A UNITED STATES 
 DEPARTMENT OF 
 COMMERCE 
 PUBLICATION 
 
 J <°"\ 
 
 a- <o 
 
 - 
 
 U.S. METRIC STUDY 
 INTERIM REPORT 
 
 **4t a #* 
 
 U.S. 
 
 DEPARTMENT 
 
 OF 
 
 COMMERCE 
 
 National 
 
 Bureau 
 
 of 
 
 Standards 
 
 NBS SP 345-10 
 
 A HISTORY OF 
 THE METRIC SYSTEM 
 CONTROVERSY IN 
 THE UNITED 
 
U.S. METRIC SUBSTUDY REPORTS 
 
 The results of substudies of the U.S. Metric Study, while being evaluated 
 for the preparation of a comprehensive report to the Congress, are being 
 published in the interim as a series of NBS Special Publications. The titles 
 of the individual reports are listed below. 
 
 REPORTS ON SUBSTUDIES 
 
 NBSSP345-1: 
 
 NBS SP345-2: 
 
 NBSSP345-3: 
 
 NBS SP345-4: 
 
 NBS SP345-5: 
 
 NBS SP345-6: 
 
 NBS SP345-7: 
 
 NBS SP345-8: 
 
 NBS SP345-9: 
 
 International Standards (issued December 1970, SD 
 Catalog No. CI 3. 10:345-1, price $1.25) 
 
 Federal Government: Civilian Agencies (issued 
 July 1971, SD Catalog No. C13. 10:345-2, price 
 
 $2.25) 
 
 Commercial Weights and Measures (issued July 
 1971, SD Catalog No. CI 3. 10:345-3, price $1.00) 
 
 The Manufacturing Industry (issued July 1971, 
 SD Catalog No. C 1 3. 10:345-4, price $ 1 .25) 
 
 Nonmanufacturing Businesses (issued August 1971, 
 SD Catalog No. C 13. 10:345-5, price $1.50) 
 
 Education (issued July 1971, SD Catalog No. 
 C13. 10:345-6, price $1. 75) 
 
 The Consumer (issued July 1971, SD Catalog No. 
 CI 3. 10: 345-7, price $1.25) 
 
 International Trade (issued August 1971, SD Cata- 
 log No. C13. 10:345-8, price $1.50) „ 
 
 Department of Defense (issued July 1971, SD 
 Catalog No. CI 3. 10: 345-9, price $1.25) 
 
 NBS SP345-10: A History of the Metric System Controversy in the 
 United States (this publication) 
 
 NBSSP345-11: Engineering Standards (issued July 1971, 
 Catalog No. C13. 10:345-1 1, price $2.00) 
 
 SD 
 
 NBS SP345-12: Testimony of Nationally Representative Groups 
 (issued July 1971, SD Catalog No. C13. 10:345-12, 
 price $1.50) 
 
 COMPREHENSIVE REPORT ON THE U.S. METRIC STUDY 
 
 NBS SP345: A Metric America: A Decision Whose Time Has 
 
 Come (issued August 1971, SD Catalog No. 
 C13. 10:345, price $2.25) 
 
 Those publications with catalog numbers have already been issued, and 
 may be purchased from the Superintendent of Documents, Government 
 Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402 for the prices indicated. Add one- 
 fourth of the purchase price if the publication ordered is to be sent to a 
 foreign address. Be sure to include the SD Catalog number with your order. 
 
' /i. 10- ■ jfs~->° 
 
 U.S. METRIC STUDY 
 INTERIM REPORT 
 
 A HISTORY OF 
 
 THE METRIC SYSTEM 
 
 CONTROVERSY IN 
 
 THE UNITED STATES 
 
 Tenth in a series of reports prepared 
 for the Congress 
 
 U.S. METRIC STUDY 
 Daniel V. De Simone, Director 
 
 Charles F. Treat, Historian 
 
 National Bureau of Standards 
 Special Publication 345-10 
 
 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 
 
 Maurice H. Stans, Secretary 
 
 NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS 
 Lewis M. Branscomb. Director 
 
 Nat. Bur. Stand. (U.S.), Spec. Publ. 345-10, 312 pages (August 1971) 
 
 CODEN: XNBSA 
 
 Issued August 1971 
 
 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents. U.S. (iovernment I'nntinn Office, Washington. DC 20402 
 
 (Order hy SD Catalog No ( 13.10:345-10), Price $2.25 
 Stock Number 0303 0879 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2013 
 
 http://archive.org/details/historyofmetricsOOtrea 
 
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL 
 
 THE HONORABLE PRESIDENT OF THE SEN ATE 
 THE HONORABLE SPEAKER OFTHE HOUSE OF 
 REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 SIRS: 
 
 I have the honor to present the tenth in the series of interim reports 
 stemming from the U.S. Metric Study, prepared by the National Bureau of 
 Standards. 
 
 This Study was authorized by Public Law 90-472 to reduce the many un- 
 certainties concerning the metric issue and to provide a better basis upon 
 which the Congress may evaluate and resolve it. 
 
 I shall make a final report to the Congress on this Study in August 1971. 
 In the meantime, the data and opinions contained in this interim report are 
 being evaluated by the Study team at the National Bureau of Standards. My 
 final report to you will reflect this evaluation. 
 
 Respectfully submitted, 
 
 Secretary of Commerce 
 Enclosure 
 
 in 
 
I 
 
 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL 
 
 Honorable Maurice H. Stans 
 Secretary of Commerce 
 
 Dear Mr. Secretary: 
 
 I have the honor to transmit to you another interim report of the U.S. Met- 
 ric Study, which is being conducted at the National Bureau of Standards at 
 your request and in accordance with the Metric Study Act of 1 968. 
 
 The Study is exploring the subjects assigned to it with great care. We have 
 tried to reach every relevant sector of the society to elicit their views on the 
 metric issue and their estimates of the costs and benefits called for in the 
 Metric Study Act. Moreover, all of these sectors were given an opportunity 
 to testify in the extensive series of Metric Study Conferences that were held 
 last year. 
 
 On the basis of all that we have been able to learn from these conferences, 
 as well as the numerous surveys and investigations, a final report will be 
 made to you before August 1 97 1 for your evaluation and decision as to any 
 recommendations that you may wish to make to the Congress. 
 
 The attached interim report includes data and other opinions that are still 
 being evaluated by us to determine their relationship and significance to all 
 of the other information that has been elicited by the Study. All of these 
 evaluations will be reflected in the final report. 
 
 Sincerely, 
 
 /^a^Q ^V . OyiGL~<y<&~&- 
 
 Lewis M. Branscomb, Director 
 National Bureau of Standards 
 
 Enclosure 
 
 IV 
 
FOREWORD 
 
 Almost two centuries of debate have attended the metric question in this 
 country. Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams were embroiled in this 
 controversy. It is yet to be resolved. 
 
 This report is an account of the metric system controversy in the United 
 States and is based upon a wide survey of available historical data. 
 
 The author of this volume is Mr. Charles F. Treat of the National Bureau 
 of Standards. In an appendix to this report, Mr. Treat acknowledges the 
 assistance he received from many individuals during his research. 
 
 Reports covering other substudies of the U.S. Metric Study are listed on 
 the inside front cover. All of these, including this report, are under evalua- 
 tion. Hence, they are published without prejudice to the comprehensive re- 
 port on the entire U.S. Metric Study, which will be sent to the Congress by 
 the Secretary of Commerce in August of 1 97 1 . 
 
 Daniel V. De Simone, Director 
 U.S. Metric Study 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 Page 
 
 I. Introduction 1 
 
 A. The Basic Elements: Measurement Units, Standards, 
 
 and Systems 1 
 
 B. The Origins and Development of Major Systems of 
 
 Weights and Measures 3 
 
 1. Ancient Weights and Measures 3 
 
 2. Evolution of the Customary System of Weights 
 
 and Measures 5 
 
 3. The Creation and Growth of the Metric System 
 
 of Weights and Measures 8 
 
 II. Toward A More Perfect Uniformity (1607-1860) 13 
 
 A. Weights and Measures in the United States Prior to 
 
 the Ratification of the Constitution 1 4 
 
 B. The Adoption of a Decimal System for U.S. Coins 15 
 
 C. Constitutional Provision for Weights and Measures 
 
 and Thomas Jefferson's Proposals 1 7 
 
 D. Congressional Consideration of Jefferson's Proposals; 
 
 Events Leading Up to John Quincy Adams' 
 
 Investigation 20 
 
 E. The Exhaustive Investigation of John Quincy Adams 24 
 
 F. The Importance and Impact of Adams' Report 3 1 
 
 G. Some Temporary Measures and A Lengthy Interlude 32 
 
 III. An Act To Authorize the Use of the Metric System (1861- 
 
 1866) 35 
 
 A. The Currents of Change 35 
 
 B. The Metric System Acquires Sponsorship: 1863-1864 39 
 
 C. 1 866: A Reform Initiated 4 1 
 
 D. A Persistent Notion 46 
 
 IV. A Pint's A Pound The World Around? (1866- 1890) 49 
 
 A. The Polarization Process Begins 50 
 
 1. The Davies-Barnard Schism 51 
 
 2. Concurrent Developments 58 
 
 B. The "Treaty of the Meter" 60 
 
 C. American Metric Advocates Organize 62 
 
 1. The American Metrological Society 63 
 
 2. The American Metric Bureau 68 
 
 D. The Legislative Scene: 1877-1886 73 
 
 1. Polling the Executive Branch 75 
 
 2. Further Congressional Consideration 79 
 
 E. The Revelations of the Great Pyramid and the Inter- 
 
 national Institute 82 
 
 1. Pyramidology 82 
 
 2. "The Battle of the Standards" 85 
 
 F. Recapitulation 92 
 
 VI 
 
CONTENTS vii 
 
 Page 
 
 V. The "Entering Wedge" Controversy (1890-1914) 94 
 
 A. Early Developments 96 
 
 B. A Fleeting Victory 102 
 
 C. Aftershocks 112 
 
 D. Establishment of the National Bureau of Standards 114 
 
 E. 1902: The Year of Transition 119 
 
 F. Rising Opposition 129 
 
 G. "The Metric Fallacy" 136 
 H. The Road to Oblivion 144 
 I. Recapitulation 153 
 
 VI. The Great Metric Crusade (19 14- 193 3) 156 
 
 A. The Participants 159 
 
 1. The Metric Association 162 
 
 2. The World Trade Club and Its Successors 1 64 
 
 3. The American Institute of Weights and 
 
 Measures 169 
 
 4. Other Participants 176 
 
 B. Squaring Off (1914- 1918) 178 
 
 C. The Battle for Public Opinion (1919-1922) 186 
 
 1. Legislative Proposals 186 
 
 2. The Pro-Metric Case 188 
 
 3. The Anti-Metric Defense 195 
 
 4. The 1921 Senate Hearings 204 
 
 D. The Final Attempts (1923-1933) 211 
 
 1. Legislative Trends 211 
 
 2. The Controversy Renewed 212 
 
 3. 1926 House Hearings 217 
 
 4. The Outcome and the Aftermath 223 
 
 E. Recapitulation 226 
 VII. To Be Continued (1959-1968) 230 
 
 A. The Doldrums (1933-1958) 231 
 
 B. Authorizing a Study of the Advantages and Dis- 
 
 advantages of Increased Use of the Metric System 
 
 (1959-1968) 236 
 
 C. Conclusion 252 
 VIII. Summing Up 254 
 
 1. The Period of Consolidation (1786-1866) 255 
 
 2. The Educational Movement ( 1 866- 1 889) 256 
 
 3. The Movement to Introduce the Metric System 
 
 Through Government Adoption (1890-1914) 258 
 
 4. The Propaganda Period (1914-1933) 260 
 
 5. The Comprehensive Study Phase ( 1 934- 1 968) 262 
 Appendices 
 
 A. References 269 
 
 B. Selected Bibliography 290 
 
 C. Acknowledgments 298 
 

I. INTRODUCTION 
 
 Historical precedents have often been a prominent feature of the debate 
 on weights and measures in the United States. In fact many of the reasons 
 why the metric system and its adoption became a hotly-contested issue are 
 deeply rooted in the origins and development patterns of both it and the 
 customary system. The purpose of this introductory chapter is to set the 
 scene for a deeper examination of this issue by summarizing the elements 
 common to all systems of measurement and by briefly reviewing the origins 
 and evolution of the two measurement systems which emerged as the chief 
 competitors for acceptance by the people of the United States. 
 
 A. THE BASIC ELEMENTS: MEASUREMENT UNITS, 
 STANDARDS, AND SYSTEMS 
 
 An important fact to bear in mind is that all systems of measurement, how- 
 ever much they may differ from one another in detail, stem from a common 
 set of fundamental concepts. The need to measure and the objects to be mea- 
 sured are considerations which are independent of how the measurement is 
 to be taken and described. As will be seen, a failure to distinguish between 
 what a measurement system should do and what it should be led to a good 
 deal of unnecessary dispute in considering the metric system in the U.S. 
 Also on several occasions the precise meanings of the fundamental concepts 
 were not adhered to by the participants in the debate. This frequently led to 
 confusion when questions arose concerning the impact on the U.S. of chang- 
 ing our measurement system. Therefore, before getting into the heart of the 
 question these concepts need to be established and the distinctions between 
 them clarified. 
 
HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 "Measures and weights" observed John Quincy Adams, "are the instru- 
 ments used by man for the comparison of quantities and proportions of 
 things [1]." The core of this definition is the concept of quantities — those 
 abstractions such as length, weight, time, and temperature which cannot be 
 described in terms of anything simpler. Collectively they take in all of the 
 characteristics possessed by physical things which someone may wish to ex- 
 press in numerical terms. 
 
 For each of these quantities there must be a unit, or value in terms of 
 which the quantity may be described [2]. Adhering to the language of the 
 customary system for the moment, examples of units include the "yard" (for 
 describing length), the "pound" (for describing mass), and the "second" (for 
 describing time). Units are simply definitions. They are usually established 
 by general agreement; they are independent of environmental influences 
 (such as temperature and humidity); and they may be arbitrary, that is, they 
 may be selected without reference to any natural occurrence or object [ 3] . 
 
 In addition to designating principal units, multiples and subdivisions have 
 been developed for convenience in expressing larger or smaller amounts of 
 a particular quantity. For instance, a yard may be converted into rods or 
 miles or it may be divided into feet or inches by simply applying appropriate 
 numerical factors. These factors define the "base" of a measurement 
 system, so that systems in which the unit is related to its parts by the ratio of 
 1:10 are termed "decimal" systems and those having the ratio of 1:12 are 
 termed "duodecimal," and so on. 
 
 A standard is a physical embodiment of a unit [4]. Standards are rarely 
 used to make direct measurements, but they do provide the basic reference 
 point for the manufacture and calibration of the instruments that are used for 
 such purposes. In this way standards insure that the results of many mea- 
 surements of the same quantity, made by different people at different times, 
 are compatible with each other by virtue of the fact that "things equal to the 
 same thing are equal to each other [ 5] ." 
 
 Because standards are physical artifacts, they are exact representations of 
 units only under a set of precisely-defined conditions. As a simplistic illus- 
 tration, consider the example of a steel rod which someone may desire to fix 
 as his standard of length. If this rod has a length equal to one yard at a tem- 
 perature of 0° Fahrenheit, it will have a significantly different length at 150° 
 Fahrenheit because steel contracts at the low end of the temperature scale 
 and expands at the high end of it. In order for this steel rod to serve as a true 
 one-yard standard, then, the temperature at which it has the exact length of 
 the unit as defined (in this case, 0° F.) is one of the conditions which must be 
 specified. 
 
 The term measurement system can have several different meanings, de- 
 pending upon whether it is being used to denote an abstract concept or an 
 operating entity. For purposes of this account the term is used in its general 
 sense to mean simply a family of units and standards which, together, pro- 
 vide the basis for measuring and describing measurements of length, weight, 
 time, temperature, capacity and all other quantities. 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
 B. THE ORIGINS AND DEVELOPMENT OF MAJOR 
 SYSTEMS OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 
 
 The conceptual origin of weights and measures is so old that it cannot be 
 precisely fixed. Nor did the development of systems of weights and mea- 
 sures take a simple, ordered course from ancient times down to the present 
 day: "Ethnic conditions, the whims and caprices of rulers, imposition and 
 fraud, conquest, and methods and habits of thought and life, all in turn have 
 had their effect," wrote two authorities in 1906 [6]. Nevertheless, by the 
 middle of the 1 9th century two systems of weights and measures had at- 
 tained predominance throughout the world — the English/ American custo- 
 mary system and the so-called French metric system. A brief survey of 
 where these two systems came from, how they evolved, and why they 
 managed to achieve such prominence is important background information 
 for considering the history of the metric system in America. 
 
 1. ANCIENT WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 
 
 The idea that weights and measures were among the earliest devices in- 
 vented by mankind is generally conceded by historians of metrology who 
 base their conclusions on the fact that the archaeological records of the most 
 ancient civilizations exhibit well-developed concepts of weighing and mea- 
 suring [7]. It is also generally agreed that the need to measure length 
 preceded the need to measure weight, volume, area and other quantities. 
 Turning once again to John Quincy Adams, whose logic and powers of ex- 
 pression have lost none of their persuasiveness since 1821, we find the case 
 for this latter hypothesis reasoned as follows: 
 
 "The want, at least, of measures of length, is found in the physical organiza- 
 tion of individual man, and precedes the institution of society 
 . . . To provide for the wants of food and raiment, the first 
 occupation of his life would be the chase of those animals, the 
 flesh of which serves him for food, and the skins of which are 
 adaptable to his person for raiment. In adapting the raiment to 
 his body, he would find at once, in his own person, the want 
 and the supply of a standard measure of length, and of the 
 proportions and subdivisions of that standard. . . . 
 
 To the construction of a dwelling place, superficial measure becomes essen- 
 tial, and the dimensions of the building still bear a natural pro- 
 portion to those of its destined inhabitants. Vessels of capacity 
 are soon found indispensable for the supply of water; and the 
 range of excursion around the dwelling could scarcely fail to 
 suggest the use of a measure of itinerary distance [8]." 
 
 With the emergence of civilization from this primitive state, and particu- 
 larly with the development of complex societies, came the need not only to 
 weigh and measure more things but also to establish uniformity of measure- 
 ments in order to achieve society's purposes. The origination of ordered 
 
HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 systems of enumeration and mathematics made possible the creation of 
 systems of measurement suited to trade and commerce, building construc- 
 tion, land division and taxation. 
 
 Although theories concerning the geographical origins of such systems of 
 weights and measures abound (many of which are contradictory), ancient 
 Babylon and Egypt usually share the credit [9]. Archaeological remains 
 prove beyond a doubt that by the time of the great Mesopotamian civiliza- 
 tions (prior to 3000 B.C.) and certainly by the time ancient Egypt's impres- 
 sive temples and pyramids were built (between 3000 and 1800 B.C.), 
 systems of measurement had become an integral part of daily life [ 10] . 
 
 The ancient units of linear measurement were descriptive of what was to 
 serve as the standard in many cases, and also exhibited a naturally-ordered 
 ratio between the multiples and subdivisions. Among these units were the 
 digit (the width of a finger); the palm (the width of 4 fingers, i.e., 4 digits); the 
 span (the spread between the outstretched thumb and little finger, equal to 3 
 palms); the cubit (distance between the elbow and the tip of the middle 
 finger, equal to 2 spans or 6 palms); 1 the pace (one step, or 10 palms); and 
 the fathom (the distance between outstretched arms, or 4 cubits) [11]. While 
 these measures were rudimentary in comparison with the standards needed 
 by present-day science and technology, they were sufficiently accurate to 
 permit construction of the Great Pyramid of Khufu with an estimated mean 
 error in the length of the sides of only one part in 4000 [ 12] ! 
 
 Weighing was a different matter. For most commercial dealings, ancient 
 people either employed measures of volume which were derived from their 
 length units or simply counted the number of items to be traded [13]. At 
 least in ancient Egypt, weights were used only when dealing in precious 
 commodities such as gold, silver, copper, and lapis lazuli [ 14] . As it was not 
 until the seventh century B.C. that coined money was used, this weighing 
 process was important and the balance was required to be employed in all 
 transactions involving such commodities [15]. Even following the establish- 
 ment of coinage a very close connection with weight measures was main- 
 tained. In fact, the earliest coins were simply pieces of gold or silver with the 
 weight stamped on them [16]. Eventually the Mesopotamian weight unit, 
 the "mina," and its larger and smaller values the "talent" and the "shekel" 
 became the nucleus of a monetary system that spread throughout the whole 
 Mediterranean area [ 17] . 
 
 Our modern reckoning of time and method of measuring angles may be 
 traced directly to ancient Mesopotamia, where a sexagesimal system (i.e. 
 based on the number 60) was used to divide not only the year and the day, 
 but also the circle. The year was based on a lunar calendar containing 360 
 days, and each day was divided into a total of 360 parts [18]. Babylonian as- 
 tronomy was apparently sophisticated enough to ascertain that, at the equi- 
 nox, the diameter of the sun on the horizon was 1/360 of a half circle and, as 
 this meshed perfectly with their system of enumeration, it was a natural thing 
 
 1 This was known as the "common" cubit. There were several other cubits, however, includ- 
 ing the Royal or building cubit (28 digits or 7 palms) that served as the basis for the pyramids 
 and many other constructions throughout the Middle and Near East. 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
 to adopt [ 19] . The solar year of 365 days was the product of Egyptian as- 
 tronomy, and our modern calendar is the result of that plus later refinement 
 and calendar reform [ 20] . 
 
 Judging from admonitions contained in the Old Testament, the commer- 
 cial uses of weights and measures were not always uniform in Israel during 
 Biblical times. For instance, in the Book of Deuteronomy (25 : 1 3- 1 5) the fol- 
 lowing command is given: "Thou shalt not have in thy bag divers weights, a 
 great and a small. Thou shalt not have in thine house divers measures a great 
 and a small. But thou shalt have a perfect and just weight, a perfect and just 
 measure shalt thou have: that thy days may be lengthened in the land which 
 the Lord thy God giveth thee." And in the Book of Proverbs the Bible coun- 
 sels "A just weight and balance are the Lord's: all the weights of the bag are 
 his work" (16:1 1), from which it follows that "Divers weights, and divers 
 measures, both of them are alike abomination to the Lord" (20:10). The 
 many other references to weights and measures in the Old Testament, in- 
 cluding the dimensions of Noah's ark and the vital statistics of the giant 
 Goliath, are ample evidence of the everyday concern with weights and mea- 
 sures in ancient times. 
 
 While the Greeks and the Romans originated very few innovations in 
 metrology, they did affect the evolutionary process in three important ways. 
 First the Greeks adopted, with very little change in value, the Eastern 
 weights and measures and brought them into use on the European continent 
 [21]. From Greece they passed to Rome, from which they were spread 
 throughout Europe by military conquests and commercial activities [22]. 
 Secondly, the Romans adopted the duodecimal division (base 12) for their 
 primary units, the foot and the pound, which is still in use for certain units of 
 the customary system [23]. The third contribution was to the nomenclature 
 of weights and measures. For example, the fact that the abbreviation for the 
 pound is "lb." may be attributed directly to the Latin word libra, meaning 
 "weight." The 12 divisions of the Roman pes, or foot, were called unciae, 
 from which the Anglo-Saxon words "inch" and "ounce" are both derived 
 [24]. The word "mile" is also of Latin origin, the Romans having 
 established the mille passus (one thousand paces) as a convenient unit for 
 measuring longer distances [25]. 
 
 Before its downfall. Imperial Rome had managed to disseminate its 
 system of weights and measures from England to Asia Minor, and to do it in 
 such a way that some of the units we still use have values not very far 
 removed from those of 2000 years ago. In fact, the difference between the 
 "foot" of Roman times and the "foot" we use today is less than four-tenths 
 of an inch [26]. 
 
 2. EVOLUTION OF THE CUSTOMARY SYSTEM OF WEIGHTS AND 
 MEASURES 
 
 With the decline of the Roman empire, strict control over weights, mea- 
 sures and coinage became impossible and what had once been a nearly 
 universal system in Europe degenerated, like the rest of society, to a mostly 
 local affair. The so-called "customary" family of European and English 
 
HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 weights and measures was the result of stresses and strains on the Roman 
 system which occurred during the "middle ages." As summarized in a recent 
 account: 
 
 "Like much else that went into the fabric of medieval civilization, our mea- 
 suring units are the result of interaction among . . . various 
 Roman, Barbarian, and Islamic influences. Certain units like 
 the foot and the pound survived from Roman usage. Many 
 others were Germanic in origin, while still others like the pre- 
 metric units in France for measuring the area of farmland (the 
 arpent), journey distance (the league), and perhaps even the 
 bushel and gallon, were apparently Celtic in origin and therefore 
 predated and survived the period of Roman occupation of what 
 is now France. There were important influences from the Islam- 
 ic world. The transmission by the Arabs of the ancient Hindu 
 numerals is perhaps the most obvious example. These so-called 
 Arabic numerals were first introduced into the Latin west from 
 Muslim Spain at the end of the 10th century, but their use did 
 not immediately become widespread and for several centuries 
 both the Roman and Arabic systems were simultaneously em- 
 ployed [27]." 
 
 The overall result of this blending of cultures was a very complex agglomera- 
 tion of units and standards of weights and measures. 
 
 In England, the measures of length, weight, and capacity used by the 
 Anglo-Saxons, the exact origins of which are unknown, became the domi- 
 nant system when the Normans made no change following the conquest of 
 1066 [28]. Thus the earliest recorded standard of length in England was the 
 yard, or girth, of the Saxon kings, as modified by Roman influences, which 
 was kept, along with other standards, at Winchester [29] . These standards, 
 which the Normans removed to Westminster Abbey in London, allegedly 
 date back to the reign of King Edgar, who ruled from 958 until 975 [30] . In 
 the Domesday Book of 1086 the Saxon yard was used as a unit of land meas- 
 ure and in 1225 the Magna Charta signed by Henry III provided that there 
 should be throughout the realm one measure of wine, one of ale, and one of 
 corn, and that it should be of weights as of measures [30]. The English 
 statute books as of 1324 prescribed the English system of length as follows: 
 the inch (three barleycorns, round and dry), the foot (12 inches), the yard (3 
 feet), the perch (5 1/2 yards) and the acre (40 perches long by 4 perches 
 wide) [31]. 
 
 The unit of weight and of money in England has been the "pound" since 
 Saxon times, although several different pounds — including the Tower 
 pound, the Troy pound, and the avoirdupois pound — have been used. The 
 assize of Bread and Ale of 1 266 defined the English Tower system of weight 
 and capacity: 
 
 "An English penny called a sterling, round and without any clipping, shall 
 weigh thirty-two wheatcoms in the midst of the ear; and twenty 
 pence do make an ounce, and twelve ounces a pound: and eight 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
 pounds do make a gallon of wine, and eight gallons of wine do 
 make a bushel, which is the eighth part of a quarter [ 32] ." 
 
 Eventually, this Tower system gave way to the French weights — first the 
 Troy pound (which was 3/4 of an ounce more than the Tower pound) and, 
 later, the avoirdupois pound (our currently-used pound of 16 ounces) [33]. 
 
 The sheer number of units that got into everyday use in the English system 
 over the years was staggering and, while the names may be considered pic- 
 turesque today, they must have been the source of great confusion and many 
 frauds. For example, for measuring weight there were, among others, the 
 clove, the stone, the hundredweight, and the sack. For measurements of 
 capacity Englishmen could choose from the pottle, the gallon, the bushel, the 
 firkin, the stake, or the cartload. While not all of these were officially sanc- 
 tioned, of course, they did exist and had to be dealt with in daily life. 
 
 In addition to a proliferation of units, many trades and occupations 
 developed separate measurement systems just for their own use — surveyors 
 used poles and chains, apothecaries employed minims and drams, and 
 mariners were accustomed to fathoms, knots and cable lengths. In still other 
 cases units having the same name carried different values, such as the "long" 
 ton and the "short" ton. Finally, the values of many units of weights and 
 measures were entirely dependent upon the commodity to be bought or sold. 
 Thus a gallon of wine was different from a gallon of ale, and a bushel of corn 
 was generally leveled off before selling it while a bushel of wheat was often 
 bartered rounded or "heaped." Many times, however, this depended on 
 whether the commodity was being bought or being sold. At any rate, 
 although the need for uniformity was often recognized in the laws of Great 
 Britain from the 1 1th century onward, the successes of various monarchs 
 and Parliaments were, at best, limited. 
 
 Nor was the situation any different in other European countries. In 
 describing the situation in pre-metric France metrologist Henri Moreau 
 wrote: 
 
 "One dominant fact should be noted: the uniformity [that was legislated] 
 was illusory. The units varied, not only from country to 
 country, and . . . from province to province, but even from city 
 to city, and also according to corporation or guild. Of course, 
 this state of affairs led to errors, frauds, and continual misun- 
 derstandings and disputes . . . The multiplicity of names given 
 to poorly determined units and the diversity in the multiples and 
 submultiples of the principal measures increased the confusion 
 [34]." 
 
 The contrast in the ways in which the British and French went about solv- 
 ing this confusion in weights and measures is noteworthy. France simply 
 discarded her old system and substituted a new one in its place. England, on 
 the other hand, gradually improved its weights and measures situation 
 through enforcement of stricter laws, made changes in furtherance of her 
 great industrial prowess, and managed to achieve a widespread geographical 
 distribution of its system through colonization and settlement. While the 
 
HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 French system grew because of its appealing simplicity and logic, the En- 
 glish system was the basis for the vast majority of commercial dealings and, 
 even more important, was the one used to construct British machinery, 
 which was much in demand. 
 
 Until the middle of the 20th century, then, most of the English speaking 
 nations of the world retained the customary system of weights and measures. 
 Even in non-English speaking nations some customary units were widely 
 used in fields for which British and American industrialists or engineers had 
 "written the book." Of particular consequence to the debate on the metric 
 system in the U.S. are the fields of textile manufacturing, tool manufactur- 
 ing, and the production of heavy machinery. But these developments were 
 not to occur until more than 1 00 years after the birth of the metric system. 
 
 3. THE CREATION AND GROWTH OF THE METRIC SYSTEM OF 
 WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 
 
 The metric system presents an entirely different case from that of the 
 customary system. As already noted, it did not evolve from ancient mea- 
 sures and practices to assume its ultimate configuration — it was created 
 whole and put into use under unusual conditions and to serve very specific 
 purposes. Furthermore, it is based on what were, at the time of its creation, 
 the most advanced scientific principles known. It has been called by one 
 writer "the first example of scientific rationalization by society [35]." 
 Because of its comparatively recent origins (1790), its inception and sub- 
 sequent growth are well documented. 
 
 The need for a reform of French weights and measures has already been 
 noted. When the opportunity arose to institute such a reform, the French 
 Government acted quickly and decisively in determining what should be the 
 nature and extent of the change. 
 
 Although the intellectual foundation for the metric system had been laid 
 by the rebirth of scientific interest in France between the 16th and 18th cen- 
 turies, it was the cataclysm of the French Revolution which propelled it into 
 a practical reality. As very little was spared during this time in the attempt to 
 purge France of all vestiges of the feudal system and of kings who ruled by 
 divine right, it should not be surprising to find that the royal system of 
 weights and measures was on the agenda of changes to be made. While not 
 all of the reforms instituted during the Revolution have been per- 
 manent—the revolutionary calendar and mathematical innovations such as 
 dividing the circle into 100 parts led short lives — the change in weights and 
 measures proved to be a lasting one. It is a tribute to the Revolutionary 
 government that they did not act capriciously in making the change but, 
 rather, turned to science to get the job done. Nor were French scientists the 
 only ones involved (although the most credit belongs to them) for, with the 
 object in mind of devising a truly international system, foreign scientists 
 were invited to participate in the process from the very beginning. 
 
 In searching for a "founding father" of the metric system historians have 
 settled on Gabriel Mouton (1618-1694), the vicar of St. Paul's Church in 
 Lyons, who proposed a comprehensive decimal system of weights and mea- 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
 sures in the year 1670 [36]. Taking a basic unit from the physical universe 
 instead of from the human body, Mouton adopted the length of an arc of one 
 minute of a great circle of the earth (i.e. , a full line of longitude or latitude) as 
 his principal unit of length, which he called the milliare [37]. This he divided 
 by successive powers of 10 to get subunits, selecting one of these to cor- 
 respond approximately to the customary French foot. This he further 
 defined as equal to the length of a pendulum that would beat 3,959.2 times in 
 a half hour at Lyons [38]. The proposal for use of a pendulum was repeated 
 by others — Picard in 1 67 1 and Huygens in 1 673 — but was never acted upon 
 by the prerevolutionary French Government [39]. 
 
 The political sponsor of weights and measures reform in the Revolution- 
 ary National Assembly was the Bishop of Autun, better known as Charles- 
 Maurice de Talleyrand. In April of 1790 he put before the Assembly a plan 
 for reform based on a pendulum beating seconds at 45° latitude [40]. New 
 and extremely precise measurements were to be undertaken to determine 
 the length of the pendulum. To effect this investigation a decree was issued 
 by the Assembly on May 8, 1 790 and approved by Louis XVI on August 22, 
 1 790. In addition to calling for the investigation, the law decreed that: 
 
 "The King shall also beg His Majesty of Britain to request the English Parlia- 
 ment to concur with the National Assembly in the determina- 
 tion of a natural unit of measures and weights; and . . . under 
 the auspices of the two nations the Commissioners of the 
 Academy of Sciences of Paris shall unite with an equal number 
 chosen by the Royal Society of London ... to deduce an in- 
 variable standard for all the measures and all the weights [41 ]." 
 
 Accordingly, the French Academy appointed several committees to carry 
 out this work without waiting for Britain to accept the invitation (an event 
 never to occur). One of these committees reported quickly, on October 27, 
 1790, urging the adoption of a decimal basis for the new system [42]. 
 Recommendations on the primary task, defining a new unit of length mea- 
 surement, were contained in a report of March 19, 1791. After consideration 
 of several alternative possibilities, the committee recommended the adop- 
 tion of a unit equal to one ten-millionth of the length of a quadrant of the 
 earth's meridian (i.e., one ten-millionth of an arc representing the distance 
 between the Equator and the North Pole) [43]. This unit was later 2 given 
 the name Metre — a derivative of the Greek word metron, meaning simply "a 
 measure." The unit of mass was to be derived by cubing some part of this 
 length unit and filling it with water. The same technique would also provide 
 the capacity measure [44]. In this way, the standards of length, mass and 
 capacity were all to be derived from a single measurement, infinitely re- 
 producible because of natural origins, precisely interrelated, and decimally- 
 based for convenience. 
 
 The committee report also recommended, and the Academy approved, the 
 way in which the standard was to be determined, namely by measuring an 
 arc of meridian between Dunkirk, in France, and Barcelona, in Spain. While 
 
 2 In May 1793. 
 
 429-523 0-71 - 2 
 
10 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 there were several important technical, practical, and political reasons for 
 this recommendation, the fact that the terrain involved had already been sur- 
 veyed [45] was an important one because it made possible the construction 
 of a provisional standard without waiting for completion of the full survey. 
 In 1793 when an upheaval of the Revolution led to the abolition of the 
 Academy and its committees on weights and measures and frequently 
 caused the surveying team to be harrassed (even arrested on several occa- 
 sions) [46], the existence of the provisional meter may well have kept alive 
 the metric system reform. The fact that the new units were officially adopted 
 on the basis of the provisional standard by a decree of 1795 also enhances 
 the value of its existence. Under the terms of this same law Greek prefixes 
 were given to the multiples of each of the units (deca = x 1 0; hecto = x 1 00 
 and so on) and Latin prefixes were assigned to the subdivisions (deci= 1/10; 
 centi = 1/100; and so forth). This feature has been retained to the present 
 day. 
 
 Despite the adversity it had experienced, the surveying team (under the 
 direction of two gentlemen named Mechain and Delambre) completed its 
 work in November of 1798 [47]. Construction of the final standards, a 
 platinum meter and kilogram, was completed the following June [48]. 
 
 Concurrently, in the autumn of 1798, steps were again taken to insure that 
 the metric system would be a truly international one. Talleyrand, by then 
 Minister of Foreign Affairs, invited all European countries as well as other 
 friendly and neutral states to send representatives to Paris to learn of the 
 work that had been done and to participate in the formal adoption of new 
 standards [49]. In all, nine nations accepted invitations, including modern- 
 day Italy, Denmark, the Netherlands, Spain and Switzerland [50]. While 
 there were no immediate results from this convocation of leading scientists 
 in terms of other nations deciding to adopt the new system, the idea was a 
 resounding success considering the political climate in which it was held. A 
 fairly broad spectrum of participation had been secured, a definite educa- 
 tional process had been served, and a precedent of multinational collabora- 
 tion had been set which was to have significant impact in future years. 
 
 It cannot be claimed, however, that the new system met with instantane- 
 ous approval. Even in France the transition was not effected quickly or 
 smoothly, for although the system was made mandatory throughout France 
 in 1795, its use was not enforced. Secondary standards had not even been 
 constructed for distribution to the Departments (i.e., the French equivalent 
 of states), to say nothing of commercial and household weights and measures 
 
 [51]. 
 
 The plight of the metric system was further aggravated in 1812, when 
 Napoleon Bonaparte issued a decree allowing the old units to return. Under 
 his usuelle system of measurement all measures were defined in terms of 
 metric standards, but the old unit names were specified and the decimal 
 ratios between units and their parts were discarded [52]. 
 
 For a time, Napoleon's act was popular, probably because the metric 
 system had not been in use long enough to fully supplant the older and more 
 familiar system. This confused state of affairs was not allowed to exist for 
 long, however, and, on July 4, 1 837, the following act was passed: 
 
INTRODUCTION 11 
 
 "After January 1 , 1 840, all weights and measures other than the weights and 
 measures established by the laws of 1795 and 1800, constituting 
 the decimal metric system, shall be forbidden . . . Those pos- 
 sessing weights and measures, other than the weights and mea- 
 sures above recognized, in their warehouses, shops, workshops, 
 places of business, or in their markets, fairs, or emporiums, shall 
 be punished in the same manner as those who use them . . . 
 Beginning at the same date all denominations of weights and 
 measures other than those authorized are forbidden in public 
 acts, documents, and announcements. They are likewise forbid- 
 den in acts under private seals, commercial accounts, and other 
 private legal documents, etc. [53]." 
 
 Following this action, the metric system began to experience a gradual but 
 steady growth which saw it taken up by one country after another. Some of 
 the Italian provinces, Greece and the Netherlands had already accepted it 
 by 1840. In 1849 Spain joined their ranks. The international exhibitions of 
 1851, 1855, and 1862 did much to promote the commercial advantages of 
 the metric system, and, at the time of the 1867 exhibition, an international 
 committee on coinage, weights and measures — the first of many — met in 
 Paris [54]. 
 
 In fact, the growth in use of the metric system after 1850 is little less than 
 phenomenal. By 1880 17 nations — including most of South America and the 
 major European nations of Germany, Austria-Hungary, Italy, and Nor- 
 way—had officially accepted the metric system at least for government pur- 
 poses, and 18 more nations were added to this list by 1900 [55]. The 
 reasons for this growth are accounted for by historian Edward F. Cox: 
 
 "As a result, then, of a quarter-century of developments conducive to its dif- 
 fusion, this child of science, born of the dread French Revolu- 
 tion, had been transformed . . . into the formally 
 acknowledged international system . . . [A] solid foundation 
 had been laid for its further, later dissemination . . . The funda- 
 mental reasons for such a phenomenon are found in the milieu 
 of the latter half of the nineteenth century. As indicated, it was 
 part and parcel of the growing internationalism. The metric sys- 
 tem was the scientifically recommended one in an age when 
 science and its products were being welcomed into society. The 
 many national adoptions produced a 'band-wagon' effect and in- 
 duced further adoptions. The great acceleration of world trade 
 led men of commerce, with ever greater familiarity, to proclaim 
 the virtues of the system and to urge more adoptions. It was 
 often associated with 'Progress' in an age of 'Progress' [56]." 
 
 Among the leading industrial nations of the world at the dawn of the 20th 
 century, only Britain and the United States had not accepted the metric 
 system (although others that were to become great— Russia, Japan and 
 others in the British Commonwealth — had not accepted it either at that 
 time). At least in the case of the United States and Britain it was not because 
 
12 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 these overseas developments had escaped attention. In fact, the exact op- 
 posite was true. From its very beginnings as an independent nation the 
 United States has been concerned with its system of weights and measures 
 and has often considered the notion of changing it, although this has been 
 neither an easy nor a decisive process. 
 
II. TOWARD A MORE PERFECT UNIFORMITY 
 (1607-1860) 
 
 The time from the settlement of Jamestown until the outbreak of the Civil 
 War is important in the history of U.S. weights and measures. It has often 
 been claimed that the adoption of an entirely new system of weights and 
 measures would have been a simple matter in the days when the U.S. was a 
 geographically small and agrarian nation with a mostly homogeneous popu- 
 lation. But such matters are relative. It is clear from the writings and actions 
 of this period that those who would have been involved in the change were 
 not quite so sanguine about the ease with which it might be made. Although 
 the metric system began its life in the same year that the U.S. Constitution 
 was ratified, 1790, it was not until 1821 that it was even considered as a 
 reasonable option. Unlike the conditions in France at the time of their 
 Revolution, when everything even remotely associated with the old regime 
 was cast aside, the U.S. not only retained, but even deliberately cultivated, 
 its English heritage. It is true that the courses of action taken during this 
 period had the effect, in later years, of complicating the question of adopting 
 the metric system. This has been compensated for by the fact that the one 
 action which might have permanently precluded the metric system from fu- 
 ture consideration in the U.S. — the formal adoption by legislation of the Eng- 
 lish customary system — was not taken. In the final analysis, then, the most 
 regrettable aspect of the period was the indeterminate nature of what was 
 done and this has had the beneficial effect (at least for the metric system) of 
 leaving the door open to adoption at a later date. 
 
 Most of the activity during this period occurred during the formative years 
 of the U.S. as an independent nation: 1 782 to 1 838. Among the many lasting 
 accomplishments of this era, marked by the confluence of philosophical 
 
 13 
 
14 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 idealism and the harsher realities of political and economic independence, 
 were the adoption by the U.S. of an innovative system of coinage and the 
 ratification of a Constitution giving to Congress the power "to fix the stan- 
 dard of weights and measures." Several legislative committees held inquiries 
 which eventually resulted in the enactment of a number of important laws 
 and resolutions. The executive branch, in carrying out the wishes of Con- 
 gress, also contributed to establishing a uniformity of weights and measures 
 within the U.S. Two American Secretaries of State, both of whom were later 
 to achieve the Presidency, conducted penetrating investigations on the sub- 
 ject of weights and measures and submitted reports of unparalleled excel- 
 lence to Congress. In brief, the failure to act decisively was not due to inat- 
 tentiveness, but rather to a reluctance to act too hastily in either casting 
 aside the old and familiar or accepting the new and untested. 
 
 A. WEIGHTS AND MEASURES IN THE UNITED STATES 
 PRIOR TO RATIFICATION OF THE CONSTITUTION 
 
 Concerning the earliest weights and measures in the U.S., it is sufficient to 
 note simply that the people who settled the North American continent 
 brought with them the commercial implements and practices of their home- 
 lands. For this reason there was no uniformity of weights and measures in 
 the colonies at first. With political and social amalgamation, however, came 
 legislation dealing with this situation. 
 
 The earliest recorded statute on weights and measures in the U.S. is an 
 order of the general assembly of the colony of Virginia dated March 5, 
 1623— only 16 years after the founding of Jamestown. The order provided 
 that no weights and measures were to be used which had not been sealed by 
 a duly-appointed officer of the Colony [ 1 ]. This was followed in 163 1 by an 
 ordinance fixing the barrel of corn in accordance with the English 
 Winchester bushel. Similarly, a 1641 Massachusetts statute prescribed that 
 all casks used in the sale of liquor, beef, fish, pork or other commodities 
 should be of London assize. Both Virginia and Massachusetts enacted 
 several other ordinances on weights and measures during the 17th century, 
 all relating local weights and measures to the standards of the Exchequer in 
 London. 
 
 As the colonies gained in stature and in population, more weights and 
 measures laws were added to the statute books. By 1700 Pennsylvania had 
 taken steps to protect the integrity of its commercial dealings and New 
 York, following its change from Dutch to English hands, had done likewise 
 by 1703. Others followed in rapid succession: Delaware, in 1705; Maryland, 
 in 1715; and New Jersey, in 1725. These laws notwithstanding, there was 
 still a wide diversity of weights and measures from one colony to the next. 
 Even so, commercial relations flourished. 
 
 With the achievement of independence and the creation of a new Union, 
 provision was made for establishing uniform standards. By article 9, para- 
 graph 4 of the Articles of Confederation (1777), Congress was given the 
 "sole and exclusive right and power of regulating the alloy and value of coin 
 
TOWARD A MORE PERFECT UNIFORMITY (1607-1860) 15 
 
 struck by their own authority, or by that of the respective states; fixing the 
 standard of weights and measures throughout the United States." Although 
 a proposal was laid before the Continental Congress to have the board of 
 treasury report an appropriate ordinance on weights and measures, no action 
 was taken [2]. The Continental Congress did act with alacrity in dispatching 
 its duties with respect to coinage, however. 
 
 B. THE ADOPTION OF A DECIMAL SYSTEM FOR U.S. 
 COINS 
 
 Throughout history, systems of coinage have almost always been the direct 
 descendants of a nation's weights. This was true in ancient Mesopotamia, 
 Greece, Rome, and, especially, in Great Britain. The conduct of the U.S. in 
 establishing a new and radically different system of coinage in the 1780's 
 without providing for the establishment of weights in the process of doing so 
 may therefore be viewed as an anomaly. Nevertheless it was done and the 
 action merits a brief review at this point because the primary power behind 
 the innovation of decimal coinage, Thomas Jefferson, was later to attempt to 
 apply the same principle to U.S. weights and measures. 
 
 A grave situation existed in the United States with respect to coinage dur- 
 ing and immediately after the Revolution [3]. Monies were clipped and 
 sweated to obtain the precious metals; a constant outflow of specie resulted 
 from our deficient balance of trade; and so many foreign coins with so many 
 different values were in circulation that commerce was hindered. When 
 made aware of the situation, Congress, on January 7, 1782, ordered Superin- 
 tendent of Finance Robert Morris to investigate it and render a report [4]. 
 
 Eight days later the report, prepared by Assistant Financier Gouverneur 
 Morris, was submitted to Congress along with a plan to establish a standard 
 of value and adopt a new monetary unit. The recommendations that he of- 
 fered included a proposed system bearing a close affinity with the former 
 currency; a plan to establish a mint and adopt a standard for coinage 
 weights; a fundamental monetary unit based on the Spanish piece of eight 
 (which was widely used at the time), and for which he suggested that its for- 
 mal name — "dollar" — be used; and, finally, the adoption of a decimal ratio 
 for the coins to be minted [5]. His reasons for proposing a decimal ratio 
 were stated as follows: 
 
 "Although it is not absolutely necessary, yet it is very desirable, that money 
 should be increased in decimal ratio, because by that means all 
 calculations of interest, exchange, insurance, and the like, are 
 rendered much more simple and accurate, and of course, more 
 within the power of the great mass of the people [6]." 
 
 Eventually this report was turned over to a committee for review, one of 
 the members of which was Thomas Jefferson. While Jefferson was intrigued 
 with the proposals, he felt certain modifications were needed to make the 
 system manageable "for the common purposes of society [7]." He there- 
 fore proposed that the dollar be made the unit of account, with its multiples 
 
16 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 and subdivisions being derived decimally. In a later paper he outlined what 
 he considered to be the three requisites of a money unit [8]. First, it should 
 be of a convenient size for daily transactions. The dollar, he felt, met this 
 criterion: "I question if a common measure of more convenient size than the 
 Dollar could be proposed. The value of 100, 1,000, 10,000 dollars is well 
 estimated by the mind; so is that of a tenth or hundredth of a dollar. Few 
 transactions are above or below these limits [9]." Jefferson's second 
 desideratum was that the parts and mutliples be in an easily calculated pro- 
 portion to each other. For this purpose the decimal ratio was clearly favored. 
 Finally, the unit should be sufficiently close to the value of some known 
 coins so as to be easily adopted by the people. In this respect also, the dollar 
 was not found wanting: "It is difficult to familiarize a new coin to the people; 
 it is more difficult to familiarize them to a new coin with an old name. Happi- 
 ly, the dollar is familiar to them all, and is already as much referred to for a 
 measure of value, as their respective provincial pounds [10]." 
 
 When the combined reports of Jefferson and Morris were considered in 
 Congress, on July 6, 1 785, the dollar was adopted as the unit of U.S. coinage 
 by a unanimous vote [11]. More than a year later, on August 8, 1786, a 
 complete decimal system of coinage was approved by Congress [12]. Under 
 the terms of this Act, the standard was set at 1 1 parts fine gold or silver and 
 one part alloy, with the unit being 375.64 Troy grains of silver. In this way, 
 the question of weight units was avoided for the time being. 
 
 The final step in implementing the new coinage system was the establish- 
 ment of a mint to do the actual coining. After more than 5 years of study and 
 discussion this was accomplished by passage of the Mint Act on April 2, 
 1792 [13]. 
 
 The execution of the new system was not rapid, however, nor was it an 
 overnight success. As noted by Adams in 1821: 
 
 "It is now nearly thirty years since our new moneys of accounts, our coins, 
 and our mint have been established. The dollar, under its new 
 stamp, has preserved its name and circulation. The cent has 
 become tolerably familiarized to the tongue . . . But the dime 
 having been seldom, and the mille never, presented in their 
 material images to the people, have remained . . . utterly 
 unknown . . . Even now, at the end of thirty years, ask a 
 tradesman, or shopkeeper in any of our cities what is a dime or 
 a mille, and the chances are four in five that he will not un- 
 derstand your question. . . . [They] remain, to the great mass 
 of the people, among the hidden mysteries of political econo- 
 my— state secrets [14]." 
 
 While the subject of U.S. coinage per se is beyond the scope of this ac- 
 count, the Acts which established a decimal system of coinage impinge 
 heavily on the history of the metric system. These decisions were oftentimes 
 singled out in later years as precedents. Advocates of metric adoption were 
 quick to use our coinage system as a demonstration of the advantages of a 
 decimally-based system and the actions which established it were offered as 
 proof of the ease with which such changes could be made. While the ad- 
 
TOWARD A MORE PERFECT UNIFORMITY (1607-1860) 17 
 
 vantages of decimal ratios for computation and the desirability of a con- 
 sistency between systems of enumeration, coinage, and measurement cannot 
 be denied, the analogy between our coinage system and the metric system of 
 weights and measures breaks down on several counts. Chief among these is 
 the fact that governments are able to establish absolute control over the 
 coins produced and used within their jurisdiction. Governments in short, 
 have a monopoly when it comes to monetary systems. As yet, no govern- 
 ment has been able to do the same for its measurements, nor has this often 
 been an avowed purpose of government. This and other discrepancies 
 between systems of coinage and measurement will be elaborated on in sub- 
 sequent chapters. The important point is that the similarities were used as a 
 part of the pro-metric case on several occasions and thus became a factor in 
 the debate over metric adoption. 
 
 C. CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION FOR WEIGHTS AND 
 MEASURES AND THOMAS JEFFERSON'S PROPOSALS 
 
 The year 1790 saw an unusual occurrence in the history of weights and 
 measures; France, Great Britain and the United States were all seriously 
 contemplating major changes in their systems of weights and measures in 
 order to reduce diversity and confusion. Unfortunately this common interest 
 was not strong enough to overcome political barriers even for the sake of in- 
 ternational uniformity in weights and measures, and an extraordinary oppor- 
 tunity was foregone. It should be remembered that it was indeed a real op- 
 portunity because France, in approving Talleyrand's proposal, had invited 
 British participation in fixing a new standard. Had Great Britain been a party 
 to these proceedings, which led to the inception of the metric system, the 
 United States might very well have accepted the new system at an early 
 stage in its development. 
 
 But Britain had other ideas. Sir John Riggs Miller, addressing Parliament 
 on February 5, 1790, deplored the existing situation with respect to weights 
 and measures in that country and offered two resolutions, which were 
 unanimously agreed to [15]. These resolutions required, in effect, a survey 
 of the weights and measures used in all the cities and towns of England and 
 Wales. On April 13, 1790, Sir John again spoke in Parliament, this time to 
 urge adoption of a measurement standard taken from something permanent 
 and uniform in nature and to state the desirability of a decimal ratio for 
 weights and measures and of uniformity with the systems of other nations 
 [16]. Neither the survey nor Sir John's appeals inspired a reformation of the 
 English system of weights and measures in 1 790. 
 
 In the U.S. the Constitution ratified by the States reaffirmed the Articles 
 of Confederation by giving Congress the power "to fix the Standard of 
 Weights and Measures" (art. 1, sec. 8). Even before that, on January 8, 
 1790, President Washington had addressed attention to the subject in his 
 first message to Congress by saying "Uniformity in the currency, weights, 
 and measures of the United States, is an object of great importance, and will, 
 I am persuaded, be duly attended to [17]." The matter was referred to the 
 
18 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, who was requested to prepare a suita- 
 ble plan for consideration by the House of Representatives. 
 
 Jefferson submitted two plans to the House on July 4, 1 790, one based on 
 the assumption that a new system of weights and measures was desired by 
 Congress, the other a plan to simply "define and render uniform and stable" 
 the weights and measures already in use. 
 
 Before outlining his plans, however, Jefferson noted the need for an invari- 
 able standard of length. Although, ideally, this would be some measure oc- 
 curring in nature, Jefferson said, he did not believe an appropriate measure 
 of this type could be found. Instead, he proposed basing the standard on the 
 motion of the earth on its axis, which "though not absolutely uniform and in- 
 variable, may be considered as such for every human purpose [18]." Like 
 Mouton and others following him, including Talleyrand, Jefferson settled on 
 the principle of the length of a pendulum beating seconds of mean time. 
 However, Jefferson observed that, as a scientific device, the pendulum had 
 several drawbacks, including its susceptibility to temperature changes and 
 the difficulty of locating precisely its center of oscillation. In its stead, he 
 proposed: 
 
 "A uniform cylindrical rod of iron, of such length, as, in the latitude 4^ ° in the 
 level of the ocean, and in a cellar, or other place, the tempera- 
 ture of which does not vary through the year, shall perform its 
 vibrations, in small and equal arcs, in one second of mean time 
 [19]." 
 
 This rod, the idea of Philadelphia watchmaker Robert Leslie, would obviate 
 all of the sources of uncertainty in the pendulum principle, Jefferson be- 
 lieved. This theory and the rest of the scientific matter in the report had been 
 carefully reviewed and confirmed by David Rittenhouse before the docu- 
 ment was submitted to Congress [20]. 
 
 Jefferson's plan for improving the weights and measures already in use 
 was to adjust them to the new standard of length as proposed above. Using 
 reports published in 1758 and 1759 by committees of the House of Com- 
 mons as his basic source of information on English weights and measures, he 
 laid out a system for all measures of length, area, capacity and weight. 
 Because the most serious problems in attaining uniformity were with mea- 
 sures of capacity, Jefferson settled on a standard gallon; discarded the 
 distinction between wet and dry measures; proposed rectangular rather than 
 cylindrical standards for ease of measurement; and defined the rest of the se- 
 ries in terms of this 270 cubic inch standard using English terms and ratios 
 [21]. For weights, Jefferson proposed as a standard: 
 
 "An ounce is of the weight of a cube of rain-water, of one-tenth of a foot, or 
 rather, that it is the thousandth part of the weight of a cubic foot 
 of rain-water, weighed in the standard temperature: that the se- 
 ries of weights of the United States shall consist of pounds, 
 ounces, pennyweights, and grains; whereof 
 24 Grains shall be one penny-weight; 
 18 Penny-weight one ounce; 
 16 Ounces one pound [22]." 
 
TOWARD A MORE PERFECT UNIFORMITY (1607-1860) 19 
 
 The balance of Jefferson's report was devoted to the second, and more 
 widely known, plan for a decimal system of weights and measures. One thing 
 that Jefferson made clear was the fact that he considered this plan to be a 
 logical extension of the decimal coinage concept with which he had been in- 
 volved so recently. 
 
 "The experiment made by Congress in 1786 . . . has obtained such general 
 approbation, both at home and abroad, that nothing seems 
 wanting, but the actual coinage, to banish the discordant 
 pounds, shillings, pence, and farthings of the different 
 states . . . Is it in contemplation with the House of Representa- 
 tives to extend a like improvement to our Measures and 
 Weights, and to arrange them also in a decimal ratio [23]?" 
 
 "But if it be thought that, either now, or at any future time, the citizens of the 
 United States may be induced to undertake a thorough reforma- 
 tion of their whole system of Measures, Weights and Coins, 
 reducing every branch to the same decimal ratio already 
 established in their coins, and thus bringing the calculation of 
 the principal affairs of life within the arithmetic of every man 
 who can multiply and divide plain numbers, greater changes will 
 be necessary [24]." 
 
 For linear measurement, according to Jefferson's system, the rod beating 
 seconds would yield the reference standard, which would then be divided 
 into five equal parts, each to be one foot. This would be the basis for the fol- 
 lowing [25]: 
 
 Multiples Subdivisions 
 
 10 feet = 1 decad 1/10 foot = 1 inch 
 
 10 decads = 1 rood 1/10 inch = 1 line 
 
 10 roods = 1 furlong 1/10 line = 1 point 
 1 furlongs = 1 mile 
 
 Superficial measures, or measures of area, would be based on these, with the 
 square rood (100 feet to a side) replacing the "acre." Similar innovations 
 were proposed for measures of capacity, with the basic unit being a one 
 cubic foot bushel. Weight would still be derived from a cubic inch of rain- 
 water, and the basic unit would be the ounce. Provisions were also made for 
 very small and very large weight units, as in the progression below [26] : 
 
 Multiples Subdivisions 
 
 10 ounces = 1 pound 1/10 ounce = 1 double-scruple 
 
 10 pounds = 1 stone 1/10 double-scruple = 1 carat 
 
 10 stones = 1 kental 1/10 carat = 1 minim 
 
 10 kentals = 1 hogshead 1/10 minim = 1 mite 
 
 These units would also be adopted as the basis for the coinage system by 
 simply enlarging the amount of silver contained in the money unit by about 
 one-third of a grain. This would have the effect of linking the monetary 
 system and the system of weights and measures to each other in direct pro- 
 portion. 
 
 Jefferson concluded his report by noting that the decimal plan would pro- 
 vide for determinate, unchangeable standards which would be accessible to 
 
20 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 all citizens, would keep the weights and measures of a size close enough to 
 those already in use to minimize problems of introducing a new system, and 
 would permit calculations to be made easily. He also stated that he favored 
 a gradual change to the new system, but not too long a postponement as that 
 would increase the difficulties [27]. 
 
 Before discussing the disposition of Jefferson's plans in Congress, it 
 should also be noted that Jefferson was aware of Talleyrand's proposal to 
 the French National Assembly. Although his report was somewhat delayed 
 while he evaluated the French decree, he was apparently not influenced by 
 it very much. Jefferson did note, in his letter of transmittal to the Speaker of 
 the House, that he had originally planned to use 38° latitude as the geo- 
 graphical point for fixing the standard. 1 After receipt of the French plans, 
 however, he changed his recommendations to 45° latitude in the interests of 
 possible future negotiations to achieve uniformity with France and Great 
 Britain. This change, of course, necessitated a revision of many of Jeffer- 
 son's calculations. 
 
 Jefferson was not enamored of the metric system as it was eventually for- 
 mulated, primarily because the meridian had been substituted for the pendu- 
 lum as the standard. This, he felt, detracted from the possibilities of interna- 
 tional uniformity: 
 
 "The element of measure adopted by the National Assembly excludes, ipso 
 facto, every nation on earth from a communion of measure with 
 them; . . . Instead of concurring . . . in a measure which, like 
 the pendulum, may be found in every point of the 45th degree, 
 and through both hemispheres, and consequently in all coun- 
 tries of the earth lying under that parallel, either northern or 
 southern, they adopt one which can be found but in a single 
 point of the northern parallel, and consequently only in one 
 country, and that country is theirs." (from a letter to William 
 Short of New York dated July 28, 1791) [28]. 
 
 What disturbed Jefferson about the metric system, then, was the fact that the 
 basic measurement could not be reproduced in any country except France, 
 so that other nations would either have to trust the French results or take the 
 trouble of sending people to France to verify it for themselves. He did ad- 
 mire the courage with which the reform was carried out, however [29] . 
 
 D. CONGRESSIONAL CONSIDERATION OF JEFFERSON'S 
 PROPOSALS; EVENTS LEADING UP TO JOHN 
 QUINCY ADAMS 7 INVESTIGATION 
 
 It was not until 1796 that discussion of weights and measures in Congress 
 based on Thomas Jefferson's report came to an end. Although no laws were 
 
 1 The median latitude of the United States in those days. If the measurements were made at 
 sea level, a location between Richmond, Va. and Washington, D.C. would likely have been 
 selected for determining the standard. 
 
TOWARD A MORE PERFECT UNIFORMITY (1607-1860) 21 
 
 passed as a result of his work, the extent of consideration given to the report 
 attests to the importance of the subject. 
 
 Jefferson's report was presented to the House on July 13, 1790, and was 
 promptly "tabled [30]." On December 8, 1790, President Washington 
 delivered his second message to Congress and again urged action on the 
 matter of standards of weights and measures. On December 28 the report 
 was sent to the Senate, where it was referred to a special committee. 
 
 On March 1, 1791, Senator Izard made the following report on behalf of 
 the committee: 
 
 "As a proposition has been made to the National Assembly of France for 
 obtaining a standard of measure which shall be invariable, and 
 communicable to all nations, and at all times; as a similar 
 proposition has been submitted to the British Parliament, in 
 their last session; as the avowed object of these is, to introduce 
 a uniformity in the measures and weights of the commercial na- 
 tions; as a coincidence of regulation, by the Government of the 
 United States, on so interesting a subject, would be desirable, 
 your committee are of the opinion, that it would not be eligible, 
 at present, to introduce any alteration in the measures and 
 weights which are now used in the United States [31]." 
 
 When no action to fix the standards was taken on the strength of this recom- 
 mendation, President Washington broached the subject for the third time, on 
 October 25, 1791 , stating: "A uniformity in the weights and measures of the 
 country is among the important objects submitted to you by the Constitution 
 and, if it can be derived from a standard at once invariable and universal, 
 must be no less honorable to the public councils, than conducive to the 
 public convenience [32]." 
 
 On November 1 , the Senate formed another committee to reconsider the 
 matter. This report, again prepared by Senator Izard, was submitted on 
 April 4, 1792. This time the committee recommended the establishment of 
 Jefferson's proposed standard and the adoption of a decimal system of 
 weights and measures derived from it that substantially followed his plan. 
 Consideration of these suggestions was postponed until the next session of 
 Congress. In the following session, consideration was again deferred several 
 times. When the subject was opened for discussion, on December 1 7 and 18, 
 1792, motions were substituted for the committee's recommendations that 
 would, if enacted, have required retention of the weights and measures then 
 in use, but based on the new standard as proposed by Jefferson. No action 
 was taken on any of these motions. 
 
 Three years elapsed before the subject was raised again. This time on 
 January 8, 1795, President Washington communicated to the Congress a 
 letter from the Minister of the French Republic, M. Fauchet, outlining the 
 actions recently taken by France and recommending, with some urgency, 
 the adoption of the metric system by the United States. At the same time, a 
 copper meter and a copy of the kilogram, both replicas of the French provi- 
 sional standards, were sent to the Secretary of State by M. Fauchet [33]. 
 These standards had been sent to the U.S. by France under the terms of a 
 
22 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 decree of December 1 1, 1793, in the hopes of securing true international 
 uniformity [34]. Given our Revolutionary-period alliances with France, the 
 U.S. might have been receptive to the proposal a few years earlier. In 1795, 
 however, relationships between the two countries were badly strained by 
 America's refusal to take sides in the dispute between the British and the 
 French. The standards were never used. Nor was the U.S. invited to send 
 representatives to the international gathering at Paris in 1798-99 that formal- 
 ized the metric system for this same reason. In the end, whatever the U.S. 
 propensities toward the desirability of adopting the system because of its 
 scientific excellence may have been, the prevailing political conditions al- 
 most certainly spelled the doom of the metric system in the early days of 
 U.S. independence. 
 
 Whatever the reason, further action was put off for nearly a year. In 
 December of 1 795 the House of Representatives appointed a select commit- 
 tee to consider both Jefferson's report and the French communication. 
 Recommendations were made by the committee on April 12, 1796, and on 
 May 14 the House formed itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider 
 them. Among other things, the committee suggested "That the unit of mea- 
 sures in length [from which measures of area, capacity and weight were to 
 be obtained] , and the units of weights to be adopted as standards ought not 
 to vary in any sensible degree from the present foot now in use and the 
 present pound avoirdupois [35]." Eventually the House, as a Committee of 
 the Whole, decided to authorize the President to have experiments con- 
 ducted to determine the length of a pendulum rod, the weight of a cube of 
 rain water, and the respective weights of the divisions of the pound. The sum 
 of $1 ,000 was to be appropriated to cover expenses, and a bill to this effect 
 was ordered to be drawn up. Five days later this bill — "directing certain ex- 
 periments to be made to ascertain uniform standards of weights and mea- 
 sures for the United States" [36] — was passed by the House with little op- 
 position. The bill was sent to the Senate but consideration of it was deferred. 
 The bill was never resurrected. 
 
 For all practical purposes this marked the close of Congressional con- 
 sideration of Thomas Jefferson's plans. For several years thereafter resolu- 
 tions passed by the States urging the adoption of uniform standards were 
 sent to Congress, but little action resulted. Most of these resolutions were 
 made in the form of memorials; Rhode Island (1798), Delaware (1806), New 
 Jersey (1808), and Maryland (1810) were among the States exhibiting con- 
 cern. During this time, however, Congress did enact its first statute on 
 weights and measures. In 1799 the Surveyor Act was passed, ordering the 
 surveyor of each port to examine and test the weights, measures and instru- 
 ments used in collecting customs duties at least twice each year. As no stand- 
 ard had been adopted, however, the statute could not be put into effect. 
 
 Two other actions worthy of note were taken by the executive branch 
 prior to 1821. In 1805 a "committee meter," one of 15 iron bars whose 
 lengths had been ascertained in the process of constructing the original me- 
 ter, was brought to the United States by Ferdinand Rudolph Hassler [37]. 
 This bar had been given to Hassler by Mr. J. G. Tralle, a representative from 
 what is now Switzerland to the 1798 convocation in Paris formalizing the 
 
TOWARD A MORE PERFECT UNIFORMITY (1607-1860) 23 
 
 metric system. In 1807 when the Survey of the Coast (later the U.S. Coast 
 and Geodetic Survey) was organized with Mr. Hassler at the head of it, this 
 meter was made the standard of length for that work. Until 1 890 all the base 
 measurements of the Survey were referred to this meter. 
 
 In 1814 an 82-inch bronze bar with an inlaid silver scale was procured 
 from an instrument maker, Troughton of London, also for use in the Coast 
 Survey [38]. This bar was merely a copy of Troughton's scale and had not 
 been compared with the standard British yard. Nevertheless, the distance 
 between the 27th and 63d inches, representing 36 average inches of the bar, 
 was taken to be equal to the London yard at 62° Fahrenheit. From 1 832 until 
 1856, this bar served as the unofficial standard of length for the United 
 States by virtue of an administrative action on the part of the Secretary of 
 the Treasury which will be discussed in a subsequent part of this chapter. 
 
 On December 3, 1816, President James Madison, in a message to Con- 
 gress, once more urged action on the problem of a lack of uniformity in U.S. 
 weights and measures by saying: 
 
 "Congress will call to mind that no adequate provision has yet been made for 
 the uniformity of weights and measures . . . contemplated by 
 the Constitution. The great utility of a standard fixed in its na- 
 ture, and founded on the easy rule of decimal proportions, is 
 sufficiently obvious. It led the government at an early stage to 
 preparatory steps for introducing it; and a completion of the 
 work will be a just title to the public gratitude [39]." 
 
 Weights and measures had long been of concern to Madison. On April 28, 
 1785, he had addressed a letter to James Monroe deploring the condition of 
 those in use: 
 
 "I hear frequent complaints of the disorders of our coin, and the want of 
 uniformity in the denominations of the States. Do not Congress 
 think of a remedy for these evils? The regulation of weights and 
 measures seem also to call for their attention. Every day will 
 add to the difficulty of executing these works. . . . Next to the 
 inconvenience of speaking different languages, is that of using 
 different and arbitrary weights and measures [40]." 
 
 Congress, however, was not disposed to act on the basis of Jefferson's 26- 
 year-old plans. Instead, after due deliberation, the Senate passed a resolution 
 on March 3, 1817, requesting the Secretary of State to prepare a new state- 
 ment "relative to the regulations and standards for weights and measures in 
 the several states . . . together with such proposition ... as may be 
 proper to be adopted in the United States [41]." 
 
 Concurrently, the House of Representatives continued to consider the 
 question. S .eral select committees were appointed in 1818-19 to make ap- 
 propriate recommendations. On January 25, 1819, Representative Towndes 
 reported for a select committee, suggesting the adoption of "absolute stan- 
 dards conforming to the weights and measures in common use [42]." The 
 report went on to list what the units were to be and to note that neither the 
 English system nor the French metric system had managed to become so 
 
24 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 well established as to secure uniformity. No action was taken on this report 
 during that session of Congress, and when the matter was revived during the 
 next session, Congressman Towndes thought it advisable to wait for the 
 Secretary of State's report to the Senate before acting. 
 
 E. THE EXHAUSTIVE INVESTIGATION OF JOHN QUINCY 
 ADAMS 
 
 Frequent references have already been made to John Quincy Adams' 
 1821 Report Upon Weights and Measures. If any American work on the 
 subject may be termed a "classic" it is this report. It is by far the most widely 
 cited work in later investigations, being used not only by historians but also 
 by Congressmen and interest group representatives — including those on 
 both sides of the issue of metric adoption. Because Mr. Adams did such a 
 thorough job in laying out the concepts and practices of weights and mea- 
 sures and the advantages and disadvantages to the U.S. in 1821 of both the 
 English and metric systems, it is possible to find arguments to support al- 
 most any position in this report. His assumptions are clearly stated, as are 
 his facts. His conclusions are deduced from them by logic and backed up by 
 pragmatic reasoning. Adams' recommendations cover both the short- and 
 the long-term, and the entire report is presented in the most eloquent lan- 
 guage. And yet his work often has been misinterpreted or misrepresented. 
 Subsequent students of metrology have, of course, been able to find techni- 
 cal flaws — incorrect assumptions, changed situations due to the advances in 
 science since 1821, and the like. But the report also has frequently been used 
 to leave the impression that John Quincy Adams was either unquestionably 
 in favor of the metric system or dead set against it. Neither of these is cor- 
 rect. As this document will play a recurring role in the story of proposed 
 metric legislation in the U.S. (although it was not the most important factor 
 in later decisions) it deserves more than just passing notice. 
 
 Above all else John Quincy Adams' report reflected the mood of America 
 circa 1821. A miniature profile of the concerns of our fledgling Nation can 
 be seen in his references to our English heritage, our dependence upon 
 maritime activities for survival, the beginnings of industrialism, 2 our uncer- 
 tain position in world affairs and our preoccupation with such domestic mat- 
 ters as States' rights, slavery, westward expansion, and population growth. 
 
 A look at the United States in 1821 makes clear why this is so. Between 
 1801 and 1824 the U.S. doubled in size, with the purchase of the Louisiana 
 Territory from France in 1803 being the major cause. Initial American at- 
 tempts to remain neutral in the quarrels between Britain and France had 
 come to naught, and the U.S. had fought her second war with the mother 
 country in 1812, ostensibly to protect maritime interests. In 1819 John 
 Quincy Adams negotiated a treaty with Spain which brought Florida into 
 
 2 Adams demonstrated his fascination with man's ability to harness steam in several passages 
 of his report and was clearly impressed with the potential of this power source to the future 
 development of the U.S. 
 
TOWARD A MORE PERFECT UNIFORMITY (1607-1860) 25 
 
 U.S. hands. Ohio, Louisiana, Indiana, Mississippi, Illinois, and Alabama 
 were admitted to the Union before 1820. By 1821 Maine and Missouri had 
 also been admitted, but not before a sectional conflict over the issue of 
 slavery had been dealt with and a compromise agreed upon. Fishing, farm- 
 ing, and shipping were the mainstays of the American economy in 1821, 
 although factories were rapidly beginning to dot the landscape. In order to 
 manage all of these responsibilities, the nation worked hard to avoid poten- 
 tial foreign conflicts. This job was made somewhat easier by the fact that Eu- 
 rope was temporarily enjoying a state of peace following Napoleon's 
 downfall at Waterloo and the formation of the Holy Alliance in 1815. It was 
 against this background that John Quincy Adams prepared his recommenda- 
 tions on weights and measures, and there are very few of the above events 
 which cannot be counted as a factor in his decisions. 
 
 As required by the Senate resolution, Adams concentrated his attention 
 on three principal subjects: international developments, the existing situa- 
 tion with respect to weights and measures regulations and standards in the 
 States, and the means available for securing uniformity among them. A sub- 
 ject outline of his report shows how it was approached: 
 
 I. Interpretation of the Senate resolution 
 
 II. Consideration of the concept of "uniformity" 
 
 III. Essay on the theoretical development of weights and measures as a 
 
 function of man's natural history, of social needs, and of civil 
 government 
 
 IV. The origins and development of systems of weights and measures 
 
 A. Hebrew, Greek, and Roman weights and measures 
 
 B. English weights and measures 
 
 1. Basic principles 
 
 2. Evolution of units and standards 
 
 3. Present status 
 
 C. The French metric system 
 
 1. Basic principles 
 
 2. Implementing the concept 
 
 3. Present usage 
 
 V. Comparison of the English and metric systems and the advantages and 
 
 disadvantages of each from the U.S. point of view 
 
 VI. Survey of the past and present status of weights and measures in the 
 
 several States of the U.S. 
 
 VII. Alternative courses of action available to the Congress for securing 
 
 uniformity among the States 
 
 VIII. Conclusions and recommendations 
 
 IX. Appendix: State-by-State survey of laws and practices with respect to 
 
 the subject along with other supplementary material 
 
 The highlights of Adams' report can be examined best by following the out- 
 line of it [43] . 
 
 429-523 O - 71 - 3 
 
26 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 After restating the main points to be addressed under the terms of the 
 Senate resolution, Adams tackled the notion of uniformity of weights and 
 measures in the abstract. He first pointed out that uniformity was a quality 
 which might refer to several different aspects of weights and measures: the 
 articles themselves, the objects to be weighed or measured, the duration of 
 their establishment, the territory or people encompassed by a system of 
 weights and measures, and so on. He further observed that uniformity, either 
 partial or complete, might also be of two types — one of identity, the other of 
 proportion. A uniformity of identity, upon which the French system was 
 founded, was defined as one in which only one unit of weight is applied to all 
 weighable articles, and so forth. The English system, on the other hand, was 
 based on a uniformity of proportion, in which different units of weight and 
 capacity might be used so long as they were related to one another in 
 uniform proportions. This was an important distinction to Adams and he 
 maintained it throughout his report. 
 
 With regard to the theoretical origins and development of weights and 
 measures, Adams began with the needs of individual man, 3 and built up from 
 that the additional attributes required of a system as civil society grew more 
 complex. He next undertook an examination of the role of the legislator in 
 the evolutionary process of weights and measures. Apparently basing his 
 opinions on historical precedents as he perceived them, Adams was less than 
 encouraging about the ability of lawmakers to effect the desired ends: 
 
 "When weights and measures present themselves to the contemplation of 
 the legislator, and call for the interposition of law, the first and 
 most prominent idea which occurs to him is that of uniformity: 
 his first object is to embody them into a system, and his first 
 wish, to reduce them to one universal common standard. His 
 purposes are uniformity, permanency, universality; one stan- 
 dard to be the same for all persons and all purposes, and to con- 
 tinue the same forever. These purposes, however, require 
 powers which no legislator has hitherto been found to possess. 
 The power of the legislator is limited by the extent of his territo- 
 ries, and the numbers of his people. His principle of universali- 
 ty, therefore, cannot be made, by the mere agency of his power, 
 to extend beyond the inhabitants of his own possessions. . . . 
 The power of the legislator is limited over the will and actions 
 of his subjects. His conflict with them is desperate, when he 
 counteracts their settled habits, their established usages; their 
 domestic and individual economy, their ignorance, their preju- 
 dices, and their wants; all which is unavoidable in the attempt 
 radically to change, or to originate, a totally new system of 
 weights and measures [44]." 
 
 "It is a consideration from which many important consequences result, that 
 the proper province of law, in relation to weights and measures, 
 is not to create but to regulate [45]." 
 
 3 An example of Adams reasoning along these lines was included in ch. I under the heading of 
 "Ancient Weights and Measures." 
 
TOWARD A MORE PERFECT UNIFORMITY (1607-1860) 27 
 
 After briefly tracing the development of weights and measures that oc- 
 curred under the Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans, Adams turned his atten- 
 tion to the English system, the French (metric) system and the effect of these 
 two nations' cultures on the United States. He stated in advance the primary 
 point which he was trying to make: 
 
 "Both [England and France], for a series of ages, have been engaged in the 
 pursuit of a uniform system of weights and measures . . . with 
 efforts so stupendous and with perseverance so untiring, that, 
 to any person who shall examine them, it may well be a subject 
 of astonishment to find that they are both yet entangled in the 
 pursuit at this hour ... In the abstract, that system which 
 would be most useful for one nation, would be the best for all. 
 But this uniformity cannot be obtained by legislation. It must be 
 imposed by conquest, or adopted by consent. When therefore 
 two populous and commercial nations are at the same time 
 forming and maturing a system of weights and measures on the 
 principle of uniformity, unless the system proves to be the same, 
 the results as respects all their relations with each other must 
 be, not uniformity, but new and increased diversity* .... The 
 Congress of the United States have been as earnestly employed 
 in the search of a uniform system of weights and measures as 
 the British Parliament. Have either of them considered, how 
 that very principle of uniformity would be affected by any, the 
 slightest change, sanctioned by either, in the existing system, 
 now common to both? If uniformity be their object, is it not 
 necessary to contemplate it in all its aspects [46] ?" 
 
 Following a thorough and detailed review of the basic principles, evolu- 
 tionary developments and present status of both systems, Adams compared 
 and contrasted the two systems to determine if the new French system 
 demonstrated "some great and transcendent superiority" which would 
 recommend it to the U.S. He listed five features which the metric system 
 possessed which would qualify it as a superior system: (1) it was based on an 
 invariable length standard taken from nature; (2) it utilized a single unit for 
 weight measurement and a single unit for all measures of capacity, liquid or 
 dry; (3) it was totally based on decimal arithmetic; (4) it was arranged so that 
 coins and moneys of account were in proportion to each other and to the 
 weights; and (5) its terminology was uniform, precise, and meaningful. These 
 advantages were then analyzed and compared with their corresponding dis- 
 advantages. 
 
 Adams had two objections to the natural, invariable length standard. Un- 
 like the customary system, he found, the metric system's standard could not 
 even be closely approximated without recourse to a scientific operation. 
 Also, the metric system's natural standard had not been practically used, 
 even in France, by the geographers, astronomers, and navigators for whom it 
 was designed. 
 
 4 Emphasis added. 
 
28 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 The advantage of having single units for all measures of weight and of 
 capacity was, in Adams' opinion, offset by the fact that multiple units had 
 come into being originally to take account of natural differences in the ob- 
 jects to be weighed and measured. The gallon of corn had been established 
 as different from the gallon of wine because the measures by which solid and 
 liquid substances were sold could not be conveniently combined (i.e., to suit 
 the everyday purposes of the people). Adams went on to point out, however, 
 that the U.S. would have less cause than other nations to regret the loss of 
 this duality because "Wine is an article of importation; an article of luxury; 
 . . . the exactness of the measure by which it is distributed, is not an incident 
 which everyday comes home to the interests and necessities of every in- 
 dividual [47]." 
 
 The decimal base of the system, which Adams called "one of its highest 
 theoretic excellencies," he thought had proved impracticable among the peo- 
 ple of France. For retail trade purposes the more common divisions of 1/2, 
 1/3, 1/4. and so on were still widely used. For such purposes, he said, a base- 
 12 system was inherently more suitable because the number 12 can be 
 evenly divided by 2, 3, 4, and 6, whereas the number 10 is only divisible by 
 2 and 5. 
 
 The principle of maintaining a proportion between coins and weights he 
 found to be a "great and solid advantage." To be deplored, however, was the 
 way in which the French government had abused this principle by occa- 
 sionally adjusting the value of its money. 
 
 Concerning the final superior advantage of the metric system — its nomen- 
 clature—Adams ruefully reported that this, the most significant contribution 
 of all those offered, had failed to win popular acceptance in France. Earlier 
 he had detailed the language problem in descriptive terms: 
 
 "So arbitrary and so irrational is the dominion of usage over the speech of 
 man, that, instead of appropriating a specific name to every 
 distinct thing, he is impelled, by an irresistible propensity, 
 sometimes to gives [sic] different names to the same thing, but 
 far more frequently to give the same name to different things 
 . . . When man first borrows from his own person a standard 
 measure of length, his first error is to give to the measure the 
 name of the limb from which it is assumed . . . Of all the tangles 
 of confusion to be unravelled by the regulation of weights and 
 measures, these abuses of language in their nomenclature are 
 perhaps the most inextricable [48]." 
 
 Unfortunately, in Adams' opinion, the solution offered by the metric 
 system— which would have required the people to use only 12 new 
 terms — had not been taken up in France, but, instead, had been repealed by 
 Napoleon's 1812 decree. 
 
 A unique feature of Adams' consideration of the metric system was his 
 recognition of the fact that, regardless of the eventual disposition of the new 
 system, the body of scientific knowledge possessed by man had been in- 
 creased simply by carrying out the operations necessary to the determina- 
 tion of new standards. This "by-product" effect of the French experiments 
 
TOWARD A MORE PERFECT UNIFORMITY (1607-1860) 29 
 
 was not specifically alluded to by any other student of the subject for genera- 
 tions after Adams. The two contributions named were: ( 1 ) the determination 
 of the extent of the flattening of the earth at the poles caused by axial rota- 
 tion with unprecedented accuracy; and (2) the redetermination of the tem- 
 perature at which water has its greatest density. 5 These advances resulted, 
 respectively, from the survey work done as the basis for constructing the 
 meter and the experiments conducted in determining the kilogram. Their in- 
 clusion in Adams' report is an indicator of the depth of his investigation. 
 
 It should be emphasized that Adams fully appreciated the metric system 
 as an abstract concept and he praised it accordingly: 
 
 "The system approaches to the ideal perfection of uniformity applied to 
 weights and measures; and, whether destined to succeed, or 
 doomed to fail, will shed unfading glory upon the age in which 
 it was conceived, and upon the nation by which its execution 
 was attempted [49] ." 
 "Considered merely as a labor-saving machine, it is a new power, offered to 
 man, incomparably greater than that which he has acquired by 
 the new agency which he has given to steam. It is in design the 
 greatest invention of human ingenuity since that of printing 
 [50]." 
 
 But he did not believe that the system had yet attained sufficient maturity to 
 recommend its adoption by the U.S. in 1821. 
 
 "It results, however, from this review of the present condition of the French 
 system in its native country, and from the comparison of its 
 theoretical advantages over that which we already possess, that 
 the time has not yet arrived at which so great and hazardous an 
 experiment can be recommended, as that of discarding all our 
 established weights and measures, to adopt and legalize those 
 of France in their stead [51]." 
 
 One of the reasons why this conclusion had to be drawn was that Adams' 
 survey of the existing situation in each of the 22 States of the Union had 
 revealed that substantial uniformity already existed throughout the U.S. 
 (with the exception of predominantly-French Louisiana). With the Supreme 
 Court just beginning to become embroiled in questions of States' rights, he 
 was reluctant to recommend any action that tended to nullify State laws. 
 
 After summarizing the results of this survey on a State-by-State basis. 6 
 Adams stated his opinions as to the extent of the authority to act that had 
 been granted to the Congress by the Constitution: 
 
 "It may admit of a doubt whether under this grant of power is included an 
 authority so totally to subvert the whole system of weights and 
 
 5 This significant discovery exploded the supposition that the freezing point of 32 °F was that 
 at which maximum density existed. Gineau and Fabrioni, who did the work, found it to be a full 
 9° higher. Through improved scientific methods, this value has since been refined to about 
 39+°F. The shattering of the old assumptions, however, was the important contribution made 
 by these scientists. 
 
 6 The details of the survey are included in a 108-page appendix to the Report. 
 
30 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 measures as it existed at the time of the adoption of the constitu- 
 tion, as would be necessary for the introduction of a system 
 similar to that of the French nation. To fix the standard, appears 
 to be an operation entirely distinct from changing the denomina- 
 tions and proportions already existing, and established by the 
 laws, or immemorial usage [52] ." 
 
 Nevertheless, Adams did not presume a total lack of authority when laying 
 out the four different courses of action he thought were available to the Con- 
 gress: 
 
 1. "To adopt, in all its essential parts, the new French system of weights and 
 
 measures founded upon the uniformity of identity. 
 
 2. "To restore and perfect the old English system of weights, measures, 
 
 moneys, and silver coins, founded upon the uniformity of pro- 
 portion. 
 
 3. "To devise and establish a system, in which the uniformities of identity 
 
 and of proportion shall be combined together, by adaptations of 
 parts of each system of the principles of the other. 
 
 4. "To adhere, without any innovation whatever, to our existing weights and 
 
 measures, merely fixing the standard [53]." 
 
 Adams analyzed each of these options in turn as to their advantages, disad- 
 vantages, and the extent of the action implied if Congress were to undertake 
 it. 
 
 His opinions concerning the first possible course of action, adoption of the 
 metric system, have already been noted. Restoration of the old English 
 system (that going back almost to Saxon times), Adams believed, "would 
 require an exercise of authority no less transcendent than the introduction of 
 the French system [54]." The idea of devising a "hybrid" system he 
 dismissed as unneccessary and not productive of sufficient improvement. In 
 the end, therefore, he favored giving legislative approval to the existing 
 system of weights and measures, but without closing the door to the possi- 
 bility of future changes. 
 
 His ultimate recommendations were: 
 
 1. "That the President of the United States be requested to communicate, 
 
 through the ministers of the United States, in France, Spain, 
 and Great Britain with the governments of those nations, upon 
 the subject of weights and measures, with reference to the prin- 
 ciple of uniformity as applicable to them;" [55] and 
 
 2. "In the mean time, should Congress deem it expedient to take immediate 
 
 steps for accomplishing a more perfect uniformity ... it is 
 proposed that they should assume as their principle, that no 
 innovation . . . should be attempted [56]." 
 
 Should Congress decide to accept his latter proposal, Adams suggested that 
 they (1) declare what the legal weights and measures were to be; (2) procure 
 U.S. standards, made of a suitable metal, to be deposited in Washington, 
 D.C.; (3) furnish the Governor of each State with copies of the standards; 
 (4) require the Federal Government to use the standards in its custom 
 
TOWARD A MORE PERFECT UNIFORMITY (1607-1860) 31 
 
 houses, land surveys and public offices; and (5) prescribe penalties for the 
 use of any other weights and measures with intent to defraud. 
 
 Finally, Adams proposed a plan for carrying out each of the above sug- 
 gestions. Defining the units of the system in terms of the British exchequer 
 standards, he recommended that the U.S. obtain official standards by mak- 
 ing a copy of the standard yard of 1601 , and by using that copy to construct 
 suitable capacity standards. Copies were also to be made of the avoirdupois 
 and Troy pounds in the exchequer. He further proposed that the new U.S. 
 standard be compared to the French meter to determine the exact ratio 
 between the two and suggested that this relationship be specified in the act 
 defining U.S. standards. 7 Adams rejected the notion of using a pendulum as 
 the standard because, he felt, neither the French meter nor the English yard 
 would ever be defined by use of a pendulum. This was done by Adams 
 in spite of the fact that while he was preparing his report Jefferson had written 
 to him, again urging the pendulum principle and the convenience of decimal 
 ratios [57]. 
 
 In his concluding summary, Adams noted that the two parts of the plan he 
 had recommended were distinct from each other and could be executed 
 separately. However, he cautioned that "If there be one conclusion more 
 clear than another, deducible from all the history of mankind, it is the danger 
 of hasty and inconsiderate legislation upon weights and measures [58]." 
 
 His closing remarks were at once a synopsis of Adams' considered 
 opinion and a portent of things to come: 
 
 "The glory of the first attempt [to establish uniformity] belongs to France. 
 France first surveyed the subject of weights and measures in all 
 its extent and all its compass. France first beheld it as involving 
 all the interests, the comforts, and the morals, of all nations and 
 of all after ages. In forming her system, she acted as the 
 representative of the whole human race, present and to come. 
 She has established it by law within her own territories; she has 
 offered it as a benefaction to the acceptance of all other nations. 
 That it is worthy of their acceptance, is believed to be beyond 
 a question. But opinion is the queen of the world; and the final 
 prevalence of this system beyond the boundaries of France's 
 power must await the time when the example of its benefits, 
 long and practically enjoyed, shall acquire that ascendency over 
 the opinions of other nations which gives motion to the springs 
 and direction to the wheels of power [ 59] ." 
 
 F. THE IMPORTANCE AND IMPACT OF ADAMS' REPORT 
 
 In addition to the influence of John Quincy Adams' report on the argu- 
 ments used in constructing pro- and anti-metric cases in later years, the 
 
 7 As a matter of interest, the current U.S. standards are those of the Systeme International. 
 The yard, the pound, etc. exist only as internationally agreed-upon relationships to those 
 standards. 
 
32 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 document is noteworthy on several counts. First of all, it represents the first 
 serious and thorough consideration of the possibility of U.S. adoption of the 
 metric system. The attention paid to the system and the praise lavished on it 
 by Adams are indications of the progress that had been made by this innova- 
 tion in the relatively short time since its inception. Considering the political 
 turmoil which was going on at the same time (a condition far from conducive 
 to international cooperation on such matters), it is remarkable that Adams 
 should have seen as much future potential in the metric system as he did. 
 
 A second point which should be noted is that the majority of Adams' 
 doubts about the practicability of the system stem from the fact that the 
 system had been "altered" by Napoleon in 1812. As it was not officially 
 reinstated as the only legal system in France until 1837, it was natural for 
 Adams to construe the present situation as representing a "failure" to gain 
 popular acceptance. In fact, it did take a long time for the metric system to 
 take hold, even in France. 
 
 Adams' recommendations were also made in the context of the existing 
 situation in the United States. His survey of that situation was no less 
 thorough than the rest of the report, and was to stand as the only comprehen- 
 sive study of State weights and measure laws for many years to come. His 
 survey disclosed: (1) that most of the States had already provided for use of 
 the English system by law; and (2) that the lack of suitable standards and of- 
 ficial definitions for weights and measures indicated what action was most 
 needed. Not wanting to upset a system already in place, given that his objec- 
 tive was to recommend a plan for achieving uniformity, considering that the 
 bulk of U.S. commercial dealings still were with Great Britain, and taking 
 into account the fact that France apparently had abandoned the metric 
 system. Secretary Adams' recommendations can only be thought of as hav- 
 ing been formulated from a realistic point of view. 
 
 To the detriment of the metric system's chances for early adoption in the 
 U.S., Adams' report had the effect of closing out further consideration of the 
 system in the U.S. for 40 years. During that time, while the metric system 
 was being picked up by one nation after another, the United States was ex- 
 panding its frontiers, constructing the most elaborate transportation network 
 in the world, erecting factories at a frantic pace, and developing an engineer- 
 ing system to go with it that was second to none. It is small wonder then, that 
 when the question of metric adoption was raised in the early part of the 20th 
 century the engineering and manufacturing interests in the United States 
 were inclined to be opposed to the proposition. 
 
 G. SOME TEMPORARY MEASURES AND A LENGTHY 
 INTERLUDE 
 
 When received by the Congress, Adams' report was referred to a commit- 
 tee of the House which, on March 1 1, 1822, recommended that the Pre- 
 sident have true replicas of the English standards constructed and copies of 
 them distributed to the States [60]. This suggestion was never adopted. 
 
TOWARD A MORE PERFECT UNIFORMITY (1607-1860) 33 
 
 Four years passed before Congress returned to the subject. When it did, 
 on May 16, 1826, an entirely different proposition was put before the House 
 by Representative William Czar Bradley [61]. His Committee on Weights 
 and Measures was recommending a resolution requiring experiments to be 
 made: 
 
 "For the purpose of ascertaining the true length of the pendulum, vibrating 
 60 times in a minute, at the city of New York, and also at the 
 city of Washington, and to compare the length thereof with such 
 measures, now in the possession of this Government, as will 
 best show the proportions between the length of such pendu- 
 lums and the standard yard recently adopted by the British 
 Government [62] ." 
 This proposition was occasioned by a British action adopting the standard 
 yard of 1760 as the basis for all measures of length, weight, and capacity. At 
 the same time, Great Britain had defined its new standards in terms of a pen- 
 dulum vibrating seconds in London. Representative Bradley's proposal was 
 aimed at establishing complete uniformity with the English standards. This 
 was to be done by duplicating the British experiments in two places, making 
 a total of three different measurements of the same phenomenon. While 
 Bradley's idea was never enacted into law, the debate in the House on the 
 resolution revealed a serious deficiency in the existing situation with respect 
 to weights and measures in the United States. The Committee's investiga- 
 tion had included a survey of United States custom houses and their inquiry 
 had revealed that discrepancies in the standards used in the various parts of 
 the country had caused a significant loss in revenue. 8 
 
 Four years later, on May 29, 1830, this matter was again called to the at- 
 tention of Congress, and the following resolution was approved by 
 unanimous consent: 
 
 "Resolved, That the Secretary of the Treasury be directed to cause a com- 
 parison to be made of the standards of weights and measures 
 now used at the principal custom houses in the United States, 
 and report to the Senate at the next session of Congress [64]." 
 
 This work was done by Ferdinand Hassler of the Coast Survey and the 
 results, showing large variations in the values of weights and measures used 
 from place to place, were transmitted to Congress in 1832. The Secretary of 
 the Treasury, Louis McLane, believed that his Department had sufficient 
 authority to correct the problem without further legislation. As a con- 
 sequence, Mr. McLane instructed Hassler to have uniform and accurate 
 standards of weights and measures supplied to all the custom houses. As the 
 basis for these standards, McLane, without legislative sanction, adopted the 
 yard, the avoirdupois pound, and the Winchester bushel. The Troughton 
 scale referred to earlier was used in constructing the standard of length, 
 while the avoirdupois pound standard was fabricated by using the Mint's 
 Troy pound [65]. 
 
 8 It was estimated that the amount of revenue lost each week would more than cover the cost 
 of establishing uniform standards [63]. 
 
34 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 The Troy pound had been procured in 1827 by Albert Gallatin, minister 
 of the United States at London, and brought to this country by special mes- 
 senger, who delivered it to the director of the Mint at Philadelphia [66]. On 
 May 6, 1828, a bill was introduced in the House to continue operation of the 
 Mint and to establish the Troy pound procured the year before as "the 
 standard ... of the Mint of the United States, conformably to which the 
 coinage thereof shall be regulated [67]." This Act was passed on May 
 19,1828, and the U.S. had, after 45 years of independent existence, finally 
 adopted a standard of weight for its coins. It had also passed the first, and 
 only, law of the United States officially adopting a standard of the customary 
 system of weights and measures. 
 
 As if to prod the executive branch into faster action on the custom house 
 problem, a resolution was introduced in the House in 1835 declaring it to be 
 "highly expedient that the Treasury Department should complete, with as 
 little delay as practicable the fabrication of standards ... for the supply of 
 the different custom houses [68]." 
 
 Nothing resulted from this proposal, but the following year a joint resolu- 
 tion was approved, 9 
 
 "That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he hereby is, directed to cause 
 a complete set of all weights and measures adopted as standards 
 and now either made or in progress of manufacture for the use 
 of the several custom houses, and for other purposes, to be 
 delivered to the Governor of each State in the Union, or such 
 person as he may appoint, for the use of the States, respectively, 
 to the end that a uniform standard of weights and measures may 
 be established throughout the United States [69] ." 
 
 A similar resolution requiring balances to be furnished to the States was 
 passed in 1838. By 1850 this work had been completed and, one way or 
 another, most of John Quincy Adams' second propostion had been ex- 
 ecuted. Action along the lines of his first recommendation — international 
 collaboration — was not to occur until the 1870's, and only then at the initia- 
 tion of the French Government. 
 
 To all intents and purposes the joint resolutions of 1836 and 1838 closed 
 the books on congressional legislation with respect to weights and measures 
 for 30 years. The next action of note was not taken until 1866. Although the 
 United States did acquire new copies of the English standards in 1856, no 
 further action to fix the standards or to adopt a system in toto to achieve 
 uniformity was forthcoming for awhile. Thus the first major period in the 
 evolution of U.S. weights and measures had come to an end. When the 
 matter was next reopened, it was because the international use of the metric 
 system had grown too large to ignore any longer. 
 
 9 OnJune 14, 1836. 
 
AN ACT TO AUTHORIZE THE USE OF THE 
 METRIC SYSTEM (1861-1 866) 
 
 Prior to the American Civil War not one piece of legislation calling for 
 U.S. acceptance of the metric system had even been introduced in Congress. 
 Then, in 1866, an Act was passed without resistance or fanfare making it 
 legal to use the system for the transaction of any and all business in this 
 country. This was a major turning point in the history of U.S. weights and 
 measures. Whereas previous legislative proposals had been directed either 
 to the problem of uniformity or the Congressional charter to fix the standard, 
 the emphasis from this point forward was to be on deciding which system 
 should be the one officially sanctioned by the American Government. The 
 story of how this Act came into being is brief, but the consequences of its 
 enactment would be felt for many years. 
 
 A. THE CURRENTS OF CHANGE 
 
 The ideas advanced by John Quincy Adams in 1821 proved to be prema- 
 ture. Although his words were often invoked in later years as authoritative 
 evidence both for and against the adoption of the metric system, they were 
 largely ignored by his contemporaries. The most urgent needs in the weights 
 and measures field — a standard for coins, correcting deficiencies in custom 
 house operations, and providing for uniform State standards — had been met 
 by a combination of stopgap procedures. For this reason, there was no 
 pressing demand for further action on weights and measures by the Congress 
 for several years. 
 
