the 
 latter as in the use of the former, will work more rapidly on drawings in English 
 measures than on those where the metric system is used. One of the reasons for 
 this is the greater ease of using an easily sub-divided system like the English. 
 Another reason is the greater ease of quickly picking out a dimension on scales in 
 the English system. 
 
 The following incident is of interest in this connection : During a visit to Europe 
 
THE METRIC FALLACY. 119 
 
 last summer, a party of us v sited the Oerlikon Electrical Works in Switzerland. 
 We were shown over their works by their chief draughtsman, Mr. Leon von Muralt, 
 who was for several years with the Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Com- 
 pany, East Pittsburg, Pa., and is thoroughly acquainted with American practice. 
 One of our party asked Mr. von Muralt the result of his experience in the English 
 and metric systems. He replied without hesitation that " for drawings and shop 
 use he considered the English system the more practical, but for calculations the 
 metric system had the advantage." As calculations form a very small part of an 
 industrial establishment, and as the greater part of commercial calculations are 
 nowadays made by the slide rule or other calculating instruments, the advantage 
 cited by Mr. von Muralt would not be appreciable. 
 
 I might mention another instance, as follows : The chief engineer of our French 
 Company (Societe Anonyme Westinghouse), Mr. W. E. Reed, was transferred 
 from the parent company to the French company about three years ago. All the 
 construction work of this company is necessarily done in the metric system. Mr. 
 Reed, is, of course, thoroughly conversant with the metric system and is brought 
 into contact with it hourly. Notwithstanding this, Mr. Reed makes all his cal- 
 culations, except those in connection with transformers, in the English system, 
 and simply translates his final results into metric measures. He does this for the 
 reason that all of the formulae and constants which he uses were learned in the 
 English system, and it is easier to continue the use of them than to relearn them 
 in the metric system. In the case of transformers, all the formulae and constants 
 which he uses have been worked out by him since he joined the French company, 
 and for convenience he worked them out in the metric system. This case is an 
 example of the difficulty of attempting to break loose from an existing system, 
 where the newsystem does not offer sufficient advantages to induce one to make a 
 change. If, after three-years' experience in the metric system, Mr. Reed had 
 found that he could work more rapidly by calculating in the metric system, he 
 would undoubtedly have done so. 
 
 Another example: Mr. Otto C. Reymann, mechanical engineer of the same 
 company, is a German and received his technical education at Charlottenburg and 
 Zurich, where, of course, the only system of measures used was the metric. Mr. 
 Reymann spent about six years in practical work in this country, where he became 
 accustomed to the use of the English system. He has now been with the French 
 Westinghouse Company nearly five years, where he is daily brought into contact 
 with the metric system. Notwithstanding this, he does all his thinking and cal- 
 culating in the English system and translates his final results into the metric sys- 
 tem. 
 
 Messrs. Reed and Reymann are both on a visit to this country at the present 
 time, and I have to-day talked with them about this matter. I had previously 
 heard that Mr. Reed still worked in the .English system and he has confirmed that 
 understanding. It was not until to-day that I knew that Mr. Reymann was also 
 using the English system. In his case it would be natural to suppose that, having 
 been brought up in the use of the metric system, when he went back to Europe 
 he would have gone back to the use of that system if it possessed the great advan- 
 tages which are claimed for it by its advocates. 
 
 Against such experiences as these should be placed a sample of 
 the sort of stuff that passed as testimony at the hearings of the 
 House Committee. Said Mr. Candler (page 79) : 
 
120 THE METRIC FALLACY. 
 
 " Some gentleman testified here the other day that in making calcula- 
 tions in the two systems the time required is about fifteen minutes in 
 one system and about two hours in the other system. That is about the 
 proportion." 
 
 The foregoing testimony comes from such sources that it can- 
 not fail to command respect. Ignore it all, however, and what 
 does the pro-metric argument for the saving of time in cal- 
 culations amount to ? Suppose the labors of naval architects and 
 engineers generally were appreciably lightened by the use of 
 the metric system, what would it amount to ? What is the pro- 
 portion of engineers to the public at large, and how much would 
 the aggregate saving amount to? Figure up the aggregate if it 
 can be done, and then divide it by the number of the population, 
 and how many seconds per day for each man would be obtained ? 
 This explains what I meant in saying that if the arguments of 
 the metric advocates be admitted the admission amounts to noth- 
 ing. As an economic factor in the life of this people, I 
 insist that the saving of time due to the use of the metric system 
 in calculation is an absolute bagatelle. No microscope ever mag- 
 nified material things to the extent that the importance of this 
 matter has been magnified. I cannot express my contempt for 
 the argument that, in order to lessen the labor of a man here 
 and there throughout the country, this nation should be put to 
 the confusion and turmoil involved in tearing up by the roots 
 the most fundamental feature of its commercial and industrial 
 life. The proposition is unthinkable. Talk about special legis- 
 lation; the words do not describe it. The only field in which the 
 interrelation of the units cuts any considerable figure is the elec- 
 trical field. This narrows the issue still more. Shall we do this 
 for the electrical engineers? 
 
 Again, what is it all for? Such a change as this is justifiable 
 only in case of great and manifest advantages. Why, then, 
 should we embark on this movement, the end of which no man 
 can foresee, when its advantages, granting them to exist, are so 
 slight and so elusive that with unexcelled opportunities for com- 
 parison the gentlemen quoted above cannot find them? 
 
 In this connection I wish to call attention to another matter. 
 Engineers are no longer subject to the drudgery of calculations. 
 For the past twenty years an instrument for this purpose has 
 been growing in use, until it has become almost universal among 
 engineers below middle life, its use being taught as a matter of 
 
THE METRIC FALLACY. 121 
 
 course in our engineering colleges. I refer to the slide rule, 
 which has become almost as familiar a thing on an engineer's 
 desk as well as on those of many commercial men, as a lead-pencil 
 or a pair of dividers. It performs all the ordinary calculations 
 of life, except addition and subtraction, so quickly that there is 
 nothing left for the metric system to save, and as an economic 
 factor in the life of the American people it is worth twenty metric 
 systems. These people consider us a lot of mossbacks and old 
 fogies. As a matter of fact, it is they who are twenty years 
 behind the times, for they do not know that the drudgery of cal- 
 culations is already a thing of the past. 
 
 For instance in calculating constructive weights, no one 
 to-day would do it except by the slide rule. For this the small 
 numbers due to the large units of the English system are dis- 
 tinctly superior to the large numbers due to the small French 
 units. With the former we determine the decimal point instinc- 
 tively, while with the latter we must keep tab on the decimal point. 
 
 Putting the little slide rule alongside the great systeme uni- 
 verselle may appear to some like standing Jack the Giant Killer 
 alongside his victims, but do not forget the final result. 
 
 Moreover, the entire argument for this saving of time in calcula- 
 tion is based on the tacit assumption that the old units will become 
 extinct since, if they are to be used, they must appear in calcula- 
 tions. When, as in French and German textile industries, the 
 old and new units are used conjointly, there is an actual loss of 
 many times the theoretical gain. 
 
 Witness the closing of the grave over a century of delusion 
 regarding a wonderful saving of time in calculations, to be ob- 
 tained by the adoption of the metric system. 
 
THE FOBEIGN TBADE ABGUMEOT. 
 
 As a matter of public policy the only view of this question 
 which is of any moment, is that which asserts that the adoption 
 of the metric system is necessary in the interests of foreign trade. 
 If this view were true as a general proposition which I shall 
 show it is not it would still be no sufficient reason for govern- 
 mental action. There are a few parts of one line of machines 
 which it is important to have made in accordance with the system 
 of measurements employed by the user. In making such ma- 
 chines for countries using the metric system, our manufacturers 
 have adapted themselves to this fact, and if they are half as 
 astute as we all believe them to be, they may be depended upon 
 to so continue. A manufacturer is certainly in far closer touch 
 with his customers than any government can be, and this subject, 
 which is so interwoven with all business interests, is the last one 
 in w r hich what has been called " the clumsy hand of legislation " 
 should interfere. 
 
 The machine-building industry is the foundation industry of 
 modern life, while the machine tool-building industry is the foot- 
 ing course of the foundation. It is by these machines that all 
 machines including themselves are made. In this distinction 
 they stand apart from all other products of human skill, and 
 when one is in a machine tool-building shop, he may be very sure 
 that he is witnessing the primal industry of our time. This is 
 the absolute zero of modern industry. 
 
 The man who buys machines of this class does so in order to 
 make other machines. By them all parts of all machines are 
 made to the required size. 
 
 If this assertion that export trade requires the adoption of the 
 metric system were true at all, it would, for this reason, be doubly 
 true in connection with machine tools. What, however, are the 
 facts? Of all the developments of our export trade in the last 
 half-dozen years, none has been more pronounced than in this 
 class of machines. In number and variety those sent abroad 
 have been legion, and of all countries of the world Germany has 
 
THE METRIC FALLACY. 123 
 
 been our best customer, with France not far in the rear. I have 
 made it my business to inquire how many and what changes ma- 
 chine tool-builders have found called for by their foreign cus- 
 tomers, and the answer settles this contention. I have said in the 
 appendix that one of the Cincinnati milling machines contains 
 18,300 dimensions; of these that company has found occasion to 
 make two to metric dimensions, these being the pitches of the 
 traversing and elevating screws of the milling machine table. 
 These two screws are distinctly measuring screws, and the need 
 of their being made to metric pitches is obvious to any mechanic. 
 The lead screw of lathes is a similar measuring screw, and this 
 likewise in many though by no means all cases must, when 
 sent to metric-system countries, be made to metric pitch. These 
 three screws comprise all the parts of the hundreds of parts of 
 the thousands of machine tools sent abroad that have needed 
 change* while in steam engines, mining, agricultural, and other 
 lines of machinery no changes whatever have been called for. 
 That there may be no possible doubt about the facts being as 
 stated, I refer to the action of the Cleveland (October, 1902) Con- 
 vention of the National Machine Tool Builders' Association, which 
 condemned the bill now before Congress, among other reasons 
 
 " Because the sale of many million dollars' worth of machine tools has 
 been made abroad by members of this association, especially to France 
 and Germany, without requirement or request by the purchasers for 
 changes in general construction to conform to metric measurements, the 
 only changes being in adjusting and measuring screws, the great majority 
 of machines needing no changes whatever." 
 
 At the discussion of this subject before the Mechanical En- 
 gineers, letters in confirmation of the above facts were presented 
 from : 
 
 Bullard Machine Tool Co., 
 
 Denver Engineering Works, 
 
 Gould & Eberhardt, 
 
 Laidlaw-Dunn-Gordon Company, 
 
 Lane & Bodley Company, 
 
 Lodge & Shipley Machine Tool Company, 
 
 * This should be understood as meaning that these are all of the changes that 
 I have been able to find. No doubt there are, here and there, in machine tools, 
 adjusting screws analogous to those named which have needed changing, but 
 the essential fact is that the changes have been absolutely infinitesimal, and that, 
 so far as general construction is concerned, no changes whatever have been 
 needed. 
 
124: THE METRIC FALLACY. 
 
 Cincinnati Milling Machine Company, 
 Lunkenheimer Company, 
 American Tool Works Company, 
 Baldwin Locomotive Works, 
 Cincinnati Machine Tool Company, 
 Cincinnati Shaper Company, 
 I. & E. Green wald Company, 
 Cincinnati Planer Company, 
 Beats Machine Tool Company, 
 Northern Engineering Works, 
 Greaves Kinsman & Co., 
 Cincinnati Punch & Shear Company, 
 Bradford Machine Tool Company, 
 Fosdick Machine Tool Company, 
 J. H. Day Company, 
 Aurora Tool Works, 
 Sabastian Lathe Company, 
 Schumacher & Boye, 
 Belmar Machine Tool Company, 
 John Steptoe Company. 
 
 Letters were received in indorsement of the metric system from the fol- 
 lowing: 
 
 Godfrey L. Cabot, Boston, Mass. 
 
 E. W. Lyttle of the College Department, University State of New York. 
 
 Rufus P. Williams, Pres. New England Association of Chemistry 
 Teachers. 
 
 Elihu Thomson of the General Electric Company. 
 
 Of those who thus indorsed the system the first and last only are man- 
 ufacturers. 
 
 Further confirmation of these facts is found in the letter by 
 M. Benet, of Hotchkiss & Cie, Paris, of which portions have 
 already been given. He says : 
 
 Practically the question has no personal interest for me, as we of course work 
 in our own shops to the metric system, and this has in no way prevented us from 
 doing .a large business with the Governments of the United States, England, 
 Russia, and other countries. We are using a very large amount of American 
 machinery in our works, and the fact that this was all built to English measures 
 has given no difficulty. Of course the leading and cross feed screws are supplied 
 to metric pitch, but, as you say, this involves two dimensions out of the many 
 thousands that enter into the drawings of a machine. All of the newer and most 
 up-to-date establishments in France, including all of the Government establish- 
 ments, are largely equipped with American machinery, and I know of no case 
 where the fact of the machines being built to English measures affected their sale 
 ability. 
 
 I believe that the passage of the proposed bill will be the cause of much loss of 
 accumulated wealth, of much confusion, and that the adoption of the metric sys- 
 tem will in no way affect the trade of the United States for the better. 
 
THE METRIC FALLACY. 125 
 
 I have one fact to add which is still more striking. The Chand- 
 ler & Taylor Company, of Indianapolis, build saw-mills, which 
 they export largely, having specially large markets in Central 
 and South America metric using countries, according to our 
 friends of the other side and for whom Chandler & Taylor have 
 issued a Spanish catalogue. A saw-mill has a feed works com- 
 posed of levers, gears, etc., by which the log is fed forward after 
 each cut, and by this gear the thickness of the boards is deter- 
 mined, this feed gear being regularly made to cut the boards to 
 English dimensions Six years ago the Chandler & Taylor Com- 
 pany inserted in their Spanish catalogue a statement that, on re- 
 quest and without extra charge, they would make this gear to cut 
 the boards to metric dimensions, but, unless otherwise specified, 
 they would furnish the English gear, and up to April, 1902, not 
 cne inquiry or request for the metric gear had come in. 
 
 The statement that goods must be made to metric dimensions 
 in order to sell in metric countries is as broad as it is long. It 
 simply asserts that in order to sell, goods must be made in accord- 
 ance with the system of measurements used by the purchaser, 
 and from it it follows that in order to sell here, goods must be 
 made in accordance with the English system. What, however, 
 are the facts ? For forty years the Sellers 7 injector has been made 
 to metric dimensions (excepting always the screw threads), and 
 no one was ever heard to object to it on that account. There are 
 a dozen other American makers of injectors, all of whom, I 
 believe, use the English system, and no one can say that at 
 least some of them do not make good injectors. A purchaser who 
 objects to the metric dimensions of the Sellers instrument can 
 certainly satisfy his wants elsewhere, but I am not aware that 
 any one has ever been heard to raise the objection. 
 
 Another illustration is found in the Willans and Robinson 
 engine which, in the newer sizes, is made to metric measure- 
 ments for sale in England. If metric engines sell in England 
 why will not English engines sell in metric countries ? The 
 adoption of the metric system by the metric party for the manu- 
 facture of engines for sale in England is a striking refutation 
 from their own mouths of their constant assertion that goods 
 must be manufactured in accordance with the system of measure- 
 ments used where they are to be sold. 
 
 We may, however, take a broader view of the matter. From 
 the Monthly /Summary of Commerce and Finance, published by 
 
126 THE METRIC FALLACY. 
 
 the Treasury Department, I learn that during the year ending 
 June 30, 1902, there were imported into this country J>4&_Q4100,- 
 
 000 worth of manufactured and semi-manufactured goods, which 
 sum does not include $265,0000,000 Avorth of " articles of voluntary 
 use, luxuries," etc., some of which were probably manufactured. 
 
 According to our metric friends all of these goods, except 
 those from England and her colonies, are from metric countries, 
 and perforce must be made in accordance with the metric system. 
 
 1 am unable to determine the percentage of metric goods from 
 the tables given, but did any one ever hear of a single instance 
 in which such goods were objected to because they were not made 
 in accordance with the English system? 
 
 In buying a machine, for example, the customer needs to know 
 certain facts, and these facts should be given him in language 
 he can understand. Among such facts are the weight, the length, 
 width, height, and the capacity. If the machine is a planer, for 
 example, the customer must be told the largest size of work 
 which it will do, as well as its weight and over all dimensions, 
 in his own language, which includes his system of weights and 
 measurements. To give such facts in the metric system no more 
 involves the adoption of the system than the furnishing of a 
 catalogue in the German language involves the adoption of that 
 language. That the foreign customer should care whether the 
 working parts the shafts, the gears, the levers, etc. are made 
 to metric dimensions or not is ridiculous. Machines are sold by 
 their operating qualities, the price, and the time of delivery, and 
 not by the fact that a certain shaft is 25 millimetres in diameter 
 instead of 1 inch. 
 
 Just as the idea of using metric equivalents for existing di- 
 mensions has misled many mechanics, so this need of the foreign 
 purchaser for such information in units with which he is familiar 
 has misled many commercial men. They imagine that because 
 a foreign buyer needs such leading weights and measurements aa 
 would be given in a specification or in a letter describing the 
 article offered for sale in metric units, that therefore it is neces- 
 sary to adopt the metric system in factory operations. The use of 
 metric units in this descriptive or specification way when writing 
 to a prospective German customer, for example, is exactly analo- 
 gous to use of the German language under the same circumstances. 
 Both serve to put the information which the customer wants in 
 terms which he can readily understand. 
 
THE METRIC FALLACY. 127 
 
 The experience of a century has shown that the idea of a uni- 
 versal system of weights and measures is an " iridescent dream." 
 We must make up our minds to get along with divers systems of 
 weights and measures in the world as we do with divers languages 
 and systems of currency. Translations between them must be 
 made and, as regards commercial information of all kinds in- 
 tended for foreign buyers, the question is who shall make them ? 
 Shall the manufacturer do it like a sensible man or shall he 
 require his customer to do it and therefore jeopardize his trade ? 
 This matter of giving commercial information in the customer's 
 own language of weights and measures is all that remains of the 
 many calls from our foreign consuls for the adoption of the 
 metric system. 
 
 " But/ 7 say the metric advocates, " why not adopt the system 
 in manufacture and so save the labor of these conversions ? " 
 which is equivalent to asking, why not climb a mountain to avoid 
 stepping over an ant hill? To make these conversions involves 
 nothing in manufacturing, plant, method, or equipment; it in- 
 volves nothing but the occasional use of conversion tables by 
 comparatively few people, while the alternative involves an up- 
 heaval and reorganization of industries at a cost which pen can 
 riot picture nor words describe. 
 
 At his notable inaugural address as rector of St. Andrew's Uni- 
 versity, Scotland, Mr. Andrew Carnegie urged upon the nations 
 of Europe the necessity of an alliance against this country, and 
 told them bluntly that unless they agreed to something of this 
 kind, all they could look forward to was to 
 
 Revolve like so many Lilliputians around this giant Gulliver, the American 
 Union. 
 
 Can Europe, as long as she remains divided into hostile camps, ever hope to 
 conquer foreign markets or even to repel the American invasion? Never. 
 
 America now makes more steel than all the rest of the world. In iron and 
 coal her production is greatest, and it is also so in textiles. She produces three- 
 quarters of the world's cotton. The value of her manufactures is about triple 
 that of your own. Her exports are greater, and the clearing-house exchanges 
 at New York are almost double those of London. 
 
 If the metric system is necessary in the interests of foreign 
 trade, as the metric advocates assert, why has the " American in- 
 vasion " made such progress in the continent of Europe ? Why 
 have our exports of manufactured goods increased during the past 
 half-dozen years at a rate which is unexampled in the history of the 
 world ? 
 
ANALYSIS OF THE BILL. 
 
 Following is the text of the bill as reported to the House of 
 Representatives by the Committee on Coinage, Weights and 
 Measures.* 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of 
 America in Congress assembled, That on and after the first day of January, nine- 
 teen hundred and four, all the Departments of the Government of the United 
 States, in the transaction of all business requiring the use of weight and measure- 
 ment, except in completing the survey of public lands, shall employ and use only 
 the weights and measures of the metric system ; and on and after the first day of 
 January, nineteen hundred and seven, the weights and measures of the metric 
 system shall be the legal standard weights and measures of and in the United 
 States. 
 
 The Attorney-General has given it as his opinion that the terms 
 of the bill do not make the use of the system compulsory in general 
 business transactions, and the thoughtless may, therefore, conclude 
 that there is no cause for alarm. 
 
 No one can read the pamphlet to which I have referred so often 
 without seeing behind this whole movement the spirit of compul- 
 sion. 
 
 Thus after Mr. Christie had deprecated compulsion, Mr. 
 Shaffroth said (page 8) : " I will state that it is about the only way it 
 has been introduced. Germany adopted it by compulsory stat- 
 ute of the Reichstag, and I do not see how you can do it any 
 other way." (And he was quite right.) Again Dr. Stratton 
 (page 153) was asked by Mr. Gaines: " You would make the law 
 compulsory?" to which he replied (italics mine): " That would 
 depend upon the time allowed for its adoption" 
 
 The belief by the metric advocates that this bill will bring 
 about the general use of the system by the people at large illus- 
 trates the beginnings of metric legislation everywhere. In the 
 sections on the persistence of old units in various countries it 
 has already been shown that the plan of this bill the adoption 
 
 * The text as given is from the Journal of the Western Society of Engineers for 
 August, 1902. 
 
THE METRIC FALLACY. . 129 
 
 of the system for government purposes has already been tried 
 in Cuba, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, San Salvador, 
 Greece and Egypt, and in no case has the adoption of the system 
 by the people followed. Nowhere has the system been intro- 
 duced among the people except by compulsion. The difficulty 
 of the change has been ridiculously underestimated and law after 
 law has been passed to make previous laws effective. The in- 
 clusion of English yarn counts in the German tariff schedule, of 
 which particulars have been given, represents the defeat of an 
 attempt to make previous laws effective by compelling the ex- 
 clusive use of the metric system in German textile industries. 
 The interests adversely affected made such an outcry as to defeat 
 the bill as originally drawn. 
 
 The article by M. Lamoitier, from which extracts have been 
 given in the section relating to the persistence of old units in 
 Erance, closes with a strong appeal for another law to compel the 
 use of the system in French textile industries. And this in Erance 
 after a century of the metric system ! He has, it may be added, 
 the same cheerful confidence in the sufficiency of one more law 
 to accomplish the purpose that our metric advocates have in the 
 sufficiency of the bill now before Congress to bring about this 
 great change among us in from three to five years. 
 
 The objectionable feature of this hill is that it is a compulsory 
 measure as regards all who do business with the Government, and 
 that it can do nothing hut create endless confusion in our weights 
 and measures. 
 
 Studious attempts to minimize the bill were made at the dis- 
 cussion of the Mechanical Engineers. Thus Mr. Southard said: 
 
 " It does not mean anything in a compulsory way. There is not a word 
 in this bill looking to compulsion. Compulsion was not thought of in 
 connection with the matter." 
 
 Mr. Southard was, however, submitted to a cross examination 
 by the members with the following result: 
 
 Q. You tell us, Mr. Southard, that this is intended for the regulation of 
 the business of the departments of the Government? 
 
 A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Does that mean the internal business of the departments, or all 
 transactions, including those with parties outside the Government service? 
 
 A. It means that in all transactions of the Government requiring the 
 use of weights and measures the metric weights and measures shall be 
 used. 
 
130 THE METRIC FALLACY. 
 
 This I take it is a sufficient admission that the bill is com- 
 pulsory so far as those who deal with the Government are con- 
 cerned. Any other conclusion is plainly absurd. The case is 
 exactly parallel with that of the Eight Hour Bill. That bill is 
 intended to compel all manufacturers who supply the Govern- 
 ment with goods to employ their workmen eight hours only, and 
 the Metric System Bill is likewise intended to compel those same 
 manufacturers to use the metric system. No one will pretend 
 that the Eight Hour Bill is not compulsory, and no one can 
 rightly claim that the Metric System Bill is not, in the same way 
 and to the same degree, compulsory. To claim that it is not 
 thus compulsory is more than untrue; it is ridiculous each bill 
 says in effect, " Do this or withdraw from Government business. 7 ' 
 
 The metric advocates are loud in their protestations that they 
 do not believe in compulsion, and they thus occupy the unique 
 position that while they disclaim compulsion they favor a com- 
 pulsory law. 
 
 It is not easy for a layman to determine the meaning of the 
 term " legal standard." Judging by the words of those who ought 
 to know (for example, Mr. Shaffroth, page 8 of the proceedings 
 of the House Committee), the phrase means that after January 1, 
 1907, the metric system is to be used in all actions-at-law into 
 which weights and measures enter. 
 
 " Productions could be made to any desired standard, but in the courts, 
 for instance, testimony would refer to metric measurements. If work 
 was done according to any other standard, dimensions would have to be 
 converted to a metric standard in the event of legal testimony being re- 
 quired." 
 
 As I have said, the effect of the bill, so far as any real adop- 
 tion of the system is concerned, is certain to be abortive, and its 
 real effect, so far as the general public is concerned, will be to 
 compel the use in actions-at-law of a system of weights and meas- 
 ures with which neither witnesses, jurymen, lawyers, nor judges 
 will be familiar. 
 
 As regards the adoption of the system in the Government busi- 
 ness, it is uncertain what is meant by it, except that the metric 
 advocates are determined that all Government purchases shall 
 bear the metric label. If this provision of the bill means that 
 Government purchases of machinery are to be made in good faith 
 to the metric system, as that term is understood in France and 
 Germany, then in many lines the Government will go without 
 
THE METRIC FALLACY. 131 
 
 machinery altogether, and it will pay exorbitant prices in others, 
 If, under the stress of these circumstances, enforcement of the 
 law is relaxed, and we do with the Government as we now do with 
 foreign customers give the weight, over all dimensions, swing 
 and extreme length of work a lathe will take in, for example and 
 call that the adoption of the metric system, then the Government 
 will be the manager and the Government officials the actors in 
 the greatest farce-comedy of recent years. 
 
 That the metric system can become our real factory system 
 of production within any reasonable time the experience of other 
 countries abundantly proves to be impossible, and the requirement 
 that the system be used in all Government work can do nothing 
 more than to force the adoption of a special system for that work; 
 in other words, and in the name of simplification, compel the use 
 of two systems where we now have one. 
 
THE OBJECT OF THE BILL. 
 
 Until the discussion at the December, 1902,' meeting of the 
 American Society of Mechanical Engineers, it was assumed as 
 a matter of course that the object of the Metric System Bill 
 which was reported to the 57th Congress was to bring about the 
 general adoption of the system in the commerce and industries 
 of the American people. This was plainly the object in the 
 minds of those who appeared before the House Committee, as 
 may be seen from the extract from their statements given in the 
 section on The Pro-Metric Argument, It was also plainly the 
 object as understood by Mr. Shaifroth, the Member of Congress 
 who introduced the bill, as is shown by the following remark by 
 him (page 30) : 
 
 " The bill which I introduced names the 1st day of January, 1903, for 
 the Government to adopt it and the 1st of January, 1904 * when the people 
 would have to adopt it." 
 
 At the meeting of the Mechanical Engineers the metric advo- 
 cates represented the purpose of the bill as entirely different 
 from this. 
 
 Mr. J. H. Southard, Chairman of the House Committee on 
 Coinage, Weight and Measures which reported the bill said that: 
 
 " The purpose of this bill is to secure uniformity in Government trans- 
 actions, and for the further purpose of having, as far as possible, some 
 kind of a trial of the merits of the metric system, without seriously in- 
 volving the public at large. For one bureau to use it and another 
 bureau not to use it, would not do. For instance, for the Internal Revenue 
 Bureau to use it and the Customs Bureau not to use it, would result in 
 greater confusion than we now have." 
 
 Against this statement by Mr. Southard should be placed the 
 following extracts from the report of the committee of which 
 he is chairman, by which report the bill was returned to Congress 
 and its passage recommended: 
 
 " Again and again has the necessity for a change in our system of 
 weights and measures been urged upon the attention of Congress. * * * 
 
 * These dates were subsequently changed to 1904 and 1907 respectively. 
 
THE METRIC FALLACY. 133 
 
 The failure of these efforts to bring about the adoption of a better system 
 of weights and measures has been due, etc. * * * The advantages to 
 be gained by the adoption of the metric as compared with the one in 
 present use are far greater than the benefits derived from the adoption 
 of a decimal system of coinage. * * * Certainly any effort to replace 
 this conglomerate system with a simple logical one like our monetary 
 system is worthy of the consideration of Congress. * * * The benefits 
 to be derived from the adoption of the metric system by the educational 
 interests of the country are perhaps the most important, etc. * * * 
 In the case of textile fabrics, materials of construction, package goods 
 and almost all kinds of manufactured products, a change would no doubt 
 involve some inconvenience, but. etc. * * * The use of the old system 
 not only involves great loss of time in making computations but places 
 our merchants at a great disadvantage, etc. * * * The necessity for 
 an improvement in the weights and measures of the country is nowhere 
 more apparent than in the ordinary business transactions of daily life. 
 * * * Your committee believe the time has come for the gradual re- 
 tirement of our confusing illogical irrational system and the substitution 
 of something better." * 
 
 Following the same line of thought, Professor Stratton said 
 (italics mine) : 
 
 " The Government has never enacted laws in reference to standards, ex- 
 cept in connection with its own work, and if the Government sees fit to 
 use the metric system of weights and measures in some or all of the 
 branches of its work, it has a perfect right to do so. This would involve 
 its use only in such work as originates in the departments. If the metric 
 system becomes the system in common use in this country it will "be 
 through laws enacted on the part of the different States, and the States 
 have not fixed standards, except for commerce and trade. A great deal 
 of concern has been shown as to the situation which would result in case 
 the bill now pending before Congress becomes a law. I cannot conceive 
 any other condition than that stated above." 
 