 During this time the metric system was gaining in international stature. 
 France had restored its compulsory status in 1840, and Napoleon's 
 
 35 
 
36 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 conquests had forced several of her immediate neighbors (including Belgi- 
 um, the Netherlands, Greece, Sardinia, and Spain) to recognize early the ef- 
 ficacy of keeping in step with France for commercial dealings. The system 
 was also made to order for scientific work, and the acute need for a universal 
 language of science was beginning to be felt by 1850. It was this need that 
 eventually culminated in the Act of 1 866. 
 
 The United States was ambivalent on this matter between 1 82 1 and 1 863, 
 and it is very difficult to find a consistent pattern in the events of the period 
 that might be called anything like a trend. Nevertheless, the slow drift of the 
 United States in the direction of the metric system may be traced back to the 
 1840's and a man named Alexander Dallas Bache (1806-1867). In 1843 
 Professor Bache, a great-grandson of Benjamin Franklin and already a 
 scientist and educator of some prominence, was appointed to succeed Ferdi- 
 nand Hassler as the Superintendent of the Coast Survey [1 ]. This position 
 carried with it at that time the responsibility for the Office of Weights and 
 Measures. Thus it fell to Bache to carry out the work of making and dis- 
 tributing to the States the copies of the Treasury Department's standards as 
 required by the Congressional resolutions of 1836 and 1838. In the process 
 of doing this work, and perhaps owing also to his studies in Europe from 
 1836 to 1838, Bache became dissatisfied with American adherence to the 
 customary system of weights and measures. 
 
 He also managed to impress his superiors with the strength of his convic- 
 tions, as evidenced by Treasury Secretary R. J. Walker's 1847 report to the 
 Congress. In laying the issue before them Walker observed: 
 
 "Coins, as well as weights and measures, for the benefit of all nations, ought 
 to be uniform throughout the world; and if our decimal system 
 of coinage should be more simple and perfect than that of any 
 other nation, it ought to be, and ultimately will be, adopted, and 
 lead as far as practicable to the introduction of the decimal 
 system of weights and measures, or at least its simplification, so 
 that ultimately the coin and the weights and measures may be 
 simple and uniform throughout the world [2]." 
 
 Professor Bache pursued this point 6 months later in his own message to 
 the Congress when, after reporting the progress which had been made in dis- 
 tributing standards to the States, he complained: 
 
 "No one who has discussed the subject of weights and measures in our 
 country has considered the present arrangement an enduring 
 one. It has grown up with the growth of European society, and 
 is deficient in simplicity and in system. The labor which is ex- 
 pended in mastering the complex denominations of weights and 
 measures is labor lost. Every purpose for which weights and 
 measures are employed can be answered by a simple and con- 
 nected arrangement [3]." 
 
 Following a brief review of Adams' proposals, particularly his suggestion on 
 international collaboration, Bache noted: 
 
ACT TO AUTHORIZE USE OF THE METRIC SYSTEM (1861-1866) 37 
 
 "The present time seems especially to invite an effort of this kind. In 
 England the subject of weights and measures is under considera- 
 tion by a commission, and on the continent the new relations of 
 States hitherto separated appear to be favorable to this object. 
 Such changes could readily be effected by suitable means in one 
 generation by introducing the new measures through the ele- 
 mentary schools [4]." 
 
 In a subsequent report, he more clearly spelled out the details of his proposal 
 
 as well as the impetus behind it: 
 
 "By reference to the interesting account of the metrical system ... it will 
 be seen that it has extended widely beyond the boundaries of 
 France . . . Has not the time arrived, in the general progress 
 of commercial and international intercourse, and the rapid 
 advance of our own country in science, wealth, and power 
 when her voice should be heard in an important matter like 
 this? Should not Congress make the proposition to all nations 
 to meet by their representatives, and consult for the purpose 
 of establishing permanent and universal uniformity of weights 
 and measures [5]?" 
 
 In addition to increased international acceptance of the system, one of the 
 things which undoubtedly caused the issue to be raised about this time was 
 the British Government's abandonment of the Troy scale of weight measure- 
 ment in 1841 [6]. This placed the coinage systems of France, Great Britain, 
 and the U.S. on entirely different weight bases. Also, Great Britain was in 
 the process of fabricating a new length standard at the time. The British ac- 
 tivity in weights and measures was necessitated by the destruction of its old 
 (1758) standards in the 1834 burning of the Parliament buildings. When the 
 new standards were completed in 1855 two copies of the yard and one copy 
 of the avoirdupois pound were given to the United States, arriving here in 
 1856 [7]. The concerted action recommended by Bache was never ap- 
 proved by a Congressional mandate, however. 
 
 In the meantime, other events were occurring abroad which are worthy of 
 note. In 1851 the first great international exhibition was held in London and 
 in 1855 another took place in Paris. At both of these events the diversity of 
 weights and measures used from country to country was open to display and 
 even caused inconvenience to the judges [8]. As the result of a statistical 
 conference held concurrently with the 1855 Paris exhibition, about 150 of 
 the delegates banded together to found the International Association for Ob- 
 taining a Uniform Decimal System of Measures, Weights and Coins [9]. 
 The most active Branch of the Association, and there were branches in 15 
 nations, was the British Branch. Its investigations of various alternative 
 decimal systems soon led the group to settle on the metric system, thus 
 becoming the first avowedly pro-metric "promotive organization [10]." 
 When other nations rapidly began adopting the metric system from this point 
 on, the British Branch of the Association was able to place the issue before 
 the House of Commons. In 1863 a bill favoring the introduction of the 
 system was passed by that body but not taken up in the House of Lords 
 
38 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 [11]. The next year— 1864 — the Association renewed its efforts and, by 
 picking up the support of the British Association for the Advancement of 
 Science was instrumental in getting enacted the first British bill making use 
 of the system "permissive [12]." Although this Act did not prove satisfacto- 
 ry for very long, it had a distinct influence on the Congress of the United 
 States in 1866. 
 
 Returning to the consideration of the subject in the United States, the cur- 
 rents of change were unmistakable by the mid-to-late 1850's. In 1854, the 
 American Geographical and Statistical Society sent a memorial to Congress 
 requesting that an international scientific commission be formed to consider 
 a uniform decimal system of weights and measures [13]. Then, in 1859, the 
 legislature of New Hampshire required their delegation to urge upon Con- 
 gress the adoption of a decimal system [14]. The neighboring State of 
 Maine, on March 20, 1860, joined the crusade by expressing their desire for 
 adoption of the uniform international system of weights, measures, and coins 
 [15]. Connecticut concurred with this action in 1861 and also provided, in 
 1864, for teaching the metric system in all the schools of that State [16]. 
 
 Although the attention of Congress was almost totally absorbed by the 
 Civil War before these resolutions could be acted upon, the subject was not 
 allowed to drop. In 1861 the Secretary of the Treasury, Salmon P. Chase, 
 again used his annual report to the Congress as a vehicle for urging a change 
 in the American system of weights and measures: 
 
 "The Secretary desires to avail himself of this opportunity to invite the at- 
 tention of Congress to the importance of a uniform system, and 
 a uniform nomenclature of weights, measures, and coins, to the 
 commerce of the world, in which the United States already so 
 largely shares. The wisest of our statesmen have regarded the 
 attainment of this end so desirable in itself as by no means im- 
 possible. The combination of the decimal system with the ap- 
 propriate denominations in a scheme of weights, measures, and 
 coins for the international uses of commerce, leaving, if needs 
 be, the separate systems of nations untouched, is certainly not 
 beyond the reach of the daring genius and patient endeavor 
 which gave the steam-engine and the telegraph to the service of 
 mankind. The secretary respectfully suggests the expediency of 
 a small appropriation to be used in promoting interchange of 
 opinions between intelligent persons of our own and foreign 
 countries on this subject [17]." 
 
 But again the times were not propitious for a collaboration with either Great 
 Britain or France. Great Britain had recognized the belligerent status of the 
 Confederate States of America and, to the consternation of the Union, con- 
 tinued to trade actively with them and even supplied gunboats in support of 
 the cause. On her part, France had also taken advantage of the split to install 
 the puppet Emperor Maximilian in Mexico. These diplomatic problems, 
 combined with the war, certainly made uniformity of weights and measures 
 a low-priority item on the legislative agenda prior to 1 866. 
 
ACT TO AUTHORIZE USE OF THE METRIC SYSTEM (1861-1866) 39 
 
 Taking into account all of the turmoil in the U.S. during these years, the 
 events which were about to occur represent truly remarkable achievements. 
 
 B. THE METRIC SYSTEM ACQUIRES SPONSORSHIP: 1863- 
 1864 
 
 The legalization of the metric system by the U.S. was hastened by two in- 
 ternational conferences in 1863 and by two Congressional moves in 1863- 
 1864. 
 
 On the international scene, a postal congress and another international 
 statistical congress adopted resolutions which further secured the position 
 of the metric system as the internationally-preferred one. At the postal con- 
 gress, held in Paris in May, 1863, 1 the following resolutions were approved: 
 
 "SEC. 7. The rates upon international correspondence shall be established 
 according to the same scale of weight in all countries. 
 
 "SEC. 8. The metrical decimal system, being that which best satisfies the 
 demands of the postal service, shall be adopted for international 
 postal relations, to the exclusion of every other system. 
 
 "SEC. 9. The single rate upon international letters shall be applied to each 
 standard weight of 15 grams, or fractional part of it [18]." 
 
 While this action was significant in and of itself, it should also be noted that 
 the U.S. Commissioner to the congress was John A. Kasson of Iowa, a 
 former First Assistant Postmaster General in Lincoln's administration, who 
 was soon to become a leading advocate of the metric system. In 1864 Kas- 
 son was to achieve an office from which he could effectuate his ideas on 
 weights and measures reform. 
 
 At the statistical conference, held in Berlin in late 1863, the delegates 
 resolved that the adoption of the same system of weights and measures for 
 commercial dealings was of the highest importance and that the metric 
 system was the most convenient [19]. A full report of the meeting, which in- 
 cluded detailed information on the weights, measures, and coins of all Eu- 
 ropean and several American nations, was rendered to Congress in June, 
 1 864, by the U.S. representative, Samuel B. Ruggles. 
 
 Also in 1 863 a third event occurred which was to have a profound impact 
 on the decision to authorize the use of the metric system in the U.S. — by Act 
 of Congress the National Academy of Sciences was founded. This body, 
 authorized "to investigate, examine, experiment and report upon any 
 question of science and art" might naturally be inclined to favor the metric 
 system reform in any case, but the prime mover behind the Academy (and its 
 first President) was a man who did not leave such things to chance. This 
 was none other than Alexander D. Bache. In spite of the fact that the new 
 organization was hastily formed and ran into difficulties in its early years 
 (the enabling Act was passed almost unwittingly, in a flurry of lame-duck 
 session legislation; the balance of disciplines among the original 50 members 
 
 1 The U.S. Government initiated this conference, which was attended by nearly all the Eu- 
 ropean nations and some American countries. 
 
40 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 was lopsided in favor of the physical sciences; and at least three notable 
 scientists were not chosen for membership due to personality conflicts [20]) 
 it managed to get around to weights and measures very early. In fact, the 
 first committee established by the Academy was that on Weights, Measures, 
 and Coinage. It was appointed on May 4, 1863 at the request of Treasury 
 Secretary Chase, and was originally made up of eight members under the 
 chairmanship of the eminent Joseph Henry, first Secretary of the Smithsoni- 
 an Institution [21]. Among the members of the Committee were Bache and 
 Samuel B. Ruggles. Although this Committee did not complete their work 
 before being replaced by a permanent committee in 1866, they apparently 
 got to the heart of the matter very quickly. As Professor Bache related in his 
 first report as President of the Academy: 
 
 "The discussions in the body of this committee were strongly in favor of the 
 adoption of the French metrical system, but more strongly, in 
 fact unanimously, in favor of the effort to arrive at a thorough 
 international system — a universal system of weights, measures, 
 and coins, available for the general acceptance of all nations 
 [22]." 
 
 Long before this committee submitted its first report, in January 1866, Con- 
 gress had also given formal recognition to the importance of the question. 
 
 On January 21,1 864, the House of Representatives adopted a resolution 
 creating a new standing committee — the Committee on a Uniform System of 
 Coinage, Weights and Measures. 2 This Committee was the product of efforts 
 by the same John A. Kasson of Iowa who had represented the United States 
 at the International Postal Congress the previous year. Mr. Kasson, now a 
 member of Congress, was selected as the Committee's first chairman. 
 
 That the committee believed its role to be that of bringing about weights 
 and measures reform is clearly revealed in its 1 866 report: 
 
 "[T]he House of Representatives ... by an amendment of its rules 
 [established] a standing committee to take jurisdiction of this 
 great reform. As efforts to carry that reform into effect had 
 hitherto been spasmodic rather than consecutive, it was thought 
 proper thereafter to crystallize them through the action of a per- 
 manent committee, before whom they should perpetually reap- 
 pear until the conceded great desideratum should become an ac- 
 complished fact [23]." 
 
 And the subject did perpetually reappear before this Committee. Until its 
 abolition by a legislative reorganization in 1946, this Committee served as 
 the main battleground on which metric contests were fought. It also wound 
 up being the final resting place for most metric bills. Even though the Com- 
 mittee scored most of its successes with metric legislation in the first 2 years 
 of its existence, its effectiveness and important contributions cannot be 
 dismissed. During its 82-year history, for example, it was responsible for the 
 
 2 In 1 866 the name was changed to the Committee on Coinage, Weights and Measures, and it 
 is by this name that it will appear throughout the remainder of this account. 
 
ACT TO AUTHORIZE USE OF THE METRIC SYSTEM (1861-1866) 41 
 
 enactment of a number of significant pieces of much-needed weights and 
 measures legislation, figured prominently in the gold vs. silver bimetallism 
 coinage controversy of the late 1800's, and sanctioned the establishment of 
 the National Bureau of Standards, several assay offices and a branch mint at 
 Omaha, Nebraska [24]. Thus the nature of Congressman Kasson's con- 
 tribution to American weights, measures, and coinage went far beyond the 
 initially-stated objective of securing international uniformity even though 
 this ultimate purpose of the Committee on Coinage, Weights, and Measures 
 was never achieved. 
 
 If Mr. Kasson was not already a staunch supporter of the metric system of 
 weights and measures as the surest means of securing international uniformi- 
 ty he was soon to become one. And he was to remain one throughout his ex- 
 tremely long (1822-1910) life. In the midst of a busy career, which included 
 service in the 38th, 43rd, 44th, 47th, and 48th Congresses and ambassador- 
 ships to Austria-Hungary and Germany [25], Representative Kasson 
 managed to find the time to serve as the Vice President of the American 
 Metrological Society — a professional group with an avowed pro-metric 
 bent — from 1873 through 1877. To him belongs most of the credit for the 
 enactment of the 1866 Act legalizing the use of the metric system. 
 
 The new Committee wasted no time in setting about its coinage work. In 
 1864 three bills were reported by the Committee and eventually enacted into 
 law. The first of these was a requirement that pennies be made of copper in- 
 stead of the previously-used nickel [26]. The others were bills to control 
 counterfeiting [27] and to facilitate the exchange of gold bullion for coin 
 [28] . Two years later, the metric system was considered by a Committee of 
 Congress for the first time. 
 
 C. 1866: A REFORM INITIATED 
 
 In January, 1866, the National Academy of Sciences' Committee on 
 Weights, Measures, and Coinage submitted its first report. In transmitting 
 the report to Secretary of the Treasury McCulloch, the Chairman, Joseph 
 Henry, was careful to emphasize the opinions of the minority, which were 
 not in the report: 
 
 "The subject is one of much perplexity. While, on the one hand, it is evident 
 that a reform of our present system of weights and measures is 
 exceedingly desirable, on the other, the difficulty of adopting 
 the best system and of introducing it in opposition to the preju- 
 dice and usages of the people is also apparent. 
 
 The entire adoption of the French metrical system involves the necessity of 
 discarding our present standard of weights and measures — the 
 foot, the pound, the bushel, the gallon — and the introduction in 
 their place of standards of unfamiliar magnitudes and names. 
 
 Such a change, in my opinion, can only be, in a government like ours, the 
 work of time and through the education of the rising generation. 
 For this purpose, should the resolution now before Congress to 
 
 429-523 O - 71 - 4 
 
42 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 establish a bureau of education be adopted, the French metrical 
 system might be taught under the sanction of the government in 
 all the common schools of the country. 
 The system, however, is not considered by many as well adapted to the 
 Anglo-Saxon mind as one which might be devised, and it was 
 therefore the opinion of a minority of the academy, that, could 
 England and the United States agree upon a system for adop- 
 tion, it would in all probability in time become universal [29] ." 
 
 The actual report of the Academy's committee was far more favorable 
 toward the proposition of taking positive action with regard to the metric 
 system: 
 
 "The Committee are in favor of adopting, ultimately, a decimal system; and, 
 in their opinion, the metrical system of weights and measures, 
 though not without defects, is, all things considered, the best in 
 use. The committee therefore suggest that the academy recom- 
 mend to Congress to authorize and encourage by law the in- 
 troduction and use of the metrical system of weights and mea- 
 sures [30]." 
 
 The committee also recommended that Congress provide for the construc- 
 tion of metric standards and their distribution to the States and custom 
 houses; that the metric system be introduced in the post offices of the U.S.; 
 and that new cent and two-cent pieces be so coined that they weighed 5 
 grams and 1 grams respectively and have diameters related to metric length 
 units [31]. 
 
 Accordingly, two bills and two joint resolutions were introduced in the 
 first session of the 39th Congress and considered by the House Committee 
 on Coinage, Weights, and Measures: 
 
 (1) H.R. 140, a joint resolution authorizing and directing the Secretary 
 of the Treasury to furnish each State with one set of standard 
 weights and measures of the metric system. 
 
 (2) H.R. 141, a joint resolution authorizing the President to appoint a 
 special commissioner to negotiate with foreign governments regard- 
 ing the establishment of a common unit of money having an identical 
 value in all nations. 
 
 (3) H.R. 597, a bill authorizing and directing the Postmaster General to 
 furnish postal balances denominated in grams to all post offices 
 exchanging mail with foreign countries and to such other post offices 
 as he believed expedient. 
 
 (4) H.R. 596, 3 a bill declaring it lawful throughout the United States of 
 America "to employ the weights and measures of the metric 
 system." Further provisions specified that no contract dealing, or 
 court proceeding could be deemed invalid or liable to objection 
 because of the use of metric denominations. Tables specifying the 
 
 3 This bill, the Committee's piece de resistance, originally had been introduced as H.R. 252, 
 proposing the compulsory and exclusive use of the metric system after a brief transition period. 
 
ACT TO AUTHORIZE USE OF THE METRIC SYSTEM (1861-1866) 43 
 
 English-system equivalents of metric measurement units and values 
 were also included in the bill. 
 
 All of these bills were reported favorably by Mr. Kasson on behalf of the 
 committee on May 17, 1866. In the report were listed the documents and 
 historical factors which had influenced the committee to recommend 
 passage of the above bills. In addition to several memorials and petitions 
 favoring the metric system, the committee specifically took note of the re- 
 ports of the National Academy of Sciences and Commissioner Ruggles' re- 
 port on the 1863 Berlin statistical congress. The committee next took up 
 separately the questions of coinage and of weights and measures. 
 
 "In respect to the gold and silver coins of the United States," the committee 
 found, "no specific change can, with propriety, be recommended for im- 
 mediate adoption [32]." Singling out the question of how a common stan- 
 dard of international values for coins could best be established as the main 
 problem, the committee noted that: 
 
 "The occasion of the World's Exposition of Industry at Paris in 1867 will 
 furnish the proper opportunity for a free conference between 
 the authorized commissioners of different governments as to 
 the best means of establishing a uniform system of coinage for 
 the common use of the nations of the world. It is to be hoped 
 that the government of the United States will be represented by 
 a commissioner whom it may be authorized to delegate, with 
 special reference to the accomplishment of this great object 
 . . . No opportunity so auspicious for effecting any needed 
 change in quantity of gold or silver, and alloy, can be expected 
 for many years to come [33] ." 
 
 To pursue this opportunity, H.R. 141 was offered authorizing the President 
 to appoint a special commissioner to negotiate an agreement with the leading 
 nations of Europe. 
 
 The Committee's discussion of weights and measures problems was more 
 elaborate and their recommendations more definite. Their first object of con- 
 sideration in this respect was a review of the previous work undertaken on 
 weights and measures. The matter was introduced as follows: 
 
 "The whole history of our revolutionary confederation, and of the constitu- 
 tional government of the United States, has been a continuous 
 acknowledgment of the perplexities arising from the diversity of 
 weights and measures throughout their jurisdiction, and of the 
 great desirableness of a uniform and a decimal system [34] ." 
 
 After giving the details of Thomas Jefferson's plans and the activities sur- 
 rounding it, the Committee report presented John Quincy Adams' argu- 
 ments and recommendations. It is clear from this report that Adams' in- 
 fluence had spanned the intervening years and provided the 1866 Committee 
 with a potent stimulus to act favorably on the question of weights and mea- 
 sures reform: 
 
 "[T]he separate action of foreign governments . . . has produced the 
 results which the Secretary sought by his proposition for con- 
 
44 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 current action. The desire he expressed for the concurrence of 
 the British government especially is now realized in the initiato- 
 ry steps taken by Parliament in the authorized adoption of the 
 metric system. 
 [T] he second part of Mr. Adams's plan has not been effectively prosecuted. 
 Its objects, however, have not been forgotten, and have occu- 
 pied, during the last 10 years more especially, the serious atten- 
 tion of the people and the government. Resolutions of State 
 legislatures, petitions from scientific and other organized socie- 
 ties, recommendations from executive officers, and direct ac- 
 tion of Congress — all these indicate a dissatisfaction with the 
 present defective system of our weights and measures and an 
 earnest desire for a decimal system common to all nations 
 [35]." 
 
 The Committee then completed its survey of the history of U.S. weights and 
 measures, bringing the situation up to the present by reviewing the more 
 recent proposals and activities — beginning with Secretary Walker's 1847 re- 
 port to the Congress and concluding with an account of the committee's own 
 establishment. 
 
 To provide additional justification for its case in favor of the proposed 
 legislation the House Committee also surveyed the status of the metric 
 system in other nations of the world. Particular attention was paid to the im- 
 portance of Britain's having enacted similar legislation only 2 years earlier. 
 The following paragraph from the Committee's report was intended to ex- 
 plain the significance of the international situation. Without realizing it, how- 
 ever, the committee was also summarizing what was to become the principal 
 case of metric advocates for more than 60 years: 
 
 "Our predecessors of the era of Mr. Adams found the interests of this 
 country much more dependent upon England than they are at 
 this day. England herself was less subject at that time to the ef- 
 fect of foreign influence than at present. The failure of these two 
 governments to unite upon a system resting upon a standard of 
 their own, at a time when France stood alone for the metric 
 system has been fatal to the adoption of the arbitrary system of 
 those countries by other nations. Convinced of its imperfec- 
 tions, no effort was made to introduce it into other countries, 
 and any modification of it with a view to its improvement would 
 only have created an additional system to those already in use 
 in the world without having in any of its features a superiority 
 over the metric system. In the mean time, the simple order, 
 beauty, and convenience of the metric system has so com- 
 mended it to universal acceptance that it has already been 
 adopted exclusively or permissively by nearly all the nations of 
 Christendom [36]." 4 
 
 4 Emphasis supplied. 
 
ACT TO AUTHORIZE USE OF THE METRIC SYSTEM (1861-1866) 45 
 
 The Committee on Coinage, Weights, and Measures concluded its defense 
 of the recommended legislation by making a verbal comparison of the En- 
 glish and metric systems, outlining the salient features of each and pointing 
 out the advantages offered by the metric system. 
 
 For some reason, perhaps because of the doubts expressed by the -Na- 
 tional Academy of Sciences, the Committee declined to go so far as to set a 
 date by which use of the system ought to become mandatory. This point was 
 addressed specifically in both the introduction to the report and in the final 
 summary: 
 
 "[Your Committee] do not doubt that a subsequent Congress will be 
 prepared to go further, and will enable the republic to lead, 
 rather than to follow, the action of other commercial and intel- 
 ligent nations in the complete establishment of this most ur- 
 gently demanded reform. It is an obligation we owe not only to 
 our present convenience, but also to posterity to whose benefit 
 all sound reforms invariably tend [37] ." 
 
 "They were not prepared to go, at this time, beyond this stage of progress in 
 the proposed reform .... It is therefore very important to 
 legalize its use, and to give to the people, or that portion of them 
 desiring it, the opportunity for its legal employment, while the 
 knowledge of its characteristics will be thus diffused among 
 men. Chambers of commerce, boards of trade, manufacturing 
 associations, and other voluntary societies, and individuals, will 
 be induced to consider and in their discretion to adopt its use. 
 The interests of trade among a people so quick as ours to 
 receive and adopt a useful novelty, will soon acquaint practical 
 men with its convenience. When this is attained — a period, it is 
 hoped, not distant — a further Act of Congress can fix the date 
 for its exclusive adoption as a legal system. At an earlier period 
 it may be safely introduced into all public offices, and for 
 government service [38] ." 
 
 When Mr. Kasson brought this bill and the three accompanying it to the 
 floor of the House of Representatives, the only one severely questioned was 
 H.R. 141 —the resolution appointing a uniform coinage commissioner. The 
 main objection to this proposal was simply that 10 commissioners had al- 
 ready been appointed to the Paris Exhibition, and Mr. Lawrence, a 
 Representative from Ohio, was strictly opposed to another "unnecessary of- 
 ficer, entailing an unnecessary expense [39] ." In the end, all four bills were 
 passed by the House and sent to the Senate on May 17,1 866. 
 
 On the Senate side of the Capitol, H.R. 596 and its companions were 
 referred to a Select Committee on Coinage and Weights and Measures, from 
 which they were reported without amendment on July 16. Eleven days later 
 the bill was considered and passed. The Senate debate appears to have pro- 
 vided the occasion for quite lengthy remarks in favor of the bill by Senator 
 Charles Sumner of Massachusetts, Chairman of the Select Committee, 
 although the remarks immediately preceding and following this speech in the 
 record would indicate that Senator Sumner either summarized his views at 
 
46 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 that time or simply ordered them to be inserted in full in the record [40]. 
 Senator Sumner also reviewed the history of previous attempts to bring 
 about weights and measures reform, placing his main emphasis on (1) the 
 features built into the metric system which made it superior for scientific 
 work, and (2) the fact that so many other nations, but especially Great 
 Britain, had already accepted the metric system. Like his colleagues on the 
 House Committee, Senator Sumner believed that the pending legalization 
 would hasten the metric system's ultimate acceptance for all purposes: 
 
 "By these enactments the metric system will be presented to the American 
 people, and will become an approved instrument of commerce. 
 It will not be forced into use, but will be left for the present to its 
 own intrinsic merits. Meanwhile it must be taught in schools. 
 Our arithmetics must explain it. They who have already passed 
 a certain period of life may not adopt it; but the rising generation 
 will embrace it and ever afterwards number it among the 
 choicest possessions of an advanced civilization [41]." 
 
 On the same day the Senate passed the two bills and the resolution to dis- 
 tribute metric standards to the States. The following day, July 28, 1 866, they 
 were signed into law by President Andrew Johnson. 
 
 D. A PERSISTENT NOTION 
 
 Even though the metric system had been officially sanctioned under the 
 law of the land, its legislative history was just beginning. The matter reap- 
 peared less than 15 years later, this time with more assertive provisions in- 
 cluded in the legislation proposed. In view of the supposedly overwhelming 
 demand for some action to correct the existing deficiencies in U.S. weights 
 and measures, questions naturally arise as to why any additional legislation 
 should be required so early and what the results of the laws enacted in 1866 
 were. There are many answers, but none of them is that what the Congres- 
 sional sponsors of the legislation foresaw — that is, a growing popular de- 
 mand creating a favorable climate for compulsory adoption of the 
 system — had come to pass. 
 
 For one thing, the demand for action was coming from a small segment of 
 the population — mostly scientists and government officials. In fact, there 
 were just two men, Bache and Kasson, who, through dedication and a sin- 
 cere belief in the need for reform, were truly committed to the proposition of 
 metric legislation in 1866. 
 
 In addition, the passage of the 1866 Act had not done much to change peo- 
 ple's daily lives. There was nothing mandatory, or even promotive, about the 
 law. People were free to totally ignore it if they chose to do so. Nor did the 
 Act or its companions do much by way of solving the old problem of nonu- 
 niformity. The distribution of metric standards to the States and the legaliza- 
 tion of the use of the system had the potential for creating just the opposite 
 effect, in fact, by officially sanctioning a second approved measurement 
 system. And Congress' responsibility "to fix the standards" had not been 
 
ACT TO AUTHORIZE USE OF THE METRIC SYSTEM (1861-1866) 47 
 
 discharged by passing this Act. In fact, no mention was even made of this 
 Constitutional provision except to acknowledge its existence. 
 
 Another reason why the metric question was revived a short time later 
 was that weights and measures reform had become an "institutionalized" 
 proposition. The National Academy of Sciences' committee on the subject 
 was made permanent in 1866, and the House Committee on Coinage, 
 Weights, and Measures had been created as a standing committee. As the 
 laws of 1 866 left plenty of work still to be done by these and other bodies, it 
 was only natural that they should, at some later date, wish to complete this 
 "great reform." The 1866 champions of the metric system had set lofty goals 
 and had made it clear that the actions proposed at that time were being of- 
 fered only as temporary expedients. 
 
 Another factor in the persistence of the subject was the continued interna- 
 tional growth of the metric system and the unceasing efforts of British metric 
 advocates to secure compulsory adoption. Although over the next few years 
 Great Britain first took steps to limit the use of the system and then rein- 
 stated it to full permissive status, that nation adhered officially to its ances- 
 tral standards until the 20th century. This gave rise to some hard fought met- 
 ric "campaigns" in Britain that served as a stimulus and as models for groups 
 in the U.S. who also wished to pursue the matter. 
 
 In short, the 1866 Act had not settled anything. It had, however, opened 
 the door to further inquiry concerning the necessity and desirability of recog- 
 nizing the metric system as the sole system of weights and measures in the 
 U.S., at least for legal and governmental purposes. 
 
 When these inquiries took place, they revealed what the long-term effects 
 of legalizing the metric system had been. In the first place, any sense of ur- 
 gency for metric adoption which might have been generated by proponents 
 of the system had been nullified by the system's legalization. In addition, the 
 opponents of metric reform had been provided with what was perhaps their 
 most effective argument, namely, that anyone who found it to his benefit to 
 use the system might do so. Therefore, no legal reason existed to force its 
 further use. The impracticability of unilateral action by anyone wishing to 
 use the system when his competitors did not was a counter-argument which 
 fell on deaf ears. 
 
 The Act did pave the way for a significant program of education on the 
 subject, and a great deal of literature began to appear explaining the system 
 and making available tables of English-metric equivalents. The accompany- 
 ing resolutions that were passed also put higher quality standards in the 
 hands of State governments. This practice has been repeated from time-to- 
 time since 1866, and all of the standards distributed since then have been 
 metric ones. A final benefit of the Act was that it allowed the U.S.. in the 
 1870's, to participate freely in important international negotiations concern- 
 ing weights and measures on an approximately equal footing with other na- 
 tions. With scientific endeavors in this nation rapidly becoming a major 
 source of international prestige and with a technological revolution about to 
 burst forth, American science would need the most advanced standards ob- 
 tainable and only those consistent and compatible with other nation's stan- 
 dards would serve the purpose. Securing Congressional approval for a 
 
48 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 general changeover to the metric system, however, was an entirely different 
 matter from such considerations as these. 
 
 The first phase of metric investigation in the U.S. had ended. The ultimate 
 goal of general adoption had been established and those actions had been 
 taken which were thought to be reasonable first steps toward its eventual ac- 
 complishment. The general tone of the arguments in favor of the system had 
 also been set. Some were borrowed from John Quincy Adams, while others 
 had been newly-minted. It was felt that the action of foreign governments, 
 especially Great Britain, had satisfied Adams' conditions and created the 
 proper climate for U.S. action to achieve uniformity; that, compared to the 
 English system of measurement, the metric system was simple to learn, easy 
 to use, and precise in its nomenclature; and that the difficulties in achieving 
 popular acceptance of the new names and values could be easily over- 
 come—it was simply a matter of time and proper influence through the 
 educational process. It was in connection with this last-mentioned aspect 
 of the question — popular acceptance — that the greatest problems were soon 
 to arise. 
 
IV. A PINT'S A POUND THE WORLD 
 AROUND? (1866-1 890} 
 
 Because the Act of 1 866 had not made the metric system mandatory upon 
 the people of the United States, a great deal of missionary work remained to 
 be done if the objectives set by the Committee on Coinage, Weights, and 
 Measures were to be accomplished. Committee Chairman Kasson initiated 
 just such a process less than a month after the Act was signed into |aw when 
 he addressed an assemblage of educators in New York State. In urging 
 upon this group strenuous efforts to educate "the rising generation" to the 
 attributes of the metric system, he laid down the principal theme for the 
 labors that were to follow. 
 
 Kasson's call to action was soon taken up by like-minded people and be- 
 fore long a full-fledged promotional campaign in favor of metric usage had 
 been established. This in turn generated the first American counter-move- 
 ment in opposition to its adoption. The resulting interest groups were active 
 in publicly proclaiming their respective causes and were able to generate 
 enough interest to pay for the issuance of an abundant supply of published 
 material. The appeals used in these publications covered a wide range of ar- 
 gumentative postures, from calm and rational explanations of the groups' be- 
 liefs, all the way to impassioned chauvinism, occult interpretations of an- 
 cient metrology, and even invocations against "the awful French metric 
 system" on religious grounds. To supplement the societies' written doc- 
 trines, regular meetings were held, various items were offered for sale, peti- 
 tions memorializing Congress were circulated, and exhibitions were 
 prepared for appropriate gatherings. Even though the three interest groups 
 of this era were short-lived, they were zealous in the pursuit of their goals 
 while they existed. 
 
 49 
 
50 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 One of John Quincy Adams' long-postponed recommendations was also 
 implemented during this period when an international treaty on weights and 
 measures, the "Treaty of the Meter," was negotiated in 1875. Although the 
 deliberations leading to this agreement were not exactly what Adams had in 
 mind in 1821 (their sole purpose was to improve the metric system and its 
 standards, and Great Britain did not ratify the treaty for several years) the 
 end results of this collaboration, multinational agreements on weights and 
 measures, were essentially the same as those sought by Adams. Great 
 Britain did enact sweeping changes in its own weights and measures laws in 
 1878, but the metric treaty had marked a turning point in the international 
 standing of the English customary system — it could no longer be advanced 
 as the strongest contender to become the universal measurement system. 
 From that point forward the English system was to be, in fact, a roadblock to 
 the achievement of that ultimate goal. 
 
 Other noteworthy aspects of this era in the history of the metric system in 
 the U.S. included the appearance of a popular literature devoted to it (other 
 than that published by interest groups), a change in the forum in which the 
 issue was debated, and the continuance of the close relationship between 
 weights and measures questions and such other subjects as international 
 coinage. On the publications front, school textbooks explaining the metric 
 system and containing compilations of tables showing metric-English value 
 equivalents became popular items. Newspapers, too, were willing to give at- 
 tention to activities concerning the metric system as a matter of public in- 
 terest. This broader exposure quite naturally led to an expanded forum for 
 metric debate. Whereas earlier investigations and discussions had been con- 
 fined mostly to governmental bodies and scientific circles, the topic was now 
 placed before the general public on the lecture circuit and in lyceum courses. 
 
 All of these developments, taken together, meant that the question of met- 
 ric adoption was becoming less and less an issue to be resolved on the basis 
 of the system's intrinsic merits and advantages to science. Instead, it was 
 becoming irrevocably linked to the social, economic, and political moods of 
 the United States. The effect of this shift on the final outcome of legislative 
 proposals cannot, of course, be measured in an absolute way, but the effect 
 on the arguments used and on the way in which the question was debated 
 can be seen with irrefutable clarity. 
 
 A. THE POLARIZATION PROCESS BEGINS 
 
 The controversy over the metric system during this period began in in- 
 nocent-enough fashion — with the routine appointment of a "blue ribbon" in- 
 vestigative panel of university professors in response to Congressman Mas- 
 son's 1866 address. As a result of this survey, earnest opposition arose and 
 things began to go sour for those favoring the introduction of the system in 
 this country. Ironically, the protagonists in this first public debate on the 
 metric question were both educators and were both associated with the same 
 institution — Columbia College (now Columbia University) in New York 
 City. 
 
A PINT'S A POUND THE WORLD AROUND? (1866-1890) 51 
 
 1 . THE DAVIES-BARNARD SCHISM 
 
 At a meeting of the University Convocation of the State of New York, at 
 Albany, on August 8, 1866, Representative Kasson noted the actions 
 recently taken by the Congress to authorize the use of the metric system. 
 According to one contemporary account: 
 
 "The aim and hope of Mr. Kasson had been that he might enlist the large 
 body of enlightened educators forming the University Convoca- 
 tion, in an active effort to advance the cause of metrological 
 reform in our country, by diffusing among the people informa- 
 tion in regard to the Metric System; by pointing out the merits 
 of this system; and by meeting the objections with which the 
 proposition to naturalize it here ... is sure to be encountered 
 [1]." 
 
 Accordingly, a committee was appointed, under the chairmanship of 
 Professor Charles Davies of Columbia, to study the situation and report 
 back at a future Convocation. Later accounts of this committee's establish- 
 ment make it clear that most members of the Convocation, including 
 Frederick A. P. Barnard, the President of Columbia, felt that the commit- 
 tee's findings were to be a foregone conclusion in favor of introducing the 
 metric system into general use. But the committee took the opposite tack, 
 tendered an unfavorable report, and thereby planted the seeds of America's 
 first two organized pro-metric associations. 
 
 There is very little doubt that Davies' report, submitted in partial form in 
 1869 and published in full in 1871 [2], was mostly a reflection of his own 
 views on the subject and not the result of unanimous agreement by the three 
 colleagues who served on the committee with him at various times. Two 
 earlier discussions seem to have influenced Davies a great deal in arriving at 
 his conclusions, as they were appended to his report in full. These were John 
 Quincy Adams' inquiry and a lecture that had been given by Sir John 
 Herschel, an eminent British astronomer and an opponent of metric adop- 
 tion in that country. Davies made no attempt to present the proposition in an 
 unbiased light. Unlike Adams, Professor Davies immediately launched into 
 a dissertation of his objections to the introduction of the metric system 
 without devoting extensive consideration to the merits of the system and the 
 possible advantages to be secured by its adoption. His opposition was based 
 on five factors. 
 
 (1) The basic unit of the system, the meter, he considered to be inherently 
 defective. To begin with the meter was not even what it purported to be, i.e., 
 the ten-millionth part of the specified meridian, because later and more so- 
 phisticated measurements of the earth's surface had shown that the original 
 French measurements were in error. Davies also felt that the meter was too 
 large a base unit because "it is not easy to give a young and uninstructed 
 mind a distinct apprehension of it; and . . . there are many things to be mea- 
 sured, in the common affairs of life, less than the meter, and these must all be 
 expressed in fractions of that unit [3]." The "foot," as derived from the 
 
52 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 British yard determined by pendulum vibrations, was a much more con- 
 venient basis for measuring length, he postulated. 
 
 (2) The decimal multiples and subdivisions, while being far superior for 
 the purpose of calculation, were not, in Davies' opinion, the ones best suited 
 for use in practical applications. His reasons for believing this are somewhat 
 vague, as can be seen in the following extract from the report: 
 
 "[F]or sensible objects, which are daily measured and handled, the French 
 themselves have departed from [decimal usage] by introducing 
 the half and the double, for most of the units . . . 
 
 The fractional units, one-half, one-third, one-fourth, one-fifth, etc., must 
 each and all be clearly apprehended before the mind can grasp, 
 as a crystallized idea, the fractional unit one-tenth. Hence, no 
 system of instruction can dispense with the divisions of the unit 
 into any number of equal parts, nor can positive legislation af- 
 fect it [4]." 
 
 Immediately following this passage, however, Davies extolled the virtues of 
 our decimal coinage system, terming its adoption a "fortunate circum- 
 stance." Thus it appears that this objection was occasioned by the fear of 
 certain unspecified practical problems rather than by a general dislike of the 
 principal of a decimal system. 
 
 (3) The metric system's nomenclature, while perhaps suitable for 
 scholars, would not be easy for school children to comprehend, Davies be- 
 lieved, because: "A child, knowing nothing of the Greek and Latin, would 
 find greater difficulty in distinguishing between deca-metre and deci-metre, 
 between hecto-metre and centi-metre. than he would if the things were called 
 by entirely different names [5]." "Can we abandon, as a mere question of 
 language, these short, sharp Saxon words [i.e., inch, foot, peck, ton, etc.], 
 for their equivalents expressed in a foreign language [6] ?" By advancing this 
 argument Davies had injected an entirely new consideration into the debate 
 over the metric system, namely an objection based merely on the system's 
 foreign origins. This aspect of the debate was to be amplified manyfold in 
 later years. 
 
 (4) Professor Davies also listed several things that he considered to be 
 significant barriers to the popular acceptance of the metric system in the 
 U.S. In the first place, he stated that if the system were introduced it would 
 be necessary to exclude all other systems. If this were to happen, he 
 prophesied: 
 
 "The conflict will be fierce in this country, where the people are freer and 
 less habituated to blind obedience to imperial edicts . . . nor 
 will the fact, that the system comes from a foreign country, 
 whose language and institutions are alike unknown to us, be 
 without its influence [7] ." 
 
 He also felt that another serious impediment to its introduction would be 
 man's basic reluctance to cast aside old and familiar things in exchange for 
 something unknown and untested. He termed this phenomenon "a law of the 
 human mind ... a species of intellectual inertia." Finally, Davies claimed 
 
A PINT'S A POUND THE WORLD AROUND? (1866-1890) 53 
 
 that it would be shunned by the people because, unlike the customary 
 system, metric units were not derived from parts of the human body and 
 would therefore be meaningless to the public at large. The customary system 
 "having such an origin was more likely to meet the wants of a people than 
 one made amid the turbulence of a revolution by a committee of learned 
 professors [8]," Davies concluded. 
 
 (5) The remaining objections to the adoption of the system that were ad- 
 vanced by Davies concerned the consequences of changing, and his stron- 
 gest language was reserved for this particular set of assertions: 
 
 "1. It would strike out from the English language every word and phrase 
 and sentence used in connection with our present units of 
 weights and measures, and would impose the necessity of learn- 
 ing a new language for the one now in use: 
 
 2. It would blot out from the knowledge of the nation all apprehensions of 
 
 distance, and area, and volume, acquired through the present 
 units, and would render necessary the acquirement of similar 
 knowledge by less convenient units, having different relations 
 to each other, and expressed in a new and unknown language: 
 
 3. It would extinguish all knowledge of money values, now so familiar to the 
 
 entire population in their daily purchases, and sales, and bar- 
 ters, for those values are all adjusted with reference to the units 
 of weights and measures: and 
 
 4. It would change the records of our entire landed property, requiring them 
 
 all to be translated into a new and foreign language [9] ." 
 
 For these reasons, said Professor Davies, his committee could not recom- 
 mend the metric system as an acceptable substitute for the existing system 
 unless some provision could be made for retaining the "foot" as the basic 
 length unit. Instead, seven resolutions were submitted for consideration by 
 the Convocation, all designed to delay any action to adopt the metric system 
 "without a very full and careful examination of all its bearings and all its con- 
 sequence." These resolutions were approved, and the report was published 
 and given wide circulation. 
 
 Although Davies investigation cannot be called a tour de force, for it is 
 generally lacking in a firm foundation for most of the contentions advanced, 
 even resorting to exaggerated statements in several cases, the extent of its 
 influence was still noteworthy. In several respects it was the first of its kind 
 and was an excellent barometer of things to come. In the first place the Da- 
 vies' committee was the first one to give extensive consideration to the 
 question from an educational point of view. It was also one of the very few 
 educationally-minded groups ever to return unfavorable recommendations 
 with respect to the metric system. Their report was the first one of any con- 
 sequence to clothe social, political and economic arguments on the subject 
 in a scientific garb in order to give credence to otherwise unsupported asser- 
 tions. It also raised several brand new objections, including the foreign 
 origins and features of the system, the fear of disturbing ingrained and well- 
 known commercial relationships — such as the price of a commodity per unit 
 of weight or volume — and the argument that all land surveys and deeds 
 
54 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 would be voided by adopting the metric system. Irrespective of the veracity 
 of Davies' (and his committee's) contentions, the report illustrated the kinds 
 of considerations that were to be brought more and more to the public's at- 
 tention. In fact, these arguments seem to have been designed with just such 
 an audience in mind. 
 
 The reaction to Davies' report from those favoring the introduction of the 
 system was swift. President Barnard of Columbia took particular exception 
 to the document, first in an oral address to a session of the Convocation and 
 later in published form [10]. He was concerned not only with the unfounded 
 objections to the use of the metric system, he said, but also with the impres- 
 sion that might be left by Davies with respect to Columbia College's position 
 on this issue: 
 
 "The Trustees and Faculty of the College with which the chairman of the 
 Committee held formerly an official, and holds still an honorary 
 connection, 1 have for some years been upon the record as ad- 
 vocates of legislation by the Congress of the United States, 
 favorable to the unification of the Money, Weights and Mea- 
 sures of the world .... To them it appeared that the publica- 
 tion of a report prepared by a gentleman in nominal connection 
 with them, maintaining an opposite opinion, was likely to 
 produce an erroneous impression in the public mind in regard to 
 their own position [11]." 
 
 Frederick Augustus Porter Barnard was one of the most notable lumina- 
 ries ever to be intimately involved with the cause of metric advancement in 
 the U.S. He is best known for his able leadership of Columbia from 1864 to 
 1868, and especially for his diligent advocacy of higher education for 
 women. His efforts in this area resulted in the establishment of Barnard Col- 
 lege for women at Columbia 6 months after his death in 1 889 [12]. Born in 
 1 809 and educated at Yale in the sciences, Barnard rose to become president 
 of the University of Mississippi, president of the American Association for 
 the Advancement of Science, director of printing and lithography in the 
 United States Coast Survey (under Bache), and a charter member of the Na- 
 tional Academy of Sciences. Two of Barnard's other accomplishments bear 
 directly upon the history of the metric system and will be noted later in this 
 chapter. His background and personality, as described in the Dictionary of 
 American Biography, help to explain his interest in the introduction of the 
 system into the U.S.: 
 
 "He was, by nature and training, both a conservative and a progressive, but 
 rather a progressive than a conservative. Having as his special- 
 ty mathematics and the allied sciences, he was yet a scholar in 
 Latin and Greek, and knew, in a general way, several modern 
 languages .... He was avaracious of new ideas, both to 
 create and to acquire, to assimilate and to propagate. His spirit 
 was missionary. Born with an instinct for persistent faithful- 
 
 1 Davies was Professor Emeritus of the Higher Mathematics at Columbia. 
 
A PINT'S A POUND THE WORLD AROUND? (1866-1890) 55 
 
 ness, he persevered in the teeth, at times, of strong opposition 
 against his measures [ 1 3] ." 
 
 Addressing the University Convocation, in the teeth of opposition, he first 
 noted the progress recently made with respect to the international metrologi- 
 cal reform movement, particularly dwelling upon the recent additions to the 
 list of nations having adopted the metric system. In the second part of his 
 speech he presented a systematic refutation of the many exceptions to the 
 metric system that had been raised by Davies in his recent treatise. "I can- 
 not pass so lightly by," he said, "the objections which have been urged 
 against the system, and of which, in my view, the importance has been, in 
 most instances, exaggerated beyond all reason; since .... the high 
 authority of this learned convocation has been made liable to be popularly 
 regarded as attesting their gravity [ 14] ." 
 
 Concerning the contention that the base unit, the meter, was too large, 
 Barnard asked "too large for what?" He compared the size of the yard to 
 that of the meter, noting that if a one-meter rule were too large to be con- 
 venient, the yard was no less so, being only 3 inches shorter. He also took 
 exception to Davies' assertion that the foot had been established as the base 
 unit of the English system, observing that the official English standard of 
 length had always been the yard. 
 
 As to the difficulty of decimal division, Barnard found such fears to be 
 imaginary, especially in comparison to the difficulty of repeated division by 
 12. No objection ought to be made to the use of decimals in education either: 
 "[HJowever grave this business of [calculating by] ten may be, I suppose 
 that our children must sometime or other know something about decimal 
 arithmetic; and they will have to know something about it whether they learn 
 the metric system or not .... The question is not whether we shall teach 
 the metric system to babes, but whether we shall teach it along with the 
 arithmetic .... which boys must learn at any rate [15]." Dr. Barnard 
 could see no harm in permitting simple binary subdivision (halves, quarters, 
 eighths, etc.) for practical purposes if the people found this to be more con- 
 venient, but, he felt, this alone was not sufficient reason to discard altogether 
 the decimal principle and its attendant advantages. Davies' final objection to 
 the decimal system — the fact that attempts to apply the principle to the divi- 
 sion of the circle had failed to gain acceptance — Barnard answered with logic 
 and insight: 
 
 "Those who use this argument ought to remember that the Arabic numerals, 
 the symbols of algebra, and the division of the circle, are three 
 things (and the only three things, I believe), which were the 
 same for all civilized mankind when the metric system was 
 created. To change the law of circular division was to introduce 
 diversity where uniformity prevailed before; and also to destroy 
 the usefulness of a vast scientific literature which had been 
 founded on the sexagesimal division [16]." 
 
 To Davies' contention (and those of Adams and Herschel before him) that 
 length units should be representations of parts of the human body, Barnard 
 
56 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 responded by citing examples of the arbitrariness and instability of standards 
 based on such measures. Choosing the foot by way of example, he recalled 
 the diversity of values given to it in various countries. In the Italian 
 provinces, he observed, values for the old customary foot had ranged from 
 1 1.62 to 23.22 English inches; in pre-metric France provincial standards for 
 the foot had been anywhere between 9.76 and 14.05 inches; and similar 
 situations had prevailed all across Europe. By contrast, the metric units and 
 standards had established the foundation for unprecedented uniformity from 
 one country to the next. Besides, the subdivisions of the meter were just as 
 adaptable for the purposes of practical approximations in everyday measure- 
 ments as the customary units were, the difference between 30 centimeters 
 and a foot being less than two-tenths of an inch. 
 
 With respect to the assertion that the result of metric adoption would be a 
 total displacement of the customary system, Barnard replied: 
 
 "I hardly know what to say about it; so that I am not sure that the truest 
 wisdom in me would not be to let it alone altogether. It is the un- 
 deniable truth, that, if we give up our present measures we shall 
 cease to have them any longer. . . . This is evidently a serious 
 business. It reminds us of the sad case of the lad who, having 
 eaten his cake, desires to have it again [17]." 
 
 But Barnard did not accept the proposition that introducing the metric 
 system would invalidate land titles, for no legislation concerning the system 
 could be made retroactive under the provisions of the Constitution. Instead, 
 these changes would be made gradually as property changed hands and new 
 surveys were made. 
 
 His final rebuttal was directed at Davies' claims that the selection of the 
 French meridian as the basis for the standard and the admitted discrepancy 
 between the theoretical and the actual meter had destroyed the perfection of 
 the metric system. On the matter of France having chosen the Dunkirk-Bar- 
 celona meridian, Dr. Barnard said: 
 
 "If ... a tradesman, suspecting his meter to be in error, could adjust it by 
 simply stepping out of his door and applying it to the earth's 
 meridian, there might be some reason for complaint on the part 
 of those, and they would be the majority of mankind, whose 
 distance from the standard would deprive them of this facility. 
 This not being the case, no practical disadvantage arises out of 
 the inequality of the meridians, and it is only the simplicity of 
 the original conception that suffers [18]." 
 
 The fact that the meter was not exactly the ten-millionth part of the meridian 
 did not strike him as being a reasonable objection at all. If it had turned out 
 that way, Barnard contended, it would have been nothing less than a miracle 
 considering the existing state of geodesy in 1792, when the survey was 
 begun. His advocacy of the meter had nothing to do with its actual relation- 
 ship to the circumference of the earth, he professed, but, rather, was based 
 on the fact that "it is the actual base of an admirable system of weights and 
 measures already in use among one hundred and sixty millions of people, 
 
A PINT'S A POUND THE WORLD AROUND? (1866-1890) 57 
 
 rapidly growing in favor among those who have not yet adopted it, and 
 destined in my belief to be sooner or later the system of all the world [19]." 
 But Barnard had no desire to see the metric system put into effect without 
 adequate preparation for the change: 
 
 "I do not expect that this system will make its way to the world against the 
 will of the people in the world. I do not expect that our people, 
 and I do not desire that any people, shall be coerced into re- 
 ceiving it by the force of 'imperial edicts' or by the terror of 
 bayonets. What I do expect is that they will sooner or later 
 welcome it as one of the greatest social blessings .... This 
 cannot take place, of course, until the people are thoroughly 
 informed. There are influences, therefore, which are now only 
 beginning to operate, which must first have their full course be- 
 fore the results I anticipate will make themselves manifest 
 [20]." 
 
 Accordingly, he outlined a five point program of action for properly intro- 
 ducing the metric system to the people of the United States. Dr. Barnard's 
 plan called for: 
 
 (1) Teaching the metric system in the schools so as to educate the 
 young to a thorough understanding of the system and a familiarity 
 with its practical applications; 
 
 (2) Putting the system into use in the custom-houses and making it the 
 basis on which tariffs were to be levied; 
 
 (3) Adopting the metric weights and measures for public surveys, such 
 as the coast survey; 
 
 (4) Requiring military and naval establishments to use the system; and 
 
 (5) Conducting all post office business in metric units [21]. 
 
 These recommendations, set forth comprehensively in this document for 
 the first time, were to become the principal points of contention in the metric 
 debate for 40 years, and most of the legislative proposals advanced during 
 that time were aimed at implementing one or more of these suggestions. The 
 underlying strategy for them was clear and simple. They were based on the 
 sincere belief that practical experience in applying the metric system, no 
 matter how limited at first, would inevitably convince the people that a 
 general changeover would be feasible and desirable. As the institutions most 
 widely connected to the people as a whole were the schools and the Federal 
 Government, it was only natural that they were chosen to be the vehicles 
 through which such an initial introduction should be made. 
 
 And so, with this first trading of blows in public, the notion came to an end 
 that affairs involving weights and measures were best left to those having a 
 first-hand knowledge of their intricacies. The debate in a new forum would 
 be far less restrained than it had been previously, and this development gave 
 opponents the upper hand. One reason for this was that the entire concept 
 upon which the metric system had been founded was arrived at through a 
 logical process. The system was designed to appeal to seekers of order and 
 perfection. But the question of metric adoption was not to be discussed in a 
 
 429-523 0-71-5 
 
58 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 rational, orderly fashion, thereby nullifying the system's strongest attributes. 
 Another reason the opponents were able to seize the advantage is that 
 nothing at all had to happen in order for them to carry the day. The burden of 
 proof lay with those who were asking for a change, and as long as the opposi- 
 tion could generate doubt and fear no great popular demand for the change 
 was likely to arise. Considering the pervasive use of the customary weights 
 and measures, and assuming the existence of a strong tendency to take their 
 importance for granted, creating such doubt could not have been too dif- 
 ficult. As a result, those who advocated adoption of the metric system had 
 two tasks to accomplish: they first had to rebut the arguments of the opposi- 
 tion and then convince others that what they were proposing was desirable. 
 The Davies-Barnard debate was only the first of many encounters along 
 these lines, but, by drawing so clearly the lines of the dispute, a general pat- 
 tern was established for others to follow. 
 
 2. CONCURRENT DEVELOPMENTS 
 
 Between 1866 and 1871, when the Davies-Barnard controversy was still 
 in the formative stages, other events were occurring that eventually inten- 
 sified the belief that metrological reform on an international scale was ur- 
 gently needed. To begin with, it will be recalled that, in its 1866 legislative 
 recommendations, the House Committee on Coinage, Weights, and Mea- 
 sures had included a reso-ution providing for American participation in 
 uniform coinage negotiations at the Paris international exposition of 1867. 
 At this exposition an informal convention of official delegates was held and 
 resolutions were adopted that proclaimed the superiority of the metric 
 system and urged its widespread acceptance in order to secure the benefits 
 of uniformity [22]. Teaching the metric system in public schools was 
 specifically recommended along with actions promoting its use in scientific 
 publications, public statistics, postal and customs work, and other functions 
 of a governmental nature [23]. As one of the American Commissioners to 
 the Paris exposition was F. A. P. Barnard [24], it is logical to assume that 
 his 1872 suggestions on behalf of the metric system were strongly influenced 
 by this convention's actions and proceedings. 
 
 In the same year the International Geodetic Association, made up of 
 delegates from major European nations, met at Berlin and agreed to the need 
 for new and common standards to make all European geodetic work com- 
 parable [25]. The Association decided that their purposes would be served 
 best by adherence to a uniform decimal system and recommended the adop- 
 tion of the metric system. The convention also called upon participating na- 
 tions to provide for the construction of a new European prototype meter, dif- 
 fering as little as possible from the French meter and compatible with it to 
 the highest degree of accuracy obtainable [26]. To insure full international 
 participation, construction of the new standard was to be entrusted to an in- 
 ternational commission and the desirability of establishing a permanent in- 
 ternational weights and measures organization was to be considered [27]. 
 The consequences of the Geodetic Association's decisions will be fully 
 discussed in the next section of this Chapter. 
 
A PINT'S A POUND THE WORLD AROUND? (1866-1890) 59 
 
 The next year, 1868, the North German Confederation decided to make 
 use of the metric system mandatory after January 1, 1872 [28]. This deci- 
 sion was reaffirmed in 1 87 1 after the further consolidation of the German 
 states under Emperor William I [29]. The German action was important to 
 the metric cause, especially in later years when her industrial might was to 
 become a factor in world affairs, because Germany had been the last major 
 European "holdout," with the exception of Russia and, of course, Great 
 Britain. The German changeover would require many years to accomplish, 
 but there was now almost total uniformity of weights and measures, at least 
 for legal and commercial purposes, on the European continent. 
 
 On the British front, metric advocates proposed a bill in 1868 making use 
 of the system compulsory, but after a second reading it was dropped [30] . In 
 the meantime, the whole subject of English weights and measures was being 
 studied by a Royal Standards Commission under the chairmanship of Sir G. 
 B. Airy, the astronomer-royal. The Commission's second report, dated April 
 3, 1869, was given over solely to the question of metric adoption [31]. It 
 was the opinion of this commission that Britain was not yet ready to accept 
 the metric system because its superiority over the customary system had not 
 yet been proven [32]. It was recommended that its use again be made per- 
 missible, but this suggestion was ignored. 
 
 In the meantime, a few concurrent actions of interest were taking place in 
 the United States. At its annual meeting in January, 1867, the National 
 Academy of Sciences again demonstrated its interest in the subject. Noting 
 the actions recently taken by Congress, the Academy passed four resolu- 
 tions favoring further efforts to make use of the metric system a practical 
 reality. Three of these resolutions centered around the principle "of educat- 
 ing the community and especially the youth of the country" in the metric 
 system by adding it to school curriculums [33]. The fourth declared it to be 
 "highly desirable that the discretionary power granted by Congress to the 
 Postmaster General to use the metrical weights in the post offices . . . [be 
 implemented] at the earliest convenient day [34]." 
 
 In the U.S. Congress the subject lay dormant until 1870, probably 
 because there was no apparent need for further legislation in view of the 
 productive output of the Committee on Coinage, Weights, and Measures in 
 1866. In 1870, however, during the second session of the 41st Congress, 
 several metric bills were introduced and referred to the Committee, now 
 under the chairmanship of a Pennsylvanian named William Kelly [35]. In 
 all, four bills were proposed at this time — two dealing directly with the met- 
 ric system itself, and two tangentially related through international coinage 
 system proposals. The two metric bills were both introduced on February 3, 
 1870 by Representative Allison. H.R. 1087 was a bill "to enable persons 
 who use the metric weights and measures to transact business therein at the 
 public offices of the United States." Its companion, H.R. 1088, was more 
 specific, providing that: "on and after the first day of April, eighteen hundred 
 and seventy, the entries of goods at the custom-house, and lists and returns 
 for assessment of internal revenue shall be made in [metric units]. . . in- 
 stead of in the weights and measures now in use . . . And in all acts and parts 
 of acts relating to rates of postage, one ounce shall be held to mean 30 
 
60 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 grams." No report on either of these two proposals was issued by the Com- 
 mittee on Coinage, Weights, and Measures. 
 
 The closely-related coinage proposals — one "to promote the establish- 
 ment of an international metrical system of coinage" and the other to deter- 
 mine the value and weight of gold coins in the U.S., Britain and 
 France — were combined in a single bill and made the subject of a report to 
 the House, upon which no action was taken. The purpose of these bills was 
 to put the American decimalized monetary system before an international 
 committee as the possible basis of an internationally-uniform coinage system 
 based on the metric system of weights. When nothing was done about this 
 recommendation, the Committee dropped the subject of weights and mea- 
 sures for several years. Between 1871 and 1873 it was preoccupied with 
 revising the laws relating to counterfeiting and the statutes governing the 
 operations and procedures of the mints and assay offices. After that, it was 
 practically inactive until !877. The only other event worthy of note that oc- 
 curred in Congress between 1866 and 1876 was the passage of a second 
 resolution in 1872 authorizing the use of metric weights in the Post Office 
 Department. This was not compulsory upon the Department, however, and 
 was not implemented because: (1) no appropriations were made to provide 
 funds for changing over the scales; and (2) Department officials apparently 
 did not favor the change. 
 
 In other areas of Government concern, however, significant develop- 
 ments were brewing that eventually would cement the preferred interna- 
 tional standing of the metric system. 
 
 B. THE "TREATY OF THE METER" 
 
 As a result of the 1867 decision by the International Geodetic Association 
 to seek a reformulation of metric standards, the St. Petersburg Academy of 
 Sciences suggested to the Paris Academy of Sciences, in 1869, some initial 
 steps toward the establishment of an improved, international metric system 
 [36]. According to one account, this proposition was not enthusiastically 
 received in France, where the metric standards were considered by French 
 men of science to be untouchable artifacts not to be meddled with by 
 foreigners [37]. Other members of the Paris Academy, however, were not 
 so parochial in their outlook and were willing to concede the desirability and 
 practicability of constructing new standards provided that they were not too 
 far removed from the existing ones. Accordingly, Emperor Napoleon III, 
 acting on the basis of his government's recommendations, issued invitations 
 through diplomatic channels to attend a convention to be held in Paris at 
 which the fabrication of a new prototype meter and kilogram would be 
 discussed and arrangements made to supply each of the participating nations 
 with a duplicate set of the new standards. 
 
 Twenty-four nations accepted invitations and their delegates convened at 
 Paris in August, 1870, forming themselves into an International Commis- 
 sion. Before much could be accomplished the Franco-Prussian war began 
 and the session had to be called off. In spite of the short duration of the con- 
 
A PINT'S A POUND THE WORLD AROUND? (1866-1890) 61 
 
 ference the delegates had managed to lay the groundwork for future discus- 
 sions and had agreed in principle to the idea of a neutral, international reposi- 
 tory for the new standards. 
 
 When peace had been restored, the French Government recalled the 
 Commission. When they again met at Paris, in September of 1872, 30 states 
 were represented by 51 commissioners, including many of the world's 
 foremost scientists [38]. The American commissioners were Mr. J. E. Hil- 
 gard of the Coast Survey and Joseph Henry, president of the National 
 Academy of Sciences and chairman of its 1866 committee on weights, mea- 
 sures, and coinage [39]. About 40 resolutions were passed dealing with the 
 construction of new prototypes, and the creation of an international bureau 
 of weights and measures was recommended to the participating governments 
 [40]. A permanent committee was also appointed to carry out the Commis- 
 sion's recommendations and to take charge of the work involved in manufac- 
 turing the new standards [41]. By 1875 the planning and design work on the 
 new standards had progressed so well that the permanent committee 
 requested the French Government to convene a diplomatic conference to 
 discuss ways and means for verifying the new standards and insuring their 
 permanent preservation. 
 
 In response to this request, official representatives of 19 nations, the 
 United States included, 2 met at Paris beginning in March, 1875 [42]. On 
 May 20, 17 of the 19 countries signed the Convention du Metre ("Treaty of 
 the Meter") providing for the establishment and maintenance of a permanent 
 International Bureau of Weights and Measures to be situated near Paris and 
 to be under the control of an international committee of 14 members from 
 different countries. The convention was ratified by President Rutherford B. 
 Hayes on September 27, 1878, the U.S. Senate having approved the mea- 
 sure [43]. 
 
 The prime mission given to the International Bureau was to construct and 
 verify the new metric standards. Additional work was to include: ( 1 ) the cus- 
 tody and preservation of the international prototypes and associated instru- 
 ments, when completed; (2) a periodic comparison of the several national 
 standards with the international prototypes; and (3) the comparison of met- 
 ric standards with different standards of other countries [44]. The cost of 
 doing this work was to be met through contributions by the participating 
 governments, the size of the payments depending upon population and the 
 extent to which the metric system was in use in each country [45]. The Bu- 
 reau was to be responsible to a General Conference on Weights and Mea- 
 sures, meeting every 6 years to decide on questions of importance, and to the 
 permanent International Committee of Weights and Measures, meeting 
 every 2 years [46]. This general plan of organization, with the Committee 
 being responsible for insuring that the Bureau implements the decisions of 
 the Conference, has continued to the present day. 
 
 As the French Government desired to have the International Bureau 
 established close to Paris, the birthplace of the metric system, they agreed to 
 
 2 Represented by Elihu Benjamin Washburne, Envoy Extraordinary and U.S. Minister 
 Plenipontentiary to Paris. 
 
62 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 provide the site and facilities for it. The Pavilion de Breteuil, a royal estate 
 near Sevres in the Pare de Saint Cloud, was made available and declared 
 to be neutral territory for this purpose. The necessary repairs to the 
 buildings were made and facilities to house the scientific apparatus were 
 completed in 1878 [47]. An Italian physicist, Gilberto Govi, was elected as 
 the Bureau's first director [48], although the position had been offered 
 previously to Mr. Hilgard, who had declined to accept it [49]. 
 
 The actual work of constructing the new standards was begun in 1877 and 
 was not completed until 1889. This was mainly due to the difficulties in- 
 volved in obtaining the necessary quantities of extremely high-purity 
 platinum-iridium alloy and in casting it into meter "bars" of an unusual X- 
 shape, as specified in the design [50]. When the work was completed, the 
 First General Conference on Weights and Measures was convened, the ulti- 
 mate national prototype standards were selected from among all those manu- 
 factured, and arrangements were made for distributing the identical copies 
 which remained to the member nations. Whereas the international proto- 
 types had been selected from among the 3 1 meters and 40 kilograms on the 
 basis of their close conformity to the previous standards, the ones dis- 
 tributed to the various countries were determined by drawing lots. The 
 United States drew meters numbered 21 and 27, and kilograms numbered 4 
 and 20 [51]. 
 
 The American prototypes were packaged for shipment in Paris and sealed 
 by Benjamin Apthorp Gould, U.S. delegate to the International Conference. 
 One of each was brought to this country by Mr. George Davidson, an 
 Assistant in the Coast and Geodetic Survey [52]. On January 2, 1890, the 
 seals were broken at the White House and the standards were certified and 
 accepted by President Benjamin Harrison. They were then placed in the 
 vault of the Treasury Department's Office of Weights and Measures to await 
 the receipt of the other two. These were received in July. Three years later, 
 on April 5, 1893, the same standards were declared to be the nation's "fun- 
 damental standards" of length and mass by an administrative action of the 
 Superintendent of Weights and Measures, sanctioned by the Secretary of the 
 Treasury [53] . More will be said about the importance of this action in sub- 
 sequent chapters. 
 
 Through this collaborative effort the metric system had been made the of- 
 ficial international system of weights and measures, and it was recognized as 
 such by most of the major commercial and scientific nations in the Western 
 Hemisphere. Its future was never in doubt from this point forward, only the 
 extent to which it would someday become universal. 
 
 C. AMERICAN METRIC ADVOCATES ORGANIZE 
 
 With international metrological proceedings well under way in the early 
 1 870's and with the lines of battle having been formed for a metric debate in 
 this country, the time had come for a full-blown campaign to begin. In all, 
 three organizations were established — two favorable to the proposed reform 
 and the other opposed. The advocates were the first to organize, beginning 
 
A PINT'S A POUND THE WORLD AROUND? (1866-1890) 63 
 
 with the American Metrological Society in 1873. Its goals were somewhat 
 broader than just securing adoption of the metric system, but the activities of 
 the American Metric Bureau, established in 1876, were strictly limited to 
 metric advocacy. 
 
 As organized opposition did not appear until the very end of the decade 
 these two groups had things pretty much their own way for several years. 
 While they were not able to parlay this advantage into securing formal adop- 
 tion of the metric system by legislation, this was not their main goal. They 
 were, rather, interested in seeing the metric system gradually make its own 
 way by virtue of being endorsed by the educational system. In this they were 
 partially victorious, although they precluded themselves from showing truly 
 outstanding progress along these lines by confining their operations geo- 
 graphically to the eastern seaboard States. 
 
 1 . THE AMERICAN METROLOGICAL SOCIETY 
 
 The American Metrological Society was the creation of that devoted 
 friend of the metric system, Frederick A. P. Barnard. Demonstrating the sin- 
 cerity of the views he had previously presented to the University Convoca- 
 tion, he issued, on October 22, 1873, an invitation to colleagues who had ex- 
 pressed an interest in metrological reform to meet at Columbia College on 
 December 30. Noting the progress made by European nations in adjusting 
 their measurement systems to bring them into conformity with each other, 
 Barnard deplored the lack of general interest in this process that had been 
 shown by the English-speaking nations. He believed that this oversight 
 would be rectified in part by forming an association "to take into considera- 
 tion the various interesting questions connected with metrological reform, to 
 spread information in regard to these among the people, and to concentrate 
 effort towards the accomplishment of such practical measures of improve- 
 ments as, upon full deliberation, it may seem judicious to attempt [54]." 
 Barnard concluded his invitation by stating that it had been occasioned by 
 the recent receipt of a letter, signed by Joseph Henry and other leading 
 American scientists, asking him to take the initiative in establishing an ap- 
 propriate organization for such purposes. 
 
 Twenty-three individuals responded to Barnard's call. The majority of 
 these— 19 — were from academic institutions. The minutes of this first meet- 
 ing show that among the gentlemen in attendance were Professor Charles 
 Davies, the Honorable John A. Kasson, and Mr. J. E. Hilgard. Following 
 the adoption of a provisional constitution, Barnard was elected President, 
 Kasson (no longer the Chairman of the Committee on Coinage, Weights, and 
 Measures) was selected as Vice President, and Hilgard was named a 
 member of the Council, which was empowered to conduct the Society's 
 business between meetings. Dues were set at $5.00 per year. 
 
 For the next few months the Society was engaged primarily in charting its 
 own course, adopting a constitution and by-laws, and building up its mem- 
 bership. Although members were actively sought, it was never intended that 
 the work of the group should have widespread public appeal. From the very 
 beginning the Society was designed to be semiprofessional and semipolitical. 
 
64 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 with emphasis on the former rather than the latter. It was successful in at- 
 tracting some of the most distinguished men in the country to the aid of its 
 cause, however, and thus the Society compensated for its lack of numerical 
 size with prominent names. Among its members were Hamilton Fish, Secre- 
 tary of State under President Grant; John J. Knox, Controller of the Cur- 
 rency; Senator Sumner; a dozen Congressmen, including the current Chair- 
 man of the House Committee, Alexander Stephens of Georgia and former 
 Chairman Kelly of Pennsylvania; Samuel B. Ruggles, ex-commissioner for 
 international coinage matters; Charles S. Peirce, Bache's replacement as Su- 
 perintendent of the Coast and Geodetic Survey; Major John Wesley Powell 
 of the Smithsonian Institution (better known as the first white man to ven- 
 ture through the Grand Canyon by boat); five college presidents, including 
 Barnard and John D. Runkle of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 
 and many other well-known educators, scientists and engineers. The most 
 outstanding single characteristic of the membership as a whole, aside from 
 its common interest in the science of weights and measures, was its geo- 
 graphical concentration in the eastern States. Of the 171 members listed in 
 1 880, 1 24, a full 73 percent, resided in the States of Massachusetts, Connec- 
 ticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia. 
 This may be contrasted with a total of 19 members (11%) residing west of 
 the Mississippi River, most of these in the St. Louis, Missouri and Denver, 
 Colorado areas. Even at its peak, then, the American Metrological Society 
 was principally a group of eastern scientists and government officials and 
 was in no sense a "grass roots" movement akin to the flowering Populist 
 reform movement of the middle west and prairie states. 
 
 The constitution of the Society, adopted in 1874, made clear its aims 
 without direct reference to the metric system as an object of attention. The 
 stated purposes were threefold: 
 
 ( 1 ) To improve existing systems of weights, measures and moneys, and, 
 to the greatest extent practicable, to bring them "into relations of 
 simple commensurability with each other." 
 
 (2) To secure, among scientists and engineers, the universal adoption 
 of common units of measure for use in presenting the results of their 
 work. The Society was particularly interested in doing this in newer 
 areas of scientific investigation "for which the ordinary systems of 
 metrology do not provide." Specifically mentioned were divisions of 
 the barometer and thermometer, combustion measurements and ex- 
 pressions of electro-dynamic current. 
 
 (3) To "secure as far as may be the acceptance of the system of decimal 
 derivation" (obviously implying the metric system). It was stressed 
 that this was to be done for ease of calculation and to conform to nu- 
 merical notation, and did not mean that binary or other systems 
 would have to be excluded if found preferable for practical purposes 
 [55]. 
 
 Even the methods by which these objectives were to be accomplished 
 were spelled out in the Society's constitution. In this section the influence of 
 Congressman Kasson may be seen clearly, for much of the language was 
 
A PINT'S A POUND THE WORLD AROUND? (1866-1890) 65 
 
 lifted directly from his Committee's 1866 Report to the House of Represen- 
 tatives. In the main, the Society planned to prepare the people of the country 
 "to act intelligently upon the important questions" by appealing to Congress, 
 State legislatures, boards of education, institutions of higher learning, and 
 educators in general. The Society would also seek assistance from boards of 
 trade, chambers of commerce, engineering societies, industrial associations 
 and, in particular, scientific bodies. Congress was to be further memorial- 
 ized: 
 
 "In favor of the enactment of laws requiring the use, in certain departments 
 of the public service, of the metric system of weights and mea- 
 sures where such legislation may tend to relieve commerce of 
 some of its burdens to facilitate international communication, to 
 promote international jurisprudence, and to familiarize our own 
 people with the benefits of that system of metrology with the 
 least interference with their ordinary habits of thought, or daily 
 business [56]." 
 
 Finally, the Society resolved to take its appeal directly to the people through 
 the medium of the public press and through books and documents extolling 
 the virtues of a universal measurement system. 
 
 These were ambitious plans — perhaps too much so for the resources 
 available to the group. Because a great deal of the money received as dues or 
 donations went to paying for the printing and distribution of the Society's 
 Proceedings to its members, very little was left over for other purposes. A 
 year-by-year record of the Society, as contained in the Proceedings (which 
 were published only until 1888) shows that it built itself from more than 70 
 members at the end of its first year to nearly 200 members in 1881. There 
 was a sharp drop-off in 1884, to about 90 members, which continued until 
 only 57 were left in 1 887. Likewise, the Society's treasury fluctuated a great 
 deal, although the figures tend to be misleading because publications were 
 only printed when a sufficient cash balance had been accumulated. 
 Nevertheless, the Society's treasury balance was never more than $1,300, 
 and the Society was actually in debt on several occasions. Even in the 1 880's 
 this amount was not sufficient to conduct any massive "lobby" effort on be- 
 half of the metric system. 
 
 Throughout its history, the American Metrological Society employed 
 predominantly low-key tactics to achieve its goals. Some pamphlets and 
 public announcements aimed at promoting the introduction of the metric 
 system were prepared, but they were intended to be educational, not in- 
 flammatory. While Barnard was at the helm (until his death in 1889), the 
 Society was careful to preserve the scientific aspects of its character and 
 only ventured into the forum of public debate on infrequent occasions. 
 Above all, it tried to remain dignified, even in the face of some of the public 
 insults it received in the mid-to-late 1 880's. Quite possibly it held itself too 
 aloof to be effective — meetings were held only twice each year, its legislative 
 activities were mainly limited to circulating petitions to send to Congress, 
 and a considerable portion of its deliberations were given over to metrologi- 
 cal subjects other than the metric system. As a second pro-metric group was 
 
66 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 created by the Society in 1 876 to fill in the gaps it left and to focus on metric 
 questions, it seems reasonable to conclude that the Society as a whole was 
 more interested in broader areas of concern, even to the detriment of its met- 
 ric interests. 
 
 Among these other areas were questions of adopting a uniform interna- 
 tional system of coinage and securing a system of standard time zones for the 
 United States. Its efforts on behalf of the former reform were doomed to 
 failure. Inevitably the Society and its committees became entangled in the 
 bimetallism controversy dealing with the disparity between the market ratio 
 of silver to gold and the fixed mint ratio for the same metals. Nor, ap- 
 parently, were many major foreign governments vitally interested in secur- 
 ing coinage uniformity. With respect to the establishment of standard time 
 zones, the Society, or at least one of its members, a Sanford Fleming of 
 Canada, played an influential role. During the 1880's the question of how to 
 divide the U.S. (and Canada) into reasonable time zones arose. Much 
 discussion of the various alternatives was published by the Society, with 
 Fleming being a major contributor. His plan was the one that was eventually 
 adopted, principally through the good offices of the railroads (who had the 
 biggest problems with respect to uniform time practices). 
 
 The interest invested in these problems did not mean that the American 
 Metrological Society was silent or inactive on questions concerning weights 
 and measures and the metric system. Far from it. In fact, one of the Society's 
 earliest actions was the drawing up of an elaborate communication to Con- 
 gress detailing the need for metrological reform and outlining the program of 
 action it was urging, including: 
 
 (1) Adoption of the metric system as the official basis for assessing 
 tariff duties; 
 
 (2) Restoration of the "vitality" of the 1866 metric postal provisions by 
 passing a new law requiring the metric system to be used; 
 
 (3) Use of the metric values, along with corresponding English values, 
 in government reports describing public works and in statistical and 
 other documents issued by the executive branch; and 
 
 (4) Adjustment of the weights of U.S. gold coins so as to make them ex- 
 pressible in metric denominations [57] . 
 
 In the same year, 1874, Barnard circulated another document that was 
 very explicit as to the urgency of metric adoption and that was designed to 
 secure the voluntary use of the system by professional men in their everyday 
 work: 
 
 "It is clear that England, owing to her position in Europe, must very soon 
 complete the process she has already begun of adopting this 
 system. 
 
 The United States should not wait for England. The German, French and 
 other foreign element here already exerts a great pressure in the 
 direction of its general adoption. Moreover, having already, in 
 our dollars, dimes, cents, and mills, the principle of the metric 
 system in actual use before us ... no serious difficulty will be 
 encountered even with the most uneducated classes . . . 
 
A PINT'S A POUND THE WORLD AROUND? (1866-1890) 67 
 
 Under our republican form of government, it is not to be expected that our 
 national legislature will, in a matter so nearly touching the daily 
 business and habits of every citizen, be in advance of the people 
 themselves. Congress has made the metric system legal, and has 
 power to make it compulsory; but this is a power which that 
 body is not likely to exercise until a call for such action shall 
 come up to its members from their constituents at home [58]." 
 
 Endorsing these sentiments were some of the most respected gentlemen of 
 their day, including President Charles W. Eliot of Harvard, Oliver Wendell 
 Holmes, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Charles Francis Adams, Major 
 General Winfield S. Hancock, future Supreme Court Justice Samuel 
 Blatchford, and no less than 26 congressmen and Senators representing 17 
 different States. With such a power base from which to operate, it is quite 
 strange, indeed, that Dr. Barnard never succeeded in really launching a 
 widespread metrological reform movement. 
 
 The Society's plan to invoke the aid and cooperation of other associations 
 was carried out only spasmodically. On one notable occasion in 1875, how- 
 ever, when asked by the Boston Society of Civil Engineers to collaborate on 
 a memorial to Congress asking them to fix a date after which the metric 
 system should be the only legal system of weights and measures, the 
 Metrological Society responded by passing a resolution to the effect that: 
 
 "The time has not yet come when it is possible to fix a date for the com- 
 pulsory adoption in all public and private transactions of a 
 uniform system of weights and measures; . . .[therefore] 
 present efforts should be directed toward the gradual adoption 
 of the metric system by the Government for international 
 purposes . . . and toward the instruction of the public in regard 
 to the nature and advantages of the metric system [59]." 
 
 While this opinion may have represented a realistic view of the existing 
 situation, the pompous phrases in which it was stated could not have instilled 
 much enthusiasm in other groups for seeking cooperation from the Society. 
 In carrying out its planned program to encourage educational use of the 
 metric system, the Society again resorted to circulating letters explaining 
 their cause and the reasons for it. In late 1875 a circular was mailed to over 
 350 colleges urging them to make familiarity with the metric system a condi- 
 tion of admission. In 1876 this was followed up with a letter to secondary 
 and lower-grade schools suggesting that: 
 
 (1) Every teacher should make himself thoroughly familiar with the 
 metric system so as to be prepared both to use it and to "defend it 
 against objectors." 
 
 (2) School children should either be supplied with or required to pro- 
 vide themselves with a ruler graduated in both metric and English 
 dimensions. 
 
 (3) Every school should have a set of charts and models illustrating the 
 metric units of length, weight and capacity [60] . 
 
68 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 The Society apparently reached the decision early in its life, however, that 
 this phase of the work was too important to be left solely to its busy and 
 limited membership, for an entirely separate interest group was formed 
 under its auspices in 1 876 in order to pursue the educational efforts more ac- 
 tively. When the metric issue was revived in Congress, beginning in 1877, 
 this left the Society free to concentrate on that aspect of its activities. The 
 role it chose to play in the legislative process was primarily that of being a 
 catalyst, as will be seen in the next section. 
 
 Just as the American Metrological Society thrived under Barnard's per- 
 sonal leadership, so did it languish after his death in 1889. Although the or- 
 ganization continued to exist until about 1906, it ceased to be an influential 
 spokesman for metrological reform. After the publication of its Proceedings 
 ceased in 1888, the Society's main activities were the distribution of a few 
 promotional pamphlets, the preparation of pro-metric briefs for considera- 
 tion by the House Committee on Coinage, Weights, and Measures, and an 
 occasional appearance at Congressional hearings by a representative of the 
 Society. The Society had, in fact, begun to atrophy even before Barnard's 
 death, as the following extract from the published minutes of the December, 
 1886 meeting shows: 
 
 "Dr. Barnard remarked that the little interest shown in the Society, as 
 evidenced by the decreasing paying membership [in the last 
 year the number had fallen from 89 to 68] and by the lack of 
 proper material for printing, raised the question whether it 
 would not be best to let the Society die. 
 
 Mr. [ Melvil] Dewey said: 'I am thoroughly opposed to allowing this Society 
 to die. It has done much excellent work in the past, and has 
 much more to do in the future. When we consider what it has ac- 
 complished in forwarding the introduction of Standard Time, 
 and in educating the general public to the advantages of better 
 weights and measures, we shall not be willing for its career to 
 stop, though we might wish that more members took an active 
 interest. Our members are scattered through the country; they 
 are nearly all specially busy men, and we must be content if 
 most of them do no more than give their names and their annual 
 fees to maintain a work in which they are interested. ... A 
 more active campaign in favor of the Metric System would 
 waken new interest in many places. To all such efforts the 
 public has responded promptly [61].' " 
 
 Neither the public nor the Society responded to this appeal, however, and 
 the Society's effectiveness gradually waned until interest in it all but disap- 
 peared. 
 
 2. THE AMERICAN METRIC BUREAU 
 
 On July 28, 1876, the American Metric Bureau was organized in Boston 
 [62]. Although the Bureau was established as an independent organization, 
 it was an outgrowth of the American Metrological Society and was linked to 
 
A PINT'S A POUND THE WORLD AROUND? (1866-1890) 69 
 
 that group in ways other than through their common interests. The most ob- 
 vious of these is the fact that F. A. P. Barnard was the Bureau's President. 
 The Metric Bureau was also partially financed by the Society, although its 
 main source of support was membership participation. 
 
 Unlike the Society, the American Metric Bureau was not principally a 
 scientific organization. Incorporated under the laws of the Commonwealth 
 of Massachusetts as a "missionary society for educational purposes," it was 
 the Bureau's desire to enlist educators and merchants in the drive to in- 
 troduce the metric system into the U.S. Its aims were also more focused 
 than those of the Society, being "to disseminate information concerning the 
 Metric System; to urge its early adoption; and to bring about actual introduc- 
 tions wherever practicable," according to. the constitution adopted in 1876. 
 
 The Bureau also differed from the Metrological Society in that Barnard 
 did not take personal charge of its day-to-day affairs, its Boston location 
 making this impossible. Rather, this task was left chiefly to the Secretary, 
 Melvil Dewey, as well as to three vice-presidents, Prof. W. F. Bradbury, 
 Prof. William Watson, and the Hon. Charles Francis Adams. Both Adams 
 and Dewey are still remembered for their contributions to other fields of en- 
 deavor. Charles Francis Adams (1807-1886), was the son of John Quincy 
 Adams and the grandson of John Adams. During the American Civil War he 
 was minister to Great Britain, and had distinguished himself by keeping that 
 nation out of the conflict [63]. Melvil Dewey (1851-1931) was, at the time, 
 a young man whose fame as the inventor of the Dewey Decimal System of 
 library classification was yet to come [64] . Dr. Barnard was apparently very 
 impressed with Dewey's abilities, however, because he hired him to be 
 Columbia College's head librarian before too many years had elapsed. As 
 has already been indicated, Dewey continued his efforts on behalf of metric 
 adoption after moving to Morningside Heights as a member of the American 
 Metrological Society. The American Metric Bureau, however, did not sur- 
 vive the transplanting of its hardest worker and it began to decay shortly 
 after Dewey's move (about 1881). 
 
 The officers of the Bureau were chosen by and from a board of 10 
 directors, who were elected by the membership at large. The board of 
 directors met once each month, and regular meetings of the members were 
 scheduled quarterly. All officers served without pay. 
 
 To attract as many supporters to the cause as possible, an unusual com- 
 bination of membership arrangements was offered by the Bureau. To begin 
 with, regular memberships were offered which entitled the individual to a 
 free copy of each publication of the Bureau. There was no fixed fee for this 
 class of membership. Rather, each person agreed to pay an assessment, not 
 over $5.00 annually, that was to be fixed by the board. 
 
 For the more affluent, honorary memberships were made available for 
 $25.00 and life memberships could be purchased for $50.00. Only 100 of the 
 latter were to be offered by the Bureau, though, and none of the proceeds 
 from the sale of life-membership certificates were to be used in running the 
 Bureau's affairs. Instead, the life members would form their own separate 
 corporation, elect a board of three trustees, and invest the revenue in 
 purchasing and re-selling, at the lowest possible cost, the "articles needed 
 
70 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 for the teaching, introduction, or actual use" of the metric system. To further 
 safeguard these funds, the Bureau's constitution also provided that "the life 
 members shall not dissolve their organization, except by unanimous vote, till 
 the Metric Weights and Measures are made our only legal system." Surpris- 
 ingly, all of the life memberships had been given out by the end of the Bu- 
 reau's first year of operation, and 100 "preferred" life memberships were of- 
 fered at the same price in order to raise additional capital for the "Sinking 
 Fund" from which the metric equipment was to be purchased. "Preferred" 
 life memberships were, in reality, guaranteed loans paying 6 percent annual 
 interest under the rules established by the trustees. 
 
 The Bureau also recognized that a good many less well-to-do individuals 
 ("especially lady teachers in small villages and country districts where small 
 salaries are paid") might be equally interested in the work. Because the size 
 of the membership was of paramount importance to the Bureau, it offered as- 
 sociate memberships for only the cost of a subscription to The Metric Bul- 
 letin, its principal publication. As this amounted to only about $1.00 a year 
 it was not prohibitive and high hopes were held out for the attainment of a 
 large clientele group. 
 
 The size of the Bureau's membership was not reported on a regular basis, 
 but a little more than a year after it was founded it claimed to have 400 mem- 
 bers. Like most groups of this nature, it complained at the same time that 
 "less than a fourth of the members . . . are doing most of the work [65]." 
 Although no demands were made upon the member's time, each was "sup- 
 posed to feel an added interest in the work that will lead him to do all he can 
 to advance it." The Bureau was also more than willing to accept additional 
 financial support from those sympathizers wishing to compensate for their 
 inability to participate more actively in person, as it announced on several 
 occasions. This was more of a fond wish than a realistic expectation, how- 
 ever. 
 
 The main activities of the American Metric Bureau, aside from the publi- 
 cation of the Bulletin containing metric information of general interest, were 
 delivering pro-metric addresses to various groups, circulating published 
 material and posting charts in prominent places, and selling actual metric 
 scales and measures for use in the classroom and elsewhere. The last- 
 mentioned program was by far the Bureau's most ambitious and expensive 
 one, and the staunchest supporters were still trying to make a go of it as 
 late as 1889, long after the organization as a whole had ceased functioning 
 as an effective interest group. A catalog and price list of books, charts, 
 and apparatus issued in that year includes entries such as the following: 
 
 "Chart No. 1. 
 
 Conceded by all to be a most useful appliance for teaching either children or 
 the masses . . . Each part is engraved with great care from 
 drawings made of exact size from government standards. This 
 is the finest illustration of the system ever printed, and invalua- 
 ble for schools and other public places. It requires eight 
 printings, all measures being in natural colors. These charts 
 were prepared at great expense, and are an ornament for any 
 
A PINT'S A POUND THE WORLD AROUND? (1866-1890) 71 
 
 room. No more valuable service can be done the cause than 
 hanging them in prominent places. Price, mounted on cloth, 
 varnished, $2.00." 
 
 In all, 5 charts were offered, 4 textbooks, a variety of desk rulers, pocket 
 rules, linen and steel tape measures, sets of capacity measures and metric 
 weights, and even scales imported from France. Of particular importance to 
 the Bureau were the specially-assembled school kits, representing an assort- 
 ment of items, because: "The importance and necessity of teaching the met- 
 ric system is conceded by all interested in education; the value of the actual 
 weights and measures as object-lessons to be handled and used is equally ap- 
 parent." Five different sets were available from the Metric Bureau, ranging 
 in price from $6.00 to $25.00. The $15.00 set for example, consisted of 34 
 pieces, including two different charts, two wooden meter sticks and a paper 
 replica; a four-fold 40-centimeter pocket rule; a 10 meter linen tape; a spe- 
 cial, graduated wooden liter block and copper liter case; a set of capacity 
 measures in tin; a "dekaliter"; a set of iron weights; a special school scale; 
 and two textbooks. 
 
 But the wholesale distribution of illustrative metric equipment was not the 
 only work done by the Bureau to promote its cause, as a report of its first 
 year's activities indicates: 
 
 "During that year a central office, supplied with large collections of 
 everything illustrating the international measures, has been kept 
 open, and thousands of people have visited it, receiving ex- 
 planations and answers to their inquiries. Some scores of 
 branch offices have been established, where more or less illus- 
 trative material has been exhibited and explained. Several hun- 
 dred addresses have been delivered, by or through the efforts of 
 our members, throughout the country. Many hundreds of arti- 
 cles have been printed in the papers and magazines, through the 
 influence of the Bureau. Over half a million pages of circulars, 
 placards, etc., explaining or advocating the system, or in some 
 way directly calculated to advance its introduction, have been 
 distributed gratuitously and judiciously, reaching nearly every 
 township in the United States. Numerous committees have 
 waited upon branches or departments of the State and national 
 government, and in nearly every case have accomplished 
 something in the desired direction. Very many schools have 
 been visited in the interest of the system, through the influence 
 of the Bureau. At some time during the year, each of the eight 
 thousand periodicals of the country has been reached, and some 
 hundreds have promised cooperation in carrying forward the 
 introduction ... .[In addition,] there has been maintained a 
 heavy correspondence, reaching every section of the country. 
 Of the labor involved some idea may be had from the payments 
 for postage, amounting in the twelve months to $294.20 [66]." 3 
 
 3 At a time when a first class letter required only a 1-cent stamp, this was a considerable 
 volume, indeed. 
 
72 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 In spite of the glowing account of services rendered, and the favorable 
 prognostications for the success of the organization that went along with it, 
 the American Metric Bureau was suffering from a serious and persistent 
 problem — a shortage of funds. Month after month the Bulletin contained ap- 
 peals for more monetary assistance: 
 
 November, I #76-"The committee desires to urge upon friends of the cause 
 the necessity of pecuniary support. The expenses of the Bureau 
 are very small indeed for the amount of work which it is doing, 
 but the heavy correspondence, and Bulletins and circulars, all 
 entail expenses." 
 
 March/April, 1877— "An increasing number of members and correspon- 
 dents are remembering that the Bureau is not a business house, 
 with goods to sell at a large profit, and so enclose stamps and 
 often slight contributions where they cannot afford more lib- 
 eral .... Gifts of any amount are most welcome .... al- 
 though the society is accomplishing very much, the work is 
 crippled and embarrassed for want of funds, and every one 
 who wishes it to succeed should give something, however 
 small, to the general treasury or to any special object desired." 
 
 November, 1877— "This great work has required, with the greatest econo- 
 my, a considerable expenditure .... at the present time there 
 is greater need of additional funds than ever before. There are 
 opportunities for carrying forward the work, so well begun, that 
 must not be allowed to pass unimproved." 
 
 March, 1878 — "Most of our active members, knowing how much we accom- 
 plish with the money, will be willing to make some little sacri- 
 fice if necessary, in order that the work may not be crippled at 
 this critical time, when early and complete success seems as- 
 sured." 
 
 In order to keep up the membership's confidence that success was indeed 
 within the Bureau's grasp, other articles were regularly included in the 
 Bulletin that related how many metric adoptions were being made in this 
 country on a voluntary basis. Extracts from newspaper and magazine arti- 
 cles favorable to the cause were also reprinted, and one whole issue con- 
 tained recent proceedings of the American Metrological Society. Very little 
 of the Bulletin was given over to Congressional or State legislative transac- 
 tions, though, and exhortations to "write to your Congressman" were very 
 rare. 
 
 As with the Metrological Society, the American Metric Bureau believed 
 that creating a widespread popular demand was the surest road to victory. 
 To them it appeared to be a simple matter of exposing a great number of peo- 
 ple to the metric system and then letting them decide for themselves which 
 was the more desirable. But there was a flaw in their choice of strategies. By 
 singling out teachers and school children as their main targets, they neces- 
 sarily delayed the successful completion of their reform by as much time as 
 it would take for this "rising generation" to reach maturity and begin to de- 
 mand a change. This was not consistent with the Bureau's plan to secure a 
 
 ■r 
 
A PINT'S A POUND THE WORLD AROUND? (1866-1890) 73 
 
 rapid popular adoption and then disband. By not putting enough effort into 
 reaching many of their adult contemporaries and by not preparing itself to 
 carry on the work over several decades, the American Metric Bureau was 
 contributing to its own defeat. When a real opportunity arose to secure posi- 
 tive legislative action in this direction 20 to 30 years later, there was no ac- 
 tive group in the wings to help organize the supporters of the cause, as both 
 the American Metrological Society and the American Metric Bureau had 
 "petered out" by then. While their efforts may very well have had a noticea- 
 ble impact on the minds of many young Americans, this gain was gradually 
 lost when the issue ceased being actively pursued. 
 
 By 1890, then, the first two American pro-metric organizations had had 
 their day. Both had been created and kept viable through the personal in- 
 terest and dedication of one man — Frederick A. P. Barnard. While the 
 American Metrological Society was intended to be scientific and permanent, 
 the American Metric Bureau was to have been popular and temporary. 
 Whereas the former was to be more concerned with general metrological 
 reform, the latter was interested only in securing the use of the metric system 
 of weights and measures in the U.S. Both were principally east-coast opera- 
 tions and each, in its own way, developed an important constituency, 
 although these proved to be too circumscribed to fully accomplish the or- 
 ganizations' objectives. Finally, both groups accepted the same basic as- 
 sumption as a point of departure for their activities, namely that the coming 
 of the metric system was an inevitable occurrence which simply had to be 
 properly prepared for. Unfortunately for them, the problem as it eventually 
 emerged was not that elementary. 
 
 D. THE LEGISLATIVE SCENE: 1877-1886 
 
 The most noticeable effect of the pro-metric agitation was the reap- 
 pearance of the issue in the legislative arena, beginning in 1877 and lasting 
 for 10 years. For the most part, the bills proposed were along the lines ad- 
 vocated by the Metrological Society and were designed to effect the partial 
 adoption of the metric system by the U.S. Government, especially in its in- 
 ternational dealings. As the Chairman of the House Committee on Coinage, 
 Weights, and Measures at that time, Alexander Stephens of Georgia, had al- 
 ready indicated his sympathetic attitude toward the metric movement by 
 joining the Society, the legislation that was sought during this period was 
 probably inspired by the Society's recommendations. 
 
 Also leading up to legislative consideration of the question, and having a 
 definite effect on the scope of it, were some new investigations of the subject 
 by independent bodies and individuals. The first of these was made by a 
 standing committee on the metric system of the Boston Society of Civil En- 
 gineers between 1873 and 1875, and was discussed by the American Society 
 of Civil Engineers [67]. This group was in favor of the metric system 
 because of its potential advantages to civil engineering, and it advocated 
 petitioning Congress to fix a date after which the metric system would 
 become the only legal one in the U.S. After some discussion, the American 
 
 429-523 O - 71 - 6 
 
74 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 Society of Civil Engineers finally adopted, in 1876, a resolution calling upon 
 Congress to require the exclusive use of the metric system in official 
 Government documents and reports. 
 
 In August of 1876 a committee on weights, measures, and coinage of the 
 American Association for the Advancement of Science, chaired by Dr. Bar- 
 nard, submitted a report dealing with some pending metrological questions 
 [68] . After first urging the Senate to ratify the "Treaty of the Meter," this 
 committee specifically noted that there existed a large body of "well-known 
 men who have publicly expressed their unwillingness to see the metric 
 system of weights and measures made compulsory in the United States." 
 Therefore no resolutions urging metric adoption were offered although the 
 committee did go on record as being in favor of action to maintain the gold 
 standard as the only metal to be used in coining money. 
 