 In other words, the object of this bill is to create a special 
 system- of weights and measures used by the Government but 
 not by others a proposition which is exactly comparable with 
 one for a special Government system of currency. According to 
 Professor Stratton the bill can have no other effect than this 
 because, " if the metric system becomes the system in common 
 use in this country it will be through laws enacted on the part 
 of the different States." 
 
 The reader will, however, have difficulty in reconciling Pro- 
 
 * These quotations are from the copy of the report published in the 
 Journal of the Western Society of Engineers for August, 1902. 
 
134 THE METIUC FALLACY. 
 
 fessor Stratton's statement with the following, which he gave to 
 the House Committee : 
 
 " The problem to be solved is how this change in weights and measures 
 can be brought about with the least inconvenience to all concerned. It is 
 evident that the inconvenience, expense and confusion which will neces- 
 sarily attend such a change will not be lessened with time, but on the 
 contrary will be the more difficult the longer it is postponed." 
 
 Mr. Southard says that the object of the bill is to " secure uni- 
 formity in Government transactions/ 7 which is precisely what we 
 have to-day to a greater degree than any metric country on earth. 
 So far as appears, the only Government purchases now made by 
 the metric system are the medical supplies of the army, and Mr. 
 Southard proposes that the transactions of the customs, internal 
 revenue and postal departments, the equipments of the army and ' 
 navy, the erection of public buildings and the improvement of 
 rivers and harbors shall all be changed in order to " secure uni- 
 formity " with the medical supplies of the army ! 
 
 Mr. Southard should have read the following from a letter by 
 Mr. J. II. Ball, of Barcelona, Spain, to the American Machinist: 
 
 " In handling the numerous machines which I have to come across in 
 my business I find only two nations whose measures are always uni- 
 form in all respects, and those two are England and the United States." 
 
 Which is the more important, uniformity between the Xavy 
 Department and the Medical Bureau of the War Department or 
 uniformity between existing and future ships of the navy? The 
 Anglo-Saxon nations have substantial uniformity to-day, which 
 no metric country has or ever has had. In no country of the 
 world has the metric system secured uniformity; but, ignoring 
 the experience of the world, Mr. Southard proposes to abandon 
 the uniformity which we have, in order that after a transition 
 period of confusion and indefinite length we may again reach 
 uniformity. Mr. Southard should heed the words of John Quincy 
 Adams (italics mine) : 
 
 "Is your object uniformity? Then before you change any part of your 
 system, such as it is, compare the uniformity that you must lose with the 
 uniformity that you may gain." 
 
 After this " uniformity " is brought about according to Pro- 
 fessor Stratton we shall continue to have the present system in 
 common use until the State legislatures have ordered otherwise. 
 
THE METRIC FALLACY. 135 
 
 That is, the Government will use one system and the public will 
 use another, and this is to be called uniformity. 
 
 This real purpose of the bill was, however, stated by Mr. Jas. 
 Christie at the discussion of the Mechanical Engineers : 
 
 " When it becomes evident that the time is ripe for it, the national Gov- 
 ernment can inaugurate the system in its own departments, whence it will 
 soon spread through the manufactures and commerce of the nation." 
 
 The sort of uniformity which this bill will bring about is well 
 illustrated by the statistics of the Census Reports. Shall the 
 system be used in those reports? Then in the name of uni- 
 formity we shall have an abrupt break in these reports and no 
 comparison between old and new can be made except after trans- 
 lation. Shall it not be used? Then in the name of uniformity 
 we shall have the business of the country done under one system 
 and Government reports of it under another. 
 
 Nowhere in the pamphlet of testimony before the House Com- 
 mittee, nor in the report of the Committee by which the passage 
 of the bill was recommended does the idea appear that the 
 adoption of the system is to be confined to the Government, nor 
 that the purpose of the measure is to bring about uniformity in 
 the departments. The whole discussion relates to the adoption 
 of the system by the business and manufacturing interests of 
 the country, the Government merely taking the lead. 
 
 The bill, however, has another object which the metric advo- 
 cates do not mention. Regardless of all present disclaimers it 
 will enable them to shout from the house tops, " The United 
 States has adopted the metric system." 
 
 Along with these remarkable statements went others. Thus 
 Professor Stratton said: 
 
 " If at a later date the metric system is made the sole legal standard, it 
 can mean no more than that all business of the departments with the 
 public must be carried on in the metric system; but who for a moment 
 would suppose, even in this case, that if the Government should buy a 
 machine tool the parts of that machine would necessarily have to be con- 
 structed in the metric system? " 
 
 Again Mr. F. J. Miller said : 
 
 " My belief is that a full compliance with the pending law will be se- 
 cured when a machine builder simply goes on manufactureing his 
 machines as he does now, and with precisely the same taps, dies, jigs, 
 reamers, and all other tools and fixtures; but when a department of the 
 
136 THE METRIC FALLACY. 
 
 Government wants a machine he will probably be required to state all the 
 dimensions given in the specifications in millimetres." 
 
 The object of the bill then appears to be to gratify the metric 
 advocates by compelling the Government departments to write 
 their specifications in the metric system while they buy the same 
 goods that they have always had. Is it for this petty outcome 
 that the House Committee is holding hearings and technical 
 societies are having discussions and taking votes ? What will be 
 the gain from such a course ? Where will there be any saving 
 of time in calculations ? With such commercial measurements in 
 the metric system, and constructive measurements in the English 
 system, where does the uniformity come in? More to the point, 
 however, it must be remembered that these gentlemen are not 
 charged with making Government purchases, nor with the inter- 
 pretation of the law for the Government departments. When 
 this law, reading " all the departments ... in the transac- 
 tion of all business . . . shall employ and use only the 
 weights and measures of the metric system/' reaches the Navy 
 Department through an executive order, what right will Ad- 
 mirals Bowles and Melville have to interpret the word only in 
 this easy-going way ? Mr. Southard thinks " the officers of the 
 Government are inclined to be reasonably accommodating." It 
 will not be a matter of inclination, but of obeying the law. 
 
 Finally, I would like these gentlemen to explain how they 
 reconcile their easy-going interpretation with the italicized words 
 of the following extract from the opinion of the Attorney- 
 General : 
 
 " Indeed, as each bill * prohibits to the departments the use of any other 
 system, by a familiar rule of construction, this will be taken as the only 
 prohibition intended, and it will end there." 
 
 The sort of uniformity which the metric advocates will bring 
 about is thus described by John Quincy Adams (italics mine) : 
 
 " The legislator * * * finishes by increasing the diversities which it 
 was his intention to abolish and by loading his statute books only with 
 the impotence of authority and the uniformity of confusion." 
 
 * Two bills appear to have been submitted to the Attorney-General. 
 
CONCLUSION. 
 
 The changing of established standards is impossible. Their 
 measurement in millimetres is equally impossible. Established 
 standards will, therefore, preserve the inch. The millimetre may 
 be forced into use, destroying our present uniformity and intro- 
 ducing the diversity which everywhere accompanies the use of 
 the metric system, but this is all that can be done. These people 
 may legislate until doomsday; they may make infinite confusion, 
 endless turmoil, limitless sacrifice, but move the English inch ? 
 the Archimedean lever is still unknown. 
 
THE METRIC FAILURE IN THE 
 TEXTILE INDUSTRY. 
 
 Thus in this one pregnant subject of Clothes, rightly understood, is included all 
 that men have thought, dreamed, done, and been : the whole External Universe and 
 what it holds is but Clothing ; and the essence of all Science lies in the Philosophy 
 of Clothes. 
 
 DIOGENES TEUFELSDROCKH. 
 
THE METRIC FALLACY AS TO TEXTILES. 
 
 There is no darkness but ignorance. Twelfth Night. 
 
 The Committee on Coinage, Weights and Measures of the last 
 Congress had charge of the bill to introduce the metric system 
 into the United States, to substitute an " entire new system of 
 weights and measures for one long established and in general 
 use," a task that, in the words of John Quincy Adams, " is one 
 of the most arduous exercises of legislative authority." We had, 
 therefore, every reason to expect that legislators resting under 
 such great responsibility would consider the question cautiously, 
 calmly and judiciously; that they would summon expert witnesses 
 from all trades, professions and occupations; that they would 
 be eager to receive information on both sides of the question, 
 wholly irrespective of their own personal opinions; that if any 
 bias was shown it would be in favor of the Anglo-American and 
 not the French system. We had a right to expect that before 
 the proposed revolution in our weights and measures received 
 the sanction of the committee the wisdom of the step would be 
 proved beyond a doubt. As far as the textile industry was con- 
 cerned these expectations were wholly disappointed. 
 
 The only two witnesses who appeared as textile representatives 
 at the hearing before that committee were both in favor of the 
 metric system. One was the president of a cotton and worsted 
 yarn and dress goods mill ; the other a mechanical engineer and 
 principal of a textile school. The committee were content to 
 accept the testimony of these two witnesses as conclusive regard- 
 ing the effect of changing the standards of textile manufactur- 
 ing, which, rated by the number of employes, is the chief in- 
 dustry in the United States. They summoned no textile oper- 
 ative nor overseer, no one with a practical knowledge of manu- 
 facturing to tell them what this change of standards would mean 
 in the actual work of converting fibres and filaments into fabrics. 
 They did not consider it worth while to summon any represent- 
 ative of the great American silk industry. No one was there to 
 represent the extensive carded woollen industry. No manu- 
 
142 THE METRIC FAILURE. 
 
 facturer of men's wear woollen or worsted goods appeared. Xo 
 one was there to speak for the cotton raising and wool growing 
 interests. No representative of the linen, hemp or jute industry 
 appeared to tell the committee what he thought of the plan to 
 drive the world's linen, hemp and jute standard from this 
 country. No one came from the cotton cloth industry to explain 
 that the cotton standard which they sought to destroy was the 
 standard of the world. ~No knitter of underwear or hosiery, no 
 manufacturing clothier or tailor appeared. Above all, no one 
 who opposed the metric system in the textile industry was called 
 upon to express his views. Such men were not invited. The 
 committee accepted without question statements that carried the 
 stamp of absurdity, as if anxious only to record reasons, no 
 matter how flimsy, to support a conclusion they had reached in 
 advance. 
 
 Both the committee and the two witnesses discussed the ques- 
 tion with the calm confidence of men framing the textile schedule 
 of a tariff bill, as if they need but say the word to shorten the 
 inch and lengthen the yard, as easily as they had once lowered 
 the tariff on wool and raised it on worsted top. 
 
 Of the 213 lines of testimony of the first witness only 26 
 related to textile weights and measures. Liberal extracts were 
 given from an address by an astronomer who, after soaring into 
 the clouds of speculation and prophecy, came down to earth and 
 gave the result 'of a count he had made of all kinds of pounds, 
 feet, inches, pints, etc., including not only American standards 
 of these denominations, but also the German fuss and zoll, the 
 French pied and pouce, and a medley of units in other countries, 
 reaching the imposing total of 53 kinds of miles, 235 different 
 pounds and 29 sorts of pints. All this was presented to convince 
 the committee, as the witness admitted it had convinced him, that 
 the Anglo-American textile industry should have the incommen- 
 surable kilogramme-metre added to its present single world-wide, 
 yard-pound standard. 
 
 The witness told the committee he did not know how many, 
 but " probably " 600,000,000 people " use " the metric system. 
 This statement brought forward no protest although no country 
 on earth has made the metric 'System its textile standard, and the 
 only countries having a single textile standard and where direct 
 textile calculations are possible are Great Britain and the United 
 States, with a population of more than 475,000,000. 
 
THE METRIC FAILURE. 
 
 He advocated the metric system because of its " simplicity," 
 yet it is certain that its nomenclature is cumbersome, the size of 
 its units badly suited for mill work, and textile calculations by it 
 are as laborious if not more so than by the English system. 
 
 He told the committee how " economical " it would be to intro- 
 duce the system into this free country in 1902 ; that then the 
 Frenchman will not be thinking of the metre while the American 
 is thinking of the English yard, and while the witness was speak- 
 ing the French textile w r orker was thinking, working and figuring 
 in a maze of yards, metres, aunes, kilogrammes, pouces, sous, 
 moques, deniers and Paris pounds. 
 
 He thought that " at least two years' notice " of the change 
 ought to be given to the American people, " say the first of July, 
 1904," although more than a century of the most arbitrary, ruth- 
 less and persistent exercise of autocratic power to force the 
 people to use the metric system had resulted only in involving 
 1 ranee and the rest of Continental Europe in a hopeless chaos of 
 textile standards. 
 
 This textile witness did not believe that the " try-it-on-the- 
 Government-dog " policy would be enough. After two years he 
 would have both Government and people use it, and as it has been 
 permissive for thirty-four years without result, his plan leads in- 
 evitably to a compulsory law with penalties attached, like the 
 following from the French decree of 1810: 
 
 Violations of the foregoing provisions shall be considered breaches of 
 the police regulations and punished by a fine of not less than five nor 
 more than fifteen francs for the first offence; the fine may be increased for 
 a repetition of the offence. 
 
 Imagine the cry of " Police ! " on Leonard Street, New York, 
 because some one had been " caught with the goods on," a skein 
 of yarn measuring 840 yards. It might help to reconcile us to 
 such a law if the culprit was one who had petitioned Congress 
 for the metric bill. 
 
 The witness did not apprehend any difficulty in changing, 
 although the autocrats of Europe, from Robespierre to Abdul 
 Hamid, the present Sultan of Turkey, have found it impossible. 
 
 The committee next learned the reason for this confidence. A 
 German in his employ had been " in Germany " when the system 
 was made compulsory there in 1871, and had told him " there is 
 no real difficulty in making the change." That employe was 
 certainly 31 years younger in 1871 than in 1902, in all probability 
 
144: THE METRIC FAILURE. 
 
 then a young man in the early twenties. Of course he knew all 
 about Germany in 1871. Twenty weeks after this testimony 
 was given before a committee of the American Congress, another 
 cotton and woollen manufacturer, Kommerzienrat Miinch-Ferber 
 of Hof, Bavaria, arose before a committee of the German 
 Reichstag and denounced the attempt to introduce the metric 
 system into the German textile industry, declaring that it would 
 throw that industry into " ungodly disorder " (heillose Ver- 
 wirrung). 
 
 The Washington witness told the committee how " gladly he 
 would welcome the metric system in his own work. 77 Strange to 
 say, 110 one asked him why he did not use it then, seeing that 
 the system he was yearning for had been legally permissive in 
 this country for thirty-four years. Apparently the committee 
 had no use for such horse sense. Their statesmanship consisted 
 in " trying it on the Government dog. ?? 
 
 The witness then gave the metric system a sweeping and un- 
 qualified personal recommendation for the mills of others as 
 well as for his own. He told how the New England Cotton Man- 
 ufacturers 7 Association favored the report of the Paris Metric 
 Congress of 1900, although the fact, stated by the secretary of 
 that organization and as easily ascertained on February 6, 1902, 
 as on January 7, 1903, is that " the Association never committed 
 itself to the metric system of measuring yarn. 7 ' 
 
 The witness then stated he manufactured neither woollen nor 
 cotton goods for export, and did not know what was used in 
 China, but with genuine metric logic assured the committee that 
 the introduction of the metric system " would certainly 77 be of 
 advantage to those people who do export. 
 
 At this point the chairman thanked the witness, probably for 
 having given the kind of an opinion the committee wanted, and 
 the next textile witness took the stand. His testimony occupies 
 about 668 lines of reading matter, of which 107, or about 15 
 per cent., relate more or less remotely to the metric system in 
 the textile industry. He started out by promising 
 
 " to present some of the technical details in which the use of units is 
 involved, and to show that there is much time lost in the various compu- 
 tations, owing to our lack of system in denoting the constants that have 
 to be used. The textile industry can undoubtedly furnish one of the 
 strongest possible statements in this line, as strong as, and possibly 
 stronger than any other of our great manufacturing industries, for where 
 once goods were composed entirely of one kind of fibres without being 
 
THE METRIC FAILURE. 145 
 
 mixed with others, to-day it is very common to have several kinds in one 
 fabric, and the several branches of manufacturing are therefore interde- 
 pendent, so that we find many different fibres used in the goods that are 
 produced within the limits of one corporation." 
 
 This is a stock metric argument, and a good one too. The only 
 difficulty is that it can be used with equal force for any system 
 of weights and measures or yarn numbering. Substitute Saxon, 
 French, Austrian, Spanish, English or what not for the word 
 metric, and not only is the theoretic logic unimpaired, but its 
 practical force is generally increased. 
 
 The United States now has four systems of numbering spun 
 yarn. The desirability of having but one is unquestioned. The 
 disagreement is on the question of which shall be the one. The 
 French plan is to make the metric system the one by adding it 
 to the four we now have. The common-sense plan is to select 
 the best one of the four we have and discard the other three. 
 One theory is based on the assumption that four and one are 
 equal to one; the other, that four less three are equal to 
 one. If we must idly dream of uniformity let it be the uni- 
 formity within sight, based on the English yard-pound and the 
 840-yard cotton skein. With apologies to Lady Macbeth we may 
 say to the metric theorists: 
 
 Yet do I fear thy nature; 
 It is too full of the milk of human theory 
 To catch the nearest way. 
 
 Once the witness and questioner reached a thin place in the 
 ice and by a quick turn saved themselves from a plunge into the 
 icy waters of fact: 
 
 A Member of the Committee: Your statement is that 70 per cent, of the 
 (cotton) spindles in the world are not using the metric system. 
 
 Witness: Very true, but 
 
 Member of the Committee: Of course our woollen industry is of large 
 moment in this country; do you believe, etc. 
 
 The witness stated that the metric system had been made the 
 " standard " for his school and emphasized its advantages for 
 textile work. He promised to put on record English and metric 
 calculations, the former covering " several sheets of paper/' the 
 latter requiring " but very few figures." These had been 
 evolved over night after the invitation to testify before the com- 
 mittee had been received. Those calculations were not put on 
 
146 
 
 THE METRIC FAILURE. 
 
 record. Eight months later the witness submitted to the Amer- 
 ican Society of Mechanical Engineers some formulas for English 
 and metric textile calculations to prove the greater simplicity of 
 the latter. Evidently the fabric to which they referred was spun 
 from such stuff as dreams are made of, woven on the loom of 
 imagination and designed to cover the nakedness of the metric 
 and not of the human system. The width in the loom was given 
 in units of 4 inches (decigrammes) although the centigramme (4-10 
 
 FIG. 1. LOWELL TEXTILE SCHOOL AND MILL CALCULATIONS. 
 
 of an inch) is too long for expressing woven widths. The weight 
 per yard was extended to the ten-thousandth of an ounce, requir- 
 ing- over ninety miles of cloth for this fraction to equal one 
 pound, although the tenth is small enough for practical pur- 
 poses. Nevertheless these formulas worked out actually show 
 to the advantage of the English system. At Fig. 1 are the cal- 
 culations by the two methods of the formulas and by the method 
 of the mill : 
 
 Lowell metric 245 figures. 
 
 Lowell English 223 figures. 
 
 Mill English 160 figures. 
 
 Besides muddling the student's ideas regarding mill standards, 
 the " introduction " of the metric system into that school has 
 made it possible with 245 figures to arrive at the same result 
 
THE METRIC FAILURE. 147 
 
 that is reached with 223 figures by the elementary English for- 
 mulas or with 160 figures by mill methods. 
 
 This witness told how easy it would be to " disseminate informa- 
 tion " about the metric system among the " rank and file of the 
 people " : 
 
 " As to the question of how the rank and file of the people adopt the 
 system it may be said, so far as the textile interests are concerned, that 
 many of our large manufacturing centres are provided with textile schools, 
 and these schools can easily disseminate such information and teach the 
 matter in such a way that there will not be any difficulty arising. * * * 
 Nor are the night textile schools the only agencies to teach our operatives 
 the use of the system directly, for there are night schools with relation 
 to almost any form of study and in nearly every community in the country, 
 so that we shall not have to trust to our operatives to pick up the system, 
 but they will have an actual opportunity to study it. Our country was 
 never so well supplied with schools as it is now." 
 
 Here then is the solution of the difficulty during the " trans- 
 ition " period. Our 1,000,000 textile operatives are to attend 
 night schools under compulsion, of course. 
 
 Another new theory as to the almighty dollar in metrology 
 was announced as follows : 
 
 " Our board of trustees represents the control of about sixty-five millions 
 of capital, and having placed themselves on record in this matter, and 
 with the resolutions adopted by our associations of manufacturers, you 
 must see that there is some weight behind all this." 
 
 The metric question is to be decided by capital. This theory 
 eliminates the people from the discussion and transfers the deci- 
 sion to millionaires. 
 
 At one point the witness allayed the wide-spread alarm as to 
 the effect of the metric system on the weather and on the weight 
 of our summer and winter clothes : 
 
 " After the adoption of the metric system does it mean that we are 
 going to have cooler weather in winter or warmer weather in summer, 
 so that we must wear clothes of a different weight? Is it not altogether 
 ridiculous to suppose any such change, and if our clothes are to be of the 
 same weight after as before making the change of our unit, will not, of 
 course, the yarn be spun to the same counts, and will not there then 
 accordingly be only the change of the name of the size of the yarn? And 
 is not a rose as sweet by any name? " 
 
 In the 748 lines of testimony whose connection with the metric 
 system it is clifficulf to trace, these two witnesses gave 
 
148 THE METRIC FAILURE. 
 
 opinions and information on a variety of subjects, including 
 the number of their employes, the daily consumption of wool at 
 their mills, the relation of science to commerce, the importance 
 of the ocean cable, the radius covered by the telephone, the 
 Lowell Textile School, their intention " not to propagate the gen- 
 eral cause of science," the composition of the school board of 
 trustees, their consultation with the Division of Botany at Wash- 
 ington, the ramie fibre, the necessity for training the brains as 
 well as the hands of workmen, the greater chance for inventors in 
 early times than at present, the effect of labor-saving machinery 
 on the labor supply of the country, the courses of study on which 
 a man may " build a superstructure to enable him to meet the 
 world as a textile man/' the endowment fund and equipment of 
 the school, testing the strength of materials, the amount of knots, 
 wanes, shakes, etc., in a 12 x 6 stick of timber, the comparative 
 value of raw cotton and cotton cloth, the process of mercerizing 
 cotton, the value of a pound of Brussels lace, the American inva- 
 sion of Europe, log-rolling in behalf of the metric bill, the shrink- 
 age of iron castings in cooling, the distribution of textile schools, 
 'the system of jigs and templates in modern machine-shop practice, 
 what England will do if the United States " falls into " (the 
 metric) line, the weight of our summer and winter clothing 
 " after the adoption of the metric system/' the calibre of a 2-inch 
 shafting in the Lowell district, and the distillation of coal. One 
 of the witnesses gave an objective demonstration that a straight 
 'line measures the shortest distance from one point to another, 
 and told the committee how many sheep his grandfather kept 
 when the witness was a boy. 
 
 This is the kind of evidence that was followed by a report 
 bearing all the earmarks of having been dictated from that 
 metric hothouse, the National Bureau of Standards, and in which 
 the committee " earnestly recommended " the passage of the bill. 
 
 Attention has been called to the testimony of these two wit- 
 nesses to show what rubbish was solemnly accepted at Washing- 
 ton by the representatives of the people on February 6, 1902, 
 when considering the question of changing the established stand- 
 ards which are the priceless inheritance of 80,000,000 of people, 
 who at the present rate of increase will number 200,000,000 
 before the end of the century. Attention is called to it now that 
 the farce may not be repeated when another metric hearing is 
 given by a Congressional committee. 
 
THE METRIC FAILURE. . 149 
 
 In the free discussion following the report of the coinage com- 
 mittee the hollowness of the metric pretensions was thoroughly 
 exposed. This led the American Chamber of Commerce at 
 Paris to present to the French Society of Civil Engineers a series 
 of questions as to the actual state of weights and measures in 
 France. With touching consideration all reference to the textile 
 industry was omitted. The French engineers, however, annexed 
 this " observation " on French textile standards to their replies : 
 
 " With the exception of linen and jute, which, by reason of the prepon- 
 derance of England in the world's markets, are still put up in bundles of 
 360,000 yards and variable weights, all systems of reeling yarn 'used in 
 France are based on the metre and gramme or their multiples (kilo- 
 gramme or demi-kilogramme)." 
 
 The man who wrote those words with no intention to mislead 
 never designed a textile fabric, never wove a yard of cloth, never 
 spun a pound of yarn. In manufacturing textiles the ratio be- 
 tween weight and length or area takes the place of cubic measure- 
 ments. The only metric or decimal ratio is that obtained from 
 the kilogramme and kilometre skein. All other systems of yarn 
 numbering are metric only in name and by a simple calculation 
 can be made English, Austrian, Saxon or Dutch. Look at the 
 ten indigenous French systems of numbering spun yarn. Reduc- 
 ing No. 1 yarn by each system to its metric equivalent we have : 
 
 No. 1 Metric system = No. 1 metric. 
 
 No. 1 French ' = No. 2 
 
 No. 1 Roubaix = No. 1.43 " 
 
 No. 1 Fourmies = No. .71 " 
 
 No. 1 Eeims - No. .70 " 
 
 No. 1 Eastern France = No. 1.44 " 
 
 No. 1 Sedan = No. 1.50 " 
 
 No. 1 Elboeuf (a) = No. 7.20 " 
 
 No. 1 Elboeuf (6) = No. 3.05 " 
 
 No. 1 Elboeuf (c) = No. 2.99 " 
 
 All based by conversion on the metre and gramme or their mul- 
 tiples, if you will, but what a mess. Apply the same process to 
 the four Anglo-American systems of yarn numbering and what 
 do we have ? 
 
15U THE METRIC FAILURE. 
 
 No. 1 Kun 1,600 yards per pound = No. 3.22 metric. 
 No. 1 Cotton 840 yards per pound = No. 1.69 metric. 
 No. 1 Worsted 560 yards per pound = No. 1.13 metric. 
 No. 1 Linen 300 yards per pound = No. .60 metric. 
 
 These metric equivalents are " based on the metre and gramme 
 or their equivalents," but does any sane textile manufacturer 
 want them ? Americans will not be fooled by this humbug about 
 basing yarn counts on the " metre and -gramme or their equiv- 
 alents." It is too transparent. Above all, it is unworthy of 
 a society bearing the high-sounding title, Societe des Ingenieurs 
 Civils de France, fondee le 4= Mars, 1848, reconnue d'utilite pub- 
 lique par decret du 22 Decembre, 1860. 
 
 The greatest of metric fallacies is the idea that weights and 
 measures can be changed by law. The metric system was 
 founded on this mistaken idea, and the chaos on the Continent 
 to-day is proof that the thing cannot be done. A recent pamphlet 
 by M. Edouard Simon, secretary of the Paris Metric Congress 
 of 1900, in reply to Mr. Halsey's paper, explains why the 
 struggle for a century to make the French standards metric has 
 failed : 
 
 " In our country (France) two principal causes have prevented up to 
 this time the wished-for unification (of yarn numbering), one arising 
 from domestic, the other from foreign commerce. As regards wool, which 
 is particularly referred to by Mr. Halsey, it is sufficient to remark that 
 the business of spinning mills is, in many cases, still localized. Woollen 
 yarn intended for mills of Sedan is spun in Ardennes. The weavers of 
 Reims obtain their supplies of yarn from the surrounding districts; the 
 weaving mills of Elbeuf and Louviers have their spinning done in local 
 mills. These conditions have contributed to the maintenance of certain 
 peculiar usages. It is worthy of remark, however, that the skeins are 
 always measured in metres and the weight expressed in kilogrammes or 
 demi -kilogrammes. This habit or routine, if you prefer, in the absence 
 of an economic or industrial evolution, has been perpetuated. 
 
 The importation of English fabrics into our market following the com- 
 mercial treaties of 1860, the trend of fashion that has been followed, the 
 low-priced goods, the development of the trade in ready-made clothing, 
 have brought about a complete transformation in the structure of fabrics. 
 To satisfy a rapidly increasing number of customers, the manufacturers 
 have endeavored, by combining various textile fibres, to produce attrac- 
 tive fabrics at the lowest possible cost. Accordingly a weaver formerly 
 doing business in a very small district has been compelled to use a varied 
 assortment of yarns from different districts. The inconvenience con- 
 nected with the different methods of numbering in the various manu- 
 facturing centres has thus been increased." 
 
THE METRIC FAILURE. 151 
 
 The influences that have proved more powerful than legisla- 
 tion in France, have come both from within and without the 
 country. Compulsory laws in France and everywhere else can 
 be enforced only so far as violations can be brought under the eye 
 of the police. That is why they failed in the French textile in- 
 dustry in spite of the most systematic and long-continued effort 
 ever made by any country to change its standards of weights and 
 measures. To compel a change of textile standards it is neces- 
 sary to control the thoughts of the textile workers, and that is 
 impossible. Law may force cloth to be measured and ticketed by 
 the metre in public markets, but it cannot make the manufacturers 
 think in metres. The fallacy that it can is still strong in France, 
 but a century of failure has had its effects, as shown by the follow- 
 ing extracts from the discussion at the Paris Metric Congress of 
 1900, of the proposal to enforce the penal law of 1810 (p. 87 and 
 90): 
 
 A Member: Coercion has had no more effect than has persuasion. 
 Discussing the following resolution: 
 
 Resolved: That the law of 1810 be enforced throughout France: 
 M. Isaac: I ask the suppression of that resolution. 
 
 M. Cousin: It seems to me useless to stir up the Government to take up 
 arms. 
 
 M. Isaac: Granted. It is necessary to maintain silence as to this article. 
 
 And silence was maintained. 
 
 Yet in the face of such evidence as this, men can be found to 
 advocate coercion in America. 
 
 Never was a more complete exposure of the metric fallacy 
 made than by M. Paul Lamoitier, a French textile manufacturer. 
 Exasperated by having quotations from his technical works pub- 
 lished in America to show how little the French use the metric 
 system in the textile industry, he began last October (1902) in 
 ^Industrie Textile, Paris, a series of articles calling for more 
 coercion and heaping reproaches upon his countrymen for their 
 neglect of le systeme universel, a neglect which he mercilessly 
 exposed. While these articles were appearing in France he wrote 
 several letters for publication in America to persuade Americans 
 to adopt the metric system. The following extracts are from 
 these various articles, some written for French, others for 
 American consumption: 
 
152 
 
 THE METRIC FAILURE. 
 
 LAMOITIER 
 
 To Americans. 
 
 Mon Dieu! that you (Amer- 
 icans) should remain stubborn 
 and not adopt it (the metric sys- 
 tem), is for the above named na- 
 tions and for France but a second- 
 ary consideration. The metric 
 system wins its own way because 
 it is the most simple, the most 
 logical, practical, uniform and uni- 
 versal. 
 
 To frenchmen. 
 
 Ah! these Americans are not 
 considerate of our feelings, and 
 they are right. We are as much in 
 the anarchy of weights and meas- 
 ures for the textile industry as at 
 the time of the Revolution, for we 
 have the denier of Montpellier and 
 of Milan for silk, with the aune as 
 a unit of length. 
 
 Then why do you use the deci- 
 mal system for your calculations? 
 
 You are not logical in your 
 reasoning. 
 
 This article, however, is not 
 written for Americans. Neverthe- 
 less, they are perfectly right in 
 speaking of our " European chaos " 
 of yarn numbering and I will at- 
 tach their argument to my re- 
 marks, not for the purpose of 
 going backward like them, who 
 would return to the ancient aune 
 and the greater chaos of ancient 
 and absurd measures. 
 
 "It (a new law) would put a 
 stop to the chaos which the Amer- 
 icans ridicule. * * * In short 
 (this for the Chauvinists, and con- 
 sequently for all of us), they would 
 not ridicule us any more. It is not 
 pleasant to be thus continually rid- 
 iculed by foreigners, especially 
 when they have reason for doing 
 so." 
 
 After having established the 
 metric system, is it not truly ridic- 
 ulous that more than 110 years 
 later we should be still using the 
 English yard, the old or French 
 pound, the denier of Montpellier 
 or of Milan, the ancient aune, the 
 many different skeins, etc.? 
 
THE METRIC FAILURE. 
 
 153 
 
 My idea, Monsieur, regarding a 
 Congress of Yarn Numbering at St. 
 Louis, far from being a farce, can 
 be of no interest to us because it 
 (unification of yarn numbering) 
 is an accomplished fact. 
 
 And this is the reason why they 
 are right in mocking us when they 
 say we do not use the metric sys- 
 tem for numbering yarn and for 
 weaving calculations. Nothing is 
 more arbitrary than to reckon the 
 yarn by the thousand metres and 
 the width of the cloth and the 
 picks of the filling by the inch. It 
 is nonsense and a derision. Note 
 also that while I speak here only 
 of France, I could say as much of 
 all Europe. 
 
 In conclusion, here is the advice 
 of a friend of your great country 
 (America) : 
 
 The calculations based on the 
 metric system are the most simple, 
 the most practical, the most exact, 
 the most uniform for all textile 
 materials. It will be a boon to 
 your great nation when that sys- 
 tem shall be used exclusively in 
 your country. 
 
 In the face of foreign sarcasm 
 it (the metric system) should be 
 established at the earliest possible 
 moment. 
 
 We have here a pristine confu- 
 sion, which will spread throughout 
 the world, and increase in propor- 
 tion to the establishment of the 
 metric system. 
 
 Ah! the famous aune, do you 
 know its equivalent? Exactly 3 ft., 
 7 in., 10 lines and 10 points, or in 
 other words, 1.188447 metres; the 
 foot being equal to .324839 metres, 
 and divided into 12 inches, the inch 
 into 12 lines and the liner, into 12 
 points. 
 
 You would not imagine this as 
 you are in the habit of calling it 
 1.19 metres. 
 
 You laugh! 
 
 It is, however, no laughing mat- 
 ter unless you consider it, as I do, 
 profoundly ridiculous. 
 
154 
 
 THE METRIC FAILURE. 
 
 In England the opposition arises 
 principally from an opinion that 
 their commerce in textiles would 
 suffer by the change. This is an 
 error. In the first place, to allow 
 competition in the markets noth- 
 ing would prevent the competing 
 nations from using occasionally 
 the English standards. 
 
 As for the recalcitrants (Eng- 
 lish, Americans and others) a 
 very simple procedure will be to 
 oblige them in all countries where 
 the metric system is legal, to mark 
 their yarns by the metric system. 
 
 Let us say to them : " Do you 
 want to trade with us? Then con- 
 fine yourselves to that which is 
 the most simple and the most prac- 
 tical. * * * There is no better 
 way than this to make them re- 
 pentant." 
 
 I have the honor to inform you 
 that what I have insisted on is an 
 accomplished fact. The per- 
 manent committee of the Congress 
 of 1900 has declared that the 
 count of silk will indicate the 
 number of kilometres per kilo- 
 gramme (fixed weight). 
 
 Glory, monsieur, to the permanent 
 committee of the Congress of 1900, 
 who have attained so quickly this 
 marvellous result! (1903.) 
 
 Numbering by the kilogramme 
 (fixed weight) can be used but 
 little in practice for silk because 
 of its fineness and the method of 
 spinning. The Brussels Congress 
 decided to retain the old method 
 of numbering silk, based on a 
 fixed length. Thus we obtain a 
 very simple and practical system, 
 suited for all calculations. (1900.) 
 
 The metric fallacy exposes itself. 
 
 The mass of error, half truths and deception might be extended 
 indefinitely, but the mind revolts from such an outrage on com- 
 mon sense and longs for, demands, the truth. What is the truth 
 about the metric system in the textile industry? I will try to 
 answer that question in the following chapters. 
 
TEXTILE WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. 
 
 How use doth breed a habit in a man. Two Gentlemen of Verona. 
 
 As food, clothing and shelter are the three primary necessities 
 for the existence of man throughout the greater portion of the 
 earth's surface, so the textile industry, which supplies clothing, 
 takes its place among the most important and extensive of human 
 occupations. Wherever man exists the manufacture of fabrics 
 is found in some form. The oldest records of human history 
 contain references to spinning and weaving. The higher the 
 development of civilization the more complicated, varied, accu- 
 rate and extensive do textile processes and products become. 
 This industry, which is found in its highest development in 
 Europe and the United States, gives employment to millions of 
 men, women and children and the value of its annual products 
 reaches fabulous amounts. 
 
 Three years ago the textile industry in the United States with 
 its 1,000,000 operatives led all others in the number of employes. 
 This vast army of workers was employed in many different mills, 
 widely scattered throughout the country, every State claiming a 
 share. 
 
 Anything affecting the standard of weights and measures affects 
 the whole textile industry, root and branch. The ideas of every 
 textile worker concerning every operation of manufacturing are 
 associated intimately with the standards of and ratios between 
 weight, length and area, upon the proper adjustment of which the 
 success of every process depends. When, therefore, the proposition 
 is made to change the standards of weights and measures it be- 
 comes necessary to consider the interests of the vast textile organ- 
 ization, upon which all other industries, in fact, the very exist- 
 ence of man depend. If it is possible to demonstrate the advan- 
 tage and possibility of making a change in weights and measures 
 in the textile industry, the final decision should, nevertheless, 
 depend upon how far such change was possible and profitable to 
 all other occupations. It is a question of possibility and ad- 
 vantage to the greatest number. If the metric system offers 
 
156 THE METRIC FAILURE. 
 
 many disadvantages and no compensating advantages for textile 
 manufacturing and the change to it in this great industry is 
 likely to prove impossible, the proposition to make the change 
 general is manifestly untenable. With the possible exception of 
 a few minor and distinct trades all the industries of the country 
 must stand or fall together on the question of weights and meas- 
 ures. Leaving the problem in its broad aspects to be considered 
 by others, I will confine my attention to its bearings on the manu- 
 facture of textile products. 
 
 In textile manufacturing measurements are employed for 
 weight, distance and area only, and those for distance are in turn 
 limited by reason of the elimination of all measurements of thick- 
 ness. The volume and thickness of textile materials, finished and 
 in process of manufacturing, are indicated by the ratio between 
 weight and length. The bulk of cloth, for example, is expressed, 
 not in cubic inches, but in either the weight per yard of a givej. 
 width or in the number of yards per pound. 
 
 Likewise the size of yarn is expressed, not by the diameter or 
 volume of the thread, but either by the length of a given weight 
 or the weight of a given length. If cotton or other loose fibre is 
 spun to such a size that one pound of yarn measures 840 yards 
 (about one-half mile) the count or ratio between weight and 
 length is No. 1. If the yarn is spun so that one pound measures 
 twice that length, or 1,680 yards (about one mile), the count is 
 No. 2. This 840 yards per pound is the English standard for 
 numbering cotton yarn, by which the count indicates the number 
 of 840-yard lengths in one pound. The fixed weight system of 
 numbering yarn is used almost exclusively throughout the world 
 for yarn spun from loose fibres like wool or cotton. These 
 materials are received by the spinner in the form of a tangled 
 mass that is first converted into a coarse sliver or rope, which 
 each successive process, up to and including spinning, makes finer. 
 The process may be likened to the stretching of rubber; the 
 farther a pound is stretched the smaller or finer becomes the 
 strand, and the higher is the count or number that indicates the 
 length of a pound. 
 
 By the second method of numbering yarn the count or ratio 
 indicates the weight of a fixed length. Thus if 16,000 yards of 
 silk weigh one ounce, the count or ratio between weight and 
 length is No. 1. If two of these strands, each 16,000 yards long 
 are placed side by side, the 2-ply thread will measure 16,000 
 
THE METRIC FAILURE. 157 
 
 yards and weigh two ounces, and the count or ratio between 
 weight and length will be No. 2. This is the English standard 
 for numbering thrown silk, by which the count indicates the 
 weight in ounces of 16,000 yards. 
 
 The silkworm spins the silk filament to an extreme fineness, a 
 single filament sometimes measuring 1,100 miles per pound. In 
 this form it is too fine and delicate to be woven. The first process, 
 therefore, is to double and twist a number of the cocoon filaments 
 together by a process called reeling, which is carried on where 
 the silk is raised. This reeled silk is the " raw silk " of com- 
 merce and the raw material of our silk mills. It is still too 
 fine for weaving and passes through several processes of doubling 
 and twisting, which convert it into what is called " thrown silk," 
 each operation increasing the size and weight of the yarn and, 
 consequently, the number or count. 
 
 The length of the silk filament as spun by the worm remains 
 unchanged throughout all the subsequent processes of manu- 
 facturing. A coarser thread is obtained by twisting two or more 
 threads together. In this way the weight is increased and the 
 count indicating the weight of a fixed length increases in the same 
 proportion. On the other hand, the length of the sliver made 
 from loose fibres for spun yarn increases with each process and 
 the count indicating the length of a fixed weight increases in the 
 same proportion. Thus by using the fixed weight system of 
 numbering in the manufacture of yarn from fibres, and the fixed 
 length system in the manufacture of yarn reeled from filaments, 
 the count in each case becomes higher as the process of manu- 
 facture advances. From this it is easily seen why " spun 
 silk " yarn which is made from the tangled mass of waste silk is 
 numbered by the fixed weight and not by the fixed length system. 
 
 In manufacturing yarn from loose fibres the raw material is 
 first put into the form of a coarse sliver about as large as a man's 
 wrist. Succeeding processes double and draw this sliver finer 
 until it is about the size of a lead pencil, in which form it is called 
 roving. The final process of spinning draws it still finer and 
 twists it into yarn. During these successive stages it is fre- 
 quently necessary for the workmen to test the size of roving, 
 slubbing or yarn. In making these tests it is plainly impossible 
 to weigh a given quantity and then measure it. To obtain an 
 ounce, or other weight, it would be necessary to estimate roughly 
 that amount and then take away or add piece by piece until 
 
158 THE METRIC FAILURE. 
 
 the scales were balanced, leaving the yarn in such a broken 
 and tangled mass that it could not be measured. These 
 mill tests, therefore, are invariably made by first measuring a 
 given length and then weighing it to determine the ratio between 
 length and weight. By this method the length is fixed, the 
 weight variable. The number by the regular fixed weight 
 system, if wanted, is found by calculation or by reference to a 
 conversion table. Automatic scales indicating the fixed weight 
 number are often used. For many processes of manufacturing 
 no conversion is required as the weight can be regulated as well 
 by the fixed length as by the fixed weight system. For heavy 
 sliver the fixed length system is practically a necessity. Any 
 convenient length is chosen, from one yard upward. Thus the 
 Revue Technologique, Paris, January 10, 1903, states French 
 practice in the cotton industry : 
 
 The numbers for all spinning machines (mules) are based on this 
 length of 1,000 metres, but as it would be too expensive and consume too 
 much time to use so great a length of sliver or roving, the following 
 lengths have been adopted nearly everywhere for the preparatory machines 
 (in France) : 
 
 Lappers , 1 or 2 metres 
 
 Cards 5 metres 
 
 Draw-frames 5 metres 
 
 Slubbing frames 25 metres 
 
 Intermediate 50 metres 
 
 Finishers 100 metres 
 
 Mules and ring frames 1000 metres 
 
 It is necessary to calculate the number of the yarn from the weight of 
 these lengths. 
 
 Again, in French worsted processes the tests are made by 
 comparing the weight of an arbitrary length of sliver or roving 
 with the standard. Following are the standards for the various 
 processes as given by a French writer in a treatise on French 
 spinning : 
 
 Weight of one metre of sliver or roving: 
 
 Cards 7 to 10 grammes 
 
 Draw-frames 9 to 1 gramme 
 
 Roving frames 1 to & gramme 
 
 The same method is employed with the English system. A 
 length of 12, 20, 50, 80 or 120 yards is frequently used as being 
 a convenient fraction of the hank of 840, 560 or 1,600 yards, 
 
THE METUIC FAILURE. 159 
 
 facilitating conversion -to the fixed weight standard when desired. 
 In the manufacture of knit goods, the calculation of the weight of 
 the knitted fabric cannot be made from the yarn counts as is pos- 
 sible and necessary in the manufacture of woven fabrics. The 
 weight of the knitted fabric is regulated by experiment and ob- 
 serving what weight of goods is obtained with a certain weight 
 of yarn, gauge of frame, tension, and other adjustments, ^"o 
 calculations based on the yarn count being necessary, the size 
 of yarn spun and knitted in the same mill is often regulated by 
 fixed length tests, as in the case of sliver and roving. Instead of 
 measuring so many yards, the practice in our leading knitting 
 centres is to save time by weighing a certain number of ends from 
 one " draw " of the mule, a " draw " being slightly more than 
 2 yards. The number of draws varies in different places. In 
 Cohoes, 3 draws or 6 j: yards are used ; in Amsterdam, 6 draws or 
 12| yards; and in Little Falls, 12 draws or 25 yards. 
 
 In Spain the weight in quarter ounces (Spanish) per 400 canes 
 is used and an indefinite number of variations may be found 
 throughout the textile world irrespective of the system of weights 
 and measures employed. They are necessary operations for testing 
 the size of the yarn by reeling and weighing, and are not classed 
 as systems of numbering spun yarn. Following is a list of these 
 methods compiled from recent authorities : 
 
 Country. Unit of Weiffht. Length. 
 
 Spain quarter unga 400 canes 
 
 France gramme 1, 2, 5, 25, 50, 100, 250 metres 
 
 Scotland pound 14,400 yards 
 
 England dram 80 yards 
 
 Germany gramme 420 or 840 yards (English) 
 
 Germany gramme 10, 20, 50, 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, or 1,000 metres 
 
 America grain 1, 5, 10, 12, 20, 50, SO, or 120 yards. 
 
 When the yarn is woven into cloth the bulk of the fabric is 
 indicated by the weight of an area of fixed dimensions, usually a 
 length of one yard and a width expressed in inches. Silk is an 
 exception to this rule. Owing to the practice of loading silk with 
 foreign substances the weight of the finished silk fabric is a 
 matter of indifference to the buyer, who relies upon the " handle" 
 and appearance alone in judging the value of the goods. 
 
 The English yard-pound is at present the single standard of 
 numbering spun yarn throughout all English-speaking countries, 
 including the British colonies, China and Japan. All English 
 
160 THE METRIC FAILURE. 
 
 fixed weight systems of yarn numbering are based on the number 
 of skeins or hanks in one pound. Hanks of different lengths 
 are used for the different materials : 
 
 Woollen, 1,600 yards. 
 
 Cotton, 840 yards. 
 
 Worsted, 560 yards. 
 
 Linen, 300 yards. 
 
 The hank used for carded woollen yarn varies in England, but 
 in the United States a hank or run of 1,600 yards is the principal 
 system, the only important exception being found in Philadelphia 
 and vicinity where the 300 yard hank or linen cut is used. 
 These systems are by no means confined to English-speaking 
 countries. The 300 yard system is, with the exception of a local 
 and unimportant Austrian standard, the world's single standard 
 for linen, jute, hemp and allied fibres, so that if a spinner in any 
 of these materials in the United States should mention, say, !N"o. 
 20 linen yarn to a spinner in Great Britain, France, Germany, 
 Austria, Eussia, India, China or Japan, in fact, in any country in 
 the world, both would understand without further explanation 
 that the yarn measured 6,000 yards per pound. 
 
 These four systems were brought to America from England 
 where they originated and are still in use. All are based on the 
 English yard-pound so that the only variation in the English 
 system of yarn numbering consists in the lengths of the hanks. 
 
 Of all the leading branches of textile manufacturing the linen, 
 hemp and jute industries are the most distinct. These materials 
 are seldom mixed or combined in the same fabric with either 
 cotton, woollen, worsted or silk yarn. Its world- wide standard of 
 oOO yards seldom comes in contact with the remaining systems. 
 The 840 yard skein is the standard for cotton yarn throughout the 
 world. The only exception is found in France where a French 
 system that is not metric is used for cotton yarn. The 560 yard 
 skein is the single standard for worsted yarn throughout the 
 British Empire and the United States. It is also one of the lead- 
 ing standards for worsted yarn in Continental Europe. 
 
 The modern silk industry was first established in France and 
 Italy, and their various systems of numbering silk yarn were adopted 
 and became so firmly rooted long before the birth of the metric 
 system that they have resisted all attempts to change them and 
 
THE METRIC FAILURE. 161 
 
 are to-day the world's standards for what is known as raw silk. 
 These systems of numbering were based upon the weight in 
 cleniers of 9,600 aunes of silk, the denier being a coin weighing 
 24 Paris grains. In testing the weight of silk l-24th of 9,600, 
 or 400 aunes, was used, and the weight of this shorter length in 
 grains also indicated the weight of the longer length in deniers. 
 Slight variations in the weight of the grain have caused varia- 
 tions which are practically negligible. Thus, in Continental 
 Europe the length of 400 aunes is reduced to its equivalent, 476 
 metres, and the denier to .0531 gramme. To improve these awk- 
 ward expressions a fixed length of 450 metres and a weight of 
 .05 gramme have been substituted. As very little raw silk is pro- 
 duced in Great Britain or the United States the English and 
 American silk manufacturers receive their supplies of raw 
 material from abroad numbered by the denier-aune standard. 
 Instead of converting the denier-aune count into an exact but 
 awkward equivalent as has been done in Continental Europe, a 
 distinct system, based on a fixed length of 1,000 yards and its 
 weight in drams, has been adopted in Great Britain and the 
 United States as the exclusive standard for numbering thrown 
 silk. It is called the Manchester system, probably from its hav- 
 ing originated in Manchester, England. Not only is it the only 
 standard in use in English-speaking countries, but it is used to a 
 considerable extent in the machine lace industry of Calais, 
 Erance. 
 
 Paris Metric Congress, page 33: 
 
 M. Persoz. The English dram system is also used in the Calais district 
 in the machine lace industry. 
 
 In addition to yarn numbering there are in the textile industry 
 measurements of the width, length and weight of the woven 
 cloth. The width is expressed in inches; the length in yards; 
 and the weight either in ounces per yard or yards per pound. 
 
 Such is the present condition of our textile weights and meas- 
 ures. The metric proposition means that our fundamental stand- 
 ards, the yard, inch, pound, ounce, grain and dram shall be 
 abolished and their places taken by the metre, decimetre, centi- 
 metre, millimetre, gramme, decigramme, centigramme and milli- 
 gramme. It also means that for all materials, with the possible 
 exception of silk, a skein of 1,000 metres and a weight of 1 kilo- 
 gramme shall be the bases of numbering yarn. In other words, if 
 
162 THE METRIC FAILURE. 
 
 1 kilogramme of yarn measures 1,000 metres, the number is 1 ; if 
 2,000 metres, it is No. 2 ; if 3,000 metres, it is No. 3, etc., the num- 
 ber indicating the number of thousand metres per kilogramme. I 
 say with the possible exception of silk, because the advocates of 
 the metric system have not been able to agree among themselves 
 as 'to how silk yarn shall be numbered by the metric system. 
 
 This, in brief, is what we are asked to abandon and what to 
 accept. Let us first consider what sort of a task it is to change 
 established weights and measures. From the growing of the 
 fibre until it appears in the form of cloth ready for clothing, the 
 ideas of every one of our textile workers, in every process of 
 this complicated industry, are bound inseparably to the standards 
 of weights and measures, the pound, ounce, dram, grain, yard 
 and inch. It is of vital importance in the consideration of the 
 metric question that a correct idea be formed of the nature and 
 extent of this connection between textile standards and the tech- 
 nical knowledge and experience of textile workers. 
 
 The thickness and volume of the material in process are ex- 
 pressed by the ratio between the weight and the length of the 
 sliver, roving or yarn. To the textile operative this count indi- 
 cates not only the length, diameter, volume and weight of the 
 material, but also the proportion between them. The yarn count 
 is thus the keystone of the arch of textile weights and measures. 
 It is the guide for all operations and the expression not only of 
 length, diameter, volume, weight and their complex relations, but 
 also a means of expressing the quality and length of fibres. 
 
 The count of worsted yarn, for example, indicating the number 
 of 560-yard skeins per pound, has become a means of indicating 
 the quality of worsted wool. Worsted wool is called 40's if 
 it can be spun to 40 x 560 or 22,400 yards per pound ; 60's, if it 
 can be spun to 60 x 560 or 33,600 yards per pound; 80's if it can 
 be spun to 80 x 560 or 44,800 yards per pound. This method 
 of designating the quality of worsted wool is an established cus- 
 tom throughout the commercial and manufacturing world, and 
 when the wool dealer of Hamburg, Germany, or the worsted 
 spinner of Bradford, England, or the worsted manufacturers of 
 Lawrence, Mass., designate worsted top by a number it is based 
 upon the English yard-pound. The sign " 60 7 s " does not mean 
 a number or yarn of a certain size to the wool grower, dealer> 
 buyer or sorter; to them it means wool of a certain fineness, 
 length of staple, curl and strength. To the carder, spinner and 
 
THE METRIC FAILURE. 163 
 
 practical manufacturer it means all this and something more. 
 It means a yarn of a certain size, uniformity and strength, meas- 
 uring 33,600 yards per pound, and cloth of a certain texture and 
 quality. In conversation the term 60's means the quality of wool 
 to one man, the size of yarn to another, yet both ideas are in har- 
 mony. To change this system of numbering changes the lan- 
 guage of textile workers as well as the mere expression of the 
 ratio between the length and the weight of one pound of yarn. 
 
 As the process of manufacture advances, measurements be- 
 come a still more frequent and important factor in the mill. 
 The wool carder's ideas of the innumerable qualities and mixtures 
 of stock, the adjustment and operation of the delicate carding 
 machinery all centre on the yarn number, indicating a certain 
 number of yards per pound. To change the size of the yard and 
 pound would also throw his ideas of size and spinning qualities 
 into hopeless disorder. 
 
 The spinner and weaver likewise gauge their work by the yard, 
 inch and pound. The yarn count to them means a certain 
 length per pound; the twist is measured by the turns per inch, 
 and the expressions 6, 8, 10, 18, 24, or 40 turns expresses not only 
 so many turns per inch, but certain degrees of hardness in yarn, 
 ideas that are inseparably connected with certain effects in woven 
 and finished fabrics. The yarn count, or length per pound, 
 means a certain appearance of the yarn, a certain strength and 
 elasticity; it tells what production should come from each ma- 
 chine, and how much should be paid for spinning 100 pounds or 
 hanks. It is the standard of the experience in the past, the work 
 of the present and the possibilities for the future. 
 
 The weaver works in a maze of measurements that include yarn 
 numbers or yards per pound, threads of warp per inch, dents of 
 the reed per inch, width in inches, length in yards, picks of filling 
 per inch. 
 
 These measurements are vital factors in the structure of the 
 fabric. They are constantly changing to meet the demands of 
 fashion in the multifarious fabrics from gauze dress goods to 
 frieze overcoating cloth, including an endless variety of fabrics 
 too numerous to be mentioned here. Each of these fabrics is 
 subject to innumerable variations in which correct measurements 
 are essential. 
 
 The vast army of hard-working men, women and children en- 
 gaged in our textile mills, most of them with but an elementary 
 
164 THE METRIC FAILURE. 
 
 education, highly organized to work together with the precision 
 of machinery in the conversion of fibres and filaments into 
 fabrics, have become familiar with the established weights and 
 measures in the hard school of experience. Their ideas of the 
 yard, inch, pound, ounce, dram and grain as textile standards 
 have been acquired while toiling long hours, day in and day out, 
 for years in noisy, nerve-racking mills. In such a matter as 
 changing of standards of weights and measures, each and every 
 one is naturally a confirmed conservative. Their personal resist- 
 ance to changes of acquired habits and ideas defies all efforts and 
 arguments. Added to this is the fact that these textile oper- 
 atives, scattered widely throughout the country, most of them 
 unable to communicate with each other even when working in the 
 same mill, are, nevertheless, essential parts of one great organiza- 
 tion for the production of fabrics, of which all are sold by the 
 English yard or pound. To obtain a merchantable product it is 
 essential that each operator should do his work carefully and 
 accurately. An error in the weight or length in the work of any 
 of these processes may easily spoil the finished goods. 
 
 A proof of how intimately the system of weights and measures 
 is connected with the everyday life of the people was furnished 
 in January, 1902, by an attempt to substitute a new yarn scale 
 for an old and inaccurate scale that had been used for years in 
 the spinning-room of the Assabet Mills, Maynard, Mass. There 
 was, doubtless, no desire on the part of the management to alter 
 the wages of the help, the sole object of the change being to 
 correct the inaccuracy of the old standard and to bring it into 
 harmony with the system in the many other mills operated 
 by the same company. Nevertheless, a change of the scale 
 changed the count of the yarn and, in the absence of a cor- 
 responding change of the price list, caused a reduction of wages 
 as effectually as a straight cut in wages would have done. A 
 strike of the spinners followed and for a time threw over a 
 thousand hands out of employment. This incident illustrates 
 the widespread disturbance which is bound to accompany any 
 attempt to change from one system of weights and measures to 
 another. 
 
 The inch is the accepted standard for both woven and finished 
 widths. Aside from the difficulty in changing from the inch to 
 the centimetre in expressing widths in the mill, there would be 
 the persistence of the inch for .this purpose outside the mill, in 
 
THE METRIC FAILURE. 165 
 
 the wholesale and retail trades, which would compel the textile 
 worker to retain the present standard. 
 
 The introduction of the metric system into this -country w r ould 
 upset the standard of values. The metre is 3f inches longer 
 than the yard and the difficulty in adjusting prices to correspond 
 with this difference of 3f inches would extend to every branch 
 of the textile trade. 
 
 A change of textile standards would seriously impair, if not 
 destroy, the value of the vast collection of textile records, con- 
 sisting of printed literature and written records of individual 
 mills. 
 
 To these considerations must be added the size of the Amer- 
 ican textile industry, the vast extent of territory affected, the 
 enormous population of 80,000,000, increasing at the rate of 
 4,000 per day, and all trained to the use of the English standards. 
 