 A third, and even more strongly-worded, report was submitted to the 
 Franklin Institute at Philadelphia in June, 1876 [69]. Their investigation, 
 headed by Coleman Sellers (famous for his development of the most widely- 
 used system of standard screw thread sizes in the U.S.) was triggered by the 
 action of the Boston Society of Civil Engineers, which had sought the In- 
 stitute's cooperation in petitioning Congress to make the metric system man- 
 datory. In its own way, this particular investigation was also to become a 
 touchstone for later metric debates due to the high esteem in which Mr. Sel- 
 lers was held and the forcefulness with which he stated his objections to the 
 system. 
 
 Sellers first contrasted the situation in pre-metric France with the existing 
 situation in the U.S. in order to demonstrate that our need for weights and 
 measures reform was not nearly as serious as hers had been. This was done 
 very effectively, leading to the conclusion that: 
 
 "[W]hatever were the controlling reasons which incited the opposition to a 
 change in France, they have much greater force with us from 
 the absence of motive. We have no such confusion and diversity 
 as the French had, and no such reform is called for. Our money 
 is already decimally divided, and we enjoy already the chief 
 benefits which the new system gave to the French [70] ." 
 
 Other points raised in opposition to the metric system were simply amplifi- 
 cations of ones which had been raised before — the fact that the meter was 
 now as arbitrary a standard as the foot, the opinion that it was less con- 
 venient than a two-foot rule for practical purposes, and the notion that all 
 land measurements would be invalidated, for example. Sellers went beyond 
 this, however, and, for the first time brought up the question of the costs of 
 making a change and who would have to bear this expense: 
 
 "[T]he industrial arts during the last fifty years have acquired a far greater 
 extent and precision than were ever known before ... It has 
 been calculated that in a well regulated machine shop, 
 thoroughly prepared for doing miscellaneous work, employing 
 250 workmen, the cost of a new outfit adapted to new measures, 
 would not be less than $ 1 50,000, or $600 per man [71]." 
 
A PINT'S A POUND THE WORLD AROUND? (1866-1890) 75 
 
 This could be contrasted with the claim made by contemporary advocates 
 that adoption of the system would lessen the number of computations in- 
 volving fractions and so would result in saving one whole year of educational 
 time for each child [72] . While neither claim was ever fully substantiated to 
 the satisfaction of all, Mr. Sellers' argument would certainly seem to be the 
 more comprehensible of the two, especially to a workman or shop owner. 
 
 Nor did the Franklin Institute committee believe that it was feasible to 
 simply keep all of the current standard sizes as they were and simply sub- 
 stitute metric labels (calling a 1 -inch bolt a 2.54 centimeter bolt, for example) 
 because of the difficulty of translating from one system to the other. Finally, 
 the Sellers committee was opposed to the metric system because it believed 
 that metric adoption would nullify all of the existing technical literature that 
 was based on the English customary system. 
 
 Taking all of these things into consideration, the conclusion was reached 
 that: 
 
 "To the teacher, to the closet scholar, to the professional man, to those who 
 never handled a rule or measure, but only use weights and mea- 
 sures in calculation, it may seem merely a matter of legal enact- 
 ment; but to the worker, the dealers in the market places, to 
 those who produce the wealth and prosperity of the land, the 
 question is a most serious one [73] ." 
 
 Such detrimental accusations could not go unanswered, of course, and a 
 civil engineer named John W. Nystrom was quick to step in and challenge 
 the opposition head on. Writing first in the same journal that had published 
 the Sellers report and later in a separately published book [74], he at- 
 tempted a rebuttal in much the same manner that Barnard had employed 5 
 years earlier, i.e. on an argument-by-argument basis. Nystrom was not able 
 to marshal an impressive array of facts with which to counter Sellers, how- 
 ever, so he attempted to do so by claiming that the objections raised were "of 
 mere temporary and insignificant import, very much like the English objec- 
 tions to the introduction of the Arabic figures for the Roman notation some 
 300 years ago." 
 
 By 1877, then, the question of what to do about the metric system in the 
 United States was ripe for Congressional consideration. 
 
 1 . POLLING THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH 
 
 On November 6, 1877, Representative J. B. Clark of Missouri introduced 
 the following resolution, which the House immediately adopted: 
 
 Resolved, That the heads of the executive departments of the government 
 be, and they are hereby, requested to report to this House, at as 
 early a date as practicable, what objections, if any, there are to 
 making obligatory in all governmental transactions the metrical 
 system of weights and measures, whose use has been 
 authorized in the United States by Act of Congress; . . . and 
 also how long a preliminary notice should be given before such 
 obligatory use can be introduced without detriment to the public 
 
76 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 service; and . . . they are also requested to state what objec- 
 tions there are, if any, to making the metrical system obligatory 
 in all transactions between individuals, and what is the earliest 
 date that can be set for the obligatory use of the metrical system 
 throughout the United States[75] . 
 
 The reason for this resolution, apparently, was a simple desire to collect 
 what facts there were and to ascertain what the executive branch thought of 
 the idea that it should be used as the most appropriate medium for introduc- 
 ing the metric system to the American people. Judging from the wording of 
 the resolution, it also appears that Representative Clark believed that the 
 gist of the Government's response would constitute an endorsement of the 
 metric system. 
 
 If such was the case, the replies of the executive branch officials who 
 responded are all the more noteworthy for, on the whole, the opinions ex- 
 pressed were cautious, if not altogether discouraging, about the desirability 
 of any forceful action leading to metric adoption [76]. Many agencies an- 
 swered the call, including the Departments of State, War, Navy, and the 
 Post Office, but the response of Treasury Secretary John Sherman is of spe- 
 cial interest because his agencies, above all others, were those that were 
 most heavily involved in the question [77]. Included in the Treasury De- 
 partment at that time were the bureaus in charge of coinage, customs, inter- 
 nal revenue, government statistics, and the coast survey (a part of which was 
 still the Office of Weights and Measures). 
 
 In his letter transmitting the reports of his bureau chiefs to the Speaker of 
 the House, Samuel J. Randall, Secretary Sherman stated: 
 
 "I am of the opinion that it is not advisable to make the metrical system of 
 weights and measures obligatory in any transactions at present. 
 The law now legalizes and permits that system to be adopted in 
 all cases with the consent of parties. 
 
 While [it] is undoubtedly the more perfect in theory, the old system of 
 weights and measures is so ingrained upon the business habits 
 of our fellow citizens, that a new system should not be adopted 
 until it is well understood and acquiesced in by the body of the 
 people. I think great confusion, many inconveniences, and 
 much litigation would arise from its hasty adoption. Congress 
 might properly, in any revision of the tariff, adopt this system, 
 stating in the law, however, the equivalents of the old in the 
 metrical system; but even this change would create some em- 
 barrassment, and is of doubtful utility [78] ." 
 
 Of all of the Treasury Department opinions submitted, only that of its 
 chief clerk, J. K. Upton, amounted to an unqualified endorsement of the met- 
 ric system. Mr. Upton believed that the metric system had passed the experi- 
 mental stage and that the people of the U.S. were certainly adaptable enough 
 to accept it as a boon. The system, he felt, would be especially valuable to 
 our international trade. He offered the following statistics for fiscal year 
 1877 in support of his position: 
 
A PINT'S A POUND THE WORLD AROUND? ( 1866-1890) 77 
 
 Value of 
 Imports from: imports 
 
 Nations where metric system was obligatory $177,807,469 
 
 Nations where metric system was partially used 17,378,735 
 
 Nations where metric system's use was legal 4 265,21 1,585 
 
 Nations where metric system was not legalized 23,804,140 
 
 Total 484,201,929 
 
 Two years, Mr. Upton felt, would be sufficient to enable the Government to 
 prepare for adoption, while a total of 10 or 15 years ought to be allowed be- 
 fore extending the obligatory use of the system to private transactions. 
 
 The chief clerk of the Treasury Department's Bureau of Statistics, Mr. E. 
 E. Elliott, was less enthusiastic. He saw no objection to the Government 
 adopting the metric system for transactions of an international character, 
 such as postal exchanges, customs duties, and the like, but was not prepared 
 to recommend that the Congress go beyond that [80] . 
 
 The most surprising development of all, however, was the essentially 
 negative opinion of the Coast and Geodetic Survey. As expressed by Su- 
 perintendent C. P. Patterson, "[N]o law [should] be passed upon this sub- 
 ject without the most mature deliberation, and . . . when passed, it should 
 not have compulsory effect until at least thirty five years after the date of its 
 passage [81]." 
 
 What made the Survey's report so surprising was that it was drawn up by 
 Patterson's Assistant in charge of Standard Weights and Measures, J. E. Hil- 
 gard. This was the same Mr. Hilgard who was a founder and council member 
 of the American Metrological Society and who had been, and still was, 
 representing the United States in the international reformulation of the met- 
 ric system! 
 
 Mr. Hilgard's report is outstanding for its clarity, brevity, and eminent 
 good sense [82]. He approached the question systematically, analyzing the 
 impact of possible metric adoption upon the Coast Survey, upon the opera- 
 tions of other bureaus in the Treasury Department, and, finally, upon the 
 people at large. Noting that the Coast Survey already used the metric system 
 "to the full extent that is consistent with the usefulness of the form in which 
 the results are given to the people," he expressed the fear that the exclusive 
 use of metric units would deprive the Survey's charts of much of their useful- 
 ness. 
 
 Other operations in the Treasury Department would be heavily affected, 
 Hilgard observed, especially those dealing with coinage, customs, and inter- 
 nal revenue. Aside from a few technical problems, he found no real objection 
 to basing American coinage on the system. As for using the metric weights 
 and measures to assess duties on imports: 
 
 "[G]reat inconvenience would arise from the want of familiarity with that 
 system of the officers assessing the duties. It must be borne in 
 mind that the efficiency of such an officer depends in the 
 greatest degree upon his familiarity with the values of goods 
 
 ' Included Great Britain and possessions. 
 
78 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 submitted to his inspection, and that he cannot separate in his 
 mind the expression of measure from that of value . . . The 
 transformation into other terms of measure will break away en- 
 tirely from his habits of thought, and his experience is practi- 
 cally lost [83]." 
 
 Similar objections applied to the operations of the Internal Revenue Depart- 
 ment, whose chief activities at that time were collecting taxes on tobacco 
 and alcoholic spirits: 
 
 "[T]he liability to error would be greatly increased, and . . . the manufac- 
 turer and dealer would lose the advantage they now have, and 
 which is fairly due them, of having the taxed value of the 
 product expressed in quantities that are customarily used in 
 their trade [84]." 
 
 As for making the metric system compulsory in private transactions, Mr. 
 Hilgard foresaw: ( 1 ) difficulties in enforcing an obligatory statute, since even 
 penalties would not be able to fully suppress the use of the pound, inch and 
 gallon; (2) a very slow process of natural growth, perhaps more than 50 
 years, if the system were allowed to develop by itself; and (3) costs and dif- 
 ficulties in making changes in machinery that were greater than most metric 
 system advocates assumed them to be. 
 
 But Hilgard was not opposed to the introduction of the metric system, 
 only to hasty action to achieve it. His own recommendation was that: 
 
 [The next step ought to be] "the enactment of laws requiring [its] use in 
 such government transactions as will not suffer by the sudden 
 change of the habits of men. There, perhaps, legislation must 
 stop for a long while, until by zealous inculcation, by agitation, 
 by instruction in all public schools, the new system shall have 
 been voluntarily adopted by a great majority of the people, 
 when the enactment of an obligatory law will only be the con- 
 summation of an existing state of facts. 
 
 It has ever been the practice of the Anglo Saxon people to make laws in con- 
 formity with customs, not to create customs by compulsory 
 laws [85]." 
 
 The replies of the other departments of government in response to the 
 House of Representatives' resolution were no more enthusiastic, although 
 some had no strong opinions one way or the other. The Secretary of State, 
 for instance, observed that Great Britain and her dominions were still em- 
 ploying the customary system and that some commercial dislocations might 
 result from our adopting the metric system [86]. The Postmaster General 
 estimated the immediate expenses would amount to about $ 1 25,000 and that 
 other annoyances would result [87]. The War Department was divided on 
 the question, with the Chief Engineer favoring adoption and others, such as 
 the Quartermaster General, being opposed [88] . Taken as a whole, then, the 
 responses indicated that the time was not altogether auspicious for legisla- 
 tion requiring the executive branch to serve as a means for disseminating the 
 metric system throughout the United States. 
 
A PINT'S A POUND THE WORLD AROUND? (1866-1890) 79 
 
 2. FURTHER CONGRESSIONAL CONSIDERATION 
 
 As these replies were received, they were referred to the House Commit- 
 tee on Coinage, Weights, and Measures for evaluation and appropriate ac- 
 tion. Without waiting for all the opinions to come in, however, Mr. Stephens, 
 the Committee's chairman, introduced a bill, 5 on January 29. 1878, "to ena- 
 ble importers to use the metric weights and measures." The purpose of this 
 bill was to permit the assessment of tariff duties to be made on the basis of 
 metric units. This revision of Government procedure would save customs 
 inspectors the labor of having to first translate an invoice into English units 
 before figuring the amount of duty to be paid. 
 
 Hearings on the subject were conducted by the committee later in the year 
 (at which time the question of the American share of funding for the new In- 
 ternational Bureau of Weights and Measures was also discussed), with Hil- 
 gard as the only witness [89]. The following year, in January, 1879, a com- 
 mittee report was sent to the House by Representative Levi Maish along 
 with a substitute bill [ 90] . 6 This bill specified that, by July 1, 1880, 
 
 "[T]he Postmaster-General shall furnish all post offices with postal 
 balances denominated in grams of the metric system, at an ex- 
 pense not exceeding fifty thousand dollars, [and] . . . 
 
 [T]he metric system of weights and measures, as legalized in section thirty- 
 five hundred and sixty-nine of the Revised Statutes, shall be 
 obligatory in the assessment of duties on imported commodities 
 in the custom-houses of the United States." 
 
 The report itself presented an extensive explanation of the essential features 
 and the international growth of the metric system. It had been prepared by 
 Mr. C. P. Culver, the Committee's clerk, and he appended a wealth of sup- 
 plementary material pertaining to the existing status of the system [91]. The 
 evidence and arguments presented had led the Committee to conclude: 
 
 "We are well satisfied . . . that this new or metric system of weights and 
 measures is rapidly gaining ground both in this country and Eu- 
 rope, as one after another the most enlightened nations awake 
 to the full appreciation of its immense advantages [92]. 
 
 Indeed, the metric system has received the support of statesmen and the ear- 
 nest sanction of scientists both in the New and the Old World 
 for the past half-century or more; and we cannot therefore 
 longer treat with indifference the numerous appeals that are 
 being made to Congress, from time to time, by the scientific and 
 business men of the country, urging the adoption of the system 
 in such departments of the government, at least, as have the lar- 
 gest relations with those countries and nations which have al- 
 ready adopted it in whole or in part, as an earnest of our purpose 
 to adopt it in whole in all government transactions, so soon as 
 
 *H.R. 2877. 
 6 H. R. 2699. 
 
80 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 our people are educated up to the point in its use that they will 
 prefer the new . . . system . . . [and] to secure this desirable 
 end your committee . . . recommend the early passage of 
 House Bill No. 2699 [93]." 
 
 But time was running out on the 45th Congress, and the bill expired with it 
 on March 3. 1879, without having been brought to the floor for discussion 
 and a vote. 
 
 In the 46th Congress, which convened on March 18, 1 879, and in all of the 
 several succeeding Congresses, similar metric system legislation was 
 proposed. One of these, H.R. 409 of the 46th Congress, providing for the 
 direct assessment of duties on metric invoices, was introduced by an Ohio 
 Congressman named William McKinley. McKinley's later involvement with 
 tariff questions, as well as with coinage matters, was to go much deeper than 
 just specifying which system of weights and measures they should be based 
 on. In 1890 he led the fight for higher tariffs to protect infant industries and, 
 as a successful Presidential candidate in 1896 on the "gold standard" of 
 coinage platform, McKinley was the main target of William Jennings Bryan's 
 famous "Cross of Gold" speech. His advocacy of metric legislation in 1879, 
 however, did not result in the enactment of any laws, although his bill was re- 
 ported favorably by the Committee on Coinage, Weights, and Measures and 
 sent to the Committee on Ways and Means. In June, 1879, Representative 
 Maish revised and enlarged his report of the previous January and once 
 again recommended a limited introduction of the metric system by and 
 through the executive branch [94]. The outcome of this attempt was no dif- 
 ferent than that of the previous one, and the question remained unsettled. 
 
 During this same general time period (1876-1886) several bills were in- 
 troduced to provide for adopting a metric coinage system. 7 Under the terms 
 of these proposals, both the weight of the gold used in minting U.S. coins and 
 the diameters and other dimensions of the coins were to be specified in met- 
 ric units. This subject occupied a large part of the Committee's time and 
 resulted in the issuance of a great deal of printed matter [95] , but little else, 
 for no action was forthcoming from the Congress as a whole. 
 
 A peak of activity indirectly related to legislation was reached in late 1 879 
 and 1 880. The National Academy of Sciences again expressed its opinion on 
 the question, resolving that laws should be enacted to require use of the met- 
 ric system in postal affairs, customs work, and coinage [96] . A committee of 
 the American Social Science Association, under the chairmanship of Dr. 
 Barnard, turned over to the Congress a set of pro-metric resolutions and an 
 accompanying report lauding the system [97]. An interest group violently 
 opposed to the metric system's introduction in this country was formed in 
 Boston in November, 1879, about which more will be said in the next sec- 
 tion, and, in 1880 the newly-formed American Society of Mechanical En- 
 gineers lined up in opposition to metric legislation. Also, in March, 1 880, the 
 House Committee printed a report containing a plan for a new, non-metric 
 
 H.R.'s 410, 41 1, 412 and 1911 of the 46th Congress are prime examples of this type of Bill. 
 
A PINT'S A POUND THE WORLD AROUND? (1866-1890) 81 
 
 decimal system and a pro-metric refutation of the proposal prepared by the 
 clerk, Mr. Culver [98]. 
 
 This plan, devised by a Col. Thomas S. Sedgwick, proposed to redefine 
 and "decimalize" the English system. To start with, the "foot" would remain 
 unchanged but it would be divided into 10 inches, each two-tenths of an inch 
 longer than the existing inch. A new "mile" of 5,000 feet would be adopted, 
 and the "acre" would be defined as 40,000 square feet (an 8% reduction). 
 Similar changes, laboriously conceived, were proposed for measures of 
 weight and capacity. Sedgwick's proposal was not based on the assumption 
 that his change would be any easier to make than adopting the metric 
 system, since it would obviously be just as difficult to implement, if not more 
 so. Rather, he felt, that the English customary system, while in need of sim- 
 plification, was preferable in nomenclature to the metric system and that it 
 was destined to become the universal "language" of world trade because of 
 America's burgeoning commercial superiority. 
 
 Mr. Culver, writing on his own initiative and not in his capacity as staff to 
 the House Committee, felt differently. The nation's objectives in seeking 
 metrological reform ought to be uniformity, permanency and universality, he 
 said, and only the metric system offered an opportunity to achieve all three 
 simultaneously. The language problem could be overcome by simply adapt- 
 ing the English system's names to the units of the metric system, so that a 
 meter could be dubbed a "metric yard," a liter a "metric quart" and so on. 
 Culver claimed that "commercial embarrassment" would accrue to the U.S. 
 if we didn't soon begin to increase our use of the metric system, and he also 
 felt that America's ratification of the Treaty of the Meter constituted a com- 
 mitment on our part to move in this direction. 
 
 Although no changes resulted from this small confrontation, it exemplified 
 some of the characteristics of this era in the history of the metric system 
 in the U.S. For one thing, it demonstrated that a wider interest was develop- 
 ing with regard to the system of weights and measures used in this country. 
 Even though concern over this issue cannot be called one of the most 
 pressing questions of the age, it had progressed to the point where even 
 private citizens were aware of the problem and attempting to devise whole 
 new systems of weights and measures [99] . The Sedgwick-Culver exchange 
 was also indicative of a shift in America's general outlook which had oc- 
 curred by 1 880. Considerations such as the primacy of the English language. 
 American inventiveness, and U.S. prestige in world politics and commercial 
 dealings were being brought to bear on the metric issue, and with adverse 
 consequences. This new attitude toward our position in world affairs was 
 typical of the period in general, as noted in a recent work by Samuel P. 
 Hays: 
 
 "The two decades of economic expansion between 1 874 and 1 894 witnessed 
 a party politics that reflected the spirit of the age: reckless, com- 
 petitive, blustering, and devoted to the nation's rapid material 
 growth [100]. . . . 
 
 As the United States grew in industrial might, it rose to greater prominence 
 on the world scene and assumed a more positive and vigorous 
 
82 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 role in international affairs. During the 19th century Americans 
 had turned their energies toward internal economic develop- 
 ment. In the eighties and nineties they increasingly engaged in 
 economic, strategic, and cultural enterprises abroad and de- 
 manded that their government protect and promote their new 
 ventures [101]." 
 
 The effect of this aggressive attitude would become obvious in the con- 
 troversy over the metric system very shortly. 
 
 Closing out this era on the legislative scene, a Joint Resolution was passed 
 by the Congress on March 3, 1881 , requiring sets of standards to be supplied 
 to State land-grant colleges by the Treasury Department, and three more 
 metric bills were proposed between 1881 and 1886. 8 By this time, the nature 
 of the legislation being introduced was beginning to change slightly. Bills in 
 the later sessions called for the exclusive use of the metric system in all 
 Government business and required that the system be taught in all schools 
 and colleges receiving Federal assistance. Enthusiasm for metric legislation 
 had waned by the mid-1880's, however, as none of these bills were even re- 
 ported on by the Committee on Coinage, Weights, and Measures. It was to 
 be nearly 10 years before serious consideration was again given to the issue 
 by Congress. 
 
 One possible reason for the failure of metric advocates to attain their 
 desired ends during the 1870's and 1880's was the emergence of vocal op- 
 position to the system in organized form. While the actual influence of the 
 International Institute for Preserving and Perfecting (Anglo-Saxon) Weights 
 and Measures 9 may have been less than its leader claimed for it, it neverthe- 
 less was the first group formed especially to oppose the introduction of the 
 system in this country and it followed a unique and interesting philosophy in 
 doing so. 
 
 E. THE REVELATIONS OF THE GREAT PYRAMID AND THE 
 INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE 
 
 Because the anti-metric stance of the International Institute was derived 
 from the tenets of a most unorthodox contemporary movement known as 
 "pyramidology," a brief review of this fad is in order before examining the 
 Institute's activities. 
 
 1. PYRAMIDOLOGY 
 
 The object of the pyramidologists' attention was the ancient Egyptian 
 pyramid-tomb of King Khufu at Giza [102]. By carefully interpreting its 
 location, dimensions, and other physical characteristics, generally by means 
 of involved mathematical manipulations, a small but dedicated band of 19th 
 
 8 H.R. 112,47th Cong., 1st Session (1881); H.R. 7492, 48th Cong., 1st Session (1884); and 
 H.R. 2 119, 49th Cong., 1st Session (1886). 
 
 9 Hereafter referred to as simply the International Institute. 
 
A PINT'S A POUND THE WORLD AROUND? (1866-1890) 83 
 
 century eccentrics (including at least one otherwise respected scholar) were 
 able to "prove" the heaven-sent origins of the pyramid as well as the validity 
 of certain Biblical passages and analogies. The main aim of this endeavor 
 was to demonstrate that the building of Khufu's final resting place had been 
 directed by the hand of God and had been, in reality, intended as a reposito- 
 ry for His scientific gifts to mankind, including measurement standards and 
 the immutable laws of physics, mathematics, and astronomy. As Willy Ley, 
 the modern science writer, says of the progenitor of this theory: "If Taylor 
 had been an American, he might have said that it was the Egyptian 
 equivalent of the Bureau of Standards, with the additional twist that all the 
 standards are 'classified information' not meant for the average dumb citizen 
 [103]." 
 
 The Taylor referred to was John Taylor, a London publisher, who had 
 written and published, in 1859, a book entitled The Great Pyramid, Why 
 Was It Built? And Who Built It? After studying second-hand the archeologi- 
 cal records of that day relating to the pyramid, 10 Taylor concluded that its 
 architect must have been an Israelite carrying out God's plan [104]. As 
 evidence to support this, he noted many mathematical relationships that 
 were possessed by the pyramid that went beyond the knowledge of ancient 
 Egyptians. For instance, Taylor believed the Great Pyramid had been con- 
 structed according to a "sacred cubit" of about 25 inches that represented 
 one four-hundred-thousandth of the earth's axis. He also believed this to be 
 the same measuring unit used in the construction of Noah's ark, Solomon's 
 temples and other architecture referred to in the Bible. Finally, he concluded 
 that the pyramid as a whole symbolized nothing less than the true Church 
 with Christ as the capstone. 
 
 In 1864 Taylor's work was taken up by the most zealous of all 
 pyramidologists, a man named Charles Piazzi Smyth, a very competent 
 scientist and the Royal Astronomer for Scotland. His first work on the sub- 
 ject was called Our Inheritance in the Great Pyramid and it, especially in its 
 later editions, received a great deal of attention. Smyth also published a 
 number of works based on his personal research at the Great Pyramid 
 [105]. 
 
 Smyth's "discoveries" are summarized best by Martin Gardner in Fads 
 and Fallacies in the Name of Science. 
 
 "To begin with, Smyth discovered that the base of the Pyramid, divided by 
 the width of a casing stone, equaled exactly 365 — the number of 
 days in the year. . . . The stone measured slightly more than 
 twenty-five inches, and Smyth concluded that this length was 
 none other than the sacred cubit. If we adopt a new inch-Smyth 
 calls it the 'Pyramid inch'-which is exactly one twenty-fifth of 
 the width of the casing stone, then we obtain the smallest divine 
 unit of measurement used in the monument's construction. 
 It is exactly one ten-millionth of the earth's polar radius. 
 
 10 And these were by no means as complete or as authentic as they would become during the 
 1881-1 922 period when Great Britain occupied Egypt. 
 
84 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 Somehow, it had been passed on through the generations, 
 [Smyth] believed, until it became the Anglo-Saxon inch, but 
 in the process altered slightly, making the British inch a trifle 
 short of the sacred unit. . . . 
 With incredible zeal, Smyth applied his Pyramid inch to every measurable 
 portion of the Pyramid, inside and out, to see how many scien- 
 tific and historical truths he could discover. These he found in 
 great profusion. For example, when the height of the Pyramid 
 is multiplied by ten to the ninth power, you obtain a distance 
 which approximates the distance from the earth to the sun. 
 Similar manipulations of Pyramid lengths give you the earth's 
 mean density, . . . the mean temperature of the earth's sur- 
 face, and many other scientific facts only discovered in recent 
 times [106]." 
 
 Other pyramid measurements revealed to Smyth the means for calculating 
 the dates of greatest importance in man's past and future. This was done by 
 measuring the edifice's internal passageways, in pyramid inches, and in- 
 terpreting them on a ratio of 1 inch to 1 year. By this method, Smyth pre- 
 dicted the Second Coming of Christ sometime between 1882 and 1911, de- 
 pending upon how the measurement was made [ 107] . 
 
 Another aspect of the Great Pyramid which Smyth and others found to be 
 fraught with mystical symbolism was the "intense fiveness" exhibited by it. 
 For instance, the pyramid has five corners and five sides and the pyramid 
 inch was one-fifth of one-fifth of a sacred cubit. This was said to correspond 
 with many natural phenomena such as the five senses, the five digits at the 
 termination of each limb of the human body, the five books of Moses and so 
 on, all part of God's grand plan. 
 
 From these precepts it naturally followed that King Khufu's burial coffer 
 was intended to serve as a capacity standard, with weight units being derived 
 from the amount of water it would hold. The burial chamber itself was obvi- 
 ously intended to be a touchstone for temperature measurement because of 
 its constancy. Finally, the pyramid symbol in toto had been passed along as 
 God's intent to denote the superiority of the Anglo-Saxon race, according to 
 the most rabid pyramid devotees, as evidenced by the liberal use of it in the 
 western world (see, for example, the reverse of the Great Seal of the United 
 States, which is printed on the back of every $1 bill). Clearly, no right-think- 
 ing person could, in the light of these startling revelations, accept the hereti- 
 cal, man-made, French metric system of weights and measures in preference 
 to our heaven-sent customary ones! 
 
 Contemporary and modern scholars who have taken the trouble to in- 
 vestigate the beliefs of the pyramidologists have had little difficulty in 
 debunking their pretensions. First of all, in a structure the size, shape and 
 complexity of the Great Pyramid, there are an almost infinite number of 
 dimensions that can be measured and interpreted to suit one's purpose. 
 Secondly, the dimensions of the pyramid were, and to some extent still are 
 matters of conjecture. The pyramid is not now whole, its facade having long 
 since crumbled, and what is left has been eroded by wind and sand for hun- 
 
 
A PINTS A POUND THE WORLD AROUND? (1866-1890) 85 
 
 dreds of years. Finally, the figures which Smyth chose to represent scientific 
 constants (the distance from the earth to the sun, for example) were equally 
 vague in his day and are only now beginning to be more precisely known. 11 
 I n sum, Smyth was dealing with a considerable number of variables which he 
 was at liberty to manipulate to serve his own apparently sincere, but 
 misdirected, ends [108] . 
 
 Gardner also gives a very amusing example of how such a thing can be 
 easily done in a convincing way by someone wishing to confirm his most 
 cherished theories: 
 
 "Just for fun, if one looks up the facts about the Washington Monument in 
 the World Almanac, he will find considerable fiveness. Its 
 height is 555 feet and 5 inches. The base is 55 feet square, and 
 the windows are set at 500 feet from the base. If the base is mul- 
 tiplied by 60 (or five times the number of months in a year) it 
 gives 3,300, which is the exact weight of the capstone in 
 pounds. . . . and if the weight of the capstone is multiplied by 
 the base, the result is 181,500 — a fairly close approximation of 
 the speed of light in miles per second. If the base is measured 
 with a 'Monument foot,' which is slightly smaller than the stan- 
 dard foot, its side comes to 56 1/2 feet. This times 33.000 yields 
 a figure even closer to the speed of light [109]." 
 
 But the validity of the pyramidologists' arguments was not the issue at 
 hand. Eccentric, racially-biased and wrong as they may have been, their 
 theories were accepted unquestioningly by a large enough number of re- 
 ligious and other groups to give a widespread notoriety to them, not only 
 in Great Britain and the United States, but in other countries as well. 
 
 One of the most visible and outspoken adherents of this often-confusing 
 philosophy was the self-proclaimed International Institute for Preserving 
 and Perfecting (the Anglo-Saxon) Weights and Measures. 12 
 
 2. "THE BATTLE OF THE STANDARDS" 
 
 From the very beginning, the Institute was preoccupied with symbolism. 
 Its founding took place on the date its organizers took for the anniversary of 
 the arrival of the Mayflower off Plymouth rock, November 8 (old-style 
 calendar). On that date in the year 1879, three men met in Boston's Old 
 South Church and agreed to found the Institute. These men were Lucian I. 
 Bisbee, G. M. Hardy, and Charles Latimer [1 10]. 
 
 Taking their cue from the Biblical exhortation that "Thou shalt have a 
 Perfect and Just Weight, a Perfect and Just Measure . . .," three interre- 
 lated objectives were proclaimed. First, the Anglo-Saxon system of weights 
 and measures was to be preserved and perfected. Second, any legislation or 
 
 11 One of the primary Apollo 1 1 scientific experiments, for instance, was to place a prism 
 device on the lunar surface so that a laser beam could be bounced back to earth from it, thus 
 determining with precision the distance between the earth and the moon for the first time. 
 
 12 The words "Anglo-Saxon" have been included in parentheses because they were some- 
 times included and sometimes excluded from the Institute's title on official publications. 
 
86 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 other measures designed to inflict the French metric system on the Amer- 
 ican people were to be opposed. The third purpose was to be "the discussion 
 and dissemination of the wisdom contained in the Great Pyramid of Jeezeh 
 in Egypt [111]." At that time, President James A. Garfield, then a member 
 of Congress, was elected to head the Institute, Charles Latimer of Cleveland 
 was elected first vice president, and Charles Piazzi Smyth, although not in 
 attendance, was named as a counselor [112]. When Garfield declined to 
 serve, Latimer automatically took over as President. 
 
 About all that occurred of a constructive nature during the Institute's first 
 3 years of existence was the formation by Latimer of an Ohio Auxiliary 
 Society in Cleveland. This "branch" of the Institute became the real 
 headquarters for its operations (in fact, there was only one other "branch" 
 ever formally organized, that being one in the New York-New Jersey area) 
 and Charles Latimer became the group's life blood, financially and 
 philosophically. For this reason, a few words about his life are appropriate 
 at this point [113]. 
 
 Charles Latimer was born in Washington, D.C. on September 7, 1827. 
 After graduation from the U.S. Naval Academy he spent 13 years in the 
 Navy as an engineer, turned to steamboating for a brief period, and finally 
 found his ultimate career in railroad engineering. His greatest contributions 
 to this last-mentioned field came as chief engineer, and later an engineering 
 consultant, to the New York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio Railroad. In this con- 
 nection he not only built the line into an attractive candidate to be taken over 
 by the Erie system but also contributed several inventions to railroad safety, 
 including a bridge-guard named after him. Outside of his civil engineering 
 talents, Latimer was known not only for his advocacy of customary weights 
 and measures but also for his use of the divining rod in prospecting ventures 
 and for his "mesmeric power over others, which he could exercise at will" 
 [114] but from which he was said to have abstained on conscientious 
 grounds. 
 
 As to his personality, most of his memorialists were willing to concede a 
 kind and tender-hearted side to the man, although they readily admitted that 
 few had ever seen it first-hand. He was extremely hard working, tenacious 
 in his convictions, profoundly religious, and, according to some accounts, 
 singularly tolerant of those who ridiculed him for his unusual beliefs. 
 
 At the age of 61, on March 25, 1888 Latimer "was stricken with apoplexy 
 . . . [w]hile on his knees at morning family prayer [1 15]." As with Barnard, 
 the active efforts of his organization died with him, but not before some 
 damage had been done to the metric cause. 
 
 According to his friends, Latimer's interest in pyramidology began in 1878 
 when he happened to read Smyth's Life and Work at the Great Pyramid and 
 Our Inheritance in the Great Pyramid. Becoming convinced that the 
 pyramid held the key to unlock the mysteries of the past and that it was posi- 
 tive proof of the divine origin of the inch, Mr. Latimer began a personal 
 program of research and study into the subject. Out of this came the Interna- 
 tional Institute, at first consisting only of close friends but later expanded by 
 his own diligent efforts. 
 
 His first printed contribution to the cause took the form of a vituperative 
 
 
A PINT'S A POUND THE WORLD AROUND? (1866-1890) 87 
 
 denunciation of pro-metric efforts in an 1880 book entitled The French Met- 
 ric System, or, The Battle of the Standards [116]. Its avowed purpose was 
 the "awakening of the advocates of the French system to the defeat that lies 
 before them. "As the content of this brief (64 pages) book defies adequate 
 paraphrasing, a few extracts from it will help to make Latimer's position 
 crystal clear: 
 
 "The followers of Darwin, and the infidel will both deny the inspiration of 
 our weights and measures, and ascribe all of our progress to a 
 natural progression; and, doubtless, will hail the appearance of 
 the new French unit as another argument in favor of their pe- 
 culiar views and theories, and will be equally ready to re-adopt 
 the fantastic freaks of the French Revolution, even to abandon- 
 ing the Sabbath and burning the Bible [1 17]." 
 "It may be thought by some unreasoning persons that there has been so much 
 said and done with reference to the French metric system, that 
 there now remains nothing more to be said or done but for 
 Congress to issue its edict, and that thereupon the French 
 metric system will be at once an accomplished fact and the 
 law of the land; and to this end, certain inconsiderate persons, 
 in addition to schemers for gain, are devoting a large amount 
 of ink and paper, to say nothing of brains, in getting members 
 of Congress, emulous of fame and ambitious of handing their 
 names down to posterity, to act as the champions of pet 
 schemes of these 'closet philosophers.' To these gentlemen it 
 may be well to say . . . How dare you attempt to foist upon 
 us without our consent new weights and measures unknown 
 to us and to our fathers? Understand that we will, with one 
 blast of our mouth, cast down your false measure [118]. . ." 
 
 Mr. Latimer was not to find that one blast was enough. 
 
 Three years later. God having given him the financial means, Latimer 
 began publication of The International Standard as the official organ of the 
 Institute. The issuance of this periodical was made possible by his discovery 
 of the Witch Hazel Coal Mine near Youngstown, Ohio, a find for which he 
 is reputed to have relied on his divining rod. At any rate, he sold his interests 
 in the mine and used the royalties to sustain the Institute. Although other 
 sources were sought from time-to-time, principally the sale of memberships, 
 Latimer's revenues from the coal mine were all that kept the organization 
 alive, as evidenced by the fact that publication ceased immediately upon his 
 death, with the voluntary contributions received thereafter being only 
 enough to fund one more issue. Before it went down for the final time, 
 however, the International Standard has recorded a unique chapter in the 
 history of the metric system. 
 
 In his 1882 address to the annual meeting of the Institute. Latimer noted 
 the progress made by it during the past 3 years (during which time only the 
 desultory Proceedings of the Ohio Auxiliary Society had been printed): 
 
 "[W]e have checked the onset and forced the advocates of the French 
 
88 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 system to the defensive here. Before our organization they had 
 it all their own way. Bill after bill favoring the metric system 
 was pressed upon Congress with hope of passage. Strong pres- 
 sure also was brought to bear upon the executive departments 
 of the country, so that persons high in authority were persuaded 
 and influenced to issue orders to subordinates in the name of the 
 Government to use only the metric system. . . . 
 
 I believe I state the exact fact when I say that the memorial of the Interna- 
 tional Institute [9,000 copies of which were circulated for 
 signature], issued two years ago against this and other bills, 
 prevented their adoption. . . . 
 
 The misfortune is that our legislators are not informed upon the merits and 
 demerits of the question. The advocates of the French system 
 adroitly call it the decimal system, and many ignorantly throw 
 up their hats and say: 'Hurrah for the decimal system; we will 
 go for that,' but they do not take time to consider, nor do they 
 know that an utter extirpation of all our hereditary units is 
 sought [119]. . ." 
 
 Among other things, Latimer also took this occasion to denounce 
 Frederick Barnard and Alexander Stephens; to urge the defeat of Sanford 
 Fleming's standard time system (Latimer favored making the longitude of 
 the Great Pyramid the prime meridian of the world); to announce that ar- 
 rangements had been made with the Cleveland Herald to publicize the In- 
 stitute's activities; to seek financial support for a personal expedition to the 
 Great Pyramid (a continuing goal which he never achieved); and to urge the 
 current 401 members to expand their number so as to improve the financial 
 status of the International Institute. 
 
 This initial article was probably the most lucid ever to appear in the 
 International Standard as, over the next 6 years, the magazine consistently 
 jumbled together anti-metric blasts and pyramid theories. Although opposi- 
 tion to the introduction of the metric system was an aim of the Institute, it 
 would perhaps be more accurate to speak of this organization as primarily a 
 "pyramid society," as a glance at the subject matter of the articles published 
 in 1883 will show. Of a total of 65 articles printed, no less than 35, or about 
 54 percent, dealt primarily with pyramid-related topics. The titles illustrate 
 the somewhat bizarre interests of the Institute's membership: "The Great 
 Pyramid and the Geographical Position of Jerusalem," "Zechariah's Visions 
 of the Pyramid Capstone and of the Wicked Measures," and "The Unveil- 
 ing of Isis." Some of the other popular subjects discussed by the Institute 
 were: (1) the notion that the Anglo-Saxons were the Lost Ten Tribes of 
 Israel, (2) the reasons why the Meteorological Society's recommendations 
 on uniform international coinage and standard time zones ought to be de- 
 feated, and (3) different ways of interpreting symbolically the Great Seal 
 of the United States. In short, opposition to the metric system was not the 
 International Institute's only undertaking, but it was an important one. The 
 fact that its opposition was based on an emotional reaction to its origins, 
 not on any pragmatic grounds or intrinsic faults in the system, was imma- 
 terial since the results were all that mattered. 
 
A PINT'S A POUND THE WORLD AROUND? (1866-1890) 89 
 
 A few of the International Standard's less-oblique assaults on the metric 
 system demonstrate the Institute's (and especially Latimer's) unwavering at- 
 titude on this issue: 
 
 January, 1884 — "We again meet . . . with an earnest and unflinching pur- 
 pose to move forward in our work of investigation until we 
 prove to those of our people who are running after new theories 
 the falsity of the new system of weights and measures called the 
 Metric or Decimal System, propounded by the French School 
 of Atheists, of 1795; and until we prove to the whole world the 
 superior origin and excellence of the Anglo-Saxon units . . . 
 which our forefathers were sworn to protect, and which we, 
 their children, have met to defend [ 1 20] ." 
 
 January, 1887— "La Belle France comes with her statue of 'Liberty en- 
 lightening the world' . . . There is only one thing we do not like 
 about the statue, we prefer a statue of liberty measured in good 
 earth-commensurable Anglo-Saxon inches, not in French 
 milli-meters, the result of caprice. We want a Panama Canal 
 laid off in good Yankee feet and earth commensurable miles, 
 not in deci- and kilo-meters. . . . 
 
 Thus far we have kept the advance thinkers waiting, knocking always 
 secretly at the door of Congress, trying surreptitiously to get in 
 some compulsory bill . . . How many of our people know that 
 there was a bill passed last Congress appropriating $2,270 for 
 the International Bureau of Weights and Measures, whose 
 avowed object is 'perpetuating forever without change the basic 
 units of the metric system of weights and measures.' That 
 money went to France [ 121]. . ." 
 
 In addition to dedicating themselves to defeating proposed metric legisla- 
 tion before Congress, the International Institute offered a few ideas of its 
 own as to what should be done. These included: 
 
 ( 1 ) Having Congress quietly repeal whatever statutes existed that gave 
 any legal standing to the metric system; 
 
 (2) American abrogation of the Treaty of the Meter at the earliest op- 
 portunity; and 
 
 (3) Amending the Constitution to secure a guaranteed system (obvi- 
 ously English) of weights and measures not subject to either State or 
 national legislation. 
 
 These ideas were never seriously pressed on the Congress by Latimer how- 
 ever, and the Institute contented itself with simply keeping the door closed 
 to the metric system. As long as this could be done, the theory went, no real 
 threat was posed by the metric system because "the language of the world is 
 rapidly becoming Anglo-Saxon, the commerce of the world is controlled by 
 Anglo-Saxons, and the French metric system will go down as certainly 
 under the extension of the English language upon the earth, even in France 
 itself." 
 
 Perhaps the apex of the Institute's racially-prejudiced, anti-metric stance 
 
 429-523 0-71-7 
 
90 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 was reached in 1 883 with the composition and publication of its theme song, 
 entitled "A Pint's a Pound the World Around." For this ditty the world is in- 
 debted to one Charles A. L. Totten,an active member of the Institute [122]. 
 In a subsequent article outlining his views on the role of music in society 
 [123], Totten took great pains to distinguish between the music of the 
 northern nations and the southern, or Latin, ones: 
 
 "There is nothing in common between the soft love songs of the south and 
 those grand airs that led the northern people on to victory, 
 thanksgiving and to prayer. The former are lays of indolence, 
 and foster what they varnish — vice. The latter are the soul out- 
 pourings of a fervent people, schooled amid the rigors of the wil- 
 derness back into the ways of Him who led them there to plead 
 with them in the north country — they are songs which cherish 
 virtue and leave it twined about the heart-strings tuned thereto." 
 
 About all that such sentiments accomplished was to invite public scorn and 
 ridicule of the Institute, even leading one newspaper to characterize it as "a 
 gathering of very worthy fossils [124] ." Nevertheless, the theme song, writ- 
 ten in allegro marziale tempo, is, at once, outlandish and indicative of the 
 truly unenlightened views of this group. Two of its more colorful stanzas and 
 the chorus went as follows: 
 
 They bid us change the ancient "names," 
 
 The "seasons" and the "times;" 
 And for our measures go abroad 
 
 To strange and distant climes. 
 But we'll abide by things long clear 
 
 And cling to things of yore, 
 For the Anglo-Saxon race shall rule 
 
 The earth from shore to shore. 
 Then down with every "metric" scheme 
 
 Taught by the foreign school. 
 We'll worship still our Father's God! 
 
 And keep our Father's "rule"! 
 A perfect inch, a perfect pint, 
 
 The Anglo's honest pound, 
 Shall hold their place upon the earth. 
 
 Till Time's last trump shall sound! 
 
 CHORUS: 
 
 Then swell the chorus heartily, 
 
 Let every Saxon sing: 
 "A pint's a pound the world around," 
 
 Till all the earth shall ring, 
 "A pint's a pound the world around" 
 
 For rich and poor the same; 
 Just measure and a perfect weight 
 
 Called by their ancient name! 
 
A PINT'S A POUND THE WORLD AROUND? (1866-1890) 91 
 
 In terms of the number of supporters of this doctrine, the Institute com- 
 pared favorably with its opposite numbers, the American Metrological 
 Society and the American Metric Bureau. From the modest beginnings al- 
 ready noted, the Institute built itself up progressively to 401 members in 
 1883, about 500 in 1884, and reached a high of 680 in 1887 [125]. Unlike 
 the pro-metric groups, however, very few prominent Americans can be 
 found on the Institute's roles. President Garfield was the only notable men- 
 tioned by the Institute, and only then in connection with his having gra- 
 ciously declined to accept the proffered leadership of the organization in 
 1879 [126]. An unusual aspect of the Institute's membership, however, was 
 the number of women who not only belonged but who participated actively 
 in its operations. A check of the new members accepted by the Ohio Auxilia- 
 ry Society, 13 Latimer's real base of operations in Cleveland, between 1883 
 and 1887 shows that 21 women were elected. While small in comparison 
 to the total of 271 members elected during that period, the percentage of 
 women members (almost 8%) was certainly higher than that of the pro-metric 
 organizations, even those striving to reach the teachers. Another significant 
 fraction of the new members added during those years were clergymen (7%) 
 and foreign residents (1 1%). The great majority, however, were either en- 
 gineers or were not identified as to profession. Geographically, even within 
 the United States, the Institute's membership was more evenly distributed 
 than either of the pro-metric organizations, although the preponderance of 
 members, as might be expected, were Ohio residents. Latimer's policy on 
 membership was ambivalent. Desirous of securing a stable financial founda- 
 tion for the work, he was also determined to avoid taking insincere persons 
 into the fold: 
 
 "I beg that none shall be so overweaningly anxious to get members as to 
 bring in numbers of persons without their desire to become 
 members and without their proffer of the fee entitling them to 
 membership; for in many cases persons have been thus ac- 
 cepted and have not acted with the Society. 14 Such persons are 
 a dead weight to the Society. I would not exclude any worthy 
 poor man who is unable to pay as a member, but certainly no 
 one should be entered as a member who has not expressed his 
 desire to become one, either by solicitation or by his own volun- 
 tary act [127]." 
 
 Financially, the International Institute was no more and no less stable 
 than other metric groups of this period. Beginning in 1884, membership dues 
 were set at $2.00 a year and included a subscription to The International 
 Standard [128]. The treasurer's report for the year ending November 8, 
 1885, showed that receipts from outside sources had amounted to $767.43, 
 while Latimer's private funds and Witch Hazel Mine Royalties had con- 
 tributed $1,361.77 to the Institute's war chest [129]. The same report 
 
 13 As reported in The International Standard. 
 
 14 In spite of Latimer's having chosen the name "institute," he continually referred to it as the 
 "society." 
 
92 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 showed that over the past 6 years, $12,452.69 had been taken in by the In- 
 stitute, against which expenditures had been $12,451.64, leaving a balance 
 of $1.65 [ 130]. As with the American Metric Bureau, this constant state of 
 near-bankruptcy led to appeals for monetary help on a number of occasions. 
 In the end, it was the loss of Latimer's financial support after his death 
 which caused the collapse of the Institute. The final regular issue and the 
 memorial issue of The International Standard made the plight of the remain- 
 ing members quite clear: 
 
 "He leaves this work without a leader. But if, as Mr. Latimer always be- 
 lieved, the work is God-appointed, He is able to raise up 
 someone to carry it forward [131]." 
 
 "It is probably known to all the members that the Institute has not been self- 
 supporting, and that Mr. Latimer regularly supplied deficiencies 
 as they occurred from month to month out of his own funds 
 ... It is the SPECIAL REQUEST of the publishing com- 
 mittee . . . that EACH MEMBER, throughout the country 
 and the world, on reading this announcement will immediately 
 send at least a few words . . . promising your aid and support 
 in this enterprise [132]." 
 
 This was not to be, however, and the International Institute for Preserving 
 and Perfecting (the Anglo-Saxon) Weights and Measures simply disap- 
 peared after that time. 
 
 What it had accomplished, if anything, during its 9-year existence can 
 never be explained in concrete terms. Perhaps the most that can be said 
 about its impact is that it was there, to oppose pro-metric efforts in a vocal 
 fashion which could not be ignored and to serve as a vigilant watchdog on 
 behalf of those who were inclined to side with objectors to the metric 
 system. The Institute also left a written record of one of the most unusual ap- 
 proaches to the question of weights and measures of any day or age. And 
 yet, considering the spirit of contemporary America, proud and belligerent, 
 the Institute's philosophy may not have been as strange as it now seems. 
 The International Institute was an enigma. To what extent did it contribute 
 to the undeniable failure of efforts to introduce the metric system in the 
 United States during the 1880's? The answer to that question cannot even 
 be reasonably speculated on at this late date for, above all else, the Institute 
 was a product of the age in which it existed. 
 
 F. RECAPITULATION 
 
 Between 1 866 and 1 890, a major legislative push to secure adoption of the 
 metric system in the U.S. had come and gone. If it is to be characterized at 
 all, it should probably be termed "the Barnard era." as the single most potent 
 force acting in this direction during that time was President Frederick A. P. 
 Barnard of Columbia College. Through his personal efforts two pro-metric 
 interest groups had been formed and carried on the fight, more or less active- 
 ly, to bring about metrological reform in the interests of international 
 
A PINT'S A POUND THE WORLD AROUND? (1866-1890) 93 
 
 uniformity. Many committees of prestigious societies and dozens of 
 prominent individuals had also been induced to support this cause by virtue 
 of Barnard's personal reputation and untiring efforts. 
 
 The great goal of "the Barnard era" was to educate as many Americans as 
 possible to the value of the metric system on the theory that it would soon be 
 able to make its own way in the world after the education took hold. But the 
 advocates were also impatient. Unwilling to wait for "the rising generation" 
 to reach maturity they sought to secure, by legislation, a greater use of the 
 metric system by the Federal Government in its own work. Even though an 
 international convention securing the metric system's permanency was 
 ratified by the U.S. during this time, other legislative efforts fell short of 
 enactment. One reason for this may have been that the executive branch it- 
 self, when queried in 1877, failed to exhibit any great enthusiasm for a 
 change to the metric system by these means. 
 
 Another reason may have been the appearance of active opposition. An 
 anti-metric organization, also the product of a single individual's convic- 
 tions, succeeded in casting the metric system in a light which could not have 
 made the proposed reform very popular at that particular time in America's 
 development. Building upon a mystical explanation of the metrological 
 revelations of ancient Egypt's "Great Pyramid," the International Institute 
 fought the metric system on the grounds that it was neither God-given nor 
 Anglo-Saxon, two unpardonable attributes. 
 
 With the deaths of the respective leaders of the two factions — Barnard and 
 Charles Latimer — about a year apart, the first publicly-conducted con- 
 troversy over the metric system came to an end. The groups they had led 
 stopped being active influences on the legislative process and, for the time 
 being, no new ones arose to take their place. Not very many years elapsed, 
 however, before a new. and even more hotly-contested, campaign was in- 
 itiated with a new cast of characters. 
 
V. THE "ENTERING WEDGE" 
 CONTROVERSY (1 890-1 91 4) 
 
 Only a few years elapsed between the waning of the intense interest in the 
 question of metric adoption that had been generated in the 1 870's and 1 880's 
 and the time when the issue was revived, but significant social, economic 
 and political changes were occurring in the U.S. during these years. As a 
 result of these changes the next concentrated period of metric activity was 
 to be a transition campaign — a replay of earlier efforts in some respects and 
 a harbinger of future campaigns in others. 
 
 This cycle of metric agitation began about 1890, with an attempt to 
 capitalize on a newfound interest in improving commercial relationships 
 with our Latin American neighbors, and eventually spanned more than two 
 decades. The main events, however, took place between 1893 and 1907, 
 during which time the legislative fortunes of the metric system underwent a 
 drastic reversal. 
 
 After an announcement by the Treasury Department in 1893 that the Na- 
 tion's "fundamental standards" would thereafter be metric, and following 
 the inclusion of metric system provisions in weights and measures laws 
 passed in 1893 and 1894, efforts to effect greater use of the system through 
 Congressional action were stepped up. In 1895 another investigation of the 
 problems involved in changing to the metric system was requested by the 
 House of Representatives. In the following year, 1896, the House passed a 
 bill that would have achieved the long-sought goal, but then voted to recon- 
 sider its action and finally sent the measure back to the Committee on 
 Coinage, Weights and Measures. This was as close to achieving legislative 
 endorsement as the metric system was to come in this country. Many more 
 
 94 
 
THE "ENTERING WEDGE" CONTROVERSY (1890-1914) 95 
 
 attempts were made, however, and a great deal of effort was expended by 
 both sides in putting forth their views. 
 
 The bill that almost succeeded was typical of nearly all of the proposed 
 legislation dealing with this subject between 1890 and World War I. This 
 class of legislation would have required that the Federal Government adopt 
 the metric system almost immediately in conducting its affairs. The rest of 
 the U.S. was to follow at some appropriate interval, usually 2 to 5 years 
 later. The theory behind this approach was that the Federal Government, by 
 virtue of its ubiquity, would serve as an ideal "demonstration project" to in- 
 troduce most Americans to the practical utility of the metric system. The op- 
 ponents of this idea, who had begun to make themselves heard by 1902, saw 
 the proposition in a different light. In their view a few zealots — scientists, ex- 
 ecutive branch officials, and a handful of Congressmen — were using this 
 strategy to gain for the metric system a foothold, an "entering wedge" as 
 they called it, from which there could be no easy retreat at a later date should 
 the experiment prove to be a failure. In short, the opponents saw these 
 propositions as tantamount to compulsory adoption of the metric system, 
 and the evidence suggests that their beliefs in this respect were well founded. 
 
 In addition to the consistent similarity of the legislation proposed there 
 were some other unusual features about this era in the history of the metric 
 system. For one thing, neither the pro-metric forces nor their opponents 
 chose to organize themselves into special interest groups or societies. In- 
 stead, they preferred to work within the framework of groups already formed 
 for some broader purpose or to act as free-lance agents, representing only 
 themselves or small groups of like-minded individuals. As a consequence of 
 this, it is extremely difficult to gauge the extent of the interest in this 
 question that was generated during this period. Lacking published state- 
 ments and records such as were issued by earlier metric interest groups, the 
 chief sources of information about the events and personalities of this era are 
 the printed records of Congressional hearings on the subject. Fortunately, 
 another outstanding feature of the 1890-1914 campaign was the fact that it 
 was the one most productive of formal Congressional investigations into and 
 reports on the question of metric adoption. Whereas most earlier and later 
 activities were conducted in the outside world, the action during these years 
 occurred mainly in Congress. 
 
 Perhaps the most noteworthy aspect of this particular campaign was the 
 fact that opposition to the system's introduction came from an entirely dif- 
 ferent segment of society than it had in previous decades while the pro-met- 
 ric forces continued to be drawn from the ranks of scientists, educators and 
 government officials. The new opposition was made up mostly of manufac- 
 turers, a class of individuals whose political awareness and power had been 
 increasing steadily with the industrialization of America. Due largely to the 
 personal efforts of two men, Frederick Halsey and Samuel Dale, some major 
 manufacturers and engineering interests became convinced that a forced 
 change to the metric system would have an expensive and disruptive effect 
 on their businesses. They acted accordingly. 
 
 The opponents' suspicions were aroused even further when Congress 
 
96 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 created the National Bureau of Standards in 1901. This action, which ex- 
 panded the authority and functions of the old Office of Weights and Mea- 
 sures, came to be viewed by anti-metric forces as an attempt to create a 
 Government agency to work for and oversee the further introduction of the 
 metric system. Even though this idea apparently never entered into the deci- 
 sion to create a National Bureau of Standards, the fact that weights and mea- 
 sures came within its jurisdiction was enough to alarm Halsey and Dale. 
 This impression was strengthened by the fact that the Bureau's first director, 
 Dr. Samuel W. Stratton, was sympathetic to the metric cause and actively 
 participated in the debate on the subject. 
 
 All of these influences combined to restore the prominence of the metric 
 issue for several years after the turn of the century. By 1907 both sides had 
 been heard by the Congress on many different occasions and it became obvi- 
 ous that they were so far apart that there was no hope of taking any positive 
 action to increase the U.S. use of the metric system. At that point, enthu- 
 siasm began to wane again and both sides withdrew to await further develop- 
 ments. 
 
 A. EARLY DEVELOPMENTS 
 
 Organized metric activity had come to a virtual standstill by the late 
 1880's. With the passing of the outstanding leaders of the previous cam- 
 paign, Frederick Barnard and Charles Latimer, the interest groups that they 
 had kept alive through personal dedication ceased to function. Of the three 
 groups formed during the previous decade, only the American Metrological 
 Society continued in existence and even its strength and vitality were gone. 
 The object of their attentions, the "rising generation" of an earlier day, was 
 either not interested or had been so well versed in the advantages of the met- 
 ric system that they took for granted its eventual acceptance. The Congres- 
 sional unit responsible for such matters, the House Committee on Coinage, 
 Weights and Measures, had become increasingly embroiled in a controversy 
 that was destined to engage the whole Nation, and so it allowed the metric 
 question to lie undisturbed for several years. The executive branch of the 
 government, however, maintained a continuing interest in the metric 
 system's domestic and international potential during these years and it was 
 from this source that the impetus for a new campaign came. 
 
 The convening of the first International American Conference in October, 
 1889 provided the first opportunity to reawaken interest in the metric 
 system. The personal project of Secretary of State J ames G. Blaine, this con- 
 ference had been on the drawing boards for several years. Its principal pur- 
 pose was the improvement of U.S. -Latin American economic rela- 
 tions—Secretary Blaine desired to lay the groundwork for a Pan-American 
 customs union that would give preferential tariff treatment to American 
 products in all American countries on a reciprocal basis [1]. Although this 
 objective was not achieved, the conference provided an excellent opportuni- 
 ty to impress upon Congress the fact that most of our neighbors to the south 
 had officially adopted the metric system of weights and measures. Ac- 
 
THE "ENTERING WEDGE" CONTROVERSY (1890-1914) 97 
 
 cordingly, the Superintendent ofWeights and Measures in the Treasury De- 
 partment, Thomas C. Mendenhall, transmitted his opinions and recommen- 
 dations on the subject to Secretary Blaine along with information for the use 
 of U.S. delegates to the Conference [2]. As was the case with his predeces- 
 sors in that office, Dr. Mendenhall was thoroughly convinced that it would 
 be in the Nation's best interests to adopt the metric system, and he so in- 
 formed the Secretary of State. The conference was more than happy to 
 oblige the U.S. in this matter, and it unanimously adopted the following 
 resolution: 
 
 Resolved, That the International American Conference recommends the 
 adoption of the metrical decimal system to the nations here 
 represented which have not already adopted it [3]. 
 
 Since Colombia, Panama, Mexico, Uruguay, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, Peru, 
 Argentina, Costa Rica and El Salvador had already adopted the system by 
 this time, the U.S. was definitely in the minority on this matter. As a result 
 of this resolution, legislation to make use of the metric system compulsory in 
 U.S. custom houses was drafted and recommended to Congress by Secreta- 
 ries of the Treasury in their annual reports for 1890, 1891 and 1892, but 
 without success [4]. 
 
 Aside from the fact that no large-scale efforts were being made to en- 
 courage Congress to act on the question of metric adoption, the most likely 
 explanation for the lack of attention to the matter at that time was that both 
 Houses were deeply involved in debating more urgent issues. Indeed, the 
 year 1890 was a most noteworthy one in American politics, both for what 
 occurred during that year and for the impact of those events on the future. 
 
 To begin with, two new western States, Idaho and Wyoming, were added 
 to the four which had been admitted to the Union the previous year by a se- 
 ries of "Omnibus Bills." The addition of these western States upset the ex- 
 isting balance of power in Congress, and created a powerful faction in the 
 Senate that favored increasing the use of silver as a basis for underwriting 
 the value of American money. This brought to a head a controversy which 
 had been building up since passage of the Bland-Allison Silver Purchase Act 
 of 1878. 
 
 At stake was the question of whether the monetary standard of the U.S. 
 would be based on gold alone or on both gold and silver. Western interests 
 and individuals interested in an international monetary system naturally 
 tended to favor the use of both metals. Traditionalists and those who feared 
 that speculators would manage to bankrupt the U.S. by exchanging silver for 
 gold in tremendous quantities favored a gold standard policy exclusively 
 [5]. The House Committee on Coinage, Weights and Measures was drawn 
 into the middle of this battle because of its jurisdiction over U.S. coins. 
 
 The movement favoring the free coinage of silver had grown so strong by 
 1 890 that western Congressmen and Senators were able to secure passage 
 of a more generous silver purchase bill by bargaining with eastern interests. 
 The Sherman Silver Purchase Act was enacted in exchange for the McKin- 
 ley tariff law, which was designed to further protect the thriving industries of 
 the eastern seaboard by raising the duties on competing foreign goods. The 
 
98 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 Sherman Act declared it to be American policy to maintain silver on a parity 
 with gold at a ratio of 1 6 ounces of silver to 1 ounce of gold, and backed this 
 up by requiring that the Treasury purchase a specified amount of silver each 
 month and issue notes based upon that bullion. The object of all this legisla- 
 tion was to provide a market for the output of western silver mines and to 
 make more money available, especially to farmers. In the short run, the 
 Sherman Act failed to serve this purpose. It did lead people to exchange 
 silver for gold and then hoard the gold, but that was one of the causes of the 
 severe economic depression known as the Panic of 1893 [6]. As a con- 
 sequence, the Sherman Act was repealed in that year. 
 
 As had been true in earlier eras, the Congressional fate of the metric 
 system was linked to concurrent developments in coinage matters during 
 this period. In this case, however, the connection was an indirect one. 
 Because of its involvement in the question of free coinage of silver, the 
 House Committee on Coinage, Weights and Measures was either unable or 
 unwilling to take up the question of metric adoption. In fact, the only printed 
 hearings released by the Committee between January 1890 and December 
 1 89 1 dealt with silver coins, and they were voluminous [7] . 
 
 One very obvious reason why the Committee was so interested in this 
 subject between 1891 and 1895 is that it was chaired by Representative 
 Richard "Silver Dick" Bland of Missouri during those years. Bland, cospon- 
 sor of the Bland-Allison Act of 1878 and an ardent advocate of bimetallism, 
 had succeeded to this chairmanship when the Democratic Party gained con- 
 trol of the House in 1891. He was a leading contender for his Party's Pre- 
 sidential nomination in the 1896 election, but was beaten by William 
 Jennings Bryan of Nebraska at the convention at which the famous "cross of 
 gold" speech was delivered. Under Bland's leadership, the Committee 
 became divided over the silver question and was unable to successfully sell 
 the notion that bimetallism, both domestic and international, would provide 
 the solution to contemporary monetary problems. 
 
 In spite of its preoccupation with more urgent issues, the Congress did 
 take favorable action on several pieces of metric-related legislation between 
 1 893 and 1 895. On March 3 , 1 893 , a bill was enacted that established stan- 
 dard gauges (i.e., grades and sizes) for sheet and plate iron and steel [8]. A 
 significant feature of this law was that the standard thicknesses and weights 
 specified for each gauge were given in both customary and metric units. 
 
 Another act, passed July 12, 1894, established a series of units for electri- 
 cal measurement. This proposal grew out of the International Electrical 
 Congress held in Chicago in 1893, to which Thomas C. Mendenhall had 
 been an official U.S. delegate. It should not be surprising, then, to find that 
 the units recommended, and established by law, were based solely on the 
 metric system [9]. 
 
 Dr. Mendenhall was also responsible for another government decision 
 favorable to the metric system. That was the 1893 announcement that the 
 nation's "fundamental standards" would henceforth be metric. From discus- 
 sions in the previous chapter it will be recalled that President Harrison had 
 received and certified, on January 2, 1890, a set of prototype metric stan- 
 dards as a result of our ratification of the 1875 Treaty of the Meter. On April 
 
THE "ENTERING WEDGE" CONTROVERSY ( 1890-1914) 99 
 
 5, 1 893, Dr. Mendenhall, with the approval of his superior, Treasury Secre- 
 tary J. G. Carlisle, issued a bulletin declaring these prototypes to be the 
 "fundamental" U.S. standards of length and mass [10]. It is important to 
 note that this was purely an administrative act. Congressional approval was 
 not requested for the so-called "Mendenhall Order," nor was it ever granted 
 after-the-fact. Since authority "to fix the standard of weights and measures" 
 had been given to Congress under the Constitution, the Treasury Depart- 
 ment's notice carefully avoided any statements to the effect that the meter 
 and kilogram had been made the "official" or "National" standards of mea- 
 surement. Instead, the action was carefully justified in the following terms: 
 
 "The recent receipt of the very accurate copies of the International Metric 
 Standards . . . enables comparisons to be made directly with 
 those standards, as the equations of the national prototypes are 
 accurately known. It has seemed, therefore, that greater stabili- 
 ty in weights and measures, as well as much higher accuracy in 
 their comparison, can be secured by accepting the international 
 prototypes as the fundamental standards of length and mass. It 
 was doubtless the intention of Congress that this should be done 
 when the international metric convention was entered into in 
 1875; otherwise there would be nothing gained from the annual 
 contributions to its support which the Government has con- 
 stantly made. Such action will also have the great advantage of 
 putting us in direct relation in our weights and measures with all 
 civilized nations, most of which have adopted the metric system 
 for exclusive use. The practical effect upon our customary 
 weights and measures is, of course, nothing. The most careful 
 study of the relation of the yard and the metre has failed thus far 
 to show that the relation as defined by Congress in the act of 
 1866 is in error . . . 
 
 In view of these facts, and the absence of any material normal standards of 
 customary weights and measures, the Office of Weights and 
 Measures, with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, 
 will in the future regard the International Prototype Metre and 
 Kilogramme as fundamental standards and the customary 
 units — the yard and the pound — will be derived therefrom in ac- 
 cordance with the Act of July 28, 1866. Indeed, this course has 
 been practically forced upon this Office for several years, but it 
 is considered desirable to make this formal announcement for 
 the information of all interested in the science of metrology or 
 in measurements of precision [11]." 
 
 It is interesting to note that no objection was raised by the Congress when 
 this decision was announced. In fact, in an 1896 report the House Commit- 
 tee on Coinage, Weights and Measures even deplored the lack of Congres- 
 sional action that had made necessary the executive branch action. They did 
 observe, however, that "This presents a condition of legal complication and 
 practical confusion that ought not to continue [12]." Since neither that 
 Committee nor its successors were able to legally rectify the difficulty, the 
 
100 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 order was allowed to stand. Indeed, the prototype kilogram number 20 
 which Dr. Mendenhall declared to be a fundamental standard still serves 
 today as this Nation's reference standard of mass. 
 
 Later opponents of the metric system did not, of course, believe that the 
 Treasury Department's action had any validity under the law. Samuel Dale, 
 an outspoken foe of metric advancement, branded this episode as "the Men- 
 denhall conspiracy to discredit English weights and measures," and ad- 
 vanced evidence to show that Dr. Mendenhall had stubbornly refused to 
 cooperate with the British Government in a joint redefinition of customary 
 standards using the metric prototype [13]. Mr. Dale's attack on this order, 
 however, had no bearing on the outcome of legislation between 1890 and 
 1914 because his charges were not levied until 1927, 3 years after Dr. Men- 
 denhall's death. 
 
 In 1 894 Dr. Mendenhall left the Coast and Geodetic Survey to assume the 
 Presidency of Worcester Polytechnic Institute, from which he retired in 
 1901 [14]. During his long career Thomas Mendenhall compiled an amazing 
 record, made all the more outstanding by the fact that he never graduated 
 from college (the Ph. D. degree he carried was an honorary one). In spite of 
 this, he organized physics departments in two universities, served as pre- 
 sident of two engineering colleges, was president of the American Associa- 
 tion for the Advancement of Science and of the American Metrological 
 Society. He capped all of this by being elected to the National Academy of 
 Sciences. In 1885, while he was connected with the Signal Corps, Dr. Men- 
 denhall devised a scheme for protecting the newly-completed Washington 
 Monument against the recurrence of a lighting attack like the one which had 
 severly damaged it earlier that year. His major contribution to the cause of 
 metric advancement was perhaps the fact that he alone bridged the gap 
 between the earlier campaigns and those which were to come. Having been 
 closely acquainted with Alexander D. Bache and Frederick A. P. Barnard, 
 and thoroughly in agreement with their views on metrological uniformity, 
 Dr. Mendenhall's actions in the early 1890's kept the issue alive until other 
 men came along who were able to pursue it more actively. Even after his 
 health failed he remained an active metric advocate, however, corresponding 
 with and advising the leaders of later metric groups until his death in 1 924 at 
 the age of 83. 
 
 In the mid-1890's. Dr. Mendenhall's one-man crusade began to bear fruit. 
 In 1893 a bill was introduced, 1 apparently in response to repeated urgings by 
 Treasury Secretaries, to provide for the exclusive use of the metric system 
 in U.S. custom-houses. This bill was never reported on by the Committee on 
 Coinage, Weights and Measures. In 1 895, however, a House Resolution was 
 introduced by Mr. Wilson of West Virginia, reported out by the Committee, 
 and passed by the House. The Resolution provided for the appointment of 
 a commission to study and report on the feasibility of adopting the metric 
 system in the United States. The commission was to be made up of the 
 Secretary of the Treasury, the Superintendent of the Coast and Geodetic 
 Survey, and the Director of the Mint. Due to a very unusual error, the mem- 
 
 H.R. 2333 (53d Congress) 
 
THE "ENTERING WEDGE" CONTROVERSY (1890-1914) 101 
 
 bers of this commission were not informed of the House action until more 
 than a year after the Resolution's passage on March 2, 1895. The reason for 
 this delay, according to Rep. Charles W. Stone of Pennsylvania, Mr. Bland's 
 successor as chairman of the Commitlee on Coinage, Weights and Mea- 
 sures, was that the wording of the original House Resolution was changed by 
 the Clerk of the House after passage in such a way that the bill became a 
 Concurrent Resolution, that is, one which would also have required the ap- 
 proval of the Senate before taking effect [15]. The error went undetected 
 because the session of Congress was drawing to a close at that time and 
 because the matter had apparently been successfully disposed of. Con- 
 sequently no attempt was made to secure any action by the Senate, and the 
 investigation was not ordered. Apparently due to a combination of circum- 
 stances, including Mr. Wilson's transfer to the executive branch as newly- 
 elected President McKinley's Postmaster General, the error was not 
 discovered until someone inquired after the overdue report. A belated and 
 superficial set of opinions was then submitted by the responsible officials, 
 but this simple mistake may very well have had a telling effect on the failure 
 of legislation that was soon to come. 
 
 A final factor in the revival of Congressional interest in the question of 
 metric adoption at this time was the existence of a strong campaign in Great 
 Britain to change that nation over to the metric system [16]. 
 
 In spite of persistent and enthusiastic attempts to bring Great Britain into 
 the metric camp, it was still not legal in that nation to use the metric system 
 for most purposes in 1 880. At that point, the British advocates may have run 
 out of steam, or perhaps they believed that the U.S. campaign would prove 
 successful, thereby giving them a most powerful argument to use. Whatever 
 the reason, most British activity had come to an end by that year. In 1884 
 Great Britain ratified the Treaty of the Meter, joined the International Con- 
 ference of Weights and Measures, and was scheduled to receive prototype 
 metric standards. Even this act did not help to revive British metric interest, 
 however, and the subject lay dormant until several years later. In the mean- 
 time, Great Britain, like the U.S., was being upstaged by her neighbors (and 
 commercial competitors) who were changing over to the international 
 system of weights and measures, as the metric system was rapidly coming to 
 be called. 
 
 Finally, in 1890, a new organization was founded to do something about 
 the situation. This was the Decimal Association, formed "to promote the 
 adoption of a decimal system of weights, measures, and coinage in the 
 United Kingdom [ 17]." It soon settled on the metric system as the one to be 
 preferred, and its adoption was given a higher priority than the adoption of 
 decimal coinage [18]. For the first few years of its existence the group was 
 unable to do anything more than collect favorable opinions, resolutions and 
 petitions from trade groups, chambers of commerce, individuals and firms. 
 But this enthusiasm accumlated with time until, in 1895, the Government 
 found it expedient to appoint a Select Committee to investigate the pros and 
 cons of the matter and report to Parliament. 
 
 The Committee held sessions during 1895 and took testimony from 14 
 witnesses. Among them were men on both sides of the question, including 
 
102 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 the eminent British philosopher Herbert Spencer (who was opposed) and the 
 world reknown scientist Lord Kelvin (who was in favor of metric adoption). 
 On July 1 , 1 895 , the Committee reported to Parliament, recommending: 
 
 "(a) That the metric system ... be at once legalized for all purposes. 
 
 (b) That after a lapse of 2 years the metric system be rendered com- 
 pulsory by Act of Parliament. 
 
 (c) That the metric system ... be taught in all public elementary 
 schools . . . and that decimals be introduced at an earlier period 
 of the school curriculum than is the case at present [19]." 
 
 Almost 2 years elapsed before anything occurred as a result of the Com- 
 mittee's recommendations. Finally, on May 27, 1897, the Government 
 sponsored legislation to implement the first recommendation — full legaliza- 
 tion. By July 8 of that year the measure had cleared all legislative hurdles 
 and full use of the metric system at last became permissable in the United 
 Kingdom. 
 
 The Decimal Association also wanted the other recommendations 
 enacted into law, but achieving this objective was to prove impossible. 
 Nevertheless, they continued to campaign for it in an effort which dragged 
 on for as long a time as the one about to begin in the U.S. The parallel cam- 
 paigns in the two countries, resulting from the strong ties which had always 
 existed, had a reciprocal effect on participants in both nations. Any real or 
 impending action on one side of the Atlantic was immediately seized on by 
 their counterparts abroad as a compelling reason to settle the issue once and 
 for all by adopting the metric system. Just as the proponents were inclined to 
 buttress each other's efforts, so were the opponents. Before long a British 
 Weights and Measures Association had been organized to oppose any 
 further advance of the metric system, and American metric opponents were 
 among the principal contributors to their literature [20]. Attacking the met- 
 ric system is a style vaguely reminiscent of Charles Latimer and the Interna- 
 tional Institute, the Association's simple motto was "Preserve It!" [21]. 
 And preserve they did, at least until 1965. 
 
 As will be seen, many American metric actions between 1890 and 1914 
 were based on events that were happening or supposed to happen soon in 
 Great Britain. 
 
 B. A FLEETING VICTORY 
 
 One of the most significant events in the entire history of the metric 
 system in the U.S. occurred in 1896. In that year Congress came within an 
 eyelash of approving a measure to adopt the metric system, first for Govern- 
 ment affairs and later for the Nation as a whole. Although the House of 
 Representatives first granted and then immediately rescinded its approval of 
 the bill, supporters of the metric system were aroused to further efforts and 
 became even more convinced that the success they had worked so long to at- 
 tain was near at hand. A new era in the controversy over the metric system 
 had been ushered in. 
 

 THE "ENTERING WEDGE" CONTROVERSY (1890-1914) 103 
 
 The times were ripe for it. In the words of the contemporary journalist, 
 Mark Sullivan: 
 
 "In American political history, 1 896 was a dividing point. It marked the end- 
 ing of radicalism arising out of issues associated with currency. 
 For a few years after 1896 there was no political discontent to 
 speak of. . . . It was assuaged by larger supplies of gold from 
 the mines of the world, rising wages and prices, and the ac- 
 celerated activity of business that came with the war. The politi- 
 cal discontent that arose again about 1902 was from different 
 causes, had different issues, and was led by a new spokesman 
 [22]." 
 
 The 54th Congress had convened on December 2, 1895, with the 
 Republican Party in control of both the House and the Senate for only the 
 second time since 1873. As a result, the Committee on Coinage, Weights 
 and Measures was now chaired by Representative Charles W. Stone of 
 Pennsylvania. Mr. Stone was by no means as ardent a supporter of free 
 silver as his predecessor, Mr. Bland, had been, and it is more likely that he 
 even opposed the idea. Whatever his views, the election of William McKin- 
 ley to the Presidency in 1896 sharply curtailed the silver coinage con- 
 troversy, effectively terminating the Committee's preoccupation with 
 legislation related to it. 
 
 Early in the first session of that same Congress, Representative Denis M. 
 Hurley of Brooklyn, New York, introduced a bill "to fix the standard of 
 weights and measures by the adoption of the metric system." 2 The bill 
 further specified that: ( 1 ) beginning on July 1 , 1 897, all Government Depart- 
 ments, in transacting any business requiring the use of weights and measure- 
 ment, would employ only the metric system; (2) beginning July 1, 1899, the 
 metric system "shall be the only legal system of weights and measures recog- 
 nized" in the U.S., and (3) the equivalents specified in the Act of 1 866 were 
 to be the lawful relationships between metric and customary values. 
 
 Mr. Hurley's interest in the metric question, he revealed later, stemmed 
 from the 10 years which he had spent as a weighers' foreman at the New 
 York custom house. "It was while I was thus employed," he said, "using 
 weights and measures everyday, that I saw the want of a better system than 
 the irrational and poorly constructed ones in use. Then, too, I found the 
 French metric system so full of beauty and utility that I have been its warm 
 adherent ever since [23]." 
 
 Early in 1896 the House Committee held hearings and compiled 
 testimony related to this bill. Four men, all in favor of the bill were heard in 
 person: Congressmen Hurley and Edward Sauerhering (of Wisconsin), Mr. 
 O. H. Tittman of the Coast and Geodetic Survey, and Professor J. Howard 
 Gore of Columbia University. In addition, many letters and resolutions 
 favorable to the proposal were printed in the record, and the recently- 
 completed British investigation was mentioned at several points. The 
 general line of argument being used by metric supporters had changed little 
 
 'H.R. 2758; Dec. 26, 1895. 
 
104 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 from that of earlier days. The main points they brought up included the long- 
 touted merits inherent in the system — it's uniformity, simplicity, and decimal 
 ratios; the contention that for commercial and scientific dealings it was easi- 
 er to learn and would save time and increase the accuracy of work; the fact 
 that the U.S. currency system was already decimal; and the estimate that 
 one year of school time for each child would be saved by adopting the metric 
 system. These men were willing to concede that some difficulty would be en- 
 countered in making the transition, especially among manufacturers of 
 machinery, but they pointed out that other "civilized" nations had success- 
 fully made the change already. In addition, they advanced the argument that 
 the metric system's ultimate adoption by the entire world was a generally- 
 conceded proposition. Only 3 major nations — the U.S., Russia, and Great 
 Britain — had not already done so, and it appeared as though Britain was 
 about to abandon her traditional system in the near future. Under these cir- 
 cumstances, the argument went, it was high time for the U.S. to act on this 
 matter. 
 
 The Committee on Coinage, Weights and Measures agreed. On March 1 6, 
 1 896, Mr. Stone submitted a Report [24] to the House which urged passage 
 of the bill, as amended, 3 in very strong language. The document dealt in turn 
 with the history of U.S. weights and measures (which section was entitled 
 "Existing Confusion"), the advantages of the metric system, and objections 
 to the metric system. Among the findings which the Committee cited as 
 supportive of its recommendations were the following: 
 
 Concerning the Status of U.S. Weights and Measures in 1896 — "It appears 
 that a legal standard of weight has been established for use in 
 the mint, but that beyond that our weights and measures in ordi- 
 nary use rest on custom only with indirect legislative recogni- 
 tion; that the metric weights and measures are made legal by 
 direct legislative permission, and that standards of both systems 
 have been equally furnished by the Government to the several 
 States; that the customary system has been adopted by the 
 Treasury Department for use in the custom houses, but that the 
 same Department by formal order has adopted the metric stan- 
 dards as the 'fundamental standards' from which the measures 
 of the customary system shall be derived. This presents a condi- 
 tion of legal complication and practical confusion that ought not 
 to continue. The Constitutional power vested in Congress 
 should be exercised [25]." 
 
 "The failure of Congress to establish standards has naturally led each State 
 to do so for itself according to its own whim or caprice, and the 
 diversity is nearly as great as prevailed in feudal times in Eu- 
 rope when each feudal Chieftan thought the exercise of his 
 proper functions of sovereignty required him to establish a 
 distinctive system of his own [26]." 
 
 3 H.R. 7251, March 16, 1896. The effective dates were changed to July 1, 1898 and January 
 1, 1901, respectively, and a section was added naming the prototype meter and kilogram of the 
 Office of Standard Weights and Measures as the "ultimate" standards. 
 
THE "ENTERING WEDGE" CONTROVERSY (1890-1914) 105 
 
 Concerning the Impact of the Situation on Our Commercial Dealings — "We 
 are out of touch with all the nations of the world commercially 
 except Russia, with which our commerce is small, and England 
 . . . Almost all our entire commerce with the world, then, re- 
 quires to be translated or converted from the terms our weights 
 and measures into those of the various countries with which we 
 trade [27]." 
 
 Concerning Objections to the Difficulty of Changing to the Metric 
 System — "What man has done man can do. What the German, 
 the Austrian, even the Arab and the African have so easily done 
 ought not to frighten or deter the American. ... A considera- 
 ble element of our population is made up of immigrants from 
 metric-using nations, who have brought here a practical 
 familiarity with the system . . . [T] he way has been paved for 
 the general adoption of the system to an extent previously done 
 in no other nation. Hence the transition in this Country should 
 be materially easier, than in any other nation that has made it 
 [28]." 
 
 "Your committee is not blind to the fact that considerable temporary incon- 
 venience will accompany the change, but they believe that this 
 is greatly overestimated and that it will be of short duration 
 ... It will be no easier for a hundred million people 10 years 
 hence to make the change than for seventy million today. It is 
 simply a question whether this generation shall accept the an- 
 noyance and inconvenience of the change largely for the benefit 
 of the next, or shall we selfishly consult only our own ease and 
 impose on our children the double burden of learning and then 
 discarding the present 'brain-wasting' system. The present 
 generation must meet this test of selfishness or unselfishness, 
 and answer to posterity for duty performed or neglected. The 
 neglect of our fathers cannot justify us. They delayed for a 
 greater light and a clearer way. Passing years have brought the 
 light, and action of other nations has cleared the way [29]." 
 
 In a final appeal to their colleagues' higher ideals, the Committee termed 
 the proposed action a matter of "National honor," pointing out that the U.S. 
 ratification of the Treaty of the Meter and our actions at the 1890 Interna- 
 tional American Conference had both implied an American commitment to 
 use the metric system in order to provide the basis for total international 
 uniformity in weights and measures. "What possible motive can this country 
 have," they asked, "in thus conquetting longer on this subject with the na- 
 tions of Europe and her Sister republics [30] ?" 
 
 On the afternoon of April 7, 1896, Mr. Stone was notified that he would 
 have the opportunity to place the bill before the House on that same day 
 [31]. Mr. Stone led off the debate with a speech that followed the lines of his 
 Committee's report and contained all of its essential findings and conclu- 
 sions [32] . What happened next was reported in the April 24, 1 896, issue of 
 Science: 
 
 429-523 0-71-8 
 
106 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 "Mr. Stone's speech was very well received, and it was first thought that a 
 vote would be taken without debate. Mr. Bartlett, of New York, 
 however, secured the floor and made a short speech in opposi- 
 tion to the bill. 4 He was followed by a Representative Otey, of 
 Virginia, who made a humorous speech against the Metric 
 System, dwelling chiefly upon the Metric terms. Mr. Hurley, of 
 Brooklyn, replied in a dignified manner to Mr. Otey's effort and 
 suggested that in the hands of a humorist our present system 
 could be made very ridiculous. After more discussion Mr. Stone 
 called for a vote, and on a division of the House there were 65 
 votes in the affirmative and 80 in the negative. The vote being 
 less than a quorum, Mr. Stone succeeded in securing an ad- 
 journment, and the fight went over until Wednesday morning 
 [April 8], when the yeas and nays were ordered. After the ex- 
 perience of the day before, Mr. Stone was anxious to gain time, 
 believing that it was only necessary to acquaint the members 
 further in regard to the system under more favorable conditions 
 than those of a noisy debate in the House, to secure the passage 
 of the bill; but a vote could not be avoided, and when the an- 
 nouncement was made that the bill had passed by a vote of 1 19 
 to 1 1 7 , 5 a shout of applause went up from the floor and galleries. 
 Those who had opposed the bill, however, took courage, 
 because of the narrow majority in favor of the bill, and promptly 
 moved a reconsideration. Upon this motion yeas and nays were 
 ordered and the opponents of the bill went vigorously to work 
 to change votes, with the bugaboo of the angry farmer protest- 
 ing against being tangled up with a new system of weights and 
 measures on the eve of a Congressional election. The result of 
 this work was soon apparent. Mr. Hurley's motion to lay the 
 motion to reconsider on the table was lost by a vote of 136 to 
 111, and the motion to reconsider prevailed by a vote of 141 to 
 99. Mr. Stone's only remaining chance was to ask to have the 
 bill recommitted to his Committee. This motion was carried 
 viva voce [33]." 
 
 The primary reason why the bill failed to pass seems to have been that the 
 House was, on the whole, caught by surprise at the appearance of such a 
 proposal. In the debate it was argued that the people didn't understand the 
 metric system, that there was no apparent need to adopt it, or that such 
 sweeping changes as this ought not to be approved without thorough prelimi- 
 nary studies having been made. In this respect the error which had been 
 made in the proceeding Congress that resulted in a delayed and very superfi- 
 cial response to the House Resolution requesting a study may have been a 
 more significant mistake than it appeared to be at the time. It is possible, 
 
 4 Mr. Bartlett implied that a vote for the metric bill was the same as a vote for bimetallism, 
 since both were movements of an international nature. 
 
 5 The vote was actually 1 1 9 to 1 1 6. 
 
THE "ENTERING WEDGE" CONTROVERSY ( 1890-1914) 107 
 
 also, that Mr. Stone was not given sufficient time to line up support for his 
 bill before it was brought up on the floor, for the opinion was advanced on 
 several subsequent occasions that people were not opposed to the proposi- 
 tion, they simply did not know enough about it to be in favor of the bill. Con- 
 sidering that the legislation was not defeated outright and that Mr. Stone was 
 allowed to return it to his Committee for further consideration, it may very 
 well have been a lack of adequate advance preparation for the vote which 
 prevented passage of the bill. 
 
 Certainly, Mr. Stone and his allies in this campaign did not consider them- 
 selves beaten, despite the longstanding precedent of the House of not con- 
 sidering a bill a second time in the same session of Congress after once 
 recommitting it. As the New York trade paper, the Dry Goods Economist, 
 reported 10 days after the incident: 
 
 "The friends of the bill, so far from being discouraged, have gone to work 
 vigorously. With the new light shed upon the status of the mea- 
 sure by the action of the House they have already made much 
 progress, so that Chairman Stone and Mr. Hurley both feel per- 
 fectly confident that the 54th Congress will see the measure 
 enacted into law without material modification of the form in 
 which it was reported. 
 
 The canvass which has been begun since the bill was recommitted to the 
 Coinage Committee has already developed the fact that the vote 
 on the bill cannot be taken as a test of the measure in any 
 respect. The opposition which was voiced on the floor was con- 
 fined to the views of three members, Messrs. Otey, Bartlett and 
 Parker . . . Mr. Bartlett has already withdrawn his opposition 
 and may even consent to vote for the measure when it is called 
 up again, while Mr. Otey had good-naturedly declared that his 
 speech against the bill was intended to be only jocular, and that 
 when the measure comes up he will take it up seriously and ad- 
 dress the House in its support. 
 
 These surprising gains in strength in the very camp of the opposition are 
 decidedly encouraging to Mr. Stone and his colleagues, but they 
 realize that it will be necessary to make a very careful canvass 
 and a very strong fight in order to secure sufficient support to 
 bring the bill up for consideration as well as to pass it. . . . 
 
 [The intention of Congress to adjourn early in view of the approaching 
 elections] does not menace the fate of the Metric System bill 
 even at this session, but it will not be safe to count upon its 
 passage, nor should its friends be at all disheartened in case it is 
 not taken up [34]." 
 
 This last admonition was excellent advice in view of what was to occur with 
 respect to this matter. 
 
 Mr. Stone was not, in fact, able to secure another opportunity to have the 
 bill considered again in the first session of the 54th Congress. In the follow- 
 ing session, however, on February 10, 1897, the Committee on Coinage, 
 
108 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 Weights and Measures submitted an amended bill and a revised report to the 
 House for its consideration [35]. 
 
 The amendments to the bill fi provided for exclusive Government use of 
 the system after July 1, 1900 and legal recognition of it as the U.S. system as 
 of January 1, 1903. In addition, surveys of public lands were exempted from 
 the requirements of the bill, at the Department of the Interior's request, 
 since these surveys would be nearly complete by the time the law took effect 
 and they had not been made using metric measurements [36]. To clarify the 
 intent of the bill on the question of whether or not use of the metric system 
 would be compulsory for the entire Nation, the Committee deleted the word 
 "only" from the phrase: "shall be the only legal system . . . recognized in 
 the United States." The report emphasized that this section was intended to 
 fulfill Congress' obligations under the Constitution, did not make use of the 
 metric system compulsory, and would not prohibit or interfere with the con- 
 tinued use of the customary system by anyone wanting to use it. Rather, the 
 bill would establish legal standards for reference purposes, in case of 
 disputes, that would be the same as those "that are recognized as authorita- 
 tive by every nation of the civilized world with but two or three exceptions 
 [37]." 
 
 The Committee readopted its previous report as being a fair and accurate 
 presentation of the facts and considerations involved. It took the opportuni- 
 ty, however, to reinforce and add to some of its previously-stated reasons 
 why it felt that enactment of this bill was important [38]. The Committee 
 cited petitions it had received from the faculties of 27 colleges in 1 6 different 
 States and mentioned numerous resolutions from educational, trade and 
 professional associations, all favoring adoption of the metric system. The re- 
 port also revealed that that Committee had asked the State Department to 
 obtain information on the transition experiences of Germany, Austria, Hun- 
 gary, Norway and Sweden. The results of this inquiry had led the Committee 
 to the conclusion that: 
 
 "All substantially concur in the statement that the trouble and incon- 
 venience in making the change was by no means serious; that no 
 one of the nations has the least desire to return to the former 
 system: and that the effect on the commerce of the nations 
 adopting the system, so far as any opinion is expressed, has 
 been clearly beneficial [39]." 
 
 For these reasons and those it had presented in its earlier report, the Com- 
 mittee again urged passage of the proposed bill, venturing the following pre- 
 diction: 
 
 "Put the system in practical and uniform operation in the transactions of the 
 Government and the adoption by the people will take care of it- 
 self. Its merits will be brought home to them in practical form, 
 and knowledge will inevitably bring approval [40] ." 
 
 The report and the accompanying legislation never got to the floor for 
 
 e Still numbered H.R. 7251. 
 
THE "ENTERING WEDGE" CONTROVERSY (1890-1914) 109 
 
 debate and reconsideration, probably because it was released too late in the 
 session to receive clearance from the House leadership. The 54th Congress 
 adjourned less than a month later and the legislation expired with adjourn- 
 ment. What is not clear is the reason why Mr. Stone waited until 2 months of 
 a 3-month session had elapsed before issuing another report. In view of the 
 near success the previous year, and considering the promises of future sup- 
 port that the measure had received, it would have been logical to expect an 
 early Committee report to insure that the amended bill was placed on the 
 agenda for consideration during the second session. Whatever the reason, 
 any momentum that had been built up in regard to this issue was lost by the 
 time the next Congress was convened. 
 
 In the meantime, a modest publicity effort had been mounted by the 
 remaining members of the American Metrological Society. In 1896 it issued 
 a booklet, edited by the recording secretary John K. Rees, entitled The Met- 
 ric System — Detailed Information as to Laws, Practice, etc. [41] which was 
 intended to gather support for the Hurley Bill. In addition to extracting the 
 pertinent sections of previous official reports and documents, the Society an- 
 nounced that it was undertaking an ambitious project: 
 
 "The American Metrological Society wishes to put up a metric chart in each 
 one of about seventy thousand post-offices in the United States 
 and to circulate for signature among citizens engaged in all 
 kinds of business 100,000 copies of its petition to Congress for 
 the exclusive use of the metric system in the Government bu- 
 reaus after July 1, 1898, and by the whole people after January 
 1 , 1 90 1 . For these purposes $ 1 0,000 are wanted; and contribu- 
 tions, however small, are solicited from everybody ... To 
 every contributor of as much as ten cents, a chart will be sent. 
 The text of the petition is as follows: 
 
 The undersigned citizens, residing in his Congressional District, respectfully 
 
 urge the Honorable Mr. to consider favorably and 
 
 vote for the bill reported to the House of Representatives by the 
 Committee on Coinage, Weights and Measures, to fix the stan- 
 dards of weights and measures by the adoption of the Metric 
 System of weights and measures [42]." 
 
 Even though some of these petitions eventually found their way to the 
 Committee, the overall results are unknown. Judging by the outcome of the 
 1896 legislation, however, the response could not have been as overwhelm- 
 ing or enthusiastic as was anticipated. This was the first time that the mass- 
 petition technique had been applied to achieve support for metric legislation, 
 but it was by no means the last. Metric campaigners on both sides of the 
 question would put great faith in the potential influence of such petitions in 
 later years. 
 
 Dr. Mendenhall, who was the president of Worcester Polytechnic In- 
 stitute and a vice-president of the American Metrological Society by this 
 time, also contributed his share of articles to the literature on the metric 
 system. One such article appeared in Science, the journal of the American 
 
110 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 Association for the Advancement of Science, and dealt with the broad sub- 
 ject of weights and measures legislation in the context of the recently- 
 rebuffed Hurley Bill [43]. The article was principally historical in its con- 
 sideration of the subject, but it contained one observation that has weathered 
 the test of time: 
 
 "History shows that marked advances of the character here referred to [i.e., 
 the successful passage of earlier weights and measures laws] 
 are usually brought about through the active, personal interest 
 and enthusiasm of a very few men, often not more than one or 
 two. 
 
 . . . [I]t will usually happen that not many members of either House or 
 Senate will have the time or the interest to thoroughly inform 
 themselves of the merits of a measure which does not im- 
 mediately appeal to them. They depend largely on the few who 
 are well informed, who have made a special study of the subject, 
 and who by reason of their personal character and influence are 
 accepted as authority [44]." 
 
 History has also shown, however, that limited interest of this sort has been 
 insufficient to influence the Congress to accept a revision of our entire 
 system of weights and measures. A much broader consensus, which was 
 never achieved, was clearly called for. 
 
 Another article by Dr. Mendenhall was triggered by anti-metric argu- 
 ments that had originally appeared in the London Times [45]. While the 
 content of Dr. Mendenhall's reply to letters which had been authored by 
 Herbert Spencer differed little from pro-metric arguments appearing el- 
 sewhere, the fact that he felt obliged to respond to them at all illustrates the 
 close connection between contemporary British and American metric activi- 
 ties. Dr. Mendenhall himself acknowledged the relationship in his 13-page 
 article in Appleton's Popular Science Monthly: 
 
 "Obstinate conservatism which makes people cling to what is or what has 
 been, merely because it is or has been, . . . is highly developed 
 among English-speaking people on both sides of the Atlantic, 
 and is likely to turn up in the most unexpected places. It is often 
 a phase of ancestral or national pride, and finds its expression in 
 the feeling that whatever pertains to one's own race or country 
 is, on the whole, better than anything else of its kind . . . 
 These people are numerous among opponents of reform in 
 coinage, weights, and measures, and, as already noted, it is 
 with this class that the most serious difficulty is encountered 
 [46]." 
 
 Aside from Mr. Spencer, it is not obvious who the men were that Dr. 
 Mendenhall was referring to in his discourse. The opponents of U.S. adop- 
 tion of the metric system at that time seem to have been quite small in num- 
 bers, and they were certainly a lot less active than their predecessors. For 
 example, in all of the hearings held until 1 902, not one individual came forth 
 
THE "ENTERING WEDGE" CONTROVERSY (1890-1914) 111 
 
 to voice his objections to the Committee on Coinage, Weights and Mea- 
 sures. There was no organized group formed to fight the legislation, and no 
 anti-metric petitions were circulated. It may have been that Dr. Mendenhall 
 was simply comparing the British opposition to Charles Latimer and his fol- 
 lowers. The International Institute and its philosophy certainly fell within his 
 definition of "obstinate conservatism," and there can be no doubt but that he 
 was well aware of the Institute's earlier activities. But at the time this par- 
 ticular article was written, such opposition in the United States was either 
 nonexistent or dormant. In fact, between 1888 and 1904 only one anti- 
 metric paper appeared in print which was noteworthy, and then only because 
 of its source, not because of its substance or obstinacy. 
 
 This lone example of metric opposition was a treatise by George W. 
 Colles, of Boston, which appeared in the 1896 Transactions of the Amer- 
 ican Society of Mechanical Engineers [47]. This Society's members would, 
 in later years, supply some of the keenest opposition to (as well as some 
 ardent support for) the idea of adopting the metric system. Since mechanical 
 engineering was the profession most deeply affected by the proposed 
 change, it was probably inevitable that the practitioners of it should become 
 involved in the controversy through their Society. Mr. Colles' paper was 
 only the first of many heated discussions of the metric question for which 
 this Society provided the forum. 
 
 There was very little material of an original nature in Mr. Colles' discus- 
 sion, but it constituted an excellent review of the anti-metric case (as far as 
 it had developed by 1896). Like others before him, he dwelt extensively 
 upon the historical development of weights and measures, pointing out the 
 1 7th and 1 8th century lack of uniformity that had made the advent of the 
 metric system a welcome development in some European nations. He also 
 presented the history of the English customary system, emphasizing what 
 the British had done to improve their weights and measures that, in his 
 opinion, made their adoption of the metric system unnecessary. Also like 
 others before him, he repeated and gave great credence to the anti-metric 
 portions of John Quincy Adams' report and other earlier opinions unfavor- 
 able to the metric system. 
 