 I ask the reader to consider calmly for a while the facts to 
 which I have but hurriedly called attention; the complex nature 
 of textile processes and products ; the character of the employes ; 
 their hard struggle for existence; their meagre educational ad- 
 vantages; their inbred conservatism; the necessity of perfect har- 
 mony of action by all these operatives. Consider the importance of 
 accurate measurement in textile manufacturing, and that these 
 millions of textile operatives are constantly engaged in making such 
 measurements. Look these conditions fairly in the face. Do not 
 belittle nor exaggerate them. Talk with the operatives. Go into 
 the mill and view them from the standpoints of the sorting, scour- 
 ing, picking, carding, combing, drawing, spinning, spooling, reel- 
 ing, warping, slashing, weaving, dyeing, bleaching, fulling, 
 gigging, drying, shearing and final finishing processes, from any 
 and every reasonable and practical standpoint, and then answer 
 to the satisfaction of your own judgment and common-sense this 
 question : 
 
 Is it possible to change radically our textile weights and meas- 
 ures ? 
 
 The only conclusions that can be reached from such an exam- 
 ination of the facts are that the proposition to drive the present 
 standards out and the metric standards into this industry is so 
 absurd as to deserve no consideration whatever; that our textile 
 weights and measures can be eradicated only by exterminating all 
 who use them and by destroying all our textile records. 
 
 In forming an opinion on this question we are fortunately not 
 
166 
 
 THE METRIC FAILURE. 
 
 obliged to rely on personal observations which, of course, are con- 
 clusive to the observer only. Since 1790 Continental Europe has 
 been the scene -of a determined struggle to change all standards 
 of weights and measures to the metric system, and before com- 
 paring the system we have with the one we are asked to accept, 
 it will be profitable to study the condition in which that struggle 
 has left European textile standards. 
 
THE CONTINENTAL CHAOS. 
 
 Confusion's cure lies not in these confusions. Romeo and Juliet. 
 
 The metric system was a product of the French Revolution. 
 At the height of the Reign of Terror, 011 August 1, 1793, the 
 following decree by Danton and his associates marked the begin- 
 ning of that policy of force in introducing the metric system into 
 the French textile industry that has continued to the present 
 time: 
 
 Decree of Aug. 1, 1793. 
 
 Art. 1. The new system of weights and measures founded on the 
 measurement of the earth's meridian and the decimal division will be used 
 throughout the Republic. 
 
 On September 23, 1795, the following decree provided that the 
 metre should take the place of the aune : 
 
 Art. 1. On 1 nivose approaching, the use of the metre is substituted 
 for that of the aune in the commune of Paris, and ten days after that date 
 in the department of the Seine. 
 
 Art. 2. In consequence all merchants, both retail and wholesale, sta- 
 tionary and travelling, who use the aune, are ordered to procure metres. 
 
 Art. 11. The police will make in their respective arrondissements and 
 several times during the year, visits to the shops and stores, public places, 
 fairs and markets, to test the weights and measures. 
 
 All violators of this ordinance will be punished by the confiscation of the 
 illegal measures, and will be brought before the police tribunal where a 
 fine will be imposed to suit the case. 
 
 This decree was carried out with relentless energy by the 
 Revolutionary government, and with the police patrolling the 
 market places the metre was gradually forced into the stores. 
 The French manufacturers, however, continued to reel, spin and 
 weave by the old standards, and to remove the anomaly of ono 
 standard for trade and another for manufacturing the following 
 decree was issued by Bonaparte in 1810: 
 
 Art. 1. On and after March 1, 1811, all proprietors of spinning mills 
 shall make the hanks of cotton, linen, hemp or wool, each 100 metres long, 
 so that a skein shall measure 1,000 metres in length. 
 
168 THE METRIC FAILURE. 
 
 Art. 2. These yarns shall be ticketed with the number of such skeins in 
 one kilogramme. 
 
 Art. 3. Violations of the foregoing provisions shall be considered 
 breaches of the police regulations and punished by a fine of not less than 
 5 nor more than 15 francs for the first offence; the fine may be increased 
 for a repetition of the offence. 
 
 In France the cotton industry was then next to silk manufac- 
 turing in importance, and this decree threatened to throw the 
 business of manufacturing and selling cotton goods into con- 
 fusion. The protests of the cotton trade forced the government 
 to a compromise, giving the manufacturer a standard based on the 
 new French pound of 500 grammes (which was 11 grammes 
 heavier than the old pound), in accordance with the following 
 royal decree of June 7, 1819 : 
 
 Art. 2. On and after Oct. 1, 1819, all cotton spinners of the kingdom 
 shall reel their cotton yarn in 100 metre hanks, of which 10 shall make 
 1 skein of 1,000 metres. 
 
 Art. 3. To accomplish this object all the said spinners shall adopt new 
 reels or alter those they now use so that in future all mills shall be 
 equipped with hexagonal reels of 1,428 metres, provided with a wheel or 
 counter of 70 teeth. 
 
 Art. 4. On and after the same date all cotton from French mills shall 
 be ticketed with a number indicating the number of hanks forming a 
 pound or demi-decigramme. 
 
 Art. 8. Cotton yarn which may be found after Oct. 1, 1819, without the 
 mark indicating the factory or country of origin will be seized. If after 
 a trial by jury the yarn shall be found to be of French origin, the owner or 
 person in whose possession it was found will be fined 6 per cent, of the 
 value of the yarn. 
 
 This law of 1819 was a formal surrender of arbitrary power to 
 the power of established usage in the cotton trade. The worsted 
 industry was practically non-existent at that period. The carded 
 woollen branch continued to use their old standards in the mill, 
 and the law could not reach them because carded yarn was mostly 
 woven and spun in the same mill and did not appear in the 
 market places under the eyes of the police. Linen continued to 
 be reeled and numbered by the English system regardless of the 
 imperial decree. 
 
 The manufacture of silk had reached too high a state of 
 development to be disturbed, and so the denier and the aune con- 
 tinued to be the standards for silk yarn. Fifty-six years later, on 
 June 13, 1866, the following law was placed on the French statute 
 books : 
 
THE METEIC FAILUKE. 169 
 
 The test for the fineness of silk shall be made by the weight of 500 
 metres in demi-decigramme. 
 
 The following preamble of a resolution by the Paris Metric 
 Congress of 1900 shows that this law of 1866 was a dead letter 
 from its birth : 
 
 Whereas: The official French numbering for silk, defined by the law of 
 1866 has never been used in the silk trade. 
 
 These old French statutes are given here to show to what an 
 extent arbitrary law has been carried into the mills and the 
 market places to make French textile standards metric. Con- 
 ditions then were extremely favorable for such an attempt to 
 change textile standards. At that time textile materials were 
 carded, spun and woven almost wholly by hand power. The 
 development of power machinery in the textile industry began in 
 1767 with the invention of the Hargreaves jenny, followed by 
 the Arkwright spinning frame in 1769, by the Crompton mule 
 in 1780, and the Cartwright loom in 1785. The last of these 
 four great textile inventions appeared but four years before Louis 
 XVI., on the eve of his flight to Varennes, gave his perfunctory 
 approval to the decree establishing the metric system in France. 
 Yarn was then spun by hand, and the size of the thread regulated 
 by touch and not by measurement and weight. The great textile 
 inventions we have mentioned but dimly foreshadowed the devel- 
 opment of the complicated and finely adjusted machinery of the 
 present. Standards of length, area and weight played an insig- 
 nificant part in the rude textile industry of that time. 
 
 While textile machinery and processes have been slowly and 
 laboriously brought to their present high state of development, 
 the metric system was finished at the first heat. The metre, 
 then supposed to be the 10,000,000th part of the distance 
 from the equator to the pole, gave the metric standards of 
 length and weight, just as we find them to-day, to the primitive 
 French textile industry eager for improved methods of produc- 
 tion. A more propitious time could not have been chosen for the 
 introduction of the system. The most drastic of laws were 
 enacted, and since that time it has been the settled policy of 
 every French regime to make French textile manufacturers use 
 the metric standards only. This policy, now over a century old, 
 has been worse than a total failure ; it has been a partial success. 
 The manufacturing standards of weight and measure are not 
 
170 THE METRIC FAILURE. 
 
 metric in a single branch of the French textile industry of to-day. 
 The habits and the necessities of the rude industry of a century 
 ago have proved superior to the power of autocratic governments. 
 The partial success attained by thus forcing the metric system 
 into the industry has resulted only in increasing the confusion 
 that it was intended to remove. The evidence on this point in 
 French textile literature of the present time is overwhelming, 
 and admits of no denial. It is taken from the latest French 
 textile books and journals ; it is from men who ardently favor the 
 French system. 
 
 France is an extensive producer of linen yarn, the best flax in 
 the world being produced along the border line between France 
 and Belgium on the River Lys. Practically all of this yarn is 
 spun to the English standard. 
 
 Lamoitier, " Traite de Tissage," p. 63: The English system of numbering 
 is used for linen, hemp and jute. The lea is 300 yards or 274.2 metres; 12 
 leas make a skein of 3,600 yards; 100 skeins a bundle of 360,000 yards. A 
 linen thread is called No. 1 when 1 skein of 274.20 metres (300 yards) 
 weighs 453 grammes (1 English pound). If we wish to transform this 
 into the French system (not metric), the base being the pound of 50C 
 grammes, we will have corresponding to French No. 1 
 
 274.2 x 500 
 
 453 
 
 By the official (metric system) based on 1,000 metres per 1,000 grammes 
 the English No. 1 corresponds to metric No. .605 or 605 metres per kilo- 
 gramme. By the French (not metric) system No. 1 corresponds to English 
 No. 3.30. 
 
 That is the result of the struggle for 100 years to make the 
 French linen industry metric. 
 
 The revolt in the French cotton industry against the metric 
 standard based on the metre and gramme was so strong that the 
 government was forced to let the cotton spinners use the French 
 pound of 500 grammes. That explains why the metric standard of 
 yarn numbering is not used at all in the cotton mills of France. 
 
 Lamoitier, "Traite de Tissage," p. 58: The official French system is 
 based on a length of 1,000 metres and a constant weight of 500 grammes 
 (French pound.) * * * In England the cotton number indicates the 
 number of 840 yard hanks per English pound or 453 grammes. The yard is 
 about .91 metres. 840 yards is equal to 840 x .91 = 764.40 metres. A No. 
 
THE METRIC FAILURE. 171 
 
 20 cotton thread (English) has a length of 764.40 metres x 20 =15.288 
 metres per pound or 453 grammes, and per kilogramme 
 
 15288 x 1000 _ 33 74g metreg per kilogramme 
 
 or 16,874 metres per demi-kilogramme (French pound). 
 
 Our calculations are approximate. The exact length of 840 yards is 
 768.0792 metres. 
 
 This shows how far the French cotton spinner is removed from 
 a decimal uniformity, and gives a hint as to the tremendous diffi- 
 culties he meets in converting one system into another. The 
 illustrations so far show that the French linen yarn standards are 
 English and not metric; this is because the trade could not rid 
 itself of the English yard-pound. They also show that the French 
 cotton yarn standards are not metric. This is because the French 
 cotton spinners would not base their yarn standard on the kilo- 
 gramme. 
 
 When we turn to the French woolen and worsted standards, we 
 find that, owing to the partial success in forcing the adoption of 
 the metric yarn standard, the woollen and worsted industry pre- 
 sents a perfect babel of tongues. 
 
 Lamoitier, rindustrie Textile, Paris, Oct. 15, 1902: 
 
 We still have the diverse standards of Roubaix, Fourmies and Reims 
 for worsted, the moque of Sedan, the livre, the quart and the sous of 
 Elboeuf, the yard for linen, etc. 
 
 Lamoitier rindustrie Textile, Paris, Oct. 15, 1903: 
 
 And what do we find here? The yarn count in the North of France 
 is a length and in the Centre a weight. What is more it is a weight for 
 organzine and a length for organzine waste! I will take my oath that 
 the manufacturer of Rouen, if he has not studied each section separately 
 has no idea what is the standard of Reims or the denier of Lyons or Milan. 
 And on the other hand the manufacturers of Reims and Lyons are like- 
 wise puzzled in making comparisons of the diverse numberings of the 
 diverse materials. 
 
 M. Desire Chedville, textile manufacturer, Saint-Pierre-les-Elboeuf. " Paris 
 Metric Yarn Congress, 1900," p. 87: We hope no new burdens will be im 
 posed on the industry, but if we look the facts in the face, we will find 
 that notwithstanding the decree of 1810, and in spite of the serious efforts 
 put forth by industrial societies of many districts, we still have the 
 ancient units of weights and measures and we scarcely comprehend each 
 other when we talk of spinning at Reims, Roubaix, Elboeuf, Sedan or 
 Vienna, where the skeins still measure 1,420, 710, 3,600 or 1,500 metres. 
 
 Remember that 1,000 metres is the only metric standard for 
 
172 THE METRIC FAILURE. 
 
 yarn numbering, and that the lengths mentioned by M. Chedville 
 are simply the metric equivalents of pre-Eevolutionary standards 
 which have withstood the metric assaults of the past 110 years. 
 
 Following is Lamoitier's statement of the conditions of the 
 worsted industry, showing five separate and distinct systems of 
 numbering yarn : 
 
 Lamoitier, " Traite de Tissage," p. 63: 
 
 In certain districts of France and Germany the old units are still 
 retained, as well as in conservative England. 
 
 Roubaix, hank 714 m., 
 Fourmies " 710 " 
 
 unit of weight .500 kg. 
 
 " " " 1. 
 
 Reims " 700 " 
 
 1. 
 
 Germany " 1,577 " 
 or 1,000 " 
 England " 560 yds. 
 
 1. 
 " " " 1 pound 
 
 Referring to carded woollens, this writer adds, p. 24 : 
 
 For carded yarn there are likewise the old standards in use although 
 the official metric standard (1,000 metres per kilogramme), has been ad- 
 opted at Reims and in the north of France, at Verviers and in Germany. At 
 Sedan they still use the old standard (1,500 metres), and the kilogramme 
 for unit of weight. At Elboeuf the skein measures 3, 600 metres (equivalent 
 of an old standard), and the pound is taken for unit of weight. The pound 
 is divided into 4 quarts, each quart into 10 sous. A yarn of 10 quarts, 2 
 sous, is equivalent to 2 22-40 for a length of 
 
 3,600 x 2 + 360 x 22 = 9,120 metres ! 
 40 
 
 We shall further on study the counts of silk, cotton, linen, etc. We 
 regret extremely these anomalies which obstruct business, lead to regret- 
 table errors and wantonly complicate all calculations. 
 
 Ibid., p. 87: We here give a table for wool based on the standard of 710 
 metres (equivalent of an old standard), leaving it to the reader to compile 
 others for silk and the vegetable fibres according to his requirements. 
 These tables are used only for facilitating calculations. For estimating 
 the cost of an article we believe it will be useful to all engaged in the 
 woollen industry, the 710 standard being the most extensively used of all 
 the arbitrary systems. 
 
 Where textile standards are uniform, as in the United States, 
 the length of the filling yarn in yards per pound of cloth is cal- 
 culated by simply multiplying the width in inches by the number 
 of picks (filling threads per inch). The following extract shows 
 how complicated this simple operation has been made in France 
 by a century of nietric laws : 
 
THE METRIC FAILURE. 173 
 
 Lamoitier, " Traite de Tissage," p. 90: The picks of filling being ordinar- 
 ily and arbitrarily counted by the quarter-inch, it is necessary before mak- 
 ing the calculation to convert them into the number per centimetre. Fol- 
 lowing is the table for these calculations: 
 
 Picks Picks Picks Picks 
 
 per inch per cm. per inch per cm. 
 
 (The metric equivalents are then given from 5 to 30 picks per quarter 
 inch.) 
 
 Remarks: For higher sets use multiples of the given numbers. There 
 are 148 quarter-inches per metre. 1 centimetre is equal to 1.48 quarter- 
 inches. 
 
 The present practice in measuring the width of ribbon, tape 
 and other narrow fabrics illustrates perfectly how firmly 
 weights and measures are established and maintained by the 
 course of trade and industry. France is the home of the ribbon 
 industry. The French line, which is 1-12 of a French inch became 
 the standard for measuring the width of narrow fabrics long 
 before the French Revolution. Apparently the line was selected 
 by the French weaver because it was well adapted for such meas- 
 urements, and its use has for the same reason been extended 
 with the extension of the ribbon trade until to-day it is the world 
 standard for ribbon widths. 
 
 Frowein, " Kalkulator fur Artikel der Textilbranche," p. 90: 
 The loom widths of ribbon and tape are given in French lines. The 
 fineness of the reed is indicated by the number of dents per French line. 
 
 For additional evidence on this point reference is made to the 
 estimate of cost of a tape fabric by the same writer in another 
 part of this chapter. If the reader will take the trouble to in- 
 quire at the ribbon counter of any American dry goods store he 
 will find that ribbon widths are expressed in lines, and that the 
 clerk at the counter usually has a special rule marked off in lines 
 for measuring such widths. 
 
 The widths of many wide fabrics are expressed in quarter yards 
 or ells. This is the custom throughout the world, and in Con- 
 tinental Europe results in an exasperating confusion owing to the 
 different values of the metre, yard, ell, aune and other units 
 used there. The introduction of the metre into the United States 
 would cause a similar confusion with us. The Continental stand- 
 ards for widths of looms and cloth are thus described : 
 
 Lamoitier, in VIndustrie Textile, Paris, Nov. 1902. 
 
 I wish to call attention to another anomaly which is rather exasperating. 
 
174 THE METRIC FAILURE. 
 
 The widths of English looms are expressed in quarters of a yard. We (the 
 French), thus have , $, f, , f, f, \a, 11, J^, looms, and upwards. These 
 looms allow goods to be woven of the following widths: .95 m., 1.20 m., 1.45 
 m., 1.70 m., 2 m., 2.20 m., 2.240 m., 2.65 m., 2.90 m., 3 m. It is probable that 
 a French loom builder to be logical will adopt the metre as the base. We 
 have here, consequently, a pristine confusion which will spread throughout 
 the world and increase in proportion to the establishment of the metric 
 system. 
 
 But this is not all. A resident of Miilhouse expresses the widths of his 
 cottonades likewise in quarters of a yard. But there it is probably the 
 aune that is taken for the standard, and we have as equivalents of \, \, 
 f. i, 4, If 4, *4-> etc - tne metric measurements .90 m., 1.20 m., 1.50 m., 1.80 
 m., 2.1 m., 2.40 m., 2.70 m., 3 m., etc. 
 
 I demand the abrogation of these anomalies, as M. le depute would 
 say, and that only the metre be allowed for the measurement of all widths, 
 whether of looms or of woven goods! Is this not logic itself? 
 
 Because of its peculiar fitness for textile work the French 
 weaver still uses the French inch (1.08 English inches) for gaug- 
 ing the density or set of woven fabrics. The following extract 
 from a work by the professor of weaving at the Societe Indus- 
 trielle d' Amiens shows that the French instruments for determin- 
 ing the set of a fabric are made by the inch or by both the inch 
 gnd the centimetre. Apparently none are wholly metric : 
 
 Dantzer, " Trait6 de Tissage," p. 137: 
 
 The density of a fabric is expressed by the number of threads in a unit 
 of length. The centimetre, inch and inch are used for this purpose. 
 By the following table inches can be reduced immediately to centimetres: 
 
 \ Inch - .0069 m. 
 
 1 inch = .0276 m. 
 45 inches = 1.242 m. 
 78 inches = 2.153 m., etc. 
 
 The density or set is determined by the aid of a small instrument called 
 a thread counter. It consists of a plate in which is cut a rectangular 
 opening of which one side measures 1 centimetre and the other side 
 inch. There are thread counters in which the openings are respectively -J 
 centimetre, \ inch, 1 centimetre, inch, 2 centimetres and \ inch. 
 
 Among the most important of textile calculations are those for 
 estimating the cost of manufactured goods. An error in such an 
 estimate might easily cause serious loss to a mill. On page 91 of 
 Lamoitier, " Traite de Tissage/' is given an estimate of the cost of 
 a worsted serge, which shows how the survival of the ancient 
 units of weights and measures complicates such calculations in 
 France at the present time. The yarn, instead of being num- 
 
THE METRIC FAILURE. 175 
 
 bered by the decimal or metric system of 1,000 metres per kilo- 
 gramme, is numbered by the Fourmies system, whose metric equiva- 
 lent is 710 metres per kilogramme. The weight of the yarn num- 
 bered by this inconvenient system is calculated from the length. 
 The picks are stated arbitrarily as 37 per centimetre, evidently to 
 make the operation as simple as possible. As we have already 
 seen, the French use an inch equal to 1-3 7th of a metre for count- 
 ing picks, and 100 picks per French inch is equal to 37 per centi- 
 metre. This, as Lamoitier's table shows, is about the only set 
 for which the old and the metric expressions are in Avhole num- 
 bers, and for practically all others, such numbers as 17.76, 23.68, 
 or 39.96 picks must be used. The great liability to error made 
 under such conditions needs no further demonstration. 
 
 In ^Industrie Textile, Paris, issue of August 15, 1902, appears 
 a description of a new French ring spinning frame built by Du- 
 fassez-Allard et Simon and installed in the mill of M. Leclercq- 
 Dupire at Wattrelos, from which we make the following extract : 
 
 The production of warp yarn No. 22, Roubaix system of 1,420 metres 
 per kilogramme (metric equivalent of the old Roubaix standard), is as 
 follows : 
 
 Mules 19.83 hanks per 65 hours. 
 
 Ordinary Ring Frames 24.06 hanks per 63 hours. 
 
 New Ring Frames 30.86 hanks per 63 hours. 
 
 * * * The numbers in the following table are based on the Roubaix 
 standard of 1,420 metres per kilogramme, and the 1,000 metre equivalents 
 are based on the kilogramme. (Here follows a table giving the Roubaix 
 numbers by which the yarn was spun, together with the metric equiv- 
 alents.) 
 
 This statement of the test of a new machine is the strongest 
 kind of proof that the Roubaix and riot the metric standard is 
 used by the spinners in the Roubaix district. I want to call at- 
 tention to the discrepancy between Lamoitier and this article as to 
 the definition of the metric equivalent of the Roubaix standard. 
 One gives it as 714 metres per French pound, equal to 1,428 
 metres per kilogramme; the other states it as 1,420 metres per 
 kilogramme. This shows the confusion in the French mills. Here 
 is a French opinion on this point : 
 
 Lamoitier in V Industrie Textile, October 15, 1902: 
 
 To say that all this leads to insignificant variations is an error. I know, 
 for example, what serious disputes have arisen from the difference of the 
 standards of Roubaix and Fourmies. Do you want an example? 
 
 I know a shipper of Cambrai who sent from 5,000 to 10,000 kilogrammes 
 
176 THE METRIC FAILURE. 
 
 of worsted to be spun to No. 100's on cops, to Messrs. F., at Fourmies. 
 The shipper lived in the Fourmies district, but (in a way absolutely 
 abusive in my opinion), reckoned the yarn by skeins of 714 metres, thus 
 gaining 4 metres per kilo as compared with the Fourmies standard. The 
 work was paid for by the number of skeins and the shipper thus gained 
 400 metres per kilo. As the shipper delivered only enough material to 
 make the number of skeins required, there arose a violent dispute which 
 lasted several months. 
 
 Turning to the French silk industry we find still more striking 
 illustrations of the survival of old standards. When the metric 
 system was established over a century ago, cotton, linen, wool and 
 other loose fibres were converted into yarn by rude processes that 
 were little if any better than those employed at the dawn of 
 history. The present development of the spun yarn industry is 
 due to comparatively recent improvements in carding, combing 
 and spinning machinery. We have seen how, in spite of these 
 favoring conditions, the mediaeval standards of these industries 
 still survive in France. In the silk industry the conditions \vere 
 different. Silk is spun by the worm to such a degree of fineness 
 and uniformity as to defy all attempts of man to equal it by arti- 
 ficial means. This was as true a century ago as it is to-day, and 
 explains why the manufacture of silk at the birth of the metric 
 system had reached a much higher development than the cotton, 
 woollen or linen industries. Silk manufacturing then resembled 
 the highly developed textile industry of the present day, and we 
 may, therefore, learn by a study of the progress of the metric 
 system in the silk industry the probable result of an attempt to 
 change our textile standards. We can begin such an examina- 
 tion in no better way than by presenting statements of the friends 
 of the metric system as to the condition of silk weights and meas- 
 ures in France and the rest of Continental Europe at the present 
 time : 
 
 Lamoitier, I' Indus trie Textile, October 15, 1902: 
 
 It is absolutely unworthy of us French, who were the first to find and 
 apply the metric system, to retain the aune and the denier for measuring 
 silk. 
 
 M. Jules Persoz, Silk Conditioning House, Paris, France, " Paris Metric 
 Congress," 1900, p. 33: 
 
 The size of silk is expressed in different ways in the different countries. 
 In France a law of June 13, 1866, provides that the number of silk shall 
 indicate the weight in grammes of a skein 500 metres long. Although legal 
 this standard has not been adopted by the trade, accustomed to a system 
 
TlfE METRIC FAILURE. 177 
 
 based on the weight in grammes or deniers (about .053 gramme), and a 
 length of 400 aunes (476 metres). Nearly the entire European trade em- 
 ploys similar variations. 
 
 M. Chamonard, 29 Rue Puits-Caillot, Lyon, France, at " Paris Metric 
 Congress," 1900, p. 35: 
 
 There is, to be sure, considerable apparent confusion in the measures 
 used in the various silk markets. In France, in spite of the law of 1866, 
 the denier (.0531 gramme) 476 metre is used; in Germany, the Turin 
 system denier (.05336 gramme) 476 metres; in Italy, the denier (.05 
 gramme) 450 metres. But these local measures which seem very diverse 
 are nearly equivalent. Thus, 20 denier Italian corresponds to 19.80 denier 
 French and to 19.90 denier Turin. Now the new numbers proposed will be 
 11 per cent, higher, a 20 denier Italian would be 22.20 by the new method. 
 That would cause complete confusion in our ideas of to-day as to the rela- 
 tion existing between the number and the size of silk. And thus under 
 the pretence of unification we create disorder. 
 
 Ibid., p. 79: 
 
 I will add in two words that the length of the 500 metre is so contrary 
 to established usage that it has never been used. The law providing it 
 has rested a dead letter since its passage twenty-five years ago. 
 
 M. J. Testenoire, Silk Conditioning House, Lyons, France. " Paris Metric 
 Congress," 1900, p. 79: 
 
 Because of the difficulties in adopting the standard called international 
 (demi-decigrammes per 500 metres), the conditioning houses of Lyon, El- 
 berfeld and Crefeld, which have experimented in this direction, have been 
 forced to return to the ancient measures to satisfy their customers. Be- 
 sides the Lyon and Italian standards there are two others, those of Turin 
 and Milan, which are nearly abandoned. The official French system is 
 not used. There remain, therefore, the Lyon and Italian systems. 
 
 Lamoitier, " Traite de Tissage," p. 49 : 
 
 The count of silk indicates the number of deniers in the weight of 400 
 aunes. Besides, other standards are used, the aune and denier of Mont- 
 pellier and of Lyon. The Lyon aune measures 1.19 metres; and the de- 
 nier -weighs .0531 gramme. There is also the Italian system. In Italy 
 and Switzerland the demi-decigramme is taken for the denier and 450 
 metres for the length. 
 
 The daily market reports afford the most convincing proof of 
 the survival of the old system of yarn numbering, and the total 
 neglect of the metric system of numbering in the French silk in- 
 dustry. In Le Moniteur de Tissage des Soieries, published at 
 Lyon, under date of June 12, 1903, appears a long list of silk 
 quotations furnished by Bayer, Mozet, Guilliee & Cie. of Lyon. 
 The list includes silk from France, Spain, Italy, Hungary, Syria, 
 Bengal, China and Japan. The size of every quality of organsin, 
 
178 THE METRIC FAILURE. 
 
 trame and grege is given by the denier system, based on the 
 denier and aune. The metric sizes are not mentioned at all. 
 This would be uniformity were it not for the fact that the silk is 
 sold in bulk by the kilo, the cloth by the metre, thus confusing 
 textile calculations and ideas with the incommensurable aune and 
 metre, denier and kilogramme. 
 
 The denier-aune remains to this day the French standard for 
 numbering silk. The essential factor, the ratio between length 
 and weight, indicating the length, weight, diameter and cubic 
 capacity of the silk thread, is the same as before the origin of 
 the metric system. The introduction of the metric system has 
 compelled French manufacturers to employ in calculations the 
 awkward metric equivalents, the number of times .0531 gramme is 
 contained in the weight of 476 metres, instead of the old and con- 
 venient standard, deniers per 400 aunes. 
 
 The French silk manufacturer of to-day would be far better 
 off as regards silk standards, if the metric system had never been 
 devised, for he would have the aune for all textile measurements, 
 cloth as well as yarn, instead of the mixture of units and their 
 exasperating equivalents. Napoleon recognized this when he 
 said: 
 
 The geometers, the algebraists, were consulted in a question which was, 
 in fact, purely one of an administrative character. They thought that 
 the unity of weights and measures should be deduced from some natural 
 order, so that it might be adopted by all the nations. 
 
 The law needed for this matter was so simple that it could have been 
 written out in twenty-four hours, and could' have been adopted and put 
 into practice throughout the whole of France in less than a year. All 
 that was required was to make the units of weights and measures of 
 Paris the only legal units throughout Prance. 
 
 The Government and the artisans had for generations past used these 
 weights and measures. 
 