 Having done this, Mr. Colles' proceeded to list the arguments in favor of 
 metric adoption with an eye to rebutting them in much the same style as had 
 been used by Charles Davies a quarter of a century before. For example, 
 he felt that the argument of uniformity "loses much of its importance when 
 applied to English-speaking nations. Their system is already uniform, and 
 was so, practically, decades before other countries had even considered the 
 subject [48]." In similar fashion he attempted to counter such ideas as the 
 superiority of a decimal system, the improvement represented by the metric 
 system's nomenclature, the claim that not being a metric nation was injuring 
 our foreign trade, and the theory that once people tried the metric system in 
 use that they would gladly discard every other system in favor of it. In all, 
 Mr. Colles drew 24 specific conclusions, all unfavorable, concerning the 
 relative merits of the metric system [49]. For the most part, his objections 
 were based on very practical considerations, such as the legal, political and 
 economic difficulties that would attend such a change. Many of his objec- 
 
112 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 tions were, in fact, to situations which even metric advocates were often 
 forced to concede the difficulty of overcoming. But Mr. Colles' fears were 
 unnecessary, because the supporters of the idea were not able to get up 
 enough steam on their own accord to conquer the opponent's most powerful 
 ally — inertia. 
 
 C. AFTERSHOCKS 
 
 When the Committee on Coinage, Weights and Measures failed to obtain 
 consideration of the Hurley Bill a second time, the public's interest in the 
 question of metric adoption subsided. Congress continued to feel strong 
 pressure from within, however, as proposals were advanced and acted upon 
 by the Committee in every year between 1 897 and 1 901 . 
 
 On March 19, 1897, 4 days after the convening of the 55th Congress, Mr. 
 Hurley introduced a bill similar to the one which had been hammered out by 
 the Committee in the previous session. 7 This bill also exempted the survey 
 of public lands, but it provided that the metric system would become the 
 legal U.S. system on the same day that the Government adopted it— July 1 , 
 1900. It also omitted the references to the prototype standards and tables of 
 equivalents that, in previous bills, had been included to provide a built-in 
 definition of what was meant by the term "metric system." 
 
 Having given much thought to this matter in the previous Congress, and 
 having already submitted two comprehensive reports on it to the House, the 
 Committee was not inclined to hold more hearings or offer new evidence. In- 
 stead, the members simply re-affirmed their earlier views in an 1898 report 
 which contained full reprints of those issued previously [50]. Again the 
 Committee's appeal to the House was based not on any urgency or practical 
 necessity for making the change, but on higher principles and a vague 
 promise of some benefits to come in the future: 
 
 "We are today stepping across the threshold of a new national career. The 
 world opens before us. The coming of the new century will find 
 us grasping for the trade and commerce of the world. We are 
 becoming an aggressive force in the affairs of the world. In this 
 new career we will encounter jealous watchfulness and sharp 
 competition. Should we not free ourselves from everything that 
 hampers our activity in the great race? To secure the trade of 
 the nations of the world we must bid for it in terms understood 
 by them. We must carry into the struggle no load of antiquated 
 systems and inconvenient and cumbersome methods [5 1 ] ." 
 
 Those were noble and prophetic thoughts, very well spoken but hardly a 
 compelling reason to adopt another system of weights and measures. The 
 line of reasoning was blunted even more by the fact that American foreign 
 trade had been growing at a furious pace without the benefit of a metric 
 based industry. Between 1888 and 1898, for example, the value of finished 
 
 7 H.R. 1058. 
 
THE "ENTERING WEDGE" CONTROVERSY (1890-1914) 113 
 
 manufactures exported by the U.S. nearly doubled, from $114 million to 
 $223 million [52]. The value of America's total exports in these same years 
 increased from $696 million to $ 1 ,23 1 million, and our trade with Europe, in- 
 cluding the United Kingdom, had remained a steady 79 percent of this total 
 amount [53]. Our principal exports at this time were still agricultural 
 products, but even so it was difficult to advance any hard evidence that our 
 competitive position in foreign markets was being undermined by the fact 
 that we had not adopted the metric system. This argument was to prove to be 
 even less credible in future years. 
 
 Whether it was for this reason or whether it was because the Congress was 
 engaged in such other affairs as the Spanish-American War and the aggre- 
 sive pursuit of foreign influence, is immaterial. The end result was that the 
 metric system proposal once again failed to clear the necessary procedural 
 hurdles and was not considered. 
 
 In the 56th Congress, which met between December 1889 and March 
 1901, the metric adoption issue was raised again, but by this time it had 
 become necessary to find new people to support the proposal. Congressman 
 Hurley had died in February 1899 and Chairman Stone had been defeated 
 in his bid for reelection. Three individuals came forward to replace these 
 men as Congressional champions of metric system proposals: Representa- 
 tives James H. Southard of Ohio, Lucius N. Littauer of New York, and John 
 F. Shafroth of Colorado. Mr. Southard had replaced Charles Stone as Chair- 
 man of the Committee on Coinage, Weights and Measures, and, under his 
 leadership, the Committee would devote more of its time to metric legisla- 
 tion than at any other period in its history. Mr. Littauer was a wealthy glove 
 manufacturer, financier and philanthropist who was to sponsor and other- 
 wise support several pieces of metric legislation during the 10 years he 
 served in Congress [54]. Mr. Shafroth was a veteran free silver campaigner 
 and he was also to become one of the most ardent advocates of the metric 
 system in Congress [55]. 
 
 Early in the first session of the 56th Congress, both Mr. Littauer and Mr. 
 Shafroth introduced metric bills. 8 These two bills were very similar to each 
 other and both were very much like the abbreviated bill Mr. Hurley had 
 proposed in 1 897. The Committee on Coinage, Weights and Measures chose 
 to review and report on Mr. Shafroth's bill, recommending passage with only 
 minor changes suggested. Under this proposal the metric system would 
 become the "legal standard weights and measures of and in the United 
 States," and would be required for use in Government business as of 
 January 1, 1903. 
 
 The Committee's report on the bill was brief but noteworthy [56]. 
 Reiterating its belief that there were "obvious advantages" to be gained by 
 adopting the metric system, the Committee declined to add further to the 
 number of "voluminous reports" already in existence [57]. Instead of 
 emphasizing the potential economic advantages of metric adoption, how- 
 ever, the Committee seized upon the argument that less time and intellectual 
 effort were required to use the metric system than the customary system of 
 
 "H.R. 104 (Mr. Littauer), Dec. 4, 1899; and H.R. 5768 (Mr. Shafroth). Jan. 10. 1900. 
 
114 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 weights and measures. In support of this contention the Committee 
 reprinted, verbatim, a document issued by the American Metrological 
 Society [58]. The line of reasoning behind this argument was approximately 
 as follows: 
 
 1. Because of its basic simplicity, small number of fundamental units, and 
 
 logical method for deriving multiples and sub-units, the metric 
 system offered economy in the time and intellectual energy 
 required to understand and use weights and measures. 
 
 2. Time would be saved in learning the metric system as compared to learn- 
 
 ing the customary system because: 
 
 "No one can easily forget his youthful attempts to memorize long and 
 generally almost meaningless tables and to master the mysteries of addi- 
 tion, subtraction, multiplication, and division of 'compound numbers' 
 . . . Conservative educators have estimated that the use of the metric 
 system . . . would save one to two years of the school life of every 
 child [59]." 
 
 3. Use of a decimal system of weights and measures would vastly reduce the 
 
 probability of error in calculations and in all other practical ap- 
 plications of weights and measures. To demonstrate the im- 
 portance of this aspect, the American Metrological society 
 hinted that mistakes were being made in filling medical prescrip- 
 tions that were likely to be fatal in many instances. 
 
 In the end, this approach to convincing the House that adoption of the 
 metric system urgently required its attention worked no better than the 
 Committee's previous arguments. The proposed legislation never reached 
 the floor and expired with the adjournment of Congress. 
 
 Two days after the above report had been issued, however, another bill 
 which the Committee on Coinage, Weights and Measures had sponsored 
 was enacted into law. This was the bill creating the National Bureau of 
 Standards. 
 
 D. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF 
 STANDARDS 
 
 Until about 1900, America's involvement with science had been prin- 
 cipally on an individual basis. With the turn of the century, that situation 
 began to change. As Mark Sullivan informs us: 
 
 "The one conspicuous lack in the schools of 1865-1895 was Science . . . 
 
 The lack of Science teaching in the schools would have justified, if 
 anything would, Henry Adams's complaint of ill-equipment for life 
 in the 20th century. The schoolboy of the 1880's was destined to 
 spend his mature life in a world in which science and its applications 
 affected his existence vitally, but the common schools taught him 
 not even the elementary facts of physics and chemistry. He was 
 
THE "ENTERING WEDGE" CONTROVERSY (1890-1914) 115 
 
 destined to see the automobile substituted for the horse; to see elec- 
 tricity take the place of his former means of heat and power; to have 
 daily familiarity with the telephone and radio, to come in contact 
 with the laws of refraction as expressed in the camera, to see the X- 
 ray and radium in the hands of his doctor; to see chemistry, by the 
 devising of rayon and other products, flout one of the most infallible 
 maxims in his school books: 'you cannot make a silk-purse out of a 
 sow's ear [60].' " 
 Many scientists foresaw that the Nation was not prepared to meet fully 
 the technical needs of such a world. In particular, the country lacked a cen- 
 tral institution responsible for measurement standards, precision instrument 
 development, and materials research. Following the example set by other 
 countries in such matters, the Secretary of the Treasury was persuaded to 
 propose the creation of a new governmental institution, "a complete labora- 
 tory, fitted for undertaking the most refined measurements known to modern 
 science [61]." The plan was to enlarge upon the duties and functions of the 
 Office of Standard Weights and Measures in order to establish the new in- 
 stitution, which was to be called the "National Standardizing Bureau [62]." 
 This plan had not sprung up overnight. According to historian Rexmond 
 C. Cochrane, a Federal standards laboratory had been talked about for 
 nearly 20 years, but the actual drawing up of plans for one had been awaiting 
 the coincidence of the right man and the right time [63]. Treasury Secretary 
 Lyman J. Gage, a Chicago banker, proved to be the eventual matchmaker. 
 In the summer of 1899 he gave to his Assistant Secretary, Frank A. Vander- 
 lip, the job of finding someone to investigate and report on the situation with 
 respect to the need for a national standards laboratory and to propose ap- 
 propriate legislation. 
 
 Mr. Vanderlip settled on a former college classmate, Samuel W. Stratton, 
 who was then a professor of physics at the University of Chicago. Secretary 
 Gage brought Stratton to Washington as "Inspector of Standards" and 
 promptly set him to work organizing the proposal for the creation of the new 
 institution. 
 
 Stratton did his work well. Not only was he able to construct a convincing 
 case for the necessity of a national standards laboratory, but he was also able 
 to obtain an impressive display of support for the measure from the most 
 prestigious scientific and educational organizations in the country. 
 
 The results of his work are contained in a letter to the Speaker of the 
 House from Secretary Gage dated April 18, 1900 [64]. Among the more im- 
 portant conditions listed as necessitating the establishment of the proposed 
 agency were: 
 
 (1) "[T]he increased order of accuracy demanded in scientific and 
 commercial measurements and the exceedingly rapid progress of 
 pure and applied science [65]." These required a modern laboratory 
 in which to undertake the development and improvement of 
 standards. 
 
 (2) The fact that Germany, Austria, Russia and, most recently, England 
 had all established government-operated standards institutions. 
 
116 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 (3) The rapid rate at which "institutions of learning, laboratories, obser- 
 vatories, and scientific societies" were being established or were 
 growing. 
 
 (4) The fact that such practical problems as measuring the temperature 
 in furnaces and metering the amount of electricity generated and 
 sold required far greater accuracy than ever before because enor- 
 mous sums of money were at stake. 
 
 (5) The rapid growth rate of American companies which manufactured 
 scientific apparatus and precision instruments, a class of products 
 which had previously been available only from foreign manufac- 
 turers. 
 
 (6) The need to provide schools, factories and other institutions in new 
 territories recently acquired by the United States with standards and 
 measuring equipment. 
 
 The Committee on Coinage, Weights and Measures, at least, was con- 
 vinced. Less than a month later, on May 14, 1900, Chairman Southard sent 
 the proposed legislation, 9 to the floor with the unanimous approval of the 
 Committee. On that same day, the bill was introduced in the Senate. 10 
 Nothing further occurred until December 1900, when a Subcommittee of 
 the Committee on Commerce held hearings on the bill and then issued its re- 
 port. After resolving a few differences of opinion between the House and the 
 Senate having to do with the funds to be appropriated for the new bureau and 
 the salary of its director, the bill was debated on the floor of the House on 
 March 2, 1901. The following day, March 3, 1901 , the bill was enacted into 
 law. It created, as of July 1, a National Bureau of Standards which was to 
 have the following functions: 
 
 "[T]he custody of the standards; the comparison of the standards used in 
 scientific investigations, engineering, manufacturing, com- 
 merce, and educational institutions with the standards adopted 
 or recognized by the Government; 11 the construction when 
 necessary of standards, their multiples, and subdivisions; the 
 testing and calibration of standard measuring apparatus; the 
 solution of problems which arise in connection with standards; 
 the determination of physical constants, and the properties of 
 materials when such data are of great importance to science or 
 manufacturing interests and are not to be obtained of sufficient 
 accuracy elsewhere [66]." 
 
 Appropriately, President McKinley appointed Dr. Stratton to be the first 
 director of the new National Bureau of Standards. 12 
 
 Samuel Wesley Stratton would serve in this post for more than 21 years, 
 making NBS his principal life's work. Born on a farm near Litchfield, Illinois 
 
 *H.R. 11350. 
 
 10 S. 4680. 
 
 11 Emphasis supplied. 
 
 12 Hereafter referred to as NBS or simply "the Bureau. 
 
THE "ENTERING WEDGE" CONTROVERSY (1890-1914) 117 
 
 in 1861 he became interested in machinery and the "mechanic arts" at an 
 early age [67] . From 1 880 to 1 884 he studied mechanical engineering at the 
 Illinois Industrial University (now the University of Illinois), working at a 
 variety of tasks to pay for his education. After graduation Stratton stayed on 
 at the University to teach, eventually attaining the rank of professor of 
 physics and electrical engineering. In 1892 he was offered, and accepted, a 
 position at the new University of Chicago. During his tenure there Stratton 
 served under the reknowned physicist (and eventual Nobel Prize winner) 
 Albert A. Michelson, from whom he learned a great deal about the science 
 of measurement and precision instrumentation. Upon the outbreak of the 
 Spanish-American War, Stratton was commissioned a lieutenant in the U.S. 
 Navy, serving in a variety of administrative posts during his 8 months of ser- 
 vice. Shortly after his discharge from the Navy, he received his invitation 
 from Secretary Gage to come to Washington. His career at the National Bu- 
 reau of Standards lasted from 1901 until January 1, 1923, when he became 
 the president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dr. Stratton 
 never married but he had a very active social life and a wide circle of 
 acquaintances that reads like a Who's Who of the early part of the 20th cen- 
 tury—Herbert Hoover, Thomas Edison, and Alexander Graham Bell to 
 mention only a few. He died on October 18, 1931, while dictating a tribute 
 to Thomas Edison, whose death had occurred that same morning. 
 
 How rapidly the new Bureau was organized, 13 and began fulfilling its func- 
 tions was demonstrated in a 1905 report authored by Dr. Stratton and his 
 chief physicist, Edward B. Rosa [68]. The first concern had been the 
 planning and construction of a permanent home for the laboratory. A 7.5 
 acre site in northwest Washington, D.C. had been selected and by 1905 two 
 buildings had already been erected, a third one was nearly completed, and a 
 fourth one was in the planning stage. The personnel of the Bureau, which 
 had numbered 14 the first year, had been increased to 87, over 75 percent of 
 which were scientific and technical men. The scientific work of the Bureau 
 was carried out in organizational units whose names were descriptive of the 
 nature of their work: weights and measures, heat and thermometry, light and 
 optical instruments, electrical measuring instruments, chemistry, and so on. 
 The actual work itself was highly technical in substance, as indicated by 
 examples of the work cited as being in progress or recently completed: 
 
 "An extended research on the ratio of the electromagnetic and electrostatic 
 units employing three different types of standard condensers 
 [has been completed] . . . 
 
 The Bureau has a carefully constructed absolute standard of inductance the 
 value of which is accurately known by calculation. We shall 
 measure its value very accurately [using two methods]. This 
 will give two new determinations of the ohm in absolute 
 measure . . . 
 
 13 In 1903 the Bureau was transferred from the Treasury Department to the newly-created 
 Department of Commerce and Labor and its name was shortened to "U.S. Bureau of Stan- 
 dards." When the Department was reorganized in 1913 the Bureau remained with the Depart- 
 ment of Commerce segment. The original name was restored in 1934. 
 
118 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 An equipment for life tests is being installed, for use in the testing of lamps 
 for the departments of the government and for seasoning 
 standards . . . 
 
 Samples of a few important materials, including limestone and steel, have 
 been carefully analyzed with a view to their distribution when 
 necessary for the purpose of checking the accuracy of methods 
 of analysis used in scientific work and the industries [69]." 
 
 In all, it was reported, the Bureau had performed 16,680 tests and calibra- 
 tions between July 1, 1904 and July 1, 1905, and had issued 26 bulletins, 10 
 circulars and a number of miscellaneous publications, including tables of 
 equivalents of customary and metric weights and measures and a chart enti- 
 tled "The International Metric System." 
 
 Another NBS undertaking that was to prove significant to the history of 
 the metric system in the U.S. was described in the following terms: 
 
 "Last January a meeting of the state sealers of weights and measures was 
 held at the bureau for the purpose of discussing the means for 
 securing uniform laws and inspection of commercial weights 
 and measures throughout the United States. A compilation of 
 the various state laws on the subject showed the greatest diver- 
 sity. The efforts of the bureau will be toward uniform laws and 
 practices in matters pertaining to weights and measures [70]." 
 
 Eventually this meeting would become an annual affair and it would result in 
 the creation of a formal organization — the National Conference on Weights 
 and Measures, which is still a functioning and vital organization today. It 
 was this particular Bureau activity which the opponents of metric adoption 
 attacked as being an attempt to lobby for favorable metric action from Con- 
 gress. Although the Conference's deliberations have generally centered on 
 technical solutions to very practical weights and measures problems, the op- 
 ponents viewed it as a Government-sponsored pro-metric society. For creat- 
 ing this alleged lobby, they blamed the Bureau, its director, and its suppor- 
 ters in Congress. 
 
 In this connection it is interesting to note that even though two metric bills 
 were pending before the Committee on Coinage, Weights and Measures at 
 the same time as the bill to establish NBS, there were very few references to 
 the metric question in the hearings on NBS, and Dr. Stratton's position with 
 respect to it apparently played no part in the final decision. The same was 
 true in the Senate. Questions were raised, of course, about the legal status 
 and scientific adequacy of the Government's standards, but none of the wit- 
 nesses was asked whether or not he favored general U.S. adoption of the 
 metric system. In fact, the question seems to have been carefully avoided, 
 the proposed legislation referring only to "the standards adopted or recog- 
 nized by the Government." It is possible that there was a tacit understanding 
 among the participants in the discussion that the two issues were not to be 
 intermingled, and later metric opponents alleged that such was the case. 
 There is no firm evidence to support that contention, however, despite the 
 fact that Dr. Stratton came out squarely in favor of the metric system in sub- 
 
THE "ENTERING WEDGE" CONTROVERSY (1890-1914) 119 
 
 sequent hearings. Although all of this give-and-take was still in the future in 
 1901, the history of the metric system in tne U.S. had been irrevocably 
 linked to the National Bureau of Standards by the very act of that institu- 
 tion's creation, as would become evident many times in subsequent years. 
 
 E. 1902: THE YEAR OF TRANSITION 
 
 Between 1888 and 1902 the basic assumption that adoption of the metric 
 system was inevitable and advantageous had gone largely unchallenged. It 
 was true that Congress had never been able to legislate an exact date for the 
 changeover to occur, but most participants in the debate had agreed that, 
 sooner or later, it would have to happen. Beginning in 1902, however, a 
 chorus of dissent arose that was to grow ever louder as time passed. 
 
 Once again the Committee on Coinage, Weights and Measures supplied 
 the forum for the debate when it decided to hold hearings on proposed metric 
 legislation. Two bills were submitted for consideration, 14 early in the 57th 
 Congress by the same Representatives that had sponsored the last mea- 
 sures—Mr. Shafroth and Mr. Littauer. With the exception of the effective 
 dates, both bills were nearly identical to each other and neither one was sig- 
 nificantly different from those of the preceeding few years. Whereas Mr. 
 Littauer's bill would have taken effect for all purposes on July 1, 1902, 
 however, Mr. Shafroth's proposal was more generous. It provided for 
 Government use as of January 1, 1903 and for making the metric system 
 "the legal standard weights and measures of and in the United States" on 
 January 1, 1904. 
 
 Between February 6 and March 6, 1902, the Committee held hearings on 
 the subject. The opening words of the Chairman, Mr. Southard, gave an indi- 
 cation that these hearings were not to be a mere repeat performance by 
 earlier witnesses: 
 
 "Our purpose has been and is to get the views of the men of the country who 
 have to do with the application of weights and measures to the 
 business of the country. In the consideration of bills heretofore 
 we have confined ourselves very largely to professional men. 
 Although their opinion is good and reliable, still we want to hear 
 from the manufacturers and business men of the country as well 
 . . .[71]." 
 
 This objective was achieved. In all, 29 witnesses appeared before the 
 Committee on this occasion and 1 1 of these were representing private indus- 
 try. To be sure, most of these men were qualified engineers (as distinct from 
 businessmen without technical backgrounds) but they were speaking on be- 
 half of their firms rather than on behalf of their professions. Among them 
 were such well-known individuals as John A. Brashear, an eminent as- 
 tronomical and optical instrument maker; Arthur E. Kennelly, a successful 
 
 14 H.R. 123 (Mr. Shafroth); December 2, 1901, and H.R. 2054 (Mr. Littauer); December 3, 
 1901. 
 
120 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 consultant on electrical engineering matters; Walter M. McFarland, acting 
 vice-president of the Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Company; 
 and Henry Troemner, a manufacturer of balances and scales. The "profes- 
 sional men" referred to by Mr. Southard were also in attendance in force, 
 most of them by virtue of their connection with the Federal Government. 
 Dr. Stratton was among them. In addition to the witnesses who appeared in 
 person, statements were submitted from about a dozen individuals who had 
 been invited to address the Committee but who were unable to do so, and 
 a number of resolutions favorable to the bill were received from various 
 organizations. All of these opinions and statements were entered into the 
 official record of the hearings. 
 
 For the most part, the 1902 hearings reveal very little change of attitude 
 on the part of professional men, especially Government-employed ones, 
 toward the question of metric adoption. The following extracts from the 
 statement of several such people are illustrative of this fact: 
 
 "As far as our bureau is concerned, the Coast and Geodetic Survey, I wish 
 to say we are in worse case than any other bureau under the 
 Government because we have to deal with charts, soundings, 
 etc., on which we show fathoms and feet, and I think our charts 
 could be much simplified if we had only one system; ... it 
 would be a great advantage if the metric system could be 
 adopted [72]." (Mr. O. H. Tittman, Superintendent of the 
 Coast and Geodetic Survey.) 
 
 "In 1894 I issued a circular letter to the medical officers of the Army requir- 
 ing that the metric system should be used after a date which was 
 6 months ahead of the time fixed in the issuance of the order. I 
 gave them 6 months' time to get ready. After that, all prescrip- 
 tions were to be written according to the metric system .... 
 [I]t has been successfully used [since then], and I see no 
 reason why it should not be required of officers in other 
 branches of the Government service. That will certainly be the 
 best possible way to introduce it to the people generally and 
 make them familiar with it [73]. . . (Gen. G. M. Sternberg, 
 Surgeon-General, United States Army.) 
 
 "The electrical engineer has greater difficulty in carrying out the ordinary 
 routine work of his business by reason of not having the sim- 
 plicity of the metric system in his professional work, and from 
 his having to adopt this complex system which is in vogue .... 
 Not only would the general adoption of the metric system be a 
 great boon for electrical engineers as engineers, but it would be 
 a great boon to them as members of the general public [74]." 
 (Dr. A. E. Kennelly, electrical engineer, of Philadelphia.) 
 
 "When it came to putting a standard of measurement into my own business 
 I confess I was prejudiced in favor of the old English system . . . 
 Not long after I went into the business of making astronomi- 
 cal and astrophysical instruments, I found the orders that 
 I was receiving came largely from foreign nations in metric 
 
THE "ENTERING WEDGE" CONTROVERSY (1890-1914) 121 
 
 dimensions ... I then ordered in my own shop metric rules, 
 metric gauges, and the adoption of the metric system of meas- 
 urements, tables, etc., wherever they could be used . . . Un- 
 fortunately we get orders from the United States Naval 
 Observatory in the English measure and from the Smithsonian 
 Institution and the Coast Survey in the French measure, and 
 I must please the directors of these institutions of the Govern- 
 ment. The workmen find it easy to work in the metric system. 
 I like it, it is beautiful because of the transposition features 
 from the meter to the decimeter and the centimeter and the 
 millimeter, and so on [75]." (Mr. John A. Brashear, instrument 
 maker, Allegheny, Pa.) 
 
 At this same hearing, director Stratton of the National Bureau of Stan- 
 dards made his first public statement concerning adoption of the metric 
 system. In it he declared himself to be an advocate of the proposition. In 
 spite of the fact that he had doubtless been busy attending to the details of 
 organizing, staffing and housing the new laboratory, he had obviously found 
 time to interest himself in this subject. The testimony contained ample 
 evidence that Dr. Stratton had taken the trouble to thoroughly acquaint him- 
 self with the earlier background of the subject and to arm himself with am- 
 munition suitable for countering the objections of those who were opposed 
 to the metric system. He also made statements that probably led these same 
 opponents to conclude that the National Conference on Weights and Mea- 
 sures was created by Stratton to apply pressure on the Congress to adopt the 
 metric system. From his testimony it was evident why some people came to 
 believe that anti-metric views would not get a fair hearing from officials at 
 the National Bureau of Standards. 
 
 This opinion could only have been reinforced by Chairman Southard's im- 
 plication that Dr. Stratton had assisted the Committee in organizing the 
 hearings: "1 know the diligence he has exercised," he stated, "in reaching a 
 number of men of the country, and 1 know he is, perhaps, the best qualified 
 of anybody to speak on the subject [76]." As most of the witnesses at the 
 hearing were inclined to favor metric adoption, it was natural to suspect Dr. 
 Stratton of exerting an undue influence in this direction. Another factor 
 which undoubtedly added to the mistrust placed in this entire process was 
 the fact that Dr. Stratton was allowed to be present at all eight half-day ses- 
 sions at which testimony was taken, and that he was even permitted by the 
 Committee to question some of the witnesses who appeared. By doing this, 
 the Committee indicated to the metric system's opponents that they would 
 rely heavily on Dr. Stratton's technical knowledge and on his expert 
 judgment in arriving at their final conclusions. As Dr. Stratton avowed him- 
 self to be an adherent of the system, it is small wonder that the opponents of 
 the measure became upset over the situation. 
 
 Unfortunately, there is no way of ascertaining how much effort Dr. Strat- 
 ton actually devoted to attempting to secure a metric adoption bill in 1902 
 and over the next few years. Whether, as the opponents claimed, he abused 
 a public trust and misused the official position of N BS to achieve these ends 
 
 429-523 0-71-9 
 
122 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 is doubtful. Such details of the opponents' case as remain are based on cir- 
 cumstantial evidence, loosely interpreted, and Dr. Stratton vehemently de- 
 nied such charges at the time they were made. At any rate, had these allega- 
 tions been true, even though they had not been made public at the time, it is 
 unlikely that Dr. Stratton would have advertised his intentions so openly by 
 playing a prominent part at the hearings. 
 
 Whatever the truth of this matter, Dr. Stratton went into the 1 902 hearings 
 as a respected official who had not publicly committed himself on the 
 question of metric adoption. The good relationships which he had developed 
 with the committee members and his own self-confidence permitted him to 
 state his views frankly and emphatically, at least on this one occasion. The 
 following extracts from his 1 902 testimony represent what were probably his 
 true feelings for the rest of his life, although he was never again able to afford 
 the luxury of such openness. 
 
 After beginning his statement with a review of the historical development 
 of American weights and measures, Dr. Stratton elected to discuss the argu- 
 ments of those opposing the change: 
 
 "Certain objections have from time to time been raised in opposition to the 
 adoption of the metric system, but the experience of other coun- 
 tries and of our own has shown that many of these objections 
 are without foundation. Let us take for example the most seri- 
 ous objection of all, which is that we have learned to think in the 
 old system of weights and measures. Manufacturers, 
 mechanics, tradesmen, consumers, and in fact all classes of peo- 
 ple have learned to think in the old system of weights and mea- 
 sures. They have acquired experience as to sizes, quantities, 
 and relations, and this experience is daily used in new business, 
 new designs, and new relations. These mental comparisons are 
 never exact measurements, but none the less important . . . 
 Fortunately in this case, the difficulty is not nearly as great as 
 those who are unfamiliar with the metric system would have us 
 believe. There are in all cases simple approximate ratios which 
 will lighten the burdens of the transition stage . . . In a com- 
 paratively short time people would learn to think in the new 
 system. The importance of these simple approximate relations 
 cannot be overestimated, since they will prove of great 
 assistance in the translation of our past experience in the com- 
 mon system to our future needs in the metric system. 
 
 We must, I think, give all classes of people the credit for having a certain 
 amount of intelligence and common sense, and in no country is 
 the average degree of intelligence of the people so high as in this 
 country today [77]." 
 
 "Next in importance comes the expense involved in making the change, and 
 I am sorry to say that this has in some cases been grossly exag- 
 gerated, and by those who have failed to consider only such 
 changes as are absolutely necessary and involved in the legisla- 
 tion proposed. 
 
THE "ENTERING WEDGE" CONTROVERSY (1890-1914) 123 
 
 It seems to me that manufacturers may be divided into two classes, those 
 who manufacture a product in the form of material and supplies, 
 such as cloth, paper, metal rods, plates, sheets, tubing, wires, 
 and many other articles, and those who construct machines for 
 doing a certain thing, or turning out a certain product. Now, in 
 the shop of the first kind ... all that would ever be required is 
 that its product be made to metric dimensions when desired . . . 
 
 In the second place, . . . the manufacturer of a machine need only alter that 
 machine in such a manner that its product may be turned out in 
 metric dimensions [78]." 
 
 "It has been claimed that the metric system is not a binary system, and this 
 has been offered as an objection to it. The metric system is just 
 as much of a binary system as any other if we choose to use it 
 so. In dealing with the common affairs of life we often find it 
 convenient to speak of halves and quarters. This we may still do 
 in the metric system and retain the advantages of a decimal 
 system, with the further advantage that the moment these 
 dimensions enter into computations they are expressed as 
 decimals without any inconvenience, 1/2 becoming 0.5 and 1/4 
 becoming 0.25. It matters not whether we speak of a quarter of 
 a dollar or 25 cents [79]." 
 
 From this testimony it can be seen that the general nature of the argu- 
 ments for and against the metric system had not changed substantially from 
 the time of John Quincy Adams. All that was required was that they be 
 modernized from time to time to keep pace with advancing technology. 
 
 For his next subject of discussion, Dr. Stratton chose to single out the ex- 
 isting situation with respect to State weights and measures laws and prac- 
 tices. Three years later Dr. Stratton would undertake to organize the previ- 
 ously-mentioned National Conference on Weights and Measures in 
 response to the conditions noted in this statement. He would also be at- 
 tacked for doing so. In this respect it is perhaps unfortunate that he selected 
 a hearing that dealt with the metric system to illustrate the need for cooperat- 
 ing with the States, because these two efforts would ever after be intimately 
 linked together as far as opponents of the metric system were concerned. 
 Had Dr. Stratton chosen some other forum in which to unveil his plans, life 
 might have been more pleasant for him in subsequent years. On the other 
 hand, it may be that there was some relationship between Dr. Stratton's ad- 
 vocacy of the metric system and the founding of the Conference. 
 
 Irrespective of the motivation behind the Conference, the problems 
 described in the 1902 hearings were very real ones and were objects of legiti- 
 mate concern to NBS under its legislative charter: 
 
 "Investigations as to the laws and regulations throughout the country con- 
 cerning weights and measures have developed the fact that the 
 whole subject of weights and measures, that is to say, those in 
 common use by the people, are in a chaotic condition. In some 
 
124 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 of our largest cities no provision is made for the inspection and 
 regulation of weights and measures; in others the facilities are 
 obsolete or entirely inadequate. This is largely due to the fact 
 that there has been no central place to which State and city offi- 
 cials having such matters in charge might go for standards and 
 instructions regarding their use. Scarcely a day passes that the 
 Bureau of Standards does not receive a request for information 
 looking forward to a better condition of weights and measures 
 used in the common affairs of life. State and city sealers have 
 asked for specifications as to what standards and apparatus 
 should be procured in order that such matters might be properly 
 handled in the district they represent. 
 This is one of the greatest opportunities to do good that has come to the Bu- 
 reau of Standards. Shall we advise these men to put in a 
 complete outfit of the many standards in the common system, 
 or shall we advise the new? The standards and apparatus on 
 hand will probably answer for the transition period. But if the 
 metric system is to come it would certainly be unwise to advise 
 these officials to procure a complete outfit in the old system. 
 State and city officials have, without exception, expressed 
 themselves as in favor of the new [80]." 
 
 Dr. Stratton's testimony also indicated that he was very well versed as to 
 what was occuring on the other side of the Atlantic and that he attached 
 great importance to it. He first discussed the 1895 hearings and report of the 
 Select Committee of the House of Commons, noting that "It is conceded by 
 those who are in a position to know that the adoption of the metric system by 
 either Great Britain and the United States will cause the other to follow at 
 once. Shall we not take the lead [8 1 ] ?" He next passed on to the Committee 
 on Coinage, Weights and Measures a bit of information that would be re- 
 peated many times in subsequent months. "Over 200 members of Parlia- 
 ment," he announced, "have pledged themselves to vote for the compulsory 
 adoption of the metric system [82] ." He followed this up with a lengthy list 
 of British organizations and individuals that had declared their support for 
 the proposition. This list had most likely been supplied to Dr. Stratton by the 
 Decimal Association, since it corresponds with the content of that organiza- 
 tion's contemporary literature. 
 
 In concluding his testimony, Dr. Stratton summarized his views in the fol- 
 lowing words: 
 
 "The absolute necessity for an international system of weights and measures 
 and the great advantage to be gained thereby are today admitted 
 even by the most conservative. That such a system is inevitable 
 in the near future is also admitted by everyone familiar with the 
 rapid spread of the use of the metric system of weights and mea- 
 sures and who are broad enough to differentiate public from 
 private interests and frank enough to admit the facts. There is 
 not the slightest possibility of our own system, full of incon- 
 
THE "ENTERING WEDGE" CONTROVERSY (1890-1914) 125 
 
 sistent ratios, inelastic and unsuitable for many purposes, with 
 the same name for different units, ever becoming universal. The 
 question is at present, then, not so much as to the desirability of 
 an international system, nor what that system shall be, for these 
 are questions which have practically been settled at the present 
 time. The problem to be solved is how this change in weights 
 and measures can be brought about with the least confusion and 
 inconvenience to all concerned. It is evident that the incon- 
 venience, expense, and confusion which necessarily attend such 
 a change will not be lessened with time, but on the contrary will 
 be the more difficult the longer it is postponed [83]." 
 
 And so, the American supporters of metric adoption, with director Strat- 
 ton of the National Bureau of Standards in the vanguard, had received 
 another day in court. Their basic premises had changed little over the years 
 despite the fact that such arguments had not yet met with success. Still, up 
 until now, they had encountered only limited resistance to the proposed 
 reform and had managed to secure favorable recommendations from the 
 Committee in four successive Congresses. For the supporters, diligent per- 
 sistence had become the name of the game. 
 
 At this same set of hearings on the 1902 metric bills, however, the first 
 real opposition to the proposal since 1888 was voiced. The objections came 
 from two different sources: Government officials whose operations would 
 be adversely affected if the bill became law; and a small number of manufac- 
 turers who saw the entire scheme as a threat to their freedom of enterprise. 
 
 Among Government officials, the objections came from many of the same 
 bureaus who had doubted the efficacy of the change when surveyed more 
 than 20 years before. This fact, however, did not make their objections any 
 less real or less important in 1902. To a man, they did not fault the metric 
 system for any inherent disadvantages; indeed they were willing to grant its 
 superior attributes for certain applications. Rather, they were worried about 
 the transition period — the time allowed for the change, the expense involved, 
 and the impact on the efficiency of their operations. For example: 
 
 "[A]s customs officers throughout the United States we have to deal with 
 this so-called tariff act of July 24, 1897 [the Dingley tariff]. If 
 you refer to that tariff act you will find the units pounds, square 
 yards, tons, and feet. Now, if you enact this bill it is necessarily 
 going to cause confusion unless you amend your tariff bill to ac- 
 cord with your present bill ... As a general proposition, I 
 think it is a good one, but in doing it you must be careful that 
 you do not disturb other laws which are equally important as 
 this one [84]." (Mr. H. E. Esterbrook, U.S. Customs Service.) 
 
 "[I]t would be very embarrassing to the internal-revenue system to adopt 
 the metric system before the gauging officers receive further 
 and special education in this system, such as might be acquired 
 through its adoption in commercial and manufacturing circles. 
 If the manufacturers of tobacco, and the distillers, and the 
 
126 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 brewers should adopt the metric system Congress would natu- 
 rally impose taxes upon articles measured in the same way . . . 
 The metric system, like the United States system of coinage, in- 
 asmuch as it practically eliminates the use of all fractions except 
 decimal fractions, is much to be commended. Its use, however, 
 in the United States Internal Revenue Service, under other ex- 
 isting systems used in the business of the country, seems to be 
 impracticable [85]." (Mr. C. A. Bates, Head of Assessment 
 Division, Internal Revenue Service.) 
 "As regards the metric system, Mr. Chairman, it is, to my idea an ideal 
 system for the laboratory or for the academy. Practically, at the 
 present day, its adoption would cause a great deal of confusion 
 in the naval machine shops and in naval contracts, with regard 
 to bolts and nuts, the diameters of bolts and all that sort of work. 
 It would also cause considerable confusion in our drafting 
 rooms [86]." (Rear Admiral George W. Melville, Chief of the 
 Bureau of Steam Engineering, Navy Department.) 
 
 The representatives of private industry who informed the Committee that 
 they were opposed to metric adoption also advanced very practical reasons 
 for their stand, many similar to those advanced by Government officials: 
 
 "I . . . felt it was necessary to talk the matter over with our own experts, 
 our engineers and our superintendents, the people who would 
 actually have handled it and who would be most affected by the 
 change, and I found on talking the matter over with them that 
 they were by no means favorable to the change; ... as far as 
 our company is concerned, and with respect to the class of work 
 in which we are engaged, there would be no particular ad- 
 vantage in making the change. It would be a very great expense 
 and cause very great annoyance, and on the whole would be a 
 decided disadvantage, so that as far as we are concerned, look- 
 ing at it as a plain business proposition, whether it is desirable 
 or not for us to agree to the change, we do not feel that our in- 
 terests would be subserved by the change [87]." (Mr. Walter 
 M. McFarland, Acting Vice-President, Westinghouse Electric 
 and Manufacturing Company.) 
 
 Similar statements came from Mr. George M. Bond of the Pratt and Whitney 
 Company of Hartford, Connecticut and Mr. Henry D. Sharpe of the Brown 
 and Sharpe Manufacturing Company of Providence, Rhode Island. 15 
 
 An important aspect of the opposition expressed at this time, and maybe 
 the most significant factor in the subsequent growth of it, was the way in 
 which Committee members reacted to it. Many of them apparently were sur- 
 prised at hearing opposition voiced, while others seemed to be skeptical 
 about the validity of the arguments. Consider, for instance, the following 
 
 15 Mr. Sharpe conveyed his views in a letter to the Committee, not in person. 
 
THE "ENTERING WEDGE" CONTROVERSY (1890-1914) 127 
 
 exchange between Mr. McFarland, Chairman Southard and Representative 
 Shafroth: 
 
 "The CHAIRMAN .... I do not understand why it is necessary for you 
 to change a single machine, to change a single part of a single 
 machine and change the drawings for any part of any machine. 
 If there is any reason for that, I would like to hear it? 
 
 Mr. McFarland .... I have stated it before. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN .... It may be I am obtuse. 
 
 Mr. McFarland .... I am apparently not able to present the point so as to 
 have you gentlemen apprehend the force of it. The point I made 
 was that in all manufacturing the strong tendency is to manufac- 
 ture to exact multiples, not odd fractions, and that this very ten- 
 dency would compel you to shift over and change your 
 drawings so that you would have the exact metric dimensions 
 for those things instead of odd decimals of a millimeter, which 
 itself is a very small measure. 
 
 Mr. Shafroth .... Does not that come up in the form of new machines 
 and not as the old machines? 
 
 Mr. McFarland .... But do you not see what comes up? .... Even if 
 [a manufacturer] goes to the new system he has to retain the 
 old system for a long time in part of the works, so as to be able 
 to make the old standard sizes for repair parts. 
 
 Mr. Shafroth . . . .They can keep quantities of stock on hand for that, can 
 they not? 
 
 Mr. McFarland .... You can not lock up capital in that way, and of 
 course you can not make an estimate of how long these things 
 are going to be demanded. 
 
 Mr. Shafroth .... According to your theory, if a nation adopts a system 
 of some kind, no matter how bad it is, it is better to keep it than 
 to go to anew [88]." 
 
 In addition to the February-March hearings, a supplemental hearing was 
 conducted on April 24, 1902. This date was after the Committee had issued 
 its report on the pending bills, so it did not figure in the decision. It comple- 
 mented the Committee's recommendations, however, and was called to take 
 advantage of a special opportunity. That was the opportunity to hear the 
 views of Lord Kelvin — one of the foremost scientists in the world — on the 
 question of metric adoption. Lord Kelvin's position with respect to this issue 
 was already well known because he had been a leading advocate of British 
 metric adoption for years. Nevertheless, the Committee on Coinage, 
 Weights and Measures was pleased to hear the opinions of so eminent a man 
 as Lord Kelvin. Quite naturally. Lord Kelvin stressed the progress being 
 made in England and the relationship of that campaign to the one in progress 
 in the U.S.: 
 
 "I am sorry that we are not so far advanced as we would like to be. We will 
 find it coming suddenly in England, and while, with local 
 patriotism for England, I would rather that England should do 
 
128 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 it first and America should follow, yet I would very much prefer 
 that America should lead if the end can so be accomplished 
 sooner. And if America decides to make this reform England 
 will follow very quickly. I believe that . . . England will see 
 an argument which will be sufficient to overcome all residual 
 sluggishness [89]." 
 
 At his appearance before the Committee, Lord Kelvin was accompanied 
 by Mr. George Westinghouse, founder of the Westinghouse Electric and 
 Manufacturing Company, who expressed the opinion that: "Nothing but 
 good could come from the passage of the bill [90]." Because this position 
 was inconsistent with that of Mr. McFarland, who had represented the com- 
 pany at the earlier hearing, Mr. Westinghouse was asked if he had read Mr. 
 McFarland's statement. To this, he replied that he had read a newspaper ac- 
 count of it and defended Mr. McFarland's judgment: 
 
 "He came here to give you the best impression he could with a prejudice in 
 favor of the metric system. But when we talked it over with all 
 our men, and went into the thing very carefully, they found that 
 to make the change from the English measurement at once 
 would be a hardship to many manufacturers [91]." 
 
 As already noted, these statements came too late to effect the Commit- 
 tee's recommendation, but they pointed up the fact that public opinion on the 
 question of metric adoption was beginning to diverge again after more than 
 a decade of relatively smooth sailing. 
 
 The report of the Committee, submitted to the House on April 21, 1902, 
 followed the general pattern of its predecessors [92]. For at least the eighth 
 time, the Committee reviewed the historical development of the issue, 
 emphasizing the events which had occurred since 1 889. Next the Committee 
 discussed the intrinsic disadvantages of the customary system of weights 
 and measures and reiterated the basic features and desirable attributes of the 
 metric system. The report went on to consider the metric system as used in 
 scientific work, the benefits to be derived by educational interests, the rela- 
 tions to manufacturing interests, the necessity of the metric system in com- 
 merce and its relation to everyday trade. These discussions all led up to the 
 predictable conclusion that: 
 
 "Your committee believes the time has come for the gradual retirement of 
 our confusing, illogical, irrational system, and the substitution 
 of something better. The first step in this direction should be the 
 introduction of the metric weights and measures into the De- 
 partments of the Government. The use of these weights and 
 measures will simplify their work. It will familiarize the people 
 with them and encourage their application to the common af- 
 fairs of life. Your committee have no doubt that the benefits to 
 be derived will far more than compensate for such incon- 
 venience and expense as may be involved in the change [93]." 
 
 Were it not for one small fact, this particular report of the Committee on 
 
THE "ENTERING WEDGE" CONTROVERSY (1890-1914) 129 
 
 Coinage, Weights and Measures would not be considered very unusual. 
 What made it noteworthy, although this was not known at the time, was that 
 it was to be the last Congressional Committee report dealing directly with 
 the metric question until 1937! Shortly after the report was issued, the con- 
 troversy surrounding this subject grew to such proportions that it became 
 impossible for the Committee members to agree, even among themselves, to 
 favorably recommend passage of a metric bill. For all practical purposes, 
 then, 1 902 was to be the last year in which the system had a chance to obtain 
 approval from Congress for decades to come. This opportunity was not 
 taken. No action occurred in Congress as a result of this report, although it 
 did stimulate men to action elsewhere. Even more important than the dissent 
 voiced at the hearings was a substantial increase in general interest in and at- 
 tention to the metric question from 1902 onward. It marked the transition 
 point of this era in the history of the metric system in the U.S. What had 
 usually been taken for granted up until now was to be challenged, loudly and 
 emphatically, at every turn from this point on. 
 
 F. RISING OPPOSITION 
 
 The onslaught which began late in 1902 continued unabated until 1907. Its 
 causes included the generally pro-metric sentiment voiced at the hearings on 
 the 1 902 metric bills as well as the favorable report of the Committee on 
 Coinage, Weights and Measures, which had minimized the importance of the 
 adverse testimony that had been placed before it. In addition, a number of 
 nonofficial organizations had taken steps favorable to the cause of metric 
 adoption, and this, too, helped to stir up opposition. 
 
 The American Metrological Society, whose efforts had been sporadic 
 over the past few years, made one last attempt to generate popular enthu- 
 siasm for the metric reform in 1902. It formed a committee on legislation, 
 headed by the astronomer Simon Newcomb and including Dr. Stratton, that 
 compiled and published a small booklet containing statements of opinion 
 favorable to metric adoption [94]. These statements were excerpted from 
 letters and Congressional testimony of "representatives of the leading indus- 
 tries, interests, trades and manufacturers." The statements were organized 
 by field of endeavor and covered a very wide range of interests including 
 architecture, banking, engineering of all kinds, railroad work, export trade 
 and textile manufacturing. It was even possible to ascertain from this 
 booklet the opinions of a leading cloak maker and a window shade manufac- 
 turer. It was soon to become evident, however, that the Metrological Society 
 had not heard from the majority of the nation's manufacturers. 
 
 A far more accurate indicator of impending developments on the metric 
 front was contained in a discussion of the subject that was held at the 
 Franklin Institute in Philadelphia on February 19, 1902 [95]. The preceding 
 November the Institute had appointed a committee, chaired by James 
 Christie of the American Bridge Company, to report on the feasibility and 
 advisability of adopting the metric system. This committee had found in 
 favor of the proposition and was recommending that the Franklin Institute 
 
130 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 approve appropriate resolutions at the February meeting. When the subject 
 was opened for discussion Mr. George Bond of the Pratt and Whitney Com- 
 pany took the floor to oppose the resolutions. In his remarks Mr. Bond 
 criticized the recent Congressional hearings — "I understood at the time of 
 my attendance that it was to be a meeting called for manufacturers, and I 
 was surprised to find myself the only one, except for one gentleman, 16 who 
 represented a very important industry (optical instruments)" [96] —and then 
 made a prediction which would prove to be very accurate: 
 
 "As far as concerns the clause relating to compulsory use otherwise than in 
 the Government Departments, that is not so clearly stated; but 
 it implies compulsory adoption in about two and a half years. 
 That is the way it is interpreted by persons who are quite 
 familiar with the text as represented by the bill, and it certainly 
 will not be thus accepted and allowed to pass without a protest 
 which will be entered by many manufacturers. It may not be by 
 a majority, but there will be some who will demand to be heard 
 in the matter [97]. 
 
 On this occasion the defenders of the metric proposals carried the day and 
 the resolutions were adopted but Mr. Bond would be in the majority in the 
 not too distant future. 
 
 On April 2, 1902, the New York Times brought the matter completely out 
 into the open, and added a flourish of its own: 
 
 "The 'pernicious activity' of those who are trying to crowd the metric 
 system of weights and measures upon the country has been so 
 far successful that they have succeeded in inducing the House 
 Committee on Coinage, Weights and Measures to report 
 favorably the Shafroth bill . . . For this result the country is 
 largely indebted to Dr. S. W. Stratton, Director of the Bureau 
 of Standards. 
 
 The spirit which has prompted this propaganda would be glad to see it made 
 a State prison offense to speak or even think in feet, inches, 
 pounds, or other crude units of the so-called English system; 
 but with admirable self-restraint they are temporarily content 
 with legislation which places every practicable obstacle in the 
 way of retaining in ordinary use the familiar standards which 
 from every point of view are really very much better than the 
 arbitrary and practically inconvertible standards of the French 
 system . . . 
 
 ... To effect the changes which the Shafroth bill so airly prescribes will 
 cost more than the capital of the United States Steel Corpora- 
 tion, and benefit no one except the specialists of the Bureau of 
 Standards who, to avoid the concession of expressing their 
 results in terms conforming to the accepted standards to which 
 every detail of American shop equipment is adjusted, deem it 
 
 
 16 Mr. Brashear. 
 
 
THE "ENTERING WEDGE" CONTROVERSY (1890-1914) 131 
 
 entirely proper to impose upon the people of this country the 
 yet more difficult task of converting feet and inches into mil- 
 limeters to the seventh place of decimals. 
 The metric system is already a legal standard. Any one may use it who wants 
 to; it is because so few want to that the advocates of the system 
 are impatient. Those for whom the subject has interest should 
 lose no time in communicating with their Senators and 
 Representatives. Further legislation on the subject is wholly un- 
 desirable and entirely unnecessary [98]." 
 
 On July 1 , 1902, Congress adjourned for the summer and autumn months 
 without having given further consideration to the Shafroth bill. Supporters 
 of the measure promised that it would be taken up when Congress recon- 
 vened, however, and a special Senate committee appointed to consider the 
 bill announced that it would hold hearings without delay [99]. Director 
 Stratton, returning from an extended European tour, was quoted as saying: 
 
 "It will be a close race between the United States and Great Britain as to 
 which shall first adopt the system for all official, as well as 
 private transactions .... The whole movement is being held 
 back by a little coterie of ultra-conservatives, who, I feel con- 
 fident, will not long be able to prevent the adoption of the 
 system [100]." 
 
 Congress reconvened on December 1, 1902, with the supporters of the 
 measure well aware of the fact that they would have only three short months 
 in which to guide the bill through the entire remainder of the legislative 
 process before readjournment. Chairman Southard announced his intention 
 to proceed with the task by applying to the Committee on Rules for a special 
 order to consider the bill, but a concurrent development in professional cir- 
 cles caused him to have second thoughts on the matter [101]. 
 
 At the December 1902 meeting of the American Society of Mechanical 
 Engineers, held in New York, the metric question was made the main topic 
 of discussion [102]. As the ASME was the only major engineering society 
 not supporting the metric system at the time, its actions were of considerable 
 importance to Chairman Southard and Dr. Stratton, both of whom were in 
 attendance at the meeting. 
 
 The fact that the question was going to be discussed was well known. Mr. 
 Frederick A. Halsey, the associate editor of American Machinist magazine, 
 had prepared a lengthy paper in opposition to the metric system which was 
 distributed beforehand for discussion at the meeting. Also, following the 
 universal custom of professional societies in such matters, the American 
 Society of Mechanical Engineers had appointed a committee to investigate 
 the desirability of metric adoption in 1 896, and its report was due to be con- 
 sidered in New York. With the possible exception of the 1872 University 
 Convocation of the State of New York, this meeting was to be the first ex- 
 tensive public debate on the merits of the metric system outside of Congress 
 in which both sides were represented. More than any other single event, it 
 signalled the beginning of the end for metric legislation. 
 
132 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 To start with, Mr. Halsey's paper was presented [ 1 03] . 17 Mr. Halsey had 
 become upset over the "overwhelmingly one-sided" testimony which had 
 been given to the Committee on Coinage, Weights and Measures. He took 
 it upon himself to refute what he called the "errors of and misrepresentations 
 by the metric advocates," singling out Dr. Stratton in particular. His chief 
 themes were that the metric system had failed to displace the customary 
 systems in many foreign nations, and that adopting the metric system in the 
 U.S. would necessitate abandoning our mechanical standards (such as those 
 for screw threads), which were, technically-speaking, more perfect and were 
 more uniformly used than those of any nation in the world at that time. To 
 demonstrate the validity of his views he put forth reams of evidence gar- 
 nered from a great variety of sources. He was particularly well informed 
 with regard to the persistence of customary units in the textile industries 
 abroad, and Mr. Halsey acknowledged a debt of gratitude to one Samuel S. 
 Dale of Boston for this information. Mr. Dale was the editor of the Textile 
 World and a gentleman from whom much more would be heard in the future. 
 Mr. Halsey's own investigation had led him to conclude that: 
 
 "The scientific method has demonstrated beyond the possibility of a doubt 
 that changing a people's system of weights and measures is a 
 matter of mountainous difficulty and of endless confusion. It is 
 time that the American Congress learned this fact. If we keep 
 silent now our voice can have little weight later. Now is the time 
 to speak if we are to speak with any effect [104]." 
 
 Mr Halsey's paper unleashed a torrent of reaction from his colleagues. 
 Several dozen letters had already been received by the date of the meeting 
 (due to the advance distribution of the paper), and additional comments and 
 evidence were sent in later and published in the Society's Transactions. As 
 might be expected, there was a wide diversity of opinion on the question. 
 One of the communications printed, for example, was from Mr. Fred J. 
 Miller. Mr. Miller was editor of the American Machinist (and, therefore, Mr. 
 Halsey's boss) and he was inclined to favor the proposed legislation. One of 
 the reasons he cited for not opposing it was the fact that he had evidence, in 
 the form of a letter from U.S. Attorney General T. C. Knox, to support his 
 contention that the bills would not compel everyone to use the metric system 
 to the exclusion of all other systems. Mr. Knox's letter, which was printed in 
 full, stated his opinion that: 
 
 "Our present system has always been and is just as much the legal standard 
 of weights and measures as if it had been so declared by statutes 
 . . . And so it would be under either of these bills [H.R. 123 or 
 H.R. 2054]— just as the parties may express themselves in 
 any language they choose, so they may designate weight and 
 measure [in contractual proceedings] ... by any system 
 that expresses their meaning [ 1 05]." 
 
 17 Mr. Halsey later expanded this paper into a full-fledged book on the subject. The Metric 
 Fallacy. Since the book will be treated fully in the next section, only the highlights of his 1902 
 paper will be given here. 
 
THE "ENTERING WEDGE" CONTROVERSY (1890-1914) 133 
 
 Mr. Knox's letter went on to state that it was doubtful that Congress had suf- 
 ficient authority under the Constitution to forbid the use of a particular 
 system of weights and measures, especially one so ingrained in custom as the 
 English system as in the U.S. But this fact was not relevant to the case at 
 hand, he said, because: 
 
 "It is certain that nothing of this kind is done by the adoption as the legal 
 standard of a system of weights and measures different from 
 that now in vogue, and which, so far as the people are con- 
 cerned, merely adopts the metric system as the legal standard 
 and launches it under Government auspices and recommenda- 
 tion without any attempt to compel its use by the public at large 
 [106]." 
 
 The Attorney General's opinion notwithstanding, many people remained 
 convinced that the real purpose of the legislation proposed was to force the 
 metric system upon the nation. In fact, this belief would become the 
 keystone of the anti-metric argument over the next few years. 
 
 Mr. Halsey's paper, along with other apsects of the question of metric 
 adoption, were also debated orally at the December 1902 meeting. The first 
 rebuttal was offered by Dr. Stratton, 18 who defended the desirability of the 
 reform and attempted to counter Mr. Halsey's assertion that the metric 
 system had been a failure abroad by reciting some personal observations that 
 he had made first-hand during his recent trip. Dr. Stratton also added: 
 
 "It is especially gratifying to note that there is a rapidly growing sentiment in 
 favor of the adoption of the metric system on the part of manu- 
 facturers and business men of the country. The very spirit of 
 progress which has made our manufacturers leaders of the 
 world will not allow them to forego the advantages of an im- 
 provement because that improvement is difficult to make 
 [107]." 
 
 He would have occasion to eat those words long before the decade was out. 
 Chairman Southard next took the floor to explain more fully the provi- 
 sions of the Shafroth bill, to defend its desirability, and to justify the action 
 of his Committee with respect to it. He stated that the Committee's intention 
 during the last session of Congress had been to obtain statements from those 
 who were likely to oppose the adoption of the metric system. With that in 
 mind they had invited Mr. Bond, Coleman Sellers, and several major manu- 
 facturers to address the Committee. The result, he said, had been the same 
 as from previous investigations — the testimony was very much in favor of 
 the bill. He then discussed at great length the intent of the bill: 
 
 "[T]his is a proposition to try this matter on the dog— to try it on the 
 Government first. If the government cannot stand it, then we 
 have no right to ask the people to stand it. There is nothing in 
 
 18 Neither Dr. Stratton nor Chairman Southard were members of the Society, but they had 
 been invited to participate in this meeting because the metric question was on the agenda. 
 
134 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 the provisions of this bill which will in any way interfere with 
 your business . . . 
 I believe that the metric system is coming just as surely as the tides are going 
 to continue to rise and fall. The tendency is all in that direction. 
 I cannot see it in any other way. Now, the question is, if we are 
 going to have it ought we not help it along a little? If we are 
 going to have it at all, the sooner we get it, the better. Now, why 
 can't we try the experiment on the dog? ... In my judgment, it 
 is not going to cost you a dollar [108]." 
 
 Mr. Southard's address provoked a lengthy and lively question-and- 
 answer period from the members in attendance, with Mr. Halsey figuring 
 prominently in the debate. The lack of a concensus within the Society on this 
 issue soon became clear, but it appeared that most mechanical engineers 
 remained unpersuaded as to the desirability of metric adoption. When the 
 question was put to a formal vote on the following day, December 5, how- 
 ever, it was apparent that Southard and Stratton had scored at least a few 
 points. 
 
 The vehicle for expressing the Society's formal opinion on this question 
 was the report of its special investigative committee, which had been 
 deliberating since 1896. This committee had submitted a decidely anti- 
 metric report. The advantages of the customary system, it declared, "render 
 it certain that before the close of this century the English system of linear 
 measurement will come into universal use; when the Metric System . . . will 
 have disappeared, as its supposed scientific foundation has done already 
 [109]." In accordance with this opinion two resolutions were offered for the 
 Society's approval. The first of these asserted that mechanical engineers 
 were the only parties in the country who were competent to determine which 
 measurement system was most appropriate for their own use, an obvious ap- 
 peal to the Congress to mind its own business. The second resolution was 
 even more forthright in this respect: 
 
 "Resolved, as for the bill now before Congress, providing that the Metric 
 System shall be the legal system of weights and measures in the 
 United States, and making its use obligatory in the government 
 departments, that, so far as it affects mechanical measurements, 
 conceived in ignorance, it is simply absurd [1 10]." 
 
 By a vote of 36 to 22, however, a motion to lay these resolutions on the table 
 was carried. Instead, a new committee was appointed and instructed to 
 confer with other professional societies before rendering its opinion. The 
 Society did pass a resolution, however, declaring that it had never taken any 
 action reversing its original stand of opposition to the adoption of the 
 system, as had been reported in the technical press. 
 
 The second committee, consisting of George Bond, James Christie, 
 William Kent and Fred J. Miller, all respected members of the Society, 
 turned in a lengthy report at a later date [111]. This report, which contained 
 no recommendations for action, was far less anti-metric than the previous 
 report, which had been written by Coleman Sellars. It did assert that legisla- 
 

 THE "ENTERING WEDGE" CONTROVERSY (1890-1914) 135 
 
 tion designed to compel the exclusive use of the metric system was not 
 desirable and could not, in any case, be enforced with respect to private, in- 
 dividual transactions. Beyond that, however, the committee took no strong 
 position on the matter. In fact, its report was, more than anything else, a 
 catalog of pro-metric and anti-metric arguments and each side's reply to the 
 other's contentions. In all, there were 23 pro-metric arguments listed, along 
 with anti-metric rebuttals, and 10 anti-metric arguments cited, along with 
 pro-metric replies. The committee had divided evenly on the matter, with 
 Mr. Christie and Mr. Miller favoring the metric system and Mr. Kent and 
 Mr. Bond being opposed. The opinions of related groups, as expressed in 
 their own literature, were printed as appendixes. 
 
 Early in 1903 the American Society of Mechanical Engineers also con- 
 ducted a poll of its membership by mail to determine the prevailing attitude 
 on the question of metric adoption. As only 514 members out of a total of 
 over 2,500 responded to the survey, it was deemed by the Council not to be 
 sufficiently representative to serve as the official position of the Society as 
 a whole, and it was simply recorded without further action being taken 
 [112]. The results were interesting, nevertheless, as they show that there 
 was apparently an even stronger faction against the metric system within the 
 Society than had been heard from at the New York meeting. The questions 
 asked and the replies received may be summarized as follows [113]: 
 
 1 . On the question of adopting the metric system as the only legal standard in the 
 
 United States: 
 
 In favor 103 (22%) 
 
 Against 363 (78%) 
 
 2. On enactment of H.R. 2054: 
 
 In favor 95 (22%) 
 
 Against 342 (78%) 
 
 3. On legislation which would promote adoption of the metric system: 
 
 In favor 153 (33%) 
 
 Against 311 (67%) 
 
 4. On the effect of substituting the metric system for the English system in the 
 
 respondent's business: 
 
 Detrimental 243 (51%) 
 
 Not detrimental 145 (30%) 
 
 Advantageous '. 89 (19%) 
 
 By the time the results of this ballot had been counted and made public, 
 however, the question was an academic one. As reported by Iron Age in 
 early February 1903: 
 
 "The friends in Congress of the metric system bill have decided not to press 
 the measure further at the present session. This decision has no 
 bearing upon the merits of the bill as they are viewed by the 
 leading members of both Houses and is due only in part to the 
 present parliamentary situation. The principal reason is that the 
 advocates of the proposed change believe that the campaign of 
 education should be carried on a little longer in the country at 
 large before an attempt is made to place the metric system on 
 the statute books. 
 
136 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 . . . [T]here are still a few prominent and influential men who are so 
 strongly opposed to the system that its introduction would 
 probably be resisted in a manner and to such an extent as to jus- 
 tify the current predictions concerning the confusion that would 
 be caused by the change, especially among tool builders and 
 other manufacturers of metals. Mr. Southard and his friends 
 here do not wish to force upon the country a change for which 
 it is not quite ready, and they are confident that in a few months 
 the sentiment of the rank and file, if not the leaders, of the op- 
 position will be so modified that the bill can be passed and the 
 change made without serious difficulty. 
 
 So far as the Congressional situation is concerned, there is good reason to 
 believe the bill would pass both Houses by a comfortable 
 majority if brought to a vote. The House has been canvassed 
 with much care and shows a large majority for the bill .... In 
 the Senate the canvass has been less thorough, but indicates 
 that there is a safe majority for the bill . . . 
 
 The present plans of the friends of the metric system bill are to reintroduce 
 it early in the 58th Congress and to report it soon after conven- 
 ing on the strength of the hearings given during the first session 
 of the present Congress [1 14]." 
 
 But this plan was not to be so easy to carry out as it was made to appear. 
 Real opposition had been aroused in 1902, and it would not be easy to cir- 
 cumvent it. Instead of disappearing, it spread. In the course of one short year 
 the nature of Chairman Southard's problem had changed. At the start of 
 1902, he had been dealing with a bill which by most accounts, had been con- 
 sidered beneficial and progressive. All that remained for him to do was to 
 guide it through the legislative process. By the end of the year, Mr. Southard 
 had a growing controversy on his hands and he knew it. In spite of the op- 
 timistic view of the Congressional situation which he projected publicly, his 
 action in not pressing the matter at that time indicated that his true feelings 
 on the matter were less sanguine. Withdrawing from the action would give 
 him time to reorganize the supporters of the bill and to attempt to reassure 
 the opponents of it. Unfortunately for Mr. Southard and his colleagues, the 
 opposition was in no mood to be appeased and used the time to their own 
 good advantage. 
 
 G. "THE METRIC FALLACY" 
 
 Before the metric campaign could be resumed in earnest on the Congres- 
 sional front, Messrs. Halsey and Dale had taken their case to the public. 
 Building upon the paper presented by Mr. Halsey to the American Society 
 of Mechanical Engineers, the anti-metric arguments were set down in more 
 comprehensive form in a book entitled The Metric Fallacy [115]. Mr. 
 Dale's contribution was further identified under the title of "The Metric 
 Failure in the Textile Industry." This work, published in 1904, and revised 
 
THE "ENTERING WEDGE" CONTROVERSY (1890-1914) 137 
 
 in 1920, would become the most well-known treatment of the subject since 
 John Quincy Adams' 1821 report. Unlike Mr. Adams' discussion, however, 
 no kind words for the metric system appeared between the covers of The 
 Metric Fallacy. Because of this, the book, its arguments and its authors 
 became a rallying point to which metric opponents could, and did, repair. 
 The question of metric adoption had once again become a controversial 
 issue. 
 
 Perhaps the most lasting impact of the Halsey-Dale collaboration was not 
 on public opinion but, rather, on the authors themselves. In the process of 
 producing The Metric Fallacy they had formed a common bond which was 
 to last more than a quarter of a century. The real fruits of this anti-metric 
 partnership would not become apparent until 1917 and beyond, and the rela- 
 tionship between the two men would often be threatened by disagreements 
 over how their common objective could best be achieved. In the end, how- 
 ever, they would manage to reconcile their differences in time to meet each 
 new pro-metric drive head-on and insure its ultimate failure. Although that 
 story belongs mainly to the era which will be recounted in the next chapter, 
 its origins and initial successes occurred during the years 1 903-1 907. 
 
 Frederick Arthur Halsey was born in Unadilla, New York on July 12, 
 1856 [116]. He received his engineering degree from Cornell in 1878 and 
 from 1880-1894 was the engineer for a New York drill manufacturing firm. 
 While there he worked out one of the earliest incentive plans for paying for 
 labor, a premium plan for which he would receive the American Society of 
 Mechanical Engineers Medal in 1923. The rest of his professional life was 
 spent on the staff of the American Machinist first as associate editor (1894- 
 1907) and later as editor in chief (1907-191 1). After his retirement in 1911, 
 Mr. Halsey helped to organize and run the American Institute of Weights 
 and Measures, an anti-metric group of a later period. He was the author of 
 several books not dealing with the metric system, in addition to The Metric 
 Fallacy and a great many other anti-metric articles and pamphlets. His 
 writings and correspondence reveal a broad hostile streak in his personality, 
 although he was apparently possessed of at least one of the social graces — he 
 was said to have been an excellent ballroom dancer. He died in New York 
 on October 20, 1935. 
 
 Much less is known for certain about the details of Samuel Sherman 
 Dale's life, although his interests are well-chronicled [117]. It is known that 
 he was born in Little Falls, New York in 1859, lived in or around Boston 
 most of his life, and died there about 1935, making him a contemporary of 
 Mr. Halsey in every respect. He began his career as a worker in a woolen 
 mill in 1875 and was made superintendent of an Uxbridge, Massachusetts 
 mill in 1 887. His principal life's work was also as an editor. Mr. Dale edited 
 the Textile World and the Textile World-Record from 1898 until 1915. In 
 1915 he purchased the magazine Textiles. He edited it himself for many 
 years, although he eventually sold out to a larger publishing firm. In 1 923 he 
 became a "technical expert" for the Carded Woolen Manufacturers As- 
 sociation. Aside from the metric system battles, to which he was attracted by 
 his belief that metric adoption would adversely affect textile manufacturers, 
 
 429-523 O - 71 - 10 
 
138 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 he spent most of his time working to lower the tariff schedule on items im- 
 portant to textile manufacturing [118]. Along with Mr. Halsey, Samuel 
 Dale worked actively to establish the American Institute of Weights and 
 Measures, but he always preferred to work behind the scenes. He avoided 
 personal publicity unless it was absolutely necessary to show himself. Of the 
 two individuals, Samuel Dale would develop into the chief strategist of the 
 anti-metric forces and Mr. Halsey would do his best to make the plans work. 
 In 1903-1904, however, it was Frederick Halsey who played the lead role 
 in the fight against the metric system. The Metric Fallacy was designed to 
 meet the metric advocates on their own ground by presenting a point-by- 
 point refutation of pro-metric arguments. Mr. Halsey's objective was, he 
 said, to establish the validity of the following propositions: 
 
 "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 confusion ... It 
 may ... be considered as proven 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 retire- 
 
 ment of the inch and the substitution therefor of the millimetre, 
 involves the destruction of all mechanical standards . . . 
 
 3. That the prosperity of foreign trade in nowise requires the adoption of the 
 
 system as. a basis of manufacture . . . 
 
 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 departments of 
 the government .... 
 
 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 calcula- 
 tions and in the school life of children, are completely negatived 
 by the certainty that, here as elsewhere, the old units will persist 
 in use and must be learned . . . 
 
 6. That the confusion which is said to prevail in our weights and measures 
 
 is a fiction .... [and] 
 
 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 sim- 
 plest and the most uniform system of weights and measures of 
 any country in the world [119]." 
 
 The balance of Mr. Halsey's part of the book was devoted to elaborating on 
 these points. 
 
 The main thrust of his attack was aimed at the pro-metric contention that 
 the metric system had been adopted, without difficulty, by virtually every 
 advanced nation in the world except Great Britain and the U.S. and was 
 being used by two-thirds of the world's population. "No man living or dead" 
 Halsey countered, "has even seen the first scintilla of evidence that these 
 statements are true." In a series of successive chapters, he went on to offer 
 evidence of his own to show "the persistence of old units" in German textile 
 
THE "ENTERING WEDGE" CONTROVERSY (1890-1914) 139 
 
 industries, French textile industries, German mechanical industries, and 
 every nation that he could find anything on, including France, Scandinavia, 
 Greece, Turkey, China, Japan, Egypt, the Phillipine Islands, Spain, Mexico, 
 Cuba, other Spanish-American countries, and metric countries in general. 
 
 To prove his points, he quoted extensively from letters he had received 
 from individuals either living or working abroad and from articles in profes- 
 sional journals and trade magazines. Thus Mr. Halsey's "evidence" was, in 
 reality, little more than a collection of personal opinions which, in all proba- 
 bility, the metric advocates could have matched had they chosen to do so. In 
 later testimony before the Committee on Coinage, Weights and Measures 
 Mr. Halsey conceded that he had not observed the situation first-hand and 
 that he had relied on his correspondents to supply him with accurate infor- 
 mation. The lack of direct personal observation in no way lessened the im- 
 pact of The Metric Fallacy, however, and may even have helped to establish 
 its credibility by making up in numbers and persuasiveness for any short- 
 comings it may have had. 
 
 One of the most impressive pieces of real evidence that Mr. Halsey of- 
 fered was a table entitled "Non-Metric Units Used in Metric Countries." 
 The table had been extracted from an official U.S. State Department publi- 
 cation listing English equivalents of commonly-used foreign weights and 
 measures [120]. In all, no less than 265 different non-metric units were 
 listed as being used by so-called "metric countries." 
 
 From all of the above material Mr Halsey was able to deduce that: 
 
 "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 elsewhere they will 
 not do so here, and every one of these arguments falls to the 
 ground. The whole metric case is riven into shreads by the sim- 
 ple 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 beauti- 
 ful interrelation and correlation of the units have little more ap- 
 plication than a philosophical speculation regarding the ap- 
 pearance of the back side of the moon [121]." 
 
 The reasons for the failure of compulsory metric laws, Mr. Halsey offered, 
 were to be found in the fact that no government had the right to tell an in- 
 dividual what measurement system he must use in manufacturing his 
 product: "goods may obviously be made according to the maker's own sweet 
 will provided the customer will accept them [122]," he asserted. In such 
 
140 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 cases, the legal adoption of the metric system, would only create additional 
 confusion, by forcing the merchant to sell a product that had been manufac- 
 tured by the customary system according to its equivalent metric measure- 
 ments. Mr. Halsey also went on to explain why he felt it had taken so long 
 for the system to catch on: "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 [ 1 23] ." Utilizing a favorite phrase, he advanced the idea that: 
 
 "Measures of length are tied irrevocably to the past . . . If this system were 
 
 made compulsory tomorrow 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 50 years [ 124]." 
 
 Similar arguments were used by Mr. Halsey in making the rest of his case. 
 
 Among his major contentions, which were soon to be taken up by a good 
 
 many of his colleagues, were the ideas that: 
 
 1. The character of scientific and industrial measurements was fundamen- 
 
 tally different: "The scientific use of measurements consists in 
 measuring existing things; the industrial use of measurements 
 consists in making things to required size [125]." This dif- 
 ference meant that a manufacturer or engineer was forced to 
 choose a limited set of sizes and stick with them if confusion 
 was to be avoided. A scientist, on the other hand, was faced 
 only with the problem of how to express the results of his mea- 
 surement. This alleged difference also accounted for Mr. Hal- 
 sey's belief that adopting the metric system would necessitate 
 abandoning all of the existing mechanical standards. 19 
 
 2. The promise that the Government would absorb the cost of the change- 
 
 over by permitting companies to include expenditures for new 
 tools, gauges, etc., in its bids was a false promise. His line 
 of reasoning for this assertion was that all manufacturers would 
 be on an equal footing only the first time a new contract was put 
 up for bid. After the Government had paid for that manufac- 
 turer's new tools, he would ever after have a competitive edge, 
 since all rival companies would have to include the costs of new 
 tools in their bids while he would not. 
 
 3. The theoretical superiority of the metric system was "abagtelle." Every- 
 
 one knew that the meter was not what it purported to be, i.e. a 
 ten-millionth of the earth's quadrant; that may of the original 
 parts of the system (such as the decimal division of the circle) 
 had failed and been abandoned long ago; and that the much- 
 touted advantages in calculation offered by a decimal system 
 had been made unimportant altogether by the invention of the 
 slide rule. 
 
 4. A mixture of units, such as would necessarily occur for a long time if the 
 
 metric system were adopted, would cause untold complications, 
 
 19 That is the specific engineering standards which a particular industry had agreed to follow 
 in practice when manufacturing an item, such as screws or bolts. 
 
THE "ENTERING WEDGE" CONTROVERSY (1890-1914) 141 
 
 including the destruction of the usefulness of a vast technical 
 literature. 
 
 5. American foreign trade had not been affected so far by our adherence to 
 
 the English system, and our manufacturers had already learned 
 to make products in metric dimensions when it was necessary 
 to the maintenance of their business abroad. 
 
 6. That the proposed bill, by making the metric system compulsory on the 
 
 Government, would also make it compulsory upon those seek- 
 ing to do business with the Government. If this were not the 
 case, Mr. Halsey pointed out with considerable logic, the only 
 effect the bill could have would be to put into use in the Govern- 
 ment a system of weights and measures that was different from 
 the one used by the rest of the people. Any bill having this as its 
 object was a bad one and ought to be defeated, Mr. Halsey be- 
 lieved. 
 All of these views he summarized in his concluding statement: "The chang- 
 ing 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 introducing 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 [126]." 
 
 Mr. Dale's chapters on "The Metric Failure in the Textile Industry" 
 presented his views as to why the metric system was not suited to that trade. 
 On the whole, his arguments were more factual, more logical and far more 
 technically oriented than Mr. Halsey's. For these reasons, they were also 
 considerably less interesting. In fact, the textile chapters had the general 
 flavor of a textbook on the subject, liberally interspersed, of course, with edi- 
 torial comments. Nevertheless, he offered some very convincing reasons for 
 his opposition to the metric system's adoption. 
 
 To begin with, Mr. Dale reviewed the way in which sophisticated mill 
 practices involving weight and measurement had evolved, both at home and 
 abroad, over the last one hundred years, emphasizing how intimately such 
 practices were connected with the quality of the finished product: 
 
 "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 machine, and how much should be paid 
 for spinning 100 pounds or hanks. It is the standard of the ex- 
 perience in the past, the work of the present and the possibilities 
 for the future [127]. 
 
 It should be obvious to anyone acquainted with the business, he thought, 
 that a radical alteration of the system of weights and measures employed 
 would upset all of the experience that had been built up over the years. 
 
142 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 would negate the training of mill superintendents and invalidate their litera- 
 ture, and would utterly destroy the efficiency of any mill for a period of time. 
 He was also concerned that adopting the metric system would cause confu- 
 sion in the marketplace by overturning the accepted standard of values. 
 Since textiles had perennially been bought and sold by the yard, adopting a 
 measure more than 3 inches longer would throw the entire marketplace into 
 confusion while the adjustment was being made. Another thing that would 
 help to make the change extremely difficult, if not impossible, was, accord- 
 ing to Mr. Dale, the human factor: 
 
 "The vast army of hard-working men, women and children engaged in our 
 textile mills, most of them with but an elementary education, 
 highly organized to work together with the precision of machin- 
 ery 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-wracking mills. In such a matter as changing of 
 standards of weights and measures, each and every one is natu- 
 rally a confirmed conservative. Their personal resistance to 
 changes of acquired habits and ideas defies all efforts and argu- 
 ments [128]." 
 
 The proof of these contentions, Mr. Dale said, was to be found in the ac- 
 tual experiences of the European textile industry, which had been struggling 
 with the problem since France made use of the metric system compulsory. 
 He reviewed these experiences, especially in France and Germany, basing 
 his analysis on the applicable parts of foreign textile books and actual operat- 
 ing manuals. His findings were that adoption of the metric system had simply 
 added several more units of measurement to the already "hopeless jumble" 
 of measures that had to be taken into account. In no instance had the metric 
 system totally displaced the old units, nor would it ever be able to do so 
 because English textile measures had set the standard for the rest of the 
 world to follow. By contrast, Mr. Dale stated, the English system was the 
 only standard used in textile manufacturing in English-speaking nations. 
 This uniformity had given us advantages which Mr. Dale thought were in- 
 surmountable, and he found it inconceivable that people were proposing to 
 abandon such advantages by adopting the metric system. 
 
 There was, Mr. Dale concluded, no reason why the change should be 
 made and many reasons why it should not be. The diversity of weights and 
 measures which had existed in pre-metric Europe had been an imperative 
 reason for reform, but those same conditions did not exist in 20th-century 
 America. Nor was the political situation in this country analagous to the one 
 which had prevailed in Europe: 
 
 "We have no king to order a change of our standards of textile weights and 
 measures, no established church or aristocracy to execute royal 
 decree. In the place of a people accustomed to being controlled 
 
THE "ENTERING WEDGE" CONTROVERSY (1890-1914) 143 
 
 by an arbitrary government, we have a people who govern 
 themselves, and who are quick to resent the interference of the 
 police power in their private affairs. 
 
 . . . Today 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 occupations. Any attempt to change 
 these standards would be resisted by an inertia far more effec- 
 tive than the power exerted by the French people over one hun- 
 dred years ago in favor of the metric system. 
 
 . . . The generation introducing the metric system into the United States 
 would not see the beginning of [the] chaos. In all probability, 
 no other generation would ever see the end [129]." 
 
 By means of The Metric Fallacy, Frederick Halsey and Samuel Dale had 
 served notice on the world that they were ready to fight the proposed reform 
 to the bitter end. They saw it as unneeded, unwanted and harmful — an intru- 
 sion by the Government into the private affairs of the nation's business in- 
 terests. There was no way, they felt, that the change could be forced on a 
 people who didn't want it, and if it was not wanted it shouldn't be made. Ap- 
 parently, it was this very argument that dozens of individuals, and manufac- 
 turing interests in particular, were waiting to hear. At the next Congressional 
 hearings on the subject they lined up by the score to make their opposition 
 known. 
 
 In the pro-metric camp the reaction was equally swift. Reviewing the book 
 in the pages of The Physical Review, C. E. Guillaume of the International 
 Bureau of Weights and Measures protested that: 
 
 "Among the authors who have undertaken to combat the metric system 
 none has been more harsh, and, we are compelled to say, less 
 fair than Mr. Halsey. For several years he has employed in the 
 combat against this admirable system an amount of effort, per- 
 severance, and vehemence worthy of a better cause; bringing 
 forward arguments whether good or bad, and finding even in the 
 most beautiful relations of the metric system reasons for oppos- 
 ing its adoption. His work is voluminous; it abounds in asser- 
 tions, in citations, and in tables whose appearance of having 
 been duly and seriously verified might easily deceive [ 1 30] ." 
 
 Professor W. LeConte Stevens of Washington and Lee University was even 
 more derogatory in his review of the book for Science magazine: 
 
 "[It] is evident on every page of his book that he is a carping critic, much 
 given to extreme forms of expression . . . The writer who 
 resorts to sarcasm whenever the chance is presented, who con- 
 founds railing with argument, who suppresses or belittles 
 everything that tends to controvert what he wishes to advocate, 
 has only himself to blame if he forfeits the confidence of those 
 who consider fairness an essential element in the effort to get at 
 the truth. . . . The role of the prophet is often unsafe; as unsafe 
 as the exhibition of rage in print [131]." 
 
144 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 Professor Stevens did go on to warn his readers, however, that there was a 
 great deal of material contained in The Metric Fallacy that would have to be 
 taken into account in future debates, "despite the unbalanced intolerance of 
 Mr. Halsey and the ungenerous personality manifested by Mr. Dale [132]" 
 He cautioned that a good deal of time and practical experience in using the 
 metric system would be required before its final adoption could be achieved, 
 and expressed the belief that supporters of the proposition were deceiving 
 themselves if they believed otherwise. This fact alone, however, he did not 
 consider to be a damnation of the entire idea and he urged a continuation of 
 efforts to secure favorable legislation. 
 
 Such efforts were, in fact, already being made and another round of debate 
 on the proposition was about to begin. Its outcome would seal the fate of the 
 metric system in the U.S. for more than a decade, and the debate itself would 
 bear very little resemblance to the overwhelmingly favorable testimony 
 received by the Committee on Coinage, Weights and Measures between 
 1896 and 1902. 
 
 H. THE ROAD TO OBLIVION 
 
 The next set of Congressional hearings on the metric system began in 
 January 1904, continued through two consecutive Congresses, and even- 
 tually concluded in April 1906. In all, 44 different witnesses were heard 
 (many on more than one occasion) and nearly 600 pages of printed testimony 
 were generated [133]. This was to be the most extensive set of hearings ever 
 held on the metric proposition. The entire process was devoid of productive 
 results, however, since the printed testimony and a great deal of controversy 
 was all that ever came of these hearings. Neither side was to get the satisfac- 
 tion of achieving a decisive victory since all of the bills introduced during 
 these years expired without even being reported by the Committee on 
 Coinage, Weights and Measures. For the time being, the opponents won out. 
 But the issue had not been killed, it had only been put on the shelf to await a 
 more favorable opportunity. The hopelessness of the pro-metric cause had 
 become readily apparent by 1907, but this conclusion was reached only after 
 both sides had been given the chance to exhaust their entire supply of argu- 
 ments, both before the Committee and before the rest of the world. 
 
 On the first day of the 58th Congress, November 9, 1903, Mr. Shafroth 
 dropped into the hopper a metric bill, 20 that was identical to those of the last 
 few sessions except for the dates on which the bill was to become effective. 
 These had been advanced to January 1, 1905 (for the Government) and 
 January 1, 1906 (for the rest of the Nation). In spite of Chairman Southard's 
 previously announced intention to proceed with issuing a report on the 
 strength of earlier hearings alone, new hearings were scheduled and got 
 under way on January 21,1 904. 
 
 It had obviously become imperative to give the opposition a chance to be 
 heard on the metric question, and the first set of hearings in the 58th Con- 
 
 20 H.R. 93. 
 
THE "ENTERING WEDGE" CONTROVERSY (1890-1914) 145 
 
 gress served that purpose. By the time they were concluded, on April 7, 
 1904, 18 witnesses had been heard and all had come to oppose the bill. The 
 procession was led by Frederick Halsey and Samuel Dale, but it also in- 
 cluded other men who either had been or would be lifelong adversaries of 
 metric adoption, such as William Sellers, of the Coleman Sellers firm; Henry 
 R. Towne, the president of Yale and Towne Manufacturing Company; 
 George Colles, the mechanical engineer who had recorded his objections to 
 the metric system in 1896; Luther D. Burlingame, of the Brown and Sharpe 
 Manufacturing Company; and Walter M. McFarland, of Westinghouse. 
 Chairman Southard had finally succeeded in getting the country's business- 
 men to talk to the Committee about this matter, but the results were not 
 quite what he had anticipated. In place of the growing enthusiasm for the 
 proposition which both Mr. Southard and Dr. Stratton had ascribed to mem- 
 bers of the manufacturing community, the combined forces of Halsey and 
 Dale and the debate before the American Society of Mechanical Engineers 
 had aroused these interests to opposition. 
 
 Their complaints were many. First and foremost was their opinion that 
 there was no advantage to be gained by adopting the metric system, but that 
 several disadvantages existed that they would have to undergo in making the 
 change. The people who were advocating the change, the manufacturers felt, 
 were scientists and theorists who had no personal stake in the problems in- 
 volved. Industry, on the other hand, would have to suffer the enormous 
 economic losses involved in changing over their gauges, jigs, drawings and 
 machinery. There was also the problem of re-educating the workers in the 
 new system, along with the great amount of time and material that would be 
 wasted until the workers could learn to adjust their daily habits to a new 
 system. The result of metric adoption, in short, would be to throw the manu- 
 facturers into a state of utter confusion until the system could be assimilated, 
 a process which they estimated would take many years. 
 
 The manufacturers also believed that the probable impact of metric adop- 
 tion on foreign trade had been grossly overestimated. No matter what mea- 
 surement system was used, it was claimed, American products would con- 
 tinue to sell well in foreign markets because they were superior 
 products — more precisely engineered, more durable and cheaper. In addi- 
 tion, service and replacement parts were easy to obtain. It was also stated 
 that manufacturers already made products to metric standards when it was 
 advantageous to do so, but that high tariffs on American imports made it dif- 
 ficult to compete in some countries, especially those that were strongly met- 
 ric. With the tariff situation so unfavorable, American conversion to the met- 
 ric system would make little or no difference in the size of U.S. foreign trade. 
 
 The argument was also advanced that the English customary system of 
 weights and measures had features which were superior, for many applica- 
 tions, to those of the metric system. Its advantages included the convenience 
 of the English inch for many uses and the binary nature of the English 
 system. Turning the pro-metric argument around, the opponents pointed out 
 that the English system was perfectly amenable to decimal division; even 
 more so, in fact, than the metric system was to repeated binary division. 
 
146 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 Manufacturing frequently called for machining to very close tolerances, it 
 was pointed out, and in such cases a decimalized English system was already 
 being used. Most opponents argued that the English system could be and 
 should be perfected, but it should never be scrapped because linear measure- 
 ments were already on a uniform basis throughout the English-speaking 
 world. 
 
 Many other anti-metric contentions, most of them advanced on many 
 earlier occasions, were also raised at these hearings. These included the 
 claims that there was no popular demand for metric adoption; that all techni- 
 cal literature, particularly engineering handbooks, would be rendered use- 
 less; that the experience of foreign nations had demonstrated conclusively 
 the long time period, the cost, the confusion, and the low probability of total 
 conversion to the metric system; and that it would be utterly impossible to 
 enforce such a law as was proposed. 
 
 It was during the first of these series of hearings that a wide rift among 
 members of the House Committee on Coinage, Weights and Measures 
 became apparent. Until now, the Committee had acted with one voice on 
 this question and it had always been in favor of introducing the metric 
 system. In 1904, opposition to the proposal began to show up among Com- 
 mittee members. Perhaps this was due to a realignment of the Committee 
 between the 57th and 58th Congresses, or it may simply have been caused 
 by the persuasiveness of the opponents. Whatever the reason, Chairman 
 Southard, Mr. Shafroth and a Representative Lanning appeared to favor the 
 proposition while Representative John W. Gaines of Tennessee, assisted by 
 Congressmen Candler and Brown, lined up in opposition. 
 
 The appearance of stiff opposition to the proposed legislation, both from 
 within and without the Committee, forced Chairman Southard to abandon 
 his plans to secure a quick passage of the bill. Instead, the pro-metric forces 
 withdrew entirely from the arena for the remainder of the 58th Congress 
 after holding hearings. In fact, the January- April, 1904 hearings were not 
 even printed and released until 1906, apparently because they were so 
 decidedly contrary to the objectives of the bill proposed. Not until after 
 another series of hearings had been held, on 2 days in February 1905, and 
 from February 8 to March 15, 1906, was the full record of testimony printed 
 and issued. By this time, a more balanced record had been compiled. 
 
 A revised bill, 21 had also been introduced early in the 59th Congress, on 
 December 18, 1905, most likely in an attempt to mollify the fears of the 
 manufacturers who had opposed the earlier bills. This proposal, introduced 
 by Mr. Littauer, called for compulsory use of the metric system in all 
 Government transactions after July 1, 1908, but omitted any reference to 
 adopting the system as the national standard of weights and measures. 
 Chairman Southard promptly held new hearings, having assured himself in 
 advance, no doubt, that a more favorable reception would be accorded this 
 proposal than had been the case 2 years earlier. 
 
 An outstanding feature of this series of hearings was an appearance by 
 Alexander Graham Bell. Mr. Bell's testimony was an important event for 
 
 H.R. 8988. 
 
THE "ENTERING WEDGE" CONTROVERSY (1890-1914) 147 
 
 metric advocates, not just because he was enthusiastically for the bill or 
 because he was a greatly-admired individual, but also because he made it 
 very difficult for metric opponents to claim that only "theorists," not practi- 
 cal men, wanted the metric system. Mr. Bell clearly believed that the effect 
 of the proposed bill would be to cause a general adoption of the metric 
 system, but he defended this idea, saying: 
 
 "The right of the individual to choose his own methods of measurement 
 must give way to the convenience of the community of which he 
 forms a part; in a similar manner, the right of sections of the 
 community, like apothecaries, silversmiths, etc., to have their 
 own peculiar systems of measurement should give way to the 
 right of the community as a whole to have uniformity and a 
 system convenient to all . . . [T]he United States might very 
 well establish a peculiar system of its own without reference to 
 the usages of other countries, if we formed an isolated people, 
 having no dealings with the rest of the world. But in making a 
 change — and the necessity for a change is very obvious — it 
 would be advisable to adopt a system that would not only be 
 convenient for our own people, but would also be convenient 
 for the other peoples of the world with whom we carry on trade 
 and commerce [134]." 
 
 Mr. Bell also made a convincing point with respect to the assertion that 
 metric adoption would require all existing tools and machinery to be 
 discarded: 
 
 "That is a matter for very grave consideration, and I think that the difficulty 
 has been unduly magnified .... The old tools and machinery 
 need not be thrown away; they can be used during the transition 
 period at whatever may be their metrical value. A tool or 
 machine has only a limited life. It may last, say, 10 years, and 
 then it must be replaced. After the adoption of the metrical 
 system the new tools and machines would certainly be con- 
 structed to an exact metrical scale [135]. 
 
 Mr. Bell was the first person to have raised the notion of technological ob- 
 solescence in response to the opposition's claims that it would require 50-100 
 years to complete the changeover because of the size of America's invest- 
 ment in durable hardware. Manufacturers were justifiably proud of the stur- 
 dy and reliable machines they marketed, and were reluctant to talk about 
 their actual expected lifetimes. Mr. Bell met this issue head-on by his simple 
 contention that, sooner or later, all machines had to be replaced and it would 
 be just as easy to order new machines in metric units as it would be to order 
 them in English units. 
 
 Dr. Stratton also appeared before the Committee, again to urge passage of 
 the bill and to do his best to refute the major arguments of the opponents. In 
 contrast to his previous appearance, at which he had been treated cour- 
 teously and respectfully, he was interrogated at some length on this occas- 
 sion as to his own interests in the matter: 
 
148 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 "Mr. [Rep.] LILLEY: You say that the time will never come when the 
 manufacturers cannot adopt and use any system they see fit. If 
 this [i.e, the metric system] is so much better for them why 
 don't they do it? Why ask us to pass some law to make them do 
 it if they have that opportunity? 
 
 Dr. STRATTON: We are not asking that you pass any law to make them 
 do it, but to introduce it into the Government service .... 
 
 Mr. LI LLEY: You are doing this as a matter of philanthropy; you are not in- 
 terested in it a bit? 
 
 Dr. STRATTON: I think the Government should avail itself of the ad- 
 vantages of the metric system, and should set the public a good 
 example. 
 
 Mr. LILLEY: Perhaps some of these questions should come before the 
 committee later on when we are summing up the case, but you 
 are here, as you say, entirely disinterested, with no interest in 
 the matter whatever. Therefore I have a right — 
 
 Dr. STRATTON: I will not say that I am not interested in the movement 
 to adopt the metric system. 
 
 Mr. LI LLEY: Are you interested financially? 
 
 Dr. STRATTON: Not in the slightest, if that is what you mean . . . 
 
 Mr. GAINES: Now I want to get at the facts about this thing. You have 
 been at every meeting of the committee on this point? . . . 
 Every meeting that I have attended except one. If your bureau 
 is not a teacher of this, if it is not interested in its maintenance, 
 and you are not interested in the continuation of that bureau and 
 the broadening of it, how is it you have taken such a lively 
 interest in this? 
 
 Dr. STRATTON: That, I think comes from a definition of 'interest.' I do 
 not understand exactly what Mr. Lilley meant by interest . . . 
 
 Mr. BOWERSOCK: Do you presume it would make any difference with 
 you, so far as your salary and position were concerned, whether 
 the metric system was adopted or not? 
 
 Dr. STRATTON: Not the slightest; that has nothing to do with it. My con- 
 victions in regard to the metric system were reached long before 
 I came to the Bureau of Standards [136]." 
 
 This line of questioning did not develop spontaneously, but was, rather, 
 prompted by the indignance of Samuel Dale. Mr. Dale, who continually 
 referred to the National Bureau of Standards as a "metric hothouse," had 
 protested to Mr. Gaines about Dr. Stratton's position [137]. He would later 
 take up the matter directly with Dr. Stratton, as the following extract from a 
 June 8, 1911, letter indicates: 
 
 "[I]t seems to me to be beyond question that your Bureau is the center of a 
 persistent agitation in favor of the compulsory introduction of 
 the metric system into the United States, and that the official 
 power and prestige of the Bureau has been improperly used to 
 
THE "ENTERING WEDGE" CONTROVERSY (1890-1914) 149 
 
 further that object. I have publicly called attention to a number 
 of cases of this kind . . . 
 
 I concede your perfect freedom of individual opinion regarding the merits of 
 the metric system. My complaint is that you have allowed that 
 opinion to influence improperly the policy of your Bureau . . . 
 
 All this reminds me of a conversation I had with Professor Molitor, of Cor- 
 nell University, some months ago. We chewed the weights and 
 measures rag . . . [until] one of the listeners broke in with this 
 question: 'Well, Dale, what do you think of Stratton? Do you 
 think he is sincere?' 'Yes,' I replied, 'I do, but the great mystery 
 to me is how any man can get his mind into such a state as will 
 permit him to believe what Stratton believes.' As I said this, 
 Professor Molitor's face lighted up and he could hardly wait 
 until I had finished when he broke out with this: 'Well, Dale, 
 that is exactly what Stratton said about you.' The company 
 broke out into a roar of laughter and agreed to call the discus- 
 sion a draw [138]." 
 
 Although no record remains of Dr. Stratton's exact reply to this particular 
 letter, a letter sent to Mr. Dale only two days prior to the one cited above, 
 and which was the one to which Dale was replying, contained statements 
 which typify Dr. Stratton's constant official position on the matter: 
 
 "I feel sure from the tone of your letters, that you understand that the Bu- 
 reau is taking distinct 'measures' to secure the adoption of the 
 metric system. While the Bureau could take no other stand than 
 that the metric system is superior to a mixed system such as the 
 so-called English system of weights and measures, it is not true 
 that it is using any means except the distribution of its 
 publications . . . to further the use of it in the country . . . 
 
 The Bureau would not wish to introduce hardship in any class; but it be- 
 lieves that the effect of proposed metric legislation has been 
 greatly overestimated [139]." 
 
 Mr. Dale's attacks were by no means confined to NBS and Dr. Stratton. 
 Another favorite target was Mr. Southard. In an April 10, 1907 pamphlet, 
 which he had printed at his own expense, Mr. Dale took the Chairman to task 
 for "suppressing" testimony which he had presented: 
 
 "When opponents of metric legislation appeared before the Committee in 
 1904, the Chairman neglected to print their testimony. In spite 
 of repeated demands he delayed the printing of the report of the 
 1904 hearings for 2 years and then, March 1 , 1906, was forced 
 to consent to it only after a violent scene in the committee room 
 in which John Wesley Gaines of Tennessee protested against 
 further delay as an outrage. In printing the 1 -year-old 
 testimony, however, the Chairman resorted to one of his 
 characteristic maneuvers. He also printed my anti-metric 
 testimony of that day, March 1 , 1906, in the garbled and incor- 
 rect form in which it was reported by the stenographer and 
 
150 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 without giving me an opportunity to correct it. In spite of re- 
 peated requests he has failed to have the testimony printed in 
 correct form [140]." 
 