 By sending standards to every commune, and by ordering the adminis- 
 tration and the tribunals not to recognize any others, this reform would 
 have been carried out without trouble, inconvenience, or coercive 
 measures. 
 
 It is amusing as well as instructive to study the erratic and 
 futile attempts to change the silk standards of France. The prob- 
 lem was so difficult that no interference with established standards 
 was attempted until 1866, when a law was passed providing that 
 the silk count shall indicate the demi-decigrammes per 500 metres, 
 or the equivalent, grammes per myriametre. This was proclaimed 
 as the " universal silk standard," was endorsed by Metric Con- 
 
THE METRIC FAILURE. 179 
 
 gresses, extolled in newspapers, at banquets and other public 
 places, and " adopted " by public conditioning houses, which had 
 the new count marked on their tickets. 
 
 During this period the new system styled " official " was in- 
 cluded in all the books on silk manufacturing, with pages 
 of tables giving the equivalents of the old and new counts. La- 
 moitier thus describes it : 
 
 " Traite de Tissage," p. 50: 
 
 Because of the fineness of silk and the method of reeling it, the method 
 of numbering by the kilogramme (1,000 metre hanks per kilogramme), 
 can seldom be used. The last (Metric) Congress of Brussels settled the 
 question of the unification of the metric system of numbering by retaining 
 the fixed length base, and substituting the myriametre for the aune, and 
 the gramme for the denier. And thus we obtain a system (fixed length) 
 very simple, practical, suited for all calculations, and universal because all 
 of its units are metric. 
 
 e that this, like all other metric systems, was born " uni- 
 versal/ 7 
 
 Then came a period of uncertainty during which the kilometre, 
 myriametre, and 450-metre systems found their advocates. The 
 450-metre-demi-decigramme system was practically the metric 
 equivalent of the old denier-aune standard, but could not be 
 juggled into anything decimal. If the denier-aune standard was 
 based on the gramme the length was 9 kilometres; if on the deci- 
 gramme it was 900 metres, and if on the demi-decigramme it was 
 450 metres. None of these was decimal. Something had to be 
 done, however, and the Metric Congress at the Paris Exposition of 
 1900, mindful of former failures to make the silk workers use 
 " universal " standards, formally admitted defeat and adopted the 
 equivalent of the denier-400 aune in the following resolutions : 
 
 Whereas, The official French numbering for silk, defined by the law 
 of ]866, has never been used in the silk trade, and, 
 
 Whereas, The only systems in use are the Lyons, used in the United 
 States, France, and Japan; the Italian, used in most of the other silk 
 countries, notably in Germany, Austria, Italy and Switzerland, and, 
 
 Whereas, It is important while seeking unification on metric and deci- 
 mal bases to take into account the customs of the different silk markets, 
 and, 
 
 Whereas, The difference between the two above-named systems is neg- 
 ligible, therefore, 
 
 Resolved, That the Italian system, which is metric and decimal, .be 
 adopted by all nations as the international standard. 
 
 Adopted unanimously. 
 
180 THE METRIC FAILURE. 
 
 In other words : 
 
 Whereas, Water will not run up hill at our command, therefore, 
 Resolved, That water shall in future run down hill. 
 
 It is encouraging to have a Metric Congress " adopt " a stand- 
 ard for anything because it is in general use. Some time they 
 may learn at Paris that there are 36 inches in a yard, 16 ounces in 
 a pound and 840 yards in a skein of spun yarn. This glimmer of 
 common sense was short-lived. The Congress adjourned, leav- 
 ing the control of " universal " weights and measures to a per- 
 manent committee, who, after the new demi-decigramme-450-metre 
 standard began to appear in technical literature, announced on 
 April 22, 1903, that this " universal " silk system had been re- 
 placed by one based on the 1,000 metre hanks per kilogramme. 
 And the Frenchman who in 1900 had declared that a fixed weight 
 system could not be used for numbering silk yarn, thus hailed a 
 fixed weight system as the silk standard for the universe. 
 
 Lamoitier, V Industrie Textile, July, 1903: 
 
 This is the standard established for the universe. Glory to the per- 
 manent committee of the Congress of 1900 who have reached so soon such 
 a marvellous result! 
 
 And the silk workers of Lyons are still reeling and weaving 
 by the denier-aune. Metric systems may come and metric sys- 
 tems may go, but the denier-aune goes on forever. 
 
 In mathematics certain truths are considered self-evident. Ko 
 line of reasoning can demonstrate them more clearly than they 
 demonstrate themselves. This is the case with the evidence of 
 the confusion existing in the textile weights and measures of 
 France to-day. Although France is the birthplace and has been 
 the home of the metric system for more than 113 years, textile 
 weights and measures are no nearer uniformity than in other 
 parts of Continental Europe. The evidence as to this confusion 
 outside of France is likewise overwhelming. Every technical 
 work on textile manufacturing, every textile journal published in 
 Europe is filled with the proof of it. I will present a small por- 
 tion of such testimony, enough, however, to convince the most 
 sceptical. During the revision of the German tariff last year, 
 1902, an agitation was started to dispense with the English and 
 use the metric system for assessing duties on imports of yarn. 
 The committee of the Reichstag gave a hearing on the ques- 
 tion, and the following item from the Leipziger Monatsclirift tells 
 
THE METRIC FAILURE. 181 
 
 how fiercely the proposition was resisted by German textile 
 manufacturers : 
 
 At the sitting of the tariff commission on June 24 (1902), the proposal 
 to introduce the metric system for cotton yarn came up. According to 
 Miinch-Ferber, delegate to the Reichstag, and a textile manufacturer, the 
 adoption of the amendment providing for the use of the metric system for 
 yarn would lead to "ungodly disorder" (heillose Verwirrung), in the 
 domestic weaving industry because all the machines are built to suit the 
 English system of numbering. 
 
 " Kalkulator f iir Artikel der Textilbranche," by Friedrich 
 Frowein, published in 1901 at Barmen, Germany, is a practical 
 treatise written for the purpose of simplifying textile calcula- 
 tions for everyday use. It, therefore, represents not only Ger- 
 man practice but also the simplest form to which such calcula- 
 tions can be reduced for German manufacturers. 
 
 Frowein, "Kalkulator," 1901, p. 3: 
 
 Cotton yarn is reckoned by the English hank and reel; this has been 
 adopted by all spinners of nearly every country. The price is likewise 
 always given per English pound. 
 
 On page 5 he begins an attempt to simplify the confusion of 
 
 standards. Ten different units of length are mentioned as fol- 
 lows: 
 
 Prussian ell 25 inches or 67 cm. 
 
 Wurtemburg ell 34-j. " " 62 cm. 
 
 Vienna ell 29$ " " 78 cm. 
 
 Baden ell 20 " " 60 cm. 
 
 Swedish ell 24 " 60 cm. 
 
 Russian archin 28 " 72 cm. 
 
 English yard 36 " " 91 cm. 
 
 Danish ell 24 " " 63 cm. 
 
 Bavarian ell 34$ " " 84 cm. 
 
 Saxon ell 24 " " 56$ cm. 
 
 The author explains the relation of each standard to the metric 
 system. This requires ten paragraphs, each accompanied by a 
 comparative table. One will give an idea of all : 
 
 Frowein,. p. 9 : 
 
 A Bavarian ell has 341 Inches or 84 cm. A metre is equal to 41^- Bava- 
 rian inches. One thread of single yarn per centimetre in a fabric one 
 Bavarian ell wide and 54 Bavarian ells or 45 metres long, gives a length 
 
182 THE METRIC FAILURE. 
 
 of 3,780 metres and, at 60 grammes per 100 metres for No. 1 yarn (Eng- 
 lish), a weight of 2,268 grammes. 
 
 6 Faden No. 1 (English) = 504 Faden = 22,680 Metres = 13,608 Grammes. 
 12 " " " =1,008 " = 45,360 " =27,216 
 
 18 " " " =1,512 " = 68,040 " =40,824 
 
 22 " " " =1,848 " = 83,160 " =49,896 
 
 28 " " " =2,352 " =105,840 " =63,504 
 
 The weight for any size is found by dividing the gramme number by the 
 yarn number (English). 
 
 A similar formula is given for each of the other nine units, 
 and in every one the English standard of yarn numbering (840 
 yds. per Ib.) is the only one mentioned, because it is the only 
 system used for cotton in Germany. These explanations still 
 leave the reader entirely in the dark as to the relations between 
 each ell and the other nine standards. Such a confusion of stand- 
 ards beggars description. It shows how the German textile 
 industry is handicapped to-day. 
 
 Next comes another series of ten explanations of how to cal- 
 culate the weight of yarn when the density of threads (set) is 
 given in threads per inch. One will illustrate all : 
 
 Frowein, p. 11: 
 
 Cloth 1 Prussian ell wide and 100 ells long. 
 
 1 thread per inch (1 ell = 25^ inches), 25 threads per 100 ells long = 
 2,550 ells = 1,020 grammes (75 ells =50 metres =1,700 metres No. 1 per 
 100 metres 60 grammes). 
 
 The following extract shows the use of the English inch for 
 gauging twist in yarn: 
 
 Ibid., p. 16: 
 
 The usual twist is from 25 to 30 turns per English inch. The expression, 
 so-and-so many turns, always means per English inch and this is the uni- 
 versal practice in the trade. In order to determine the turns accurately, the 
 number in a metre as indicated by a twist-counter is divided by 40, as 
 there are 40 English inches in one metre. 
 
 Note the tendency in practice to lengthen the metre to even 
 inches. 
 
 The same work contains a series of estimates of cost, covering 
 a wide range of textile fabrics which include cotton, linen, 
 worsted and silk cloths, ribbons, tapes, elastic fabrics, wool lace, 
 rick-rack, bobbin lace, etc. In every one except silk goods the 
 English system is predominant, and for silk the old aune and 
 denier are the standards. One of them, the estimate of cost of 
 
THE METRIC FAILURE. 183 
 
 cotton tape fabric, is shown at Fig. 2, and in each of the others a 
 similar tangle of English, metric and local standards exists. In 
 this estimate a separate column is inserted for prices per English 
 pound/ showing the prominent place occupied by this Anglo- 
 American standard in the textile industry of Continental Europe. 
 The reed is gauged by the number of dents per French line. 
 The yarn counts in both warp and filling are English, based on 
 the 840 yard standard. The picks of filling are given as so many 
 per French inch. The weight of the warp yarn is calculated in 
 metric grammes from the English counts, and extended at a price 
 in marks per English pound. The length of the filling yarn is 
 calculated per 100 metres of cloth from the picks per French inch 
 and the width in French lines. The weight of the filling in 
 grammes is then calculated from the English yarn count and the 
 length in metres. This weight in grammes is then extended at 
 a price in marks per English pound. 
 
 All of this blind staggering among a lot of incommensurable 
 units, consisting of the French inch, English yard, metric metre, 
 French line, English pound and metric gramme is necessary to 
 arrive at the cost of cotton tape measured lengthways in metres 
 and widthways in French lines. This is a simplified method of 
 u using the metric system in Germany." It shows what the 
 United States must come to if the system is ever introduced here. 
 
 On page 82 Frowein says: 
 
 All plans to dispense with the English hank (840 yards) have hereto- 
 fore involved the changing of our reels and skeins. From a practical 
 standpoint we do not view this as possible and we consider that the work of 
 a calculator should be confined rather to the conversion of the various 
 lengths and hanks now in use into metric standards. While theorists and 
 some others in trade circles favor the adoption of the French system with 
 1,000 metres, the author does not believe that its introduction is possible. On 
 one side the cost of changing our machinery, and on the other the altera- 
 tion in yarn numbers, offer insurmountable obstacles to the project. Fur- 
 thermore we do not believe that the introduction of the metric system 
 would be of any advantage to the spinner. The English spinner undoubt- 
 edly sets the standard with his system, that has been used for more than a 
 century and is known throughout the world, and he will not consent to 
 the introduction of the metric system. The German and French spinners 
 who use the English hank will likewise refuse to give their consent. 
 
 That is the opinion of a practical German in close touch with 
 the textile trade. 
 
 We have taken from this little book by Frowein but a few ex- 
 
184 
 
 THE METRIC FAILURE. 
 
 Zwirn-Band. 
 
 VsT 5 stichs Rieth zu 1. 64 Schuss pr.?A'J 
 Ketfe 3*3* Faden 8..Jwira. Einchlaa_40._Water 
 
 Preis 
 
 WWL 
 
 Preis 
 ft 
 
 100 Mtr. 
 
 
 Eisengarn. 
 
 Kette: 
 33 Faden X I 1 /* gr. 50 gr. 
 Einwirken lO^/p == o :' 
 
 ' Stuff 
 
 1.80 
 -.25 
 
 -.20 
 
 2.25 
 
 i.lu 
 .45 
 -.35 
 
 1.90 
 
 ! 
 I 
 
 -.2b 
 
 -.20 
 
 -.48 
 -.03 
 .02 
 
 oft 
 
 Farbe schwarz . . 
 Winden .... 
 
 lEin^engl.J'fd, Mk. 2.25, folglich 55 gr. . . 
 Einscblag: 
 
 tiKlXP^BtiSi 
 
 Einwirken 5/o 1^'.'. 
 
 clurch lg" i.Sff 11 = 31 Fnden :i 1"( > Mtr. 
 SIXlVogr. j? gr. 
 
 Farbe und liistrireu 
 Wimlen . . . 
 
 EineiigJ. . Pf <L Mk. 1.90, folglich 47 gr. . . 
 Verlust (') /o " .... 
 
 Kettenscheeren A 100 Faleiv-*i 100 Mtr. 6 Pig. 
 
 Frncht und Aufinachung 
 
 -.17 
 
 
 1.20 
 
 .10 
 
 
 1.30 
 
 i 
 
 FIG. 2. A GERMAN ESTIMATE OF COST OF COTTON TAPE. 
 
 Dotted lines = Old French Standards. 
 Broken lines = English Standards. 
 Double lines = Metric Standards. 
 
THE METRIC FAILURE. 185 
 
 tracts showing the chaos of European textile standards. To take 
 them all would mean to translate the entire book, for from begin- 
 ning to end there is an uninterrupted mixture of English, local 
 and metric standards. 
 
 A sample card published in Bayreuth, Germany, by Otto 
 Holtzhausen, shows 14 lengths of white cotton yarn, ranging 
 from No. 6 to No. 45, mounted on a black ground with the 
 number above each. In the few explanatory words attached 
 appears this sentence : " Die Nummernbezeichnung ist die 
 englische." (The counts are English.) This collection is issued 
 for sale to German merchants and manufacturers. There 
 is not one American cotton manufacturer whose ideas of yarn 
 sizes are not expressed exactly by this German card. Every one 
 of the 46,000,000 cotton spindles in England is spinning yarn by 
 its standard. The French spinners with their minds muddled by 
 the use of both the English system and a French system which 
 is not metric, are all acquainted with the English numbers on the 
 Bayreuth card. The spinner in Germany, where it was published, 
 in Switzerland, Holland, Belgium, Austria, Italy, Spain and 
 Kussia, are using and are perfectly familiar with its standard. 
 If we journey still further around the globe we will find the 
 5,000,000 spindles of India spinning cotton yarn by the same 
 standard and at less cost than in any other place on earth. Let 
 us go still further until China is reached ; open the German card 
 and the almond eyes of the celestial cotton spinner will brighten 
 in recognition of its numbers and sizes. Passing northward to 
 Japan we will find that the card likewise indicates the sizes of 
 Japanese yarn. Crossing the Pacific to the United States we 
 shall still hear the same monotonous story. Every American 
 cotton mill is spinning cotton yarn by the 840-yard standard of 
 this German card. 
 
 The table at Fig. 3, taken from the Leipziger Monatschrift 
 of October 31, 1902, illustrates the confusion of German standards 
 and how deeply the English yard-pound is embedded in German 
 textile literature and practice. It has been compiled for daily use 
 by weavers in reckoning the amount of yarn required for orders. 
 It is called: Theoretical requirements of yarn for 100 metres of 
 cotton cloth 100 centimetres wide, in English pounds. This is 
 bad enough, but worse is to come. The yarn counts at the head 
 of the columns are English based on 840 yards per pound. At 
 the left the set is given in threads per Vienna inch. The 
 
186 
 
 THE METRIC FAILURE. 
 
 Austrian weaver runs his eye down the columns headed English 
 yarn No. until he reaches the line at the left of which is the set 
 in threads per Vienna inch, and there he finds the weight in 
 English pounds of the yarn he needs for 100 metres of cloth 100 
 centimetres wide. And this is also called " using the metric 
 system." 
 
 The German spinners and merchants do not find it plain sailing 
 
 Theoretischer Garnverbrauch fur baumwollene Gewebe pro 100m Lange unct 100 cm Breite 
 
 in Pfnnd engl. 
 
 Engl. No. 1 10 [ 11 
 
 12 
 
 13 
 
 14 j 15 I 16 
 
 17 
 
 18 
 
 19 
 
 .20 ) 21 
 
 22 
 
 23 | 24 
 
 Kette-Abfrll 
 Schnss-Abfull 
 
 5,-/o|5,-/o 
 6, l /,/o6.-/o 
 
 5,-/ 
 W/o 
 
 m 
 
 gj 
 
 W/olW/o 
 S.-'Ajs.-P/o 
 
 V/*/o 
 5,^/0 
 
 8,Vi% 
 5,-/ 
 
 VT/ 
 
 SHY* 
 
 3,~<>/ 3,-<>/ l3,-o/ 
 
 V/AIV/.'/.IW/O 
 
 t;':M: 
 
 Fade^p. .,. 
 
 15;83 
 
 14,39 
 
 13,19 
 
 12,18 
 
 11,31 
 
 10,56 
 
 9,90 
 
 9,31 
 
 .8.80 
 
 8,33 
 
 7,92 
 
 7,54 
 
 7,20 
 
 6,88 
 
 6,60 
 
 Kiuweben / 
 
 3,41 
 
 3,10 
 
 2,84 
 
 2,62 
 
 2,43 
 
 2,27 
 
 2,13 
 
 2,01 
 
 1,89 
 
 1,79 
 
 1,70 
 
 1,62 
 
 1,55 
 
 1,48 
 
 1,42 
 
 9 
 
 17,81 
 
 16,19 
 
 14,84 
 
 13,70 
 
 12,72 
 
 11,87 
 
 11,13 
 
 10,48 
 
 9,90 
 
 9,38 
 
 8,91 
 
 8,48 
 
 8,10 
 
 v7,74 
 
 7,42 
 
 01 
 
 4,31 
 
 3,92 
 
 3,59 
 
 3,32 
 
 3,08 
 
 2,86 
 
 2,70 
 
 2,54 
 
 2,40 
 
 2,27 
 
 2,16 
 
 2,05 
 
 1,96 
 
 1,87 
 
 1,80 
 
 "10 ' 
 
 19,79 
 
 17,99 
 
 16,49 
 
 15,22 
 
 14,14 
 
 13,19 
 
 12,37 
 
 11,64 
 
 11,- 
 
 10,42 
 
 9,90 
 
 9,43 
 
 9,- 
 
 8,61 
 
 8,26 
 
 /t> 
 
 ,5,32 
 
 4,84 
 
 4,43 
 
 4,09 
 
 3,80 
 
 3,55 
 
 3,33 
 
 3,13 
 
 2,96 
 
 2,80 
 
 2,66 
 
 2,53 
 
 2,42 
 
 2,31 
 
 .2,22 
 
 11 
 
 21,77 
 
 19,79 
 
 18,H 
 
 16,75 
 
 15,55 
 
 14,51 
 
 13,61 
 
 12,81 
 
 12,09 
 
 11,46 
 
 10,89 
 
 10,87 
 
 9,90 
 
 9,47 
 
 9,07 
 
 /0 
 
 6,44 
 
 5,85 
 
 5,37 
 
 4,95 
 
 4,60 
 
 4,29 
 
 4,03 
 
 3,79 
 
 3,58 
 
 3,39 
 
 3,22, 
 
 3,07 
 
 2,93 
 
 2,80 
 
 2,68 
 
 18 
 
 23,75 
 
 21,59 
 
 19,79 
 
 18,27 
 
 16,96 
 
 15,83 
 
 14,84 
 
 13,97 
 
 13,19 
 
 12,50 
 
 11,88 
 
 11,81 
 
 10,80 
 
 10,33 
 
 9,90 
 
 /o 
 
 7,66 
 
 6,96 
 
 6,38 
 
 5,89 5,47 
 
 5,11 
 
 4,79 
 
 4,51 
 
 4,26 
 
 4,03 
 
 3,83 
 
 3,65 
 
 3,48 
 
 3,33 
 
 3,19 
 
 13 
 
 25,73 
 
 23,39 
 
 21,44 
 
 19,79 
 
 18,38 
 
 17,15 
 
 16,08 
 
 15,13 
 
 14,29 
 
 13,54 
 
 12,86 
 
 12,25 
 
 11,69 
 
 11,19 
 
 10,72 
 
 /o 
 
 ,- 
 
 8,18 
 
 7,50 
 
 6,93 
 
 6,43 
 
 6,- 
 
 5,63 
 
 5,29 
 
 -5, 
 
 4,74 
 
 4,50 
 
 4,29 
 
 4,09 
 
 3,91 
 
 3,75 
 
 14 
 
 27,71 
 
 25,19 
 
 23,09 
 
 21,31 
 
 19,79 
 
 18,47 
 
 17,32 
 
 46,30 
 
 15,39 
 
 14,58 
 
 13,85 
 
 13,20 
 
 .12,59 
 
 12,05 
 
 11,55 
 
 * % 
 
 10,32 
 
 9,38 
 
 8,60 
 
 7,94 
 
 7,37 
 
 6,88 
 
 6,45 
 
 6,07 
 
 5,73 
 
 5,43 
 
 5,16 
 
 4,92 
 
 .4,69 
 
 4,49 
 
 4,80 
 
 15 x 
 
 29,69" 
 
 26,99 
 
 '24,74 
 
 22,84 
 
 21,21 
 
 19,79 
 
 ,18,56 
 
 17,46 
 
 16,49 
 
 15.63 
 
 14,84 
 
 14.14 
 
 I3;49 
 
 12,91 
 
 12,37 
 
 d /o 
 
 n,9? 
 
 10,88 
 
 9,98 
 
 9,21 
 
 8,55 
 
 7,98 
 
 7,48 
 
 7,04 
 
 6,65 
 
 6>1 
 
 5,99 
 
 5,70 
 
 5,44 
 
 5,20 
 
 i 4,99 
 
 16 
 
 31,67 
 
 2&,79 
 
 26,39 
 
 24,36 
 
 22,62 
 
 21,11 
 
 19,79 
 
 18,63 
 
 17,59 
 
 16,67 
 
 15,83 
 
 15,08 
 
 14,39 
 
 13,77 
 
 ,13,20 
 
 /o 
 
 13,61 
 
 12,38 
 
 11,34 
 
 10,48 
 
 9,72 
 
 9,08 
 
 8,49 
 
 8,- 
 
 .7,56 
 
 7,16 
 
 6,81 
 
 6,47 
 
 6,19 
 
 5,92 
 
 5,67 
 
 17 
 
 33,65 
 
 30,59 
 
 28,04 
 
 25,88 
 
 24,03 
 
 22.43 
 
 21,03 
 
 19,79 
 
 18,69 
 
 17,71 
 
 16,82 
 
 16,02 
 
 15,29 
 
 14,63 
 
 14,02 
 
 % 
 
 14,78 
 
 13,44 
 
 12,32 
 
 11,38 
 
 10,56 
 
 9,m 
 
 9,24 
 
 8,69 
 
 8,20 
 
 7,78 
 
 7,39 
 
 7,03 
 
 6,73 
 
 6,44 
 
 <M5 
 
 18 
 
 35,63 
 
 32,39 
 
 29,69 
 
 27,40 
 
 25,45 
 
 23,75- 
 
 22,27 
 
 20,96 
 
 19,79 
 
 18,75 
 
 17,81 
 
 16,97 
 
 16,19 
 
 15,49 
 
 14,8.4 
 
 , % 
 
 17,24 
 
 15,66 
 
 14,36 
 
 13,26 
 
 12,32 
 
 11,49 
 
 10,78 
 
 10,14 
 
 9,58 
 
 9,08 
 
 8,62 
 
 8,20 
 
 7,84 
 
 7,50 
 
 7*18 
 
 19 
 
 37,60 
 
 34,19 
 
 31,34 
 
 28,93 
 
 26,86 
 
 25,07 
 
 '23,50 
 
 22,12 
 
 20,89 
 
 19,79 
 
 18,80 
 
 17,91 
 
 17,09 
 
 16,35 
 
 15,67 
 
 . /o 
 
 19,21 
 
 17,46 
 
 16, 
 
 14,78 
 
 13,72 
 
 12,80 
 
 12,- 
 
 11,30 
 
 10,67 
 
 10.11 
 
 9.B1 
 
 9,15 
 
 8,73 
 
 8,35 
 
 8, 
 
 20 
 
 39,58 
 
 35,99 
 
 32,99 
 
 30,45 
 
 28,27 
 
 26,39 
 
 24,74 
 
 23,28 
 
 21,99 
 
 20,83 
 
 19,79 
 
 18,85 
 
 17,99 
 
 17,21 
 
 16,49 
 
 V 
 
 21,28119,34 
 
 17,74 
 
 16,38 
 
 15,20 
 
 14,18 
 
 13,30 12,52 
 
 11,32 
 
 u,'40 
 
 10,61 
 
 10,14 
 
 9,68 
 
 9,25 
 
 8,8ti 
 
 F IG . 3._A GERMAN YARN TABLE. 
 
 in following the dictum of the Paris Metric Yarn Congress 
 of 1900, that spun yarn shall be numbered by the skein of 1,000 
 metres per kilogramme. Otto Holtzhausen, of Bayreuth, Ger- 
 many, rises to remark in the Leipziger Monatschrift that the Con- 
 gress, while telling what the trade should do, omitted to explain 
 how to do it : 
 
 The Paris Congress in its second resolution provides that " all kinds of 
 reeled yarn shall be put up in skeins of 1,000 metres each, divided deci- 
 mally." 
 
 This is not specific enough as to the method of reeling. It is assumed 
 that 10 bindings of 100 metres each will be used in place of 7 bindings of 
 840 yards wound on an English reel 1 yards in circumference. Then 
 follows resolution 3: 
 
 " All kinds of reels are permissive providing they give the length of 
 1,000 metres." 
 
THE METRIC FAILURE. 187 
 
 The provision in the second resolution for dividing the skein decimally 
 has remained nugatory because in reeling polished yarn only two divisions, 
 and in cross reeling no divisions whatever are possible. Furthermore, the 
 use of 10 bindings will increase the cost of reeling, because it is without 
 doubt more expensive to tie the skein in 10 parts than in 7 as at present. 
 
 Fully as convincing proof of the European confusion is found 
 in a series of articles now (July, 1903) running in the Leipziger 
 Monatschrift fuT Textil-Industrie and entitled, " Calculationen 
 in der Weberei mit besonderer Beruecksichtigung der Greiz- 
 Geraer Kleiderstoffbranche," by B. Ziegenhorn. In the intro- 
 duction he says : 
 
 Surprising as it may seem, the number of ends is reckoned by so many 
 " gangs " of 40 threads each, although this does not correspond with the 
 decimal system. Likewise the picks are counted by the Saxon inch. 
 
 Ibid.: 
 
 The filling is calculated by multiplying the metric filling set by the 
 metric width. For example: 
 
 59 gang 7 gang reed. 
 104 metres wide in loom. 
 120 metres wide finished. 
 120 picks per Saxon inch. 
 
 Here we have neither metric width nor metric filling set, as both factors 
 are given in Saxon inches. The width is equal to as many units of 6 Saxon 
 inches as 7* is contained in 59. 
 
 comes a table covering 60 square inches of fine type to 
 insist in the conversion of Saxon sets into metric and Saxon 
 widths. The German writer then gives a long list of examples to 
 illustrate the method of estimating the cost of various fabrics. 
 In every one of them the width and the warp set in the loom 
 and the picks are given in Saxon inches. 
 
 In the April, 1903, issue, a layout and explanation for a Jac- 
 quard crepe cloth is expressed as follows : 
 
 B. Ziegenhorn: 
 
 Jacquard crepe. 
 
 Finished width 100 centimetres. 
 
 55^ threads per inch (Saxon). 
 
 Warp, 59 gang = 2,360 ends, 2-40, Cheviot, English (840 yards per 
 pound). 
 
 Reed, 8 gang per 6 Saxon inches = 755 dents per metre. 
 
 Loom width, 44.3 Saxon inches = 104 centimetres. 
 
 Filling, No. 24 English (840 yards per pound), .54 threads per Saxon 
 inch 229 per 10 centimetres. 
 
 It should be noted that the English worsted reel is 1 yard in diameter: 
 
188 THE METRIC FAILURE. 
 
 7 skeins of 80 turns each = 560 yards. The count indicates the number of 
 560 yard skeins per English pound. In the example given f - English = 
 No. 20. As one English pound = 453.59 grammes, and one English yard = 
 .91438 metre, the metre length is: 
 
 20 x 560 x .91438 = 10241 metres per English pound. 
 The length per metre is then found as follows: 
 
 10241 x IPX) _ 22577.6 metres per kilogramme. 
 
 The metric number is rounded to 22$ or to 22 if the calculator desires 
 to facilitate the calculation still further. 
 