 While this was apparently a vital matter to Mr. Dale, the testimony he 
 preserved for posterity contained no additional evidence of a novel or star- 
 tling nature. In fact, the entire testimony heard (and duly printed in "gar- 
 bled" form) during the Second Session of the 59th Congress is merely addi- 
 tional evidence of how routine the debate on this question had become. At 
 the third series of hearings [141] 25 witnesses appeared to make their views 
 known, 13 for the pro-metric side, and 12 for the opposition. The situation 
 was very structured, with a total of 4 hours time being allotted to each side 
 by the Chairman. It is not clear from the record who arranged the scheduling 
 of the pro-metric witnesses, but the opposition slate was handled by a Mr. 
 Cushing of the National Association of Manufacturers. It is interesting to 
 note that Mr. Cushing did not call upon Frederick Halsey to testify. This 
 may have been because his views on the subject were already so well known 
 that, with a limited amount of time available, the opposition forces preferred 
 to confront the Committee with new opponents. It may also have been, how- 
 ever, that some of Mr. Halsey's colleagues found him a shade too abrasive 
 to be helpful to the cause. As Henry R. Towne had put it in 1904: "I regret 
 to say that some of his statements are intemperate, although the facts are 
 correct." 
 
 The fact that the composition of the Committee on Coinage, Weights and 
 Measures had changed over the years is also worth mentioning. Mr. 
 Shafroth had resigned in 1904. This left only Chairman Southard on the 
 Committee to carry the main burden of supporting the proposition. Others 
 on the Committee did appear to favor the metric bill, but none of them was 
 as ardent or as knowledgeable an advocate as Mr. Shafroth had been. On the 
 other side of the question, Mr. Dale had acquired a formidable ally on the 
 Committee in the person of Congressman W. C. Lovering from his home 
 State of Massachusetts. In private life, Mr. Lovering had been a textile 
 manufacturer, so he and Mr. Dale were generally of one mind on the metric 
 question. 
 
 Not surprisingly, very little new "evidence" was put forth at the March- 
 April 1906 hearings, and most of the arguments used had long since been 
 heard from both sides. The most significant testimony came from Congress- 
 man Littauer, the bill's sponsor, who verified for the first time, that the "en- 
 tering wedge" theory was well-founded: 
 
 "It is very plainly stated here that no one will be compelled to use the metric 
 system of weights and measures unless he has dealings with the 
 Government; there is no obligation whatever upon any private 
 individual to use the system unless he so desires. I want to be 
 perfectly frank, however, and I will state right here that the only 
 object in making it compulsory upon the Government is so that 
 the people throughout the United States may begin to get some 
 practical experience, or have examples before them, of the prac- 
 tical uses of weights and measures, in order that at some future 
 
THE "ENTERING WEDGE" CONTROVERSY (1890-1914) 151 
 
 day they may be able to determine whether or not they will de- 
 mand their compulsory use throughout the country [142]." 
 
 Mr. Littauer also had a few words to say about the opponents of the bill: 
 
 "[T]here is a sort of propaganda of opposition around about, that comes 
 from secretaries of associations . . . [T]he manufacturers' as- 
 sociation under the head of Mr. Cushing, and led largely, I be- 
 lieve, by one or two other gentlemen who appeared here, are the 
 active opponents of the metric idea throughout the country and 
 have been so for a number of years. They have instigated the 
 resolutions passed against it . . . [B]ut the mere fact that the 
 system is opposed is one thing and reasons given for the opposi- 
 tion are another thing. I feel that if they came here with valid 
 reasons we would have to meet them [143] . . ." 
 
 Mr. Littauer's opinion of the opponents' objections notwithstanding, it is 
 possible to discern the development of a logical and consistent line of 
 reasoning for their position by stripping of its surplus rhetoric all of the 
 testimony given between 1904 and 1906. This line of reasoning went as 
 follows: 
 
 1. An Act was passed in July 1866 making use of the metric system legal. 
 
 Since anyone who wanted to was free to use the metric system, 
 new legislation would either have to be compulsory or it was not 
 needed. If it would be useless legislation, the need to proceed 
 further vanished on the spot. 
 
 2. If the bill would be compulsory only on the Government, its sole effect 
 
 would be to place the Government on an entirely different basis 
 of weights and measures from the people which it was supposed 
 to be governing. Since this was hardly desirable, the legislation 
 must have been an "entering wedge," a device for making it 
 compulsory on everyone else. 
 
 3. If the legislation was to be compulsory for everyone, then either the 
 
 customary standards would have to be abolished or people 
 would have to pay a penalty for using them. The notion that 
 conversion to the system could be achieved by simply relabel- 
 ing a product, i.e., expressing in metric units the size or dimen- 
 sions of a product made according to customary engineering 
 standards, was a pipe dream because: (a) conversion from 
 English to metric labels would be expensive and time-consum- 
 ing since metric-English equivalents were generally odd numbers 
 rounded off to a couple of decimal places (e.g., 1 inch=2. 54 cen- 
 timeters); and (b) this would be "false conversion" anyway or, 
 more accurately, not conversion at all. It would simply be dual 
 labeling while still utilizing customary weights and measures. 
 Why not call an "inch" an "inch?" Neither would adoption of 
 the metric system be achieved, the opponents claimed, by 
 establishing penalties for the ordinary use of customary stan- 
 dards. The Government had no right under the Constitution to 
 
152 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 pass such a law, could not enforce it, and would never be able to 
 get rid of the old standards that way. Therefore, the clear intent 
 of the bill must have been to make use of the system compulso- 
 ry by banning the customary standards to whatever degree the 
 Congress had legal authority to do so. 
 4. If this were the case, the opponents were prepared to attest to the results 
 that might be expected: resistance; confusion; the expenses of 
 product redesign, retooling, and replacing machinery before the 
 end of its useful life; investment in dual stocks of spare parts 
 and in employee retraining; and a very long transition period. 
 To be added to this list was the fact that the metric system was 
 deemed not to be as well-suited as the customary system for 
 certain applications, and the fact that manufacturers could see 
 no advantage to making the change. In their minds, this left as 
 the only justification for passing the bill the reasons that: (a) 
 scientists wanted it, and (b) some other countries (although not 
 the United Kingdom) had accepted it. They felt that the price 
 was too high to pay for the meager benefits the U.S. would get 
 from the change, and so they actively urged the defeat of the 
 proposed legislation. 
 
 On their part, the advocates of the system, it must be said, did very little to 
 help their own cause. Their case was not based on either the positive ad- 
 vantages to be gained by "going metric" or the possible adverse effects of 
 not doing so. Instead, they continued to cite the superior attributes of the 
 metric system as a reason for accepting it, they placed a great deal of empha- 
 sis on the "world trend toward metric adoption," they dogmatically asserted 
 that its eventual use was inevitable, and they spent the remainder of their 
 time trying to disprove their opponents' arguments. In the latter objective 
 they were not successful, and could never have been so, for the opposition 
 was just as certain that its stand was the correct one. 
 
 By 1907 a monumental impasse had been reached. In a last, futile attempt 
 to break the deadlock, Henry R. Towne, an opponent of the legislation in the 
 form in which it had been introduced, proposed that a commission be created 
 to investigate and report on the whole subject [144]. It would consist of 15 
 individuals, representing the major industries and professions, and it would 
 also collaborate with the British Government, if they so desired, to reach a 
 mutual agreement concerning alteration or abandonment of the customary 
 system. To this end a bill was introduced in Congress on May 18, 1906, 22 by 
 Mr. Lilley of Pennsylvania. No action was ever taken on this bill. 
 
 The fate of the Littauer bill was more definite. As reported in the Toledo 
 (Ohio) Blade, Mr. Southard's home-town newspaper, on April 27, 1 907: 
 
 "By a vote of 4 to 7 the Committee of Coinage, Weights and Measures 
 [sic], of which representative Southard is chairman, refused to 
 report favorably the bill providing for the use of the metric 
 system by the government. Those who voted for the bill were 
 
 22 H.R. 19469, 59th Congress, 1st Session. 
 
THE "ENTERING WEDGE" CONTROVERSY (1890-1914) 153 
 
 Southard, Dresser of Pennsylvania, Knowland and Sullivan of 
 New York. The vote was taken after an extended hearing last- 
 ing through two sessions [ 145] ." 
 
 With this action proposed metric legislation came to a halt for about a 
 decade. It is not necessary to look very far to find the main reason — Chair- 
 man Southard was defeated in his bid for reelection to the 60th Congress. 
 With only limited support for the idea in Congress, with an aroused opposi- 
 tion ready to pounce on any new proposal, and with the accumulated 
 discouragement and frustration from 10 years of unsuccessful advocacy, it 
 is easy to understand why the pro-metric forces were willing to withdraw 
 temporarily from the field of battle. Adding to their list of miseries was the 
 news of the latest development from Great Britain — on March 23, 1907, the 
 House of Commons rejected a proposal to provide for introduction of the 
 metric system [146]. This, apparently, was the last straw. The issue would 
 be raised again from time to time over the next few years in a trade magazine 
 or a professional journal or two, but nothing approaching a serious metric 
 adoption campaign would develop again until America was enmeshed in 
 World War 1. 
 
 I. RECAPITULATION 
 
 Between 1890 and World War I, a period which ended about 1907 as far 
 as effective agitation for metric adoption was concerned, the history of the 
 metric system in the U.S. entered a new era. 
 
 Many of the arguments both for and against adoption of the system had 
 not changed from those which had been put forth during earlier periods. Cer- 
 tainly, none of the old arguments had been discarded, they had simply been 
 rediscovered, cast in a new light, and given a different priority. During this 
 period, for example, arguments concerning the intrinsic merits and superiori- 
 ty of the metric system were much less important than they had been to the 
 participants in previous eras. Instead, the debate centered on the question of 
 feasibility — could the change to the metric system ever be legally and 
 satisfactorily accomplished? 
 
 This question was occasioned by the blossoming of the "age of industrial- 
 ism" in the United States. With the growth of mass production and the 
 realization of the full industrial potential of interchangeable parts came the 
 need to agree upon standard sizes and dimensions for the finished products 
 and any components that went into it. This need for standardization was ac- 
 centuated by the fact that component parts were obtained in many cases 
 from independent suppliers by the manufacturer who turned out the final 
 product. To serve the need for standardized parts manufactured with preci- 
 sion to very close tolerances, a great deal of time and money was invested to 
 develop uniform industrial standards. This effort had been an unqualified 
 success but, unfortunately for metric advocates, most of the end results had 
 employed the units of the customary system of weights and measures. The 
 people who had hard cash invested in this system, the manufacturers, and 
 the people who had created and strove to maintain it, the mechanical en- 
 
 429-523 0-71-11 
 
154 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 gineers, were not about to stand idly by and allow another measurement 
 system to be substituted which they believed would destroy their good 
 efforts. 
 
 The ruination of American industrial standards was the farthest thing from 
 the metric advocates' minds. They continued to be concerned that the U.S. 
 would be left behind in the rush to adopt the metric system that was sweep- 
 ing the world. All of the major European nations had accepted the system, at 
 least for official governmental purposes, and even our Latin-American 
 neighbors had seen fit to welcome this metrological reform. The least the 
 U.S. could do, it was thought, would be to adopt the system within the 
 Government so as to put us on an equal footing with the rest of the world. 
 After that was done, people would be sure to recognize the advantages and 
 the desirability of extending the use of the system into other areas. Besides, 
 the Congress had never exercised its authority "to fix the standard of 
 weights and measures," and this oversight was long overdue to be rectified. 
 
 And so, in 1890, there began a succession of attempts to encourage Con- 
 gress to finish what it had started in 1866. The Pan-American Conference of 
 that year resulted in a series of recommendations on the matter from 
 Secretaries of the Treasury. In 1 893 , by an administrative action, the metric 
 standards we had received as a result of the Treaty of the Meter were 
 declared to be the Nation's "fundamental standards." Three years later, in 
 1896, a bill to require Government adoption of the metric system narrowly 
 eluded all efforts to pass it in the House of Representatives and the real cam- 
 paign began. In succeeding Congresses until 1906 there was always a similar 
 bill pending, at least in the House. Hearings were held in 1896, more exten- 
 sive hearings were conducted in 1902, and the most extensive hearings ever 
 were held over a 3-year period from 1 904 to 1 906. In all but 2 years between 
 1896 and 1902 (1899 and 1900) the Committee on Coinage, Weights and 
 Measures issued favorable reports. After 1902, they issued no more on the 
 metric system until 1937. In contrast to earlier and later eras in the history 
 of the metric system, the halls of Congress were the primary focus of this 
 era. This was, perhaps, due to the fact that Congressmen were among the 
 leading supporters of metric adoption during this period. Chairmen Charles 
 Stone and James Southard of the Committee on Coinage, Weights and Mea- 
 sures were faithful believers in the necessity of the proposed action, as were 
 Congressmen Denis Hurley, John Shafroth, and Lucius Littauer. Whether 
 or not it is relevant to this issue cannot be determined, but all were members 
 of the Republican Party. Another avowed proponent of metric adoption was 
 Dr. Samuel W. Stratton, first director of the National Bureau of Standards, 
 which was created in 1 90 1 . 
 
 The first serious opposition to the proposed reform materialized at a 
 December 1902 meeting of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. 
 Its leading voice was Frederick A. Halsey, the associate editor of an en- 
 gineering publication. He was soon joined in his fight by Samuel S. Dale, the 
 editor of a textile publication, and together they authorized the leading book 
 on the subject of this period, The Metric Fallacy. The collaboration of these 
 two individuals helped to crystallize the opposition and, at the 1904-1906 
 
THE "ENTERING WEDGE" CONTROVERSY (1890-1914) 155 
 
 hearings, some of the Nation's leading manufacturers appeared to oppose 
 the bills under consideration. The resistance was particularly strong among 
 machine-tool manufacturers, but spokesmen for other leading industries 
 were also dead set against the metric system. Their will prevailed. 
 
 By 1907 this series of metric proposals had run its course. The attempted 
 reform of our system of weights and measures had not been forthcoming, 
 and the advocates of it were once again forced to await a more propitious op- 
 portunity. When they thought that time had come, they would find the op- 
 ponents waiting for them. 
 
 
VI. THE GREAT METRIC CRUSADE 
 (1914-1933) 
 
 The unmistakable failure of the 1906 drive for metric adoption and the 
 concurrent defeat of Congressman James H. Southard at the polls complete- 
 ly undermined the base of support which pro-metric forces had built up in 
 Washington. Consequently, the movement again went "underground" for 
 awhile, surfacing on the eve of America's entry into World War I. The next 
 campaign was launched in 1916, blossomed after the armistice, reached 
 peaks of furious activity in 1921-22 and 1925-26, and burned itself out in the 
 early years of the great depression. During these years the metric issue 
 became a full-fledged public controversy. Nurtured by an entirely different 
 sort of campaign than any that had gone before, the metric movement and 
 the opposition to it became almost totally "institutionalized" in that the bat- 
 tles were fought by organizations and interest groups rather than by in- 
 dividuals alone. The organizations that were formed and the methods they 
 used to attain their objectives were also different from those of an earlier 
 day, although there were some striking similarities in the arguments they 
 advanced. 
 
 The main target of both pro- and anti-metric interests was still proposed 
 legislation designed to increase U.S. use of the metric system. The principal 
 efforts of the participants in the process, however, were directed toward cap- 
 turing public opinion, hoping to influence the legislative process in this way. 
 In essence, this great metric crusade became a propaganda war. An 
 avalanche of "irrefutable" factual material was presented as proof of the 
 veracity of conclusions that were, more often than not, diametrically op- 
 posed by those favoring the other side of the question; emotional and irra- 
 
 156 
 
THE GREAT METRIC CRUSADE ( 1914-1933) 157 
 
 tional appeals were thrown in for good measure; personalities and individual 
 motives frequently were dragged through the mud; and the use of superla- 
 tives and exclamation points became the dominant style in the printed litera- 
 ture on the subject of metric adoption. 
 
 It was not that such an approach was necessitated by a change in the 
 character of the idea itself or by the radical nature of the specific legislative 
 proposals advanced. This aggressive style was simply in keeping with the 
 prevailing spirit of the United States in the decade following the First World 
 War. In the words of historians Samuel Eliot Morison and Henry Steele 
 Commager: 
 
 "[The decade was] characterized by political and business corruption, 
 decline in liberalism, apathy toward reform, and an ardent na- 
 tionalism that took repressive and intolerant form [ 1 ] . 
 Everywhere there was a profound distrust of reason, and as men lost faith in 
 reason, they ceased to use the discredited instrument. They lost 
 faith, too, in the values that had long been taken for granted, and 
 even, it would seem, the capacity to believe in the existence of 
 values. There were no grand ideas, only a sophisticated rejec- 
 tion of ideas; there was no faith, only renewed superstitions 
 masquerading as faiths. For all its cascading energy the age was 
 negative rather than affirmative, incontrovertible in repudiation 
 but feeble and unconvincing in its affirmations. Never before 
 had so many men known so many excellent arguments for re- 
 jecting the heritage of the past; seldom did a generation 
 bequeath so little that was permanent, so much that was 
 troublesome, to the future [2]." 
 During these years the real metric issue remained what it had always been. 
 The merits of the system and its widespread international usage were pitted 
 against the lack of a clear need for it and the possible impact upon the U.S. 
 of making the change. In this period, however, the issue emerged as a much 
 more black-and-white proposition than it had at any other time. The two 
 sides of the question were taken to be mutually exclusive, and the dif- 
 ferences between the factions supporting each became irreconcilable. Both 
 sides employed all conceivable arguments with little regard for their validity. 
 The campaign was not fought intelligently, but it was certainly rendered in- 
 teresting by this state of affairs. 
 
 At least 43 pieces of legislation having some bearing on the metric system 
 were introduced in Congress between 1914 and 1933. Only about half of 
 these were bills that openly called for adoption, extended use or a Govern- 
 ment study of the metric system. At least 18 bills were proposed whose main 
 provisions dealt with some aspect of weights and measures usage other than 
 an official U.S. system but which contained wording that was interpreted as 
 an attempt to sneak the metric system in by the back door. The remaining 
 legislation, all triggered by the zeal of a single individual, would have 
 established a revised and decimalized English system as the official basis for 
 U.S. weights and measures. No single, dominant legislative strategy was 
 represented by the proposals of this period. Metric advocates were willing to 
 
158 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 settle for almost any Congressional action that would extend the use of the 
 metric system by any segment of American society. Conspicuous by their 
 absence, however, were legislative proposals providing for Government use 
 as an initial step, to be followed later by a general extension of the metric 
 system to other affairs. Apparently the supporters of the metric reform dur- 
 ing this era wished to avoid repeating their 1 896- 1 907 experiences with such 
 proposals. 
 
 For all the legislation advanced between 1914 and 1933, only two sets of 
 hearings were held — one on the Senate side in 1921-22 and one on the 
 House side in 1926. No committee reports were issued. This was in sharp 
 contrast to the previous campaign when hearings and reports had served as 
 the principal mechanism for placing the issue before the public. Perhaps the 
 novelty of public hearings had worn thin by the 1920's (open committee 
 hearings as a standard Congressional policy were an innovation of the early 
 years of the 20th century) or perhaps legislators simply were determined to 
 avoid becoming embroiled in a pitched battle over a technical subject about 
 which they knew little. Whatever the reason, the hearings during this era 
 served mainly to provide a periodic test of strength for the two factions. 
 Although they were not especially productive of illuminating results, these 
 hearings did underscore the impossibility of reaching an acceptable com- 
 promise on the issue, and the committees' repeated failure to favorably re- 
 port a metric bill eventually gave the opponents a victory by default. The 
 1921-22 hearings marked the first formal consideration of the question by 
 the U.S. Senate since 1866, and are noteworthy for that alone since the 
 House, which had chartered a standing committee to oversee weights and 
 measures legislation, did not take up the issue again until 1926 in spite of re- 
 peated requests to do so. 
 
 Aside from the Congress, the cast of characters participating in the metric 
 controversy during this era included three special-purpose interest groups, 
 the National Bureau of Standards and its directors, a few newspapers, 
 magazines and trade journals, and a handful of concerned individuals not ir- 
 revocably affiliated "with any group. Two interest groups were active in 
 agitating for metric adoption. One was the Metric Association, a group much 
 like the earlier American Metric Bureau in its doctrine and membership. The 
 other was started as the Foreign Trade Club of San Francisco, and was 
 known at various times as the World Trade Club, the World Metric Stan- 
 dardization Council, and the All-America Standards Council. In spite of the 
 names adopted, this organization was, in reality, little more than a fancy 
 publicity campaign carried out by less than a half-dozen men. Even though 
 they were quite different in character, both organizations sought the same 
 goal and each supplemented the other's efforts in a variety of ways. 
 
 On the anti-metric side of the ledger the forces were led by the American 
 Institute of Weights and Measures. The Institute was conceived and 
 founded by Frederick Halsey and Samuel Dale. Although both men took an 
 active part in the Institute's efforts, at least for part of this era, it was the 
 financial and political support of a significant number of American manufac- 
 turers which led to its success. It was also able to secure assistance, in the 
 
THE GREAT METRIC CRUSADE (1914-1933) 159 
 
 form of publicity, from a number of periodicals, most notably the American 
 Machinist. The American Institute of Weights and Measures was a vigilant 
 and effective opponent, successfully meeting each pro-metric challenge (real 
 or imagined) until the need for such an organization gradually ceased to ex- 
 ist. 
 
 The National Bureau of Standards continued to be a favorite target of met- 
 ric opponents during this period. Its directors were accused of various 
 prejudicial policies and breaches of decorum unbecoming an officer of the 
 Government in spite of their constant denials. While not all of the op- 
 ponents' allegations were totally unfounded, they were certainly exag- 
 gerated. The statements made by Bureau officials during these years were 
 not nearly as avowedly pro-metric as they had been during the previous cam- 
 paign, but most Bureau attempts to assume a neutral position were viewed 
 by detractors as simply efforts to mislead Congress and the public. Perhaps 
 resulting from a theory of guilt by association, the National Conference on 
 Weights and Measures, created by the Bureau in 1905, also came under at- 
 tack during these years. Because NBS was located in the Department of 
 Commerce both sides also courted successive Secretaries of Commerce, 
 with varying degrees of success, hoping to influence the Bureau's activities 
 in some way. 
 
 In the end (which came with the acute financial and social problems in- 
 flicted by the depression) the metric system never did get adopted by legisla- 
 tive mandate. Whether it ever had an even chance of favorable action during 
 this period is debatable, but it became all too apparent at an early stage that 
 the issue was too controversial to be settled by simply enacting a law. This 
 situation did not deter the enthusiasm of the men who were bent on bringing 
 about the metric system reform, however, and the ensuing crusade resulted 
 in the most intense period of metric agitation in the entire history of the 
 movement. 
 
 A. THE PARTICIPANTS 
 
 One of the outstanding features of the great metric crusade was a return to 
 the strategy of group agitation. This strategy had not been employed by 
 either metric advocates or anti-metric interests since the campaign of the 
 1870'sand 1880's. By 1915, however, generally-accepted practice made the 
 times ripe for a revival of it. The rise to prominence of interest groups of all 
 types was an often-discussed phenomenon of American politics during these 
 years. As the Saturday Evening Post reported in 1920: 
 
 "A new crop of special interests has come to town to take the place of the 
 old furtive, sly, pussy-footed special interests. They are not 
 gum-shoers; anything but. They try to make as much noise as 
 possible. Far from avoiding publicity, the chief weapon in their 
 armory is their publicity agent. They seek publicity. They crave 
 publicity. They manufacture publicity. They swat the tomtom, 
 sound the hewgag, and make continuously loud outcry, saying: 
 
160 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 'This is the panacea. This is the cure. This is the remedy. This 
 is the stuff to give 'em [3].'" 
 
 The cause of such special attention was the rapid appearance (and some- 
 times disappearance) of hundreds of new and unknown interest 
 groups in the immediate postwar years. An in-depth study of 
 such groups that was made by political scientist E. Pendleton 
 Herring in 1928 [4] provides much useful insight into the 
 character and operations of the three metric groups of this era 
 since the groups conform, in general, to the stereotype outlined 
 by Herring's findings. First of all, Herring found that there were 
 two broad types of interest groups: those that worked for the 
 direct interests of the membership (craft organizations, busi- 
 nessmen's associations, professional associations, farmer's or- 
 ganizations, and the like) and those that were concerned with 
 what they believed to be the welfare of the "other fellow" 
 (reform associations, international movements, and so on) [5]. 
 Concerning the forces of organized reform and international- 
 ism, Herring observed: 
 
 "The number and variety of associations of this nature existing in the 
 country is legion. Very often they are transitory and flourish 
 during the agitation of a particular issue, only to die out when 
 the crisis is past [6]. 
 
 These societies, both in their relations with the public and with the govern- 
 ment, are interested in formulating sentiment or expressing 
 opinions upon such matters as Americanism, patriotism, inter- 
 nationalism, pacifism, radicalism, communism, immigration or 
 national defense. They differ among themselves as to the at- 
 titude they take upon these questions and as to the problems 
 upon which they place chief emphasis. Nevertheless, the view- 
 points of these associations, may be divided into two fairly 
 definite categories. The one class is nationalistic, conservative 
 and inclined to follow traditional policies. The other takes a 
 liberal viewpoint, advocates internationalism, and expresses a 
 desire to change the status quo. It naturally follows that 
 between these divisions there is little in common. In fact, actual 
 ill-feeling and a very deep distrust exists in some cases [7]." 
 
 It would be difficult indeed to find a more accurate conceptual description 
 than this of the interest groups involved in the metric question during this 
 era. Transitory, with one exception (the Metric Association, which is still ac- 
 tive today); hopeful of arousing sentiment or shaping opinion; nationalistic 
 versus international in outlook; and conservative versus liberal in at- 
 titude—all of these characteristics may be attributed to the three metric 
 groups that flourished in the 1 920's. 
 
 Herring also drew conclusions concerning the true strength of some such 
 organizations which indicated that certain metric groups were typical in this 
 respect, too. Some societies, he found, attempted to create the impression 
 
 I ft. 
 
THE GREAT METRIC CRUSADE (1914-1933) 161 
 
 that they were large, powerfully-backed, and spoke for a great many voters 
 when in fact the group consisted of little more than an office, an executive 
 secretary and a card-file index. The two pro-metric organizations, at least, fit 
 this pattern for most of the years during this era. 
 
 Herring's most interesting findings, however, were those that dealt with 
 how these interest groups operated. Observing that the most effective lob- 
 byists were those that kept watch over developments at the capital but spoke 
 though the membership at the grassroots level, he stated that lobbyists did 
 their real work at committee hearings: 
 
 "These are the men with the facts at their command. They are competent to 
 discuss with authority technical questions which are enigmas to 
 an average congressman . . . . [H]e knows the interests of 
 his organization and he knows the members who can give the 
 most useful information to the congressional committee. The 
 day of the hearing the lobbyist has his witnesses and his 
 briefs ready to present. He is truly a member of the 'assistant 
 government' [8]." 
 
 Herring also agreed with the Saturday Evening Post. Propaganda, he felt, 
 was the strongest weapon in the lobbyists arsenal. He attached no derogato- 
 ry connotation to the word but used it to mean simply "the instrument that 
 helps mold public opinion in the form the interested party desires [9]." His 
 observations concerning propaganda methods are a nearly perfect descrip- 
 tion of the tactics employed by metric interest groups of that day: 
 
 "One method that is used by practically all the national associations is the 
 publication of a journal recounting the activities of the organiza- 
 tion, giving the point of view of the officers, telling of future 
 plans, and emphasizing in a lively and attractive form the main 
 purposes of the organization ... To attempt to describe the 
 other types of publications is to risk drowning in a sea of paper. 
 It is to be computed by the ton. Pamphlets innumerable, on 
 every conceivable phase of every conceivable subject, are sent 
 far and wide; reprints of speeches and articles bearing upon the 
 work of the association are distributed; periodical releases are 
 prepared and sent to the newspapers; entire books are written; 
 research work is undertaken and the results published in 
 elaborate and expensive form by many of these organizations. 
 .... Workers are sent into the field, to organize clubs, to give 
 lectures, to hold meetings, and to undertake campaigns of edu- 
 cation lasting for a protracted period [10]." 
 
 Compared with the giant associations — the Chamber of Commerce, the 
 Grange, the National Association of Manufacturers, and labor unions — the 
 efforts of metric groups were puny and unimportant. Still, they managed to 
 inflate the issue to a disproportionate size and they were, in all respects, as 
 serious as the efforts of the larger groups. The effectiveness of these activi- 
 ties is a different question. According to Herring, all lobbyists, even those 
 representing major segments of society, were a favorite complaint of Con- 
 
162 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 gressman (one such gentlemen even unburdened himself in the 
 Congressional Record, lamenting: "They are becoming as numerous as the 
 lice of Egypt. A stone casually thrown in the streets of the city would 
 probably hit half a dozen of them [1 1])." In all, Herring estimated, there 
 were only 60-100 interest groups in Washington that could be considered ef- 
 fective [12]. Judging by the attitudes of Congressmen, made public at metric 
 hearings, it is evident that the metric interest groups were not among them. 
 Nevertheless, the metric agitation of the era was lively, colorful, and by no 
 means doomed to failure from the very beginning. 
 
 1 . THE METRIC ASSOCIATION 
 
 The Metric Association, founded on December 27, 1916, as the American 
 Metric Association, was a modernized version of the American Metric Bu- 
 reau in many ways. Its goal was to secure the general use of metric weights 
 and measures in the U.S., and although it favored legislation that would have 
 accomplished this goal, the Association's main interests lay in the direction 
 of promoting the introduction of the system through educational and profes- 
 sional channels. 
 
 Director Samuel Stratton of the National Bureau of Standards played an 
 instrumental role in creating the Association. In 1916 he persuaded Dr. 
 Henry V. Amy of Columbia University to convene representatives of lead- 
 ing American Associations to consider the best methods of furthering the 
 metric cause [13]. After the Metric Association was formed, Dr. Stratton 
 was elected to the executive committee, an office which he retained until his 
 death in 1931. 
 
 George F. Kunz, a gem expert, president of Tiffany's, and a mining en- 
 gineer, was elected the Association's first president. Others instrumental in 
 founding the organization included Fred R. Drake, a wholesale grocer, 
 Arthur E. Kennelly, an electrical engineer and Harvard professor, and Wil- 
 liam Jay Schieffelin, a chemical manufacturer. Howard Richards, Jr. was the 
 organization's active secretary. Within a few years Frederic L. Roberts had 
 become the Association's treasurer, and he, along with Mr. Richards, served 
 as the leading spokesmen for the group during most of this era. 
 
 The Metric Association never became a wealthy group. During its first 
 year it operated on a budget of only $3 ,900. This amount gradually increased 
 to a peak of about $8,100 in 1925, when it began to decline again. In 1931 
 the group's income reached a low of $3 ,400 and all activities (and dues) were 
 suspended for several years because of the depression. 
 
 Individual contributions and subscriptions to the Association's quarterly 
 journal, Measurement, provided most of this income. Individual dues were 
 $2 per year, corporation dues were $5 a year, organization dues were $10 a 
 year, and sustaining memberships sold for $100 a year. Some firms and na- 
 tional organizations were loyal members, although these were few in 
 number. They included the American Association for the Advancement of 
 Science (with which the Metric Association affiliated itself), the American 
 Chemical Society, the American Drug Manufacturers' Association, the Na- 
 tional Canner's Association, and the American Pharmaceutical Association. 
 
THE GREAT METRIC CRUSADE (1914-1933) 163 
 
 In spite of the group's limited resources it managed to share the costs of a 
 Washington representative, W. Mortimer Crocker, with the other pro-metric 
 group. It also employed a small staff at headquarters in New York which 
 turned out annual reports, circular letters, an occasional pamphlet, and the 
 quarterly journal of the Association. Annual meetings were held at the same 
 time and in the same city as the meeting of the American Association for the 
 Advancement of Science. The highlight of this yearly affair was generally a 
 "metric dinner" with an eminent guest speaker. 
 
 The Association's main function during this era was serving as a clearing- 
 house for pro-metric reports, articles and activities. Representatives of the 
 Association were always on hand to testify at congressional hearings and to 
 address other appropriate gatherings, such as the National Conference on 
 Weights and Measures. 
 
 One activity that the Association undertook was particularly reminiscent 
 of the efforts of the defunct American Metric Bureau. For a time the As- 
 sociation attempted to sell various metric-related items — charts, rulers, a 
 lapel pin, a crossword puzzle, and other paraphernalia. Unlike the ambitious 
 program of the American Metric Bureau, however, the Association's effort 
 was only a sideline and was discontinued after a few years. The idea may 
 even have been contributed by that metric supporter of long standing, Melvil 
 Dewey, who was a prominent member of the Association, although largely 
 an inactive one due to his advanced age. 
 
 Among the publicity gimmicks employed by the Association at this time 
 was the establishment of a "Metric League." Membership in the league was 
 absolutely free. To join it a person was only required to sign the following 
 statement (which was pre-printed on a postal card addressed to the Associa- 
 tion's headquarters): "It is our/my purpose to use the metric weights and 
 measures whenever feasible [14]." Begun in 1922, the league numbered 
 only about 500 members by 1927 — perhaps the most accurate indicator of 
 the real depth of support for the metric system during these years. 
 
 The overall plan of action adopted by the Metric Association was em- 
 bodied in a mnemonic device — SUCCESS: 
 
 "Secure the cooperation and membership of other associations, firms and in- 
 dividuals. The best members come "won" by one. 
 
 Use metric weights and measures in homes, offices, factories and stores. 
 
 Confer with local leaders and insure right metric methods by having the 
 booklet 'Metric Weights and Measures' used in factories, 
 stores, in technical and other schools. 
 
 Carry on a local Section of the American Metric Association. 
 
 Enthuse the managers and editors of technical journals, magazines, and 
 newspapers, and keep them supplied with metric campaign 
 copy. 
 
 Show manufacturers of foods, drugs, etc. that including the weight in grams 
 on all labels helps sales to Americans using the metric system, 
 appeals to those born in metric countries, and renders American 
 products available for export trade. 
 
164 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 Stimulate private and public discussion, debate and congressional action on 
 behalf of the metric movement [15]." 
 
 Unfortunately for the Metric Association, neither their finances nor their 
 membership ever grew large enough to permit extensive implementation of 
 this plan. This lack of support was compensated for to some degree by the 
 appearance in 1919 of a pro-metric organization operating out of San Fran- 
 cisco. By joining forces when the occasion called for it, the two groups 
 managed to create an appearance of widespread popular support for the 
 metric cause. 
 
 2. THE WORLD TRADE CLUB AND ITS SUCCESSORS 
 
 In March 1919, a flood of literature extolling the virtues of the metric 
 system began to emanate from San Francisco under the masthead of an or- 
 ganization calling itself the World Trade Club. The Foreign Trade Club of 
 San Francisco, a bona fide association, was claimed to be the parent or- 
 ganization for the metric group. In reality, however, the World Trade Club 
 was not a club at all but was, rather, the cloak for a publicity campaign 
 whose sole purpose was to secure legislation adopting the metric system in 
 the U.S. For this reason no financial data or membership figures were ever 
 publicly released by the group. Most of the other trappings of organized met- 
 ric activity were also lacking in the World Trade Club's campaign, including 
 slates of officers, annual meetings and a periodic journal of activities. The 
 name "World Trade Club" had been assumed by the organizers of the cam- 
 paign in order to leave the impression upon readers of its literature that there 
 was a substantial movement afoot to promote metric adoption. In later years 
 other names would be deemed more suitable for these purposes. In 1 920, for 
 example, the name World Metric Standardization Council was adopted and 
 4 years later it was changed again, this time to the All-America Standards 
 Council. Regardless of the name being used, the main individuals involved 
 remained the same. The entire campaign, which lasted only 8 years from 
 beginning to end (1919-26), was financed in large measure by one man and 
 was carried out by a small advertising firm, also under the direction of a sin- 
 gle individual. 
 
 The chief backer of the San Francisco campaign was a wealthy manufac- 
 turer by the name of Albert Herbert. Mr. Herbert's desire to avoid having 
 the campaign linked to his name gave an air of mysteriousness to the whole 
 affair and led the opponents of metric adoption to refer to him as "Mr. Z." 
 They were fond of claiming that Mr. Herbert had donated more than 
 $500,000 of his personal fortune to this cause as a hobby and, while the 
 amount may have been slightly exaggerated, he did provide at least $80,000 
 to carry out the work [16]. Mr. Herbert's wealth had been accumlated as a 
 result of his business ventures. For most of his life he had been engaged in 
 the manufacture of rubber textile products, serving as the president and 
 director of a variety of firms in this field. Mr. Herbert was born in England 
 in 1 856, had emigrated to the U.S. in 1 880, and had retired to San Francisco 
 by the time of this campaign [17]. He had apparently become an advocate 
 
THE GREAT METRIC CRUSADE ( 1914-1933) 165 
 
 of metric adoption while serving as Chairman of a metric committee of a 
 manufacturers' association in 1898 and had indulged his interest over the 
 years by making substantial financial contributions to organized metric ef- 
 forts in both the U.S. and Great Britain. His motivation for this was ap- 
 parently a desire to increase foreign trade and a general interest in interna- 
 tional reform movements. For example, he was a supporter of the movement 
 to establish "universal English," an artificial language, on an international 
 basis and he utilized this language in most of his personal correspondence. 
 When Albert Herbert died in 1927 the San Francisco-based campaign was 
 left without firm financial backing and it soon folded. 
 
 Because of Mr. Herbert's insistence upon anonymity, the real work of the 
 campaign had to be done by someone else. Mr. Herbert chose a young 
 technical editor named Aubrey Drury to organize and conduct the activities 
 of the World Trade Club. Whatever Mr. Drury's original feelings were about 
 the desirability of metric adoption, he soon became personally dedicated to 
 the cause and set about promoting it with fervor and enthusiasm. What may 
 very well have started out as a simple business proposition with Mr. Drury 
 eventually developed into a life-long interest. Even after funds for the work 
 ceased to be available, he continued to author pro-metric articles and editori- 
 als, publishing them in whatever way he could. These problems did not exist 
 in the early years of the campaign, however, and Aubrey Drury was able to 
 generate a large quantity of pro-metric propaganda and employ nearly every 
 scheme in the book in an attempt to accomplish his goal. 
 
 Reduced to its simplest form, the World Trade Club's campaign had two 
 aspects to it: influencing public opinion and influencing Congress. Although 
 the purpose of the first was to make the second one easier, each was done in 
 a different way. 
 
 To capture public attention and sway it to the metric cause, an intensive 
 propaganda effort was mounted. In 1919-20, the peak years of this activity, 
 pamphlets, circular letters and "news releases" were issued by the dozen. 
 For a short time a periodical entitled the Weekly Metergram was published. 
 To attract attention, pamphlets were given titles such as Keep the World 
 War Won and Metric Units to Unite the World. In anticipation of the op- 
 ponents' arguments a series of pamphlets was also produced which asked, 
 and purported to answer, such rhetorical questions as: Who Urges Meter- 
 Liter-Gram? Who Opposes Meter-Liter-Gram? What Will Metric Stand- 
 ardization Cost? and Who Suffers? To counter the opposition's asser- 
 tions that the World Trade Club was merely a "front" organization, a 
 booklet was issued entitled A n Evening at the World Trade Club which gave 
 an account of a very well-attended metric dinner. The pamphlet ended on the 
 following note: 
 
 "The meeting closed. As these leading merchant-manufacturers were leav- 
 ing they were still talking among themselves on the interesting 
 subject of meter-liter-gram. One and all, they felt that many in- 
 tensely suggestive aspects of the question had been brought be- 
 fore them. The meeting, they decided, had been a significant 
 
166 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 one for all who had the vision to see the possibilities of future 
 development in world trade. 
 In groups they passed into the balmy atmosphere of a perfect San Francisco 
 night. As they made their way homeward, the stars shone out, 
 gleaming with incandescent brightness in a setting of richest 
 ethereal azure — a beautiful California evening sky [18]." 
 
 This flowery pamphlet did not go unnoticed at opposition headquarters. In 
 a subsequent issue of their own journal, the American Institute of Weights 
 and Measures had this to say: "We don't know whether there was any 2.75 
 on board or not; but one thing we do know — the 'ethereal azure' is the 
 natural habitat of the metric visionary [19]." 
 
 The pinnacle of the World Trade Club's literary achievements was 
 reached in 1922, when a full-sized volume of more than 500 pages was 
 published. Compiled by Aubrey Drury and entitled World Metric Stan- 
 dardization: An Urgent Issue, this volume was made up of reprints of all 
 earlier pamphlets and was, figuratively speaking, a "shopper's guide to 
 favorite metric arguments, personalities and literature." The substance of 
 this book will be discussed in a subsequent section of this chapter. 
 
 Other devices were also employed in the organization's attempt to mold 
 public opinion. To demonstrate the position of the United States in relation 
 to the rest of the globe on this issue, for instance, maps were devised "show- 
 ing well-nigh worldwide use of the metric system." By placing the U.S. in the 
 center of the map and by coloring it bright red, this country was made to 
 seem even more alone in its adherence to English weights and measures than 
 we actually were. To counteract the longstanding objections to the foreign 
 origins and unfamiliar nomenclature of the metric system, two things were 
 done. In the first place, James Watt, the eminent Briton, was put forth as the 
 "inventor of the metric system." This claim, which was based upon a single 
 sentence of an encyclopedia article that Dr. Stratton had written, was practi- 
 cally fraudulent. All that James Watt had ever advocated with respect to 
 weights and measures was the use of a decimalized English system based on 
 a single unit of length [20]. The second scheme involved a plan whereby 
 the names "world yard," "world quart," and "world pound" would be sub- 
 stituted for the actual metric names. The values of the units and the stan- 
 dards for them, however, would not differ a bit from those known elsewhere 
 as "metric." In yet another attempt to attract the public's attention a prize of 
 $1,000 was offered to the individual who could coin the best single word 
 denoting the combined nations of U.S. America and Britannia. Hundreds of 
 suggestions were received as a result of this offer and the word "Unitannia" 
 was eventually settled on. 
 
 The World Trade Club was also concerned about the charges that only 
 "closet philosophers and theorists" favored metric adoption. To neutralize 
 this idea, Drury compiled lists of names of hundreds of "practical men, urg- 
 ing meter-liter-gram." One of his most frequently-used bits of testimony was 
 a letter from General John J) Pershing. As cited by Drury, the letter went as 
 follows: 
 
THE GREAT METRIC CRUSADE ( 1914-1933) 167 
 
 "The experience of the American Expeditionary Forces in France showed 
 that Americans were able readily to change from our existing 
 weights and measures to the metric system. I think the principal 
 advantages of the metric system are summed up in the fact that 
 this is the only system which has a purely scientific basis. Not 
 the least advantage of the fact that the metric system is based on 
 scientific principles is the facility which that system gives to cal- 
 culations of all kinds, from the simplest to the most complex. 
 
 I believe that it would be very desirable to extend the use of the metric 
 system in the United States to the greatest possible extent 
 [21]." 
 
 This quotation was accurate, as far as it went, but it was not all of General 
 Pershing's letter. The rest of it read: 
 
 "but I can readily see that there would be many practical obstacles in the at- 
 tempt entirely to replace our existing system by the metric. 
 These obstacles have to do especially with manufacturing 
 plants and with existing records of all kinds. I am not suffi- 
 ciently familiar with the technical phases of the question to be 
 able to say whether or not such obstacles might be overcome, 
 and as a consequence I would prefer not to be quoted as ad- 
 vocating the replacing of our present system by the metric 
 system [22]." 
 
 If pronouncements concerning the metric question that were made by other 
 notable individuals received a similar editing at Mr. Drury's hands, and it is 
 probable that such was the case, they must be taken with a grain of salt. 
 
 The object of all this activity, of course, was to induce favorable Congres- 
 sional action. Mr. Drury and his associates had little patience to spare for 
 educational campaigns and efforts to secure commitments to using the 
 system from a few isolated firms. They appreciated the publicity value of 
 successful work along such lines but were happy to leave that chore for the 
 Metric Association to do. Drury's goal was to get a law passed that would 
 compel outright conversion to the metric system. He was willing to accept a 
 lesser substitute, providing that it would achieve the same results in the end, 
 but only in the interests of political expediency. 
 
 The strategy for accomplishing this goal that was settled on by Drury and 
 W. Mortimer Crocker, the Washington legislative agent for the pro-metric 
 groups, was very ambitious and a little naive. The plan was to get as many 
 bills as possible introduced in each session of Congress in both the House 
 and the Senate. In addition, Drury hoped to have such bills referred to 
 several different committees and get hearings scheduled before each one. 
 Furthermore, he wanted the sponsors of metric bills to be drawn from the 
 Congressional elite, the most powerful and prestigious Representatives and 
 Senators that could be persuaded to introduce such bills. Particular targets 
 included the Speaker of the House, senior party leaders, floor whips and 
 committee chairmen. Drury also urged Crocker to carry out an extensive 
 campaign of "education" among as many elected officials as could be cor- 
 
168 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 nered. Due to his West Coast location, Drury had to rely heavily on Crocker 
 to handle the Washington affairs, and Crocker performed yeoman's service 
 in trying to do everything that both groups asked of him [23]. Even with the 
 aid of expert advice from some of the staff at the Bureau of Standards [24], 
 however, the scope of the job outlined was just too broad for one man. 
 
 Mr. Dairy's own part in the Congressional drive was to arouse interest in 
 the subject among Congressmen. To this end a massive petitioning campaign 
 was initiated. Postal cards addressed to "Federal Government, Department 
 of Commerce, Bureau of Standards" were issued by the thousands [25 ] . On 
 the reverse was printed: "The undersigned is in favor of legislation that will 
 bring about the exclusive use of Meter- Liter-Gram by the United States of 
 America," and the petitioner had only to enter his name, address, vocation 
 and the date. A similar card was prepared for use in Great Britain. A varia- 
 tion of this same theme was also tried. A form letter was provided to people 
 on the World Trade Club's mailing list and sympathizers were asked to send 
 them to their Congressmen and Senators. If raw numbers were any indica- 
 tion of success, the petitioning campaign was one of the most worthwhile 
 ventures that was undertaken during this period. In all, over 100,000 peti- 
 tions were received and many Congressmen reported that they had heard 
 from constituents on this matter. Whether or not these petitions carried any 
 weight with the Congress is a debatable subject. They certainly were not 
 enough to carry the day. 
 
 Mr. Drury's other activities on the Congressional front included the prac- 
 tice of sending telegrams to "key legislators" urging support for metric bills 
 and attempting to persuade important Cabinet members to take a stand on 
 this issue (especially Commerce Secretary Herbert Hoover— who never did 
 comply). Drury also laid grand plans for dazzling the committees once 
 hearings were scheduled. He hoped to be able to marshal a parade of "star 
 witnesses" to testify on behalf of the metric system. In particular, he had in 
 mind such eminent individuals as General Pershing, Thomas Edison, Henry 
 Ford, Herbert Hoover, and Franklin D. Roosevelt. This, too, was not to be. 
 
 The main problem, of course, was that the organization lacked sufficient 
 influence to achieve such impressive results. Other things which hindered 
 the attainment of the group's objectives were noted in a 1 920 memorandum 
 written by Aubrey Drury's brother, Newton Drury. It was a very frank and 
 suprisingly accurate assessment of what had either been done wrong or not 
 done at all. Specifically, he mentioned: 
 
 "(1) Lack of a definite plan of campaign. This has resulted in waste and 
 duplication of material, in needless repetition, in ineffectual state- 
 ments because of the haste in which they have been issued, in too 
 great emphasis upon some points and too little upon others, in 
 thoroughly covering some elements of the population and neglecting 
 others almost entirely. One element largely overlooked has been the 
 agricultural, among the largest classes in our population. 
 
 (2) Scattering fire. Collateral issues, like renaming Britannia and Amer- 
 ica, the use of Unitannia, the use of simplified spelling, use of arabic 
 continental dating, pleas for universal English and so on, have dis- 
 tracted attention from the central issue. 
 
THE GREAT METRIC CRUSADE (1914-1933) 169 
 
 (3) Some elements, notably the Germans, 1 and laggards and "manufac- 
 turers" have been antagonized needlessly. 
 
 (4) There has been lack of personal and direct appeal in many methods 
 used. Ambiguousness and anonymity have often been faults of the 
 material issued. The material in many cases has not been adapted to 
 the audience addressed. 
 
 (5) Failure to cooperate with other organizations has lost much valua- 
 ble support. 
 
 (6) There has been no adequate organization and no first class active 
 supporters in the East. 
 
 (7) There has been no competent agent at the center of legislation. 2 
 
 (8) Material has been needlessly long, often rather commonplace in ap- 
 pearance [26]." 
 
 Some of these acknowledged errors of omission and comission were 
 rectified later in the campaign, but to no avail. 
 
 Following the publication of what Aubrey Drury liked to call his "big 
 book" in 1922, the amount of literature issued by the World Trade Club 
 dropped off drastically. The most likely reason for this curtailment is that the 
 group's literature had provoked a sharp reaction from metric opponents, in- 
 cluding an investigation of Albert Herbert and a number of "expose" articles 
 concerning his behind-the-scenes role in the World Trade Club. Considering 
 Mr. Herbert's insistent demands that he remain anonymous, this state of af- 
 fairs likely led him to withdraw the financial support needed to sustain a 
 publications program. Although the organization did offer memberships to 
 anyone willing to contribute, Mr. Herbert had always been the prime source 
 of support and the other revenue was not sufficient to permit a great many 
 activities to be undertaken. The organization ceased to exist altogether after 
 the failure of the 1926 drive. Long before that, however, the establishment 
 of the two pro-metric organizations had again aroused strong opposition. 
 
 3. THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 
 
 Of all the special groups connected with the history of the metric system 
 in the United States the anti-metric American Institute of Weights and Mea- 
 sures was by far the most organized, the most down-to-earth, and therefore, 
 the most effective. It, too, ceased to be an active agent after the depression 
 hit, but by that time it had done its job so well that there was really no further 
 need for it. 
 
 Its creation was brought about through the efforts of those inveterate anti- 
 metric polemicists Federick A. Halsey and Samuel S. Dale. Following the 
 collapse of the pro-metric campaign in 1 906-07, they had gone their separate 
 ways — Halsey to edit American Machinist and Dale to edit Textiles and 
 watch over tariff legislation. When they heard the first faint rumblings of a 
 
 1 The reason for this comment will be made clear in a subsequent section of this chapter. 
 
 2 Since Crocker had been employed by the World Trade Club for several months at this time. 
 Newton Drury must have held his efforts in low esteem. 
 
 429-523 O - 71 - 12 
 
170 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 new drive to adopt the system, however, their paths quickly converged once 
 more. It was Mr. Dale who, in early 1916, first suggested the efficacy of 
 forming a permanent organization to watch over Washington activities hav- 
 ing to do with weights and measures [27]. The actual work leading up to its 
 establishment, however, he left to Mr. Halsey because of Halsey's availabili- 
 ty (he had retired in 1911) and his more extensive connections with the 
 manufacturing community. 
 
 Without the interest and financial backing of a few outstanding manufac- 
 turers there would never have been an American Institute. But men such as 
 Henry R. Towne, a founder of Yale and Towne; Henry D. Sharpe, the trea- 
 surer of Brown and Sharpe; Edwin M. Herr, the president of Westinghouse; 
 D. H. Kelley of the Toledo Scale Company; and Walter McFarland, for- 
 merly of Westinghouse and now with Babcock and Wilcox Company had 
 long since committed themselves to opposing metric adoption. All that 
 remained was to get them organized and to secure the support of their firms. 
 By late June 1916, this had been done. As related by Mr. Halsey: 
 
 "After a particularly flagrant, indirect and underhand movement by the pro- 
 metric party last spring, our people awoke. Several meetings 
 were held . . . under the leadership of Mr. Sharpe of the 
 Brown & Sharpe Manufacturing Company, which resulted in a 
 determination to organize a defense system. This has now 
 reached the point where a constitution has been adopted . . . 
 The committee in charge is now completing the council ... It 
 is understood that Mr. Sharpe will be president while others 
 not less prominent have accepted membership in the council 
 of which the list is now nearly completed. It is also understood 
 that my coworker of a dozen years ago — Mr. S. S. Dale — 
 and myself, will conduct the activities of the Institute as Asso- 
 ciate Commissioner and Commissioner respectively [28]." 
 
 When all the results had been tallied, however, Mr. Sharpe had declined to 
 head the new organization and Samuel Dale could not spare the time from 
 his other duties to take a position, as "assistant commissioner," a title which 
 he disliked anyway. Instead, a personal friend of Mr. Halsey, Walter Renton 
 Ingalls, was chosen to serve as president. There was a certain opposition to 
 his selection from among the backers of the Institute because Mr. Ingalls 
 was not a manufacturer but a mining engineer. As it turned out, the position 
 of president was to be only a figurehead job anyway so that Mr. Ingalls' 
 selection proved to be satisfactory. Mr. Sharpe and Mr. Kelley were elected 
 co-vice-presidents, Mr. McFarland became the Institute's treasurer, and 
 Mr. Halsey was made the organization's first commissioner and secretary. 
 A growing feud between Halsey and Dale prevented Mr. Dale's becoming 
 officially connected with the Institute until Mr. Kelley stepped in as a 
 peacemaker and secured his services as a "technical advisor" in October 
 1917. Samuel Dale continued to serve the organization in this capacity until 
 late 1927, at which time he formally severed all connections with the In- 
 stitute because of certain developments which he thought represented per- 
 sonal affronts. 
 
THE GREAT METRIC CRUSADE ( 1914-1933) 171 
 
 In adopting a constitution, which was first done on June 28, 1916, the In- 
 stitute set four goals for itself. Three of these were little more than 
 meaningless "boiler plate" — maintaining and improving the English system 
 of weights and measures, educating the people to the importance of English 
 weights and measures, and improving old standards as well as developing 
 new ones "for the good of our commerce and industry and the well-being of 
 our country." The final goal, however, was actively pursued, and was, in 
 truth, the real raison d'etre of the Institute. It called for: 
 
 "The promotion of wise legislation for the conservation of our basic English 
 units of weight and measure, and opposition to hasty and ill- 
 considered legislation involving changes from our fundamental 
 standards [29]." 
 
 Fortunately for those who were pushing for the creation of this group, 
 there was plenty of legislation pending at this time that could be interpreted 
 as being contrary to the interests of manufacturers. 
 
 For his first job as commissioner, Mr. Halsey set about canvassing the 
 country for members, trying every method he could think of: publicity in 
 technical and trade papers, mass mailings, and personal solicitation at con- 
 ventions, and places of business. After a full year, he had secured member- 
 ship pledges worth only $6,300 from 4 associations, 1 17 corporations and 43 
 individuals [30]. Quite possibly the main reason why Mr. Halsey was not 
 more successful in his efforts to secure financing was that membership in the 
 Institute was comparatively expensive. Individual memberships were $5; 
 association dues were $ 100 for those that were national in scope and $25 for 
 all others; and corporation dues were set on a sliding scale — $25 for firms 
 with less than 500 employees, $50 for companies employing between 500 
 and 1 ,000 people, and $25 more for each additional thousand employees up 
 to a maximum of $500 per year [31]. Mr. Halsey became disgruntled with 
 the canvassing work in short order and requested the Institute's Council (the 
 equivalent of a board of directors) to hire a professional solicitor. After this 
 was done, the fortunes of the Institute were much improved. By October 
 1917, the number of members had risen to 209. By 1923-24, 650 members 
 were contributing nearly $35,000 a year to the Institute's coffers. Although 
 support fell off to only 500 members and $15,000 a year in 1926-27, this was 
 still a substantial income and the Institute was relatively free of the 
 economic problems which plagued the other interest groups of the era. 
 
 What the Institute did with its funds varied considerably from year-to- 
 year, depending upon the existing status of pro-metric agitation. Even more 
 than that, however, the Institute's activities were in large measure a function 
 of who was running the organization's headquarters in New York. From the 
 beginning until March 1920, Mr. Halsey was in charge as commissioner- 
 secretary at an annual salary of $5,000. When he "retired" from active serv- 
 ice at that time (still retaining the title of commissioner but without ever 
 having collected his salary) he was replaced by Luther D. Burlingame. In 
 September 1920, Mr. Charles C. Stutz, also a mechanical engineer, suc- 
 ceeded to the job. When Mr. Stutz died in January 1927, Mr. William E. 
 Bullock assumed the secretary's job and held it until the Institute passed out 
 
172 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 of existence. Of the four secretaries, Mr. Stutz made the most substantial 
 contribution to the success of the organization and the Institute was at its 
 most visible best during his 7-year tenure. 
 
 Under Halsey, the Institute's activities were sporadic. Quarterly reports 
 of activities were sent to all members (bearing the notations "strictly con- 
 fidential" or "not for anyone else"), and a dozen pamphlets and publications 
 were prepared for wide distribution. Among the pamphlets issued were ones 
 entitled The Six Metric Myths and Endorsements That Count. Halsey also 
 authored another paper for the American Society of Mechanical Engineers 
 in 1918 on the subject of Latin-American weights and measures that was 
 based on the results of a questionnaire. His principal concern, however, was 
 obtaining general publicity for the anti-metric cause. A subscription to a 
 newspaper clipping service was purchased by the Institute. When the pro- 
 metric articles began rolling in, Mr. Halsey nearly went frantic trying to 
 refute each and every one personally and in print. At one point in 1916 the 
 situation was so bad that he confided to Mr. Sharpe: 
 
 "I am getting bluer than blue ruin .... One adverse influence after 
 another piles up, and the situation is nothing less than desperate 
 .... Mr. Dale and I must have support, and unless we can 
 get it, I am prepared to throw up my hands [32]." 
 
 In fairness to Mr. Halsey, it should be noted that the Institute had not 
 become a financial and organizational success overnight. He was struggling 
 with a new organization and an uncertain situation. But Halsey did little to 
 improve his own lot. He allowed his pessimism to surface on frequent occa- 
 sions, often becoming openly despondent. He complained constantly, was 
 argumentative about the most trifling matters, and managed to antagonize 
 most of the people on whom the Institute was utterly dependent. In particu- 
 lar, he quarreled with Samuel Dale. Consider, for example, the following ex- 
 tracts from an exchange of correspondence concerning the nature and extent 
 of Mr. Dale's participation in the Institute's activities: 
 
 June 26, 1917, Halsey to Dale - 
 
 "At our interview last week, I did not touch upon your broken 
 promises for fear that the subject would make a bad situation worse. It 
 can, however, be deferred no longer and below you will find extracts 
 from your letters written prior to the adoption of the Constitution and 
 showing not only your approval of all I had done, but specific promises 
 made .... 
 
 In the face [of these words] .... you now condemn all that has 
 been done, and refuse to cooperate .... You know perfectly well that 
 I would not have been a party to the organization of this Institute but 
 for your assurance of cooperation .... 
 
 [Yjou cannot fail to recognize that I am aggrieved and that the 
 amende honorable is due from you. With that, I shall be glad — more 
 than glad — to forget and forgive, and following it, I shall be glad to 
 take up your charges against me, which you have already made clear 
 [33]." 
 
THE GREAT METRIC CRUSADE (1914-1933) 173 
 
 June 27, 1917, Dale reply to Halsey — 
 
 "You certainly are in a state of mind. It is difficult for me to take you 
 seriously, but as you presist in your attitude, I suppose I must do so. 
 
 I make way for no one in my readiness to acknowledge the great 
 service you have rendered in defending our established standards, 
 and in promoting the organization of an association to carry on that 
 work. In my judgement there would have been no association at all if 
 it had not been for you. 
 
 So much for yourself. Now as for me. There is not a word I have writ- 
 ten or spoken that you quote or fail to quote that is in any way incon- 
 sistent with my position now. I gave you my idea of what the 
 organization should be at the start, and stated the only conditions 
 under which it would be possible for me to take an active part in it. 
 
 I have deliberately and persistently kept my views in the background, 
 in order that the movement for an association might not be wrecked by 
 a conflict of opinions. My expressions of dissent have been made to 
 you orally or in writing. That dissent has been stated as emphatically 
 and tactfully as possible .... 
 
 Having avoided any interference with your development work, hav- 
 ing confined my suggestions and advice to you, leaving you free to deal 
 with your people as you pleased, with your admission that you disre- 
 garded the conditions under which I could cooperate, there is absolutely 
 no one but yourself to blame for the results. 
 
 If you are in a false position, you have been placed there by yourself 
 [34]." 
 
 This particular disagreement between Halsey and Dale was settled by the 
 Institute's vice-president, D. H. Kelley, acting as an intermediary. There 
 were to be several other violent disputes between Halsey and Dale, though, 
 on a variety of subjects. Most of these, if not all of them, were started by 
 some action on Halsey's part which offended Mr. Dale. Such incidents in- 
 cluded Halsey's publication of several articles that were written by Dale 
 without attributing authorship to him and a disagreement over the wisdom of 
 spending funds to publish a second edition of the Metric Fallacy. A revised 
 edition was issued eventually, but without Mr. Dale's part, "The Metric 
 Failure in the Textile Industry [35]." 
 
 Such a tempestuous relationship could not continue forever, of course, as 
 it would have jeopardized the success of the entire Institute. Halsey was not 
 on the best of terms with Mr. Towne and Mr. Sharpe to begin with, and there 
 is every indication that his quarrel with Samuel Dale hastened his retirement 
 in 1 920. For this, he apparently blamed Dale, as evidenced by another sting- 
 ing letter written in November, 1 92 1 : 
 
 "That quarrel of ours had consequences of which you know nothing. I have 
 never for a moment intended to permit it to remain as it is, for 
 self respect forbids, and I am astonished at my own moderation 
 in allowing it to lie so long. I can well understand that you 
 should wish me to 'stop threshing over this old straw' but that. 
 
174 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 interpreted, means that I shall forget an injury and forgive a 
 deserter, which is impossible .... 
 
 ... I have read anew the miserable correspondence and my blood boils 
 anew, for this case is mine as clearly as the weights and mea- 
 sures case is ours. 
 
 The idea of a defense organization was yours. I took it up because you urged 
 it and because you wholeheartedly promised to stand by me to 
 the end . . . You were a party to the formation of the Institute. 
 You approved the draft constitution . . . with suggestions for 
 additions that were incorporated. You repeatedly approved 
 everything I had done . . . until the organization was 
 complete, except for finding a president. 
 
 Later, when for 8 months the organization was out of my hands and control, 
 I having not even a membership on any committee, you began 
 to express doubts of the wisdom of what had been done . . . 
 Comparing your plan of work as then outlined with the one 
 then and now in force, no one can discover what the hulla- 
 balloo was about. 
 
 As far as your belief that the sum I had in mind could not be raised ... it 
 has been exceeded; your repeated predictions of failure of the 
 institute have come to naught, and experience has shown that 
 the amount you named as sufficient was ridiculous — three ex- 
 amples of your poor judgement, but there are others. 
 
 ... I continued to hope against hope that I could raise enough [money] to 
 justify asking you to come in under pay, and finally I told the 
 Executive Committee that your cooperation was imperative 
 and that if they could thus secure it, your salary should always 
 have presidence [sic] over mine. Theretofore, I had not been 
 paid a cent on account of salary and thereafter your salary was 
 paid monthly from funds that I had raised while I went without. 
 And today, if my unpaid and rescinded salary is anything, I am 
 the largest single, individual or corporate, contributor to the 
 Institute. 
 
 During the interval between your engagement and my leaving the office, the 
 amount paid to you would have come to me had it not gone to 
 you, which being interpreted, means that my devotion to this 
 cause was such that, during the interval, in order to secure your 
 cooperation, I paid your salary. 
 
 The trouble with you, Dale, is that you have no sense of personal loyalty and 
 no capacity for team play. I must play the game your way or be 
 deserted in the hour of greatest need. 
 
 Should you quote from this letter, see to it that you quote correctly. I am 
 tired of your attempts to prove your case by misquotations 
 [36]." 
 
 But by this time Samuel Dale had had enough. In a mild reply to Halsey, 
 he stated that he had imperative business matters to attend to and, as aeon- 
 sequence, "I must . . . rest under the charges and suffer the condemnation 
 
THE GREAT METRIC CRUSADE ( 1914-1933) 175 
 
 which you heap upon me [37] . . . ." After that final exchange, the rela- 
 tionship between these staunch anti-metric collaborators grew increasingly 
 cooler, although they kept in fairly close touch with each other. 
 
 The operations of the American Institute of Weights and Measures also 
 grew progressively smoother and more effective after Mr. Halsey's depar- 
 ture. Under the energetic and able command of C. C. Stutz its full potential 
 was attained. A quarterly Bulletin, 3 was issued that contained news of in- 
 terest to metric opponents and regular reports of the Institute's activities. 
 Professional and trade associations were lined up behind the Institute's 
 banner, and their publications served as a handy and reliable outlet for the 
 group's anti-metric circulars and "news releases." Meetings of interest to the 
 Institute were routinely attended by one or more of the several full-time staff 
 members that were employed and, of course, the Institute was always 
 represented at Congressional hearings. For each piece of legislation 
 proposed, a full "brief in opposition" was prepared by the Institute's counsel 
 and, when hearings were held, opposition witnesses were conveniently ar- 
 ranged by the Institute. This mode of operation was carried on by Mr. Wil- 
 liam E. Bullock beginning in 1927. But, by that time, the crisis had passed 
 and there was very little for Mr. Bullock to do except watch and wait until it 
 became certain that this campaign had come to an end. 
 
 Vigilance was the key to the organization's success. Very little occurred 
 in the jurisdictions of the Committee on Coinage, Weights and Measures or 
 of the National Bureau of Standards that the Institute did not scrutinize to 
 determine whether or not their interests were involved. When some proposal 
 or action aroused the Institute's suspicions, that proposal or action was 
 denounced with conviction by every means at the disposal of the organiza- 
 tion. As a general rule, the appearance of strong opposition from the In- 
 stitute, from the manufacturers, from powerful associations, and from the 
 publications which routinely backed the Institute's position, was enough to 
 forestall serious consideration of proposed legislation. In other ways, too, 
 the Institute was operating from a position of strength. To all appearances 
 they based their cases on common sense and on facts or informed judg- 
 ments rather than on irrational assumptions or emotional appeals. In addi- 
 tion, they had no constructive program of their own which required legisla- 
 tive action or approval. Instead, all they had to do was prevent the metric ad- 
 vocates from successfully executing their program. Not only was this an in- 
 herently easier task, but it was made even simpler by some of the sym- 
 pathizers' own serious mistakes. 
 
 Whether or not pro-metric legislation would have been enacted without 
 the Institute's active opposition is useless speculation. On several previous 
 occasions bills had gone largely unopposed and had never succeeded, but the 
 1920's were different times and the circumstances had changed. Whatever 
 might have happened did not, and the Institute's contribution to the failure 
 of metric proposals during this period cannot be underrated. When the dust 
 of the metric crusade had settled early in the 1930's, the American Institute 
 
 :l The name of which was changed to Weight and Measure beginning in July 1927. 
 
176 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 of Weights and Measures had accomplished what it had set out to do in 
 1916. Asa consequence, the metric issue was again laid to rest for over 25 
 years. 
 
 4. OTHER PARTICIPANTS 
 
 Organized metric interest groups were not the only participants in the con- 
 troversy during the years 1914-33 even though they did provoke most of the 
 action. 
 
 In the Senate of the United States the proposal to adopt the metric system 
 found a new champion in the person of Edwin Freemont Ladd. Born in 
 Somerset County, Maine, in 1859, Mr. Ladd was a chemist by profession 
 and did not enter politics until late in life [38]. After serving for over 25 
 years as the chief chemist of the North Dakota Agricultural Experiment Sta- 
 tion, he was elected to the Senate from that State in 1920 as a "Nonpartisan 
 Republican." Although he served in the Senate for only 5 years, Mr. Ladd 
 was a perennial sponsor of metric legislation during that time and it was 
 primarily through his good offices that formal hearings were arranged before 
 the Senate Committee on Manufacturers in late 1 92 1 and early 1 922. 
 
 In the House of Representatives there were a greater number of suppor- 
 ters, including Congressmen Albert H. Vestal of Indiana and Randolph Per- 
 kins of New Jersey, who served as Chairmen of the Committee on Coinage, 
 Weights and Measures for most of the years during this campaign. The prin- 
 cipal champions of metric legislation, however, were Frederick H. Gillett 
 from Massachusetts, who was to become Speaker of the House in 1921 ,and 
 Fred A. Britten of Illinois. All of these Representatives were members of the 
 Republican Party, which held a majority of both Houses of Congress 
 between 1919 and 1931. 
 
 The metric controversy cannot be viewed as a partisan affair, however, 
 since Mr. Dale and Mr. Halsey were also lifelong Republicans. It is a fact, 
 however, that the cycles of intense metric agitation between 1896 and 1933 
 coincided with the years in which the Republican Party was in power. The 
 most likely explanation for this correlation is that both occurrences — metric 
 agitation and Republican domination — resulted from changing trends in the 
 prevailing economic, social and political conditions. As a Nation we were 
 clearly in an isolationist mood and, under those conditions, not inclined to 
 look favorably upon any reform whose main justification was based upon in- 
 ternational prestige and goodwill. The proposed adoption of the metric 
 system was just such a reform. 
 
 Another party to the controversy over the metric system during the years 
 1914-33 was the National Bureau of Standards. First under director Strat- 
 ton, until 1923, and then under Dr. George K. Burgess, the Bureau officially 
 espoused the position that the metric system was to be considered preferable 
 for scientific and weights and measures work, but that, as a Government 
 agency, NBS could not recommend legislation compelling adoption of the 
 system for general use [39]. Not only was this position viewed with great 
 skepticism by the opponents of metric adoption, but the activities of some in- 
 dividual staff members did little to dispel the appearance that the Bureau was 
 
THE GREAT METRIC CRUSADE (1914-1933) 177 
 
 actively promoting the proposed reform. For this reason, the American In- 
 stitute of Weights and Measures, and Samuel Dale in particular, kept a close 
 watch on the publications and activities of the Bureau and constantly sought 
 to have Secretaries of Commerce clamp the lid on N BS's "agitation" for the 
 metric system. 
 
 One of the activities of the National Bureau of Standards of which the op- 
 ponents were especially suspicious was its sponsorship of the National 
 Conference on Weights and Measures. Initiated in a modest way in 1905, 
 the Conference had become an annual affair to which most States sent 
 several delegates by 1920. Its purpose was to bring together State Officials 
 working in the area of weights and measures regulation to discuss new 
 methods for testing commercial weighing and measuring devices, for insuring 
 honest weights and measures usage and inspection and, above all, for reduc- 
 ing the almost infinite variety of laws affecting weights and measures 
 [40]. In the 1910-30 period, the Conference was promoting legislation, 
 both State and Federal, to correct some of the most serious deficiencies 
 in existing regulatory practices. Two types of proposed legislation along 
 these lines particularly infuriated the opponents of the metric system. 
 One group of bills provided for the adoption of standard sizes for berry 
 baskets for use in commercial transactions. Another class of proposed legis- 
 lation would have given the National Bureau of Standards the authority to 
 inspect and approve commercial weighing and measuring devices (by 
 generic type, not individually) before they could be used in business trans- 
 actions involving interstate commerce. What provoked opposition to these 
 bills from Mr. Dale and the American Institute was that portions of them 
 were worded in the following fashion: 
 
 "The standard of weights and measures throughout the United States 
 shall be the weights and measures supplied by the United 
 States Government under joint resolutions of Congress, 
 approved June fourteenth, eighteen hundred and thirty-six, 
 and July twenty-seventh, eighteen hundred and sixty-six, and 
 such new weights and measures .... as have been or shall be 
 established by the several States, Territories, and the District 
 of Columbia, and approved by the Bureau of Standards [41]." 
 
 Such provisions were objectionable in that they contained "metric 
 jokers" — the 1866 joint resolution cited had provided for the construction 
 and distribution of metric standards. Even through the 1836 resolution, also 
 cited, had dealt with customary standards, the metric system's opponents 
 believed that the Bureau of Standards would implement the law in such a 
 way that the metric provisions would always apply. Nor could the States be 
 relied upon to counteract the Bureau's influence in this direction because, it 
 was felt, the National Conference on Weights and Measures was little more 
 than a State lobby group for NBS. To the metric opponents, then, such bills 
 as these constituted metric legislation of the most insidious type and had to 
 be stopped. 
 
 Strange though it may seem, two other Government efforts that were inti- 
 mately connected to standards and systems of weights and measures were 
 
178 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 successfully executed during this time period without being dragged into the 
 metric controversy. These were: ( 1 ) a significant revision of American screw 
 thread standards; and (2) a "simplified practice" program aimed at conserv- 
 ing raw materials and eliminating waste by such means as reducing the 
 number and variety of sizes to which American products were manufac- 
 tured. 
 
 In July 1918, a National Screw Thread Commission was established by 
 Act of Congress "to ascertain and establish standards for screw threads 
 [42]." Its chairman was the director of the Bureau of Standards. Since 
 screw thread standards had always been high on the list of objectionable 
 changes that would have to be made if the U.S. adopted the metric system, 
 this Commission should have made a natural target for metric opponents, 
 especially considering its leadership. This did not occur, however, and the 
 Commission finished its work undisturbed. 
 
 The "simplified practice" movement also avoided entanglements with 
 metric adoption battles, probably because compliance with any industrial 
 standard that might be set was strictly voluntary [43]. In addition, no seri- 
 ous drive was launched to have the new standards and specifications formu- 
 lated in terms of the metric system. This may have been because the cham- 
 pion of simplified practice was Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover. 
 Mr. Hoover was well aware of the lack of agreement that existed concerning 
 the feasibility and desirability of metric adoption and he steadfastly refused 
 to take a position on this issue. The simplified practice effort was one of Mr. 
 Hoover's favorite programs, and he certainly would not have wanted it 
 jeopardized by becoming the focal point of a battle over weights and 
 measures. 
 
 And so, with interest in metric adoption gradually increasing, with legisla- 
 tion promoting it regularly being introduced in Congress, and with the forma- 
 tion of organized interest groups, the great metric crusade was ready to 
 begin. 
 
 B. SQUARING OFF (1914-1918) 
 
 This campaign may very well have been started by the Nation's wholesale 
 grocers. In an address to the National Conference on Weights and Measures 
 in May 1914, the ex-president of the National Wholesale Grocers' Associa- 
 tion of the United States, Mr. Fred R. Drake, announced that his was the 
 "first great trade association to come forward and advocate the needed 
 reform." Furthermore, he said that the grocers' association, not wishing to 
 see the failure of 1906-07 repeated, was already in the process of conducting 
 an educational campaign aimed not only at wholesale and retail grocers, but 
 also at the ultimate consumer. Its object, of course, would be to familiarize 
 citizens with the metric system so that, eventually, legislators might be ap- 
 propriately enlightened. Mr. Drake urged a similar course of action upon the 
 National Conference on Weights and Measures. "If all the friends of the 
 Metric System," he said, "would join hands in a publicity campaign setting 
 forth the merits of the reform, it could be done; and you, gentlemen, coming 
 from most of the States of the Union, are in a position to do more to bring 
 
THE GREAT METRIC CRUSADE (1914-1933) 179 
 
 this about than any other class of citizens who occupy positions under the 
 Federal Government or the States [44]." This campaign was to come to 
 pass, and Mr. Drake would play a significant part in it as an officer of the 
 Metric Association even though the Conference declined to act on his 
 suggestion. 
 
 In that year, and in several preceeding years, legislation had been 
 proposed in the House "to regulate and control the manufacture, sale and 
 use of weights and measures," but these had little to do with the larger 
 question of adopting the metric system. In January 1915, however, the first 
 metric bill since 1906 was introduced. 4 It was sponsored by a Representa- 
 tive Dillon of North Dakota and provided for the establishment of the metric 
 system "as the standard for weights and measures, and for other purposes." 
 A similar bill was filed later that same year and other proposals, with only 
 minor variations, were introduced in 1917 and 1918. 5 None of these ever 
 received consideration by the House Committee on Coinage, Weights and 
 Measures. During these years most of the legislation that came before the 
 Committee were bills to standardize berry basket sizes and proposals to 
 authorize the Bureau of Standards to pass on weighing and measuring 
 devices, some of which contained "metric jokers." 
 
 For having assisted the National Conference on Weights and Measures in 
 framing such legislation, and for his role in the metric campaigns of a decade 
 earlier, Director Stratton was severely rebuked by Samuel S. Dale. In a 17- 
 page letter detailing Dr. Stratton's "errors" on a case-by-case basis, Mr. 
 Dale questioned the propriety, the legality, and the constitutionality of both 
 his official policies and personal activities. Dale summed up his position in 
 the following statement: 
 
 "My objection is to your allowing [your] opinions to influence improperly 
 the official policy of the Bureau of Standards. You say 'the ver- 
 dict of the scientific world as to the merits of the metric system 
 cannot be ignored.' I would remind you that the Bureau of Stan- 
 dards was established by a law that is enacted by Congress and 
 not by 'the verdict' of what you call 'the scientific world.' A cer- 
 tain class of men that assume the sole right to be called 
 'scientists' may find the metric system convenient because they 
 use it, but the Bureau of Standards is not authorized to carry out 
 the desires of that class in disregard of the rights and interests of 
 the people of the United States. You have shaped the pro- 
 metric policy of the Bureau of Standards for the benefit of the 
 scientific class, your own class, in disregard of the interests of 
 the American people, and in defiance of law and the constitu- 
 tion, which expressly withholds the power to fix standards of 
 weights and measures from your Bureau and gives it to 
 Congress .... 
 
 4 H.R. 20526 (Jan. 4, 1915). 
 
 5 H.R. 151 (Dec. 6, 1915); H.R. 3662 (Apr. 23, 1917); H.J. Res. 132 (July 30. 1917); and 
 H.R. 10475 (Mar. 5, 1918). 
 
180 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 It is by no means unusual to find [an] assumption of superior knowledge and 
 wisdom by those who belong to what you call 'the scientific 
 world.' . . . .You may be convinced that it is on your shoul- 
 ders, and in map construction. Artillery and machine gun 
 material intended for service abroad is being graduated accord- 
 ingly. Instruction in the metric system will be given to all 
 concerned [54]." 
 
 Whatever else Dr. Stratton may have been convinced of, he was certain 
 that he had a job to do and that it involved bringing the U.S. into line with 
 other nations in its system of weights and measures. He was not to be 
 deterred by the likes of Samuel Dale, for he clearly saw nothing improper 
 about stating what he considered to be a fact — that the metric system was a 
 superior system of weights and measures. Less than a year after the above 
 letter was written, Dr. Stratton again demonstrated his sincere belief in the 
 propriety of his position by authoring a report entitled The Metric System in 
 Export Trade [46]. This report had been occasioned by a request from 
 Treasury Secretary W. G. McAdoo to Commerce Secretary William C. 
 Redfield asking for information "on the attitude of our great manufacturers 
 in the matter of the metric system." This information was to be used by the 
 American delegates at a forthcoming session of an "International High 
 Commission." Considering the opposition to the metric system that had 
 been openly exhibited by certain manufacturers, it is not difficult to imagine 
 the angry consternation that Mr. Dale must have registered as he perused 
 Dr. Stratton's somewhat dogmatic report. 
 
 In answer to a specific question raised by Secretary McAdoo concerning 
 the percentage of manufacturers that had already adopted the metric system 
 in preparing goods for export, Dr. Stratton said that exact figures couldn't be 
 given but that: 
 
 "Most firms [seeking export business] use the metric system to meet the 
 need for intelligible catalogues and price lists, to meet in many 
 cases also the insistent demand for products in metric sizes, and 
 finally to satisfy the customs requirements of the country con- 
 cerned. The enterprising exporter meets these requirements as 
 fully as possible. The factories are conservative and require 
 education, since they are not brought directly in such close 
 touch with foreign needs .... 
 
 With the growing use of the metric system at home and abroad, it is clear that 
 not only is the policy of extending its use in manufacture war- 
 ranted, but it is essential [47] ." 
 
 Dr. Stratton further acknowledged that objections to metric adoption had 
 been raised: the use of two systems of measurement, the cost of adoption, 
 the psychological effects of the change on the workmen, the notion that stan- 
 dard sizes geared to customary units would have to be abandoned, and the 
 belief that our strong ties with England dictated the retention of English mea- 
 sures. Without elaborating further on the basis for these objections or on the 
 source of them. Dr. Stratton presented a vigorous refutation of each one, all 
 
THE GREAT METRIC CRUSADE (1914-1933) 181 
 
 leading to the conclusion that "the extent to which advance should be made 
 toward the complete adoption of the metric system is the only question seri- 
 ously discussed today, since its partial adoption is an accomplished fact 
 [48]." He did admit that the metric system appeared to be less adaptable to 
 the textile and machinery industries than to other product lines, but Dr. 
 Stratton asserted that such difficulties could be overcome and with benefi- 
 cial results: 
 
 "The effect [of metric adoption] will be, as in all considerable innovations, 
 to awaken a measure of opposition, not in sales departments but 
 among the older workers among whom set practice has 
 removed the fine edge of enterprise .... 
 
 The effect will next be to awaken the ingenuity of the younger trained techni- 
 cal men in meeting the demands of the world market. Attention 
 to the world units of measurement will in turn awaken their 
 desire to assimilate the best in foreign practice in order to im- 
 prove products and methods of manufacture [49] ." 
 
 Director Stratton's report on the metric system in export trade was like an 
 official signal for the battle to begin. Later that same year both the Metric 
 Association and the American Institute of Weights and Measures were 
 formed. The substance of his report had also set the general tone for the 
 major argument used by the pro-metric forces during this era. This was that 
 the size of American foreign trade virtually demanded that we keep pace 
 with the rest of the world by adopting the metric system. The United States 
 Section of the Interamerican High Commission, for whom the report had 
 been prepared, concurred in this opinion. At its session on October 7, 1918, 
 it passed a resolution to the effect that "the adoption of [the metric] system 
 would be productive of great advantage in the commercial relations of the 
 United States with the other American Republics [50]." 
 
 The big flaws in the foreign trade argument were still the facts that Amer- 
 ican export business was flourishing without the metric system and that 
 Great Britain had not yet adopted it either. Because there was a war going on 
 in Europe, the American export picture had never been brighter, especially 
 with respect to sales of machinery. Between 1915 and 1916 alone the value 
 of machinery exported rose from $120 million to $278 million, and this 
 amount increased nearly every year until 1 92 1 , reaching a peak of $588 mil- 
 lion in 1920 [51]. In cotton manufactures, the rise was less drastic but still 
 significant. Exports of these commodities, which stood at $70 million in 
 1915, increased over the next 5 years to $398 million [52]. Of the total value 
 of exports during the war years, over 60 percent routinely went to Europe, 
 and half of this went to Great Britain [53]. In fact, our biggest trading part- 
 ners for some years to come would be the United Kingdom and Canada, 
 both nonmetric nations. From these figures, it is easy to see why American 
 manufacturers felt little pressure to adopt the metric system. Even when ex- 
 ports leveled off after the war, the U.S. was exporting far more than it had in 
 1915 and our manufacturers' principal competitor for South American mar- 
 kets, Germany, had been eliminated from the trade race. 
 
182 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 Even while the war was raging, however, the campaign for metric adop- 
 tion continued. Logic and economic necessity would seem to dictate that no 
 change should be made in our measurement system while American industry 
 was geared to wartime production. And yet, during the First World War 
 there was a compelling reason to push even harder for such a change. That 
 was the fact that some of our major allies, France in particular, were depen- 
 dent upon armament and military equipment that was produced using the 
 metric system. The lack of metrological uniformity among the allies was, in 
 fact, a serious problem and because of it both Great Britain and the United 
 States were forced to make some changes to accomodate the need for 
 metric-based supplies. 
 
 On January 2, 1918, General Order No. 1 was issued by the War Depart- 
 ment in Washington. It stated that: 
 
 "The metric system has been adopted for use in France for all firing data for 
 artillery and machine guns, in the preparation of operation or- 
 ders, and in map construction. Artillery and machine gun mate- 
 rial intended for service abroad is being graduated accordingly. 
 Instruction in the metric system will be given to all concerned 
 [54]." 
 
 As a consequence, the Bureau of Standards set about reissuing a number of 
 its earlier publications that explained and illustrated the metric system. The 
 piece de resistance, however, was a booklet entitled Metric Manual for Sol- 
 diers. Although the basic purpose of this booklet was to enable the American 
 soldier to deal effectively with a system of weights and measures to which he 
 was unaccustomed, someone at the Bureau could not resist the temptation 
 to include a little promotional material along with the necessary tables and 
 text. After describing the metric system as "an international decimal system 
 of weights and measures adopted as the legal standard by France and 33 
 other nations and in worldwide use," the booklet went on to say that: 
 
 "The rapid progress of the metric system in the United States is caused by 
 the growing recognition of its merits and the need for an interna- 
 tional system especially in science and commerce. Many indus- 
 tries are using it without special legislation [56]." 
 
 To the dismay of metric supporters, and to the delight of the opposition, 
 any momentum in the direction of metric adoption that had been built up 
 during the war years rapidly disintegrated after the armistice was signed on 
 November 11, 1918. On May 3, 1920, General Order No. 26 was issued by 
 the War Department rescinding the metric provisions of 1918 and ordering 
 a return to the use of "customary British units [57]." But world conditions 
 had been drastically altered as a result of the war, and that situation provided 
 the impetus for an even more intense metric drive. 
 
 In Great Britain, too, the war had a pronounced impact on agitation for the 
 metric system. In the words of historian Edward F. Cox: 
 
 "[T]he advent of World War I apparently was one of the leading causes for 
 the occurrence of the third pro-metric campaign in Great 
 
THE GREAT METRIC CRUSADE (1914-1933) 183 
 
 Britain .... The cooperation necessary with metric system 
 allies in the war resulted in considerable use of the system by 
 the British, and also caused some confusion. It was undoubt- 
 edly due to these factors that once more was raised the ques- 
 tion of British adoption of the system in use by so many of 
 the Allies [58]." 
 
 The post-war British campaign was marked by a revival of the pro-metric 
 Decimal Association, an organization which formally banded together with 
 the American Metric Association and the World Trade Club in 1 920 to form 
 what was known as the World Metric Standardization Council. This was in 
 all respects, a very loose alliance, however, based mainly on a common goal 
 and a common fondness for the use of the weapon known as "propaganda." 
 Unlike the great metric crusade in the United States, the third metric cam- 
 paign in Great Britain was over with swiftly. According to Dr. Cox, the 
 Decimal Association quickly ran out of funds and by late 1920, their drive 
 had all but ended [59]. Because of this, American metric advocates could 
 not, and did not, place so much emphasis during these years on the argument 
 that British adoption was imminent and the U.S. would have to follow 
 sooner or later. 
 
 But there were plenty of other arguments to use, including the "increased 
 foreign trade" contention, the inevitability of worldwide use of the metric 
 system, and above all, the claim that opposition to metric adoption was 
 based on fears that were groundless. A very accurate characterization of the 
 campaign to come was provided by Justin W. McEachren, editor of The 
 Valve World, in an address to the American Metric Association in 1917: 
 
 "[W]e have in the United States two opposing forces, each with an or- 
 ganized head, and each striving (let us say it frankly) honestly 
 for what it believes to be the best thing for American 
 business .... 
 
 The object of each side is the same — the welfare of the United States. The 
 methods suggested for the attainment of the object are diametri- 
 cally opposed. 
 
 On our side of the line . . . we naturally ask: Why is there opposition to our 
 advancement? Why do we have to fight for every foot of ground 
 we gain? Why is a part of American industry and commerce in 
 favor of the widest adoption of the Metric System, and another 
 part of American industry and commerce stoutly opposed to 
 any change in our present common units of weights and 
 measures? 
 
 Without going into all the details of an analysis of the opposition, I say, 
 deliberately, that the chief reason for this opposition is fear; and 
 fear generated very largely within the ranks of the opposition 
 itself. 
 
 Opponents of the Metric System have persuaded themselves that such use 
 of the system as this Association advocates would be 
 
184 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 enormously costly; tremendously disturbing; vastly confusing; 
 and altogether inimical to American industry and trade. 
 
 They have used up all the superlatives in telling themselves about the 
 calamities they fancy we are trying to bring upon our country's 
 business, and by this process of auto-suggestion they have 
 worked themselves into a state of fearfulness, behind which 
 they are now intrenched for an organized defense of their sacred 
 and archaic standards [60]. 
 
 I am persuaded that ninety-nine per cent of the opposition now existing 
 against the further use of the International Metric System in this 
 country is due to indefinite, over-enthusiastic, ill-considered, 
 and unconvincing language fired without preliminary observa- 
 tions from our own side of the line [61]." 
 
 Accordingly, Mr. McEachren suggested a constructive, low-key program 
 aimed at collecting authoritative evidence in support of pro-metric conten- 
 tions and at bolstering the integrity of the pro-metric cause in the eyes of 
 legislators and production managers. But his admonitions went largely un- 
 heeded. Seldom was the real problem seen by other participants as clearly as 
 Mr. McEachren had seen it, nor were others as charitable in their attitude 
 toward "the other side" as he had been. 
 
 As World War 1 was drawing to a close and American industry was 
 preparing for a "return to normalcy," the campaign, which had been largely 
 ignored, began to attract more attention. This was due to a renewed involve- 
 ment in the question by some prominent individuals and institutions. To 
 begin with, in June 1918, a committee of the American Society of Mechani- 
 cal Engineers issued a predictably anti-metric report dealing with the foreign 
 trade issue [62]. What made the anti-metric aspects of the report predictable 
 was that the committee was chaired by Luther D. Burlingame, an officer of 
 Brown and Sharpe and a future secretary of the American Institute of 
 Weights and Measures, and included as members Mr. E. M. Herr and 
 Frederick Halsey. In fact, one of the main items considered by the commit- 
 tee in reaching its conclusion was a paper prepared by Mr. Halsey for the 
 American Institute of Weights and Measures [63], and later reprinted in 
 modified form by the Society [64]. The main purpose of the committee's in- 
 vestigation was to report on the status of metric usage among American 
 business interests engaged in export trade. To this end, over 6,000 exporting 
 manufacturers had been asked to respond to a questionnaire, and 1,445 of 
 them had done so. The manufacturers had been asked to give graded reac- 
 tions to three statements [65] : 
 
 ( 1 ) "In our factory work, and in order to adapt our goods to the needs 
 of buyers in metric countries, we have found it desirable to abandon 
 English measures and use, instead, dimensions of our products to 
 the following extent:" 
 
 (2) "We have found it advisable to pack our goods in containers of met- 
 ric dimensions or containing metric weights to the following extent:" 
 
 (3) "In our literature for and correspondence with metric countries, we 
 
THE GREAT METRIC CRUSADE (1914-1933) 
 
 185 
 
 have found it advisable to give information regarding weights, out- 
 put, capacities, overall dimensions, etc., in metric terms as follows:" 
 
 These three questions had obviously been triggered by Dr. Stratton's asser- 
 tions in his 1916 report to the High Commission, and the metric opponents 
 must have been delighted with the answers. When the replies had been tal- 
 lied, the results were overwhelmingly anti-metric [66] : 
 
 Response 
 
 Question No. 
 (percent) 
 
 Question No. 2 
 (percent) 
 
 Question No. 3 
 (percent) 
 
 Not at all 
 
 Slightly 
 
 Considerably 
 Extensively.. 
 Exclusively.. 
 
 No reply 
 
 Other 
 
 Total.. 
 
 82.3 
 11.2 
 2.0 
 1.1 
 0.3 
 3.1 
 
 
 100.0 
 
 51.6 
 
 1.7 
 
 1.1 
 
 0.9 
 Negligible 
 
 6.8 
 37.9 
 
 100.0 
 
 57.8 
 19.3 
 7.9 
 5.4 
 2.6 
 7.0 
 
 
 100.0 
 
 Halsey's report on "The Weights and Measures of Latin America," issued 
 in December 1918, was just as negative about the status of the metric system 
 on the receiving end of foreign trade. Briefly stated, his survey had disclosed 
 that attempts to introduce the metric system into Latin America had been 
 failures. Basing his opinion on the returns from a questionnaire, 500 copies 
 of which had been sent to "outside agencies" in Latin American countries, 
 Halsey asserted that in only one country— Uruguay — had the metric system 
 been adopted for domestic trade [67]. In 10 other countries, he had found 
 that the metric system had made "very little impression" in spite of the fact 
 that it had been officially adopted. This failure to gain acceptance was at- 
 tributed by Halsey to the fact that governments had relied on laws to make 
 the system compulsory, But, he said, such laws were ineffective "because 
 established and harmless practice cannot, except in a technical sense, be 
 made a crime [68]." 
 
 In direct contrast to these two anti-metric documents, the expressed 
 opinion of Secretary of Commerce William C. Redfield was that metric 
 adoption would be more important to American foreign trade in the postwar 
 years than ever before. Addressing the Metric Association at its 1918 annual 
 meeting, he stated: 
 
 "I have heard men say that America can sell and is selling quantities of 
 goods abroad without the use of the metric system. Certainly 
 she has. She can do that to a certain extent, but compared to 
 what America could do if she would adapt herself to the needs 
 of the people abroad, it is like selling cheap remnants [69]." 
 
 Secretary Redfield also opened up a line of argument at this time that 
 would become very popular in the metric camp over the next few years. Not- 
 
 429-523 0-71-13 
 
186 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 ing that "Germany's industrial strength was due to the application of scien- 
 tific knowledge," he also observed that Germany had started to become a 
 large-scale industrial competitor "after '71 or '72." While the connection 
 between these two statements was not made by way of an outright assertion, 
 the implication was clear— 1 871 was the year in which Germany had adopted 
 the metric system. The rapid industrial growth of Germany, therefore, must 
 have been occasioned in no small measure by the fact that she had chosen to 
 use the superior, scientific metric system. At least this was what some sup- 
 porters of metric adoption chose to believe, and they felt that there was a 
 great lesson to be learned by this experience. They declared that the U.S. 
 ought to take advantage of it and they promptly set out to accomplish this 
 end. 
 
 C. THE BATTLE FOR PUBLIC OPINION (1919-1922) 
 
 Until 1919 the methods employed in debating the metric issue were not 
 significantly different from those used in previous campaigns. With the ap- 
 pearance of the World Trade Club in that year, the situation changed. The 
 Club's new approach to metric campaigning was heralded by one of its first 
 actions — the retention of W. Mortimer Crocker as its Washington represen- 
 tative. One of Mr. Crocker's main jobs was to keep the metric issue alive by 
 encouraging the introduction of appropriate legislation. This he was able to 
 do. 
 
 1. LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS 
 
 In December 1920, two nearly-identical metric bills were introduced, 
 one in each House of the Congress. 6 The Senate bill was filed by Senator 
 Frelinghuysen of New Jersey with the notation that it was being introduced 
 "by request." It was sent to a select Committee on Standards, Weights and 
 Measures, which never took action on it. On the House side, a bill was in- 
 troduced by Representative Britten of Illinois, and was referred to the Com- 
 mittee on Coinage, Weights and Measures. This bill bore the unmistakable 
 stamp of the World Trade Club — a reference to the metric system as the 
 "meter-liter-gram" system — although there was no indication that the 
 proposal was being made "by request." 
 
 Both of these bills were long and complex, but they had the identical pur- 
 pose of fixing the metric system "as the single standard for weights and mea- 
 sures" 10 years from the date of enactment. But the provisions of the bills 
 did not apply to certain activities. Specifically excluded, no doubt in an- 
 ticipation of stiff opposition, were: (1) contracts made before the effective 
 date of the Act; (2) "the construction or use in the arts, manufacture, or in- 
 dustry of any specification or drawing, tool, machine, or other appliance or 
 implement designed, constructed, or graduated in any desired system"; and 
 
 «S. 4675 (Dec. 16, 1920) and H.R. 15420 (Dec. 29, 1920)-66th Congress, 3d Session. 
 
THE GREAT METRIC CRUSADE (1914-1933) 187 
 
 (3) merchandise intended for sale in a foreign country. This meant that 
 manufacturers would be able to use any system they wanted in making their 
 products, just so long as the goods were sold and transported according to 
 their equivalents in the units of the metric system. Other provisions included 
 in these bills would have required: (1) that after 4 years, all weights, mea- 
 sures and related devices manufactured and sold in the U.S. (except for in- 
 dustrial use) be metric; (2) that after 4 years "any goods, wares or merchan- 
 dise in package form which are required by law to be marked in terms of 
 weight or measure" bear metric designations; (3) that at the end of 10 years 
 all postage, excises, duties, and customs would be charged or collected ac- 
 cording to the metric system; and (4) that existing Government regulations 
 and tariff schedules, regardless of how they were originally written, were to 
 be construed in terms of the metric system after the effective date of the Act. 
 The Secretary of Commerce was to be given the responsibility for imple- 
 menting the act and for publicizing the transition dates. 
 
 These bills were as close to being compulsory in their impact as the metric 
 supporters dared to come. Except for the provision that exempted manufac- 
 turing interests, which was a transparent attempt to take away the opposi- 
 tion's argument that their interests had not been considered or protected, vir- 
 tually all sectors of American society would have been converted to the met- 
 ric system under these bills over a 10-year period. The opponents of the met- 
 ric system, of course, were not assuaged by the maneuver. The other provi- 
 sions were so comprehensive, they felt, that manufacturers would have very 
 little choice in the matter and would be forced to adopt the metric system 
 along with the rest of the country. This, obviously, was just what the 
 proponents of the system had in mind. 
 
 These bills established the general pattern for metric legislation for the 
 next few years. In the 67th Congress, from 1921 until 1923, two similar bills 
 were pending. Mr. Britten introduced H.R. 10 (a significant number to met- 
 ric advocates) on April 1 1, 1921, and Senator Ladd proposed S. 2267 on 
 July 18 of that same year. The Senate bill was referred to the Committee on 
 Manufactures and hearings were scheduled to begin in October. 
 
 In the meantime, an entirely different class of legislation dealing with the 
 same subject was also being considered by the U.S. Congress. On March 26, 
 1920, Representative Welling of Utah introduced a bill, 7 "to establish the 
 standard and decimal divisions of the weights, measures, and coins of the 
 United States." Mr. Welling had filed this proposal on behalf of Mr. Samuel 
 Russell, the secretary to his Senate colleague from Utah, Mr. King, who had 
 introduced an identical bill in the Senate on February 20, 1920. 8 Mr. 
 Russell's idea was to establish the length unit of the customary system, the 
 foot, as the basic unit from which the others would be derived (volume being 
 defined in terms of cubic feet, weight being derived by cubic feet of water, 
 etc.). In addition, all multiples and subunits of this system would be defined 
 by utilizing decimal ratios, the foot being divided into 1 "decimal inches" of 
 
 7 H.R. 12850; 66th Congress, 2d Session. 
 
 8 S. 3943; 66th Congress, 2d Session. 
 
188 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 1.2 customary inches, the measure of volume consisting of 10 "decimal 
 cubes" (i.e. a cubic "decimal inch"), and so on. The coinage system would 
 also have been revised under Russell's plan. Quarter- and half-dollar coins 
 would have been eliminated from the system and replaced with 1- and 2- 
 franc pieces worth 20 cents and 40 cents respectively. Gold coins were also 
 to be minted in the following denominations: the pound ($5), the eagle ($10), 
 and the double-eagle ($20). 
 
 Except for the coinage provisions, Mr. Russell's proposal was essentially 
 a 20th-century revision of Thomas Jefferson's decimal-system plan of 1790. 
 It did not receive the support of either the metric-system enthusiasts or the 
 staunch defenders of the established customary system because neither 
 system was provided for under the bill. Nevertheless, the proposal was con- 
 sidered by the House Committee on Coinage, Weights and Measures in 
 1920 and the Senate Committee on Manufactures in 1921, most likely in 
 deference to Mr. Russell's official connection with the Senate [70]. Even 
 though neither of the Committees ever submitted a report on this proposed 
 systems of weights and measures, Mr. Russell kept on trying until 1922. 9 
 
 By that late date, however, it should have been obvious that there were 
 only two courses of action available to the U.S.: keeping the customary 
 system for all practical purposes or officially supplanting it by adoption of 
 the metric system. 
 
 2. THE PRO-METRIC CASE 
 
 The 1 92 1 Senate hearings on Mr. Ladd's bill were preceeded by 2 years of 
 flag-waving and ballyhoo designed to leave the impression that metric adop- 
 tion was the panacea for America's metrological ailments. 
 
 The pamphlets and other literature generated by the World Trade 
 Club/World Metric Standardization Council were outstanding examples of 
 the extreme form of publicity frequently employed by a few metric ad- 
 vocates during this campaign. In a pamphlet entitled Keep the World War 
 Won, for instance, America's temporary utilization of metric measurements 
 for military purposes and Secretary Redfield's oblique references to the 
 reasons for German industrial might were stretched to the point of 
 incredulity: 
 
 "One of the great victories of the world war was the defeat of an outworn 
 German jumble of weights and measures, and the adoption by 
 America and Britannia for military purposes — that is for pur- 
 poses of efficiency — of a simple and logical decimal system of 
 weights and measures. Peace must have its victory as well as 
 war. Now it is for us to apply the lesson learnt [sic] from the 
 world war to the activities of peace — to education, trade and 
 all the relations of life. We must adopt the metric units if we are 
 
 9 Mr. Russell's proposal was also introduced as: S. 565 (April 12, 1921); H.R. 8163 (Aug. 10, 
 1921); and H.R. 11733 (May 22, 1922). 
 
THE GREAT METRIC CRUSADE (1914-1933) 189 
 
 to make the best of our opportunities and keep the world war 
 won . . . 
 World Trade Club knows of no way in which it can so well do its bit in avoid- 
 ing another war as to aid in establishing the exclusive use of 
 meter-liter-gram in U.S. America and Britannia- bringing 
 about complete standardization of these nations with their 30 
 allies. 
 
 Our Weights and Measures Made In Germany — Forced Upon Us By 
 
 Germans 
 
 Strange as it may seem the present coinage of the British Isles as well as the 
 weights and measures of the British Isles and of America are 
 German. 
 
 The British pounds, both sterling and avoirdupois, originated with the old 
 German Hanseatic League, which for hundreds of years con- 
 trolled the trade of England . . . [T] he dominance of the Ger- 
 mans in England continued until a competent business manager 
 ousted the Hanse League from England — and it was a woman 
 who did this patriotic work: Elizabeth. 
 
 The Germans forced these old standards on the British, who in turn landed 
 them on America. America and Britannia were one until 1776. 
 
 Germany Herself Scrapt Them 
 
 What is most remarkable is that America and Britannia continue to use these 
 old German tools after Germany herself has scrapt [sic] and 
 forgotten them, and adopted the simplest, decimal system of 
 quantity expression ever known to human-kind — the applica- 
 tion of the decimal to weights and measures, the invention of 
 that truly great Briton, James Watt . . . 
 
 Germany adopted the metric system in 1871, and the secret of the much- 
 vaunted efficiency of the German military forces was that by 
 means of the metric units all elements in her educational, indus- 
 trial, commercial and military structure were standardized, with 
 all details fitting and working interchangeably together. 
 
 Confused Standards of the A Hies 
 
 The Allies, on the contrary, had at first, no such standardization and 
 interchangeable uniformity . . . Even British and American 
 measures were not interchangeable, with the result that great 
 and grave difficulties, long costly delays, interfered with their 
 doordination and efficiency promptly to aid their allies. 
 
 The Kaiser Counted on this Confusion 
 
 We know that the German Kaiser counted upon this confusion for 2 years' 
 delay in the war preparations of the allies. We know that he ex- 
 
190 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 pected to crush France and gain world power before the allies, 
 thus handicapped, were really ready to fight . . . 
 
 "Get the Thing Done" 
 
 ... As we stand on the threshold of world peace, let us prepare to reap and 
 garner the harvest of the trade that is attainable. At the same 
 time let us equip ourselves against possible aggression by mak- 
 ing ours the most powerful military asset of all, namely — ab- 
 solute uniformity of standard in world material. In world trade, 
 in world war, and in world education, we need meter-liter-gram. 
 It is a vital, desperate need. 
 
 There is no time like the present. It is the hour of destiny. We must take up 
 the exclusive use of metric units now. You, the reader of this 
 letter, can help [71]." 
 
 In a later pamphlet entitled Who Suffers?, Aubrey Drury, the editor/author 
 of this propaganda, took this same line of argument even farther afield. 
 
 "Suppose that [due to lack of metric standardization] the war was 
 lengthened only 2 months, what does that mean? It means this: 
 During every month of the World War 100,000 men were 
 killed; 200,000 were wounded or missing. Thus 2 months' delay 
 means the needless killing of 200,000 men; the needless wound- 
 ing of 400,000 more. It means that metric standardization 
 would have saved the world the suffering, the poverty, the 
 destruction of earning power represented by these 200,000 
 deaths and 400,000 injuries. 
 
 Need we ask here: "Who Suffers?" 
 
 Surely it would not be inappropriate to inscribe somewhere on some monu- 
 ment to heroes of the World War: 'Sacred to the memory of 
 those brave men who will never come back, who were needless- 
 ly killed because of lack of world metric standardization [72].' " 
 
 Such sentimentality may have won a few hearts and minds over to the 
 metric cause, but it was also tailor-made for the unsympathetic 
 propagandists of the American Institute of Weights and Measures, who sar- 
 castically observed: 
 
 "The World Metric Standardization Council . . . [has disclosed] a great 
 international secret. It has discovered that the Kaiser would not 
 have started the World War if England and America had been 
 metric! 
 
 Its literature teems with declarations that the continuance of the use of the 
 English system is a menace to the peace of the world, that this 
 war-god should be cast into outer darkness and that then under 
 the benign influence of the metric dove a heavenly peace would 
 settle upon the world, the Lion and the Lamb would lie down 
 together and enemy nations would fall into each other's arms 
 
THE GREAT METRIC CRUSADE (1914-1933) 191 
 
 and weep for joy. In this millenium all shooting irons would be 
 made to metric dimensions, with interchangeable parts, so that 
 the nations could shoot standardized metric bullets and men 
 could die, if need be, with a metric smile of content. 
 
 . . . Let us illustrate: Behold the brotherly love between metric France and 
 metric Germany. Observe how all the nations of metric Europe 
 are welded together into one great seething, writhing mass of 
 peace and goodwill. 'Keep the World War Won by Adopting the 
 Metric System,' shrieks the World Metric Standardization 
 Council, standing astride the Rhine and viewing the landscape 
 o'er [73]." 
 
 But there was no need to feel sorry for the World Trade Club, for it gave 
 the same treatment right back to its detractors. Posing the question "who op- 
 poses meter-liter-gram?" they answered: 
 
 "The profiteers . . . An element consisting of less than 1% of the people of 
 U.S. America and Britannia— an element actuated by selfish 
 concern for supposed advantage to their own pockets — an ele- 
 ment, a clique, apparently intent upon obstructing the military 
 efficiency and the industrial and commercial development of 
 U.S. America and Britannia [74]." 
 
 This view of the situation left Mr. Drury with 99% of the population favor- 
 ing metric adoption, and he was fond of mentioning the names and opinions 
 of as many of these as he could. In fact, he managed to fill a 200-page, fine- 
 print pamphlet with just such material [75]. Emphasizing the point that met- 
 ric supporters were "practical men" he listed and quoted from dozens of in- 
 dividuals, from the "pre-eminent" (Andrew Carnegie, Alexander Graham 
 Bell and Thomas Edison) to the unknown. Mr. Drury also presented an 
 overwhelming list of chambers of commerce and professional and trade as- 
 sociations which had gone on record as favoring metric adoption. The Na- 
 tional Chamber of Commerce was not on his list, although he tried (and 
 failed) to get the Chamber to submit the issue to a referendum vote of its 
 members [76]. The associations mentioned as favorable to the proposition 
 included not only a few large ones, such as the American Chemical Society, 
 the American Medical Association, and the American Pharmaceutical As- 
 sociation, but also a good many less well-known groups, the National Manu- 
 facturers of Soda Water Flavors, the National Kindergarten Association, 
 and the Association of Flower and Feather Manufacturers of America, for 
 instance. Virtually no field of endeavor was overlooked by Mr. Drury in his 
 effort to demonstrate the overwhelming demand for "world metric stan- 
 dardization." Although there is no way of judging whether or not such tac- 
 tics were effective in convincing legislators of the need for metric adoption, 
 Mr. Drury clearly believed that they would work and he devoted a great deal 
 of his attention to this phase of the publicity campaign he was conducting. 
 
 Another facet of this same general argument, and the one on which Mr. 
 Drury's claim of a 99% favorable reaction to the proposal was based, was 
 
192 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 the mass petition effort referred to earlier. As of the end of Ocotober 1921, 
 the petitions received were classified (by Mr. Crocker) as follows [77]: 
 
 Classification of Petitions 
 
 Regarding the Exclusive Use of the Metric System of Weights 
 and Measures 
 
 For 
 
 Against 
 
 Manufacturers and engineers 
 
 Trade 
 
 Education 
 
 Medical and surgical 
 
 Federal and State officials... 
 
 Agriculture 
 
 Accountants 
 
 Attorneys 
 
 Vocation not stated 
 
 Miscellaneous 
 
 Total 
 
 15,501 
 14,589 
 37,244 
 1 1 ,069 
 
 1,080 
 
 1,811 
 399 
 
 3,221 
 12,674 
 
 4,094 
 
 101,682 
 
 401 
 
 125 
 138 
 
 224 
 
 8 
 
 17 
 
 2 
 
 52 
 
 177 
 
 16 
 
 1,160 
 
 To the casual observer, this overwhelming "vote" in favor of the metric 
 system would seem to confirm Mr. Drury's claim that only a little more than 
 1% were opposed to the adoption of it. It should be borne in mind, however, 
 that these results were not the outcome of a carefully designed and con- 
 trolled public opinion survey but were, rather, the product of a publicity 
 campaign designed especially to elicit this very response. There was not 
 even an appropriate space on the preprinted form for registering disapproval 
 of the idea. Therefore, this "survey" was more representative of the size and 
 composition of the World Trade Club's mailing list than of the status of 
 public opinion on this issue. Nevertheless, the mere existence of so many 
 petitions in favor of metric adoption provided the advocates with a selling 
 point to use at Congressional hearings and in their literature. 
 
 Needless to say, the fact that the petitions had been sent to the Bureau of 
 Standards, had been stored there, and had been counted and classified using 
 public facilities was interpreted by the opposition as indicating that the Bu- 
 reau was underwriting the whole petitioning process. Allegedly, these allega- 
 tions were totally unfounded. In a letter to acting Secretary of Commerce 
 Ritchie, who had requested an investigation after receiving a complaint from 
 Mr. Dale, director Stratton explained: 
 
 "Card 'No. 9 1 and envelope 'No. 2' were not issued with the approval or 
 knowledge of the Bureau of Standards. Before any such cards 
 were received by mail at the Bureau of Standards, a large 
 number of petitions were sent to the Bureau from the White 
 House for filing. A few were later received direct by mail . . . 
 
 The World Trade Club of San Francisco probably circulated the petition 
 forms with addressed cards enclosed. As soon as it was 
 discovered by the Bureau, the Club was at once informed that 
 
THE GREAT METRIC CRUSADE (1914-1933) 193 
 
 the Bureau was not the place to address legislative petitions and 
 was requested to discontinue addressing such petitions to it 
 
 [78]." 
 
 But something was amiss. In a letter to Albert Herbert dated June 6, 1919, 
 Howard Richards, Jr. of the Metric Association said: 
 
 "I have conferred with a number of government employees and succeeded 
 in having the 'meter-liter-gram' petitions circulated by the 
 World Trade Club sent to the Bureau of Standards. Now this 
 was not altogether easy to do and the matter requires careful 
 handling. Mr. Halsey has been frequently in Washington and 
 spares no opportunity to attack Dr. S. W. Stratton and our other 
 friends who are in favor of the movement .... I would sug- 
 gest that you make no mention of the petitions as yet because it 
 is possible that the administration might order these petitions 
 referred to a special committee and put in charge of someone 
 unfriendly to the metric movement [79]." 
 
 As will be seen later, these machinations may not be attributable to Dr. 
 Stratton at all, but to his secretary of long standing, Mr. Henry D. Hubbard. 
 Mr. Hubbard was the primary point of contact at the Bureau for organized 
 metric interests, and there is evidence to suggest that he may have been 
 over-enthusiastic about the extent to which the Bureau should be aiding the 
 cause. 
 
 The need for some assistance in sorting, classifying and counting the peti- 
 tions was acute. With so many of them arriving in such a short time, it would 
 have been impossible for Mr. Richards or Mr. Crocker to have done this job 
 alone, especially with their other duties to attend to. If some of the Bureau's 
 employees were, in fact, actively assisting the petitioning campaign, it would 
 not be unreasonable to assume that they also helped to arrange for clerical 
 assistance. This fact was hinted at by several correspondents, including, 
 Richards, Crocker, and Drury, but it cannot be verified absolutely. Even- 
 tually the petitions were transferred to their rightful home, the Committee on 
 Coinage, Weights and Measures, where they sat in 13 file boxes in the com- 
 mittee room as a constant reminder of the uncompleted reform. 
 
 Mr. Drury's most ambitious undertaking was the compilation and publica- 
 tion of his "big book"— World Metric Standardization: An Urgent Issue. 
 This book, which sold privately for $5, was given away free to schools and 
 libraries and did not prove to be much of a fund raiser. Nevertheless, it was 
 what it purported to be, "a volume of testimony urging worldwide adoption 
 of the metric units" and, more than any other single document, it chronicled 
 the pro-metric crusade of this era. It contained, in revised form, much of the 
 material already published by the various pro-metric groups and individuals, 
 including the lists of metric supporters and the condemnations of "German 
 anti-metric intrigue" already mentioned. It also contained an extensive 
 bibliography of pro-metric literature and articles (one of Drury's favorite 
 slogans was "Look it up"), and a full chapter on the cost of metric 
 standardization. 
 
194 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 Although no overall estimate of the cost was made, dozens of authorities 
 were cited as evidence of how simple and cheap metric adoption would 
 prove to be. If any firm did indeed find that the cost was prohibitive, Mr. 
 Drury proposed that "these concerns should be licensed to use the old 
 weights and measures until all equipment made on the old base may be worn 
 out." The important thing was not to delay the needed reform merely to suit 
 the convenience of a few companies. Mr. Drury did, however, supply figures 
 estimating the loss to the U.S. and Great Britain that was resulting from not 
 adopting the metric system. This loss he estimated at about $774 million an- 
 nually and over $33 billion in total since 1783, the year in which Watt was al- 
 leged to have invented his decimal system [80]. The greatest single loss was 
 reported to be in the educational field, $441 million annually. Other major 
 losses were attributed to "waste of human life, time and energy," world 
 trade, and other business enterprises. The reliability of the advocates loss 
 estimates can be judged by the fact that they were based on educated 
 guesses and on such esoteric considerations as the "loss in earning power 
 due to driving out children from schools by difficulties of arithmetic as now 
 taught" ($25 million annually) [81]. For the most part, the cost estimates 
 made by the opponents were much more down-to-earth, although figures 
 were publicized only for those few selected companies that had taken the 
 trouble to calculate their costs. 
 
 Probably the greatest influence exerted by the World Trade Club's litera- 
 ture was not on legislators, but on periodicals and trade journals, especially 
 those published for scientists, engineers and educators. Throughout 1922, 
 for example, a running debate between various metric advocates and Mr. 
 Halsey appeared in the pages of Science, the journal of the American 
 Association for the Advancement of Science [82]. Other publications in 
 which metric publicity frequently appeared included Scientific American, 
 Valve World, and School Science and Mathematics. The extent to which 
 the appeal of the World Trade Club was picked up by other editors as 
 "good copy" is illustrated by the following extract from the October 1920, 
 issue of a magazine called GRIP\ 
 
 "Let us unite in securing the exclusive general adoption of the metric system 
 of weights and measures. Let each do his share in providing for 
 America the blessings of this long-sought essential, which will 
 mean the greatest forward step of this era and the conferring of 
 incalculable benefit on the nation of today and the generations 
 now rising and to follow. 
 
 • • • [A] year and a half of the child's school life can be saved by the exclu- 
 sive adoption of the metric system in our schools. 
 
 . . . The Allies were hampered and delayed — 200,000 soldiers were 
 needlessly killed and 400,000 needlessly wounded — because 
 the war was prolonged by the lack of coordination in the units 
 of weights and measurement. 
 
 . . . Our great export trade secured during the war can be held only by 
 keeping abreast with other nations in matters of standardized 
 packages, sizes, weights and measurements. 
 
THE GREAT METRIC CRUSADE ( 1914-1933) 195 
 
 . . . The Bureau of Standards at Washington under the able management of 
 Director Samuel W. Stratton, is using every means at its 
 disposal to enlighten the public on the metric system and 
 to encourage its general adoption. 
 
 . . . To give all the statements supporting the metric system would be to 
 publish the representations of 99% of mankind [83]." 
 
 The World Trade Club, however, was not the only active group support- 
 ing metric adoption at this time. The Metric Association was equally in- 
 terested in seeing the reform approved, it just went about its advocacy in a 
 different way. The most noticeable difference was that the Association was 
 much less publicity-minded than the World Trade Club. It did advertise its 
 views, of course, but its literature was calmer in tone and more reasonable in 
 its arguments. An occasional newspaper article, a few descriptive brochures 
 and reprinted speeches [84] , and the organization's annual reports made up 
 the publications program of the Association during the first 6 years of its ex- 
 istence. The obvious reason for this difference was that the Metric Associa- 
 tion did not have sufficient funds to mount a large-scale propaganda effort 
 even if it had chosen to do so, which it probably would not have done. It was 
 not a one-man publicity show but was, rather, a society comprised mainly of 
 professional people and educators. For this reason, the Metric Association 
 concentrated on increasing the actual, voluntary use of the metric system 
 throughout society and on building a convincing case to present to Congress 
 if and when the opportunity arose. 
 
 Individual Metric Association members, such as Mr. McEachren writing 
 in The Valve World and Arthur E. Kennelly writing for a variety of profes- 
 sional society journals, did a great deal to publicize the pro-metric cause and 
 to boost the activities of the Association. The beauty of this approach, of 
 course, was that it was all accomplished without cost to the organization. It 
 also struck home harder with the opponents of the system, because the arti- 
 cles were more respectable and less open to ridicule than was the material 
 put out by the World Trade Club. Perhaps for this reason, the sharp-tongued 
 publicists of the American Institute of Weights and Measures concentrated 
 their attack on "the San Francisco pro-metric propaganda," and were less 
 harsh less often in their accusations concerning the Metric Association. 
 
 Unlike the supporters of metric adoption, the opponents did not have to 
 wage a campaign to accomplish their goal. All they had to do was to knock 
 into a cocked hat the claims advanced by the "reformers." But the op- 
 ponents were not satisfied just to sit back and await each new pro-metric on- 
 slaught, and they were as active as the metric enthusiasts were in promoting 
 support for their cause. 
 
 3. THE ANTI-METRIC DEFENSE 
 
 The statement that without a strong pro-metric campaign there would 
 have been no need for an American Institute of Weights and Measures is a 
 truism. But there is no better way to explain why the Institute was con- 
 stantly complaining that metric supporters, or "the metricites" as they called 
 
196 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 them, were on the verge of success. Once the Institute had been formed and 
 made into a going concern either a total victory had to be won or some other 
 reason for its existence had to be found if the organization was to avoid a 
 premature collapse. Charles Latimer and his adherents in the 1870's and 
 1880's had had their faith in "pyramidology" to fall back upon. In a similar 
 manner, the American Institute of Weights and Measures made issues out 
 of berry basket and apple barrel bills. Federal regulation of weights and 
 measures proposals, and the administration of the National Bureau of 
 Standards when there was not enough pro-metric activity to warrant a major 
 English-system defense. Such a situation had confronted the organization 
 during its first 2 years, and it would return after 1927. In between, however, 
 the Institute had few problems in convincing would-be sponsors that anti- 
 metric activities on a large scale were essential to the protection of their 
 rights and interests. 
 
 Beginning with Luther D. Burlingame's replacement of Mr. Halsey as the 
 group's secretary in the spring of 1920, a time which also happened to coin- 
 cide with the World Trade Club's intense campaign, the Institute flourished. 
 In January of that year, publication of a quarterly Bulletin was initiated, a 
 formal "publicity service" was created, the number of pamphlets produced 
 was increased, and the second edition of Mr. Halsey's The Metric Fallacy 
 was released. 
 
 But the problem of obtaining additional support for the Institute's work 
 had to be tackled first. To this end, a concentrated membership drive was 
 conducted in late 1919 and early 1920. A very direct appeal was used: 
 
 "Do you want to be compelled by law to abolish the use of your present 
 system and substitute the metric system as the sole and exclu- 
 sive standard weights and measures in your plant and to suffer 
 the endless disorder and confusion and the enormous cost 
 which such a radical change would entail? 
 
 If you do not, then turn in and help the American Institute of Weights and 
 Measures fight this foreign invasion . . . 
 
 The American Institute of Weights and Measures ... is conducting a 
 counter campaign against the active and insidious propaganda 
 of the metric party, which is flooding the country with literature, 
 press items and 'news letters.' 
 
 Do not go to sleep, delay action and permit radicalism to control such a fun- 
 damental of your business as your established standard of 
 weights and measures. Therefore join forces with the Institute, 
 the only association specifically organized and equipped to 
 carry on the fight. You know there is only one way to put 
 through a winning campaign and that is to get behind it and 
 boost it along. If the Institute fairly represents your sentiments 
 we urge you to take out a membership, not as a charity, but as 
 a business policy, an insurance and in a broad sense as a public 
 service. Surely if the interests which would be seriously af- 
 fected do not support the Institute, no other can be expected to 
 do so [85]." 
 
THE GREAT METRIC CRUSADE (1914-1933) 197 
 
 Although Mr. Burlingame was to serve as the organization's secretary 
 only until September 1920, when he was replaced by Charles C. Stutz, he 
 made significant progress toward building up stable membership support and 
 increasing the effectiveness of the Institute's endeavors during those 
 months. As reported in the second quarterly Bulletin, issued in April 1920: 
 
 "[Our] Membership Campaign is proving so successful that we have sent a 
 second appeal to members who have not as yet sent us lists of 
 names urging them to do so . . . If we can have continued 
 cooperation we can easily double our membership . . . 
 
 We are pleased to see a gradually changing sentiment in the attitude toward 
 the Institute and its work, a feeling that we are helping manufac- 
 turers to protect their vital interests and a readiness to 
 cooperate rather than the old feeling that we are putting a bur- 
 den of cost or time on them which they seek to avoid. 
 
 The extreme activities of the so-called 'World Trade Club of San Francisco,' 
 with its liberally financed but meretricious propaganda, can 
 largely be credited with this change, and it is gratifying to see the 
 marked reaction shown, on the part of experienced men and 
 those who know the facts, against the specious and 'catch pen- 
 ny' literature sent from that source. When exposed by a presen- 
 tation of the real facts such methods can but prove to be a 
 boomerang to discomfort and bring defeat to those that use 
 them . . . 
 
 We are now in correspondence and conference with many hundred manufac- 
 turers relative to membership; with newspapers in publicity 
 work; with national and local organizations in order that they 
 may be in possession of the facts, to offset the visionary and dis- 
 ingenuous statements of some of those pushing for metric 
 legislation. This means an extensive mail campaign and much 
 printing [86]." 
 
 One such publicity effort had already begun. It involved the issuance of 
 several new pamphlets and leaflets, most of which were intended to coun- 
 teract similar publications by the World Trade Club. This was made obvious 
 in many of the titles selected: Endorsements That Count, Metric Belief Ver- 
 sus Metric Fact, "Simplifying" Our Weights and Measures, Why Force Us 
 to Speak A Foreign Language, The Metric Agitation, The Metric System 
 Condemned by Those Who Know, and The Six Metric Myths. Even the 
 techniques used were similar. In the pamphlet entitled The Metric System 
 Condemned by Those Who Know [87], for example, Mr. Drury's passion 
 for enumerating and quoting from authoritative sources was adapted to the 
 anti-metric case. John Quincy Adams' views were liberally cited, as were 
 those of many lesser individuals who had testified before Congress in op- 
 position to metric legislation over the last 50 years. The Six Metric Myths 
 were said to be like the story of George Washington and the cherry tree — not 
 factual, but widely accepted because of endless repetition. The author then 
 set out to explore these myths, which were that: 
 
198 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 "1. The system is in universal use except in the United States, the British 
 Empire, and Russia, and frequently Russia is placed in the met- 
 ric column. 
 
 2. The adoption of the system is easy and the transition period short. 
 
 3. There exists a confusion in our weights and measures and the system 
 
 should be adopted in order to get rid of it. 
 
 4. The system leads to an important saving of time in calculations. 
 
 5. The system leads to an important saving of time in primary education. 
 
 6. The adoption of the system is important in the interest of foreign trade 
 
 [88]." 
 
 This particular pamphlet was written by Mr. Halsey, whose views on this 
 matter had been expressed many times: "The metric system universal! In 
 mechanical manufacturers the English system is the overwhelming, prepon- 
 derating standard of the world." A subsequent pamphlet issued by the In- 
 stitute listed Some Reasons for Opposition to Compulsory Introduction of 
 the Metric System. The person responsible for this tract found that objecting 
 to six pro-metric assertions was not enough. Instead, he identified a full 57 
 objections to adopting the metric system, most of which were contained, 
 either explicitly or implicitly, in Halsey's refutation of the "six myths." 
 
 Halsey's swan song as an active officer of the Institute was the rewriting 
 and publication of a new edition of his book. The Metric Fallacy. His stated 
 intention was to confront Congressional Committees with it as "evidence" 
 of the size and strength of the opposition to proposed legislation, thereby 
 putting an end to metric agitation. Mr. Dale was not so optimistic about the 
 chances for success of this project, and he wrote Halsey to that effect in 
 February, 1919, saying: 
 
 "As for the new edition of the Metric Fallacy, I beg of you to forget it. It 
 would be living in the past, trying to make history repeat itself. 
 The first edition had no particular effect on the Committee fif- 
 teen years ago, that is, nothing anywhere near in proportion to 
 the labor and cost of preparation, and it is not likely that a 
 second edition would be any more effective, particularly if it 
 were the product of pastepot and scissors [89] ." 
 
 But Halsey had a second, and, to him, more compelling reason for going 
 ahead with the production of his book. As he put it in his reply to Dale: "It 
 seems impossible to get you to understand that I must place before our mem- 
 bers evidence of work accomplished in order to secure their continued sup- 
 port, and this book is the only thing I have in mind this year [ 90] ." 
 
 This, apparently, was a sufficiently convincing reason, for the new edition 
 of The Metric Fallacy did appear in 1920 [91] . Although the earlier chap- 
 ters were principally a restatement of the anti-metric case which Halsey had 
 been constructing for almost 20 years, the book was not merely the "product 
 of pastepot and scissors." It contained entirely new material dealing with 
 "metric jokers," "berry basket bills," and other alleged, indirect attempts to 
 secure legislative approval of the metric system. Another new chapter, enti- 
 tled "Specimen Flights of the Metric Imagination," was designed to draw at- 
 
THE GREAT METRIC CRUSADE (1914-1933) 199 
 
 tention to some of the flimsier pro-metric arguments by simply quoting them, 
 and adding a disdainful comment here and there. Another whole chapter, 
 based on material supplied by Mr. Dale, purported to be an "exposure" of 
 the underhanded methods employed by the World Trade Club and its 
 mysterious backer, Albert Herbert, who was referred to only as "Mr. Z." 
 After presenting a chronology of the World Trade Club's propaganda and 
 activities, accompanied by reports on "Mr. Z." submitted by five "in- 
 vestigators," Mr. Dale launched into an indignant condemnation of the San 
 Francisco-based operation: 
 
 "For one I wish to enter my protest against this method of manufacturing 
 and misleading public opinion. Before this propaganda to force 
 the metric system on the American people and make it a crime 
 punishable by fine and imprisonment to use our English weights 
 and measures goes any farther, I ask the Committee on 
 Coinage, Weights and Measures to call upon Mr. Z of the World 
 Trade Club to disclose his identity and give all the facts regard- 
 ing the mysterious and objectionable propaganda he has been 
 carrying on from San Francisco for the past 6 months, in order 
 that the people and their Representatives . . . may know what 
 the World Trade Club actually is and who is or are in back of it. 
 
 No individual or group should be allowed to carry on a propaganda under 
 cover of a misleading name, such as 'World Trade Club' for the 
 purpose of exciting popular clamor and by that means, securing 
 the enactment of special legislation by Congress or the Parlia- 
 ments of other countries [92] ." 
 
 Such attacks were characteristic of the way in which the metric campaign 
 was conducted during this era. The idea, of course, was to discredit the other 
 side as much as possible and to divert attention away from the real is- 
 sue—the feasibility and desirability of legislation to adopt the metric system. 
 It should also be noted that the American Institute of Weights and Measures 
 employed many of the same tactics that were used by the World Trade Club. 
 Two primary sponsors of the Institute, for example, were Messrs. Towne 
 and Sharpe, who carefully stayed in the background. Even the name "In- 
 stitute" and Mr. Halsey's assumption of the title "commissioner" may 
 have been selected in order to leave the impression that the organization 
 was in some way connected to a governmental body. And when it came to 
 publicity, the Institute was neither less prolific nor less emphatic than the 
 World Trade Club. 
 
 In fact, one of the first things the Institute did after Mr. Halsey's departure 
 was to create a special "publicity service" with the new funds secured from 
 its membership drive. As noted by Mr. Stutz in 1921 : 
 
 "Through its Publicity Service the Institute issues four newsletters during 
 each month for wide distribution and in addition prepares arti- 
 cles for publication in magazines, trade journals, newspapers, 
 etc. This service has been conspicuously effective in educating 
 and arousing public sentiment to the dangerous character of 
 
200 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 compulsory metric legislation. This work is absolutely required 
 if we are to build up and maintain a stable public opinion for the 
 defense of our American standards. It is the most fundamental 
 of any of the activities of the Institute [93]." 
 
 The so-called "newsletters" that the Institute produced were, in reality, 
 publicity releases dealing with various aspects of the anti-metric case. Some 
 releases were reproductions of journal articles or parts of letters that the In- 
 stitute had received from like-minded individuals, while others were formu- 
 lated entirely by the Institute's staff. Those in the former category were 
 usually issued under a descriptive title, such as "Railroads Oppose Compul- 
 sory Metric Legislation," "Colleges and the Metric System" or "Metric 
 Failure Acknowledged in Peru." Those in the latter category were generally 
 given more provocative titles, for instance "Thumbs Down on Metric 
 System," "Shall the Tail Wag the Dog?", "Metric Sophistry," and "The 
 Sugar-Coated Metric Pill," which read in part: 
 
 "Since the House Committee on Coinage, Weights and Measures in the 
 spring of this year failed to present a compulsory metric bill to 
 Congress, the metric advocates are now telling the public that 
 their aim is: 
 
 1 . To introduce the metric system GRADUALLY and 
 
 2. To urge "Metric Standardization." 
 
 To have to do this by law means the compliance to prescribed steps, each 
 with the time limit and each carrying its penalty for dis- 
 obedience, in other words, GRADUAL COMPULSION- 
 compulsion either prompt or gradual still spells compulsion. 
 
 The sugar-coating of "GRADUAL INTRODUCTION" and "METRIC 
 STANDARDIZATION" is not a sufficient disguise for the pill 
 itself, which still remains: "Metric Compulsion" and 
 "Scrapping of our present system [ 94] ." 
 
 As in the case of the World Trade Club, the American Institute of Weights 
 and Measures also had a ready-made market for its issuances in addition to 
 eliciting the attention of an occasional newspaper. These included Mr. 
 Dale's magazine. Textiles, and other important trade journals such as 
 Machinery, The Iron Age, American Industries and Industrial Manage- 
 ment. Without question, however, the American Machinist was the out- 
 standing anti-metric publication of this era. The magazine's policy over the 
 years had been dictated largely by the preferences of its editors-in-chief, as 
 indicated by the fact that it had sometimes been silent on the matter when 
 the debate was at its hottest. But under Frederick Halsey from 1907 until 
 191 1 the magazine had been officially anti-metric [95], and under Ethan 
 Viall from about 1916 to 1925 the American Machinist would again be a 
 leading anti-metric spokesman. Between January, 1920 and December, 
 1922, for example, no less than 50 anti-metric articles were featured in the 
 pages of the American Machinist, the majority of these (35) occurring from 
 January-June, 1920. 
 
THE GREAT METRIC CRUSADE (1914-1933) 201 
 
 Many such articles focused on the technical difficulties of metric adoption 
 that were likely to be encountered by the magazines principal readers: shop 
 operators, engineers and foremen. Above and beyond that however, Mr. 
 Viall carried on an extensive editorial campaign that was openly designed to 
 assist the American Institute of Weights and Measures in bringing about the 
 defeat of proposed legislation. This assistance was rendered in various ways. 
 For instance, one of the magazine's regular columns was called "What Other 
 Editors Think," and it highlighted editorials from similar journals. Anti-met- 
 ric articles that appeared in other magazines were frequently featured in this 
 column [96] . Special material in opposition to the system was also displayed 
 prominently from time-to-time. Letters to the editor, for example, were col- 
 lected and reproduced in batches under such titles as "What Real He-Men 
 Think of the Compulsory Metric System [97] ," and "What Leaders in the 
 Electrical Field Think of the Compulsory Metric System [98]." Mr. Viall 
 also printed letters from several companies who were then protesting the 
 unauthorized use of their names by the World Trade Club in its promotional 
 literature [ 99] . 
 
 At the heart of the magazine's position on this issue, however, was a series 
 of editorials written and signed by Mr. Viall himself. The objective was to 
 nullify the World Trade Club's drive to secure pro-metric petitions by start- 
 ing a counter-movement to generate anti-metric petitions. To achieve this 
 end, the magazine offered to supply appropriate postal cards, in any quanti- 
 ty, free of charge. The cards were addressed to the Chairman of the House 
 Committee on Coinage, Weights and Measures, and said simply: "I am 
 against all legislation tending to make use of the metric system compulsory 
 in the United States [ 100]." Readers of American Machinist were urged to 
 send for enough cards to include one in each piece of company literature and 
 to supply each employee with as many as he wanted. The World Trade 
 Club's cards, it was noted, were being mailed to Washington by the thousand 
 "by doctors, lawyers, school teachers and all sorts of people who know ab- 
 solutely nothing of real manufacturing or export conditions . . . This dan- 
 gerous propaganda must be counteracted by the same means the 'mil- 
 lionaire's club' has employed [101] ." Unfortunately, the final results of the 
 anti-metric petition campaign were not made public, although some of them 
 may have served as the basis for Mr. Drury's 1921 tabulation showing only 
 1 . 1 60 unfavorable replies. 
 
 The American Machinist also urged its readers to subscribe money for the 
 Institute's activities. In an editorial entitled "A Watch Dog of American In- 
 dustry" Mr. Viall exhorted: 
 
 "The pernicious activities and influence of the World Trade 'Club' with its 
 millionaire 'angel' to pay its bills, must be counteracted by 
 telling the TRUTH . . . [T]he American Institute of Weights 
 and Measures must have money to continue acting as the 
 'Watch Dog of American Industry' in guarding against the 
 passage of foolish compulsory metric legislation . . . Get be- 
 hind the Institute and PUSH [ 102] ." 
 
 This editorial was accompanied by a suitable cartoon which pictured afero- 
 
 429-523 0-71-14 
 
202 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 cious-looking English bulldog, wearing the name "American Institute of 
 Weights and Measures" on its collar, standing alertly in front of a door 
 labeled "Entrance to American Industry." The dog was being approached 
 furtively by a masked thug, called "World Trade Club," who was carrying in 
 his hand a bowling ball-like object with a sputtering fuse bearing the tag 
 "compulsory metric bomb." The caption for this cartoon read "This 
 Bolshevik won't get in if you keep the dog in good condition [ 103]." 
 
 As if opposition such as this was not enough to dampen Congressional 
 enthusiasm for metric legislation, the recently-formed National Industrial 
 Conference Board decided to investigate and report on this issue. The chair- 
 man of the five-man investigating committee was Mr. E. M. Herr, the pre- 
 sident of Westinghouse and a member of the Council of the American In- 
 stitute of Weights and Measures. Both Mr. Sharpe and Mr. Towne were 
 members of Mr. Herr's committee. Nevertheless, the Board's decision was 
 apparently not a foregone conclusion, for both Halsey and Dale were fearful 
 of a pro-metric report and were discussing between them how best to refute 
 it [104]. 
 
 The final report was a balanced one in that the chief contentions of both 
 sides were presented fairly. After reviewing the origins, development and 
 existing status of the two measurement systems, the extent to which the met- 
 ric and English systems were used in special fields was reviewed to deter- 
 mine: (1) the factors affecting use, and (2) the feasibility of changing. The 
 special fields considered were science and engineering; agriculture, mining, 
 transportation, and trade; manufacturing; and foreign trade. The Board's 
 conclusion, in summary, was that: 
 
 "[W]ith the exception of pure and laboratory science and wholesale trade 
 and with the exception of certain other industries and fields in 
 countries where the compulsory use of the metric system is 
 generally effective, in practically none of the fields of industry 
 and productive activity of major importance — such as agricul- 
 ture, mining, transportation, retail and foreign trade and the 
 manufacturing industries — in the United States and in other 
 leading countries has the metric system a widely enough 
 established use or position to readily displace the English or 
 other local systems [ 105] ." 
 
 The section of the report that was of greatest interest to the participants in 
 the now-raging controversy, however, was the one dealing with arguments 
 for and against substituting the metric system for the English system. The 
 section was organized according to the key questions to be answered, and 
 both the metric- and English-system proponents' positions were explored in 
 some depth. These questions, which were indicative of how the issue stood 
 just prior to the 1921 hearings, were categorized and stated in the following 
 manner [ 106] : 
 
 A . Intrinsic Merits of the Metric and English Systems 
 
 1 . Are the fundamental units of the metric system intrinsically superior to 
 those of the English? 
 
THE GREAT METRIC CRUSADE (1914-1933) 203 
 
 2. Is the manner of multiplication and division of units in the metric system 
 
 superior? 
 
 3. Are the units in common use in the metric system fewer and are their 
 
 names more easily learned and retained than those of the 
 English system? 
 
 4. Does the simplicity of structure, indicated in . . . the three preceding 
 
 questions, make the metric system more comprehensive than 
 the English? 
 
 5. In practical use is the metric system more convenient, more adaptable, 
 
 and more comprehensive than the English in filling the needs 
 that a system of weights and measures is called upon to fill? 
 
 B. Advantages and Use of the Metric System as Compared With the 
 English System in Special Fields 
 
 1. Is the metric system of advantage and in extensive use in calculations, 
 
 educational work, technical literature, etc? 
 
 2. Is the metric system of superior value and in preponderant use in 
 
 scientific pursuits? 
 
 3. Is the metric system applicable and very generally used in engineering 
 
 activities? 
 
 4. Do the advantages and use of the metric system in agriculture, mining and 
 
 transportation warrant a change to the metric system in the 
 United States? 
 
 5. Do the advantages and use of the metric system in manufacturing warrant 
 
 a change? 
 
 6. Would a change to the metric system be advantageous in domestic trade? 
 
 7. Would a change to the metric system be advantageous to the foreign trade 
 
 of the United States? 
 
 C. Practicability of Making a Change to the Metric System in the United 
 
 States 
 
 1 . Does the experience of other countries indicate that there would be seri- 
 
 ous general difficulties involved in making such a change in the 
 United States and what is the relation of compulsory law to 
 such difficulties? 
 
 2. To what extent and how would a change to the metric system involve the 
 
 destruction of established mechanical standards? 
 
 3. Would the cost of a change to the metric system in the United States be 
 
 prohibitive? 
 
 D. The Extent and Character of the Demand for a Change to the Metric 
 System in the United States 
 
 Is there a demand worthy of serious consideration for a change to the metric 
 system in the United States? 
 
204 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 E. Comparison of the Metric and English as Universal Systems 
 
 1. Is the metric system used by and large more generally than the English 
 
 system and has it other greater claims to becoming the universal 
 system? 
 
 2. Do the advantages and use of the metric system in certain fields warrant 
 
 its extension to all fields? 
 
 3. Are the chances of adopting the metric system increasing in Great Britain 
 
 and the United States? 
 
 The 1921 version of the answers to these questions was given in the Na- 
 tional Industrial Conference Board's Report, with emphasis being placed on 
 the superior strength of the anti-metric, or English arguments. The accuracy 
 of the Board's report would be confirmed during the forthcoming hearings. 
 
 Irrespective of the particular answers advanced at that time, however (and 
 most had not changed a great deal from those of earlier years), this set of 19 
 questions may be regarded as the classic statement of the metric controversy 
 in the U.S., from the very beginning until the present day. Congressional 
 committees have nearly always sought the answers to these very questions, 
 and the success or failure of metric legislation has largely depended upon 
 which questions were accorded the highest priority at different times and 
 which set of participants presented the most convincing replies to the most 
 important ones. 
 
 4. THE 1921 SENATE HEARINGS 
 
 The climax of the first phase of the 1914-33 metric crusade was the Con- 
 gressional hearing that both sides had been seeking. Between October 1921 , 
 and March 1922, the metric issue was debated before a subcommittee of 
 Senator Robert LaFollette's Committee on Manufactures [ 107] . This sub- 
 committee was chaired by Charles L. McNary of Oregon, who ran the 
 hearings almost single-handedly. The legislation under consideration was 
 Mr. Ladd's bill, 10 "to fix the metric system ... as the single standard of 
 weights and measures for certain uses" after a 10- year transition period. As 
 it turned out, the exact provisions of this bill were of no major consequence, 
 because the participants were determined to air all of the aspects of the met- 
 ric question at these hearings. This was done despite Senator McNary's re- 
 peated requests to confine the discussion to the provisions of the bill at hand, 
 but it was probably an inevitable occurrence after the two years of intense 
 campaigning that had preceded the hearings. 
 
 These hearings occupied 13 half-day sessions, 10 of which were taken up 
 by pro-metric spokesmen. In all, statements, both written and oral, were 
 received from 39 witnesses, 24 in favor of the bill and 15 against. But the 
 quantity of testimony was not a major factor in the decision that had to be 
 made. The issue was whether or not the supporters of metric adoption could 
 convince Senator McNary and his colleagues that the pro-metric conten- 
 tions should outweigh the arguments of the opposition. 
 
 10 S. 2267. 
 
THE GREAT METRIC CRUSADE ( 1914-1933) 205 
 
 Aside from the debate itself, an interesting skirmish developed over the 
 parliamentary procedure to be followed by the Committee in hearing both 
 sides of the issue. The proponents of the bill, who were organized by Mr. 
 Crocker and Howard Richards, Jr. of the Metric Association, were asked to 
 present their case first. This had apparently been arranged by Mr. C. C. 
 Stutz of the American Institute of Weights and Measures, who was in charge 
 of the anti-metric defense. By allowing the advocates to go first, Mr. Stutz 
 hoped to be able to make his case by presenting witnesses to refute the pro- 
 metric side on a point-by-point basis. At first all went according to plan, and 
 both sides had ample opportunity to air their arguments. But Mr. Stutz's 
 plans were shattered later when someone, presumably Senator Ladd, 
 received permission from Senator McNary to present additional pro-metric 
 material in rebuttal to the opposition's original case. After this was done, the 
 hearings were closed and the transcript was printed. But the fate of this 
 legislation was not to be decided on the fine points of parliamentary 
 procedure, either. The bill eventually expired while still in the hands of the 
 Committee. 
 
 In presenting their case, the pro-metric forces relied upon three types of 
 witnesses: scientists and educators, businessmen, and spokesmen for or- 
 ganized metric interest groups. The professionally-trained individuals were 
 there principally to explain the system's attributes and the advantages of 
 using it; the businessmen had come to tell the Committee of specific in- 
 stances in which it had been adopted by their firms and to prove that such a 
 thing could be done cheaply and beneficially; and interest group representa- 
 tives were anxious to convince the committee that the metric system must be 
 adopted and that the proposed legislation was the right way to do it. It also 
 became clear that metric advocates had learned a lot from the experiences of 
 earlier years. To a man, they all endeavored to present the system's ad- 
 vantages in a practical light. 
 
 Dr. H. W. Wiley, for example, former Chief of the U.S. Department of 
 Agriculture's Bureau of Chemistry, not only discussed the comparative ad- 
 vantages of the two systems but also emphasized the metric system's superi- 
 or features in the fields of education and agriculture. Since Senator McNary 
 had been a farmer, he paid particular attention to Dr. Wiley's views on met- 
 ric adoption and the farm community, which were that: 
 
 "[T] he farmer, of all businessmen, would be best served by this bill. There 
 is no other business where the confusion in the terms is so great 
 as in what the farmer produces and in what the farmer buys. 
 The idea of what a barrel is, or a bushel or a box, is so vague, so 
 uncertain and so fugitive, that a farmer in one State cannot have 
 any idea of anything more than [what it is] in his own State 
 . . . The moment he goes into another State he finds a different 
 value placed upon it. So there is the utmost confusion [1081." 
 
 This statement was illustrated by an accompanying chart, which indicated 
 the variation in weight per bushel of various farm products from state to 
 state. The official weight set for a bushel of unhusked corn, for example, 
 ranged from a low of 70 pounds to a high of 75 pounds, onions ranged from 
 
206 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 48 pounds to 57 pounds, and tomatoes from 45 pounds to 60 pounds. The 
 clear implication was that there was a tidy profit to be turned in buying 
 products by weight in one state and selling them by volume in another, 
 although no evidence was advanced to show that such practices were 
 widespread. Still, Dr. Wiley's opinion was that adopting the metric system 
 would provide the basis for eliminating such problems by virtue of the in- 
 herent relationship between the units of mass and volume that existed in the 
 metric system. 
 
 Speaking for the National Wholesale Grocer's Association, Mr. Arthur P. 
 Williams envisioned a number of economies that would result from metric 
 adoption: 
 
 "It will mean the elimination of thousands and thousands of sizes [of cans] 
 that we use today . . . 
 
 I believe that with the introduction of the metric system, when all those 
 would be eliminated and we would get down to a standardized 
 package, that the consumers of the United States would save 
 millions of dollars. I do not believe the average woman knows 
 what she gets when she buys a can that is marked 1 pound 4 
 ounces, 1 pound 5 ounces, 1 pound 7 ounces [ 109] ." 
 
 On an even more practical note, Mr. Theodore H. Miller, works manager 
 of the DeLaval Separator Company in Poughkeepsie, New York, related his 
 firm's experience in actually changing their operations over to the metric 
 system: 
 
 "With us this is not theorizing, this is not an academic discussion; we have 
 done it. We have a very complete and efficient system of cost 
 accounting. The cost of changing over to this system cannot be 
 found in the product. 
 
 . . . [ W] e simply changed the figures on the drawings and gauges most con- 
 stantly in use. I want to emphasize the fact that we changed the 
 size of nothing [110] ." 
 
 Additional testimony along these same lines was supplied by Mr. S. M. 
 Vauclain, the president of Philadelphia's Baldwin Locomotive Works, the 
 Nation's largest firm in this field at the time: 
 
 "[ W] e seldom know how good a thing is until we get to use it. We first object 
 to it. Later on we embrace it and swear by it. That might be the 
 case here. I remember when we were first asked to quote for 
 locomotives in the metrical system of measurement all my part- 
 ners threw the drawings down. I said, 'Why not? We will never 
 learn sooner, and I propose to build these locomotives exactly 
 in accordance with these drawings.' And it did not cause us the 
 slightest inconvenience. The bugaboo of tremendous mistakes, 
 spoiled work, and everything of that sort faded. We did not have 
 them [111]." 
 
 But Mr. Vauclain was not enthusiastic about the proposed bill before the 
 Committee, primarily because he felt that it wasn't strong enough. He 
 
THE GREAT METRIC CRUSADE (1914-1933) 207 
 
 pointed out that the legislation contained no provisions that were directly ap- 
 plicable to manufacturers and objected that "everybody could keep right on 
 making anything that they pleased except that . . . they would have to bill 
 it out in metric equivalents [ 1 12]." Instead of this, Mr. Vauclain preferred 
 legislation of the type proposed 20 years earlier, under which the metric 
 system would have been made obligatory on Government departments. This 
 course, he felt, would eventually lead to the desired end of gradual adoption 
 by the rest of society. 
 
 The executive branch of the Government, however, was certainly not in 
 agreement on the desirability or feasibility of increasing the use of the metric 
 system at this time. Mr. Henry D. Hubbard and Mr. H. W. Bearce, giving 
 the views of the Bureau of Standards on this issue (Dr. Stratton did not make 
 an appearance), attested to the advantages of the metric system in the Bu- 
 reau's work and gave examples of the beneficial impact that metric adoption 
 might be expected to have on the rest of the Nation. The U.S. Army and 
 U.S. Navy, on the other hand, sent representatives to present opinions in op- 
 position to the bill. In both cases, the agencies' stands were based upon re- 
 ports submitted by subordinate bureaus, which were fearful of the cost of 
 changing and of the possible effect on the country's military preparedness. 
 The Navy Department's overall opinion was illustrative of such objections: 
 
 "While academic reasons might under normal conditions justify this change 
 which would be far-reaching in its effect upon the material used 
 by the Navy, the conditions of the business of the country 
 makes the present time inopportune for pressing the passage of 
 the bill. Furthermore, before this country finally decides to 
 adopt the metric system, the other English-speaking nations of 
 the world should be approached in an effort to secure joint and 
 simultaneous action . . . The opportune time for the passage of 
 such a bill would be when the country is in the full flush of a 
 period of great commercial prosperity, when the burden of ex- 
 pense incident to the change would not be so deadening in its ef- 
 fect upon business. 
 
 The expense to the Navy Department, of adopting the metric system would 
 be very great even if spread over a 1 0-year period [113]." 
 
 With the exception of these two negative opinions as to the desirability of 
 the bill, and allowing for the extra emphasis that was being placed on practi- 
 cal considerations involved in adopting the metric system, the pro-metric 
 case followed the by-now traditional pattern of calm logic that had evolved 
 over many decades of attempting to secure favorable legislation. Even the 
 representatives of organized pro-metric interests, Howard Richards and 
 Aubrey Drury, were brief and to the point in their initial statements. 11 
 
 Senator NcNary, however, was apparently not being persuaded that the 
 bill ought to be passed: 
 
 "It is quite apparent that apothecaries, manufacturers, and engineers over 
 the country, are in favor of it, but they are a very small percent 
 
 11 Mr. Drury's was submitted in writing. 
 
208 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 of the great mass of people. Of what advantage is this system to 
 the average individual engaged in business; and how long would 
 it take such an individual to adopt the system, and would he do 
 it graciously? Those are practical questions . . . We are forcing 
 a great change upon the public for a few people who would 
 benefit by the change. It is from that standpoint that I want 
 some discussion of the subject [114] ." 
 
 Furthermore, Senator McNary perceived that several alternative ways of 
 accomplishing the same end were available to the Nation, including: (1) the 
 passage of uniform State laws adopting the system, especially for educa- 
 tional purposes; (2) letting the Government take the initiative; or (3) approv- 
 ing the bill as it was then written. He simply wanted to know why the third 
 alternative was considered preferable. When Mr. Richards tried to answer 
 him by stating that it was the one the people wanted, citing the 103,000 peti- 
 tions as evidence, Senator McNary countered: 
 
 "That is not the answer at all, if I may be pardoned for saying so. Propagan- 
 da is one thing . . . [but] you have not reached the masses yet 
 by any evidence that has been presented here. I do not suppose 
 there are five farmers in North Dakota that know anything 
 about this system ... I mention that State because my good 
 friend. Senator Ladd, is here, and who has introduced this bill 
 with the idea, and a very laudable one, to change around to this 
 system. I can see the advantages of it, at some time and some 
 place, as I can see the advantages of an international dollar . . . 
 But the problem is, how to approach these things. Must it come 
 through evolution or must it come through enforcing legislation, 
 and if so, how? That means more to me than all the tables you 
 can present [ 115] ..." 
 
 If the proponents of the bill were not able to supply good answers to these 
 questions, the opponents were more than happy to do so. To begin with, Mr. 
 Stutz filed a 50-page brief in opposition to the legislation that had been 
 drawn up by the American Institute of Weights and Measures. Following his 
 predetermined plan, Mr. Stutz's brief contained a point-by-point rebuttal of 
 the statements made by pro- metric witnesses. In answer to the plea that a 
 change would be inexpensive, for example, the Institute presented figures 
 showing: (1 ) that the cost to each artisan would be at least $2.50 (for masons 
 and blacksmiths) and could go as high as $32.60 (for tool makers); (2) that 
 the cost to each household of replacing common measuring tools would 
 range from $2.90 to $10.75, and that, with 28 million households in the 
 country the minimum cost would be $8 1 .2 million; (3) that the bill would im- 
 pose hardships on the farmer by destroying ingrained relationships built up 
 over time (such as price per bushel or per pound) and forcing him to use a 
 mixture of two systems; (4) that the railroads would have to change all 
 freight and passenger tariffs, entailing great expense and causing confusion; 
 and (5) that the cost to manufacturing firms alone would be astronomical if 
 an Institute survey of 31 firms, which had yielded an average cost of 
 $7 1 5 ,489 per firm, was any indication [116]. 
 
THE GREAT METRIC CRUSADE (1914-1933) 209 
 
 This method of presenting testimony, i.e. by filing prepared written state- 
 ments, was used almost exclusively by the opposition's witnesses. Most of 
 them appeared before the Committee in person to answer questions, but 
 their well thought out arguments and supporting evidence was contained in 
 these "briefs" that were simply handed to the Committee for inspection and 
 inclusion in the printed record of the hearings. Other briefs, for example, 
 were filed by Mr. Halsey (who stressed the "failure" of metric adoption at- 
 tempts in other countries); the Cleveland Twist Drill Company (which esti- 
 mated that it would cost them almost $454,000 to convert to metric opera- 
 tions); William C. Wilson, the Institute's counsel (who discussed the politi- 
 cal dangers of enacting radical legislation, among other things); Samuel Rus- 
 sell, the framer of the decimalized English system bills; and Samuel Dale. 
 
 Mr. Russell, who had really come before the Committee to advocate the 
 substitution of his own bill for the Ladd bill, attacked not only the principle 
 of metric adoption but even those who were supporting it. In so doing, his ar- 
 guments and general tone were more than a little reminiscent of those used 
 by Charles Latimer and the International Institute more than 30 years 
 earlier: 
 
 "We are fortunate ... in this free country that there is no bolshevist 
 directory to impose the metric system upon the country by ar- 
 bitrary decree as was done by the communist directory of the 
 French Revolution at the close of the 1 8th century. The Amer- 
 ican people don't want the metric system and the people cannot 
 be compelled to accept this futile thing for they have the power 
 to elect a Congress that will respond to the consensus of public 
 opinion upon this great question. 
 
 The English language, English law and English measures are the heritage of 
 the people . . . They exist by inveterate custom and universal 
 consent. And they exist independent of the force of any statute 
 or enactment of legislation. They are not to be abolished by ar- 
 bitrary statutes . . . 
 
 The greater the fallacy, the greater the number of volumes that may be 
 printed about it. Thus the literature of metricism is second only 
 to that of socialism, single taxism, and of other fallacies which 
 never lack adherents and advocates. It may be said that all 
 fanatics are sincere, the metric fanatics with the rest . . . [but] 
 Sincerity, zeal and assiduity are . . . not to be taken as proofs 
 of the soundness of any cult, cause or propaganda. 
 
 It is said by some that the metric system is inevitable and that its adoption 
 would otherwise be a desirable thing for the country. The truth 
 is that the metric system is neither inevitable nor desirable. 
 There are, moreover, no adequate or even sound reasons, and 
 certainly no advantages, for its adoption in a great commercial 
 country like the United States . . . There is nothing behind this 
 metric movement but the stimulation of artificial propaganda. If 
 the propaganda would stop, the whole scheme would die down 
 and die out. Outside of the few zealots who either from motives 
 
210 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 of pay or passion, carry on this agitation, the great mass of emo- 
 tionalists who have given a nominal endorsement to the metric 
 scheme, are in fact indifferent about it and respond only to ar- 
 tificial stimulation . . . 
 
 Of all the sickly sentimentality that is indulged in by metric zealots this claim 
 that the metric system has anything to do with peace or disar- 
 mament is the limit of gratuitous assumption. The peace of the 
 world in the present posture of international affairs depends 
 upon the unity of English-speaking peoples and the spread of 
 English liberty, English letters, English law, and English mea- 
 sures throughout the world. And the duty of the American peo- 
 ple is to retain inviolate our Anglo-Saxon heritage, both for our- 
 selves as well as for the benefit of all the nations, and for the ex- 
 pansion of trade and peace throughout the world. 
 
 And as for the metric system, let us consign it to innocuous desuetude 
 [117]." 
 
 It should be emphasized that Mr. Russell's views were typical only of a 
 very few anti-metric people. His testimony was neither given on behalf of 
 nor sanctioned by the American Institute of Weights and Measures. Before 
 Congressional committees, at least, the Institute did not choose to fight the 
 battle on that level. 
 
 Mr. Dale's conclusions, on the other hand, were typical of the message 
 that the Institute was trying to communicate: 
 
 "Summing up the truth about the English and metric systems, we find that 
 the introduction of the metric system by education is a failure; 
 that its introduction by making it the standard for Government 
 business is a failure; that laws forcing the people to use it are out 
 of the question; that any partial success in introducing the met- 
 ric system by any of these three methods is certain to cause the 
 incurable confusion of double standards, for once introduced it 
 will be impossible to get rid of the metric system, as it is now im- 
 possible to abolish the English; that as a matter of fact the En- 
 glish system we now have is far superior to the metric system it 
 is proposed to introduce; and that consequently it is a duty that 
 we owe to posterity to protect our established English system 
 so far as possible against any and all mixture with the metric or 
 any other alien system [118]." 
 
 That, stripped to its bare essentials, was the case presented by the opponents 
 of metric adoption. 
 
 In presenting their case in rebuttal to the opponents' stand, the supporters 
 of the Ladd bill adopted the technique of submitting written briefs. They also 
 pulled out all the stops in an effort to convince the Committee that there was 
 a significant demand for metric adoption: dozens of supplementary letters 
 were filed, names of hundreds of supporters were listed, and many pro-met- 
 ric resolutions that had been passed by various organizations were reprinted. 
 Most of this material was contained in a 97-page statement written by Mr. 
 
THE GREAT METRIC CRUSADE (1914-1933) 211 
 
 Drury that was little more than an abridged version of his forthcoming book, 
 World Metric Standardization. 
 
 As already noted, however, the quantity of testimony supplied was not a 
 major factor in determining the outcome of the Ladd bill, and Senator Mc- 
 Nary was well aware of the methods that had been used to secure much of 
 the "evidence." It cannot be said that the opponents managed to defeat the 
 bill. It was just that the supporters of it were not able to convince the Senate 
 Committee on Manufactures that the opposition was ill-founded and that the 
 bill ought to be enacted. As a result, the Committee did nothing and the op- 
 ponents had carried the day once more. This did not, of course, put an end to 
 the issue. It merely forced the advocates to withdraw and regroup. 
 
 D. THE FINAL ATTEMPTS (1923-1933) 
 
 Before the great metric crusade ran out of steam those advocating the 
 passage of legislation would get several more chances to successfully ex- 
 ecute their program. The decisive round came in 1926 when, after hearings 
 by the House Committee on Coinage, Weights and Measures, the 
 proponents failed to muster enough votes to secure a Committee report in 
 favor of the bill at hand. Although the campaign weakened rapidly after that, 
 the events leading up to these hearings were almost as numerous and 
 noteworthy as the activities that had taken place between 1919 and 1921. 
 
 1. LEGISLATIVE TRENDS 
 
 In the next few sessions of Congress metric legislative proposals were 
 modified slightly in an attempt to blunt the contentions of the opposition and 
 formulate a bill that would be acceptable to Congressional leaders. Mr. Brit- 
 ten's H.R. 10 of December 7, 1925, was characteristic of this type of 
 legislation. 12 It provided for "extending the use of metric weights and 
 measures in merchandising . . . from and after the 1st day of January, 1935." 
 It further specified that the metric system was to be used in: 
 
 1. Buying or selling goods, wares, or merchandise, unless permission to use 
 
 other weights and measures has been granted by the United 
 States Department of Commerce or by a State department of 
 weights and measures or by an authorized State official. 
 
 2. Charging or collecting for the transportation of any goods, wares, or 
 
 merchandise, unless permission has been granted to do other- 
 wise by any of the authorities designated above. 
 
 3. Postage, excises, duties, and customs charged or collected by weight or 
 
 measure by the Government of the United States of America. 
 Specifically exempted from the requirements of the Act were: 
 
 "1. The construction or use in the arts, manufacture, or industry or any 
 specification, drawing, goods, wares, merchandise, tool, 
 
 
 12 In a similar vein were H.R. 10 of Dec. 5, 1923 and S. 100 of Dec. 6, 1923 (68th Congress. 
 1st Session). 
 
212 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 machine or other appliance or implement designed, manufac- 
 tured, constructed or graduated in any system of measurement. 
 
 2. The ordering, buying, or selling of manufactured articles, such as tools, 
 
 machines, or parts of machines ordinarily known by or 
 designated in terms of any other system of weight or measure. 
 
 3. Any contract made before January 1 , 1 935. 
 
 4. The survey or description of lands within the jurisdiction of the United 
 
 States of America, or transactions in lands or real estate therein. 
 
 5. The sale of goods, wares, or merchandise originally intended for any 
 
 foreign country." 
 
 The bill also contained one other innovative provision which clearly in- 
 dicated the influence of the remnants of the World Trade Club: 
 
 "After the 1st day of January, 1935, the terms 'world yard' for the 'meter;' 
 'world quart' for the 'liter' and 'world pound' for 'five hun- 
 dred grams' shall be recommended for international use and ac- 
 cepted as metric terms." 
 
 This type of bill was indicative of the lengths to which metric supporters 
 were willing to go to get a bill (any bill) passed into law. From the above 
 provisions it can be seen that the only activities that would have been af- 
 fected in a compulsory way were "postage, excises duties and customs" 
 work of the Federal Government. All other fields were either ignored, auto- 
 matically excluded, or covered by various "escape clauses." Nevertheless, 
 the metric advocates beat the drum for this legislation as earnestly as they 
 had for stronger versions of it in earlier years. 
 
 Following the refusal of the Committee on Coinage, Weights and Mea- 
 sures to take action on this bill in 1926, a variety of other legislative tatics 
 were employed by metric supporters. These will be discussed later in this 
 section. 
 
 It should also be mentioned that, for a short time at least, Samuel Russell 
 continued to find Congressional sponsors for his proposal to decimalize the 
 English system of weights and measures. 13 All of these bills expired without 
 formal consideration, however, and they were not a significant factor in the 
 metric debate during the mid-to late-1920's. 
 
 2. THE CONTROVERSY RENEWED 
 
 For nearly 2 years after the failure of the 1919-21 campaign, the organized 
 pro-metric interests were silent. In fact, the World Trade Club stopped its 
 excessive pamphleteering altogether after the publication of Aubrey Drury's 
 "big book" in 1922. Although the exact reason for this discontinuance was 
 never made public, there are indications that Albert Herbert simply decided 
 to stop pouring money into supporting a tactical approach that wasn't prov- 
 ing to be effective. Whatever the reason, Mr. Drury began to concentrate on 
 
 13 Introduced as: S. 2070, Jan. 17, 1924; and H.R. 5942, Jan. 22, 1924 (68th Congress, 1st 
 Session); and H.R. 10736, Dec. 13, 1924 (68th Congress, 2d Session). 
 
THE GREAT METRIC CRUSADE (1914-1933) 213 
 
 building up sympathy among Congressmen and Senators and on cementing 
 relationships with the Metric Association from about 1923 on. Thereafter 
 the Metric Association served as the main spokesman for organized metric 
 interests while the west coast proponents played a supporting role. 
 
 In the autumn of 1922 an event occurred that would alter to some degree 
 the character of the debate during the next few years. In September, Dr. 
 Samuel W. Stratton announced that on January 1, 1923, he would become 
 the ninth president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology [119]. 
 This gave the American Institute of Weights and Measures the opportunity 
 to try to reverse what they had always claimed was the pro-metric attitude of 
 the National Bureau of Standards by influencing the choice of Stratton's suc- 
 cessor as director. In this matter the Institute turned to Mr. Dale for advice, 
 and the suggestions he made to Mr. Stutz became the Institute's official 
 position [120]: 
 
 "To my mind it is . . . important to show President Harding that a great 
 mistake has been made for the past 2 1 years in using the Bureau 
 of Standards as an instrument and headquarters for the promo- 
 tion of the metric propaganda. If the President could be con- 
 vinced of this fact and then should make the new director un- 
 derstand that he wanted the Bureau detached from the metric 
 propaganda the personality of the new director would not be of 
 so much importance. 
 
 The trouble in the past arose from the fact that Stratton had grown up with 
 the Bureau and became a bureaucratic czar to whom Congress 
 and the executive departments deferred to a great extent. A new 
 man will not possess this prestige and for that reason it will be 
 comparatively easy to put an end to the metric propaganda in 
 the Bureau of Standards if the President should give the word to 
 that effect [121]." 
 
 "I am sure that the best plan for the American Institute of Weights and Mea- 
 sures is to avoid any special effort to secure the appointment of 
 any particular man as director ... If you avoid espousing the 
 cause of any man . . . your position will be greatly 
 strengthened and it will . . . leave President Harding and 
 Secretary Hoover to make the appointment on considerations 
 of the man's ability as a scientist, technician and administrative 
 officer . . . 
 
 [P]ut your main effort on getting the policy of the Bureau of Standards 
 changed [122]." 
 
 The man chosen to replace Dr. Stratton was George Kimball Burgess, a 
 staff member of the Bureau since 1903 and its chief physicist at the time of 
 his appointment [123]. For about a year, Mr. Dale and the Institute care- 
 fully avoided the publication of any further charges against the Bureau while 
 they awaited some indication of what Dr. Burgess' position would be. By 
 December, Dale had decided: 
 
 "It is my conviction based on observation during the past year that the Bu- 
 
214 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 reau of Standards is as dangerous an agency for the promotion 
 of the metric system as it ever was under the administration of 
 Dr. Stratton who retired just 1 year ago. In some respects it is 
 more dangerous because the retirement of Stratton has lulled 
 many into the belief that the danger has disappeared [ 1 24]." 
 
 Mr. Dale did not attribute this problem to Dr. Burgess' own attitude. Rather, 
 he believed that individual employees were carrying on the objectionable ac- 
 tivities without Dr. Burgess' knowledge. Nevertheless, Mr. Dale was con- 
 vinced that the problem continued to exist and he resumed his efforts to put 
 a stop to the Bureau's "pro-metric agitation." 
 
 What was actually going on at the Bureau during these months is probably 
 revealed most clearly by a set of notes written by Aubrey Drury after a trip 
 East in the spring of 1923. He had called on Dr. Stratton in Boston and re- 
 ported that Stratton "was very bitter against Samuel S. Dale." Mr. Drury 
 had also paid a visit to the National Bureau of Standards, where he had 
 talked to the Bureau's secretary of many years, Henry D. Hubbard. Of this 
 visit, Mr. Drury reported: 
 
 "He was overwhelmingly cordial — more so than any seen on the trip. He is 
 a great admirer of the metric campaign conducted from San 
 Francisco ... He declared that Dr. Burgess was likely to be 
 more active in favor of metrics than Dr. Stratton was toward the 
 last, when he considered him lukewarm and somewhat in- 
 timidated. He said, 'Dr. Burgess was long resident in France, 
 and knows the advantages of the metric system throughly. He 
 is fearless and not likely to be silenced.' Confidentially, he 
 spoke with displeasure against the stand of Herbert Hoover. 14 
 He said, 'Hoover seems to think that we aren't going to discuss 
 this metric advance until he waves his hand. We are not going to 
 let him hold back this progress any longer. It is too big a thing to 
 wait on one man's bidding.' This, of course, is confidential, as 
 Hoover is Hubbard's chief. Hubbard inferred that it was he, and 
 not Dr. Stratton, that wrote the article, "Metric Units in the Ex- 
 port Trade [125] [sic.]" 
 
 If the substance of this private memorandum was accurate, it certainly 
 justified many of the suspicions harbored by Mr. Dale over the years and, in 
 particular, confirmed his belief that a few individual staff members were car- 
 rying on pro-metric work at that time behind the back of Dr. Burgess. Henry 
 Hubbard had been Dr. Stratton's personal choice for the Bureau's secretary 
 in 1901 , and it is quite possible that he had also conducted a lot of pro-metric 
 activity from the Bureau's facilities during these years without Dr. Stratton's 
 knowledge. There can be no doubt as to whether Dr. Stratton was in favor of 
 metric adoption; but it may very well have been Mr. Hubbard who com- 
 mitted many of the indiscretions for which Dr. Stratton was blamed, includ- 
 
 14 In spite of repeated attempts by Drury and others to convince Secretary Hoover to throw 
 his prestige behind the metric system, Mr. Hoover steadfastly refused to commit himself, the 
 Department of Commerce or the Bureau of Standards to a position on the issue. 
 
THE GREAT METRIC CRUSADE (1914-1933) 215 
 
 ing the episode in 1919 with the World Trade Club's petitions. As to Dr. 
 Burgess' position, it was simply this: he considered adoption of the metric 
 system desirable from the standpoint of achieving national and international 
 uniformity, but he felt that compulsory legislation to achieve it was "inad- 
 visable [126]." 
 
 On the whole, however, neither the advocates nor the opponents of metric 
 legislation found much to get excited over in the year 1923. Bills were still 
 being introduced, though, and the American Institute of Weights and Mea- 
 sures was preparing to meet any new challenge. For this reason, and perhaps 
 because the staff found themselves with some time to kill, a new booklet was 
 put together by the Institute and released in May, 1924. Entitled Our Amer- 
 ican System of Weights and Measures: Why We Should Keep It, it was writ- 
 ten to appeal to popular audiences. Among other things it discussed the ad- 
 vantages of the English system and pointed out how successful American in- 
 dustries had been in applying it: 
 
 "(1) Seventy percent of the world output of steel is manufactured in the 
 United States and Great Britain. 
 
 (2) Approximatley two-thirds of the world production of machine tools is 
 
 made to the inch. 
 
 (3) Eighty percent of the world production of screw threads is made to the 
 
 inch. 
 
 (4) The United States manufactures 90 percent of the world production of 
 
 motor vehicles. 
 
 (5) Approximately two-thirds of the commerce of the world in manufac- 
 
 tured products is on the basis of the English-American system 
 of weights and measures [127]." 
 
 The "metricites," they claimed, were trying to upset this situation 
 needlessly by forcing compulsory legislation upon the American people: 
 
 "Perhaps there was never a time when reform movements were so plentiful 
 or so insistent as now . . . 
 
 The metricite is a reformer. He wants to reform our system of weights and 
 measures. He has been at it for over a century. Our customary 
 English system has become so abhorrent to him that he sees red 
 whenever he looks at it. It appears to him to be a monstrous 
 relic of a barbarous age. It is a menace to progress. Its con- 
 tinuance is a stigma on 20th century intelligence. It must be 
 uprooted and thrown out — root and branch — by the strong arm 
 of the law. Surely the metric zealot runs true to form [128]." 
 
 Five thousand copies of this booklet were distributed to members of the In- 
 stitute and to various publicity sources in anticipation of a renewed "metric 
 assult." The Institute did not have very long to wait. 
 
 Shortly thereafter the first Pan-American Standardization Conference 
 was scheduled. It was to be held at Lima, Peru, in December 1924 for the 
 purpose of establishing "a medium or mediums for inter-American exchange 
 of ideas, thoughts, practices, conclusions, etc. concerning . . . problems of 
 standardization [129]." In other words, it was hoped that some sort of 
 
216 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 treaty or agreement could be reached under which a process of international 
 standardization for industrial products and related materials could begin. 
 According to Albert W. Whitney, head of the American delegation: 
 
 "It is my understanding that the Conference will be nontechnical in the 
 sense that no actual standards will be adopted and no technical 
 decisions will be made and the whole effort will be directed 
 toward the building up of a harmonious sentiment favorable to 
 international standardization out of which a cooperative un- 
 dertaking may issue [ 1 30] ." 
 
 In spite of this limitation, Aubrey Drury and his associates seized upon 
 the Conference as an ideal chance to further the metric cause by interna- 
 tional action. Consequently, the name of his organization was changed once 
 again, this time to "The All-America Standards Council," and he an- 
 nounced: 
 
 "Metric advocates declare that the forthcoming event offers an un- 
 precedented opportunity for the United States of America to 
 advance logically to the metric commodity units [for containers 
 and package sizes] . Accordingly, it is being urged that the topic 
 of metric standardization hold prominent place on the program 
 at the Lima conference and that a resolution be passed calling 
 upon the United States of America to standardize with all the 
 rest of the American republics upon the world units . . . 
 
 It is confidently expected that, as a result of [such] action . . . the Con- 
 gress of the United States of America (which also convenes in 
 December) will be moved to enact definite legislation providing 
 for a gradual transition to the metric commodity quantity 
 standards . . . When this transition shall have been brought 
 about, all the American republics will then be on a uniform basis 
 for interchange of commodities [ 1 3 1 J. " 15 
 
 But Mr. Whitney wanted no part of this issue. In a letter addressed to all 
 three groups interested in the metric system he said, 
 
 "I have received inquiries from some of your members about my position on 
 the metric question in connection with the work of the Pan- 
 American Standardization Conference . . . 
 
 It is my opinion that . . . the whole question of units of weight and measure 
 should [eventually] receive full and frank discussion, but that 
 it would be a mistake if this subject were brought up for discus- 
 sion at the present time. 
 
 ... To inject a question which is not only technical but highly controversial 
 into an occasion in which harmony and calm judgment should 
 prevail would tend to divert attention from the more essential 
 purposes of the Conference and perhaps jeopardize its success 
 [132]." 
 
 15 Except Canada, which Mr. Drury had either forgotten or not classified as a "republic." 
 
THE GREAT METRIC CRUSADE (1914-1933) 217 
 
 Although the subject of metric usage was raised at the Conference, by one of 
 the South American delegates, and was spoken against by Mr. Dale, who 
 was attending on behalf of the Carded Woolen Manufacturers' Association, 
 the subject was disposed of by referring it to a "commission" for study and 
 consideration at the next conference [ 133]. Mr. Dale did report his belief 
 that the Conference as a whole was almost unanimously in favor of using the 
 metric system for its work. He hoped, however, that the investigating com- 
 mittee would give the opponents ample opportunity "to place the facts about 
 weights and measures before the people of Pan America [ 1 34] ." 
 
 Because of the Conference's failure to take definite action favorable to the 
 metric system and because Congressional committees declined to hold more 
 hearings on the issue immediately, the sense of urgency that Mr. Drury had 
 been hoping to stir up did not materialize. Consequently, 1925 was also a 
 comparatively calm year for metric advocates and opponents. In October, 
 however, an indication of things to come was provided by the Metric As- 
 sociation when it began to publish a quarterly journal, called Measurement. 
 This was the first regular publication to be sustained by a pro-metric interest 
 group since the American Metrological Society ceased publication of its 
 Proceedings in the late 1880's. The unusual thing is that it took so long for 
 the Metric Association to initiate this method of carrying on a campaign, but 
 limited finances may have been a major obstacle. It is also interesting to note 
 that two of the most frequent contributors of articles for Measurement were 
 Aubrey Drury and Henry Hubbard. In fact, the lead article in the first 
 number of this new journal was authored by Mr. Hubbard. Entitled "Mea- 
 surement: The Master Art," it was a short discourse on the importance of 
 measurement to society and made no reference to the metric system. 
 
 In 1926, promotional and other activities aimed at securing metric legisla- 
 tion reached another peak, particularly on the legislative front. This was to 
 be the last real opportunity for the supporters of the metric system to 
 achieve their goal, and, for awhile, it appeared as if they might succeed. 
 After repeated setbacks involving a number of different legislative tactics, 
 however, it became evident that metric legislation was not going to be 
 enacted in this era. either, and the matter was again set aside to await more 
 favorable circumstances. 
 
 3. 1926 HOUSE HEARINGS 
 
 In February and March 1926, the House Committee on Coinage, Weights 
 and Measures held its first hearings on a metric adoption bill in 20 years. The 
 legislation they were considering was congressman Britten's H.R. 10, to ex- 
 tend "the use of the metric weights and measures in merchandising" over a 
 10-year period. As this bill had only been introduced in December, the 
 scheduling of hearings to begin in February represented very short notice 
 and caught both sides a little off guard. 
 
 As might be expected, the American Institute of Weights and Measures 
 charged that the short notice was an attempt to prevent the opposition's ar- 
 guments from being heard: 
 
 "Well knowing the opposition existing in the country to compulsory metric 
 
 429-523 0-71-15 
 
218 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 legislation, the only hope of the metric propaganda to push 
 through the Committee the Britten bill lay in their ability to 
 keep the opposition asleep while at the same time bringing into 
 play their limited but persistent forces. 
 
 To accomplish this, it was necessary to keep as secret as possible the holding 
 of hearings on the bill they had arranged for, and to divulge this 
 date to their opponents only two days in advance . . . 
 
 Through such tactics it was expected to find industry and trade unprepared 
 and unable to properly voice organized disapproval of the bill 
 [135]." 
 
 The proponents, of course, replied that they had received no more ad- 
 vance notice than the Institute had, and this was probably true in a formal, 
 official sense. But they, at least, had the advantage of knowing for certain 
 that hearings would be held, and that they would occur early in the year. As 
 indicated by a letter from Mr. Britten to Aubrey Drury of December 18, 
 1925: 
 
 "A line to let you know that I have just talked with Hon. Randolph Perkins 
 . . . and we have agreed to meet directly after the holidays 
 and to set a date for hearings on H.R. 10. 
 
 Do you think that the hearings should be set for the month of January or do 
 you think (as I do) that Monday, February 1st would be a good 
 date to start our public hearings, prior to which time every 
 member of the committee could have heard from the manufac- 
 turers in his district, his state and the country on the important 
 piece of legislation . . . [ I] t would be up to someone (or vari- 
 ous people) to see that every member of the committeee is not 
 only well posted as to what is going on but they should be com- 
 municated with from every direction and great care must be 
 taken not to 'circularize' these communications. 
 
 In other words, form letters and stereotyped letters might just as well not be 
 written for they will destroy rather than help our case [ 1 36] ." 
 
 Any advantage that this inside information might have given to the 
 proponents, however, was effectively nullified when the Institute was given 
 until March 1 8 to prepare its main case (a full 6 weeks after the start of the 
 hearings). It was also compensated for by the fact that all of the pro-metric 
 witnesses were to be heard first, and this time there would be no opportunity 
 to submit lengthy rebuttal material after the opposition had closed its argu- 
 ments. Mr. Dale saw to that by complaining to the House Committee about 
 the preferential treatment accorded to the proponents by the Senate Com- 
 mittee in 1921 and by calling for a full statement of the proponents case be- 
 fore hearing the opposition's witnesses. "We will be brief," he said, "but we 
 want to be sure their case is all in, so that we can study it and in as few words 
 as possible and in as little time as possible give you a final answer and turn 
 aside all this mass of error and tell you the truth about the weights and mea- 
 sures of the United States [ 137] ." 
 
THE GREAT METRIC CRUSADE (1914-1933) 219 
 
 Beginning on February 1 , 1926, then, the second (and most crucial) metric 
 hearings of the great metric crusade were held. Testimony was taken from 
 46 witnesses, and this time the opponents had the edge — 27 witnesses to 19 
 for the advocates. According to the accounts of both sides, the hearings were 
 well-attended. There was also a great interest shown by members of the 
 Committee, as evidenced by the fact that a majority of them participated in 
 the questioning at least one time. 
 
 The "traffic manager" for the pro-metric witnesses was none other than 
 the bill's sponsor, Rep. Britten, and he was the first to speak in its behalf. His 
 testimony was principally a recitation of how many notables were in favor of 
 the metric system's adoption: 
 
 "I doubt ... if there is another piece of legislation anywhere on 'Capitol 
 Hill' that could get back of it the galaxy of big men that this bill 
 has behind it. It has behind it such men as General Pershing, 
 Thomas A. Edison, and men of similar type and standing . . . 
 
 Men like Samuel Vauclain, head of the Baldwin Locomotive Works, are be- 
 hind this bill. Surely, that type of man would not be back of a bill 
 of this kind unless it had some merit to it . . . 
 
 Statements coming from men like that to your committee will, of course, be 
 given the weight to which they are entitled. There will be op- 
 position to this bill by those who are always opposed to 
 anything of this kind . . . 
 
 This bill is not going to affect the farmer or the real estate man. It gives the 
 manufacturer 10 years within which to make such changes as 
 may be necessary in his equipment. His dies wear out within 10 
 years. His equipment certainly appreciably wears out in 10 
 years. During that time he can change from our present system 
 into the decimal system, and the length of time is very largely 
 dependent upon the character of the institution [138] ." 
 
 With very few exceptions, the pro-metric witnesses that followed bore a 
 much closer resemblance, both in credentials and in testimony, to the metric 
 advocates of two, three and even five decades earlier than they did to those 
 of a scant 4 years ago. Mr. Joy Elmer Morgan, editor of the journal of the 
 ational Education Association, for instance, had this to say: 
 
 "I wish everyone could visualize the time it takes to teach our children these 
 confusing systems, and the utter hopelessness of the 2,000,000 
 children in America trying to study and fix in their minds these 
 units that we ourselves can not remember. With the metric 
 system they would be taught just one thing, and they would au- 
 tomatically known all the rest. They would be taught the meter 
 and its subdivisions. They would know that you could take one- 
 tenth of that meter and square it and you would have the world 
 quart [ sic] , and that the world quart would have just one kilo- 
 gram [139]." 
 
 Other testimony along familiar lines was given by Charles L. Parsons, 
 Secretary of the American Chemical Society, who told of the resolutions 
 
220 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 favoring the metric system that the Society had passed and stated: 
 
 "We [chemists] use it in our daily life and have used it regularly ever since 
 we were at college . . . We use no other, except as we are 
 forced to do so when we come in contact with ordinary trade 
 and commerce [ 140] ." 
 Then Dr. J. Finley Bell, an Englewood. New Jersey physician, related how 
 he had successfully introduced the metric system into the children's depart- 
 ment of the local hospital in 1919 [141], Mr. Theodore Miller of the De 
 Laval Separator Company and Dr. Harvey W. Wiley, retired chief of the Bu- 
 reau of Chemistry, reiterated the testimony they had given in 1921. and 
 another old friend of the metric system, electrical engineer Arthur E. Ken- 
 nelly, observed that: 
 
 "The metric system has made, to my knowledge, remarkable advances in 
 this country during the last 25 years. We are, in my opinion, al- 
 ready in a condition of transition from the original English 
 system of weights and measures toward the metric system. For 
 instance, the units employed commercially and industrially in 
 electrical engineering are all metric in the sense that they are 
 based upon the metric system . . . 
 
 The optometrists and oculists use the metric system exclusively in their 
 work of manufacturing and providing lenses for spectacles and 
 eyeglasses. The metric system is used in radio to a very large 
 extent . . . 
 
 The question, as it appears to my mind, is not as to whether the metric 
 system should come into use, but only as to what date and when 
 it shall be generally used [ 142] . . ." 
 
 In short, the case still being put forward by the pro-metric witnesses, most of 
 whom were scientists, educators and professional men, was that the metric 
 system was the superior one, that its practical uses were growing, and that its 
 eventual acceptance was only a question of time. 
 
 By this time, the anti-metric case had also become "standardized" to a 
 great degree. Mr. Stutz, for instance, listed the individuals, firms and as- 
 sociations who were against metric adoption and gave his views as to why 
 the bill would be "compulsory" in its effect. Mr. Dale told of the "confusion 
 and chaos" that existed in Latin America and elsewhere because dual 
 systems were being employed, went into the details of the erroneous state- 
 ments made by "metricites." and once again attacked the anonymous "Mr. 
 Z" and the San Francisco propaganda campaign. 
 
 The railroad interests turned out in force to oppose the Britten bill. Mr. 
 John R. Leighty of the Southern Railway, for example, estimated the 
 minimum cost to his road as follows [ 143] : 
 Additional investment cost: 
 
 Changing mileposts $1,835,000 
 
 Changing tariffs 100,000,000 
 
 Changing standard plans 15,000,000 
 
 Change in shop machinery, tools, etc. and additional stock of supplies 2 1 6,000,000 
 
 Total 332,835,000 
 
THE GREAT METRIC CRUSADE (1914-1933) 221 
 
 Additional annual cost: 
 
 Maintenance of property 60,000,000 
 
 Six percent on additional investment 19,970,000 
 
 Total 79,970,000 
 
 Other major corporations and associations also sent representatives to op- 
 pose the bill for reasons of cost or inconvenience, including the American 
 Telephone and Telegraph Co., Warner and Swazey Co., the Cleveland 
 Twist Drill Co., and the Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Co. Mr. 
 Nathan B. Willians, associate counsel of the National Association of Manu- 
 facturers, even ventured a guess as to what the total cost might be: 
 
 "The latest figures as to the investment in American industries in this 
 country, as compiled by the Bureau of Internal Revenue in their 
 statistics on income for 1923, show it to be $28,000,000,000, 
 not millions, but billions . . . 
 
 And when you calculate that you have a cost of $10,000,000,000 in manu- 
 facturing alone in order to convert this country to a metric 
 system, outside of the chaos and the loss and damage and loss 
 of energy and the waste of material and waste of human effort 
 during the process. ... or the equivalent of what we spent in 
 the last war. . . . you have before you your problem with 
 reference to the subject of expense [ 144] ." 
 
 In summary, the 1926 hearings gave very little evidence of any significant 
 change in the standing of the metric issue. In fact, a permanent deadlock 
 seemed to have developed, with neither side willing to give up any ground. 
 Even the participants in the controversy became openly antagonistic toward 
 one another. This was exemplified by an exchange of unpleasantries on the 
 last day of the hearings. It began as Frederic L. Roberts, Treasurer of the 
 Metric Association, was presenting his concluding remarks: 
 
 "MR. ROBERTS: I call your attention to those petitions, [i.e. the more than 
 100,000 petitions secured from 1920-22] and in closing I hope 
 you will consider well the testimony that has been presented 
 and also the mass of evidence that we have attempted to give, 
 where practical men have adopted the system and used it and 
 have not attempted to give estimates or imaginary effects or 
 guesses at this particular problem, but have submitted actual 
 facts and figures, and as I say, I merely close with those few 
 words. 
 
 MR. DALE: I want to say . . . that those petitions, if I understood the last 
 witness correctly, were secured by the activities of his associa- 
 tion, but I understand and am not quite sure that they were so 
 secured. 
 
 Those petitions were secured by a mysterious propaganda that began early 
 in 1919. that was sponsored and supported financially by a man 
 living in a hotel in San Francisco . . . and whom I have called 
 Mr. Z., in my attack on the method of carrying on this 
 
222 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 propaganda, and whose name I will not mention now, because 
 he has never responded to repeated requests that he state his 
 name, the reason for his propaganda and the source of the 
 money. 
 
 MR. [REP.] DOUGLASS: Can you conceive of any financial interest he 
 might have in that matter? 
 
 MR. DALE: Yes, sir; the financial interest so well stated this morning and 
 yesterday, and that is, the German interests. He is the greatest 
 living authority as to who is back of his movement. Let him 
 come before this committee and state . . . what is back of the 
 propaganda that began as the World Trade Club, that after my 
 attack . . . was changed to the Foreign Trade Club . . . [and 
 then] to the All-American Standardization Council [sic] . . . 
 which now, gentlemen, within the last 10 days, has been carried 
 on anonymously. 
 
 I want to protest most earnestly against the Congress of the United States 
 being misled by such mysterious propaganda [ 145]." 
 But this was not the end of the matter for, according to the transcript 
 
 "further discussion [ensued] which, by direction of the acting chairman, was 
 
 not incorporated in the record." According to Mr. Dale's account, however, 
 
 what occurred next went as follows: 
 
 "As soon as I sat down, Richards came forward and said, 'I want to protest 
 against having a high-minded and public spirited man abused in 
 the way that Mr. Dale has just abused Albert Herbert. Mr. Her- 
 bert is not a German. He is an Englishman, and he has a scar on 
 his forehead which is the result of an injury he received when a 
 boy in England caused by using the English weights and mea- 
 sures. It was then that Mr. Herbert resolved that he would 
 devote the rest of his life to abolishing this English system of 
 weights and measures. 'Now,' he said, 'Mr. Dale attacks this 
 man and I want to say that I have been told that Mr. Dale once 
 wrote a letter offering for $25 to advocate the introduction of 
 the metric system into the United States.' 
 
 I had just begun to laugh at the scar on Mr. Z's forehead when the words 
 'Dale,' 'letter' and 'offer to support the metric system' rang in 
 my ears, and I did not let Mr. Richards get any farther. I took 
 the floor on my own account and put in as earnest and vigorous 
 a protest against such charges being made and put into the 
 record as I could frame. I denounced it as being without a scin- 
 tilla of truth and demanded that the words be repeated. 
 Richards refused to repeat them, but motioning to the stenog- 
 rapher said, 'They're in the record.' 
 
 Then I addressed my remarks to the Committee again and demanded, not as 
 a favor, but as a right, that this affair should be settled at once 
 and that I should know exactly what had been said, in order that 
 I might expose its falsity. One of the members of the Committee 
 said, 'You have already denied it.' I did not have an opportunity 
 
THE GREAT METRIC CRUSADE (1914-1933) 223 
 
 to explain to him that what I wanted was a statement of the 
 exact words used by Richards, for the Chairman then said, 'Let 
 the remark be cut out of the record and everything referring to 
 it.' A member of the Committee, who is with us on this 
 question, looked up at me and bowing his head said, 'That 
 makes it all right.' 
 The affair ended with my offering the anonymous postal card from San Fran- 
 cisco as evidence, and the [acting] Chairman, Thurston of 
 Iowa, saying in an angry, nervous way to the stenographer, 
 'Don't accept it. Don't accept it.' The Chairman then said, 'I 
 declare the public hearings closed,' and the crowd dispersed, 
 evidently having thoroughly enjoyed the closing scene in the 
 drama [146]." 
 
 Mr. Roberts' version of this same affair was more succinct: "the sessions on 
 Friday were quite 'HOT' [146]." 
 
 4. THE OUTCOME AND THE AFTERMATH 
 
 No report on the Britten bill was ever issued by the Committee on 
 Coinage, Weights and Measures. According to information received by Mr. 
 Dale, the bill was formally set aside by the Committee on April 20, 1926, 
 because of the impracticality of trying to secure enactment of it in the face of 
 such strong opposition [148]. 
 
 Unwilling to accept defeat, the supporters of metric adoption quickly tried 
 other means to bring the issue to the floor of Congress for a vote. On April 
 27, 1926, Rep. Lowrey of Mississippi introduced the following joint 
 resolution: 16 
 
 Whereas the metric system of weights and measures is accepted 
 generally for international use; and 
 
 Whereas the use of such system is by law required by a majority of the 
 nations of the world; and 
 
 Whereas the States of California, Illinois, Tennessee, North Dakota 
 and Utah have memorialized the Congress to enact legislation 
 adopting such system; and 
 
 Whereas such system is decimal, practical, easy to learn, and con- 
 venient to use; and 
 
 Whereas there exists a strong sentiment in favor of universal use of a 
 standard system of weights and measures; Therefore be it 
 
 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
 States of America in Congress assembled, That the Director of the 
 Bureau of Standards is authorized and directed to conduct a 
 thorough investigation and study to determine the advisability of 
 adopting, for general use in the United States, the metric system of 
 weights and measures. Such director after making such investigation 
 and study shall initiate and carry out, to such extent as he may deem 
 
 16 H.J. Res. 238 (69th Congress, 1st Session). 
 
224 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 advisable, plans to encourage the general and common use in the 
 United States of such system of weights and measures. 
 
 An identical resolution was introduced in the Senate two days later by Mr. 
 McKinley of Illinois. 17 
 
 To provide an even greater choice of legislation, two more resolutions 
 were introduced about 2 weeks later — one in the House by Mr. Britten and 
 one in the Senate by Mr. Gillett of Massachusetts. 18 The "whereas" portion 
 of these proposals stated (1) that Congress had been given the power "to fix 
 the standard of weights and measures" by the Constitution; (2) that there ex- 
 isted a lack of uniformity in U.S. weights and measures; and (3) that these 
 were not "standardized with the weights and measures used by the vast 
 majority of nations of the world." For these reasons, the Congress was 
 asked to provide that: 
 
 "the United States Department of Commerce is authorized to establish com- 
 modity quantity units for general use in merchandising after 
 1935, standardizing the yard to the meter, the quart to the liter, 
 the pound to 500 grams, decimally divided." 
 
 For most of 1926, then, there were five different metric proposals pending 
 before Congress. This fact, and the controversy that had been generated at 
 the February-March hearings, caused a revival of general interest in the sub- 
 ject. The April, 1926, number of The Congressional Digest, for example, 
 was devoted almost entirely to a discussion of the pros and cons of the issue 
 [149]. After explaining the metric system and its legal standing in the 
 United States, the magazine featured articles treating both sides of the 
 question that had been prepared by the leading exponents. Presenting the 
 case in favor of adoption, for example, were Mr. Britten, Frederic Roberts, 
 Major Fred J. Miller (past president of the American Society of Mechanical 
 Engineers and former editor of American Machinist), Godfrey Cabot (pre- 
 sident of the National Aeronautic Association), Samuel Stratton, and others. 
 Representing the opponents' position were Congressman John Wolverton of 
 West Virginia, Alfred P. Thorn (of the Association of Railway Executives), 
 Frederick A. Geier (president of the Cincinnatti' Milling Machine Com- 
 pany), Mr. Stutz, Mr. Herr, and spokesmen for a number of other associa- 
 tions and corporations. 
 
 Similar treatment was given to the metric question in a volume of the H. 
 W. Wilson Company's "Reference Shelf" series [150]. This book, entitled 
 Metric System, outlined the arguments for and against adoption, provided an 
 extensive bibliography of other works on the subject, and included nu- 
 merous reprints of articles dealing with various aspects of the 
 question— Pan-American standardization, shop practices, comparative 
 merits of the two systems, and so forth. 
 
 But an increase in general public interest was not sufficient to force action 
 on any of the pending measures. The Lowrey Resolution, according to infor- 
 mation given to Mr. Dale by Congressman Douglass of his district (Boston, 
 
 17 S.J. Res. 105 (69th Congress, 1st Session). 
 
 18 H.J. Res. 254 and S.J. Res. 107 (69th Congress, 1st Session). 
 
THE GREAT METRIC CRUSADE (1914-1933) 225 
 
 Massachusetts), was voted down by the Committee on Coinage, Weights 
 and Measures on April 29, 1926 [151]. In early December the Senate Com- 
 mittee on Commerce held brief hearings on the two resolutions that were 
 pending, but no action resulted and the hearings were not even printed. 
 
 Aside from the fact that the American Institute of Weights and Measures 
 was unalterably opposed to any metric legislation, the reasons why they op- 
 posed these particular resolutions were clear. In the first place, the Institute 
 could not have been expected to agree with some of the assertions contained 
 in the legislation — the statement that "whereas such system ... is easy to 
 learn and convenient to use" for example. The opponents had been challeng- 
 ing the veracity of opinions such as these for over 10 years. Even more im- 
 portant to the opponents, however, was the fact that the ultimate decision on 
 this matter would have been left to the Commerce Department, and the Na- 
 tional Bureau of Standards in particular. Mr. Dale found this especially 
 distasteful [152], and he later reiterated his reasons: 
 
 "In the consideration of questions relating to weights and measures there is 
 great danger of placing too much confidence in the Bureau of 
 Standards. That Bureau is dealing with highly technical and 
 scientific questions on which very few people . . . are or need 
 be competent to pass judgment. Furthermore, during the 23 
 years of its existence, there is no record of this bureau having 
 been subjected to a rigid inspection by a corps of independent, 
 impartial and competent experts. Successive Congresses have 
 accepted the Bureau of Standards as the last word in excellence 
 and have contented themselves with making steadily increasing 
 appropriations for its support . . . Congress is not doing its 
 duty to the people when it accepts so much on mere authority 
 without having the pretensions of the bureau subjected to regu- 
 lar and adequate examination . . . 
 
 The concentration of power in bureaus at Washington necessarily means the 
 loss of power by the people, and if this tendency is not checked 
 the inevitable result will be to make the Government a bu- 
 reaucracy, with the power in the hands of bureau chiefs and 
 their subordinates, who for all practical purposes will be inde- 
 pendent of the people over whom they rule [153]." 
 
 Addressing the National Conference on Weights and Measures in 1928, 
 
 Dr. Burgess made an emphatic reply to such accusations: 
 
 "In relation to all proposals advocating the compulsory adoption of the met- 
 ric system of weights and measures in the United States the pol- 
 icy of the Bureau of Standards is one of neutrality -neither to 
 advocate nor discourage. The whole subject of compulsory 
 adoption is a highly controversial one and diametrically op- 
 posite views are being freely voiced. Most of these are matters 
 of opinion and definite facts are very difficult to obtain. So 
 many factors enter into the equation . . . that the Bureau is 
 disinclined to make the attempt to evaluate it and thus throw the 
 weight of its decision upon the one side or the other. 
 
226 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 Therefore I can say definitely and emphatically that the bureau is not ad- 
 vocating the adoption of the metric system for commercial or in- 
 dustrial uses whether by legislation or otherwise. Moreover it 
 has never done so during the period that I have been director of 
 the bureau [154]." 
 