 The tendency toward round numbers in changing from one 
 standard of yarn numbering to another is thus referred to in the 
 Leipziger Monatschrift by Otto Holtzhausen, Bayreuth, Ger- 
 many: 
 
 The Alsatian yarn market in Miilhouse, where the French system is 
 used, furnishes an instructive example in rounding yarn counts. The pro- 
 portion of three systems, English, French and metric, are thus expressed: 
 
 French : English : : .846 : 1 
 French : metric : : 1 : 2 
 English: metric :: 1 : 1.6932 
 
 In the Miilhouse market the following round equivalents are used: 
 
 French No. 14 = English No. 14, 
 French No. 18 = English No. 21, 
 French No. 24 = English No. 28, 
 French No. 30 = English No. 36, etc. 
 
 Thus the ratio is changed to .8333 : 1 = 5 : 6 in order to facilitate cal- 
 culations, resulting in an increase of about 1 per cent, in the French 
 sizes. The same thing would occur in expressing the metric equivalents 
 of the English counts the ratio 1.6932 being changed to If 
 
 The difficulty in changing textile standards is thus stated by 
 the same writer in the Leipziger Monatschrift : 
 
 Tke change to the metric system of numbering means a complete revo- 
 lution of our notions of the thickness and length of yarns, because of the 
 variations in the divisions of the English and the metric scales. Thus 
 English No. : metric No. : : 1 : 1.6932. Consequently if we are to retain 
 the English sizes now used in our mills it will be necessary to indicate 
 them by compound numbers. This difficulty is still further aggravated 
 when we consider the method of packing skein yarn. At present we have 
 10 English pounds in one bundle and a bundle of No. 10, 16, 20 or 24 yarn 
 contains respectively 100, 160, 200 or 240 hanks (of 840 yards each). This 
 makes it possible to divide the bundle into -|.pound skeins, as is necessary 
 for the process of dyeing, bleaching or fancy weaving. This will be im- 
 
UNIVERSITY 
 
 OF 
 
 THE METRIC FAILURE. 
 
 possible with the metric system if the sizes of the yarn are not changed 
 because the metric skeins in a 5-kilogramme bundle of yarn of our present 
 sizes would be as follows: 
 
 English No. 10 = metric No. 16.6932 = 83.5 metric skeins. 
 
 English No. 16 = metric No. 27.0912 = 135.5 metric skeins. 
 
 English No. 20 = metric No. 33.8640 = 169.3 metric skeins. 
 
 English No. 24 = metric No. 40.6368 = 200.3 metric skeins. 
 
 From this it is clear that it will be impossible to divide a bundle into 
 equal parts of say 250 grammes, each containing skeins of uniform size, 
 allowing the yarn to be put again into bundles of the original size after 
 bleaching, dyeing, or other process. It is also evident that the metric 
 numbers cannot be rounded up or down to make such division possible be- 
 cause such rounding cannot be carried so far as to cause a material 
 difference in the size of the yarn. 
 
 In the May, 1903, instalment of his article, Ziegenhorn gives 
 further examples of crepe cloths, showing the same confusion of 
 standards. At Fig. 4 is his explanation of how to convert the 
 English cotton yarn numbers to the metric standard. The Eng- 
 lish standards are underlined with broken lines , the Saxon 
 
 with dotted lines Attention is called to the frequent ap- 
 pearance of such awkward expressions as .914, 768, and 453.59, 
 which are the metric equivalents for the English yard, 840 Eng- 
 lish yards and the English pound respectively. It is useless to 
 try to emphasize the exasperating confusion thus exhibited. 
 
 Technical and trade literature of Continental Europe is replete 
 with evidence of this confusion. Take for example the textile 
 market reports in the Wochenberichte der Leipziger Monatschrift 
 fur Textil- Industrie of July 8, 1903 : 
 
 Bremen, July 4th. All quotations for cotton given in marks 
 per English pound. 
 
 Zurich, Switzerland, July 4th. All sizes of cotton yarn given 
 in the English system (840 yards per pound, while quotations are 
 mixed, some given per kilogramme, others per English pound. 
 
 Miilhouse, July 4th. Cotton yarn sizes given by both the 
 metric and the English system. 
 
 Stuttgart, July 6th. Cotton yarn quoted by English sizes, per 
 kilogramme and per English pound. 
 
 Milan, July 4th, Lyon, July 3d, Turin, July 4th, Canton, 
 China, July 6th, Shanghai, China, July 6th, Yokohama, Japan, 
 July 6th. Silk. All sizes based on the old denier-aune standard. 
 ]S T o mention of metric sizes. 
 
190 THE METRIC FAILURE. 
 
 These conditions are unquestioned. They may be seen by any 
 one who will take the trouble to read the current market reports 
 and textile journals of Continental Europe. 
 
 German textile books present a confused jumble of English, 
 local and metric standards. 
 
 Ausfiihrung 17, 72% Faden im ,ZolL 
 3 s / 4 Proc. Eiriarbeitung. 
 
 (Zeichnung u. Karte 18 l .) 
 
 Kette: 77 GaDg = 3080 Faden 48 aa. 
 
 Blatt: lOJkgangig 4fadig = 742 Rohre auf. 1m. 
 
 Arbeitsbreite:.|4.Zpll.= 104 cm. 
 
 Schuss : j^7p.gebleichten mercerisirten Baumwbllzwirn. 
 
 Farbe u. Appretur: Entweder nur Waschappretur fur 
 
 creme, weiss oder zarte Ballfarben in uni oder 
 
 nur auf Wolle. 
 
 106 m Kette angelegt, 103 m Rohwaare. 
 
 Kette: 327 Zahlen_48aa. 
 
 Schuss: 245 Zahlen JJ70jgebleicht merceris. Baumw. 
 
 Die Nummer des Baumwollswirnes ist bei 
 der- Ausfiihrung der Calculation in tnetrische 
 uinzurechnen, ^^/Ti^^^^englische Baura- 
 woll-Zablen hapks}fli 7 fiebfellliasL a 80 
 Faden a J^^Yari ^ 0,914 m.~ l"]Eank_ i st 
 demnaeh ^^0 "Qjj^ 0,914 = 768 Mete? fang. 
 Die ^n^lJsche^Nummej^ wird nach der Anzahl 
 golcher hanks, die zusammen ein epglisches 
 jPfand, wiegen, bestimmt. Nummer ._3b_ ist 
 sonaclrSS: 768 m = 26880 m lang und wiegt 
 453,59, rund 454 Gramm; mitbin enthalt 
 1 kg davon: 
 
 454 : 1000 = 26880 : 59207 Meter, 
 
 2^0_Baumwollzwirn ware also c. 59 Nummer 
 
 metriseh. 
 
 Dotted lines = Saxon Standards. 
 Broken lines = English Standards. 
 
 FIG. 4. A TYPICAL GERMAN TEXTILE CALCULATION. \ 
 
 Kutzer, " Garn-Nummerirungen," 1901. Systems of yarn numbering: 
 
 Linen, hemp and jute: English and Austrian (the latter is local and 
 unimportant). 
 
 Ramie: English and metric. 
 
 Cotton: English, French and metric. 
 
 Worsted: English, French and metric. 
 
 Carded woollen: metric, English, French, Austrian, Berlin or Belgian, 
 Prussian, Old Austrian, Vienna, Saxon. 
 
 Waste silk: English and metric. 
 
 Reeled Silk: Old Lyons, New Lyons, Turin, Milan, Piedmont, metric 
 (demi-decigrammes per 500 metres, official but not used). 
 
THE METRIC FAILURE. 191 
 
 In addition to these Kutzer gives a long list of local systems 
 used for the different textile materials. Thirteen pages are filled 
 with elaborate tables for the conversion of these standards into 
 each other. The work closes with a list of 21 ells and 10 different 
 pounds used in Continental Europe, giving the metric equivalent 
 for each. 
 
 " Die Eigenschaf ten der Gespinste," by Heinrich Briiggemann, 
 Stuttgart, 1897, is a mass of complicated formulas, tables and 
 explanations to simplify the use of European textile weights and 
 measures. Of the forty-three pages devoted to the subject of 
 yarn numbering and sizes, forty are occupied with the English 
 and local European systems. 
 
 Donat, " Methodik der Bindungslehre," Wien, Pest, Leipzig, 
 1901, contains a repetition of the confusion of which the follow- 
 ing statement of yarn numbering is a fair sample : 
 
 Cotton: English, French, metric. 
 
 Linen and jute: English, Austrian. 
 
 Worsted: English, metric. 
 
 Carded woollen: English, Austrian, Prussian, Saxon, metric. 
 
 Silk: Milan, Turin, Lyon, metric (not used). 
 
 On page 110 is the following list of 7 ells, 5 pounds and 4- 
 inches with their metric equivalents : 
 
 UMBECHNUNGS-TABELLE. 
 
 Ellen. Meter. Pfund. Kilogramm. 
 
 Leipziger .566 Englisch .4536 
 
 Bohmisch .6 Leipziger .467 
 
 Berliner .667 Franzosisch .4895 
 
 Brabanter .694 Zoll .5 
 
 Wiener .777 Wiener .56 
 
 Englisch .9144 
 
 Franzosisch 1.188 
 
 1 Leipziger inch = 2.336 cm. 1 cm. = .428 Leipziger inch. 
 
 1 Englischer inch = 2.54 cm. 1 cm. = 2,54 Englischer inch. 
 
 1 Wiener inch = 2.635 cm. 1 cm. = .379 Wiener inch. 
 
 1 Franzosischer inch = 2.707 cm. 1 cm. = .369 Franzosischer inch. 
 
 On page 111 is a section treating of twist in yarn. The turns 
 are given by the English inch, no mention of the metric system 
 being made. 
 
 "Mechanische Technologic der Weberei," by Hermann Oelsner, 
 Altona, 1902, is a standard German treatise on weaving, now in 
 its eighth edition. Like the other books referred to, it shows 
 plainly the present confusion of weights and measures in Europe 
 
192 THE METRIC FAILURE. 
 
 as well as the general use of the English standards. .Following 
 are a few extracts : 
 
 Oelsner, p. 20: 
 
 The English system of reeling is the one most used. The spinners of 
 nearly all countries have adopted it. The hank is 840 yards long. The 
 count indicates the number of hanks of 840 English yards (768 metres), in 
 1 English pound. 1 pound = 454 grammes. In France and a portion of 
 Belgium cotton yarn is numbered by the French system, the count indicat- 
 ing the number of 1,000-metre hanks in 1 French pound ( kilo). 
 
 Ibid., p. 74: 
 
 Carded woollen yarn is reeled and numbered in a great many different 
 ways, which appear to have been the result of chance rather than of any 
 practical requirements. Following are the most important: 
 
 Prussian, 2,200 Berlin ells and 1 Berlin pound. 
 Cockerill, 2,240 Berlin ells and 1 French pound. 
 Saxon, 800 Leipzig ells and 1 French pound. 
 Saxon, 1,200 Leipzig ells and 1 French pound. 
 Vienna, 1,760 Vienna ells and 1 Vienna pound. 
 Bohemia, 800 Leipzig ells and 1 English pound. 
 English, 560 English yards and 1 English pound. 
 Elbceuf, 3,600 metres and 1 French pound. 
 Sedan, 1,256 Paris ells and 1 Paris pound. 
 
 Ibid., p. 83: 
 
 In Germany and Austria worsted yarn is reeled and numbered to corre- 
 spond with the English system. In France, Belgium, Switzerland and Italy 
 the hank is 600 aunes in length, the count indicating the hanks per ^ kilo. 
 
 Ibid., p. 93: 
 
 The size counts of silk indicate the weight in deniers of 9,600 aunes. 
 
 On page 107 of Oelsner ? s work is a table showing the following 
 comparisons of yarn numbering : English, 840 yards per pound ; 
 French, 1,000 metres per 1 French pound (J kilo); English, 560 
 .yards per pound; Old French, 600 aunes (720 metres) per French 
 pound ; Prussian, 2,200 Berlin ells per French pound ; Saxon, 800 
 Leipzig ells per French pound. 
 
 Following this table is a long section on general calculations 
 which are involved in an indescribable mixture of local, English 
 and metric standards of length and weight. Chaos prevails 
 throughout the entire section. There is a long series of compara- 
 tive tables introduced to simplify the conversion of one standard 
 to another. Following are a few samples of the confusion ex- 
 liibited in this part of what is probably the best and most practical 
 work on weaving in the German language : 
 
 Page 108 : The standards of length for nineteen different 
 
THE METRIC FAILURE. 193 
 
 systems, stated in the following units: Leipzig ell, Berlin ell, 
 Vienna ell, English yard, metre. 
 
 Page 110: The circumference of eleven different reels. Six 
 are 'given in English yards, two in metres, the other three in local 
 ells. 
 
 Page 119 : In Prussian mills the set of fabrics is based on the 
 number of gangs of 40 threads each in a quarter, Berlin ell (6f 
 Prussian inches). 
 
 Page 121 : The following table gives the threads per centi- 
 metre and per French inch for the Crefeld system of indicating 
 the set. The system is based on 38 French inches = 104.8 
 cubic metres = 41J English inches. (This table is too long to 
 be inserted here. Following are a few sample fractions taken 
 from it: llflt; Slf,; 12^; 88H-) 
 
 In Switzerland and France the system is based on the number 
 of threads and dents per French inch or per cm. 
 
 Page 124: An elaborate table based on the Leipzig inch and 
 showing the effect of contraction on the set. 
 
 Page 130: The metric equivalents of the following standards 
 of length : 
 
 Prussian ell, Vienna ell, 
 
 Saxon ell, English yard, 
 
 Brabant ell, Danish ell, 
 
 Bavarian ell, Swedish ell, 
 
 Wurtemberg ell, Kussian archin. 
 
 Baden ell, 
 
 The same equivalents in round numbers. 
 
 Pages 132, 133, 134, 135 : These four pages and part of page 
 136 are filled with tables reducing the metre to Berlin, Leipzig 
 and English ells (yards), Berlin, Leipzig and English ells to 
 metres, centimetres to Leipzig, Rhenish and English inches. 
 
 Page 137 : Tables for reduction of sets by Leipzig standard (6 
 Leipzig inches) to threads per Leipzig inch, per 140 centimetres, 
 per centimetre, per Rhenish inch and per English inch. All this 
 is German practice in the textile industry to-day. The Saxon 
 inch, English yard, French metre, English pound and French kilo- 
 gramme are involved in hopeless confusion. This exhibit, bad as 
 it is, shows only the bare formulas. The real difficulty begins 
 when an attempt is made to apply them, to make the calculations 
 that are constantly arising in daily mill work. It should not be 
 forgotten that the introduction of metric standards into American 
 
194 THE METRIC FAILURE. 
 
 textile industry, where the English yard, inch, pound and ounce 
 now reign, means a condition but little better than this Saxun- 
 English-metric mix-up. 
 
 A hand-book of cotton spinning, Guia Practic pera la Filatura 
 del Goto, by Emili Eiera, Barcelona, 1901, shows that a similar 
 confusion exists in Spain. As the machinery used is English the 
 illustrations for the book have been taken from English draw- 
 ings, the English words not having been changed. The Cata- 
 lonian system of numbering yarn is thus described : 
 
 Riera, p. 70: The Catalonian system is based on a weight of l-^- lliures 
 and a hank of 500 canes. The count indicates the number of hanks in 
 this weight. 
 
 Evidently this system of counts was derived from the English, 
 for there is a difference of only 4J per cent, between them. Then 
 follows an explanation of a Spanish method based on a fixed 
 length and the weight in quarter ounces. Then comes the Eng- 
 lish followed by the French system, but the metric standard is 
 not mentioned. There are several tables showing the equivalents 
 by the Catalonian, English and French systems of numbering 
 yarn, with the weight of 1,000 metres, but no mention of the 
 metric count. The book exhibits a deplorable confusion of Span- 
 ish, English and metric weights and measures, to which lack of 
 space prevents extended reference. 
 
 The evidence which is here presented proves beyond a shadow 
 of doubt that as far as textile weights and measures on the Con- 
 tinent are concerned the attempt begun 110 years ago to make 
 them metric has been a failure, the small measure of success 
 attained having served only to increase the disorder. It demon- 
 strates that changing established size numbers for yarn is prac- 
 tically impossible, that the attempt to change them in Europe has 
 simply caused a conversion of the standards on which they are 
 based from old to metric units, causing a condition worse than the 
 first. The same result would surely follow a similar attempt to 
 change the American system of numbering yarn. 
 
 Assuming that American weights and measures are changed to 
 the metric system, let us trace the resulting changes in yarn num- 
 bering as indicated by the experience of Europe. During the 
 first stage of the " transition " period the yard and pound, kilo- 
 gramme and metre would be in use, and it would be necessary to 
 preserve the metric equivalents of the yard and the pound; the 
 
THE METRIC FAILURE. 195 
 
 cotton, woolen, worsted and linen standards being expressed as 
 follows : 
 
 Cotton, now 840 yards per pound; then 768.09 metres per 
 -ir.o.59 grammes. 
 
 Worsted, now 560 yards per pound; then 512.05 metres per 
 g 
 
 Woollen, now 1,600 yards per pound; then 1,463.04 metres per 
 kilogramme. ^3' 3< J"*? &l/\/c\s*^s^+vJ t i>& 
 
 Linen, now 300 yards' per pound; then 274.31 metres per kilo- 
 
 The next period would come after the yard and pound 1 had 
 disappeared; the cotton, woollen, worsted and linen, standards 
 could then be based on the kilogramme as follows : 
 
 Cotton skeins of 1,693.63 metres per kilogramme. 
 
 Worsted skeins of 1,129.09 metres per kilogramme. 
 
 Woollen skeins of 3,226 metres per kilogramme. 
 
 Linen skeins of 604.85 metres per kilogramme. 
 
 A comparison of the awkward expressions of either the first or 
 the second stages with our present standards of 840, 560, 1,600 
 and 300 yards per ounce, shows how much better off we are now 
 than we would be then. 
 
 The first two stages of this process of evolution can now be 
 found in France. In Elboauf the numbering of carded yarn is 
 based on a fixed weight of 40 sous (an old unit of weight) or its 
 equivalent, 500 grammes, and a variable length expressed in a 
 skein of 3,600 metres. This is the first stage. Passing to Rou- 
 baix, for example, we find the evolution in the second stage, the 
 fixed weight being the kilogramme and the variable length ex- 
 pressed in skeins of 714 metres. 
 
 The third stage in France is the use of the system based on the 
 1, 000-metre skein and the kilogramme. The last named is the only 
 one that is metric, and has been introduced to some extent in 
 the woollen industry, but in the other branches it is used so little 
 as to hardly warrant the statement that the last stage has begun. 
 
 Thus the experience of Europe teaches us that the metric 
 system will first give us a 768. 09-metre, 453. 59-gramme cotton yarn 
 system for centuries, with equally absurd bases for each of the 
 other systems. If we escape from them we shall have another 
 era with the absurdities reduced one-half; in the meantime, end- 
 less confusion. 
 
 The process of conversion by which yarn counts remain un- 
 
196 
 
 THE METRIC FAILURE. 
 
 changed has left Continental Europe with practically all the 
 systems of numbering yarn that have ever been used there to any 
 considerable extent. This chaotic state of yarn numbering is 
 shown in tabular and graphic form in another chapter where the 
 two systems, English and metric, are compared. 
 
 The evidence presented by Europe proves that a change of 
 textile standards is a task of such difficulty as to be practically 
 impossible, even when backed by all the might of arbitrary and 
 despotic power, and confirms beyond a doubt the belief that an at- 
 tempt to change textile standards in a free country like our own 
 is simply impossible, and that partial success will create confusion 
 instead of contributing to uniformity. 
 
 In this matter of weights and measures the preferences and opin- 
 ions of employers do not control. There is probably not one textile 
 manufacturer in France, Germany, Austria, Italy and Spain, who 
 does not ardently favor the use of the metric system. ~No one 
 should deceive himself by thinking that this unanimity is due to 
 the merits of the metric system. They favor it because it offers 
 the only way of escape from the chaos of local standards in which 
 Europe is involved. They are, however, powerless to bring this 
 about, owing among many other things, to the familiarity of their 
 employes with the old units. Textile weights and measures are 
 regulated by the millions who create wealth in the mill, not by 
 the hundreds who count that wealth in the counting-house. 
 
 Let us now compare the system we have with the metric system 
 which we are asked to accept in its place. The evidence shows 
 that such a change is impossible and therefore a comparison of 
 the two systems is not of any practical value, except as it may 
 furnish cumulative proof of the folly of attempting to change 
 American textile standards. 
 
THE ENGLISH AND THE METKIC SYSTEM COMPARED. 
 
 Look here upon this picture, and on this. Hamlet. 
 
 The English textile standards are six in number: 
 yard, 
 inch, 
 pound, 
 ounce, 
 dram, 
 grain. 
 
 The metric textile standards are eiam in number: 
 metre, / 
 decimetre, 
 centimetre, 
 
 kilogramme, 
 gramme, 
 decigramme, 
 centigramme. 
 
 The first thing to attract attention is the individuality of the 
 English names. The words yard, inch, pound, ounce, dram and 
 grain are short, crisp expressions, and each conveys a distinct 
 impression to both the eye and the ear. Each stands forth as the 
 unique representative of a particular measure of weight or length. 
 
 The metric words, metre, decimetre, centimetre, millimetre, 
 kilogramme, gramme, decigramme and centigramme are long, cum- 
 bersome and very much alike. The name of each metric unit of 
 weight sounds like the name of every other metric unit of weight ; 
 the name of each metric unit of length sounds very like that of 
 every other metric unit of length. The English units have English 
 names which are a part of the English language. The metric 
 units with their Greek and Latin prefixes and wearisome suffixes 
 have a strange, monotonous sound and appearance. It is difficult 
 to connect the idea with the metric word. As some one has well 
 
198 THE METRIC FAILURE. 
 
 I 
 
 said: The metric units resemble a party of foreigners in uniform; 
 they all look alike and jabber alike. 
 
 As far as nomenclature is concerned the English system is 
 decidedly superior. 
 
 It is the dimensions of the units, however, that are most im- 
 portant. The yard is 36 inches long, the metre 39f inches. This 
 difference is less than 10 per cent, of the yard, and not enough to 
 affect the value of either as a textile standard. 
 
 The exclusively decimal divisions of the metre are. however, 
 decidedly objectionable. The mind naturally divides the yard 
 by successive halving. The first division is into halves; then 
 come J and -J, f , f, J and . This is the general practice in 
 handling textiles. 
 
 One-quarter is the smallest fraction of a yard used in measur- 
 ing cloth from the loom. One-eighth is the smallest used for fin- 
 ished goods. By the metric system \ becomes .25, while -J is 
 .125. These long, cumbersome decimals will not answer for ex- 
 pressing fractions of the yard. The purchaser of cloth by retail 
 could never be induced to call for A of a yard when she wanted 
 ^, or for AVo" when she wanted J-. 
 
 The other English textile standard of length is the inch. For 
 the various uses to which the inch is put the metric decimetre, 
 centimetre and millimetre are used. 
 
 The English inch is unquestionably the best standard for 
 determining the set (density of threads) of textile fabrics in cloth 
 analysis. It is not so long as to make the counting of the threads too 
 laborious. It is not so short as to cause serious error by discarding 
 a fraction of a thread. For example, 27 warp threads per inch are 
 equivalent to 6f per quarter inch. The omission of the fraction, J, 
 from the number of threads per quarter inch means a difference 
 of 168 threads in the warp for goods 56 inches wide, while the 
 omission of a like fraction from the number of threads per inch 
 means a difference of but 42 threads in the same width. Every 
 practical textile manufacturer w r ill recognize how important the 
 difference^ 126 ends, is in a 1,512 end warp. 
 
 For like reasons a distance approximating an inch is the best 
 for gauging the set of the filling (picks). The superiority of the 
 English inch for this purpose is attested by the fact that the 
 French weavers, over one hundred years after the birth of the 
 metric system, are still using the inch for counting picks. 
 
 Turning to the metric system we have the centimetre (T\ inch) 
 
THE METRIC FAILURE. 199 
 
 and the decimetre (4 inches) for gauging the set of cloths. The 
 centimetre is too short, because the omission of one thread or even 
 a part of a thread from the calculations makes a difference which 
 might seriously affect the structure of the fabric. Take, for 
 example, a 32-ounce Irish frieze cloth made 140 centimetres 
 wide ; 10 threads per centimetre would be equal to 1,400 threads 
 in the warp. An omission of one thread in the count is easily 
 made in cloth analysis and would mean a difference of 10 per 
 cent, of 140 threads, which with the ordinary size of frieze yarn 
 would make a difference of lyV ounces per yard in the warp 
 alone. The same error might easily creep into the filling, im- 
 pairing both the appearance and the weight of the goods. 
 
 That this is a practical difficulty with the metric system is 
 shown by the following extract from " Methodik der BindungS: 
 lehre und Decomposition fur Schaftweberei," a standard German 
 work on weaving by Franz Donat, Professor at the Royal Weav- 
 ing School at Reichenberg: 
 
 ' The threads in warp and filling are gauged by the number per deci- 
 metre. The use of the decimetre is unsafe (unsicher), because from one- 
 half to one thread (even more in silk goods), may easily be overlooked." 
 
 Weavers at the loom must frequently count the picks in the 
 cloth to make sure that the fabric is being woven with the right 
 number of filling threads per inch. This must be done in the 
 midst of the confusion and din of the weave room while the loom 
 is running, and while counting the picks the weaver must watch 
 the work and machines to see that nothing goes wrong. In ordi- 
 nary woollen fabrics the picks often run as high as sixty per inch. 
 To count these sixty threads in one inch correctly under such 
 conditions requires the closest attention, and errors are then very 
 likely to occur owing to interruptions incident to the operation of 
 weaving. To count correctly four times that number, or 240 
 per decimetre (4 inches) under the same conditions would be a 
 physical and mental impossibility. 
 
 For expressing the woven and finished widths of textile fabrics 
 the English system offers the inch and its subdivisions; the 
 metric system, the centimetre or the millimetre. Wide cloths 
 are woven and sold in the United States as so many even inches 
 wide. For example, we have 36, 40, 44, 48, 50 or 56 inch goods. 
 These expressions of width (consisting of but two figures) are 
 easily written or spoken and are constantly used, not only by the 
 manufacturers but also by the commission merchants, jobbers, 
 
200 THE METKIC FAILURE. 
 
 retailers, tailors, and that large part of our population who buy 
 dress goods, and all other kinds of textile fabrics at the retail 
 counters of our stores. 
 
 The centimetre is too short for the finished widths of wide 
 fabrics. Inches express such widths as closely as is necessary. 
 
 By the metric system the finished goods are expressed in centi- 
 metres. This necessitates the use of three figures for all goods 
 40 inches or more in width. A comparison of the following ex- 
 pressions both when written and spoken shows how much more 
 concise and expressive are the English terms : 
 
 English. Metric. 
 
 36 inches. 90 centimetres. 
 
 40 inches. 100 centimetres. 
 
 44 inches. 110 centimetres. 
 
 56 inches. 140 centimetres. 
 
 Frequently these widths are given in quarter-yards, thus, J-, } r 
 f > i> if i? e tc. Turning to ribbons and tape, European practice 
 proves that the metric units are unsuited even for very narrow 
 widths. The French inch divided into 12 lines, the line being 
 again divided into quarters, is still used there for the width of 
 narrow fabrics. Frowein, " Kalkulator f iir Textile Branche," 
 p. 91, thus states the difficulty with the metric units : 
 
 The different widths of tape and ribbon often vary by line. It is- 
 greatly to be regretted that, the millimetre being too long for the measure- 
 ment, we find here an obstacle to using the millimetre for expressing 
 widths and thus bringing it into use in commerce. 
 
 None of the successive decimal divisions of the metre are 
 suited for either the commercial or manufacturing widths of 
 textile fabrics. For the finished widths of the wide goods the 
 decimetre is too long, the centimetre too short. For narrow 
 fabrics the millimetre in turn is too long and its decimal divisions 
 too short. For all of these widths the inch, divided to suit the 
 particular case, answers every purpose perfectly. Could there 
 be any stronger confirmation of the following extract from John 
 Quincy Adams' report? 
 
 Thus, then, it has been proved, by the test of experience, that the prin- 
 ciple of decimal divisions can be applied only with many qualifications to 
 any general system of metrology; that its natural application is only to- 
 
THE METRIC FAILURE. 201 
 
 numbers; and that time, space gravity and extension inflexibly reject 
 its sway. 
 
 Xext compare the English and metric systems for expressing 
 the width of wide goods in process of manufacture. Cloth is 
 made wider in the loom than when finished, to allow for the 
 shrinkage in finishing, the difference varying widely in different 
 fabrics. This loom width must be adjusted with extreme care 
 that not only the final width, but also the weight, " handle " and 
 finish of the goods may be right. 
 
 An occurrence at the Hecla Mills, Uxbridge, Mass., in 1887, 
 will illustrate this point. The mill was started on fabrics for 
 which the samples had been made in another mill. In sending 
 the drafts to the Hecla, the designer at the other mill marked 
 the loom width Scinches wider than it should have been. Before 
 the error was discovered the Hecla mill was filled with tender 
 and unmerchantable goods, a large part of which was sold as 
 u seconds," most of the remainder at a heavy loss. This is an 
 extreme case but shows the necessity of a correct adjustment of 
 the loom or manufacturing width. A difference of f of an inch 
 in the width at the loom or fulling mill may mean the success or 
 failure of a fulled worsted or woollen fabric. 
 