 This peripheral issue not withstanding, the resolutions proposing to turn 
 over the metric question to the Bureau for study and a final decision got 
 nowhere. For several more years, the proponents kept the issue barely alive 
 by a combination of resolutions being introduced similar to the 1926 
 proposals, 19 the continued publication of quarterly journals, and an occa- 
 sional special publication [155]. The American Institute of Weights and 
 Measures, of course, continued to publish their journal and to oppose metric 
 legislation for as long as the advocates remained active. 
 
 But interest in the issue was gradually waning. It became increasingly ob- 
 vious that no satisfactory resolution of the problem could be achieved by 
 legislative action, and alternative approaches, such as encouraging voluntary 
 use of the system, were not proving to be as effective as the metric enthu- 
 siasts had hoped. By the time the great depression struck, the metric 
 question was nearly a dead issue anyway, and the financial crisis simply put 
 the finishing touches to it. By 1931, both the Metric Association and the 
 American Institute of Weights and Measures had ceased active work, and 
 the efforts of San Francisco-based campaigners had long since ground to a 
 halt. Of the three interest groups involved, only the Metric Association 
 would survive to participate as a group in later discussions, but Aubrey 
 Drury and some of the men connected with the Institute would continue to 
 debate the issue as individuals for many years. By 1933, however, all activi- 
 ty connected with the great metric crusade had ended. In spite of a very large 
 investment of time, money and personal dedication by an unprecedented 
 number of people, the advocates had once again failed to attain their goal of 
 securing legislation to adopt the metric system as the official system of 
 weights and measures in the United States. 
 
 E. RECAPITULATION 
 
 Even though the ultimate goal of the metric advocates had not changed 
 from that of earlier decades, a drastic alteration in the main strategy for 
 achieving it made this era in the history of the metric system in the U.S. a 
 distinctive one. Whereas previous metric campaigners had focused on edu- 
 cational and Governmental institutions as the desirable mechanism for in- 
 troducing the metric system to the public, the prime movers during this era 
 took their case directly to the people. The primary aim of the great metric 
 crusade was to sell the metric system to the public by means of promotional 
 literature in the hopes of raising a great popular demand for the enactment of 
 applicable legislation. 
 
 This approach resulted in a number of previously-used techniques being 
 carried to an extreme and also gave rise to the utilization of several new 
 
 19 For example, H.J. Res. 124 and H.J. Res. 125; Oct. 28, 1929 (71st Congress, 1st Session). 
 

 THE GREAT METRIC CRUSADE ( 1914-1933) 227 
 
 ones. There was nothing new in the formation of special interest groups to 
 debate the issue, and not even the existence of three of them at one time was 
 unusual. But earlier groups had been chiefly local, or at best regional, in 
 scope. In contrast, the special interest groups of this era were truly national 
 in character, one of them even being located on the Pacific Coast. That one, 
 the World Trade Club, was also unique among metric organizations in that 
 it was not a club or society at all, but a publicity campaign masquerading as 
 one. 
 
 There was also nothing new in the use of publicity and promotional gim- 
 micks as a means of attracting attention to the cause, but the extent to which 
 such efforts were carried between 1914 and 1933 was unprecedented in the 
 annals of metric campaigning. The publicity battle between the metric ad- 
 vocates and the opposing forces developed into a contest to determine which 
 side could secure the approbation of the greatest number of famous men, 
 powerful associations and influential corporations. A separate effort was 
 made to win over public officials — Congressmen, Senators and executive 
 branch leaders. This publicity was gained not only by an extraordinary 
 amount of attention to the campaign in both the popular press and the techni- 
 cal journals, but also by raising funds to finance a large number of special 
 pamphlets, circular letters and even whole books on the subject. 
 
 The decisive events of this era, however, continued to take place in the 
 committee rooms of Congress. More legislation was proposed during this 
 period than in any previous campaign, but only twice were major hearings 
 conducted and not once did this issue get attention on the floor of either the 
 House of Representatives or the Senate. Another abnormal feature of the 
 legislative efforts during this period was that no constant pattern was fol- 
 lowed in formulating proposals. Unlike earlier eras, no one way of increasing 
 the use of the metric system was preferred over all others. And yet the 
 proposals that were advanced bore no resemblance to those of previous 
 Congresses — education was not a factor and potential Government applica- 
 tions were treated as minor considerations. The one constant character- 
 istic of most of the bills introduced between 1914 and 1933 was the specific 
 exemption of manufacturers from the requirements of the proposed law. 
 The strategy was to soften the opposition, but it didn't work. Because it 
 didn't work, the proposals became more controversial than ever and 
 did not progress very far down the road to enactment. 
 
 For the most part, the arguments used by both sides during this period 
 were simply modernized versions of those that had been advanced for 
 decades. The proponents continued to insist that the metric system was su- 
 perior, that it should be adopted in the interests of international uniformity, 
 that the costs and difficulties involved in adopting it would be surprisingly 
 slight, and that the eventual displacement of all other systems by the metric 
 system was inevitable. Furthermore, it was said, the maintenance and im- 
 provement of our foreign trade depended upon metric adoption. The op- 
 ponents of the system claimed that the U.S. had already achieved greater 
 uniformity and standardization using the customary English system than was 
 enjoyed by any other nation on earth, that the size of our foreign trade was 
 in no way related to our system of weights and measures, and that changing 
 
228 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 over to the metric system would be confusing, costly, and not productive of 
 corresponding benefits. In addition, the opponents claimed that what ap- 
 peared to be a popular clamor for metric adoption was really an artificial de- 
 mand that had been generated by insidious pro-metric propaganda. 
 
 For all practical purposes the great metric crusade began in 1916 with the 
 formation of the American Metric Association. Director Strattonof the Na- 
 tional Bureau of Standards was one of the original supporters of the group, 
 as were its first president and secretary. Dr. George F. Kunz and Howard 
 Richards, Jr. Sensing the beginning of a revitalized drive for metric adoption, 
 Frederick A. Halsey and Samuel S. Dale, who had figured prominently in 
 the 1902-1907 controversy, established the American Institute of Weights 
 and Measures to provide ready opposition. After a shaky start, the Institute 
 received excellent financial support for its work, and it became a truly effec- 
 tive anti-metric lobby under the guidance of secretary C. C. Stutz. 
 
 The temporary acceptance of the metric system for military purposes in 
 World War I gave additional impetus to the postwar metric campaign, as did 
 the drastic increase in U.S. foreign trade. When the World Trade Club was 
 created in 1919. it immediately set out to capitalize on those two situations. 
 This organization, which was financed by a wealthy manufacturer named Al- 
 bert Herbert and operated by an advertising agency owned by Aubrey Dru- 
 ry. soon began to flood the country with literature urging metric adoption. A 
 Washington representative. W. Mortimer Crocker, was hired to compensate 
 for the fact that the Club was situated in San Francisco and, shortly 
 thereafter, proposed metric legislation began to appear early in each new 
 session of Congress. To increase the chances of favorable action on any of 
 these bills, a massive petitioning campaign was mounted which eventually 
 resulted in more than 100.000 pro-metric postal cards being sent to 
 Washington. 
 
 This great surge of metric activity, both for and against the passage of 
 legislation, finally culminated in hearings before the Senate Committee on 
 Manufactures in late 1921 and early 1922. Supporters and opponents alike 
 turned out in large numbers to make their views known to Senator Charles 
 McNary and his colleagues. When the dust had settled, those who were 
 against the proposition had managed to check the metric advance, at least 
 temporarily, and the Senate Committee declined to act on the proposal. 
 
 Four years later, in 1926. the House Committee on Coinage, Weights and 
 Measures met to consider the proposition in formal hearings. In the inter- 
 vening years, the size of the publicity effort had largely tapered off. In its 
 place, the advocates of the metric system had substituted an effort to secure 
 the assistance of individual legislators and official bodies such as the Pan- 
 American Standardization Conference. Nevertheless, the question was still 
 being pursued with a great deal of zeal and persistance by both sides. Once 
 again a great deal of testimony was taken and once again the opponents car- 
 ried the day. Although several alternative legislative maneuvers were em- 
 ployed in subsequent months, success was not to be achieved by the metric 
 supporters of this era. 
 
 Following the 1926 failure, the great metric crusade slowly began to 
 atrophy. Although occasional spurts of activity continued to occur until 
 
THE GREAT METRIC CRUSADE (1914-1933) 229 
 
 1933, none of these represented much more than a half-hearted attempt to 
 revive an issue which nearly everyone admitted was dead. 
 
 With the onset of the great depression, the money needed to support a 
 legislative campaign ceased to be available. Nor was there any money to pay 
 for a transition to the metric system, no matter how simple it might prove to 
 be. And so the issue was laid to rest for a quarter of a century, with only 
 minor exceptions. Not until the post-Sputnik years would serious considera- 
 tion again be given to the question of U.S. adoption of the metric system. 
 
VII. TO BE CONTINUED (1959-1968) 
 
 At this juncture in the history of the metric system in the United States, a 
 properly cautious historian would probably review briefly the few 
 noteworthy events that occurred between 1933 and 1959 and then stop. He 
 would note that legislation to authorize a Government study of the question 
 in all its aspects was enacted in 1968 after 10 years of negotiation, but he 
 would not go deeply into that process, rightfully observing that these actions 
 would only be the beginning of the next, and perhaps final, chapter and 
 should be left for future historians to interpret. 
 
 This account will go somewhat beyond that. It will chronicle some com- 
 paratively recent events which, even at this early date, appear to have had 
 some significance. It will trace the development of Public Law 90-472 of 
 August 9, 1968, and it will note some contemporary opinions that were ex- 
 pressed on both sides of the question. The only purpose of doing this, how- 
 ever, will be to bridge the gap between the concerns of earlier metric cam- 
 paigners and those of the participants in the debate during the 1950's and 
 1960's. The material in this chapter has been deliberately selected from a 
 wealth of available statements to demonstrate that there is, indeed, a com- 
 mon thread which runs through the history of the metric system from 
 beginning to end. Therefore, it must be stressed that this chapter is not 
 intended to reflect a concensus of current opinion on the subject, nor does it 
 represent a comprehensive record of all the activities, events and individual 
 contributions of these years that might prove to be vitally important to future 
 generations. In fact, certain events that are sure to be of major sig- 
 nificance—such as the report of the U.S. Metric Study (of which this history 
 forms a part) and the Congress' disposition of it — have yet to occur. 
 
 230 
 
TO BE CONTINUED (1959-1968) 231 
 
 A. THE DOLDRUMS (1933-1958) 
 
 After the great metric crusade crumbled in the early 1930's, a quarter of a 
 century elapsed before anything even approaching widespread interest in the 
 question of U.S. policy with respect to the metric system developed again. 
 The reasons for this long period of dormancy are not hard to find. 
 
 For one thing, there was the health of the American economy to consider. 
 Even after the corner had been turned on the depression there was not 
 enough money available to warrant the addition of any unnecessary burdens 
 on American industry, such as altering or replacing machinery on a 
 wholesale basis in order to effect a change of measurement systems. There 
 was also the fact that many manufacturers had strongly resisted making the 
 change even when money was comparatively easy to come by. 
 
 Another factor in the absence of a metric campaign during these years was 
 the prevailing political mood of the Nation, which was an isolationist one. 
 Even the casual reader of this history will have noticed the perpetual recur- 
 rence of a very strong connection between the metric issue and matters per- 
 taining to the international stature and foreign commercial dealings of the 
 United States. Such considerations as intergovernmental arrangements 
 (tariffs and postal exchanges in particular), improved foreign trade, stan- 
 dardization of product and commodity sizes, and international uniformity of 
 weights and measures have generally been the main justifications for urging 
 U.S. adoption of the metric system. There were times, however, when such 
 pleas fell on deaf ears. The 1920's and 1930's were such times. As related by 
 historians Morison and Commager: 
 
 "This isolation which the country had formally embraced in 1920 was not 
 only diplomatic and political, but economic and even moral. 
 Tariff barriers made it increasingly difficult for foreigners to sell 
 or buy from the United States or to pay their war debts. Many 
 leaders dallied with the notion of economic self-sufficiency, 
 refusing to recognize the international spread of American trade 
 and investments or the dependence of American manufactures 
 upon materials imported from abroad. And behind the 
 economic and political isolationism was the vague but pervasive 
 attitude that the United States was morally superior to the na- 
 tions of the Old World, and that she could better safeguard her 
 moral superiority if she avoided contamination with Old World 
 secret diplomacy, wars, racial hatreds, and decadent cultures 
 [1]." 
 
 This very attitude was openly displayed by the opponents of metric adop- 
 tion throughout the 1920's and 1930's. It can be seen in their steadfast in- 
 sistence that the U.S. already had a superior systems of weights and mea- 
 sures, that this system had given us more internal uniformity than was pos- 
 sessed by any other single nation, and that the proper use of it had already 
 placed America in a dominant position in world trade. In short, the system 
 we already had was the best one and it was up to others to learn from us. 
 
232 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 Since such thoughts were representative of the views of the majority at that 
 time, there was little that metric advocates could do to overcome them. 
 
 Because of the depth of which these feelings ran, only one noteworthy 
 event occurred on the weights and measures front prior to the end of World 
 War II. In 1937 a bill "to define certain units and fix the standards . . ." 
 was introduced in Congress. 1 This legislation had been drafted by the Na- 
 tional Bureau of Standards and was being sponsored in the House by 
 Representative Andrew L. Somers of New York, the Chairman of the Com- 
 mittee on Coinage, Weights and Measures. It was not directed to securing 
 favorable action with respect to the metric system. Instead, it proposed to 
 legally adopt the standards of the metric system that the U.S. possessed 
 while, at the same time, legally adopting the units of the English customary 
 system. Under this bill, the English units were to be defined as certain 
 specified fractions of the metric standards. The "inch," for example, would 
 be adopted as the legal unit of length, but it would be defined as 254/10,000 
 of the meter. Had this bill been enacted, the Congress' authority "to fix the 
 standard of weights and measures" would have been discharged by accept- 
 ing the metric standards, but the English system would also have been legal- 
 ized at the same time. 
 
 Hearings on this proposal were conducted by the Committee on Coinage, 
 Weights and Measures on August 12, 1937 [2]. The first witness was Dr. 
 Lyman J. Briggs. director of the National Bureau of Standards, who ex- 
 plained why the bill had been requested: 
 
 "It seems strange, 150 years after the founding of this Republic, that legisla- 
 tive action should be necessary to fix the value of the inch and 
 pound with which we are so familiar. Nevertheless, the fact is 
 that we have never had a statute which defines the way in which 
 these units shall be determined [ 3] ." 
 
 Aside from Dr. Briggs, those who appeared at the hearings seemed to be 
 a little bewildered as to what effect the bill would have and, as a con- 
 sequence, did not say much about it at all. Mr. Robert F. Cogswell, 
 representing the American Institute of Weights and Measures, for example, 
 read a statement from Walter Renton Ingalls to the effect that: 
 
 "We have no serious objection to H.R. 7869 as drafted. Perhaps I might say 
 we have no objection at all. However, we experience a certain 
 feeling of regret that we should go ahead without being accom- 
 panied by Great Britain [4] . . ." 
 
 And Mr. J. T. Johnson, who had succeeded Dr. Kunz as president of the 
 Metric Association, said: 
 
 "Insofar as the present bill counteracts the furtherance of international met- 
 ric measures, I am opposed to it. On the other hand, if the bill 
 supports the international metric movement, I am for it . . . .1 
 
 1 Eventually, three bills of this type were proposed: H.R. 7869, June 30, 1967 (75th Con- 
 gress, 1st Session); S. 3609, Jan. 5, 1938 and H.R. 8974,Jan. 14, 1938 (75th Congress, 3d Ses- 
 sion). 
 
TO BE CONTINUED (1959-1968) 
 
 233 
 
 am not yet clear whether the bill is in contradiction to the metric 
 movement or not [ 5] ..." 
 
 Mr. Somers did not think it was and, on August 18, 1 937, he sent a report 
 to the House on behalf of the Committee that recommended passage of the 
 bill with only a few minor amendments suggested [6] . Even though no ac- 
 tion was taken as a result of this report, it was a significant document for two 
 reasons — it was the first report dealing with the subject that had been 
 released by a Congressional committee since 1902, and it was also to be the 
 last report on the subject submitted by the Committee on Coinage, Weights 
 and Measures. 
 
 After this one brief reappearance, the metric issue faded from the Con- 
 gressional scene for many years. The adverse influences of the depression 
 and the period of isolationism were replaced by obstacles of a different sort 
 during World War II. Unlike the situation during the early years of World 
 War I, when a metric revival had been fostered by the lack of international 
 uniformity and the need to standardize our materiel with that of our allies, 
 the circumstances in World War II were reversed. This time other nations 
 were depending on the United States to provide vitally-needed supplies, and 
 we obliged them under the terms of the Lend-Lease Act. They were, of 
 course, more than happy to receive such assistance regardless of the mea- 
 surement system which had been used in manufacturing the goods. In addi- 
 tion, most of these supplies were bound for non-metric nations, anyway, par- 
 ticularly Great Britain and the Soviet Union, so that the lack of metrological 
 uniformity was not such a significant problem between 1939 and 1945 as it 
 had been earlier. With industrial production at a wartime peak, no one was 
 entertaining serious thoughts of switching over to the metric system. 
 
 Toward the end of the war, however, and immediately following it, there 
 was a resurgence of interest in the idea. Some of this interest was no doubt 
 left over from the 1920's campaign, and the rest of it may have been occa- 
 sioned by the extent of our involvement in rebuilding the economies of met- 
 ric-based European nations. But even though plans for a new campaign were 
 being drawn up in 1944 [7] , no great outpouring of literature or legislation 
 resulted. Only a few resolutions and memorials from various societies urging 
 metric adoption came out of these efforts. 
 
 Even this was serious enough to cause Walter Renton Ingalls, the tena- 
 cious president of the American Institute of Weights and Measures, to 
 publish a collection of "standard" anti-metric arguments in 1945 [8]. His 
 book, entitled Systems of Weights and Measures, was the last document of 
 any note published under the masthead of the Institute, and even it deserves 
 only passing notice. Its most outstanding characteristics were a lack of 
 originality (and, upon occasion, accuracy) and its concentration on events 
 that were long since over and done with. In fact, Mr. Ingalls aimed most of 
 his attack at imaginary legislation of a type that hadn't been proposed in over 
 15 years and was refuting a pro-metric case that had died with the World 
 Trade Club. 
 
 In the following year, 1946, the House Committee on Coinage, Weights 
 and Measures was quietly abolished by a Legislative Reorganization Act. Its 
 
 429-523 0-71-16 
 
234 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 coinage functions, which in recent years had been limited to recommending 
 commemorative medals, were transferred to the Committee on Banking and 
 Currency, and its weights and measures duties were taken up. for the time 
 being, by the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. During the 
 82-year lifetime of the Committee, a continuing succession of Chairmen and 
 members had worked ardously to accomplish the elusive goal that had been 
 set by the first Chairman, John A. Kasson, in 1 864. But the final step needed 
 to complete the metric system reform in the U.S. had never been taken. 
 
 Two years later, in 1948. the first full-length pro-metric book since the 
 1920's was published. The "Twentieth Yearbook of the National Council of 
 Teachers of Mathematics" was given over solely to a discussion of the ad- 
 vantages of the metric system [ 9] . This occurrence was at least partially due 
 to the fact that the chairman of the Council's yearbook committee (and, 
 therefore, the book's compiler) was Dr. J. T. Johnson, who was also the pre- 
 sident of the Metric Association. The book contained a collection of articles 
 dealing with the various aspects of the subject: the concept of the metric 
 system, its technical development and its international growth; its potential 
 advantages for education, science, engineering, manufacturing, and so on; 
 examples of some of the publicity which had been given to the idea of metric 
 adoption; and examples of methods that might be employed in making the 
 change. In spite of the plea, which was repeated throughout the book, that 
 the postwar world offered an ideal opportunity to make the change, no 
 evidence of greatly renewed interest was forthcoming. 
 
 In July, 1950, an Act was passed, 2 which redefined the units and 
 established the standards of electrical and photometric measurements in the 
 United States. This was essentially a modernization of the Act defining elec- 
 trical units which had been in force since 1894. The sole purpose of this revi- 
 sion was to correct technical deficiences in the existing legislation and thus 
 make it possible to achieve a worldwide agreement on electrical units and 
 standards [ 10] . For this reason, all units were defined in terms of the "cen- 
 timeter-gram-second," or metric system just as they had been in the original 
 Act. This action, therefore, represented no change in the official status of the 
 metric system in the U.S. 
 
 With the passage of this Act significant developments in the field of 
 weights and measures in the United States came to an end for several years. 
 In Great Britain, however, a noteworthy report of the Board of Trade was 
 submitted to Parliament in May 1951 [11]. This became known as the 
 "Hodgson Report." the chairman of the Board's Committee on Weights and 
 Measures Legislation being Edward H. Hodgson. This report dealt generally 
 with the need for a consolidation of the laws on weights and measures, with 
 weighing and measuring equipment, with short weight and measure, and with 
 various aspects of administering and enforcing the laws. It also addressed 
 specifically the question of metric adoption: 
 
 "It is . . . hardly correct to talk of the 'imperial system' in quite the same 
 way as one talks of the 'metric system.' The latter forms one 
 
 2 Public Law 617 -8 1st Congress (July 21, 1950). 
 
TO BE CONTINUED (1959-1968) 235 
 
 compact, closely-defined and universally-recognized system of 
 measurement under the guidance of an international body con- 
 sisting of representatives of all the countries subscribing to its 
 activities; whereas the imperial system is really a conglomera- 
 tion of units which have in the past been found convenient for 
 particular types of measurement and which have, over the 
 years, been linked together to form a rough whole. Under the 
 umbrella heading of the imperial system, there are five different 
 systems of weight and three of capacity at present lawful in 
 Great Britain [ 12]. 
 
 Bearing all . . . arguments in mind, we have come to the unanimous con- 
 clusion that the metric system is, in the broadest sense and in 
 the interests of world uniformity, a 'better' system of weights 
 and measures than the imperial; that a change from imperial to 
 metric for all trade purposes is sooner or later inevitable; that a 
 continuance of the present option to use either the metric or the 
 imperial until the inevitable comes about will cause in the long 
 run more inconvenience than an ordered change within a 
 specified period; and that the long term advantages which 
 would flow from an organised change in the near future would 
 far outweigh the inconveniences of the change itself. We there- 
 fore recommend that the Government should straightway take 
 the steps which we outline below with a view to abolishing 
 within a definite period [20 years] all use of the imperial system 
 in Great Britain and to establishing the sole use of the metric 
 system for all trade purposes. 
 
 We would, however, make two important provisos. First, any change of this 
 nature should only be done in concert with those countries of 
 North America and the Commonwealth which base their units 
 on the yard and the pound . . . Secondly, the internal con- 
 venience of a decimal system could not be adequately realised 
 unless at the same time the coinage was decimalised [13]." 
 
 It would take Great Britain 14 years to get around to putting these recom- 
 mendations in force, but they were implemented eventually, as will be noted 
 later in this chapter. 
 
 In the late 1950's a number of actions were taken which signalled the 
 beginning of renewed interest in matters pertaining to the measurement 
 system employed by the United States. In 1957, for example, the U.S. Army 
 issued a regulation establishing the metric linear units as the basis for 
 weapons and related equipment and a committee of the newly Formed Or- 
 ganization of American States recommended adoption of the metric system 
 throughout the Western Hemisphere [ 14]. Also in 1957, a new era in the 
 history of scientific and technological endeavor was ushered in when the 
 Soviet Union successfully placed the first Sputnik satellite in orbit. That 
 event led to another in the following year which is of significance to the his- 
 tory of the metric system in the U.S. In 1 958, the House of Representatives 
 created a standing Committee on Science and Astronautics. Among other 
 
236 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 things, this Committee was given jurisdiction over the "Bureau of Standards, 
 standardization of weights and measures and the metric system [ 15] ," The 
 new Committee would have occasion to exercise this authority shortly after 
 its establishment. Also, in December, 1958, values for the United States 
 yard and pound were aligned with those of other nations adhering to the 
 customary system. 
 
 There had been much discussion over the years, at least since 1920, as to 
 whether our yard and pound were the same as those of Great Britain. The 
 
 1958 agreement, which was negotiated by Dr. Allen V. Astin, director of the 
 National Bureau of Standards, and the directors of corresponding institu- 
 tions in other nations, was announced in the Federal Register on July 1, 
 
 1959 [ 16] . The yard was henceforth to be defined as 0.9144 meter and the 
 avoirdupois pound as 0.45359237 kilogram, and these values: 
 
 "[Designated as the International Yard and International Pound, respec- 
 tively, will be used by the National Standards Laboratories of 
 Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, and United 
 Kingdom; thus there will be brought about international accord 
 on the yard and pound by the English-speaking nations of the 
 world, in precise measurements involving these basic units 
 [17]." 
 
 In essence, this announcement was an updated version of the so-called 
 "Mendenhall Order" of 1 893, but it's real significance was to be found in the 
 acceptance of these definitions by the other nations listed. Inconceivable as 
 it may seem, this was the first joint action taken by the United States and 
 Great Britain in over 200 years of independent existence to secure uniform 
 values for the units of the customary system of weights and measure to 
 which both nations had so tenaciously adhered. Ironically, this action was 
 taken at a time when both nations were about to renew their investigations 
 of the feasibility and desirability of official action with respect to the metric 
 system. 
 
 B. AUTHORIZING A STUDY OF THE ADVANTAGES AND 
 DISADVANTAGES OF INCREASED USE OF THE 
 METRIC SYSTEM (1959-1968) 
 
 In late 1958 the British Association for the Advancement of Science 
 launched another investigation into the metric system to attempt to find out 
 what it would cost Great Britain to change and what the long-term benefits 
 of metric adoption would be [ 18] . Early in 1959 the American Association 
 for the Advancement of Science followed suit by establishing a committee to 
 consider the problems involved in a change after approving in principle the 
 general adoption of the system [ 19] . On May 1. 1959, the question of U.S. 
 use of the metric system was given new life when Lewis L. Strauss, who was 
 then awaiting Senate confirmation of his appointment as Secretary of 
 
TO BE CONTINUED (1959-1968) 237 
 
 Commerce, 3 addressed the spring meeting of the American Physical Society 
 in Washington, D.C.: 
 
 "I should like to direct your attention to a special problem of the Depart- 
 ment. One which has great scientific and technological sig- 
 nificance for our economy and our culture. It is not by any 
 means a new problem but the vast expansion of science and 
 technology in the past 10 years has brought it once again to offi- 
 cial attention. 
 
 I am speaking of our system of measurement. One of the first letters I 
 received after my appointment as Secretary of Commerce dealt 
 with this problem. It was a letter from one of your fellow 
 scientists and a good friend. He urged that I could perform a 
 worthy national service if I would exercise the powers which he 
 assumed were vested in me and by decree abolish the English 
 measurement system and institute the metric system in the 
 United States. The idea of change is meritorious but the 
 proposed means of achieving it is [ sic] impractical. 
 
 I have long been convinced that ultimately the United States must shift to 
 the metric system. Outside of our Anglo-Saxon culture, practi- 
 cally every nation has made this shift during the past 1 50 years 
 or so. Every country found it possible to adopt the metric 
 system— just as in earlier times we all shifted from the Ptolema- 
 ic to the Copernican system of navigation. No one ever 
 regretted the temporary inconvenience of such switches. Due 
 to our delay in taking action and due to the complexity of our in- 
 dustrial system, this change will be more difficult for the United 
 States than for other countries, but when achieved it will also be 
 more useful. 
 
 In brief, a dynamic country like ours where new commodities are adopted in- 
 cessantly and where inventories are replaced periodically has 
 the capability of executing a change in its measurement system. 
 Our capability is not in question. What we need is a procedure 
 by means of which the change can be carried out most expedi- 
 tiously with the least cost, the least confusion and the least op- 
 position. 
 
 . . . . Accordingly, I propose to request the Director of the Bureau of Stan- 
 dards to establish an advanced planning group to assemble all 
 available documentation and to identify possible courses of 
 action [20]." 
 
 On the surface, this address would seem to have been just the latest in a 
 long series of pleas for adoption of the metric system made by high Govern- 
 ment officials to scientific gatherings. And perhaps it would have been a rou- 
 tine matter if Admiral Strauss had not been such a controversial figure at 
 
 3 Which was never granted. 
 
238 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 that time, but his public utterances were generally headline material. As the 
 Washington, D.C., Evening Star put it the following day: 
 
 "The year's most controversial after-dinner speaker talked last night on the 
 year's least controversial topic — the metric system. 
 
 But even on that theme Secretary of Commerce Strauss did not find himself 
 unanimously supported by his audience .... 
 
 Mr. Strauss' pitch for the adoption of the meter in place of the yard, the kilo- 
 gram in place of the pound and the liter in place of the gallon ap- 
 parently was designed as the oil to be poured on troubled 
 waters. His appearance had become a cause celebre in the 
 meeting, just concluded, of the physical society. 
 
 . . . . [ B] ut a cursory survey after his speech indicated that it fell on unim- 
 pressed, if not deaf, ears. Physicists universally use the cen- 
 timeter-gram-second system, and engineers use the kilogram- 
 meter-second [sic] system [21]." 
 
 Irrespective of the controversy surrounding Secretary Strauss, he ad- 
 vanced some convincing reasons for reopening the investigation into the offi- 
 cial standing of the metric system in the U.S. First of all, there were the 
 simultaneous inquiries being conducted by the British and American As- 
 sociations for the Advancement of Science. Secondly, both India and Japan 
 were in the process of enforcing compulsory metric laws that had long been 
 on the statute books but never carried out. Thirdly, there was the fact that 
 certain American industries, notably chemicals, pharmaceuticals, and elec- 
 tronics, were already doing most of their business in terms of the metric 
 system. There was also the need to make our military equipment compatible 
 with that used by our NATO allies and the fact that "the uniformity of mea- 
 surement systems between Russia and most of the world, including Western 
 Europe, is an enormous advantage to the Soviets and a handicap to us [22] ." 
 Finally, the Secretary asserted that action was called for because American 
 foreign trade was beginning to be hurt by our non-use of the metric system in 
 manufacturing and labeling products. 
 
 These concerns and the Secretary's proposal to have a study initiated by 
 the National Bureau of Standards were formalized in legislation introduced, 
 on May 27, 1 959 by Rep. Overton Brooks of Louisiana, 4 providing that: 
 The National Bureau of Standards shall conduct a program of investigation, 
 research, and survey to determine the practicablity of the adop- 
 tion by the United States of the metric system of weights and 
 measures. 
 
 This bill further specified the activities which the Bureau was to be 
 authorized to undertake in conducting the program, and set a time limit of 
 one year for the completion of the study. 
 
 The detailed objectives of making such a study were not included in Mr. 
 Brooks' proposal, but they were laid out in a bill introduced by Senator 
 
 4 H.R. 7401 (86th Congress, 1st Session). Mr. Brooks was then chairman of the Committee 
 on Science and Astronautics. 
 
TO BE CONTINUED (1959-1968) 239 
 
 Richard Neuberger on July 22, 1959. 5 This legislation, which assigned the 
 responsibility for the program to the Secretary of Commerce and extended 
 to 3 years the time limit for the investigation, called for investigations, 
 research, surveys, consultation with government agencies, private organiza- 
 tions and foreign governments in order to determine and analyze: 
 
 1. Standards and comparative advantages of weights and measures 
 
 presently used in science, engineering, manufacturing, com- 
 merce and education; 
 
 2. Benefits which the United States might derive from general adoption of 
 
 the metric system or application of such a system in specific 
 fields, including consideration of the effect such a change would 
 have on United States international relations, world trade, and 
 military activities; and 
 
 3. Practical difficulties which might be involved in achieving adoption of the 
 
 metric system for use generally or in specific fields in the U.S. 
 
 One week later, on July 29, 1959, a third alternative was offered by 
 Representative James G. Fulton of Pennsylvania. 6 The concurrent resolu- 
 tion which he submitted read: 
 
 Whereas substantially all of the nations of the world except the United 
 States have adopted the metric system of weights and mea- 
 sures; and 
 
 Whereas the metric system exclusively is used in scientific measurement; 
 and 
 
 Whereas the United States, as the leader of the free world in scientific effort 
 should join the other nations in adopting the standardized met- 
 ric system in all fields of endeavor; and 
 
 Whereas our educational system must be geared to the achievement of this 
 objective and make its vital contribution through the teaching of 
 the metric system of weights and measures at all levels: 
 Therefore be it 
 
 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it 
 is the sense of the Congress that the President of the United 
 States should take the appropriate steps, with the counsel of the 
 Nation's leading educators and scientists, to effect the adoption 
 of the metric system of weights and measures as the Nation's 
 official system of measurement in all appropriate fields of en- 
 deavor, and direct that all departments and agencies of the 
 United States (particularly those having functions related to 
 education or schools) foster and promote the understanding and 
 use of such system by all the people of the United States. 
 
 Although neither Chamber took immediate action with respect to these 
 three proposals, the legislative pattern for the next decade had been 
 
 5 S. 2420 (86th Congress, 1st Session). 
 
 6 H. Con. Res. 364 (86th Congress, 1st Session). 
 
240 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 established. Both options — the one to study the proposition and the one to 
 begin formal adoption immediately — would be repeated in successive Con- 
 gress until a comprehensive study was authorized in 1968. Before this oc- 
 cured, however, several hearings were held to consider the matter and a 
 number of important changes were made in the legislation proposed. 
 
 In the following year, 1960, two noteworthy events occurred. In May, the 
 British Assocation for the Advancement of Science, in conjunction with the 
 Association of British Chambers of Commerce, issued its report. Entitled 
 Decimal Coinage and the Metric System — Should Britain Change?, it was 
 an essentially negative report insofar as its recommendations with respect to 
 the metric system were concerned [23]. Instead of metric adoption, an im- 
 provement of the customary system was urged. This recommendation was 
 based on a number of findings which had become very familiar over the 
 years, including the opinions that [24] : 
 
 1. "Little use is made today of the metric system in the U.K. except for 
 
 scientific and laboratory purposes . . . ." 
 
 2. "There is little sign in the U.K. of any significant trend toward increased 
 
 usage except in . . . export to metric countries." 
 
 3. "There is no strong feeling in industry and commerce that we are being 
 
 adversely affected ... by retention of the Imperial system . . ." 
 
 4. "There is a majority opinion that the U.K. should in any case keep in line 
 
 with the Commonwealth and with the United States of 
 America. " 
 
 5. "With regard to cost factors, the general picture is clear that there would 
 
 be very heavy transitional costs in some spheres, particularly 
 engineering, but the financial benefits seem much harder to 
 assess." 
 
 On the subject of decimal coinage, the joint committee announced that 
 strong sentiment for the adoption of such a system existed, but the members 
 had apparently not been able to decide what specific action to suggest. In- 
 stead, they simply observed that this was the Government's decision to 
 make and recommended that the Government make one soon. 
 
 In October 1960, the meter bar which had served as the international stan- 
 dard of length for over 70 years was abandoned. In its place, the 11th 
 General Conference on Weights and Measures substituted a wavelength of 
 light— 1 .650.763.73 wavelengths of the orange-red line produced by krypton 
 86 being defined as 1 meter [ 25] . This new definition represented a return to 
 the original concept underlying the metric system — an immutable standard 
 found in nature. It also had the advantage of being reproducible with great 
 accuracy by any well-equipped laboratory, an attribute not possessed by the 
 meter as defined in 1795. At that time. also, the name of the metric system 
 was formally changed to the Systeme International d'Unites, or "SI," in 
 recognition of the widespread acceptance of the system and to avoid confu- 
 sion stemming from certain uses of measurement units in the world's techni- 
 cal literature. 
 
 In the first session of the 87th Congress, in 1961, several more bills were 
 introduced. Rep. James Roosevelt of California introduced a bill identical to 
 
TO BE CONTINUED (1959-1968) 241 
 
 that of Senator Neuberger's earlier one, Rep. George Miller of California 
 proposed legislation identical to that advanced by Mr. Brooks in the previ- 
 ous congress, and Rep. Fulton reintroduced his concurrent resolution. 7 On 
 the Senate side, Mrs. Maurine Neuberger introduced a proposal similar to 
 that of Mr. Neuberger's, 8 except that it would also have required an in- 
 vestigation to be made into the benefits to consumers of metric adoption. 
 
 In June and July, 1961, a Subcommittee of the Committee on Science and 
 Astronautics, chaired by Mr. Miller, conducted hearings on the two study 
 bills [26]. A total of 9 witnesses were heard from, all of whom favored a 
 study of the subject. These included Congressman Roosevelt; Dr. A. V. 
 Astin, Director of the National Bureau of Standards; Colonel Walter Wood- 
 ward of the U.S. Air Force; Colonel G. P. Grant of the U.S. Army; Floyd 
 W. Hough, representing the American Geophysical Union; and Drs. J. T. 
 Johnson and Robert P. Fischelis representing the Metric Association, Inc. 
 
 Following the hearings, the full Committee amended Mr. Miller's bill to 
 allow 3 years for the study and to require the submission of annual progress 
 reports. A favorable report was then unanimously agreed to and Mr. Miller 
 submitted it to the House on July 25, 1961 [28]. The report noted that: 
 
 "While there is no doubt that the subject matter of conversion to the metric 
 system is controversial, the concensus of opinion indicates that 
 the proposed study would be a substantial step toward settling 
 the controversy, and in this way the public generally, as well as 
 industry, educational, scientific, and government agencies could 
 have a part in contributing to the study. It is the feeling of the 
 committee that it is only through education that any change may 
 be forthcoming and that such an educational program would 
 receive the desired impetus through the study bill under con- 
 sideration [29]." 
 
 The report also estimated that the cost for the full 3-year study, based upon 
 a preliminary plan devised by a Department of Commerce task force, would 
 not exceed $500,000. 
 
 On August 7, September 6, and September 18, 1961, the Miller bill came 
 before the House of Representatives on the Consent Calendar. On each oc- 
 casion the measure was passed over without prejudice when Representative 
 H. R. Gross of Iowa questioned the necessity of making a costly study of the 
 subject. As he said, "I am not opposed to the establishment of the metric 
 system as the standard of weights and measures for the country, but I know 
 of no reason why we should spend half a million dollars for a study [30]." 
 Several subsequent attempts to secure passage of the bill by unanimous con- 
 sent also failed, and in 1962 the legislation was removed from the Consent 
 Calendar. 
 
 Even though these events delayed passage of the bill, the fact that Con- 
 
 7 H.R. 269, Jan. 3, 1961 (Mr. Roosevelt); H.R. 2049, Jan. 6, 1961 (Mr. Miller); and H. Con. 
 Res. 44, Jan. 6, 1961 (Mr. Fulton). 
 
 8 S. 2030,June7, 1961. 
 
242 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 gress was giving serious attention to the question had the effect of arousing 
 new interest in it in the press. An increasing number of newspapers began to 
 print editorials favoring metric adoption and the nation's technical journals 
 devoted a great deal of space to exploring both sides of the issue. As in earli- 
 er decades, the mechanical engineering profession was the one that was most 
 interested in the outcome of the debate. In the July 1962, issue of 
 Mechanical Engineering, for instance, there were four articles dealing with 
 various phases of the question. The first, written by Jens E. Kjemtrup, 
 favored immediate all-out conversion because of the long-range benefits that 
 would accrue to the U.S. Seven classes of benefits were listed: 
 
 "1. American and overseas engineers could communicate much more 
 freely . . . 
 
 2. The export-import trade in technical goods will benefit . . . 
 
 3. American consulting engineering companies will, if the old system is 
 
 maintained, find their services less and less in demand because 
 customers will want to avoid the confusion originating from 
 American design drawings interpreted by overseas contractors. 
 
 4. There is an urgent need for international technical standards which . . . 
 
 would promote the flow of goods from country to country . . . 
 [Universal acceptance of the metric units would be a necessary 
 preparation for work of this sort. 
 
 5. The units of the SI [Systeme International, or metric] system are well 
 
 defined and easily reproducible with high accuracy. This is a 
 feature of no small importance in the fields of precision en- 
 gineering products, instruments and machine tools. 
 
 6. The American engineer and scientist will 'speak the same language' . . . 
 
 7. Engineering calculations are simplified [3 1 ]." 
 
 The second article, authored by R. P. Trowbridge of General Motors, 
 favored a less comprehensive approach to the problem: 
 
 "Where economic and technological advantage is to be gained by conversion 
 to the metric system, those elements of U.S. industry, science 
 and engineering which would benefit by such conversion 
 should, by all means, convert. They should convert their own 
 literature, own equipment, own products, etc., and develop their 
 own sources. However, in U.S. industries where the technologi- 
 cal advantages are small compared to the long-term economic 
 loss, conversion to the metric system would impose an unwar- 
 ranted burden [32]." 
 
 The third article in this issue of Mechanical Engineering contained W. G. 
 Waltermire's proposal for the development of a decimalized inch system, 
 and the last article put forth a seven-part transition program devised by Carl 
 F. Kayan of Columbia University [33]. Similar discussions of various 
 phases of the metric question were published in such magazines as Product 
 Engineering, News Front, The Tool and Manufacturing Engineer, and 
 Science [34]. Also, in July 1962, the British Standards Institution issued a 
 statement favorable to metric adoption within a defined time period and con- 
 
TO BE CONTINUED (1959-1968) 243 
 
 t.aining a tentative 20-year program plan for changing over to the system 
 [35]. By the end of 1962, in short, the extent of general interest in the 
 question of metric usage was greater than it had been in over 30 years in both 
 the U.S. and Great Britain. 
 
 Consequently, with the convening of the 88th Congress in 1963, legisla- 
 tion to study the proposition was again introduced in both the House of 
 Representatives and the Senate. On the House side, bills were filed by Mr. 
 Miller, Mr. Roosevelt and Representative McClory of Illinois. 9 In the 
 Senate, a measure was proposed by Senator Claiborne Pell of Rhode 
 Island. 10 All of these bills were very similar to Mr. Miller's bill of the previ- 
 ous Congress, as amended, and called for a 3-year investigation by the Na- 
 tional Bureau of Standards. 
 
 Hearings were again held, this time before the Senate Committee on Com- 
 merce, in January, 1964 [36]. At that time the bill's sponsor, Senator Pell, 
 personally explained the need for such legislation to the Committee: 
 
 "In my travels through the world both in the Foreign Service and in other 
 capacities, I have been constantly impressed with the ease with 
 which people conversant with the metric system could handle 
 weights and measures. It became apparent as I went from 
 country to country that the metric system was perhaps the 
 closest thing the world has to an international language. It 
 facilitates commerce of every kind, and it obviously is simple to 
 learn. Yet, as more countries came to adopt the metric system, 
 the most striking paradox was the position of the English-speak- 
 ing nations with their cumbersome and confusing systems of 
 inches and pounds, gallons and tons. 
 
 My interest in seeing this country brought up to date, then, prompted the in- 
 troduction of my bill . . . . S. 1278 does not call for conversion, 
 it calls for a study of the feasibility of converting. It takes the 
 approach which I would hope is that of the reasonable man — in 
 solving important problems let us gather all the facts before 
 making a decision [37]." 
 
 Director Astin of the National Bureau of Standards also supported the 
 bill, noting that the decision to change or not to change should be made not 
 only on the basis of dollar costs and benefits, but also on intangible factors 
 such as the impact of our non-use of the metric system on the role of the U.S. 
 as a world leader. He further suggested that it might be profitable to study 
 the experience of American industries that had voluntarily switched to the 
 metric system (particularly the pharmaceutical industry) and to investigate 
 the experience of countries, such as Japan and India, that were now in the 
 process of implementing a changeover. Finally, Dr. Astin estimated that the 
 scope and complexity of the study called for would require appropriations of 
 
 9 H.R. 18 (Mr. Miller), Jan. 9, 1963; H.R. 403 (Mr. Roosevelt), Jan. 9, 1963 (88th Congress, 
 1st Session) and H.R. 10089 (Mr. McClory), Feb. 25, 1964 (88th Congress, 2d Session). 
 
 10 S. 1278, April 4, 1963 (88th Congress, 1st Session). 
 
244 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 $750,000 the first year, with lesser amounts being needed in the following 
 two years. 
 
 Dr. Robert P. Fischelis, president of the Metric Association, Inc., out- 
 lined his organization's long standing interest in seeing the metric system of 
 weights and measures adopted in the U.S. and expressed the group's support 
 of the bill. The Association's reasons were slightly different from those of 
 Senator Pell and Dr. Astin, however: 
 
 "We are interested in an exploration of the controversial features concerned 
 with the effort to adopt the metric system because we feel that, 
 once all the pros and cons have been explored and evaluated, 
 there will be little or no resistance to the adoption of the metric 
 system. In order that this exploration may be unbiased, factual 
 and clear to the American people, it should be conducted under 
 auspices which are respected and which will be accepted as 
 authentic. 
 It is our feeling that S. 1278 provides for such an unbiased and authoritative 
 study which can be accepted by the Congress of the United 
 States as a basis for action in this area [38] ." 
 
 The final witness to appear before the Committee was Assistant Secretary 
 of the Air Force Alexander H. Flax, who presented the views of the Depart- 
 ment of Defense on the proposal. Noting that earlier studies by the in- 
 dividual services had produced varying and inconclusive results in this area, 
 Mr. Flax fully supported the idea of an in-depth investigation and promised 
 the Defense Department's full cooperation. "It is clear," he said, "that the 
 adoption of the metric system would have such an extensive effect upon the 
 military services of the United States that it would be impractical for the 
 military services to remain on the English system while the country changed 
 to the metric system, or for the military services to change measurement 
 systems to a substantial degree while the country adheres to the English 
 system [39]." 
 
 No Congressional decision resulted from these deliberations, but the issue 
 continued to occupy a large volume of space in both popular and technical 
 literature. Consequently, in the following year, 1965, a great deal of atten- 
 tion was given to the question of metric usage both inside and outside of 
 Congress. 
 
 To begin with, several more metric study bills were introduced early in the 
 89th Congress. House bills identical to or very similar to those of the 
 preceding Congresses were introduced by Representatives McClory, 
 Roosevelt, Miller and Quie of Minnesota, and Mr. Fulton re-introduced his 
 proposal to dispose of the issue by means of a concurrent resolution. 11 
 Senator Pell also sponsored legislation in the 89th Congress. 12 His bill was 
 somewhat different from those pending in the House in that it directed the 
 
 11 H.R. 38 (Mr. McClory), Jan. 4, 1965; H.R. 1154(Mr. Roosevelt), Jan. 4, 1965; H.R. 2626 
 (Mr. Miller), Jan. 13, 1965; H.R. 8957 (Mr. Quie), June 10, 1965; H. Con. Res. 458 (Mr. Ful- 
 ton); [89th Congress. 1st Session]. 
 
 12 S. 774, Jan. 27, 1965 (89th Congress, 1st Session). 
 
TO BE CONTINUED (1959-1968) 245 
 
 Department of Commerce to appraise "the desirability, practicability and 
 cost of a general conversion to use of the metric system," was more com- 
 prehensive in laying out the areas to be studied, and specified that a max- 
 imum amount of $2,500,000 might be appropriated to conduct the program. 
 Before either Chamber had acted on any of these bills, however, a signifi- 
 cant and long awaited event took place. As reported in the New York Times 
 on May 25, 1965: 
 
 "The British Government announced today plans for the conversion of 
 weights and measures to the metric system over the next 10 
 years. 
 
 The object is to mesh British standards with those of Continental Europe, 
 the biggest market for British exports . . . 
 
 Douglas Jay, president of the Board of Trade, said in the House of Com- 
 mons that metric units would be adopted 'sector by sector' until 
 they become the primary system of weights and measures for 
 the country as a whole .... 
 
 The announcement means that the United States will be left as the only 
 major power using nonmetric units .... 
 
 There is no immediate question of legislation. Eventually, though, regula- 
 tions that now require the standard loaf of bread to be 14 ounces 
 and milk to be sold in half pints will have to be changed. There 
 are exceptions to the general rule allowing use of two systems 
 of measures. 
 
 British industry is solidly behind the changeover and in fact was the driving 
 force behind today's declaration [40]." 
 
 In the U.S., meanwhile, active discussion and debate on the matter con- 
 tinued. At its December, 1964 Winter Annual Meeting, for instance, the 
 American Society of Mechanical Engineers adopted the following resolu- 
 tion: 
 
 "The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, in the interest of national 
 economy and industrial efficiency, advocates the continued use 
 of the existing American, British and Canadian sizes, modules, 
 designs, and ratings. Further, the Society is of the opinion that 
 legislative action directed to an alternate system of dimensional 
 standards, such as the metric, will be at this time confusing and 
 disturbing to the productive capacity of the United States and 
 is not, therefore, in the best of public interest [41 ]. 
 
 There were other bodies, however, who were equally interested in in- 
 vestigating the matter further. One of these was the U.S. Chamber of Com- 
 merce, which adopted a resolution in April, 1965, favoring a study of the 
 feasibility of U.S. adoption of the metric system [42]. 
 
 On July 14, 1965, the Senate Committee on Commerce met to hear the ar- 
 guments for and against Senator Pell's bill [43]. Supporting the bill were 
 several witnesses, including Senator Pell; Leroy M. Alexander, chairman of 
 the Industrial Fasteners Institute; Irving Lipkowitz, representing the U.S. 
 Chamber of Commerce; and J. Herbert Hollomon, Assistant Secretary of 
 
246 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 Commerce for Science and Technology. Robert M. Byrne, representing the 
 screw, nut, and rivet manufacturers, appeared in opposition to the bill on the 
 grounds that "no amount of study can eliminate the fact of burdensome 
 economic cost of a long period of changeover." Mr. Bryne told the Commit- 
 tee that if a study were authorized, however, the industries he represented 
 would cooperate fully in the conduct of it. On his part, Dr. Hollomon as- 
 sured the Committee that the Department of Commerce would seek "the 
 best possible advice from representatives from American commerce, indus- 
 try, engineering, science, labor, consumers, and government" through 
 broadly based advisory committees. He also identified five possible solu- 
 tions to the problem which might emerge from such a study as feasible cour- 
 ses of action: 
 
 1 . General adoption of the metric system by legislation. 
 
 2. Voluntary extension of metric usage on an industry-by-industry basis. 
 
 3. Regulated partial conversion, segment by segment in identified areas over 
 
 an extended period, with plans for handling the resulting coex- 
 istence of mixed systems. 
 
 4. Solutions other than adoption of the metric system, to mitigate the crucial 
 
 problems without forced conversion by law. 
 
 5. A system of financial incentives to those who voluntarily convert. 
 
 A study was needed, in Dr. Hollomon's opinion, to enable a choice of the 
 proper alternative to be made on the basis of all of the relevant information. 
 
 In early August, before the Senate Committee had issued its report, addi- 
 tional hearings were held before the House Committee on Science and As- 
 tronautics to consider Mr. Miller's bill [44]. Once again the testimony 
 presented was strongly in favor of the legislation proposed. Among those 
 who either appeared before the Committee or submitted statements support- 
 ing a study were Representatives McClory, Quie, and Roosevelt; Dr. Hol- 
 lomon; Dr. Douglas V. Frost of Abbott Laboratories; Mr. George P. Lar- 
 rick, Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration; Dr. Donald F. 
 Hornig, Director of the Office of Science and Technology and the Pre- 
 sident's Science Advisor; Dr. Thomas J. Macek, council member of the 
 American Pharmaceutical Association; Dr. Alfred J. Eggers of the National 
 Aeronautics and Space Administration; Dr. Astin of the National Bureau of 
 Standards; and Mr. Alexander of the Industrial Fasteners Institute. Mr. 
 Byrne also appeared before the House Committee to present the objections 
 of the screw, nut, and rivet manufacturers. 
 
 As a result of these hearings, Chairman Miller submitted a Committee Re- 
 port with an amended bill on August 24, 1965 [45]. This report went deeply 
 into the need for a comprehensive study, listing such major considerations 
 as: 
 
 1. The possibility that U.S. failure to use the metric system was hampering 
 
 our ability to compete successfully with foreign companies in 
 many product lines. 
 
 2. The fact that some U.S. industries had already accepted the metric 
 
 system and that others were preparing to do so in the near fu- 
 ture. 
 
TO BE CONTINUED (1959-1968) 247 
 
 3. The fact that "Those countries which have not at this date changed over 
 
 to the metric system are few and their ranks are growing thinner 
 [46]." The action of Great Britain in particular was singled out 
 as indicative of the need for some corresponding action on the 
 part of the U.S. 
 
 4. The need to resolve "the innumerable, widespread, commercial, industri- 
 
 al, educational, economic, and procedural problems" involved 
 in the question of metric usage before proceeding with any 
 change [47]. 
 Mr. Fulton expressed a different view: 
 
 "Time is of the essence for the United States to maintain our leader- 
 ship in world trade, science, and development and at home in our 
 domestic economy. It is necessary that we immediately announce the 
 policy of the adoption of the metric system. 
 Our educational system must gear itself to the objective of adoption of 
 
 the metric system by teaching the system at all levels . . . 
 I am convinced that the ultimate success of the adoption of the metric 
 
 system will depend on the young people now in our schools . . . 
 We need not delay longer . . . 
 
 The United States will rapidly be isolated by other industrial trading nations 
 and will lose our U.S. leadership in world trade, scientific 
 research and development. We must begin immediately to lay 
 an adequately broad base for the changeover with ease, not to 
 postpone this essential change for a total of 15 years with 
 further studies. I call for prompt action on the metric system 
 changeover [48]." 
 
 But the majority of the Committee had agreed to recommend a revised 
 study bill. 13 Among the important changes included in this legislation was a 
 new statement of the objective of the study which avoided references to 
 "adoption of or "conversion to" the metric system. Instead, the study was 
 to "determine the impact of increasing worldwide use of the metric system 
 on the United States, to appraise the desirability and practicability of in- 
 creasing the use of metric weights and measures in the United States; and to 
 evaluate the costs and benefits of alternative courses of action which may be 
 feasible for the United States." The new bill also specified that "representa- 
 tives of United States industry, science, engineering, labor and their associa- 
 tions" were to be consulted in the planning and execution of the study. After 
 the Committee had submitted this bill to the House, it was sent to the Rules 
 Committee for further action. 
 
 On September 9, 1965, the bill was taken up by the Rules Committee. 
 What happened at that meeting was reported the following day in the New 
 York Times: 
 "The House Rules Committee, headed by 82-year-old Representative 
 
 Howard W. Smith, Democrat of Virginia, buried today a bill for 
 
 a study of conversion to the metric system. 
 
 I3 H.R. 10329, Aug. 9, 1965 (89th Congress, 1st Session). 
 
248 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 Representative George P. Miller, Democrat of California, chairman of the 
 House Committee on Science and Astronautics, argued for his 
 bill . . . 
 
 'We'll be one island, isolated, using a system that has little rhyme or reason,' 
 Mr. Miller said . . . 
 
 Mr. Smith, peering from under his shaggy eyebrows, told Mr. Miller: 'I got 
 my education in a one-room red school house. We took our 
 degrees in the three R's. Just to make an honest confession, I 
 don't know what the metric system is [49].' " 
 
 Despite attempts by Mr. Miller and Mr. Fulton to explain the system to 
 Representative Smith, the chairman of the Rules Committee remained un- 
 convinced and the bill was not sent on to the House for action. 
 
 But this had no effect on the Senate's actions. On September 16, 1965, 
 Mrs. Neuberger submitted a Report from the Committee on Commerce • 
 recommending passage of Senator Pell's bill, S. 774 [50]. This report also 
 pointed to the growing use of the metric system throughout the world, the 
 possible impact on U.S. foreign trade, and the lack of agreement as to 
 whether the advantages of using the system outweighed the disadvantages of 
 changing over to it as the main reasons why such a study would be timely 
 and desirable. Changes in the wording of the bill were also suggested that 
 were similar to those which had been made by the House Committee. The 
 major difference was that the Senate bill directed more attention to the inter- 
 national trade and commerce aspects of the problem than its House counter- 
 part, and authorized only $500,000 for the first year of the study (the House 
 bill had authorized $2,500,000 for all years). 
 
 Four days later, on September 20, 1965, the Senate passed S. 774 by 
 unanimous consent [51]. Senator Pell took the occasion to remark: 
 
 "Mr. President, the passage of S. 774, today, is the metric equivalent of a 
 milestone in the field of weights and measures. We are putting 
 our best 'foot' forward in an attempt to leap from the confusion 
 of the past to the clarity of the future . . . 
 
 I hope that soon we will be able to proceed, conduct a comprehensive study 
 in depth, . . . and make necessary decisions on fact rather 
 than fearful fancy [ 52] ." 
 
 In the next session of Congress, the House Committee on Science and As- 
 tronautics again tried to bring such action about by considering and reporting 
 on S. 774 [53]. Once more, however, the bill expired without reaching the 
 floor of the House. 
 
 In the 90th Congress, beginning in 1967, the efforts to secure the passage 
 of a metric study bill were renewed by sponsors in both Houses. In the 
 Senate, Mr. Pell introduced a bili very similar to the one which had been 
 passed in the previous Congress. 14 In the House, identical or similar 
 proposals were filed by Congressmen Miller, Ottinger, Quie and Edwards, 
 and a concurrent resolution providing for immediate steps toward metric 
 
 14 S. 44 1 , Jan. 1 7, 1 967 (90th Congress, 1 st Session). 
 
TO BE CONTINUED (1959-1968) 249 
 
 adoption was proposed by Representative Fulton. 15 The House Committee 
 on Science and Astronautics lost no time in issuing a favorable report on Mr. 
 Miller's proposal, H.R. 3136 [54]. Once again, however, the metric study 
 bill failed to reach the floor for debate and decision. 
 
 On August 29, 1967, Senator Robert P. Griffin of Michigan introduced a 
 new bill, 16 to authorize the Secretary of Commerce to make a study in order 
 to recommend an improved system of weights and measures, and standards 
 in connection therewith, for United States and international use." Unlike 
 most earlier bills, which had been limited primarily to calling for an in- 
 vestigation of the desirability and practicability of increasing U.S. use of the 
 metric system, Senator Griffin's bill asked that the study also include con- 
 sideration of 
 
 "the extent to which the United States should retain and promote interna- 
 tional use of the system of weights and measures, and various 
 standards used in connection therewith, currently in use in this 
 country." 
 
 In other words, in areas where it would be cheaper, more practical and more 
 desirable for the U.S. to retain industrial and engineering standards based on 
 the customary system, the study was to contain explicit recommendations to 
 that effect. It was also to suggest how, in such instances, international ac- 
 ceptance of such standards might be secured in order for the world to 
 achieve uniformity in weights and measures usage. The subsequent sections 
 of Senator Griffin's bill, which dealt with the common concerns of interna- 
 tional trade, military affairs, education, engineering, manufacturing, and so 
 on, were changed to be consistent with this new emphasis. For example, in 
 the sub-section of the bill dealing with international relations, the wording 
 was changed to read: 
 
 [the Secretary shall] investigate and appraise the advantages and disad- 
 vantages to the United States in international trade and com- 
 merce, and in military and other areas of international relations, 
 of the increased use of an internationally standardized system 
 of weights and measures. 
 
 On November 15. 1967. the Senate Committee on Commerce held 
 hearings on both Senator Pell's and Senator Griffin's bills [55] . Department 
 of Commerce witnesses, including Assistant Secretary John F. Kincaid and 
 NBS Director A. V. Astin, preferred the language of Senator Pell's bill to 
 that of Senator Griffin's. As Dr. Kincaid put it: 
 
 "We consider it totally unrealistic to contemplate reversal of the worldwide 
 trend towards metric units to achieve international acceptance 
 of U.S. measurement units. 
 
 15 H.R. 3136 (Mr. Miller) Jan. 19, 1967; H.R. 5469 (Mr. Ottinger) Feb. 15, 1967; H.R. 6598 
 (Mr. Edwards) Mar. 6. 1967; H. Con. Res. 218 (Mr. Fulton) Feb. 20, 1967; (90th Congress. 1st 
 Session). 
 
 16 S. 2356. 
 
 429-523 O - 71 -17 
 
250 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 On the other hand, we are in full agreement with the suggestion . . . that 
 every consideration be given to retaining and promoting inter- 
 national acceptance of the product and engineering standards 
 currently used in this country. Many such standards might be 
 retained irrespective of the measurement units in which they are 
 expressed [56] ." 
 
 Industry representatives, on the other hand, including Richard B. Belford, 
 technical director of the Industrial Fasteners Institute; J. D. Graham, of the 
 International Harvester Company; and Harold Byron Smith, Jr. vice pre- 
 sident of operations for the Illinois Tool Works, Inc. seemed to favor the 
 provisions of Senator Griffin's bill. The reason why this was so was aptly 
 stated by Mr. Smith: 
 
 "Our fastener people . . . could point out to you that, for them, conversion 
 would present an even greater problem — for in some areas of 
 American manufacturing industry, our technology and degree 
 of standardization is so superior to that used elsewhere in the 
 world, that there is, in fact, no comparable or universally ac- 
 cepted metric standard to which we could convert, if we wanted 
 to [57]." 
 
 Of the more than 30 individual, organizational or corporate views presented 
 at these hearings, however, none were opposed to the idea of making a study 
 to determine the facts. 
 
 After these hearings, the process of arriving at a bill that would be mu- 
 tually acceptable to both the House and the Senate began. On April 30, 
 1968, a great step forward was taken in that direction when Representative 
 Sisk reported a resolution from the Committee on Rules, 17 providing for 2 
 hours of debate on Mr. Miller's bill, H.R. 31 36 [58]. On June 24, 1968, the 
 resolution of the Rules Committee was called up for discussion in the House 
 of Representatives [59] . After some spirited debate concerning the need to 
 spend scarce funds on making a study, the urgency of making a study, and 
 the desirability of opening up this area of investigation at all, the resolution 
 was agreed to and 2 hours of debate were held that same day [60] . 
 
 The main speakers were Chairman Miller and Representative Fulton. Mr. 
 Miller outlined the recent history of proposed metric study bills, emphasiz- 
 ing the purpose of the pending legislation: 
 
 "Before going further, let me make it crystal clear that this legislation does 
 nothing drastic, does not call for any monumental changes in 
 your way of life; does not call for immediate conversion; it 
 merely requires a study to be conducted by the Secretary of 
 Commerce to determine the impact that increased use of the 
 metric system of weights and measures is having on American 
 life [61]." 
 
 Mr. Miller went on from there to review the need for a thorough investiga- 
 
 17 H. Res. 1 148 (90th Congress, 2d Session). 
 
TO BE CONTINUED (1959-1968) 251 
 
 tion. He pointed out that only 4 countries out of 106 had not officially 
 established the metric system — New Zealand, Australia, Canada and the 
 United States. He reviewed earlier actions that had had a significant impact 
 on the official standing of the metric system in the U.S. — the Act of 1866, 
 the Treaty of the Meter, and so on. Mr. Miller then noted that many indus- 
 tries were partially using the metric system already, but that others were un- 
 certain as to what action, if any, should be taken. In conclusion, he said that: 
 
 "The increasing use of the metric system measurements in both the United 
 States and abroad is likely to pose very serious problems for the 
 economy of this country both in international development and 
 in its relation to the economy of other nations . . . However, 
 there has been a general lack of factual information needed both 
 to guide Government and private business sectors of this 
 country concerning the increase in the metric system. There- 
 fore, the full broad and comprehensive study called for by this 
 bill should be expedited [62]." 
 
 Mr. Fulton of Pennsylvania then rose to support the bill: "[T]his bill for a 
 study on the adoption of the metric system should be passed. 
 We are moving into a new scientific age that amazes everyone 
 of us. . . . [W]e can see that ours is a different age, requiring 
 extraordinarily precise measurements. 
 
 People who say that our present standard is good enough the way it is are 
 very well intentioned. The question is, though, shall we take the 
 next step in this country and go along with the other countries 
 of the world by moving into the metric system [63] ?" 
 
 Others supporting the measure during the debate included Representa- 
 tives Roush of Indiana, Hechler of West Virginia, Ottinger of New York, 
 McClory of Illinois, Rumsfeld of Illinois, Ichord of Missouri, and Gonzalez 
 of Texas. In his speech, Mr. Roush addressed attention to what has been, 
 over the years, one of the most persistent aspects of the debate on metric 
 adoption in the U.S. — the lighter side of the question: 
 
 "I [have] found that there are some who complain that such a change would 
 radically change our language; would mar much of our most 
 revered literature. 
 
 Individuals have lamented that if we changed from our present system of 
 weights and measures that we would have to abandon 
 Shakespeare's 'Full fathom five thy father lies' ... as well as 
 the immortal Tennyson's 'Charge of the Light Brigade' in which 
 the 'six hundred' rode 'Haifa league, half a league, half a league 
 onward' in the valley of death. Nor could we anymore quote 
 those impressive lines of Robert Frost when he noted that he 
 had 'promises to keep and miles to go before I sleep'. 
 
 However, I do believe that we would find new and different measurement 
 systems adaptable to poetic phraseology. One comes to mind at 
 this moment, composed anonymously concerning a famous 
 Smithsonian Institution scientist. It goes as follows: 
 
252 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 Simon Langley invented the bolometer 
 
 Which is really a kind of thermometer 
 
 That can measure the heat from a polar bear's seat 
 
 At a distance of half a kilometer. 
 
 And even Madison Avenue has adjusted to the infinite possibilities of a dif- 
 ferent measurement system with their ad concerning the 'silly 
 millimeter longer [64].' " 
 
 Returning to the serious side of the issue, a number of amendments to the 
 metric study bill were offered and accepted after the general debate had been 
 concluded. Added to the bill were provisions similar to those favored by 
 Senator Griffin to require investigation of the possibility of retaining certain 
 U.S. engineering standards and submission of recommendations for meeting 
 the difficulties and costs involved in any change of measurement systems. In 
 addition, Mr. Fulton secured approval of an amendment requiring that the 
 first year's funds for the program (not to exceed $500,000) be taken from 
 money previously appropriated to the Department of Commerce. 
 
 Following the process of amending the bill, a vote was taken and, by a 
 margin of 269 to 42, the legislation was passed by the House [65] . On Au- 
 gust 9. 1968, the U.S. Senate passed the same bill. On August 14, it was 
 signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson. 
 
 As finally enacted. Public Law 90-472, 1H provided for: 
 
 "A program of investigation, research, and survey to determine the impact 
 of increasing use of the metric system on the United States; to 
 appraise the desirability and practicability of increasing the use 
 of metric weights and measures in the United States; to study 
 the feasibility of retaining and promoting by international use of 
 dimensional and other engineering standards based on the 
 customary measurement units of the United States; and to eval- 
 uate the costs and benefits of alternative courses of action 
 which may be feasible for the United States." 
 
 The law also provided Congressional guidance to the Department of Com- 
 merce as to the specific areas to be investigated and the organizations to be 
 consulted in performing the study. A 3-year period was allowed for conduct- 
 ing the investigation, at the end of which time the Secretary of Commerce 
 was required to submit "a full and complete report of the findings made 
 under the program authorized by this Act, together with such recommenda- 
 tions as he considers to be appropriate and in the best interests of the United 
 States." 
 
 C. CONCLUSION 
 
 In nearly two centuries of debate on the matter of fixing a standard for 
 U.S. weights and measures, many important investigations have been 
 
 18 82 Stat. 693. 
 
TO BE CONTINUED (1959-1968) 253 
 
 made — those of Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams in the early 
 days, and those of such groups as the National Academy of Sciences, the 
 University Convocation of the State of New York, the Franklin Institute, 
 the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, the National Industrial 
 Conference Board, and similar groups in Great Britain in later years. A 
 major difference between these earlier studies and the present U.S. Metric 
 Study is that none of the previous ones was attended by so much discussion 
 and earnest consideration beforehand of the overall objectives which such a 
 study should meet and of the many factors involved in reaching a satisfacto- 
 ry conclusion on the issue. Nor have previous studies provided for such 
 broad participation from all segments of society as is required under Public 
 Law 90-472. Irrespective of the eventual outcome of the present study, then, 
 the question of U.S. use of the metric system will have received a more 
 thorough discussion in the years since 1959 than ever before in our history, 
 and more people will have been involved in the eventual decision than at any 
 other time. For this reason, if for no other, future historians will doubtless 
 record these years as another major period in the history of the metric 
 system in the United States. 
 
VIII. SUMMING UP 
 
 Many eminent individuals, prestigious institutions and powerful govern- 
 ments have urged upon the world the advantages to be gained by securing a 
 single system of weights and measures to which all nations might repair. 
 Although the desirability of achieving this goal has seldom been challenged, 
 practical considerations have made the successful attainment of it an elusive 
 proposition — international opportunities have given way to national in- 
 terests, the fear of unknown political and psychological consequences that 
 might result from initiating such a pervasive social reform have forestalled 
 concerted action, questions concerning the extent to which scientific superi- 
 ority should prevail over established commercial customs and technological 
 practices have gone unanswered, and potential long-range economic benefits 
 have been balanced against short-term economic expediency. In spite of 
 such problems, however, one system of weights and measures — the metric 
 system — has steadily gained acceptance among the nations of the world until 
 it stands today on the verge of becoming the first truly universal system of 
 weights and measures. One of the major obstacles to the final attainment of 
 that long sought status has been the fact that the United States has re- 
 peatedly declined to take action officially adopting the metric system. 
 
 The creation of the metric system by France and the beginning of serious 
 deliberations in the United States with regard to fixing a standard of weights 
 and measures occurred in the same year— 1790. Since then, the question of 
 whether the United States should accede to the worldwide trend toward use 
 of the metric system or give legal sanction to our customary system of En- 
 glish origin has been debated on many occasions but has never been an- 
 swered decisively. In the process, however, many alternative actions were 
 proposed and deliberated upon, a few decisions having permanent sig- 
 
 254 
 
SUMMING UP 255 
 
 nificance were made, and the inherently sleep-producing subject of weights 
 and measures was transformed into a sharply contested controversy on 
 several occasions. 
 
 In the nearly two centuries of discussion, there have been five major 
 periods of activity with respect to U.S. weights and measures and the metric 
 system, each with its own distinctive objectives and characteristic concerns. 
 These were: 
 
 1 . THE PERIOD OF CONSOLIDATION (1 786-1 866) 
 
 During this period, emphasis was placed on the achievement of greater in- 
 ternal uniformity in weights and measures by reducing the diversity of units 
 and values that existed from State to State. 
 
 Major events that occurred during these years included: 
 
 1786 — A complete decimal system of coinage was adopted for the 
 United States. 
 
 1790 — The U.S. Constitution was ratified, whereby the power "to fix 
 the standard of weights and measures" was delegated to Con- 
 gress. Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson submitted a report 
 on weights and measures to Congress. A basic standard, 
 derived from the motion of the earth on its axis, was proposed 
 along with two alternative plans for a full system of weights 
 and measures — one to "define and render uniform and stable" 
 the weights and measures already in use, the other to establish 
 a decimal system of weights and measures. 
 In France, King Louis XVI approved an edict announcing a 
 reform of French weights and measures and authorizing ap- 
 propriate scientific investigations. When carried out, this work 
 led to the development of the metric system. 
 
 1795 — A French decree was issued officially adopting the metric 
 system. Copies of the provisional standards were sent to 
 several countries, including the United States. 
 
 1799 — The first Federal weights and measures law was enacted. 
 Known as the "Surveyor Act," it ordered an annual examina- 
 tion of the weights, measures and instruments used in as- 
 sessing customs duties. 
 
 1812 — By decree, Napoleon Bonaparte temporarily suspended the 
 compulsory provisions of the 1795 metric system law. He 
 retained the metric standards but restored the pre-Revolu- 
 tionary unit names and values for French weights and mea- 
 sures. 
 
 1 82 1 — Secretary of State John Quincy Adams submitted an exhaustive 
 report on the subject of weights and measures to Congress in 
 response to a resolution passed by the Senate in 1817. Adams 
 recommended retention of the English customary system by 
 the U.S., but he proposed a program for achieving greater 
 uniformity among the States. He also recommended that the 
 
256 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 President be authorized to negotiate with France, Spain and 
 Great Britain with a view toward achieving uniformity among 
 all four nations. 
 
 1828 — An Act was passed establishing the Troy pound, a weight of the 
 customary system, as the standard for coinage to be used by 
 the U.S. Mint. 
 
 1832 — By administrative action, the Secretary of the Treasury, 
 declared the yard, the avoirdupois pound, and the Winchester 
 bushel to be the official system of weights and measures to be 
 used in U.S. custom houses and directed that standards be 
 prepared and distributed. 
 
 1836 — A joint resolution was passed by Congress directing that sets of 
 
 the standards adopted by the Treasury Department be 
 prepared and distributed to the States. 
 
 1837 — A law was passed by the French Government reinstating the 
 
 metric system to full compulsory standing after January 1 , 
 1840. 
 
 1838 — A joint resolution providing for delivery of standard balances to 
 
 each State was passed by Congress. 
 
 1863 — The National Academy of Sciences was created and chose, as 
 
 one of its first acts, to establish a committee on weights, mea- 
 sures and coinage. 
 
 1864 — The Committee on Coinage, Weights and Measures was 
 
 established as a standing committee of the House of Represen- 
 tatives. 
 1866— Use of the metric system in the United States was made legal by 
 Act of Congress. 
 Other Acts were passed by Congress providing for each State to 
 be furnished with a set of standard weights and measures of the 
 metric system and providing for the distribution of metric 
 balances to all post offices exchanging mail with foreign coun- 
 tries. 
 
 2. THE EDUCATIONAL MOVEMENT (1 866-1 889) 
 
 During this era, the primary goal of supporters of the metric system was to 
 secure widespread acceptance and voluntary use of the system by educating 
 "the rising generation" as to the advantages offered by it. The basic assump- 
 tion adopted by Frederick A. P. Barnard and other leaders of the movement 
 was that no further legislation could be passed or would be effective until the 
 people as a whole were ready to exchange their customary weights and mea- 
 sures for new ones. Legislation was proposed during these years, but its 
 main aim was to require Government use of the system in transacting busi- 
 ness of an international character— postal exchanges, customs levies, and so 
 on. 
 
 The following noteworthy events took place between 1 866 and 1 889: 
 
 1871 —After 5 years of deliberation, a report on weights and measures 
 was delivered to the University Convocation of the State of 
 
SUMMING UP 257 
 
 New York by Professor Charles Davies of Columbia Univer- 
 sity. Davies' report was almost totally unfavorable to further 
 action with regard to the metric system and was the first 
 completely anti-metric work to appear in print. It was also a 
 trend-setter in terms of the nature and general tone of the argu- 
 ments advanced. 
 
 1872 — The president of Columbia University, Frederick A. P. Barnard, 
 
 published a pro-metric refutation of Prof. Davies' contentions 
 and set forth recommendations for increasing the use of the 
 metric system in the United States. 
 
 1873 — The American Metrological Society was organized in New York 
 
 by F. A. P. Barnard for the purpose of improving existing 
 systems of weights, measures and moneys and to work for the 
 universal adoption of a common system of weights and mea- 
 sures, preferably the metric system. 
 
 1875 — The Convention du Metre (Treaty of the Meter) was signed in 
 
 Paris by 17 nations, including the United States. The result of 
 several years work, the Treaty provided for the fabrication of 
 new and improved standards for metric weights and measures, 
 the establishment and maintenance of a permanent Interna- 
 tional Bureau of Weights and Measures, and the creation of a 
 general conference as a permanent deliberative body to pass 
 upon international weights and measures matters. Final U.S. 
 approval of the Treaty was granted in 1878, and it was ratified 
 by President Hayes. 
 
 1876 — The American Metric Bureau was established in Boston, Mas- 
 
 sachusetts. Its president was F. A. P. Barnard, but the 
 management of the Bureau was entrusted to its secretary, Mel- 
 vil Dewey (who later developed the Dewey decimal system of 
 library classification). The objects of this organization were 
 "to disseminate information concerning the metric system; to 
 urge its early adoption; and to bring about actual introductions 
 wherever possible." 
 
 1877 — A resolution was adopted by the House of Representatives 
 
 requesting the executive branch agencies of the Government 
 to submit reports concerning the desirability of making the use 
 of the metric system obligatory for all Government transac- 
 tions. They were also asked to state what objections there 
 might be to adopting the metric system for general use and how 
 long a transition period should be allowed. The Government's 
 replies, received in 1878, were generally not favorable to any 
 compulsory law regarding the use of the metric system. 
 1879 — The International Institute for Preserving and Perfecting (the 
 Anglo-Saxon) Weights and Measures was founded in Boston. 
 This group, the nation's first organized anti-metric society, was 
 led by Charles Latimer, an engineer, from his home in Cleve- 
 land, Ohio. Its objectives were to defeat any proposed legisla- 
 tion designed to further the use of the metric system, to 
 
258 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 preserve the English customary system of weights and mea- 
 sures and work for its improvement and to discuss and dis- 
 seminate "the wisdom contained in the Great Pyramid of 
 Jeezeh in Egypt." 
 
 1880— A denunciation of the metric system and its adherents was 
 published by Charles Latimer in the form of a book entitled 
 The French Metric System, or, The Battle of the Standards. 
 
 1881 —A joint resolution was passed by Congress requiring the Secre- 
 tary of the Treasury to supply State land grant colleges with 
 sets of weights and measures standards. 
 Most activites of the American Metric Bureau had been 
 suspended by 1881 due to a shortage of funds and Mr. 
 Dewey's transfer to New York. 
 
 1888 — Charles Latimer died and the International Institute expired 
 
 from lack of adequate support. 
 
 1889 — F. A. P. Barnard died and the American Metrological Society 
 
 began a process of rapid deterioration. 
 Fabrication of new international metric standards was completed 
 in France. International prototypes were selected, and copies 
 were distributed to nations that had signed the Treaty of the 
 Meter. The U.S. received prototype meters No. 21 and No. 27 
 and prototype kilograms No. 4 and No. 20. In 1890, these 
 standards were accepted in a formal ceremony at the White 
 House by President Benjamin Harrison. 
 
 3. THE MOVEMENT TO INTRODUCE THE METRIC SYSTEM 
 THROUGH GOVERNMENT ADOPTION (1 890-1 91 4) 
 
 In this time period the supporters of the metric system adhered to a strate- 
 gy which called for rapid adoption of the system by the Government, fol- 
 lowed by a general transition on the part of the rest of the U.S. after a brief 
 introductory period. The main assumptions which were behind this move- 
 ment were: (1) that the eventual acceptance of the metric system was in- 
 evitable; (2) that the people of the Nation could not fail to appreciate the su- 
 perior advantages of the metric system once they had gotten first-hand ex- 
 perience in using it; and (3) that the best way to acquaint the greatest number 
 of people with the system was by adopting it for all Government work. With 
 very few exceptions, the legislation proposed during this period was aimed 
 at implementing this strategy. 
 The outstanding events that occurred between 1890 and 1914 were: 
 
 1893 — Congress enacted a law establishing gauges for sheet and plate 
 iron and steel. Standard thickness and weights were specified 
 in both customary and metric units. 
 Thomas C. Mendenhall, the Superintendent of Weights and Mea- 
 sures, issued a Treasury Department Bulletin announcing that 
 the U.S. prototype meter and kilogram would henceforth be 
 considered the nation's "fundamental standards of length and 
 mass." Under the new procedures adopted by Mendenhall, 
 
SUMMING UP 259 
 
 units of the English customary system were defined not by 
 their own standards but by carefully specifying what fraction 
 of a meter would constitute a yard and what fraction of a kilo- 
 gram would constitute a pound. 
 
 1894 — A law defining and establishing units for electrical measurement 
 
 was passed by Congress. These units were based on the metric 
 system. 
 
 1895 — A resolution establishing a commission to study and report on 
 
 the feasibility of metric adoption was passed by the House of 
 Representatives. By mistake, the resolution was recorded as 
 requiring the concurrence of the Senate in order to be put into 
 effect. Consequently, the commission was never formally or- 
 ganized and only brief reports by a few Government agencies 
 resulted. 
 
 1896 — Following hearings by the House Committee on Coinage, 
 
 Weights and Measures, a bill requiring Government adoption 
 of the metric system was taken up by the House of Represen- 
 tatives. After passing the bill one time, the House voted to 
 reconsider its action and the measure was then sent back to the 
 Committee for further consideration. Despite several sub- 
 sequent attempts to revive the bill, no additional action was 
 taken. 
 
 1897 — Legislation was enacted by Great Britain permitting full use of 
 
 the metric system. 
 
 1901— The National Bureau of Standards was established by Act of 
 Congress, and Samuel Wesley Stratton was appointed to be its 
 first director. 
 
 1902 — Extensive hearings on proposed Government adoption of the 
 metric system were held by the Committee on Coinage, 
 Weights and Measures, at which serious opposition began to 
 develop. A favorable Committee report was issued (from 
 which no action resulted) but this was to be the last such report 
 for 35 years. 
 Adoption of the metric system was made the main topic of 
 discussion at the annual meeting of the American Society of 
 Mechanical Engineers in New York. On the basis of a strongly 
 anti-metric report submitted by a special committee and a 
 paper prepared by Frederick A. Halsey, the Society declined 
 to give approval to pending legislative proposals. 
 
 1904- 
 
 1906 — A series of exhaustive hearings on the question of metric adop- 
 tion was conducted by the House Committee on Coinage, 
 Weights and Measures. 
 
 1904 — A book of arguments against the metric system, entitled The 
 Metric Fallacy, was co-authored by Frederick A. Halsey and 
 Samuel S. Dale. 
 
 1905— The first National Conference on Weights and Measures, spon- 
 sored by the National Bureau of Standards, was held at 
 
260 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 Washington, D.C. One of the stated objectives of the Con- 
 ference was to secure uniformity of laws pertaining to weights 
 and measures throughout the United States. Activities along 
 these lines were interpreted by anti-metric interests as an at- 
 tempt to force metric adoption on the people. 
 1 907 -Following a refusal by the Committee on Coinage, Weights and 
 Measures to report favorably on a metric bill, intense promo- 
 tional efforts on behalf of the system died down until the ad- 
 vent of World War I. 
 
 4. THE PROPAGANDA PERIOD (1914-1933) 
 
 During this era, those who were expounding both sides of the metric 
 question relied heavily on direct public appeals as the principal means of 
 conducting their respective campaigns. On the pro-metric side of the fence, 
 the objective was simply to secure the passage of any legislation that would 
 tend to promote greater use of the metric system. On the anti-metric side, all 
 Government activities or proposed actions were carefully scrutinized and 
 those that contained any pro-metric provisions at all were thoroughly op- 
 posed. Consequently, no single pattern emerged from the legislation 
 proposed during these years. In general, however, the legislation was totally 
 different from that put forth in earlier decades; it was aimed chiefly at secur- 
 ing the use of the metric system in daily commercial transactions; and it con- 
 tained provisions exempting manufacturers from the compulsory require- 
 ments of the law. 
 
 Major events which took place between 1914 and 1933 included: 
 1916 — A pro-metric report was prepared by S. W. Stratton for use by 
 American members of the International High Commission. 
 It was entitled The Metric System in Export Trade, and it set 
 the trend for many of the pro-metric arguments of this era. 
 The American Metric Association was founded in New York. 
 The leaders of this pro-metric group included Dr. George 
 Kunz, its president during these years, Howard Richards, 
 Frederick Roberts and Dr. Stratton. The organization's goal 
 was to secure the general use of the metric system, and its ap- 
 proach to the problem involved heavy reliance on scientific, 
 educational and professional organizations. 
 The anti-metric American Institute of Weights and Measures 
 was organized, also in New York. The brainchild of Frederick 
 A. Halsey and Samuel S. Dale, the Institute's main objective 
 was "opposition to hasty and ill-considered legislation involv- 
 ing changes from our fundamental standards." Support for the 
 organization's activities was provided by some of the nation's 
 leading manufacturers. The president of the Institute was 
 Walter Renton Ingalls, but most of the work was carried out by 
 successive secretaries, including Halsey, Luther D. Burlin- 
 game, Charles C. Stutz and William E. Bullock. 
 
SUMMING UP 261 
 
 1 9 1 8 — General Order No. 1 was issued by the War Department provid- 
 
 ing for the use of the metric system for wartime activities. 
 
 A committee of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers 
 issued an anti-metric rebuttal to Dr. Stratton's 1916 report on 
 export trade and Frederick Halsey published a paper on "The 
 Weights and Measures of Latin America" which purported to 
 prove that the metric system had failed to gain acceptance in 
 all but one country in that region. 
 
 Secretary of Commerce William C. Redfield, in an address to the 
 Metric Association, advocated adoption of the system and im- 
 plied that German industrial strength had been materially 
 aided by her switchover in 1871. 
 
 1919 — The World Trade Club began operations in San Francisco, 
 
 California. Financed by a wealthy manufacturer named Albert 
 Herbert and operated by an advertising man named Aubrey 
 Drury, this group was chiefly a publicity organization formed 
 to promote U.S. adoption of the metric system. Between 1919 
 and 1921 , the World Trade Club issued a barrage of pro-metric 
 propaganda and lobbied for Congressional support by retaining 
 a representative in Washington, D.C., W. Mortimer Crocker. 
 Although the group's name was changed in subsequent years, 
 to the World Metric Standardization Council (1920) and the 
 All- America Standards Council (1924), its objectives, method 
 of operation, and personnel remained basically the same. 
 
 1920 — A massive petitioning campaign was launched by the World 
 
 Trade Club in an attempt to flood Washington with pro-metric 
 postal cards. Eventually, more than 100,000 petitions were 
 received. This activity touched off a counter-campaign that 
 was spearheaded by Nathan Viall, the editor of American 
 Machinist magazine. 
 A second, and revised, edition of The Metric Fallacy was 
 published by Frederick Halsey and the American Institute of 
 Weights and Measures. 
 
 1921 — Between October, 1921 and March, 1922 extensive hearings on 
 
 a metric adoption bill were held by a subcommittee on the 
 Senate Committee on Manufactures. It marked the first con- 
 sideration of the metric issue by the Senate since 1866. 
 The National Industrial Conference Board conducted an in- 
 depth study of the advantages and disadvantages of both the 
 metric system and the English customary system of weights 
 and measures. Its findings led them to conclude that the En- 
 glish system should be retained. 
 
 1922 — Aubrey Drury compiled and published a comprehensive collec- 
 
 tion of pro-metric contentions in a large volume entitled World 
 Metric Standardization: An Urgent Issue. 
 
 1923 — Samuel Stratton, who had been severely criticized for using the 
 
 National Bureau of Standards to promote the metric system, 
 resigned to become president of the Massachusetts Institute of 
 
262 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 Technology. He was succeeded as director of NBS by George 
 Kimball Burgess, who, in time, was also accused of fostering 
 a pro-metric attitude on the Bureau's part. 
 
 1924 — The first Pan-American Standardization Conference was held at 
 Lima, Peru. Despite the hopes of metric advocates, no action 
 to promote adoption of the system was approved by the Con- 
 ference. 
 
 1926 — Congressional hearings on a metric system bill were held by the 
 House Committee on Coinage, Weights and Measures for the 
 first time in 20 years. After the Committee declined to issue a 
 favorable report on the bill, several different resolutions were 
 proposed calling for a study of the question or for the general 
 use of metric units in merchandising. No favorable action was 
 taken with respect to these bills, either. 
 
 193 1 — After 5 years of gradual decline, intense agitation for adoption of 
 the metric system ceased. The World Trade Club and its suc- 
 cessors had folded by 1931, and the American Institute of 
 Weights and Measures had largely disappeared. The Metric 
 Association remained in existence, but it suspended almost all 
 operations and mounted no major campaign on behalf of the 
 system after 1931. 
 
 5. THE COMPREHENSIVE STUDY PHASE (1934-1968) 
 
 After a 25-year interruption, the question of U.S. acceptance of the 
 metric system again bacame an active topic of discussion. During the latest 
 period, which occurred between 1959 and 1968. the emphasis was placed 
 on securing legislation to authorize a comprehensive investigation of the 
 many facets of this question by the Federal Government. In 1968, legis- 
 lation directing the Secretary of Commerce to conduct such a study was 
 enacted by Congress. 
 
 Other events which have taken place since the depression include: 
 
 1 937 — A bill to fix the standards according to the weights and measures 
 of the metric system and to define by law the units of the 
 English customary system was considered and recommended 
 by the Committee on Coinage, Weights and Measures. 
 Although the bill was never enacted, the action represented 
 the first Congressional report involving the metric system 
 since 1902 and the last such report delivered by that particular 
 Committee. 
 1946 — The House Committee on Coinage, Weights, and Measures 
 was abolished by the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946. 
 1948 — The "Twentieth Yearbook of the National Council of Teachers 
 of Mathematics" was given over solely to a discussion of the 
 need for and advantages of using the metric system, particu- 
 larly for educational purposes. 
 1950 — Congress enacted a law which redefined the units for electrical 
 and photometric measurements and established legal standards 
 
SUMMING UP 263 
 
 for both types. This law was essentially a modernization of 
 the 1893 Act dealing with electrical measurements. 
 195 1 —A committee of the British Board of Trade submitted a report 
 to Parliament that contained recommendations for adopting 
 the metric system. 
 
 1957 — The U.S. Army issued a regulation establishing metric linear 
 
 units as the basis for weapons and related equipment. 
 
 1958 — The Committee on Science and Astronautics was created 
 
 as a standing committee by the House of Representatives. 
 By concurrent action on the part of several national standards 
 laboratories, the values for the customary pound and yard in 
 the U.S. were aligned with the values accepted by Australia, 
 Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, and the United Kingdom 
 for the first time. 
 
 1959 — With investigations of the metric system in progress in both 
 
 the U.S. and Great Britain, Secretary of Commerce Lewis 
 Strauss urged American adoption of the system in an address 
 to the American Physical Society. 
 Legislation proposing a Government program of "investigation, 
 research and survey" into the question of metric adoption was 
 introduced in the 86th Congress. Similar legislation was 
 proposed in succeeding Congresses, with significant varia- 
 tions, until 1968. Another class of legislation that was consist- 
 ently proposed during these years called for the initiation of a 
 program to increase the use of the metric system without 
 prior study. 
 
 1960 — A report was published in Great Britain that recommended 
 
 against official action with respect to the metric system of 
 weights and measures. 
 At the 11th General Conference on Weights and Measures, 
 a new international standard of length, based on the wave- 
 length of the element krypton, was adopted in place of the 
 original "meter bar.'' 1 At the same Conference, the modernized 
 metric system was officially re-named the Systeme Inter- 
 national a" Unites — the International System of Units. 
 
 1961— The first hearings on proposals to study the metric question 
 were conducted by the House Committee on Science and 
 Astronautics. A favorable report was issued and the bill was 
 placed on the Consent Calendar of the House. At each dis- 
 cussion, however, it was passed over without consideration. 
 
 1964 — The Senate Committee on Commerce held its first hearings on a 
 
 metric study bill. 
 
 1965 — The president of the British Board of Trade, with the approval 
 
 of the Government, announced plans for the conversion of 
 Great Britain to the metric system "sector by sector" over a 
 10-year period. 
 After hearings in both the House and the Senate, legislation 
 
264 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 providing for a study was passed by the Senate but held up 
 by the House Committee on Rules. 
 1968 — An Act providing for a 3-year program to determine the impact 
 of increasing use of the metric system on the United States 
 was passed by Congress and signed into law by President 
 Lyndon B.Johnson. 
 
 Throughout all of these years, the arguments both for and against the 
 metric system and its adoption by the U.S. have, with only a few exceptions, 
 remained basically unchanged. They may be summarized as follows: 
 
 I. THE PRO-METRIC CASE 
 
 A. The metric system is an inherently superior system because of its 
 scientific origins, its decimally-based configuration, and its precise 
 nomenclature. 
 
 1. Because the keystone of the metric system, the length standard, 
 
 is invariable and infinitely reproducible by virtue of its natural 
 origins, it is immune from destruction, well suited for precision 
 measurement work, and international in character. 
 
 2. The interrelationships between the units and standards for length, 
 
 mass and volume, and the progression of sub-units and multiples in 
 ratios of 1:10 make the metric system much simpler to learn and 
 use than the customary system. The value of decimalization has 
 already been demonstrated by our system of currency, and by the 
 fact that the English system of weights and measures is usually 
 decimalized when extra-fine measurements are required. In 
 addition, calculations involving weights and measures would be 
 greatly facilitated by the adoption of a decimal system and fewer 
 errors would occur because an erroneously-placed decimal point 
 is easy to notice. 
 
 3. The nomenclature of the metric system is to be preferred because 
 
 there are fewer names to learn (only 3 basic ones), each one is 
 unique and not subject to being confused with other words having 
 the same name but different meanings (such as "foot" and "yard"), 
 and the system of prefixes adopted for use with the unit names is 
 consistent and meaningful. 
 
 4. By comparison, the English customary system of weights and meas- 
 
 ures is difficult to learn, cumbersome to use, not interrelated in 
 its parts and ambiguous in its terminology. 
 
 B. The metric system of weights and measures has achieved almost uni- 
 versal acceptance among the other nations of the world, and it would be to 
 the benefit of the United States to adopt it also. 
 
 1. One by one, all of the major nations of the world except the United 
 States (and, until 1965, Great Britain) have gone over to the 
 metric system, if not for most daily uses, at least for official 
 purposes. With all nations becoming increasingly interdependent, 
 and with the United States seeking to play a leadership role in 
 
SUMMING UP 265 
 
 world affairs, it behooves us to stop obstructing the completion 
 of this desirable reform. 
 
 2. If Great Britain should decide to adopt the metric system (which 
 
 it did in 1965), the United States would be left alone in its ad- 
 herence to the English customary system or we would have to 
 begin our own process of conversion. The U.S. should not be 
 forced into such a decision, nor should it have to make 
 the switch in a hurried and wasteful manner. We should lead 
 rather than follow. If, on the other hand, the U.S. should decide 
 to adopt the metric system first, we would not be injuring our 
 relationship with Great Britain, because Britain would be sure 
 to adopt it, too. Ideally, of course, the two nations would decide 
 on a simultaneous course of action, but, failing that, there is no 
 reason why we shouldn't take the first step. 
 
 3. Neither the English customary system nor any other system of 
 
 weights and measures but the metric system can ever become 
 universal. The metric system is too widely accepted and, besides, 
 no nation which has ever adopted it has given it up. 
 
 4. Since 1866 the metric system has been officially recognized in this 
 
 country. Since that time, also, the use of the metric system in 
 this country has been growing— our official standards are metric 
 ones, it is the system universally used in science and in certain 
 branches of engineering, and some industries are using it almost 
 exclusively. 
 
 5. The benefits to be gained by adopting the metric system include 
 
 increased foreign trade, the saving of time in education, 
 and increased efficiency and lower costs in domestic industrial 
 design and production. 
 
 C. The contentions and fears of opponents of the system notwithstand- 
 ing, adoption of the metric system is practicable. 
 
 1 . It would not be necessary to abandon or rebuild existing machines 
 
 in order to make the change. Old machines could simply be re- 
 placed as they wear out by new machines manufactured in the 
 metric system. 
 
 2. Most manufactured articles could be made to the same dimensions 
 
 using existing drawings, gauges, dies, etc. It would simply be neces- 
 sary to label and advertise the final product in metric units. 
 
 3. It would be possible to arrange for the gradual introduction of the 
 
 metric system in such a way that any confusion or economic 
 burden would be minimized, if not eliminated altogether. 
 
 4. The cost of changing to the metric system has been severely over- 
 
 estimated, and what costs there will be can be spread over a 
 period of many years. 
 
 5. If there are psychological difficulties in adjusting to the foreign 
 
 nomenclature, it would be possible to simply call the meter a 
 "world yard," the liter a "world quart" and so on. 
 
 429-523 0-71-18 
 
266 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 6. Other nations have adjusted easily to the switch and it has been to 
 their benefit. The people of the U.S., being better educated, less 
 inclined to cling to tradition, and amenable to the acceptance of 
 technological change accompanied by economic benefit, would 
 certainly be able to adjust to the metric system as easily as other 
 peoples have. 
 
 D. The eventual widespread use of the metric system in the United 
 States is inevitable, and it is preferable to make the transition in a planned 
 and orderly manner. 
 
 E. Under the Constitution, the power "to fix the standard of weights 
 and measures" was given to Congress. This authority has never been 
 exercised. 
 
 II. THE ANTI-METRIC CASE 
 
 A. There is no need to change from the English customary system of 
 weights and measures. 
 
 1. The U.S. has greater uniformity of weights and measures using the 
 
 customary system than exists in any other country on earth. 
 
 2. The majority of world trade is conducted on the basis of the cus- 
 
 tomary system because world trade is dominated by English- 
 speaking nations. 
 
 3. The English system has intrinsic merits of its own. Oftentimes, 
 
 repeated binary division of weights and measures is more con- 
 venient. The customary system was the result of continuous 
 improvement over a long period of time. The English system also 
 has special units for special purposes which make it irreplaceable. 
 
 4. The decimal principle can be applied to the units of the customary 
 
 system where that is necessary or advantageous. The weights 
 and measures of the metric system, however, are not readily 
 amenable to repeated binary division. 
 
 5. The conditions which existed in pre-metric Europe — diversity, 
 
 confusion, and fraud — do not exist in the United States. 
 
 6. The customary system can be, and should be, improved and sim- 
 
 plified, but that is not an argument for discarding it altogether. 
 
 7. There is no widespread demand for a change. Manufacturers, engi- 
 
 neers, shopkeepers, workmen, and the people as a whole do not 
 want it. The demand for metric adoption is an artificial one, 
 created by a handful of scientists, educators, and government 
 officials. 
 
 B. The disadvantages of adopting the metric system would outweigh any 
 benefits. 
 
 1. In place of a single, widely-used system of weights and measures, 
 upon which all industrial standards and manufacturing practices 
 are based, we would have to cope with two systems of weights 
 
SUMMING UP 267 
 
 and measures. Enormous confusion would result from this si- 
 multaneous employment of a dual system. 
 
 2. Ingrained customs and commercial relationships (such as the price 
 
 for a given unit of weight or volume of a commodity) would be 
 destroyed. 
 
 3. Adoption of the metric system would have very little impact on 
 
 education or foreign trade. Both systems would have to be learned 
 in the schools, and our domination of foreign trade has made 
 other nations familiar with the customary system. 
 
 C. In comparatively few countries has the acceptance of the metric sys- 
 tem been complete. Even though it may have been adopted for official 
 purposes, it is not used in manufacturing or by the great majority of the 
 people in their daily affairs. Only where despots and dictators have been 
 able to enforce their will by police power has the metric system been rapidly 
 assimilated. 
 