 The American practice is to express the loom width in inches 
 and tenths of an inch; thus 68.1 inches. This adjustment to -fa of 
 an inch is as fine as is required, the expression requiring but 
 three figures. The metric practice is to express the loom width 
 in centimetres or millimetres. The centimetre (rVinch) is four 
 times as long as one-tenth of an inch, and thus the loom width can 
 be adjusted to the tenth of an inch with four times the degree of 
 accuracy that is possible with the use of the centimetre. 
 
 The objection to the use of the millimetre is that it necessitates 
 the use of four figures to express the width of wide cloths. 
 
 From these considerations the conclusion is obvious that as a 
 practical standard for the manufacturing width of wide cloths, 
 the English inch divided into tenths is superior to the metric 
 centimetre or millimetre. 
 
 The square yard and square metre are used to some extent in 
 trade and commerce; as a standard by which to assess customs 
 duties, for example. For such purposes there is nothing to 
 choose between the yard and the metre. The difference in the 
 size of these two units does not affect the utility of either. Meas- 
 ures of area in textile manufacturing are employed chiefly in the 
 
202 THE METRIC FAILURE. 
 
 analysis of fabrics, the square inch being the English, the square 
 centimetre or decimetre the metric standard. 
 
 Cloth analysis is an important operation of the textile manu- 
 facturer. Much depends upon the degree of accuracy with which 
 the structure of a fabric is determined, and a slight error may 
 cause much loss to a mill by reason of the goods coming out differ- 
 ent from the sample they were intended to duplicate. The two 
 important factors to be determined from measures of area are 
 the weight per yard or metre, and the size of the yarn. Both 
 are calculated from the weight of a sample of small area, and 
 upon the size of this area depends the accuracy of the analysis. 
 The effect of an error on the resulting fabric diminishes as the 
 area of the sample enlarges and increases as the size of the sample 
 grows smaller. The analysis of cloth involves much tedious 
 labor in ravelling and counting threads, which increases with the 
 size of the sample. Experience has shown that for analyzing 
 most cloths, particularly union fabrics composed of two or more 
 kinds of yarn, the best size is that approximating four square 
 inches. It is not so large as to make the ravelling and counting 
 of the threads unnecessarily laborious, nor so small as to make a 
 serious defect in the cloth result from a slight error. The size 
 of the yarn in a sample can be determined by a simple division of 
 the threads per inch by the weight, if the sample is of a certain 
 area. This area must be such that each thread in the set of the 
 fabric will be equal to the length of the skein on which the size 
 number is based. Now let us see what such an area is by the 
 English and also by the metric system. 
 
 The set of fabrics is expressed in threads per English inch. 
 The English system of yarn numbering based on 840 yards per 
 pound, or 4.32 inches per grain, is used as the basis for cloth 
 analysis. It is plain that for each thread per inch there will be 
 4.32 inches of yarn in an area of 4.32 square inches. The yarn 
 count can then be calculated by a simple division of the threads 
 per inch by the grains in the weight of the area which has been 
 found to be the best for the analysis. 
 
 The metric system of yarn numbering is based on 1,000 metres 
 per kilogramme, 1 decimetre per decigramme, or 1 centimetre per 
 centigramme. We can thus adjust the size of our sample to suit 
 either the decigramme or centigramme basis. By the former the 
 area is one square decimetre (15^ inches); by the latter one square 
 centimetre (^ square inch). To meet the requirements of the 
 
THE METRIC FAILURE. 203 
 
 simplest calculation there is no unit of area between the square 
 centimetre (| square inch), which is one-sixth the size of a two- 
 cent postage stamp, and the square decimetre (15^ inches), which 
 is equal in area to an ordinary business envelope. The square 
 centimetre is out of the question because it is so small; the 
 square decimetre is equally unavailable because it is so large. 
 We. cannot get around the difficulty by making the area 10 square 
 decimetres, for this is but 1^ square inches, or less than one-half 
 the area required (4- square inches). 
 
 The only course open with the metric system is to make the 
 area approximately 4 square inches, say 5 centimetres square, 
 complicating the calculation and involving the correct position of 
 
 FIG. 5. THE SAMPLE ANALYZED. 
 
 the decimal point in doubt. Much the greater part of the cal- 
 culations for cloth analysis are those to determine the size of the 
 yarn, and for these we find the English units of area much 
 superior. The weight of cloths is expressed by the English 
 system by ounces per yard or by yards per pound, by the metric 
 system by grammes per metre. 
 
 By the metric system the weight per metre of cloth is cal- 
 culated from the area (25 square centimetres) by multiplying the 
 weight of the sample by the width of the cloth in centimetres 
 and dividing by the area of the sample. By the English system 
 each grain of the weight of the sample is equivalent to one ounce 
 per yard 52 J inches, wide, and thus by multiplying the w.eiglri of 
 the sample in jp*"^ by the width of the cloth in oonibimotroa 
 and dividing by 52, the ounces per running yard are found. 
 The process in each case is one of simple proportion. The yards 
 per pound or metres per kilogramme are calculated by a similar 
 process. 
 
204 THE METRIC FAILURE. 
 
 We will illustrate these calculations by the analysis of two 
 samples of the union fabric shown at Fig. 5, one by the English, 
 the other by the metric system. This cloth is an English cotton 
 and worsted fabric known in the market as the " Varsity " 
 vesting. A sample 1 finches by 2^ inches and another 5 centi- 
 metres by 5 centimetres are cut for the English and metric 
 analyses respectively. Each piece is weighed, and enough warp 
 and filling is then ravelled to enable the projecting threads to be 
 counted in one inch of the English and in 5 centimetres of the 
 metric sample. After the warp and filling threads are thus 
 counted, the remainder of the sample is ravelled and each kind of 
 yarn separated and weighed. The results of these operations are 
 as follows : 
 
 English sample : 
 
 Warp. Worsted, 4.2 grains, 62 threads per inch. 
 
 Cotton, 1.8 grains, 31 threads per inch. 
 Filling. Cotton, 7 grains, 130 threads per inch. 
 Total, 13 grains. 
 
 Metric sample: 
 
 Warp. Worsted, 25 centigrammes, 124 threads per 5 centi- 
 metres. 
 
 Cotton, 11 centigrammes, 62 threads per 5 centi- 
 metres. 
 
 Filling. Cotton, 41 centigrammes, 255 threads per 5 centi- 
 metres. 
 Total, 77 centigrammes. 
 
 Upon weighing a sample, then extracting the wool with caustic 
 alkali and weighing the residue when dry, we find the cotton to 
 be 66 per cent, of the original weight. This result is obtained by 
 the same calculation with either the English or the metric system 
 so that no comparison need be made here. 
 
 The sizes and sets of the yarn and the weight of the goods are 
 then calculated, as shown at Figs. 6 to 13 with the following 
 result : 
 
 Worsted Warp. English, Fig. 6, 15 figures. 
 
 Metric, Fig. 7, 27 figures. 
 Cotton Warp. English, Fig. 8, 15 figures. 
 
 Metric, Fig. 9, 23 figures. 
 
THE METRIC FAILURE. 
 
 205 
 
 Cotton Filling. English, Fig. 10, 16 figures. 
 Metric, Fig. 11, 25 figures. 
 Weight of cloth. English, Fig. 12, 38 figures. 
 Metric, Fig. 13, 22 figures. 
 
 A summary shows that 84 figures have been used in the En- 
 glish and 97 in the metric calculations. 
 
 There remain to be determined the nature and quality of the 
 
 FIG. 6. FIG. 7. 
 
 WORSTED WARP. 
 
 FIG. 8. FIG. 9. 
 
 COTTON WARP. 
 
 FIG. 10. FIG. 11. FIG. 12. FIG. 13. 
 
 COTTON FILLING. WEIGHT. 
 
 ENGLISH AND METRIC CALCULATIONS FOR CLOTH ANALYSIS. 
 
 raw material, probable processes of manufacture, twist in the 
 yarn, weave and finish of the goods. For this work it is essen- 
 tial that the analyzer should have good judgment and practical 
 experience, which, although not affected by either the English or 
 the metric system, can easily become impaired when the mind is 
 clouded by the joint use of two standards of weight and measure. 
 
 We thus find that for cloth analysis the English units of area 
 are superior to the metric units, because the former fulfil the 
 requirements of exactitude in the work and simplicity in the 
 calculations. 
 
 Let us now turn our attention to the units of weight. We have 
 the metric kilogramme to answer the purposes of the English 
 pound. I can find no reason for preferring one to the other in 
 
206 THE METRIC FAILURE. 
 
 textile work. It remains a fact, however, that the French textile 
 industry has for 110 years successfully resisted all attempts to 
 displace the French pound, which approximates the English 
 pound, being only 5 per cent, heavier, and to-day the whole French 
 cotton industry use this pound as a basis for yarn sizes. 
 
 The weight of cloth is expressed by ounces per yard and yards 
 per pound, or by grammes per metre and metres per kilogramme. 
 In America the weight of cloth sold by the ounces per yard is 
 generally expressed in even units, rarely in fractions of an ounce ; 
 thus woollen cloths are sold as 12, 15, 20 or 30 ounces per yard. 
 These are short, concise, businesslike expressions whose superior- 
 ity over the metric expressions will be recognized at once when 
 the two are placed side by side: 
 
 English. Metric. 
 
 12 ounces per yard. 370 grammes per metre. 
 
 15 ounces per yard. 450 grammes per metre. 
 
 20 ounces per yard. 600 grammes per metre. 
 
 30 ounces per yard. 900 grammes per metre. 
 
 Three figures are required for the metric as compared with 
 two for the English weight. 
 
 The dekagramme might be used for the weight per metre to 
 reduce the number of figures at the cost of adding two syllables 
 to the word gramme, but judging by French and German textile 
 books and periodicals it is not so used, the gramme being the only 
 unit employed. 
 
 In manufacturing cloths it is necessary to watch the variations 
 of weight per yard which should, as a rule, be kept within one- 
 half ounce. This gives five units for the usual half -ounce range 
 of variation, and answers admirably for expressing the manu- 
 facturing weight per yard. 
 
 The grain divided into tenths is used for analyzing cloth by 
 the English system, and as far as size is concerned there is little 
 to choose between it and the decigramme and centigramme, 
 which serve the same purpose with the metric system. 
 
 We now come to a comparison of the English and metric 
 systems of yarn numbering. There are many systems of yarn 
 numbering based on the metric as well as on the English system. 
 In another part of this work will be found a comparison of the 
 English with the metric systems of yarn numbering as they are 
 used to-day. Here, however, we will compare the pure metric 
 
THE METRIC FAILURE. 207 
 
 with the English system. The former is based on 1,000 metres 
 per kilogramme. It is used but very little in Europe, chiefly 
 for woollen yarn, practically not at all for cotton, linen, and 
 silk. Obviously it would be unfair to the English system to com- 
 pare this 1,000 metres per kilogramme standard with the mix- 
 ture of all the English standards, just as it would be unfair to the 
 metric system to compare one of the English standards with a 
 mixture of all the metric standards. For this reason the com- 
 parison will first be made between the 1,000 metres per kilo- 
 gramme and the English 840 yards per pound, the latter being" 
 the standard for cotton yarn throughout the world, outside of 
 France, where a system that is not metric or decimal is used. 
 
 The claim that the metric system offers the world a single 
 standard for numbering all kinds of yarn is repeated so often and 
 with so much emphasis, that it has led many to believe that the 
 1,000 metre per kilogramme standard possesses some peculiar 
 property that makes it superior as a universal system. The ad- 
 vocates of the metric system tell us that by adopting that system 
 of numbering yarn all kinds of material, cotton, silk, wool, linen, 
 etc., when combined in one fabric, as they often are, will be 
 numbered by one standard, facilitating calculations and giving 
 textile operatives a clearer idea of the construction of textile 
 fabrics. 
 
 But what are the facts? The metric 1,000 metre per kilo- 
 gramme standard being a fixed weight system is not suited for 
 numbering silk, and it is no better suited for numbering spun 
 yarn than is the English 840 yard per pound system, now used 
 for cotton throughout the world. This English system is as well 
 adapted for woollen, worsted, linen or other material as it is for 
 cotton. Our comparison shows us that the English system for 
 other textile purposes is preferable to the metric. Then if any 
 system of yarn numbering is to be selected as the world's single 
 standard it should be the English cotton which is the best of the 
 English standards and is the one used most throughout the world. 
 No one thinks of using our 840 yards per pound system for any- 
 thing but cotton yarn, and few use any other system for cotton 
 yarn. This has caused people to lose sight of the fact that it can 
 be used as well for any other kind of spun yarn. On the other 
 hand, the metric 1,000 metres per kilogramme system is put for- 
 ward with a great flourish as a universal system and, not being 
 used for anything in particular, is often accepted as a standard 
 
208 THE METRIC FAILURE. 
 
 for everything in general. The contrast between the two systems 
 in this respect illustrates the difference between English practice 
 and metric theory. 
 
 1,000 metres per kilogramme is equivalent to 496 yards per 
 pound; the metric is, consequently, about 41 per cent, shorter 
 than the English standard. The sizes can thus be indicated more 
 closely by even units with the metric system, but this is of no 
 advantage, as for all practical purposes it is found that with 
 the longer English hank, gradations of two numbers or counts 
 are near enough for all medium and fine sizes, while for the 
 coarser yarns variations in the size can be indicated by the whole or 
 fraction of a count. 
 
 Textile manufacturing involves frequent calculations in which 
 the yarn count is a factor, and which must be made quickly and 
 accurately, often when surrounded by the din and confusion of 
 the mill. As it is claimed that the metric system facilitates such 
 operations, we will next compare the English and metric counts in 
 this respect. 
 
 Most of the calculations involving the yarn count are made as 
 easily with one fixed weight system as with another, whether it 
 be the English cotton, pure metric, worsted, run, linen, French 
 cotton, Saxon woollen, Austrian linen, or any one of the thirty- 
 three systems used in Europe. The following list of calculations 
 will illustrate the large number that are not affected by the par- 
 ticular system of numbering employed : 
 
 The resulting count of two or more ply yarn from counts of 
 single strands; also the count of the single strand to be placed 
 with two or more strands of known size to make the result- 
 ing size equal to a given count. The same for all systems of 
 yarn numbering regardless of the standards on which they are 
 based. 
 
 The proportionate weights of the single strands in a two or 
 more ply thread. 
 
 Take-up in length of single strands of fancy yarns. By per- 
 centage or vulgar fractions. 
 
 Average size of a lot of yarn composed of known quantities of 
 given sizes. 
 
 Proportionate weights of different counts to make a given 
 average count. 
 
 The proportionate lengths of known counts to make a given 
 average. 
 
THE METRIC FAILURE. 209 
 
 Count of one single thread when the other count, average 
 count and length of each are known. 
 
 Count required for given weight when one count, total weight 
 and length of each count are known. 
 
 Effect of change in length or weight on the count of yarn. 
 
 The cost of twist yarn composed of single strands of different 
 values. 
 
 Length of filling yarn per yard or metre from width and filling 
 set. 
 
 The decided inferiority of the metric system of numbering yarn 
 for making the calculations for cloth analysis was shown when com- 
 paring the sizes of metric and English units. 
 
 We now come to the calculations of the weight of the yarn 
 from the length and count. If the length for which the weight 
 is to be calculated is expressed in hanks a simple division with 
 any fixed weight system of numbering, whether English or 
 metric, is sufficient to give the weight. Another frequent calcu- 
 lation is that of finding the weight of the cloth. This by the 
 metric system consists in calculating the grammes per running 
 yard of cloth from the length (in metres) and metric count of the 
 yarn ; by the English system, in calculating the ounces per running 
 yard of cloth from the length (in yards) and English count of 
 the yarn. 
 
 The metric count indicates the number of 1,000 metre hanks 
 per kilogramme or metres per gramme. If, then, we know the 
 length of the yarn in metres, a division by the count or number 
 of metres per gramme will give the weight in grammes. For 
 example, the weight of 2,800 metres of metric No. 56 yarn is: 
 
 2,800-r-56=50 grammes. 
 
 The English count indicates the number of 840 yard hanks per 
 pound or the number of 52^ yard hanks per ounce. If we know 
 the length of the yarn in yards, a division by the number of yards 
 per ounce will give the weight in ounces. The English count, 
 however, indicates not the number of 100 yard hanks per ounce, 
 but the number of 52^ yard hanks, so that it is necessary to 
 reduce the English count to a 100 yard per ounce basis before a 
 simple division will give the ounces per yard. This reduction in- 
 volves the multiplication of the English count by .52J, an extra 
 calculation not necessary with the metric system, and so far and 
 only so far as that reduction is concerned, is the English inferior 
 
210 THE METRIC FAILURE. 
 
 to the metric in calculating the weight of cloth. Fortunately for 
 the users of the English system this reduction can be made men- 
 tally in nearly every case. For years I have so reduced yarn 
 counts to the " run " or 100 yards per ounce standard and this 
 is the best practice in American mills to-day. The " run " 
 count, as will be easily seen, is one-half of the English count plus 
 one-twentieth of that one-half. Then to obtain the " run " from 
 the English count one-twentieth or 5 per cent, is added to one- 
 half of the latter count. The following illustrations make the 
 operation clear: 
 
 No. 60 English = 30 + 1J or 31J Kuns. 
 
 " 40 u =20+1 " 21 " 
 
 " 36 " = 18 + .9 " 18.9 " 
 
 " 34 =17- + .85 " 17.85 " 
 
 " 24 " = 12 + .6 " 12.6 " 
 
 "18 " = 9 + .45 " 9.45 "^ 
 
 " 17 " = 8i+ .42J" JtrftfS" Z.\ 
 
 " 8 " = 4 + .2 " 4.2 " 
 
 " 5 " = 2J + .12J" 2.624" 
 
 Simplifying the reduction in this way reduces the advantage 
 possessed by the metric over the English system in this class of 
 calculations to nearly the vanishing point. 
 
 There remain to be considered the large number of important 
 textile calculations in which the yarn count is not a factor. 
 Many of these are for determining cost. The factors are units 
 of length or weight, values expressed in dollars and cents, and 
 percentage of loss or gain. Our currency is decimal, and it is 
 mill practice to use decimal or vulgar fractions in expressing 
 weight and length. The metric system, therefore, offers no ad- 
 vantage over the English system in these calculations which com- 
 prise by far the most important required in mill work. Follow- 
 ing are a few such problems : 
 
 The calculations of shrinkage in length and loss of weight. 
 These are made in every process of manufacturing from the time 
 the raw material enters the mill until it emerges in the form of 
 the finished product. They are made by percentage, and as 
 easily with one set of units of weight or extension as with another. 
 
 Effect of shrinkage and value of waste products on the cost of 
 materials in process. 
 
 Average cost of mixtures of raw materials such as wool, cotton, 
 
THE METRIC FAILURE. 211 
 
 shoddy, etc. Here the quantity of each kind of stock is extended 
 at a given price per pound and the total cost divided by the total 
 weight. The same operations for both systems. Multiplying 25 
 by 48 is the same operation whether the 25 represents pounds or 
 kilogrammes, whether the 48 represents cents, centimes or 
 pfennige. 
 
 Determining the proportion of materials of different values to 
 give a required average cost. A question in alligation. 
 
 The take-up of warp in weaving. Calculated by percentage. 
 
 Width, warp set and total threads. To calculate any one from 
 the other two. Same for both systems. 
 
 Periodical statements of manufacturing operations showing 
 production, total and average cost. 
 
 Summing up the comparison of the English 840 yard per 
 pound with the metric 1,000 metre per kilogramme standard in 
 calculations, we find that the English is superior to the metric 
 in cloth analysis; that in a great many important textile calcula- 
 tions neither system offers any advantage over the other; that in 
 calculating the weight from the length and count of yarn an 
 advantage of the metric system consists in not having to make a 
 reduction of the counts, which by the English system can in prac- 
 tically all cases be made mentally. 
 
 The chief value of a system of weights and measures lies in 
 the extent to which it is used, particularly in the number of 
 people whose ideas of measure and weight are based upon its 
 standards alone. The English system of weights and measures is 
 the only one which is the single standard for any country. The 
 English yard, inch, pound, ounce, dram and grain are the only 
 standards used in the British Empire and the only ones used in the 
 United States. The other country coming nearest to having a uni- 
 form system is Russia, whose linear units are either equal to or are 
 commensurable with the English standards. The Russian stand- 
 ards of weight are distinct. The textile weights of China and 
 Japan are involved in more or less confusion with the local 
 standards of these countries and, as we have seen, the textile 
 standards of Continental Europe are in a state of chaos. The extent 
 to which a .system is used, as a single standard may be estimated 
 either by the amount of textile machinery operated, the raw ma- 
 terial consumed, or by the population for which it is the only stand- 
 ard. Reliable statistics of machinery are lacking except for cotton 
 manufacturing, which is the most important branch of the textile 
 
212 THE METRIC FAILURE. 
 
 industry. The statistics of population offer, therefore, the only 
 means by which we can form an idea of the extent to which 
 English weights and measures form a single standard. 
 
 The population of the earth is estimated at 1,400,000,000, that 
 of the British Empire and the United States at 475,000,000. On 
 this basis the English textile system is the single standard for 
 32 per cent, of the world's population, while the textile in the 
 countries representing the other 68 per cent, has a mixed lot of 
 standards. 
 
 We can, perhaps, get a better idea of the relative employment 
 of the English and metric textile systems from the extent to 
 which their respective systems of yarn numbering are used as 
 shown by the following table : 
 
 Material. Methods of Numbering. 
 
 Raw Silk. Denier-aune throughout the world. (Neither 
 
 English nor metric.) 
 Thrown Silk. Denier-aune on the Continent. 
 
 English dram-1,000 yards in United States and 
 
 Great Britain. 
 
 Cotton. French 1,000 metre--| kilo (not metric) in France. 
 
 English 840 yard-pound throughout the rest of 
 
 the world. 
 
 Linen, Hemp, English 300 yard-pound is the standard through- 
 Jute, out the world. (Austrian local standard 
 
 varies but 3 per cent, from English.) 
 
 Worsted. English 560 yards is the standard for America 
 
 and Great Britain, also used extensively on the 
 Continent. 
 
 Metric system is used with many other stand- 
 ards on the Continent. 
 Carded Woollen. Run system in America except Philadelphia. 
 
 Local standards based on the yard-pound in Eng- 
 land and Scotland. 
 
 Metric system with many other standards on the 
 Continent. 
 
 This survey shows that in the extent to which it is used the 
 English is far ahead of the metric system. 
 
 It is often claimed that the adoption of the metric system in 
 textile manufacturing would make it easier to find foreign mar- 
 kets for the finished product. Textile goods are sold by length 
 
THE METRIC FAILURE. 213 
 
 or weight. After the goods are finished they can be weighed or 
 measured by any standard desired by the customer and without 
 complicating the processes of manufacturing. This is the prac- 
 tice in this and doubtless in all other exporting countries. Follow- 
 ing is some evidence on this point from metric sources : 
 M. le Baron Cantoni, " Paris Metric Yarn Congress," 1900: 
 An importing country may oblige the foreign exporters to conform to 
 its regulations. But with an exporting nation the affair is more difficult. 
 Italy has no colonies. We export about 60 million (sic) of cotton yarn and 
 cloth to foreign countries and we compete directly with England, and until 
 England changes we cannot hope to introduce a new system in the Orient 
 or in other markets. 
 
 M. Ferdinand Roy, same occasion: 
 
 In certain of our French colonies the metric system has not been intro- 
 duced. It is necessary to proceed gradually and at first to mark the num- 
 ber of metres beside the yards and the metric beside the English numbers. 
 
 Baron Esnault-Pelterie, same occasion: 
 
 This difficulty (in foreign trade), has been solved in France, since we 
 export to the far East our cloths folded by the yard, although the. metric 
 is the legal system in France. 
 
 One piece of cloth may be measured and invoiced by the Eng- 
 lish yard, the next by the Spanish vara, another by the French 
 metre, thus satisfying the requirements of foreign customers 
 regarding the weights and measures of the goods they buy with- 
 out disturbing the manufacturing standards and without causing 
 the slightest complication in the manufacturing processes. 
 
 Suppose, however, that an agreement between manufacturing 
 and foreign weights arid measures is a help in securing foreign 
 business. What system would help us most? The following table 
 will show the value of cotton goods exported by the principal 
 manufacturing countries in 1901, classified according to the two- 
 systems, English and metric: 
 
 English. Metric. 
 
 Great Britain. . $358,000,000 Germany.. $59,000,000 
 
 India 35,000,000 France 36,000,000 
 
 United States . . 32,000,000 
 
 $425,000,000 
 
 $95,000,000 
 
 More than three-quarters of the world's exports of cotton 
 goods is supplied by Great Britain and India, and both are 
 countries in which the English system is the only textile standard 
 
2: THE METKIC FAILURE. 
 
 in use. Less than one-fifth is supplied by France and Germany 
 in which the metric system is used but partially. England is 
 also far in the lead in the export of woollen and worsted goods. 
 The following statements by foreign authorities show how the 
 exporters of textiles on the Continent are forced to conform to 
 the English system: 
 
 M. Boucher-Peyerick, " Paris Metric Yarn Congress," 1900: 
 We Belgians export enormous quantities of linen yarn to England, Asia 
 and Egypt, and we cannot adopt the metric system without risking the 
 loss of this trade. Our customers in the countries named are familiar 
 with the English system of numbering, and if we do not give it to them 
 our competitors will, and we will lose the market. I speak not alone for 
 myself but for all Belgian spinners. We cannot change. 
 
 Baron Cantoni, " Paris Metric Yarn Congress," 1900 : 
 
 It is necessary to remember that nearly all the exports of cotton yarn are 
 from England, and we can do nothing if that country does not adopt the 
 system we favor. * * * The difficulty will always be in exporting to 
 uncivilized lands where the people have been accustomed for a hundred 
 years to English measures and numbers and where articles of cotton are 
 often used as currency. 
 
 M. de Pacher, "Paris Metric Yarn Congress," 1900: 
 
 To begin with, I must say it is my belief that uniform numbering can be 
 obtained in all countries only by a law made compulsory after a certain 
 <late. The spinners who should begin to number their yarn according to 
 the resolutions of Congress before the old numbers were prohibited by law, 
 Tvould be under the necessity of keeping their product until forced to sell 
 it at the best price and at an incalculable loss. 
 
 M. Louis Guerin, Lille, " Paris Metric Yarn Congress," 1900: 
 It is practically impossible for us (the French), to sell linen by any 
 other than the English standard. * * * If the law of 1810 providing 
 for the metric standard is enforced we shall be the first to complain of 
 that which we have asked for. 
 
 The principal foreign market for textiles is found in Asia. 
 Last year a new Chinese tariff was framed. It covered fifty-three 
 items. On three the rate was assessed by the Chinese catty (1-J 
 pounds); on five, ad valorem, on the other forty-five by the 
 English yard, inch or pound. The metric system was not men- 
 tioned. The tariff was published in this form in German papers 
 for the benefit of German exporters. In July, 1903, United States 
 Consul H. B. Miller at Muchwang, China, sent to the State 
 Department at Washington a collection of Russian and native 
 Chinese cotton cloths, with particulars as to length and width, 
 light of the measurements were Chinese, three English and nine 
 
THE METKIC FAILURE. . 215 
 
 Russian, the last named being either equal to or commensurable 
 with the English units. No reference was made to the metric 
 system. 
 
 The Japanese tariff shows a similar condition. Of the sixty- 
 five textile items the rate on three is expressed by the dozen; 
 on eleven by the Chinese catty (1J pounds), and on fifty-one by 
 the English yard. ~No mention is made of the metric system. 
 
 It is evident that if our textile standards are to be in con- 
 formity with the leading standards in foreign markets they must 
 remain unchanged. If foreign trade is helped by an agreement 
 between manufacturing and selling standards, the metric 
 countries would be benefited by adopting the English system. 
 
 At this point I will call attention to the widely circulated claim 
 that the consumers of silk and woollen yarn in India have become 
 so accustomed to the metric system of numbering that they will 
 have no other. The following facts show how baseless such a 
 claim is. The only standard used anywhere for numbering silk 
 is the denier-aune. India has a very hot climate and a very poor 
 population ; very little wool, therefore, is used as is shown by the 
 following extract from the Monthly Summary of Commerce and 
 Finance of the United States for December, 1902 : 
 
 The woollen industry expands but slowly in India in comparison with 
 the expansion of cotton and jute mills. There were only four woollen mills 
 at work at the close of 1901, one at Cawnpore, one at Dhariwal in the 
 Punjab, one in the city of Bombay and one at Bangalore containing 594 
 looms and 22,986 spindles. The capital employed in it is also relatively 
 small. There is, however, not much demand in India for woollen goods, 
 except for descriptions which can hardly be profitably made in India in 
 competition with the European mills, and any large expansion of the in- 
 dustry can hardly be anticipated. 
 
 The importations and manufactures of silk and wool are unimportant in 
 comparison with the importations of cotton manufacture. In most parts 
 of India the climate and the habits of the people discourage the use of 
 woollens to any extent, and they are worn mainly by the better class in 
 Northern India, and then only in the colder months of the year. Nor is 
 the use of woollen bedclothes at all a habit among them, the quilted razai 
 of cotton or cotton sheet taking the place of the blanket very commonly. 
 The people of India are too poor, generally speaking, for the possession of 
 even the one garment of silk which in so many other countries is brought 
 forth for wear on high days and holidays. 
 
 Evidently India is just the place to use the metric system for 
 silk and wool. 
 
 We will now compare the English and metric systems of 
 numbering yarn as we find them used throughout the world. 
 
216 
 
 THE METRIC FAILURE. 
 
 T-IOtT-n-l i-KNt-T-ie* C*(N.-ieO'NeO(N<?CJ TI C ri TH TH ^rn 
 
 ) -*J< TH <N 5 Ol P3 (M OS W r-i Qt CO CO -* CO Ol CO ri 00 
 
 jsss's 
 
 35 
 
 l^T^GOQO'^J*00'Tt 1 QOC^-C^OOJCO'^i>CiQOi.'-QOCOl tOiCOC^ 
 
 
 .0 
 
 - 
 
 ll 
 
 "*O"*O 
 
 Tt<OO!^OOOOOOOO 
 
 ' ' 
 
 -- - JJJJ 
 
 l 3 1 II 
 
 OOOOl-OOOO 
 
 
 QD 
 
 I s s s s i I" 
 
 
 
 "S^TSs ^^"?^ 
 
 
 
 3- 
 
 60- - - bfl" 
 
 S ' & 
 
 a> 4) 
 
 CQO 
 
THE METRIC FAILURE. 217 
 
 The first nine lines of the table on the opposite page 
 give the bases and equivalents for the four Anglo-American 
 and five local English and Scotch systems of numbering spun 
 yarn. These local standards are used for carded woollen yarn 
 only. All are based on the English yard-pound. The only dif- 
 ference between them is in the length of the hanks. Even this 
 variation of the Anglo-American hanks is less in practice than 
 the table indicates, because each hank is used almost exclusively 
 for one kind of textile material. Each of these standards is used 
 in one branch of textile manufacturing whose processes are dis- 
 tinct and separate up to weaving. The workmen in each do not 
 require, and usually do not have, any definite knowledge of the 
 other two. This limits the contact of the four systems to the 
 weaving and designing departments and to the general manage- 
 ment of weaving mills. Fortunately, however, the 840, 560, 300 
 and 1,600 yard standards have certain relations to each other 
 which remove the apparent difficulty of using them together. 
 
 The cotton is just one-half longer than the worsted skein, and 
 the number by the worsted system is therefore larger by just 
 one-half than by the cotton system; that is, No. 20 cotton is 
 equal to No. 30 worsted. The cotton number can likewise be 
 obtained from the worsted number by taking one-third from the 
 latter; that is, No. 30 worsted equals No. 20 cotton. The Eng- 
 lish cotton count can be reduced to the linen basis by multiply- 
 ing by 2.8. The reduction of the linen to the cotton count is 
 effected by dividing by 2.8. 
 
 When we come to the 1,600 yard skein, the standard for the 
 carded woollen yarn, we find that No. 1 woollen yarn, measuring 
 1,600 yards per pound, measures 100 yards per ounce; that No. 
 2 yarn measures 200 yards per ounce; No. 3^ yarn 350 yards per 
 ounce, the count indicating in each case the number of yards per 
 ounce. This facilitates greatly the calculation of the weight per 
 yard, which is expressed in ounces. If a yard of cloth contains, 
 say, 4,000 yards of 3-run warp yarn, a simple division will show 
 that the warp weighs 13^ ounces per yard. 
 
 The advantage of the " run " system has led to its adoption 
 for calculating the weight per yard, not only of carded woollen, 
 but of cotton and worsted cloths, the " run " equivalents for the 
 cotton and worsted counts being easily found by a mental calcula- 
 tion, as already explained. It is not claimed that this system in- 
 volving the use of four methods of yarn numbering is the best 
 
218 
 
 THE METRIC FAILURE. 
 
 Anglo American Local,Scotch and English. 
 
 ANGLO-AMERICAN SYSTEMS OF NUMBERING SPUN YARN. 
 
 that can be devised. If we could start anew and establish a new 
 standard, it is certain that mill experience with the present 
 methods would dictate but one base for all textile materials 
 except silk. But we are not starting at the beginning; we inherit 
 from the past these four systems of numbering spun yarn. They 
 are firmly established. They are all based on the yard-pound, 
 and being readily commensurable offer decided facilities for their 
 joint use. 
 
 Let us turn now to the metric yarn numbering of Continental 
 Europe. The thirty-three indigenous systems of numbering spun 
 yarn on the Continent at the present time are found on the same 
 table. They are the remains of old European systems partially 
 converted into metric equivalents a heterogeneous lot of basic 
 units of weight and length, including the kilogramme, half -kilo- 
 gramme, Paris, Berlin, English and Vienna pounds, metre, aune, 
 Leipzig, Vienna, Berlin and Brabant ells, Spanish cane and 
 English yard. The last column in which are the metric equiv- 
 alents of these thirty-three systems, shows what a chaos of yarn 
 counts confronts Continental manufacturers. They must con- 
 tend with this medley of ratios as well as the mixture of basic 
 standards of weight and length. Added to these they have the 
 English cotton, linen and worsted standards in common use to in- 
 crease the disorder. It is indeed a chaos that beggars description. 
 
 The two charts * before us present in graphic form the world's 
 systems of numbering spun yarn. The chart on page 218 shows 
 
 * The shaded rectangle at the left of each line represents the unit of 
 weight; the blank rectangle at the right, the unit of length on which the 
 system is based. These rectangles of length and weight are drawn to a 
 scale. The perpendicular lines beginning one-half inch above the base 
 line, represent the lengths of the hank. 
 
THE METRIC FAILURE. 
 
 219 
 
 l 
 
 France 
 
 France 
 
 4 
 Franci 
 
 ~ 
 
 5 
 France 
 
 France 
 
 7 
 France 
 
 10 11 
 
 France Austria 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 14 15 16 
 
 Austria German German 
 
 17 
 German 
 
 19 20 
 
 German German 
 
 German German 
 
 ~ 
 
 - 
 
 23 24 25 26 27 is 29 
 
 German German German Germaa German German German 
 
 1 
 
 
 r~ 
 
 :f 
 
 
 30 
 German 
 
 31 
 German 
 
 32 3:; 
 
 Dutch Spain 
 
 CONTINENTAL SYSTEMS OF NUMBERING SPUN YARN. 
 
220 THE METRIC FAILURE. 
 
 the English, that on the opposite page the metric or Continental 
 practice. 
 
 In its basic standards the English standards present absolute 
 uniformity; the metric system, inconceivable diversity. 
 
 In the length of the hanks the English system shows its only 
 diversity, and here the lengths are in round numbers. The 
 metric hanks present an array of lengths expressed in numbers 
 that stagger calculations. 
 
 In the resulting proportions between weight and length the 
 English system offers to Americans four ratios, readily commen- 
 surable. The metric are all incommensurable. 
 
 Each of the English standards is confined to one textile 
 material and for all Americans outside of the Philadelphia dis- 
 trict each textile material has its own single standard. The 
 metric system employs four standards for cotton, one for linen, 
 five for worsted and twenty-three for woollen. 
 
 The English systems are the only standards used in English- 
 speaking countries. The metric systems are the exclusive stand- 
 ards for no country or manufacturing district. Wherever used 
 they are in conflict with each other and with the English systems, 
 which for cotton and linen are the standards of the world. 
 
 The choice lies between these two systems, English and metric. 
 One has been adapted to mill work by a process of natural selec- 
 tion. The other is the result of the artificial scheme of Erench 
 geometers and is unsuited for textile processes. It is inconceiv- 
 able that America should abandon the first and accept the last. 
 
 English scale. Metric scale. 
 
 Base units 1 pound = --in. height. Base units 1 kilogramme = i-in. height. 
 
 Base units 1 yard = ^-in. height. Base units 1 metre = i-in. height. 
 
 Hank 80 yards = fo'm. height. Hank 80 metres = i^-in- height. 
 
CONCLUSION. 
 
 So evident that it will glimmer through a blind man's eye. Henry VI. 
 
 Somewhat more than a century ago when the metric system was 
 established in France, the French textile industry was carried 
 on almost wholly by hand or foot power, and by processes as 
 primitive as at the dawn of history. Wool, flax and cotton were 
 slowly and laboriously carded by hand and then spun into yarn 
 by the women of the household on hand spinning-wheels. The 
 yarn was then knit or woven by hand. 
 
 The metric system appeared before the invention of the steam 
 engine and the power spinning-machine, and before the inven- 
 tions of Arkwright and Cartwright had begun that revolution in 
 textile manufacturing which has resulted in the development of 
 the present factory system for the production of complex and 
 varied fabrics. 
 
 The weights and measures of this primitive industry were as 
 simple as the machinery and processes. The size of the yarn 
 was regulated by the judgment of the spinner and gauged by the 
 sweep of her arm and the pressure of her finger. The texture 
 of the cloth was regulated by the threads per inch, the one well- 
 defined standard of measure employed in the textile industry one 
 hundred years ago. No better time could have been selected 
 for the introduction and adoption of a new system of textile 
 weights and measures. 
 
 These favoring circumstances arising from the primitive state 
 of textile processes were further supplemented in great degree 
 by the political and social conditions under which the metric 
 system was established. That system was conceived in the royal 
 household of Louis XVI, and its introduction throughout the 
 country became one of the settled purposes of the aristocracy 
 and the established church. By a curious combination of cir- 
 
222 THE METRIC FAILURE. 
 
 cumstances the new system of weights and measures, proposed 
 by the royal regime and advocated by the aristocracy and the 
 church, was enthusiastically accepted by the revolutionary party. 
 Eobespierre and his followers welcomed it as something new at 
 a time when all the institutions of the past were objects of their 
 most intense hatred. The old weights and measures, the boisseau, 
 aune, pied and pouce were inseparably connected with the oppres- 
 sion of the people by the nobles, who were accustomed to alter 
 the dimensions of these units instead of raising the rate of taxa- 
 tion when they found it necessary to levy fresh contributions 
 from their wretched subjects. 
 
 To the common people the old units of weights and measures 
 were the objects of as much hatred as were the king and nobles. 
 The nobles, the church, and the people, at war on nearly every 
 other question, were united in favor of the adoption of a new 
 system of weights and measures. The scientists commissioned to 
 design this 1 system included some of the greatest mathematicians 
 the world has ever known. The scientific rank of these men was 
 to guarantee the preeminence of any system of weights and 
 measures they might devise, and by the weight of authority to 
 lead people to accept it without protest, to make ridiculous any 
 one who might dare object. 
 
 These men faithfully executed their commission. They de- 
 signed a system like no other. Nothing less than the earth 
 would answer as a basis for the system designed for the use of 
 the whole world. The distance along the meridian of Paris from 
 Dunkirk to Barcelona was measured and the distance from the 
 equator to the North Pole along this meridian was calculated. 
 One ten-millionth part of the distance thus estimated was suc- 
 cessively multiplied or divided by 10 to obtain units for the use 
 of the people. 
 
 The most drastic and sweeping French laws were enacted to 
 compel the French people to abandon the old and accept the new 
 system. During the one hundred years since that time every 
 French regime has continued this policy of force. 
 
 No conditions can be imagined more favorable to the attempt 
 to change a people's weights and measures. Notwithstanding 
 these powerful influences, the textile weights and measures of 
 France are at the present time in a state of indescribable con- 
 fusion. As one Frenchman recently expressed it, " we are as 
 
THE METRIC FAILURE. 223 
 
 much in the anarchy of weights and measures for the textile indus- 
 try as at the time of the Revolution." 
 
 The reasons for the failure of this colossal effort of a century 
 to change the textile weights and measures of France is not 
 difficult to find. The ideas of length, area, volume and weight 
 are as firmly grounded as any that find a lodging in the mind 
 of man. They are bound to the records of the past, to the work 
 of the present, and to the plans for the future. They are in- 
 effaceably imprinted upon the mind of every child to regulate 
 his ideas of extension and weight as long as life may last. 
 
 These natural conditions are alone sufficient to account for 
 the failure of the metric system in France. Other influences, 
 however, have served to make the failure more complete in the 
 textile industry. The metric system needed something more than 
 the transcendent mathematical faculties of its designers to make 
 it suitable for textile measurements. 
 
 The eminent scientists who designed that system were able to 
 solve the most difficult problems in higher mathematics, but they 
 failed to comprehend what system of weights and measures was 
 best suited for the carder, spinner, weaver and finisher of wool, 
 cotton, linen and silk. The glamor of their fame failed to make 
 the centimetre suitable for counting picks. Their system had to 
 stand or fall on its merits, and falling has proved that the high- 
 est of mathematical abilities is not inconsistent with a dense ignor- 
 ance of the practical affairs of every-day life. The most eminent 
 of the mathematicians who designed the metric system exhibited 
 an utter disregard of principle in both private and public life and 
 the most complete incompetency when placed in an adminis- 
 trative office. The son of a farm laborer he owed his education 
 to wealthy neighbors, and as soon as he became distinguished 
 ignored both his relatives and benefactors. Although his dis- 
 coveries in mathematics were sufficient to make his name im- 
 mortal, he appropriated the work of others as his own. He 
 changed his republican principles with the rapidity of the kaleido- 
 scope to keep them in harmony with the successive republican 
 regimes, and cut loose from them completely to become a fol- 
 lower of the First Consul to whom he proposed that the name 
 " metric system " should be changed to " mesures Napoleones." 
 In his greatest treatise on mathematics he inserted a note that 
 " of all the truths therein contained the most precious to the 
 
224 THE METRIC FAILURE. 
 
 author was the declaration he thus made of his devotion to the 
 Peacemaker of Europe." 
 
 He omitted this note from later editions, and in 1814 when 
 Napoleon's fall was inevitable tendered his services to the Bour- 
 bons and was rewarded with the title of marquis. 
 
 He begged and obtained the post of minister of the interior 
 under Napoleon and was then charged with the practical work of 
 an administrative office. Six weeks were sufficient to prove how 
 little he knew about practical affairs, and at the end of that time 
 he was transferred to the Senate. The visionary character of this 
 designer of the metric system is thus stated by Napoleon on that 
 occasion : 
 
 Geometer of the first rank, he lost no time in proving himself to be an 
 administrator far below mediocre. From his very first act we were con- 
 vinced that we had made a mistake; he did not grasp any question from 
 the true point of view; he searched everywhere for subtilities; he had a 
 mind only for the problematical and carried the idea of the " infiniment 
 petit " even into administrative affairs. 
 
 Such was the man who was the chief among the designers of 
 the metric system and who advanced the following fantastic 
 reason for its adoption : 
 
 There is a certain pleasure for the head of a family to say: " The field 
 from which my children derive their subsistence is such a part of the 
 Globe. In that proportion I am co-proprietor of the World." 
 
 This man could demonstrate that the " lunar acceleration was 
 independent of the secular changes in the eccentricity of the 
 earth's orbit/' but did not know that a weaver requires a unit of 
 length approximating the inch. He could formulate the theory 
 of probabilities with mathematical precision, but was ignorant 
 of the certainty that exclusively decimal divisions of weights 
 and measures are unsuited for manufacturing cloth. He was 
 the first to introduce potential and spherical harmonics into 
 analysis, but failed to recognize the advantage of the -English 
 cotton system for numbering yarn. He could prove the stability 
 of the solar system, but failed to recognize the stability of a 
 people's established weights and measures. He was familiar with 
 theories of infinity, but ignorant of the wants, necessities and 
 limitations of textile manufacturing. The co-workers of this 
 
THE METRIC FAILURE. 
 
 113 an in constructing the metric system differed from him only 
 in degree. They were a party of mathematical prodigies, igno- 
 rant of the essentials of textile Aveights and measures. 
 
 The artificial system they evolved has failed to meet the 
 requirements of the textile trade. Nearly every one of its 
 standards of length, area and weight is either too large or too 
 small, and it has no units corresponding to the inch, foot, ounce 
 and pound, approximations of which are found in every system 
 of natural origin and for which the human mind appears to have 
 some innate need. It is not to be wondered at, therefore, that 
 the system thus conceived has failed, even in France where' it 
 was so greatly favored. A comparison of the conditions in France 
 one hundred years ago with those in the United States at the 
 present shows that the influences that so strongly favored the 
 metric system there are lacking here; that the inherent natural 
 difficulty of changing a people's weights and measures is as great 
 now as then ; and that the task has been rendered vastly more 
 difficult by new conditions. 
 
 The textile industry has shifted from the household to the 
 factory. Hand and foot power have been displaced by the water 
 wheel, the steam engine and the electric motor. The spindle 
 of the mule and the ring frame has taken the place of the old- 
 fashioned spinning-wheel. The hand loom has disappeared. 
 The high-speed power loom is in its place, and the cloth woven 
 by one girl to-day is equal to that of two hundred weavers a 
 century ago. The simple harness motion of the eighteenth 
 century has been displaced by the dobby and the jacquard. A 
 like development has been made in all the complicated processes 
 of textile manufacturing. Instead of the plain, crude, hand- 
 made fabrics worn by the people of the eighteenth century we 
 iiow have intricate textures of wool, worsted, cotton and silk, 
 manufactured by power in innumerable combinations of weave, 
 color and design. In the rude textile processes a hundred years 
 ago there was but little need for weighing and measuring. To-day 
 there is not a single process of textile manufacturing in which 
 accurate weights and measures and accurately adjusted ratios 
 between weight and linear measure are not essential to the suc- 
 cess of the mill. 
 
 Then the diversity of weights and measures throughout the 
 country was an imperative reason for reform. Now the yard- 
 
226 THE METRIC FAILURE. 
 
 pound is the single standard for the United States and all English- 
 speaking countries, and is in general use wherever textile fibres 
 are spun into yarn. The trend throughout the world is toward 
 the supremacy of the English language and the English yard- 
 pound. 
 
 The United States has an area nineteen times that of France 
 in 1790, and a population three times as large. The increase of 
 our population in a decade is equal to the total increase of the 
 population of France for the past century. 
 
 The political conditions which so strongly favored the origin 
 and* establishment of the metric system in France have no 
 counterpart here, We have no king to order a change of our 
 standards of textile weights and measures, no established church 
 or aristocracy to execute the royal decree. In the place of a 
 people accustomed to being controlled by an arbitrary govern- 
 ment, we have a people who govern themselves, and who are 
 quick to resent the interference of the police power in their pri- 
 vate affairs. 
 
 In the place of a people in revolt against all that reminds them 
 of the past and looking upon their old weights and measures as 
 the badges of a servitude from which they had just escaped, we 
 find here a vast population satisfied with republican institutions 
 which are the result of centuries of growth in self-government 
 and to which their laws, language, and weights and measures 
 are inseparably bound. 
 
 When the metric system was introduced in France the French 
 people were in arms struggling fiercely to change all established 
 institutions, and make the metric system their only standard of 
 weights and measures. To-day no demand for such a change 
 comes from the American people. Our English standards have 
 become a part of our lives and are interwoven with all our occu- 
 pations. Any attempt to change these standards would be resisted 
 by an inertia far more effective than the power exerted by the 
 French people over one hundred years ago in favor of the metric 
 system. 
 
 Notwithstanding a century of failure to change the textile 
 standards in France, and with the radically different conditions 
 in this country under which all the advantages France possessed 
 are lacking and all the difficulties enormously increased, it is now 
 proposed to establish the French system in the United States. 
 
THE METRIC FAILURE. 
 
 227 
 
 The men who make that proposition apparently know as little 
 of the needs of the textile industry as did the founders of the 
 metric system in 1790. It would be a plunge into chaos to 
 emerge no one knows when, how or where. The generation intro- 
 ducing the metric system into the United States would not see 
 the beginning of that chaos. In all probability no other genera- 
 tion would ever see the end. 
 
ACTION OF YAEIOUS ASSOCIATIONS ON THE ME- 
 TEIC SYSTEM BILL WHICH WAS KEPOETED 
 FAVOEABLY TO THE FIFTY-SEVENTH CON- 
 GEESS, AEEANGED IN THE CHEONOLOGICAL 
 OEDEE IN WHICH THE ACTIONS WEEE TAKEN. 
 
 RESOLUTIONS OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINE 
 
 TOOL BUILDERS. 
 
 Whereas, The members of the National Machine Tool Builders' Association, 
 in convention assembled, having carefully considered the provisions of house 
 bill H. R. 2054, do hereby emphatically protest against the enactment of said 
 bill, because: 
 
 First: The experience of Germany, in which the old measures are still in 
 large use, has shown that the change cannot be completed even after a gen- 
 eration of confusion. 
 
 Second: The sale of many million dollars' worth of Machine Tools has 
 been made abroad, by members of this Association, especially to France and 
 Germany, without requirement or request by the purchasers for changes in 
 general construction, to conform to metric measurements, the only changes 
 being in adjusting and measuring screws, the great majority of machines 
 needing no changes whatever. 
 
 Third: The adoption of the metric system would entai] an enormous first 
 cost of new equipment to conform to the new standards and a constant 
 increased cost in the maintenance of a double standard for repairs and re- 
 newals, and a consequent increased cost of the product to the consumer. 
 
 ACTION OF THE ENGINE BUILDERS' ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED 
 
 STATES. 
 
 The action of this society was in the form of a detailed reply to the cir- 
 cular of questions sent out by the committee of the Franklin Institute. The 
 direct reference to the congressional bill is as follows: 
 
 We are decidedly opposed to this bill and we believe, if the metric system 
 had possessed any merit, it would have come into use long ago, not by force 
 of law but by that of expedience. . . . Even granting all the merits that 
 have been claimed for it, a fair statement from a commercial and engineer- 
 ing standpoint is that it offers no marketable improvement. 
 
 RESULT OF A BALLOT BY MAIL TAKEN BY THE NATIONAL AS- 
 SOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS. 
 
 Question: Should Congress enact any law to enforce the use of the metric 
 system in any of the departments of the government? 
 Answers: Yes, 51; no, 156; non-committal, 6. 
 
APPENDIX. 229 
 
 RESULT OF A BALLOT BY MAIL TAKEN BY THE AMERICAN SO- 
 CIETY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS. 
 
 In favor of the adoption of the Metric System of Weights and Measures 
 
 as the only legal standard in the United States 103 
 
 Against adoption of the Metric System of Weights and Measures as the 
 
 only legal standard in the United States 363 
 
 In favor of adoption of H. R. Bill No. 2054 95 
 
 Against adoption of H. R. Bill No. 2054 342 
 
 In favor of legislation which would promote adoption of the Metric 
 
 System 153 
 
 Against legislation which would promote adoption of the Metric System 311 
 The substitution of the Metric for the English system would be detri- 
 mental to my business 243 
 
 The substitution of the Metric for the English system would not be 
 
 detrimental to my business 145 
 
 The substitution of the Metric for the English system would be of ad- 
 vantage to my business 89 
 
 RESOLUTIONS BY THE ASSOCIATION OF RAILWAY MASTER ME- 
 CHANICS. 
 
 Whereas, A bill for the adoption of the metric system in the departments 
 of the Federal Government has been reported favorably to the House of 
 Representatives ; 
 
 Whereas, We consider that the only effect of such a law will be the creation 
 of a government metric system and the continuation of the existing system 
 in ordinary commerce and industry; 
 
 Whereas, It is evident that the confusion resulting from such a condition 
 of things would be intolerable; 
 
 Whereas, We believe a charge in the system of weights and measures used 
 by the people at large to be impossible; therefore be it 
 
 Resolved, By the American Railway Master Mechanics' Association, in con- 
 vention assembled, that we condemn all legislation intended to promote the 
 adoption of the metric system in this country; 
 
 Resolved, That we especially condemn the bill which was reported to the 
 last House of Representatives as one which can do nothing but introduce 
 confusion where we now have uniformity. 
 
 RESOLUTIONS OF THE MASTER CAR BUILDERS' ASSOCIATION. 
 
 Whereas, A bill for the adoption of the metric system in the departments 
 of the Federal Government has been reported favorably to the House of 
 Representatives ; 
 
 Whereas, We consider that the only effect of such a law will be the creation 
 of a government metric system and the continuation of the existing system 
 in ordinary commerce and industry; 
 
230 APPENDIX. 
 
 Whereas, It is evident that the confusion resulting from such a condition 
 of things would be intolerable; 
 
 Whereas, We believe a change in the system of weights and measures 
 used by the people at large to be impossible; therefore be it 
 
 Resolved, By the Master Car Builders' Association, in convention assem- 
 bled, that we condemn all legislation intended to promote the adoption of 
 the metric system in this country; 
 
 Resolved, That we especially condemn the bill which was reported to the 
 last House of Representatives as one which can do nothing but introduce 
 confusion where we now have uniformity. 
 
 RESOLUTIONS OF THE FURNITURE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA. 
 
 Whereas, A bill for the adoption of the metric system in the departments 
 of the Federal Government has been reported to Congress with recommenda- 
 tion to passage; 
 
 Whereas, Such a bill can have but one of two results the creation of a 
 special system of government weights and measures on the one hand, or a 
 change in the system used in the commerce and industries of the country on 
 the other; 
 
 Whereas, A special government system of weights and measures would be 
 as absurd as a special government system of currency, and, 
 
 Whereas, A change in the weights and measures used by the people at 
 large, can only be accomplished at great cost, after generations of con- 
 fusion and with no adequate compensating advantages, therefore be it 
 
 Resolved, By the Furniture Association of America in convention assem- 
 bled, that we condemn this bill as wholly mischievous in its tendencies. 
 
 Resolved, That we condemn all legislation intended to bring about a radical 
 change in our system of weights and measures. 
 
 RESULT OF A BALLOT BY MAIL TAKEN BY THE NATIONAL METAL 
 TRADES' ASSOCIATION. 
 
 In favor of the adoption of the metric system of weights and measures 
 
 as the legal standard of the United States 22 
 
 Against the adoption of the metric system of weights and measures as 
 
 the legal standard in the United States 128 
 
 In favor of the adoption of the metric system in the departments of 
 
 the Federal Government 22 
 
 Against the adoption of the metric system in the departments of the 
 
 Federal Government 128 
 
 In favor of legislation which would promote the adoption of the metric 
 
 system 22 
 
 Against any legislation which would promote the adoption of the metric 
 
 system 128 
 
APPENDIX. 231 
 
 RESOLUTIONS BY THE PROVIDENCE ASSOCIATION OF MEGHAN 
 
 ICAL ENGINEERS. 
 
 Whereas, Renewed attempts are being made to bring about the adoption 
 of the metric system of weights and measures through its enforced use in 
 the departments of the Federal Government; 
 
 Whereas, We regard a change in the system of weights and measures used 
 by the people at large to be practically impossible, thus making a change by 
 the government alone, uncalled for, therefore be it 
 
 Resolved, By the Providence Association of Mechanical Engineers, that we 
 condemn this law as one that will introduce further diversity and confusion, 
 especially affecting linear measures; 
 
 Resolved, That we regard the proposed legislative action affecting our 
 established system of weights and measures as unwise. 
 
 RESOLUTIONS BY THE SOCIETY OF NAVAL ARCHITECTS AND 
 MARINE ENGINEERS. 
 
 Whereas, A bill for the adoption of the metric system in the departments 
 of the Federal Government has been favorably reported to the House of 
 Representatives : 
 
 Whereas, We consider that the only effect of such a law will be the creation 
 of a government metric system and the continuation of the existing system 
 in ordinary trade and industry; 
 
 Whereas, The confusion resulting from such a condition of things would 
 be intolerable; 
 
 Whereas, We believe the adoption of the metric system of weights and 
 measures by the people at large to be impracticable, therefore be it 
 
 Resolved, By the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, as- 
 sembled in annual meeting, that we condemn all legislation intended to pro- 
 mote the adoption of the metric system in this country; 
 
 Resolved, That we especially condemn the bill which was reported to the 
 last House of Representatives as one which can do nothing but introduce 
 confusion where we now have uniformity. 
 
 RESULT OF A BALLOT BY MAIL TAKEN BY THE AMERICAN SO- 
 CIETY OF HEATING AND VENTILATING ENGINEERS. 
 
 In favor of the adoption of the Metric System of Weights and 
 
 Measures as the legal standard in the United States ......... ... 34 
 
 Against the adoption of the Metric System of Weights and Measures 
 
 as the legal standard in the United States ..................... 45 
 
 In favor of the adoption of the Metric System in the departments of 
 
 the Federal Government ...................................... 37 
 
 Against the adoption of the Metric System in the departments of the 
 
 Federal Government ......................................... 42 
 
 In favor of legislation which would promote the adoption of the 
 
 Metric System ................................................ 41 
 
 Against any legislation which would promote the adoption of the 
 
 Metric System ........................ .^-9-i-rT-r^^.. .............. 39 
 
 OF THE 
 
 I UNIVERSITY I 
 
THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE 
 STAMPED BELOW 
 
 AN INITIAL FINE OF 25 CENTS 
 
 WILL BE ASSESSED FOR FAILURE TO RETURN 
 THIS BOOK ON THE DATE DUE. THE PENALTY 
 WILL INCREASE TO SO CENTS ON THE FOURTH 
 DAY AND TO $1.OO ON THE SEVENTH DAY 
 OVERDUE. 
 
 MAR 22 1933 
 
 REC'D I 
 
 MAY 23 160 
 
 EBr. 
 
1374 
 
 ./ 
 
 3 8ft