 D. Adoption of the metric system would be impractical and costly. 
 
 1. Tools and machinery would have to be discarded, drawings would 
 
 have to be re-done, etc. 
 
 2. A vast amount of technical literature would be nullified. 
 
 3. All land measurements, deeds and titles would have to be changed, 
 
 as would such things as railway mileposts, tariff schedules and 
 highway signs. 
 
 4. The experience of workmen, built up over years, would be thrown 
 
 away. The result would be increased spoilage, a slowdown in 
 production, and increased cost. 
 
 5. To simply label a product manufactured to English-system specifi- 
 
 cations in metric-system equivalents would be costly. This would 
 not constitute adoption of the metric system, anyway. Why not 
 continue to call an "inch" an "inch" instead of 2.54 centimeters? 
 
 E. Compulsory adoption of the metric system by legislation would be 
 unacceptable. 
 
 1. The metric system has been legal for use in this country since 1866. 
 
 Anyone who wants to use it may do so. The fact that it isn't 
 being used under these conditions is adequate testimony to the 
 need and demand for further action. 
 
 2. Compulsion is repugnant to American ideals. Americans can be 
 
 led but they cannot be pushed. Any attempts to force the metric 
 system on the nation would probably meet strong resistance. 
 
 As this account has shown, the arguments of the anti-metric forces have 
 generally been persuasive enough to prevent the supporters of the metric 
 system from successfully prosecuting their legislative program. The reasons 
 why such legislation failed have varied from generation to generation, chang- 
 ing with the times. But John Quincy Adams, in his 1821 Report Upon 
 Weights and Measures, probably summarized all of them most adequately 
 when he wrote: 
 
 "The substitution of an entire new system of weights and measures, instead 
 
268 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 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. Weights and measures 
 may be ranked among the necessaries of life, to every in- 
 dividual of human society. They enter into the economical 
 arrangements and daily concerns of every family. They are 
 necessary to every occupation of human industry; to the dis- 
 tribution and security of every species of property; to every 
 transaction of trade and commerce; to the labors of the hus- 
 bandman; to the ingenuity of the artificer; to the studies of 
 the philosopher; to the researchers of the antiquarian; to the 
 navigation of the mariner and the marches of the soldier; to 
 all the exchanges of peace, and all the operations of war. The 
 knowledge of them, as in established use, is among the first 
 elements of education, and is often learnt by those who learn 
 nothing else, not even to read and write. This knowledge is 
 rivetted in the memory by the habitual application of it to the 
 employments of men throughout life. Every individual, or at 
 least every family, has the weights and measures used in the 
 vicinity, and recognized by the custom of the place. To change 
 all this at once, is to affect the well-being of every man, woman, 
 and child, in the community." 
 
Appendix A 
 REFERENCES 
 
 CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION 
 
 [1] U.S. Department of State. Report of the Secretary of State Upon Weights and Measures. 
 
 Washington: 1821. p. 6. 
 [2] U.S. National Bureau of Standards. Units and Systems of Weights and Measures — 
 Their Origin, Development and Present Status; (Letter Circular 1035). Washington: 
 1960. p. 2. 
 [3] Hallock, William and Wade, Herbert T. Outlines of the Evolution of Weights and Meas- 
 ures and the Metric System. New York: 1906. p. 6. 
 [4] U.S. National Bureau of Standards. Letter Circular 1035. p. 2. 
 [5] Huntoon, R. D. "The Concept of a National Measurement System." Science, Vol. 158, 
 
 No. 3797 (October 6, 1967). p. 68. 
 [6] Hallock and Wade. Op.Cit. p. 5. 
 
 [7] See, for example. Hallock and Wade, Op. Cit., "Chapter I: Origin and Development of 
 the Science of Metrology," pp. 1-40; Sir Flinders Petrie's/l ncient Weights and Measures 
 (London: 1926); and H.W. Chisholm's On The Science of Weighing and Measuring 
 (London: 1877). 
 
 Interestingly, so few works have been devoted to the history of weights and measures 
 in recent years that the efforts of late 19th and early 20th century scholars must still be 
 considered authoritative. Fortunately several well-documented works were produced 
 during this period of time so that there need be no lack of confidence in the research 
 because of a paucity of source citations. 
 [8] U.S. Department of State. Op. Cit. p. 6. 
 [9] Hallock and Wade. Op. Cit. p. 9. 
 [10] Ford Motor Company. Measuring Systems and Their History. Dearborn, Michigan: 
 
 1966. pp. 7-9. 
 [II] Hallock and Wade. Op.Cit. p. 6. 
 [ 1 2] Ford Motor Company. Op. Cit. p. 8. 
 [13] Ibid. p. 9. 
 
 [ 14] Hallock and Wade. Op. Cit. p. 4. Mention is also made of the fact that the so-called 
 medical papyri of Egypt make no reference to common weights, the most natural place to 
 expect them to be found. 
 [15] Hallock and Wade. Op. Cit. p. 4. 
 [16] I bid. p. 17. 
 
 [ 17] Ford Motor Company. Op. Cit. pp. 9-10. 
 
 [18] Nicholson, Edward. Men and Measures. London: 1912. p. 189; and Ford Motor Com- 
 pany. Op. Cit. p. 8. 
 [ 1 9] Hallock and Wade. Op. Cit. p. 1 2. 
 [20] Stiehler, R. D. History of Measurement and the S.I. Units. (Unpublished manuscript). 
 
 U.S. National Bureau of Standards. 1969. 
 [21] Hallock and Wade. Op. Cit. pp. 24-25. 
 [22] Ibid. p. 26. 
 [23] Ibid. 
 [24] Ibid. 
 [25] Ibid. 
 
 [ 26] Ford Motor Company. Op. Cit. p. 9. 
 [27] Ibid. p. 12. 
 
 [28] Chisholm. H. W. On the Science of Weighing and Measuring. London: 1877. p. 48. 
 [29] Ibid. 
 [30] Ibid. p. 30. 
 
 [31] Hallock and Wade. Op.Cit. p. 3. 
 [32] Ibid. 
 [33] Ibid. p. 33. 
 
 269 
 
wm 
 
 270 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 [34] Moreau. Henri (as translated by Ralph E. Oesper). "The Genesis of the Metric System 
 and the Work of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures. " Journal of Chemi- 
 cal Education; Vol. 30. No. 1 (January 1953). p. 3. 
 
 [35] Langevin, Luce. "The Introduction of the Metric System." Impact of Science on 
 Society;\o\. 11, No. 2 (August, 1961). p. 77. 
 
 [ 36] Hallock and Wade. Op. Cit. p. 43. These authors cite Mouton directly so they have been 
 liberally used in preparing this section. Their citation is as follows: Mouton, 
 Observationes diametrorum Solis et Lunae . . . Huic adjecta est brevis dissertatio 
 de . . . nova mensurarum geometricarum idea (Lyons, 1670). 
 
 [37] Hallock and Wade. Op. Cit. p. 43. 
 
 [38] Ibid. 
 
 [39] Ibid. 
 
 [40] Ibid. p. 46. 
 
 [41] Hallock and Wade. Op. Cit. pp. 46-47. Taken from Bigourdan, Le Systeme Metrique; 
 Paris. 1 90 1 ; in which is to be found "the text of all French legislation and the salient fea- 
 tures of discussion by lawmakers and scientists, as well as a complete bibliography." 
 
 [42] Hallock and Wade. Op. Cit. p. 47. 
 
 [43] Ibid. pp. 48-49. 
 
 [44] U.S. National Bureau of Standards. Units of Weight and Measure (Miscellaneous 
 Publication 286). Washington: 1967. p. 4. 
 
 [45] Hallock and Wade. Op. Cit. p. 49. 
 
 [46] Ibid. p. 69. 
 
 [47] Ibid. p. 61. 
 
 [48] I bid. p. 63. 
 
 [49] This convocation, as seen through the eyes of Thomas Bugge, Danish Astronomer 
 Royal and delegate to the conference, is described in Maurice Crosland's Science in 
 France in the Revolutionary Era (Boston: 1969)on pages 195-211. 
 
 [50] Crosland. Maurice P.. ed. Science in France in the Revolutionary Era. Boston: 1969. p. 
 197. 
 
 [51] Hallock and Wade. Op. Cit. p. 64. 
 
 [52] Ibid. pp. 65-66. 
 
 [53] Ibid. pp. 67-68. 
 
 [ 54] Langevin, Op. Cit. p. 93. 
 
 [55] Urbancek, Joseph J. "Later Trends in Metric Usage." The Metric System of Weights 
 and Measures (J. T. Johnson, ed.). New York: 1 948. p. 35. 
 
 [56] Cox, Edward F. "The Metric System: A quarter-century of acceptance (1851-1876)." 
 Osiris (Belgium). Vol. XIII (1959). pp. 376-377. 
 
 CHAPTER II: TOWARD A MORE PERFECT UNIFORMITY (1607-1860) 
 
 [ 1] U.S. Department of State. Report of the Secretary of State Upon Weights and Mea- 
 sures. Washington: 1821. p. 109. 
 
 As a part of his report, John Quincy Adams includes an appendix detailing the weights 
 and measures laws of all the States in the Union at that time. His detailed account has 
 been used as the primary source of colonial legislation having to do with weights and 
 measures. An extensive collection of State laws on weights and measures is also shelved 
 in the Librarv at the National Bureau of Standards. 
 [2] U.S. National Bureau of Standards. Weights and Measures in Congress; by Sarah Ann 
 Jones (Miscellaneous Publication Ml 22). Washington: 1936. p. 3. 
 Miss Jones' brief (19 pages) summary covering the period of the Continental Congress 
 up to and including the adoption of the Joint Resolutions of 1836 and 1838, is extremely 
 valuable because of its meticulous attention to documentation of original source material. 
 [3] Hellman. C. D. "Jefferson's Efforts Towards the Decimalization of United States 
 Weights and Measures." Isis; Vol. XVI, No. 2 (November 1931). p. 267. 
 This paper has provided the primary source of reference for the discussions of both 
 decimal coinage and Jefferson's efforts on weights and measures in this account. 
 
APPENDIX A 
 
 271 
 
 [4] Ibid. 
 [5] Ibid. p. 268. 
 [6] Ibid. 
 [7] Ibid. p. 269. 
 [8] Ibid. 
 [9] Ibid. 
 NO] Ibid. p. 270. 
 [11] Ibid. p. 272. 
 [12] Ibid. p. 273. 
 [13] Ibid. pp. 27 3-277 . 
 [ 14] U.S. Department of State. Op. C/'f. p. 56. 
 [ 1 5] Hellman. Op. C/f. p. 282. 
 [16] Ibid. p. 283. 
 [17] Jones. Op. C/7. p. 3. 
 [ 1 8] Hellman. Op. Cit. p. 290. 
 [19] Ibid. 
 [20] /Wrf. 
 
 Some of Jefferson's interesting correspondence with Rittenhouse is appended to the 
 Hellman paper. Her source for it is The Writings of Jefferson. Library Edition (Wash- 
 . ington: 1903). 
 [21] Ibid. p. 294. 
 [22] Ibid. p. 295. 
 [23] Ibid. p. 292. 
 
 [ 24] U.S. Department of State. Report of the Secretary of State, on the Subject of Establish- 
 ing a Uniformity in the Weights, Measures and Coins of the United States. New York: 
 1790. p. 39. 
 [25] Hellman. Op. Cit. p. 296. 
 [26] Ibid. 
 [27] Ibid. p. 297. 
 [28] Ibid. p. 286. 
 [29] Ibid. pp. 286-287. 
 
 [ 30] Data on the period from 1 790- 1819 have been obtained from Jones, Weights and Mea- 
 sures in Congress, pages 4 through 10. 
 [31] U.S. Congress. Annals of Congress. Vol. 2. (Senate; March 1. 1791). 
 [32] Jones. Op. Cit. p. 5. 
 [33] U.S. Department of State. Report . . . Upon Weights and Measures (John Quincy 
 
 Adams), p. 54. 
 [34] Ibid. 
 
 [35] Jones. Op. Cit. p. 7. 
 [36] Ibid. 
 
 [37] Fischer, Louis A. History of the Standard Weights and Measures of the United States. 
 (Miscellaneous Publication, Bureau of Standards, No. 64). 
 
 When this publication was updated by the U.S. National Bureau of Standards in 1963, 
 the discussion of the "committee meter" was eliminated. There are also several other 
 topics more fully discussed by Mr. Fischer than in later versions, so that both editions 
 will be of interest to those wishing to pursue the history of U.S. weights and measures 
 in greater detail. 
 [ 38] The story of the Troughton scale is contained in an article entitled "The Metric System" 
 by Samuel Wesley Stratton. first Director of the National Bureau of Standards. A copy of 
 this paper, delivered to a meeting of the Eastern Association of Physics Teachers on 
 March 19, 1904, is on file at the Library of the National Bureau of Standards (Accession 
 No. 8319). 
 [39] U.S. Congress. Annals of Congress. Vol. 30 (Senate. December 3. 1816). 
 [40] Letters and Other Writings of James Madison. Vol. I. (Philadelphia: 1865). pp. 152- 
 
 153. 
 [41] U.S. Department of State. Report . . . Upon Weights and Measures (John Quincy 
 Adams), p. 5. 
 
272 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 [42] Jones. Op. Cit. p. 10. 
 
 [43] For this account of Adams' report, only the original document itself has been relied 
 upon. For this reason, further citations will be given only when verbatim passages are in- 
 cluded that require page references. The full citation for this report is: U.S. Department of 
 State Upon Weights and Measures. Washington: 1821. 
 
 [44] Ibid. pp. 11-12. 
 
 [45] I bid. p. 14. 
 
 [46] Ibid. pp. 19-20 
 
 [47] Ibid. p. 79. 
 
 [48] Ibid. pp. 12-13. 
 
 [49] / bid. p. 48. 
 
 [50] lbid.p.9\. 
 
 [51] / bid. p. 90. 
 
 [52] I bid. p. 118. 
 
 [53] Ibid. pp. 118-119. 
 
 [54] Ibid. p. 121. 
 
 [55] Ibid. p. 125. 
 
 [56] Ibid. 
 
 [57] Hellman. Op. Cit. pp. 287-288. 
 
 [58] U.S. Department of State. Report . . . Upon Weights and Measures (John Quincy 
 Adams), p. 134. 
 
 [59] Ibid. pp. 134-135. 
 
 [60] Jones. Op. Cit. p. 11. 
 
 [61] Ibid. p. 12. 
 
 [62] Ibid. 
 
 [63] Ibid. 
 
 [64] Ibid. p. 14. 
 
 [65] Fischer. Op. Cit. p. 1. 
 
 [66] I bid. p. 5. 
 
 [67] Ibid. 
 
 [68] Jones. Op. Cit. p. 15. 
 
 [69] Ibid. p. 16. 
 
 CHAPTER III: AN ACT TO AUTHORIZE THE USE OF THE METRIC 
 SYSTEM (1861-1866) 
 
 [ 1] National Academy of Sciences. A History of the First Half-Century of the National 
 
 Academy of Sciences, 1863-1913. Washington: 1913. pp. 113-114. 
 [2] U.S. Congress, House of Representatives; Committee on Coinage, Weights, and Mea- 
 sures; Coinage, Weights, and Measures, Report No. 62. 39th Congress, 1st Session; to 
 accompany bills H.R. Nos. 596 and 597, and H. Res. No. 141; May 17, 1866; p. 9. 
 [3] Ibid. (Cited as: Executive Document 84. 30th Congress, 1st Session, July 30, 1848.) 
 [4] Ibid. 
 [5] Ibid. p. 10. 
 
 [ 6] Hallock, William and Wade, Herbert T. Outlines of the Evolution of Weights and Mea- 
 sures and the Metric System. New York: 1906. p. 248. 
 [7] Fischer, Louis A. History of the Standard Weights and Measures of the United States; 
 
 Miscellaneous Publications, Bureau of Standards. No. 64. Washington: 1925. p. 12. 
 [8] Cox. Edward F. "The Metric System: A Quarter-Century of Acceptance (1851-1876)." 
 
 Osiris. Vol. XIII. (1959). pp. 362-363. 
 [9] Ibid. p. 364. 
 [10] Ibid. pp. 364-365. 
 [11] I bid. p. 368. 
 [12] Ibid. pp. 369-370. 
 [ 1 3] Hallock and Wade. Op. Cit. p. 1 25. 
 [ 14] U.S. Congress, House of Representatives. Op. Cit. p. 10. 
 
APPENDIX A 273 
 
 [15] Ibid. 
 
 [16] Ibid. 
 
 [17] Ibid. 
 
 [18] Ibid. p. 11. 
 
 [19] Ibid. 
 
 [20] Reingold, Nathan. Science in Nineteenth-Century America. New York: 1964. pp. 200- 
 201. 
 
 [21] National Academy of Sciences. Op. Cit. pp. 206-207. 
 
 [22] Ibid. p. 207. 
 
 [23] U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Op. Cit. pp. 11-12. 
 
 [24] U.S. Congress. House of Representatives. Hind's Precedents of the House of 
 Representatives of the United States, Vol. IV. House Document No. 355; 59th Con- 
 gress, 2nd Session. Washington: 1907. pp. 734-736. 
 
 [25] U.S. Congress. House of Representatives. Biographical Directory of the American 
 Congress, 1774-1927. House Document No. 783; 69th Congress, 2nd Session. Washing- 
 ton: 1928. p. 1167. 
 
 [26] The Congressional Globe. U.S. House of Representatives; 38th Congress, 1st Session 
 (1864)p. 1763. 
 
 [27] Ibid. p. 2265. 
 
 [28] Ibid. p. 3239. 
 
 [ 29] National Academy of Sciences. Op Cit. pp. 208-209. 
 
 [30] U.S. Congress, House of Representatives. Coinage, Weights, and Measures; (Report 
 No. 62). p. 11. 
 
 [31] Ibid. 
 
 [32] I bid. p. 2. 
 
 [33] Ibid. pp. 3-4. 
 
 [34] Ibid. p. 4. 
 
 [35] Ibid. pp. 8-9. 
 
 [ 36] Ibid. p. 1 2. 
 
 [37] Ibid. p. 2. 
 
 [38] / bid. p. 20. 
 
 [ 39] The Congressional Globe. 39th Congress, 1 st Session ( 1 866). p. 2653. 
 
 [40] Ibid. pp. 4216-4219. 
 
 [41] Ibid. p. 42 19. 
 
 CHAPTER IV: A PINT'S A POUND THE WORLD AROUND? (1866-1890) 
 
 [ 1] Barnard, Frederick A. P. The Metric System of Weights and Measures. New York: 
 
 1872. pp. 3-4. 
 [2] Davies, Charles. The Metric System. New York: 1871. 
 [3] Ibid. p. 41. 
 [4] Ibid. pp. 48-49. 
 [5] Ibid. p. 38. 
 [6] I bid. p. 49. 
 [7] / bid. p. 39. 
 [8] Ibid. p. 40. 
 [9] Ibid. pp. 45-46. 
 
 10] Barnard. Op. Cit. 
 
 11] I bid. p. 5. 
 
 12] Dictionary of American Biography. Vol. I. pp. 619-621. 
 
 13] Ibid. p. 620. 
 
 14] Barnard. Op. Cit. p. 71. 
 
 15] Ibid. pp. 75-76. 
 
 16] Ibid. p. 85. 
 
 17] Ibid. p. 90. 
 
 18] /fcirf.p. 103. 
 
274 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 [19] Ibid. p. 107. 
 
 [20] Ibid. pp. 107-108. 
 
 [21] Ibid. pp. 108-111. 
 
 [ 22] Hallock, William and Wade, Herbert T. Outlines of the Evolution of Weights and Mea- 
 sures and The Metric System. New York: 1906. p. 70. 
 
 [23] Ibid. 
 
 [24] National Academy of Sciences. A History of the First Half-Century of the National 
 Academy of Sciences. 1863-1913. Washington: 1913. p. 117. 
 
 [ 25] Hallock and Wade. Op. Cit. p. 70. 
 
 [26] Ibid. p. 71. 
 
 [27] Ibid. 
 
 [28] Cox, Edward F. "The Metric System: a quarter-century of acceptance (1851-1876)." 
 Osiris. Vol. XIII, (1959). p. 372. 
 
 [29] Ibid. 
 
 [30] Hallock and Wade. Op. Cit. p. 100. 
 
 [31] Ibid. 
 
 [32] Cox. Op. Cit. p. 373. 
 
 [33] National Academy of Sciences. Proceedings. Vol. I. (1867). pp. 62-63. 
 
 [34] Ibid. 
 
 [35] General information concerning the legislative activities of this period has been pulled 
 together from a variety of public documents, including: 
 
 a. The Congressional Globe (prior to Dec. 1873) 
 
 b. The Congressional Record (after Dec. 1873) 
 
 c. The Library of Congress' record set of bound volumes of all Bills introduced; filed 
 serially by Congress. 
 
 d. The Library of Congress' serial set of Congressional documents. 
 
 e. A Checklist of Hearings before Congressional Committees through the 67th Con- 
 gress; edited by Harold O. Thomen. Published by the Library of Congress; Washing- 
 ton: 1959. 
 
 f. An Index of Congressional Committee Hearings (prior to January 3, 1935); edited by 
 Edwin A. Halsey. Published by the U.S. Senate. Washington: 1935. 
 
 Routine committee activities are, for the most part, taken from the Globe or Record; 
 all bills referenced are to be found in the volumes indicated in c, above, etc. For this 
 reason, exact citations of sources will not be indicated in many cases. Hearings, Reports, 
 Congressional debates and other actions of major significance to the history of the system 
 will be properly referenced, however. 
 
 [36] Hallock and Wade. Op. Cit. p. 7 1 . 
 
 [37] Ibid. 
 
 [38] Ibid. p. 72. 
 
 [39] U.S. Congress. House of Representatives. Misc. Doc. No. 61; 45th Cong., 2nd Sess. 
 
 Committee on Coinage, Weights, and Measures. "Statement of Professor J. E. Hilgard 
 
 Concerning the Standard Weights and Measures of the United States"; June 3, 1878. 
 [40] Moreau, Henri. "The Genesis of the Metric System and the Work of the International 
 
 Bureau of Weights and Measures" (Translated by Ralph E. Oesper). Journal of Chemical 
 
 Education. Vol. 30 (Jan. 1953) p. 9. 
 [41 ] Fischer, Louis A. History of the Standard Weights and Measures of the United States. 
 
 U.S. Bureau of Standards (Miscellaneous Publication No. 64). Washington: 1925. p. 20. 
 [42] Ibid. 
 [43] Cochrane, Rexmond C. Measures for Progress. U.S. National Bureau of Standards 
 
 (Miscellaneous Publication 275). Washington: 1966. p. 30. 
 [44] Fischer. Op. Cit. pp. 20-21. 
 [45] Ibid. p. 21. 
 [46] Cochrane. Op. Cit. p. 53 1. 
 [47] Moreau. Op. Cit. p. 10. 
 [48] Ibid. p. 11. 
 [49] House Misc. Doc. No. 61 (1878). 
 
APPENDIX A 275 
 
 [50] There are three excellent sources of further information on the technical processes used 
 and the problems encountered in manufacturing these standards: 
 
 (1) Moreau, Op. C/7., pp.1 1-14. 
 
 (2) Hilgard, in House Misc. Doc. No. 61 of 1878; and 
 
 (3) Gould, Benjamin Apthorp. Address on the Metric System of Weights and Measures, 
 printed by The Commercial Club of Boston; 1 888. 
 
 Of these, Gould's is probably the most interesting as well as the most reliable, as he 
 was the U.S. Representative on the International Committee at the time the work was 
 completed. 
 
 [5 1 ] Fischer. Op. Cit. p. 2 1 . 
 
 [52] Ibid. 
 
 [53] U.S. Treasury Department, Coast and Geodetic Survey. Bulletin No. 26: Fundamental 
 Standards of Length and Mass. April 5, 1893. 
 
 [54] American Metrological Society. Proceedings. Vol. I (1873-1878). pp. 3-4. 
 
 [55] Ibid. pp. 13-14. 
 
 [56] Ibid. pp. 14-15. 
 
 [57] Ibid. pp. 21 -26. 
 
 [58] Ibid. pp. 47-48. 
 
 [59] Ibid. pp. 56-57. 
 
 [60] Ibid. pp. 76-77. 
 
 [61] Proceedings. Vol. VI. pp. 157-158. 
 
 [61] Information concerning the American Metric Bureau has, in all cases, been gleaned 
 from its official publication, The Metric Bulletin, which was published in Boston between 
 1876 and 1881, sometimes intermittently. The "Bulletin's" page numbering scheme was 
 continued from one month to the next, so that pages 1-96 were those issued in 1876, 
 pages 97-240 indicate "Bulletins" issued in 1877, and so on. The total run of the "Bul- 
 letin" makes up only one small volume of 504 pages. 
 
 [63] Encyclopedia Britannica. 1910 Edition. Vol. 1 ; pp. 174-175. 
 
 [64] Who Was Who In America. Chicago: 1942. p. 319. 
 
 [65] The Metric Bulletin. (November, 1877). p. 210. 
 
 [66] Ibid.p. 211, 
 
 [67] See Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers. Vol. I (November 1873- 
 December 1875). pp. 302 and 321, and Vol. II (December 1876) p. 178. 
 
 [68] See Proceedings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Vol. 
 XXV (1876). pp. 17-31. 
 
 [69] "Report on the Metric System." Journal of the Franklin Institute. Vol. CI, No. 606 
 (June, 1876). pp. 370-388. 
 
 [70] Ibid. p. 378. 
 
 [71] Ibid. p. 380. 
 
 [72] See, for instance, The Metric Bulletin; March and April, 1877. p. 128. 
 
 [73] Journal of the Franklin Institute. June, 1876. p. 380. 
 
 [74] Nystrom, John W. On the French Metric System of Weights and Measures. 
 Philadelphia: 1876. 
 
 [75] Congressional Record. U.S. House of Representatives. 45th Cong., 1st Sess. 
 November 6, 1877. p. 256. 
 
 [76] The replies, submitted between November, 1 877 and May, 1 878, were first published as 
 Executive Documents by the House and were later collected in: 
 
 U.S. House of Representatives. Ex. Doc. No. 71; 45th Cong., 2nd Sess. "Adoption of 
 Metrical System." March, 1878 (Serial 1806). 
 
 [77] U.S. House of Representatives. Ex. Doc. No. 71; 45th Cong., 2nd Sess. "Adoption of 
 Metrical System." March, 1878 (Serial 1806). 
 
 [78] Ibid. p. 1. 
 [79] Ibid. p. 13. 
 [80] Ibid. p. 25. 
 
276 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 [81] Ibid. p. 19. 
 
 [82] Ibid. pp. 20-24. 
 
 [83] lbid.p.21. 
 
 [84] Ibid. pp. 21-22. 
 
 [85] Ibid.p.23. 
 
 [86] House of Representatives. Report No. 53. 1 879. (Serial 1 866). 
 
 [87] Ibid. 
 
 [88] Ibid. 
 
 [89] See House Mis. Doc. No. 61; 1878. 
 
 [90] House of Representatives. Report No. 53. 1 879. (Serial 1 866). 
 
 [91] The material appended included: 
 
 ( 1 ) A full set of all papers relating to the Treaty of the Meter, including: 
 
 (a) The Treaty 
 
 (b) President Grant's transmittal to the Senate requesting ratification of the conven- 
 tion. 
 
 (c) Various letters and reports pertaining to the Treaty, including a set of 67 State De- 
 partment documents. 
 
 (2) Copies of all executive department replies to the Nov. 6, 1877, resolution of the 
 House of Representatives calling for opinions on metric adoption. 
 
 (3) A letter dated Dec. 9, 1878, from F. A. P. Barnard to C. P. Culver containing his 
 views and recommendations. 
 
 (4) An 1877 paper by a Dr. Oldberg concerning the U.S. Marine Hospital Service's 
 adoption of the metric system for medical and pharmaceutical purposes. 
 
 This report, as extensive as it already was, was revised, enlarged, and updated 6 months 
 later, in June, 1879, by Congressman Maish and Mr. Culver. It was printed by the House 
 as: House Report No. 14; 46th Cong., 1st Sess. (serial 1934); "Part 1 —On the Adoption of 
 the Metric System of Weights and Measures, together with Documents and Statistics 
 Relating to the Subject" and "Part 2 — On Metric Coinage." June 1 879 [2 1 8 pages]. 
 
 [92] House Report No. 53, p. 19. 
 
 [93] Ibid. pp. 34-35. 
 
 [94] House Report No. 14. (June, 1879). 
 
 [95] See, for example: 
 
 (1) U.S. House of Representatives. House Mis. Doc. No. 24; 45th Cong., 2nd Sess. 
 ( 1 878). "The Goloid Dollar." 
 
 (2) House Mis. Doc. No. 8. 45th Cong., 3rd Sess. (1878). "Theory of the Coin, Coinage, 
 and Monetary System of the World" by J. Meyer. 
 
 (3) House Report No. 14. (June, 1879) Part 2. "On Metric Coinage." 
 
 (4) House Report No. 203. 46th Cong., 2nd Sess.; (1880) "Metric Coinage." 
 
 [96] Reprinted in Proceedings of the American Metrological Society. Vol. II (1879). p. 48. 
 
 [97] Ibid. Vol. III. pp. 125-131. 
 
 [98] U.S. House of Representatives, House Mis. Doc. No. 29. 46th Cong., 2nd Sess. "A 
 
 Decimal System of Weights and Measures for the English-Speaking Nations." (Mar. 5, 
 
 1880). 
 [99] Another proposal along the same lines as that of Col. Sedgwick had been presented to 
 
 the Committee earlier. This took the form of a letter dated Dec. 2, 1878 from John Arthur 
 
 Blennerhassett to the Hon. R. M. Knapp. It was printed by the Committee as: 
 
 U.S. House of Representatives. House Report No. 137. 45th Cong., 3rd Sess. "A New 
 Decimal System of Weights and Measures." Mar. 3, 1879. (Serial 1866). 
 
 [100] Hays, Samuel P. The Response to Industrialism 1885-1914. Chicago: 1957, p. 143. 
 
 [101] Ibid. p. 163. 
 
 [102] Two recent works, both in paperback, have dealt with the curious subject of 
 
 pyramidology and most of the subject matter in this subsection has been gleaned from 
 
 these. They are: 
 
APPENDIX A 277 
 
 (1) Gardner, Martin. Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science. New York: 1957. pp. 
 173-185. 
 
 (2) Ley, Willy. Another Look at Atlantis. New York: 1969. pp. 33-47. 
 
 [103] Ley. Op. Cit. p. 36. 
 [104] Gardner. Op. Cit. p. 174. 
 [105] These were: 
 
 ( 1 ) Life and Work at the Great Pyramid. 3 volumes. 1 867. 
 
 (2) Onthe Antiquity of Intellectual Man. 1868. 
 
 [106] Gardner. Op. Cit. pp. 176-177. 
 
 [107] Ibid. p. 177. 
 
 [108] Ibid. p. 178. 
 
 [109] Ibid. p. 179. 
 
 [1 10] Cox, Edward F. "The International Institute: First Organized Opposition To the Metric 
 
 System." The Ohio Historical Quarterly. Vol. 68. No. 1. January, 1959. p. 9. 
 [Ill] From the cover of the Institute's official publication, The International Standard, which 
 
 appeared between March, 1 883 and April, 1 888 on a bi-monthly, but sometimes irregular, 
 
 basis. 
 [112] Cox. Op. Cit. pp. 10-11. 
 [113] Taken from: The International Standard. Vol. V. Memorial Number, (1888). This 
 
 number is devoted exclusively to an account of the life and works of Charles Latimer. 
 [114] Ibid. p. 37. 
 
 [115] International Standard. Vol. V,No. 4. (April, 1888). p. 66. 
 [116] In full: 
 
 Latimer, Charles. The French Metric System, or, The Battle of the Standards. Chicago: 
 1880. 
 [117] Ibid. p. 7. 
 [118] Ibid. pp. 8-9. 
 
 [119] The International Standard. Vol. I, No. 1 (March, 1883). pp. 8-10. 
 [120] Ibid. Vol. I, No. 6 (Jan. 1884). p. 433. 
 [121] Ibid. Vol. IV, No. 1 (Jan. 1887). p. 49. 
 [122] Totten was also the author of a book entitled An Important Question in Metrology. 
 
 (New York: 1884) and several interpretive papers on the Great Seal of the United States. 
 [123] "Let Every Saxon Sing." The International Standard. Vol. I, No. 6 (Jan. 1884). p. 458. 
 [124] The Philadelphia Record. Nov. 10, 1882 (reported in: The International Standard, Vol. 
 
 I, No. 1 [March, 1833] p. 18). 
 [125] The International Standard. Vol. I, No. 1 (Mar., 1883) p. 12; Vol. I, No. 6 (Jan. 1884) 
 
 p. 433; and Vol. IV, No. 1 (Jan. 1887) p. 52. 
 [126] I bid. Vol I, No. l.(Mar. 1883) pp. 63-65. 
 [127] Ibid. Vol. I, No. 6 (Jan. 1884) p. 439. 
 [128] Ibid. Vol. I, No. 6 (Jan. 1884). title page. 
 [129] Ibid. Vol. Ill, No. 5 (Jan. 1886) p. 519. 
 [130] Ibid. 
 
 [131] Ibid. Vol. V,No. 4 (April, 1888). Foreword. 
 [132] Ibid. Vol. V. Memorial Number (1888) pp. 67-68. 
 
 CHAPTER V: THE "ENTERING WEDGE" CONTROVERSY (1890-1914) 
 
 [1] Morison, Samuel Eliot and Commager, Henry Steele. The Growth of the American 
 Republic. New York: 1955. Vol. II. p. 319. 
 
 [2] U.S. Treasury Department Office of the Coast and Geodetic Survey. Report of the 
 Coast and Geodetic Survey for 1889. Washington: 1 889. 
 
 [3] U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on Coinage, Weights, and Mea- 
 sures. Report No. 795 to Accompany H.R. 725 1 . 54th Congress, 1st Session. March 16, 
 1896. p. 9. 
 
278 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 [4] I bid. pp. 9-10. 
 
 [5] Morison and Commager. Op. Cit. pp. 247-250. 
 
 [6] Ibid. 
 
 [7] Thomen, Harold O. Checklist of Hearings Before Congressional Committees. 
 
 Washington, D.C.: 1959. pp. 107-109. 
 [8] The full text of this Act is re-printed in: Science; New Series, Vol. IV, No. 79; July 3, 
 
 1896. pp. 7-8. 
 [9] Ibid. p. 5. 
 
 [10] U.S. Treasury Department, Office of the Coast and Geodetic Survey. Fundamental 
 Standards of Length and Mass (Appendix No. 6— Report for 1893). Washington: 1894. 
 pp. 165-172. 
 [11] I bid. pp. 167-168. 
 
 [12] U.S. House of Representatives. Report No. 795. p. 4. 
 
 [13] Dale, Samuel S. The Mendenhall Conspiracy to Discredit English Weights and Mea- 
 sures. 54th Congress, 1st. Session. January 30, 1896. pp. 3-4. 
 [14] Science. Vol. LX,No. 1541. July 11, 1924. pp. 33-34. 
 
 [15] U.S. Congress, House of Representatives. Committee on Coinage, Weights, and Mea- 
 sures. Hearings Before the Committee on Coinage, Weights, and Measures. 54th Con- 
 gress, 1 st Session. January 30, 1 896. pp. 3-4. 
 [ 1 6] For the basic facts of the British campaign of this period I have relied mainly on the fol- 
 lowing: 
 
 Cox, Edward F. A History of the Metric System of Weights and Measures, with Empha- 
 sis on Campaigns for Its Adoption in Great Britain and the United States Prior to 1914. 
 (Doctoral Dissertation; Indiana University, 1957) pp. 328-381. 
 
 Dr. Cox is not, of course, in any way responsible for my interpretation of the importance 
 of these events on the U.S. campaign. 
 
 [17] The Decimal Association (Anonymous pamphlet: circa 1 898). p. 1 1 . 
 
 [18] Ibid. 
 
 [19] Ibid. p. 13. 
 
 [20] See, for example, the: Annual Report of the British Weights and Measures Association; 
 July, 1905. This document contains a synopsis of John Quincy Adams' 1821 anti-metric 
 arguments and articles by four American opponents, including Frederick Halsey and 
 Samuel Dale. 
 
 [21] Ibid. 
 
 [22] Sullivan, Mark. Our Times. Vol. I'TheTurnof the Century." New York: 1926. p. 291. 
 
 [23] U.S. House of Representatives. Hearings . . . on H.R. 2758. January 30, 1896. p. 1. 
 
 [24] U.S. House of Representatives. Report No. 795. March 16, 1896. 
 
 [25] Ibid. p. 4. 
 
 [26] Ibid. p. 12. 
 
 [27] Ibid. p. 14. 
 
 [28] Ibid. p. 19. 
 
 [29] Ibid. pp. 19-20. 
 
 [30] Ibid. p. 20. 
 
 [31] Science. New Series Vol. Ill, No. 69. April 24, 1896. p. 626. 
 
 [32] Congressional Record. 54th Congress, 1st Session. April 7, 1896. pp. 3688-3699. 
 
 [33] Science. New Series. Vol. Ill, No. 69. April 24, 1896. p. 627. 
 
 [34] Dry Goods Economist. April 18, 1896. 
 
 [35] U.S. Congress, House of Representatives. Committee on Coinage, Weights, and Mea- 
 sures. Report No. 2885. 54th Congress, 2nd Session. February 10, 1897. 
 
 [36] lbid.p.2. 
 
 [37] Ibid. 
 
 [38] Ibid. pp. 3-7. 
 
 [39] Ibid. p. 4. 
 
 [40] Ibid. p. 1. 
 
 [41] American Metrological Society, John K. Rees, ed. The Metric System. Detailed Infor- 
 mation as to Laws, Practice, Etc. New York: 1896. 
 
APPENDIX A 279 
 
 [42] Ibid. pp. 7-8. 
 
 [43] Mendenhall, T. C. "Legislation Relating to Standards." Science, New Series Vol. IV, 
 No. 79. July 3, 1896. pp. 1-8. 
 
 [44] Ibid. p. 6. 
 
 [45] Mendenhall, T. C. "The Metric System." Appleton's Popular Science Monthly. 
 October, 1896. pp. 1-13. 
 
 [46] Ibid. p. 2. 
 
 [47] Colles, George W. "The Metric Versus the Duodecimal System." Transactions of the 
 American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Vol. XVMI; December, 1896. 
 
 [48] Ibid. p. 59. 
 
 [49] Ibid. pp. 90-93. 
 
 [50] U.S. Congress, House of Representatives. Committee on Coinage, Weights, and Mea- 
 sures. Report No. 1597. 55th Congress, 2nd Session. Washington, D.C.: June 20, 1898. 
 
 [51] Ibid. p. 2. 
 
 [52] U.S. Bureau of the Census. Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 
 1957. Washington, D.C.: 1960. p. 544. 
 
 [53] Ibid. p. 550. 
 
 [54] U.S. Congress, House of Representatives. Biographical Directory of the American Con- 
 gress, 1774-1927. House Document No. 783, 69th Congress, 2nd Session. Washington: 
 1928. p. 1229. 
 
 [55] lbid.p. 550. 
 
 [56] U.S. Congress, House of Representatives. Committee on Coinage, Weights, and Mea- 
 sures. Metric System of Weights and Measures. Report No. 3005. 56th Congress, 2nd 
 Session. March 1, 1901. 
 
 [57] Ibid. p. 1. 
 
 [58] Ibid. pp. 2-3. 
 
 [59] lbid.p. 2. 
 
 [60] Sullivan. Op. Cit. Vol. II: "America Finding Herself." pp. 192-193. 
 
 [61 ] U.S. Congress, House of Representatives. Committee on Coinage, Weights, and Mea- 
 sures. National Standardizing Bureau: Letter from the Secretary of the Treasury. House 
 Document No. 625; 56th Congress, 1st Session. April 23, 1900. p. 3. 
 
 [62] lbid.p. 1. 
 
 [63] Cochrane, Rexmond C. Measures for Progress. U.S. National Bureau of Standards, MP 
 275. Washington: 1966. 
 
 A good deal of the material in this section has been drawn from Mr. Cochrane's history 
 of the National Bureau of Standards. Unless other sources are cited specifically, it should 
 be assumed that Measures for Progress, particularly Chapters 1 and 2, provided the source 
 of information. 
 
 [64] U.S. Congress, House of Representatives. House Document 625. p. 3. 
 
 [65] Ibid. 
 
 [66] Ibid. p. 1. 
 
 [67] Dr. Stratton's biography is contained in: Cochrane, Op. Cit. "Appendix M.: Samuel 
 Wesley Stratton." pp. 652-66 1 . 
 
 [68] Stratton, S. W. and Rosa, E. B. "The National Bureau of Standards." Transactions of 
 the American Institute of Electrical Engineers. Vol. XXIV (1905) pp. 1039-1090. 
 
 [69] Ibid. pp. 1076-1080. 
 
 [70] Ibid. pp. 1067-1068. 
 
 [71] U.S. Congress, House of Representatives. Committee on Coinage, Weights, and Mea- 
 sures. The Metric System of Weights and Measures; (Hearings on H.R. 2054). 57th Con- 
 gress, 1st Session. 1902. 
 
 [72] Ibid. p. 29. 
 
 [73] Ibid.p.%2. 
 
 [74] lbid.p. 13. 
 
 [75] Ibid. pp. 84-85. 
 
 [76] Ibid. p. 151. 
 
 [77] Ibid. pp. 153-154. 
 
280 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 [78] Ibid. p. 154. 
 
 [79] Ibid. p. 156. 
 
 [80] Ibid. pp. 157-158. 
 
 [81] Ibid. p. 159. 
 
 [82] Ibid. p. 159. 
 
 [83] I bid. pp. 161-162. 
 
 [84] //>/</. pp. 52-53. 
 
 [85] Ibid. pp. 65-66. 
 
 [86] Ibid. p. 109. 
 
 [87] Ibid.p. 33. 
 
 [88] /fc/d. p. 39. 
 
 [89] U.S. Congress, House of Representatives. Committee on Coinage, Weights, and Mea- 
 sures. Supplemental Hearing. "On the Subject of the Metric System of Weights and Mea- 
 sures." 57th Congress, 1st Session. April 24, 1902. p. 8. 
 
 [90] Ibid. p. 9. 
 
 [91] Ibid. p. 11. 
 
 [92] U.S. Congress, House of Representatives. Committee on Coinage, Weights, and Mea- 
 sures. The Metric System of Weights and Measures. Report No. 1701. 57th Congress, 
 1st Session. April 21, 1902. 
 
 [93] I bid. p. 9. 
 
 [94] American Metrological Society. The Metric System. New York: 1902. 
 
 [95] "The Metric System of Weights and Measures." Journal of the Franklin Institute. June- 
 July, 1902. 
 
 [96] lbid.p.5. 
 
 [97] I bid. p. 6. 
 
 [98] New York Times. April 2, 1902. 
 
 [99] Root Newspaper Association. News item dated October 9, 1 902. 
 [100] Ibid. 
 
 [101] Iron Age. February 3 , 1 903 . 
 
 [102] This account of the 1902 ASME meeting has been pulled together from several sources, 
 including: 
 
 (1) American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Transactions of the A.S.M.E. Vol. 
 XXIV, Nos. 954, 97 1 , 972, 975, 1 902. pp. 7-8; 66-70; 397-7 12; 854-857. 
 
 (2) Halsey, Frederick A. The Metric Fallacy. New York: 1904. 
 
 (3) U.S. Congress, House of Representatives. Committee on Coinage, Weights, and 
 Measures: The Metric System. "Hearings on H.R. 8988." 59th Congress, 2nd 
 Session, 1907. pp. 101-124. 
 
 (4) The Boston (Massachusetts) Transcript. December 5, 1902. p. 10. 
 
 [103] A.S.M.E. 7Ya«.sacfio/w.Vol. XXIV,No. 971. (1902). pp. 397-466. 
 
 [104] I bid. p. 458. 
 
 [105] Ibid. p. 532. 
 
 [106] Ibid. 
 
 [107] I bid. p. 594. 
 
 [108] Ibid. p. 604 and p. 607. 
 
 [109] Ibid. p. 68. 
 
 [110] Ibid.p. 68. 
 
 [Ill] A.S.M.E. Transactions. Vol. XXIV, No. 972; (1902). pp. 630-712. 
 
 [112] A.S.M.E. Transactions. Vol. XXIV, No. 975; (1903). pp. 854-857. 
 
 [113] Ibid.p. 855. 
 
 [114] Iron Age. February 3, 1903. 
 
 [115] Halsey, Frederick A. and Dale, Samuel S. The Metric Fallacy. New York: 1904. 
 
 [116] Mr. Halsey's biography is taken from: Transactions of the American Society of 
 
 Mechanical Engineers. Vol. 58, No. 6 (August, 1936). p. RI 54-55. 
 [117] This information has been pieced together from three sources: 
 
 (a) Dale, Samuel S. Diary of Samuel S. Dale. Unpublished manuscript in the Libraries, 
 Columbia University, New York. 
 
APPENDIX A 281 
 
 (b) Tarbell, Ida M. "A Wonderful Truth Seeker." The American Magazine. December, 
 1914. (8 p.). 
 
 (c) U.S. Congress, House of Representatives. Committee on Coinage, Weights, and 
 Measures. The Metric System. "Hearings on H.R. 10." 69th Congress, 1st Ses- 
 sion. Washington: 1926. p. 86. 
 
 [118] Also see: 
 
 Dale, Samuel S. Correspondence of Samuel S. Dale, 1902-1929, 16 volumes. Unpub- 
 lished manuscript in the Libraries, Columbia University, New York. 
 [119] Halsey and Dale. The Metric Fallacy, pp. 16-17. 
 [120] Cited by Halsey as: 
 
 U.S. Department of State. "Equivalents of Domestic and Foreign Weights and Meas- 
 ures as Established by Law or Custom." Special Consular Reports, Vol. XXI. 
 [121] Halsey and Dale. Op. Cit. p. 75. 
 [122] I bid. p. 16. 
 [123] Ibid. p. SO. 
 [124] Ibid. p. IS. 
 [125] Ibid.p. 81. 
 [126] Ibid.p. 137. 
 [127] Ibid. p. 163. 
 [128] I bid. pp. 163-164. 
 [129] I bid. pp. 226-227. 
 [130] Guillaume, C. E. "New Books." The Physical Review. Vol. XIX, No. 3 (1904). pp. 
 
 234-238. 
 [131] Stevens, W. Le Conte. "Scientific Books." Science. New Series Vol. XX, No. 50 (Au- 
 gusts, 1904). pp. 172-177. 
 [132] Ibid.p. 176. 
 [133] Contained in two volumes: 
 
 U.S. Congress, House of Representatives. Committee on Coinage, Weights, and Meas- 
 ures. The Metric System. "Hearings on H.R. 8988." 58th Congress, 1st and 2nd Sessions; 
 (Jan. 21, 1904-March 12, 1906). Washington: 1906. 
 
 U.S. Congress, House of Representatives. Committee on Coinage, Weights, and Meas- 
 ures. The Metric System. "Hearings on H.R. 8988." 59th Congress, 1st Session (March 
 15, 1907- April 6, 1906). Washington: 1907. 
 [134] U.S. Congress, House of Representatives. Hearings on H.R. 93 and H.R. 8988.(1906) 
 
 p. 263. 
 135] Ibid. p. 273. 
 136] Ibid. pp. 290-296. 
 
 137] Dale. Correspondence. Undated lettertoJ. W. Gaines. Vol. IV. 
 138] Ibid. Letter to Dr. S. W. Strattonjune 8, 191 1. Vol. XII. 
 139] Ibid. Letter from S.W. Strattonjune 6, 1911. Vol. XII. 
 
 140] Dale, Samuel S. Testimony Against the Metric System Suppressed. Boston: 1907. p. 3. 
 141 ] U.S. Congress, House of Representatives. Hearings on H.R. 93 and H.R. 8988. (1906) 
 
 p. 147. 
 142] U.S. Congress, House of Representatives. Hearings on H.R. 8988.(1907). p. 16. 
 143] I bid. pp. 18-19. 
 144] American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Proceedings. Vol. 28, No. 1 (October, 
 
 1906). pp. 302-334. 
 145] ToledoBlade. April 27, 1907. 
 146] Boston Transcript. March 30, 1907. 
 
 CHAPTER VI: THE GREAT METRIC CRUSADE (1914-1933) 
 
 [I] Morison, Samuel Eliot and Commager, Henry Steele. The Growth of the American 
 
 Republic. (4th Ed.) Vol. II. New York: 1958. p. 515. 
 [2] Ibid. p. 549. 
 
 429-523 0-71-19 
 
282 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 [3] Lowrey, Edward G. "The Special Interests — New Style." Saturday Evening Post. 
 
 January 31, 1920. p. 5. 
 [4] Herring, E. Pendleton. Group Representation Before Congress. Baltimore, Maryland: 
 
 1929. 
 [5] I bid. pp. 22-23. 
 [6] Ibid. p. 206. 
 [7] 1 bid. p. 220. 
 [8] Ibid.p.72. 
 [9] Ibid. p. 60. 
 
 [10] Ibid.p. 61. 
 
 [11] Ibid.p.2\. 
 
 [12] Ibid. p. 245. 
 
 [13] Measurement. Vol. 6, No. 4 (Oct. 1931). p. 8. 
 
 [14] Metric Association. Annual Report for 1922. New York: 1922. p. 6. 
 
 [15] American Metric Association. Annual Report for 1919. New York: 1919. p. 16. 
 
 [16] The details of this campaign have been pieced together from correspondence between 
 Aubrey Drury and W. Mortimer Crocker, Albert Herbert, Howard Richards and Freder- 
 ic Roberts. In addition, Mr. Drury's written notes and memorandums were consulted. 
 These documents are located in a special collection of the Columbia University Libraries, 
 Rare Books and Manuscripts Division, New York City. 
 
 [17] Marquis, A.N. Who's Who in America: 1926-1927. Chicago: 1927. 
 
 [18] World Trade Club. An Evening at the World Trade Club. San Francisco: 1 9 1 9. p. 29. 
 
 [19] American Institute of Weights and Measures. Bulletin, January 1, 1920. 
 
 [20] Russell, Samuel. An American Decimal System of Weights and Measures. Washington: 
 1922. pp. 2-3. 
 
 [21 ] This quotation is in many of Drury's works, including: The Weekly Metergram. Vol. 1 , 
 No. 1,(15 January, 1920). p. 1. 
 
 [22] Letter of November 24, 1919. John J. Pershing to W. Mortimer Crocker. Filed with 
 records of the National Bureau of Standards, National Archives (Record Group 167, Box 
 20). 
 
 [23] See: "Reports of Washington representative of the World Trade Club" (1920) and let- 
 ters from W. Mortimer Crocker to A. Drury dated 1920-1921. Drury Collection, Colum- 
 bia University. 
 
 [24] Ibid. 
 
 [25] Another version was addressed to "U.S. American President, His Excellency Woodrow 
 Wilson, U.S. American Congress and Congressional Committees on Weights, Measures, 
 and Coinage." 
 
 [26] "Memorandum to Aubrey Drury" from N.B.D., July 25, 1920. Drury Collection, 
 Columbia University. 
 
 [27] Dale, Samuel S. Correspondence of Samuel S. Dale. Vol. VI. Letter to Frederick A. 
 Halsey, January 3,1919. Dale Collection, Columbia University. 
 
 Unless otherwise noted, references in this section to the activities of Dale, Halsey and 
 the American Institute of Weights and Measures are based on material contained in Mr. 
 Dale's correspondence. From the Dale Collection, Rare Book and Manuscript Division, 
 the Libraries, Columbia University, New York. 
 
 [28] Letter from Frederick A. Halsey to Daniel Adamson of November 8, 1916. Dale Cor- 
 respondence, Vol. VI. 
 
 [29] American Institute of Weights and Measures, Constitution (as amended); February 27, 
 1917. pp. 3-4. 
 
 [30] Letter from F. A. Halsey to S. S. Dale of June 12, 1917. Dale Correspondence, Vol. VI. 
 
 [3 1 ] A.I.W.M. Constitution, pp. 6-7. 
 
 [32] Letter from F. A. Halsey to Henry D. Sharpe of April 24, 1916. Dale Correspondence, 
 Vol. VI. 
 
 [33] Dale Correspondence. Vol. VI. 
 
 [34] Ibid. 
 
 [35] Halsey, Frederick A. The Metric Fallacy; (2nd Edition) New York: 1920. 
 
 [36] Dale Correspondence. Vol. VI. 
 
APPENDIX A 283 
 
 [37] Letter from Samuel S. Dale to F. A. Halsey of November 17, 1921. Dale Correspon- 
 dence. Vol. VI. 
 
 [38] U.S. Congress, House of Representatives. Biographical Directory of the American Con- 
 gress, 1774-1927. House Document No. 783; 69th Congress, 2nd Session. Washington: 
 1928. p. 1196. 
 
 [39] See, for example: 
 
 (a) Letter from Samuel W. Stratton to Fred R. Drake of December 29, 1920. National 
 Archives, Record Group 167, Box 20. 
 
 (b) Letter from Samuel W. Stratton to Editor, American Industries of August 10, 1920. 
 Loc. Cit. 
 
 (c) Report of the Twenty-first National Conference on Weights and Measures. U.S. Bu- 
 reau of Standards Miscellaneous Publication No. 87. Washington: 1928. pp. 1-12. 
 
 [40] Cochrane, Rexmond C. Measures for Progress. U.S. National Bureau of Standards, MP 
 275. Washington: 1966. pp. 87-90. 
 
 [41] See, for example, H.R. 16876 (May 27, 1914); H.R. 20525 (Jan. 4, 1915); H.R. 9323 
 (Feb. 10, 1916); H.R. 2878 (Apr. 13, 1917). 
 
 [42 ] 40 Stat. 9 1 2 and 40 Stat. 1 29 1 . 
 
 [43] Cochrane, Op. Cit. pp. 253-262. 
 
 [44] Drake, Fred R. The Metric System. Washington: 1914. 
 
 [45] Letter from Samuel S. Dale to Samuel W. Stratton of Feb. 1 (or 3), 1915. Dale Collec- 
 tion, Columbia University, Vol. XII. 
 
 [46] U.S. Congress, Senate. Metric System in Export Trade. "Report to the International 
 High Commission Relative to the Use of the Metric System in Export Trade by Samuel 
 W. Stratton, Director of the Bureau of Standards." 64th Congress, 1st Session; Docu- 
 ment No. 241 (Jan. 6, 1916). 
 
 [47] Ibid. pp. 7-8. 
 
 [48] Ibid. p. 11. 
 
 [49] Ibid. p. 11. 
 
 [50] U.S. Congress, Senate. Committee on Manufactures. The Metric System. Hearing Be- 
 fore a Subcommittee . . . on S. 2267, 67th Congress, 1st Session. Part 2, October 24-28, 
 1921. pp. 129-130. 
 
 [5 1 ] U.S. Bureau of the Census. Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 
 1 95 7. Washington: 1960. p. 546. 
 
 [52] Ibid.p. 546. 
 
 [53] Ibid. p. 550. 
 
 [54] Cochrane. Op. Cit. p. 207. 
 
 [55] U.S. Bureau of Standards. Metric Manual for Soldiers. Miscellaneous Publication No. 
 21. Washington: 1918. 
 
 [56] Ibid.p.3. 
 
 [57] U.S. War Department. General Orders, No. 26. May 3, 1920. 
 
 [58 ] Cox, Edward F. A History of the Metric System of Weights and Measures, with Empha- 
 sis on Campaigns for Its Adoption in Great Britain and the United States Prior to 1914. 
 (Doctoral Dissertation; Indiana University, 1957). p. 385. 
 
 [59] lb id. pp. 402-405. 
 
 [60] McEachren, Justin W. International Standardization and an International Decimal 
 System of Weights and Measures from the Viewpoint of American Industry. Pamphlet. 
 New York: 1917. p. 2. 
 
 [61] Ibid. p. 10. 
 
 [62] American Society of Mechanical Engineers. "Report of the Committee on Weights and 
 Measures on the Metric System in Export Trade." A.S.M.E. Transactions. Vol. 40, No. 
 1651 (1918). pp. 427-462. 
 
 [63] Ibid. p. All. 
 
 [64] Halsey, Frederick A. "The Weights and Measures of Latin America." A.S.M.E. 
 Transactions. Vol. 40, No. 1664 (1918). pp. 773-798. 
 
 [65] American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Op. Cit. pp. 428-429. 
 
 [66] Ibid. pp. 429, 459, 462. 
 
284 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 [67] Halsey. Op. Cit. p. 6. 
 
 [68] Ibid. p. 9. 
 
 [69] American Metric Association. A Message from the Secretary of Commerce of the 
 
 U nited States of America. (Pamphlet). New York: 1919. p. 6. 
 [70] See: 
 
 (a) U.S. Congress, House of Representatives. Committee on Coinage, Weights, and 
 Measures. Establishment of Standard and Decimal Divisions of Weights, Measures, 
 and Coins of the United States. "Hearings . . . on H.R. 12850." 66th Congress, 2nd 
 Session. March 26, 1920. 
 
 (b) Russell, Samuel. The Ladd Metric Bill— Its Fallacy and Futility. "Statement . . . 
 before the Committee on Manufacturers of the United States Senate." December 16, 
 1921. Washington: 1922. 
 
 (c) Russell, Samuel. An American Decimal System of Weights and Measures. 
 "Statement . . . before the Committee on Manufactures of the United States Senate." 
 December 20, 1921. Washington: 1922. 
 
 [71] World Trade Club. Keep the World War Won. (Pamphlet). San Francisco: 1919. 
 [72] World Trade Club. Who Suffers? (Pamphlet -Book 7, Ed. 1). San Francisco: 1919. 
 [73] American Institute of Weights and Measures. Bulletin. April 1, 1923. p. 12. 
 [74] World Trade Club. Who Opposes Meter-Liter-Gram? (Pamphlet- Book 5, Ed. 1). San 
 
 Francisco: 1919. 
 [75] World Trade Club. Who Urges Meter-Liter-Gram? (Pamphlet -Book 4, Ed. 3). San 
 
 Francisco: 1919. 
 [76] World Metric Standardization Council. The Metric Referendum Should Be Called Now. 
 
 (Pamphlet — undated, c. 1923-1924). San Francisco. 
 [77] Drury, Aubrey (ed.), World Metric Standardization: An Urgent Issue. San Francisco: 
 
 1922. p. 158. 
 [78] Letter from S. W. Stratton to Mr. Ritchie of Feb. 6, 1922. National Archives, Record 
 
 Group 167, Box 20. 
 [79] Letter from Howard Richards, Jr. to Albert Herbert of June 6, 1919. Drury Collection. 
 [80] Drury. Op. Cit. pp. 322-323. 
 [81] Ibid. p. 326. 
 [82] See, for example the following issues of Science, Vol. LV(1922): 
 
 (a) No. 1418 (Mar. 3, 1922). "Progress in Metric Standardization." pp. 232-233. 
 
 (b) No. 1424 (Apr. 14, 1922). "The Metric System." pp. 400-401. 
 
 (c) No. 1428 (May 12, 1922). "The Metric Campaign." pp. 515-5 16. 
 
 (d) No. 1434 (June 23, 1922). "Are Scientists Encouraging Popular Ignorance?" pp. 
 664-667. 
 
 (e) No. 1448 (Sept. 29, 1922). "Conference on World Metric Standardization." pp. 362- 
 363. 
 
 [83] "America's Demand for a Fair Measure Deal." Gfl/P.' Vol. 3. (Oct. 1920) pp. 11-16. 
 [84] Examples of this type of Metric Association literature include: 
 
 (a) American Metric Association. Metric Weights and Measures. (3rd edition) New 
 York: 1919. 
 
 (b) A Message from the Secretary of Commerce of the United States of America. New 
 York: 1919. 
 
 (c) Report of Metric System Committee, National Wholesale Grocers Association. 
 New York: 1918. 
 
 [85] American Institute of Weights and Measures. Undated circular letter, c. 1920. Special 
 
 folio No. QC 81.A349. Library of Congress. 
 [86] American Institute of Weights and Measures. Bulletin. April 1, 1920. pp. 3-4. 
 [87] American Institute of Weights and Measures. The Metric System Condemned By Those 
 
 Who Know. (Bulletin No. 10). New York: 1919. 
 [88] American Institute of Weights and Measures. The Six Metric Myths. (Bulletin No. 1). 
 
 New York: 1917. p. 2. 
 
APPENDIX A 285 
 
 [89] Letter from Samuel S. Dale to Frederick A. Halsey of Feb. 22, 1919. Dale Collection. 
 
 Vol. VI. 
 [90] Letter from F. A. Halsey to Samuel S. Dale of Feb. 24, 1919. Dale Collection. Vol. VI. 
 [91] Unlike the first edition, which was published by Van Nostrand and Company, New 
 
 York, the new edition was published by the American Institute of Weights and Measures 
 
 with its own funds. 
 [92] Halsey. The Metric Fallacy (2nd ed.) pp. 142-143. 
 [93] American Institute of Weights and Measures. "What the Institute is Doing." Circular 
 
 letter of March 21,1921. Special folio No. QC 8 1 . A349 ; Library of Congress. 
 [94] American Institute of Weights and Measures. "The Sugar Coated Metric Pill." Undated 
 
 press release; c. 1921, Special Folio No. QC 81.A349; Library of Congress. 
 [95] Letter from Frederick A. Halsey to Samuel S. Dale of March 9, 1909. Dale Collection. 
 
 Vol. VI. 
 [96] Examples include: 
 
 (a) "Beware of the Metric System Propaganda." American Machinist. Vol. 52, No. 14 
 (April 1, 1920). p. 755. 
 
 (b) "The Metric System." Vol. 52, No. 16 (April 15, 1920). p. 863. 
 
 (c) "Metric Chaos in Daily Life." Vol. 52, No. 17 (April 22, 1920). p. 917. 
 
 [97 
 [98 
 [99 
 
 100 
 101 
 
 102 
 
 103 
 104 
 
 105 
 
 106 
 
 107 
 
 108 
 109 
 110 
 111 
 112 
 113 
 114 
 115 
 116 
 117 
 118 
 119 
 120 
 
 121 
 
 122 
 
 123 
 
 124 
 
 American Machinist. Vol. 52, No. 8 (Feb. 19, 1920). pp. 415-420. 
 
 Ibid. Vol. 52, No. 10 (Mar. 4, 1920). pp. 523-524. 
 
 "The Veracity of Pro-Metric Statements." American Machinist. Vol. 52, No. 9 (Feb. 
 26, 1920). pp. 472-473. 
 
 American Machinist. Vol. 52, No. 21 (May 20, 1920). p. 1 104. 
 
 Ibid. 
 
 "A Watch Dog of American Industry," A merican Machinist. Vol. 52, No. 17 (April 22, 
 1920). p. 905. 
 
 Ibid. p. 904. 
 
 See Dale's correspondence with Halsey c. March, April, and May, 1921. Dale Collec- 
 tion. Vol. VI. 
 
 National Industrial Conference Board. The Metric versus the English System of 
 Weights and Measures. "Research Report Number 42." New York: 1921. p. 118. 
 
 1 bid. pp. 123-211. 
 
 U.S. Congress, Senate. Committee on Manufactures. The Metric System. "Hearings 
 before a subcommittee ... on S. 2267." (in 4 parts). 67th Congress, 1st and 2nd Ses- 
 sions (October, 1921 -March, 1922). 
 
 Ibid. p. 1 20. 
 
 Ibid. p. 132. 
 
 Ibid. p. 4. 
 
 I bid. p. 162. 
 
 I bid. pp. 160-161. 
 
 Ibid. p. 86. 
 
 Ibid. p. 39. 
 
 I bid. p. 41. 
 
 I bid. pp. 177-186. 
 
 Ibid. pp. 268-273. 
 
 Ibid. pp. 288-289. 
 
 Cochrane, Op. Cit. p. 235. 
 
 Announced in the American Institute of Weights and Measures Bulletin. Jan. 1, 1923. 
 p. 8. 
 
 Letter from Samuel S. Dale to C. C. Stutz of Oct. 13, 1922. Dale Correspondence. 
 Vol. I. 
 
 Letter from Samuel S. Dale to C. C. Stutz of Oct. 17, 1922. Dale Correspondence. 
 Vol. I. 
 Cochrane. Op. Cit. pp. 237-238. 
 
 Letter from Samuel S. Dale to C. C. Stutz of Dec. 26, 1923. Dale Correspondence. 
 Vol. I. 
 
286 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 125] Memorandum of Aubrey Drury. "Report of Trip to New York City, Boston, and 
 Washington," June, 1923. Drury Collection. 
 
 126] Correspondence of the National Bureau of Standards. File "MS." National Archives, 
 Record Group 167. 
 
 127] American Institute of Weights and Measures. Our American System of Weights and 
 Measures: Why We Should Keep It. (Pamphlet) New York: 1924. p. 32. 
 
 128] 1 bid. p. 62. 
 
 129] From the official program of the conference as reported in the American Institute of 
 Weights and Measures Bulletin, Jan. 2, 1925. p. 8. 
 
 130] Ibid. p. 9. 
 
 131] All-American Standards Council. All-America Standard; Issue 1-1924. p. 1. 
 
 132] American Institute of Weights and Measures. Bulletin. Jan. 2, 1925. pp. 8-9. 
 
 133] Ibid. Apr. 1, 1925. pp. 3-5. 
 
 134] I bid. p. 5. 
 
 135] Ibid. Apr. 1, 1926. p. 18. 
 
 136] Letter from Fred A. Britten, M. C. to Aubrey Drury of Dec. 18, 1925. Drury Collec- 
 tion. 
 
 137] U.S. Congress, House of Representatives. Committee on Coinage, Weights, and Mea- 
 sures. The Metric System. "Hearings ... on H.R. 10." 69th Congress, 1st Session 
 (February-March, 1926). 
 
 138] I bid. pp. 2-5. 
 
 139] Ibid. pp. 42-43. 
 
 140] Ibid. p. 27. 
 
 141] I bid. p. 56. 
 
 142] Ibid. p. 100. 
 
 143] Ibid. p. 113. 
 
 144] Ibid. p. 216. 
 
 145] I bid. p. 304. 
 
 146] Letter from Samuel S. Dale to Alex C. Humphreys of March 22, 1926. Dale Correspon- 
 dence. Vol. VII. 
 
 1 47 ] Letter from Frederic L. Roberts to Aubrey Drury of March 21, 1926. Drury Collection. 
 
 148] Letter from Samuel S. Dale to A. G. Holmes of April 30, 1926. Dale Correspondence. 
 Vol. VII. 
 
 149] The Congressional Digest. April, 1926. pp. 1 15-143. 
 
 150] Johnson, Julia E. (editor) Metric System. [The Reference Shelf; Vol. Ill, No. 8] New 
 York: 1926. 
 
 151] Letter from Samuel S. Dale to A. G. Holmes of April 30, 1926. Dale Correspondence. 
 Vol. VII. 
 
 152] Letters from Samuel S. Dale to C. C. Stutz of May 19, 1926 and Dec. 13, 1926. Dale 
 Correspondence. Vol. I. 
 
 153] U.S. Congress, House of Representatives. Committee on Coinage, Weights, and Mea- 
 sures. Establish Regulatory Control Over Weights and Measuring Devices. "Hearings 
 . . . onH.R. 7208." 70th Congress, 1st Session, Jan. 23, 1928. 
 
 1 54] U.S. Bureau of Standards. Report of the Twenty-First National Conference on Weights 
 and Measures; (Miscellaneous Publications — No. 87). Washington: 1928. p. 10. 
 
 155] Forexample: 
 
 (a) Drury, Aubrey, A way With Rule of Thumb. (Pamphlet). San Francisco: 1926. 
 
 (b) Kennelly, Arthur E. Vestiges of Pre-Metric Weights and Measures Persisting in 
 Metric-System Europe, 1926-1927. New York: 1928. 
 
 CHAPTER VII: TO BE CONTINUED (1959-1968) 
 
 [1] Morison, Samuel Eliot and Commager, Henry Steele, The Growth of the American 
 
 Republic. Vol. 2. New York: 1958. p. 633. 
 [2] U.S. Congress, House of Representatives. Committee on Coinage, Weights, and Mea- 
 
APPENDIX A 287 
 
 sures. Weights and Measures Standardization. "Hearings ... on H.R. 7869." 75th 
 Congress, 1st Session. August 12, 1937. 
 
 [3] Ibid. p. 2. 
 
 [4] Ibid. p. 13. 
 
 [5] Ibid.p. 14. 
 
 [6] U.S. Congress, House of Representatives. Committee on Coinage, Weights, and Mea- 
 sures. "Weights and Measures Standardization." Report No. 1588 [to accompany H.R. 
 7869]. 75th Congress, 1st Session. August 18, 1937. 
 
 [7] See: 
 
 (a) Letter from Aubrey Drury to J. T. Johnson of 17 July, 1944. Drury Collection. Rare 
 Books and Manuscripts Division, The Libraries, Columbia University. 
 
 (b) Letter from Karl E. Ettinger to J. T. Johnson of August 17, 1944. Drury Collection. 
 
 (c) Letter from Aubrey Drury to Karl E. Ettinger, undated (circa 1944), Drury Collec- 
 tion. 
 
 [8] Ingalls, Walter Renton. Systems of Weights and Measures. New York: 1945. 
 [9] Johnson, J. T. (compiler). The Metric System of Weights and Measures. "Twentieth 
 Yearbook of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics." New York: 1948. 
 
 [10] U.S. Congress, House of Representatives. Committee on Interstate and Foreign Com- 
 merce. "Redefining the Units and Establishing the Standards of Electrical and Photomet- 
 ric Measurements." Report No. 2350 [to accompany S. 441]. 81st Congress, 2nd Ses- 
 sion. June 27, 1950. 
 
 [11] Great Britain Board of Trade. Report of the Committee on Weights and Measures 
 Legislation. London: 1951. 
 
 [12] Ibid. p. 5. 
 
 [13] Ibid. p. 8. 
 
 [14] U.S. Congress, House of Representatives. Committee on Science and Astronautics. 
 Notes on Conversion to the Metric System. 89th Congress, 1st Session (Serial H). 
 Washington: 1965. 
 
 [15] U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Rules of the House of Representatives. 
 "Rule XI, Sec. 17(b)." 
 
 [16] United States Government. Federal Register, F.R. Doc. 59-5442; filed June 30, 1959. 
 
 [17] Ibid. 
 
 [18] New York Times, Nov. 9, 1958. p. 24. 
 
 [19] Washington (D.C.) Post. Jan. 1 , 1 959. 
 
 [20] U.S. Department of Commerce. "Remarks by Lewis L. Strauss . . . Prepared for 
 Delivery at the Spring Meeting Banquet of the American Physical Society . . . May 1, 
 1959." (Unpublished news release). 
 
 [21 ] The Evening Star. Washington, D.C; May 2, 1959. "Strauss Stirs Dispute On the Met- 
 ric System" by William Hines. 
 
 [22] U.S. Department of Commerce. "Remarks by Lewis L. Strauss . . ." 
 
 [23] British Association for the Advancement of Science and The Association of British 
 Chambers of Commerce. Decimal Coinage and the Metric System — Should Britain 
 Change? London: 1 960. pp. 49-5 1 . 
 
 [24] Ibid. 
 
 [25] U.S. National Bureau of Standards. Technical News Bulletin. Vol. 44, No. 12. 
 (December, 1960). 
 
 [26] U.S. Congress, House of Representatives. Committee on Science and Astronautics. 
 The Metric System. "Hearings Before Subcommittee No. 1 ... on H.R. 269 and H.R. 
 2049." 87th Congress, 1 st Session. June 28, 29, and July 2 1 , 1 96 1 . 
 
 [27] Ibid.p. 3. 
 
 [28] U.S. Congress, House of Representatives. Committee on Science and Astronautics. 
 "Providing for a Survey to Determine the Practicability of Adopting the Metric System 
 of Weights and Measures." Report No. 785. 87th Congress, 1st Session. July 25, 1961. 
 
 [29] Ibid. pp. 3-4. 
 
 [30] U.S. Congress. Congressional Record— House Vol. 107, No. 155 (September6, 1961). 
 87th Congress, I st Session, p. 1 2068. 
 
288 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 [31] Kjemtrup, Jens E. "All Out — Now." Mechanical Engineering. July, 1962. p. 44. 
 
 [32] Trowbridge, R. P. "Let Industry Decide." Mechanical Engineering. July, 1962. p. 45. 
 
 [33] Waltermire, W. G. "Decimalize the Inch" and Kayan, Carl F. "The Transition." 
 Mechanical Engineering. July, 1962. pp. 45-47. 
 
 [34] (a) Tangerman, E. J. "15 Engineers Discuss the Change to Metric." Product Engineer- 
 ing. July 23, 1962. pp. 72-75. (b) "A Weighty Problem: Should U.S. Industry Go Met- 
 ric?" News Front. September, 1962. pp. 54-36. (c) Dallas, Daniel B. "Millionths or 
 Microns — Which Measuring System?" The Tool and Manufacturing Engineer. October, 
 1962. pp. 75-78. (d) "Weights and Measures." Science. Vol. 136, No. 3522 (29 June. 
 1962). Editorial Page. 
 
 [35] British Standards Institution. Change to the Metric System? (PD 4555). London: 1962. 
 
 [36] U.S. Congress, Senate. Committee on Commerce. Conversion to Metric System. 
 "Hearing on S. 1278." 88th Congress, 2nd Session. January 7, 1964. 
 
 [37] Ibid. pp. 4-5. 
 
 [38] Ibid. p. 18. 
 
 [39] Ibid. p. 21. 
 
 [40] New York Times; May 25, 1965. 
 
 [41] "Decision on the Inch." Mechanical Engineering. Vol. 87. No. 3. (Mar. 1965) p. 29. 
 
 [42] Washington (D.C.) Post; May 3, 1 965. 
 
 [43] U.S. Congress, Senate. Committee on Commerce. Hearings . . . on S. 774. 89th Con- 
 gress. 1st Session. July 14, 1965. 
 
 [44] U.S. Congress, House of Representatives. Committee on Science and Astronautics. 
 The Metric System. "Hearings ... on H.R. 2626 Superseded by H.R. 10329." 89th 
 Congress, 1st Session. August 2, 3, 4, 5, and 9, 1965. Also: U.S. Congress, House of 
 Representatives. Committee on Science and Astronautics. Notes on Conversion to the 
 Metric System. (Committee Print — Serial H). 89th Congress, 1st Session. Washington: 
 1965. 
 
 [45] U.S. Congress, House of Representatives. Committee on Science and Astronautics. 
 Providing for the Secretary of Commerce to Conduct a Program of Investigation, 
 Research and Survey of the Metric System in the United States. Report No. 850 ... to 
 accompany H.R. 10329. 89th Congress, 1st Session. August 24, 1965. 
 
 [46] /bid. p. 3. 
 
 [47] Ibid. 
 
 [48] Ibid. pp. 6-7. 
 
 [49] New York Times; September 10, 1965. 
 
 [50] U.S. Congress, Senate. Committee on Commerce. Study of Metric System. Report No. 
 751 . . . to accompany S. 774. 89th Congress, 1st Session. September 16, 1965. 
 
 [51] U.S. Congress. Congressional Record-Senate. Vol. Ill, No. 173. (Sept. 20. 1965). 
 89th Congress, 1st Session, pp. 23527-23529. 
 
 [52] Ibid.p. 23528. 
 
 [53] (a) U.S. Congress, House of Representatives. Committee on Science and Astronautics. 
 The Metric Study Bill. "Hearings ... on S. 774." 89th Congress. 2nd Session. Jan. 18, 
 1966. (b) U.S. Congress, House of Representatives. Committee on Science and As- 
 tronautics. Authorizing the Secretary of Commerce to Make a Study to Determine the 
 Advantages and Disadvantages of Increased Use of the Metric System in the United 
 States. Report No. 1291 ... to accompany S. 774. 89th Congress, 2nd Session. 
 February 17, 1966. 
 
 [54] U.S. Congress, House of Representatives. Committee on Science and Astronautics. 
 Authorizing the Secretary of Commerce to Make a Study to Determine the Advantages 
 and Disadvantages of Increased Use of the Metric System in the United States. Report 
 No. 33 . . . to accompany H.R. 3136. 90th Congress, 1st Session. March 6, 1967. 
 
 [55] U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Commerce. Increasing the Use of the Metric 
 System. "Hearings . . . on S. 441 and S. 2356." 90th Congress, 1st Session. Nov. 15, 
 1967. 
 
 [56] Ibid.p. 15. 
 
 [57] 1 bid. p. 27. 
 
 [58] U.S. Congress. Congressional Record-House. April 30, 1968. p. H3I 14. 
 
APPENDIX A 289 
 
 [59] U.S. Congress. Congressional Record -House. June 24, 1968. pp. H5341-H5346. 
 
 [60] U.S. Congress. Congressional Record -House. June 24, 1968. pp. H5347-H5358. 
 
 [61] Ibid. p. H5347. 
 
 [62] /fc/rf. p. H5349. 
 
 [63] /fciW. 
 
 [64] /Wrf.p. H5352. 
 
 [65] Ibid. pp. H5357-H5358. 
 
Appendix B 
 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 1. Sources of Unpublished Material 
 
 a. Columbia University -two superb collections of unpublished material have been 
 preserved by the Libraries of Columbia University, Rare Books and Manuscripts Division. 
 One is the "Dale Collection," comprising the diary, personal correspondence, collected 
 works and library of Samuel S. Dale of Boston, Massachusetts. The other is the "Drury 
 Collection," comprising the personal papers of Aubrey Drury and the records of the World 
 Trade Club. Both of these collections yielded a great deal of the source material used in the 
 preparation of this volume, and both were particularly valuable in their revelations con- 
 cerning the personalities engaged in the controversy and the strategies used by both 
 advocates and opponents. 
 
 b. The National Archives — The records of the National Bureau of Standards and of 
 the pertinent Congressional Committees involved in the metric system issue are maintained 
 by the National Archives. 
 
 c. Massachusetts Institute of Technology — The personal records of Samuel W. Stratton 
 and the records of his tenure as president of MIT are housed in the Institute Archives in 
 Cambridge. 
 
 d. National Bureau of Standards — Material of a recent origin (1958-1968) was obtained 
 from the files of the Office of the Director, National Bureau of Standards. Some material 
 dating back to the early 20th century has also been retained by the Office of Weights and 
 Measures, National Bureau of Standards. 
 
 2. General Histories of Weights and Measures and the Metric System 
 
 Chisholm. H. W. On the Science of Weighing and Measuring. London: 1877. 
 
 Cochrane. Rexmond C. Measures for Progress. (U.S. National Bureau of Standards; MP 275). 
 
 Washington. D.C.: 1966. 
 Cox. Edward F. A History of the Metric System of Weights and Measures With Emphasis on 
 
 Campaigns for Its Adoption in Great Britain and in the United States Prior to 1914. 
 
 (Ph.D. Dissertation, Indiana University) Ann Arbor. Michigan. 1958. 
 Cox, Edward F. "The Metric System: A Quarter-Century of Acceptance (1851-1876)." Osiris. 
 
 Vol. XIII (1959). 
 . "The International Institute: First Organized Opposition to the Metric System." The 
 
 Ohio Historical Quarterly. Vol. 68, No. 1 (Jan., 1959). 
 Crosland, Maurice P. Science in France in the Revolutionary Era. Cambridge, Mass.: 1969. 
 Fischer, L. A. History of Standard Weights and Measures of the United States. (U.S. National 
 
 Bureau of Standards: Scientific Papers of the Bureau of Standards, No. 17, 1905; Miscel- 
 laneous Publication No. 64, 1925) Washington, D.C. 
 Ford Motor Company. Measuring Systems and Their History. October 1966. 
 Ford Motor Company. "Ford and the Metric System: Report Number 2." Worldwide Use of 
 
 Measuring Systems. March, 1967. 
 Hallock. William and Wade, Herbert T. Outlines of the Evolution of Weights and Measures 
 
 and the Metric System. New York: 1 906. 
 Hellman, C. D. "Jefferson's Efforts Towards the Decimalization of United States Weights and 
 
 Measures." Isis. Vol. XVI, No. 2 (Nov., 193 1). 
 Jones, Sarah Ann. Weights and Measures in Congress. (U.S. National Bureau of Standards, 
 
 Miscellaneous Publication 122). Washington. D.C: 1936. 
 Judson, Lewis V. Weights and Measures Standards of the United States— A Brief History. 
 
 (U.S. National Bureau of Standards, Miscellaneous Publication 247). Washington. D.C: 
 
 1963. 
 
 290 
 
APPENDIX B 291 
 
 Moreau, Henri (translated by Ralph E. Oesper). "The Genesis of the Metric System and the 
 Work of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures." Journal of Chemical Edu- 
 cation. Vol. 30, No. 1 (Jan., 1953). 
 
 Prior, W. H. Notes on the Weights and Measures of Medieval England. Paris: 1924. 
 
 Smith, Ralph W. The Federal Basis for Weights and Measures. (U.S. National Bureau of Stan- 
 dards, Circular 593). Washington, D.C.: 1958. 
 
 U.S. National Bureau of Standards. Units and Systems of Weights and Measures: Their 
 Origin, Development and Present Status. (Letter Circular 1035). Washington, D.C. 
 1960. 
 
 3. Official Documents 
 
 U.S. Congress. The Congressional Globe. 39th Congress, 1st Session. May 17, 1866; p. 2653. 
 
 July 27, 1866; pp. 4216-4219. 
 U.S. Congress. Congressional Record— House. 54th Congress, 1st Session. April 7, 1896. pp 
 
 3688-3699. 
 
 .90th Congress, 2nd Session. June 24, 1968. pp. H534 1-5358. 
 
 U.S. Congress. Congressional Record — Senate. 89th Congress, 1st Session. September 20, 
 
 1965. pp. 23527-23529. 
 U.S. Congress. Notice of the Use of the Metric System in the United States. Report of the U.S. 
 
 Commissioners to the International Committee on Weights, Measures, and Coins. 41st 
 
 Congress, 2nd Session. Washington, D.C: 1870. 
 U.S. Congress. House of Representatives. Committee on Coinage, Weights, and Measures. 
 
 Report No. 62. 39th Congress, 1st Session. May 17, 1866. 
 . Ex. Doc. No. 18. "Letter from the Secretary of State re: Adoption of the Metrical 
 
 System." 45th Congress, 1st Session. 1877. 
 . Ex. Doc. No. 19. "Letter from the Secretary of the Navy re: Adoption of the Metrical 
 
 System." 45th Congress, 1st Session. 1877. 
 . Ex. Doc. No. 20. "Letter from the Postmaster General re: Adoption of the Metrical 
 
 System." 45th Congress, 1st Session. 1877. 
 . Ex. Doc. No. 8. "Letter from the Secretary of War re: Adoption of the Metrical 
 
 System." 45th Congress, 2nd Session. 1 877. 
 . Ex. Doc. No. 71 . "Letter from the Secretary of the Treasury re: Adoption of the Metri- 
 cal System." 45th Congress. 2nd Session. 1 878. 
 . Mis. Doc. No. 61. "Statement of Professor J. E. Hilgard before the Committee on 
 
 Coinage, Weights, and Measures on the Standard Weights and Measures of the U.S." 
 
 45th Congress, 2nd Session. 1878. 
 . House Report No. 53. "On the Adoption of the Metric System of Weights and Mea- 
 sures." 45th Congress, 3rd Session. Jan. 7. 1 879. 
 . House Report No. 137. "A New Decimal System of Weights and Measures." 45th 
 
 Congress, 3rd Session. March 3, 1879. 
 . House Report No. 14. "Part 1 : On the Adoption of the Metric System, Together with 
 
 Documents and Statistics Relating to the Subject." "Part 2: On Metric Coinage." 46th 
 
 Congress. 1st Session. June, 1879. 
 
 . House Report No. 203. "Metric Coinage." 46th Congress. 2nd Session. 1880. 
 
 . House Misc. Doc. No. 29. "On a Decimal System of Weights and Measures for the En- 
 glish-Speaking Nations." 46th Congresss. 2nd Session. March 5, 1 880. 
 . Hearing . . . On the Metric System [in consideration of H.R. 2758] . 59th Congress, 
 
 I st Session. January 30, 1 896. 
 • House Report No. 795. [to accompany H.R. 725]. 54th Congress, 1st Session. March 
 
 16, 1896. 
 • House Report No. 2885 [to accompany H.R. 7251]. 54th Congress, 2nd Session. 
 
 February 10, 1897. 
 • House Report No. 1597 [to accompany H.R. 1058] . 55th Congress, 2nd Session. June 
 
 20, 1898. 
 . House Report No. 3005 [to accompany H.R. 104 and H.R. 5768]. 56th Congress. 2nd 
 
 Session. March I. 1901. 
 
292 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 . Hearings . . . on H.R. 2054. "The Metric System." 57th Congress, 1st Session. 
 
 February 6-March 3, 1902. 
 
 . Supplemental Hearings. "Statement of Lord Kelvin." 57th Congress, 1st Session. 
 
 April 24, 1902. 
 
 . House Report No. 1701 [to accompany H.R. 2054]. 57th Congress, 1st Session. April 
 
 21, 1902. 
 
 . Hearings . . . on H.R. 93, H.R. 2054 and H.R. 8988. "The Metric System." 58th 
 
 Congress, 2nd Session (1904); 58th Congress, 3rd Session (1905); and 59th Congress, 1st 
 Session (1906). 
 
 . Hearings . . . on H.R. 8988. "The Metric System." 59th Congress, 2nd Session. 
 
 1907. 
 
 .Hearings . . . on H.R. 10. "The Metric System." 69th Congress, 1st Session. Februa- 
 ry-March, 1926. 
 
 . Hearings . . . on H.R. 7869. "A Bill to Define Certain Units and to Fix the Standard 
 
 of Weights and Measures in the United States." 75th Congress, 1st Session. August 12, 
 1937. 
 
 . Report No. 1588 [to accompany H.R. 7869]. "Weights and Measures Standardiza- 
 tion." 75th Congress, 1st Session. August 18, 1937. 
 
 U.S. Congress, House of Representatives. Committee on Science and Astronautics. Hearings 
 before Subcommittee No. 1 ... on H.R. 269 and H.R. 2049. "The Metric System." 
 87th Congress, 1st Session. June 28, 29. and July 21, 1961. 
 
 . Report No. 785 [to accompany H.R. 2049]. 87th Congress, 1st Session. July 25, 1961. 
 
 . Notes on Conversion to the Metric System. 89th Congress, 1st Session. July, 1965. 
 
 . Hearings . . . on H.R. 2626 [superseded by H.R. 10329]. "The Metric System." 
 
 89th Congress, 1st Session. August 2. 3,4, 5, and 9, 1965. 
 
 . Report No. 850. [to accompany H.R. 10329. 89th Congress, 1st Session. August 24, 
 
 1965. 
 
 .Hearings . . . on S. 774. "The Metric Study Bill." 89th Congress, 2nd Session. Janua- 
 ry 18, 1966. 
 
 . Report No. 1291 [to accompany S. 774]. 89th Congress, 2nd Session. February 17. 
 
 1966. 
 
 . Report No. 33. [to accompany H.R. 3136]. 90th Congress, 1st Session. March 6, 
 
 1967. 
 
 U.S. Congress. Senate. Doc. No 241. "The Metric System in Export Trade." 64th Congress, 
 1 st Session. January 6. 1916. 
 
 U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Manufactures. Hearings . . . on S. 2267. "Metric 
 System." 67th Congress. 2nd Session. October. 1921 -March, 1922. 
 
 U.S. Congress, Senate. Committee on Commerce. Hearings . . . on S. 1278. "Conversion to 
 Metric System." 88th Congress, 2nd Session. January 7, 1964. 
 
 . Hearings . . . on S. 774. "Conversion to the Metric System." 89th Congress, 1st Ses- 
 sion. July 14, 1965. 
 
 . Report No. 751 [to accompany S. 774]. 89th Congress, 1st Session. September 16, 
 
 1965. 
 
 . Hearings . . . on S. 441 and S. 2356. "Increasing the Use of the Metric System." 
 
 90th Congress, 1st Session. November 15, 1967. 
 
 . Report No. 1336 [to accompany H.R. 3136]. 90th Congress, 2nd Session. July 17. 
 
 1968. 
 
 U.S. Department of State. Report of the Secretary of State, on the subject of establishing a 
 
 uniformity in the Weights, Measures and Coins of the United States. New York: 1790. 
 . Report of the Secretary of State Upon Weights and Measures. Boston: 1821. 
 
 U.S. Department of the Treasury. Coast and Geodetic Survey. Weights and Measures: The 
 National Prototypes of the Standard Metre and Kilogramme. Appendix No. 18; Report 
 for 1890. Washington: 1891. 
 
 . Fundamental Standards of Length and Mass. Bulletin No. 26; April 5, 1893. Washing- 
 ton: 1893. 
 
APPENDIX B 293 
 
 4. Selected Literature Representative of the Metric Controversy 
 
 American Institute of Weights and Measures. Bulletin of the American Institute of Weights and 
 
 Measures. In 12 volumes, 1917-1928. Quarterly, with exceptions. 
 
 . Endorsements That Count. May, 1917. 
 
 . The American Metric Association and the Metric System in Munitions of War. 
 
 October, 1917. 
 
 . The Six Metric Myths. December, 1917. 
 
 . The Metric System Condemned by Those Who Know. May, 1919. 
 
 . Why World Trade Facts Do Not Support the Metric System, c. 1 920. 
 
 . Some Reasons for Opposition to the Compulsory Introduction of the Metric System. 
 
 1921. 
 
 . Our American System of Weights and Measures. New York: 1924. 
 
 . Measurement Units and Standards. Spring. 1931. 
 
 American Machinist. Vol. 52 (Jan.-June, 1920). pp. 208, 355, 360, 415, 471, 472. 523. 631, 
 
 632, 645, 647, 660, 690, 693, 755, 768, 784, 8 1 8. 849, 863, 903, 906, 907, 9 1 1 , 9 1 7, 985, 
 
 1,000. 1.013, 1,054, 1,063, 1,104, 1,161, 1,255, 1.298. and 1,310. 
 
 . Vol. 53 (July-Dec. 1920) pp. 283, 678, 647, 91 1,916, 1.017, 1068h,and 1,162. 
 
 . Vol. 54 (Jan.-June. 1921). pp. 40a. 735, 8 1 5, and 949. 
 
 American Metric Association. A nnual R eport. 1917-1923. 
 
 American Metric Bureau. The Metric Bulletin. Nos. 1-37. 1876-1881. 
 
 American Metrological Society. Proceedings of the American Metrological Society, published 
 
 1873- 1888, irregularly. 
 . The Metric System: Detailed Information as to Laws, Practices, Etc. New York: 1 890, 
 
 1893, 1896. 
 . The Metric System: Opinions in Favor of Its Adoption, Expressed by Representatives 
 
 of the Leading Industries, Interests, Trades and Manufacturers. 1902. 
 American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Transactions of the A.S.M.E. Vol. XXIV, Nos. 
 
 954,971,972.975(1902-1903). pp. 7-8,66-70.397-712,854-856. 
 . "Report of the Committee on Weights and Measures on the Metric System in Export 
 
 Trade." Transactions of the A .S.M.E. Vol. 40, No. 1 65 1 ( 1 9 1 8- 1 9 1 9). pp. 427-466. 
 "America's Demand for A Fair Measure Deal." Grip! October, 1920. pp. 1 1-16. 
 Barnard, Frederick A. P. The Metric System of Weights and Measures. New York: 1872. 
 Bingham. Eugene C. "Progress In Metric Standardization." Science, Vol. LV, No. 1418 
 
 (March 3, 1922). pp. 232-233. 
 . "Are Scientists- Encouraging Popular Ignorance?" Science, Vol. LV, No. 1434. (June 
 
 23, 1922). pp. 664-667. 
 Colles, George W. "The Metric Versus the Duodecimal System." Transactions of the Amer- 
 ican Society of Mechanical Engineers. Vol. XVIII. (1896). 
 Dale, Samuel S. Testimony Against the Metric System Suppressed by the Chairman of the 
 
 Committee on Coinage, Weights and Measures, House of Representatives, Washington, 
 
 D.C.Boston: 1907. 
 
 . "The Bureau of Standards and the Ashbrook Bill." Textiles. October. 1916. 
 
 . "Uniformity or Confusion of Weights and Measures." Textiles. February, 1918. 
 
 . "Our English Weights and Measures." Textiles. Jan., 1919. 
 
 • Bureaucratic Control of Weighing and Measuring Devices. 1920. 
 
 Dale. Samuel S. "Scientists and the Weights and Measures Question." Textiles. January. 1923. 
 • The Mendenhall Conspiracy to Discredit English Weights and Measures. Boston: 
 
 1927. 
 Davies, Charles. The Metric System. New York: 1871. 
 Drake, Fred R. The Metric System. Washington. D.C.: 1914. 
 Franklin Institute. "Report on the Metric System." Journal of the Franklin Institute. Vol. CI. 
 
 No. 606. (June. 1876). pp. 370-388. 
 • "The Metric System of Weights and Measures." Journal of the Franklin Institute. Vol. 
 
 CXXVII.Uune. 1902). 
 Halsey. Frederick A. "The Metric System." Transactions of the American Society of 
 
 Mechanical Engineers. Vol. XXI V, No. 97 1 ( 1 902). 
 
294 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 . "The Weights and Measures of Latin America." Transactions of the American Society 
 
 of Mechanical Engineers. Vol. 40, No. 1664 (1918). pp. 773-798. 
 
 . The Metric Fallacy. (2nd Edition). New York: 1920. 
 
 . "Pan- Americanism in Weights and Measures." A merican Machinist. Vol. 52, No. 15. 
 
 (April 8, 1920). pp. 784-786. 
 
 . "The Metric Equivalent Scheme." Machinery. (March, 1921). 
 
 . "The Present Status of the Metric System." American Machinist. Vol. 54. (May 12, 
 
 1921). 
 Halsey, Frederick A., and Dale, Samuel S. The Metric Fallacy and the Metric Failure in the 
 
 Textile Industry. New York: 1904. 
 Ingalls, Walter Renton. Modern Weights and Measures. New York: 1937. 
 
 . Systems of Weights and Measures. New York: 1937. 
 
 International Institute for Preserving and Perfecting (the Anglo-Saxon) Weights and Measures. 
 
 The International Standard. Published bimonthly. Volumes I- V. (1883-1888). 
 Johnson, Julia E. Metric System. "Reference Shelf Series, Vol. Ill, No. 8, New York: 1926. 
 Kennelly. Arthur E. "The Adoption of the Metric System in the United States." The Scientific- 
 Monthly. Vol. IV, No. 13 (March, 1917). pp. 193-196. 
 
 . A '15th of a Second World. World Trade Club Pamphlet No. 9. San Francisco: c. 1 920. 
 
 Kennelly, Arthur E. Vestiges of Pre-Metric Weights and Measures Persisting in Metric- 
 System Europe, 1926-1927. New York: 1928. 
 Latimer, Charles. The French Metric System, or, The Battle of the Standards. Chicago: 1880. 
 McEachren, Justin W. International Standardization and an International Decimal System of 
 
 Weights and Measures from the Viewpoint of American Industry. Pamphlet issued by the 
 
 American Metric Association. 1918. 
 Mendenhall, Thomas C. "The Metric System." Appleton's Popular Science Monthly. October, 
 
 1896. 
 Metric Association. Measurement. Published quarterly. Vols. I-V (October, 1925-October. 
 
 1931). 
 . Metric Weights and Measures. Several editions, including 1917, 1918, 1919, 1921, 
 
 1923, 1925, and 1944. 
 "Metric Chaos In Daily Life." Iron Age. March 4, 1920. 
 National Association of Manufacturers. Plain Facts Numerous and Incontrovertible Showing 
 
 Why Any Compulsory Metric System Bill is Arbitrary, Needless, Confusing, Dangerous. 
 
 New York: c. 1904-1906. 
 National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. J. T. Johnson, Compiler. "Twentieth Yearbook 
 
 of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics." The Metric System of Weights and 
 
 Measures. New York: 1948. 
 National Industrial Conference Board. The Metric Versus English System of Weights and 
 
 Measures. Research Report No. 42. New York: 1921. 
 . Weights and Measures in the United States: Arguments For and Against a Change. 
 
 Special Report No. 34, New York: 1926. 
 Nature. "Position of the Metric System." Vol. 79 (Feb. 25, 1909). p. 501. 
 . "Adoption of the Metric System." Vol. 99 (Aug. 30, 1917). pp. 526-527 and Vol. 100 
 
 (Feb. 14, 1918). pp. 467-468. 
 
 ."Metric System and World Trade." Vol. 106(Oct.7, 1920). pp. 169-170. 
 
 Nelson, Jean W. Cost of Conversion to the Metric System. Stanford Research Institute report. 
 
 September, 1965. 
 Nystrom, John W. On the French Metric System of Weights and Measures With Objections to 
 
 Its Adoption Among English-Speaking Nations and on the Duodenal Arithmetics and 
 
 Metrology. Philadelphia: 1876. 
 Redfield, William C. A Message from the Secretary of Commerce to the United States of 
 
 America. Pamphlet issued by the Metric Association, April, 1919. 
 "Relation of the Metric System to the Triumph of German over Anglo-Saxon Efficiency." 
 
 Current Opinion. Vol. 60, No. 3 (March, 1916). p. 186. 
 Richards, Howard. "The Metric Campaign." Science. Vol. LV, No. 1428 (May 12, 1922). pp. 
 
 515-516. 
 Russell, Samuel. The Ladd Metric Bill: Its Fallacy and Futility. Washington, D.C.: 1922. 
 
APPENDIX B 295 
 
 .An American Decimal System of Weights and Measures. Washington, D.C.: 1922. 
 
 Science. "Metric System." New Series, Vol. Ill, No. 67 (April 10, 1896). p. 554; No. 68 (April 
 
 17, 1896), p. 592. 
 . "The Action of the House of Representatives on the Metric Bill." New Series, Vol. Ill, 
 
 No. 69 (April 24, 1896). pp. 626-627. 
 
 . "Business Men Who Want the Metric System." Vol. 44. (July 14,1916). p. 59. 
 
 . "Present Status of the Metric System in the United States." Vol. 59 (June 13, 1924). 
 
 pp. 528-529. 
 Scientific American. "United States and the Metric System." May 17, 1902. p. 343. 
 
 . "Metric System in the Textile Industry." July 12,1 902. p. 1 9. 
 
 . "Metric System." May 16, 1903. p. 370. 
 
 Scientific American Supplement. "Report on the Metric System." Vol. 53. (May 10, 1902) pp. 
 
 22036-22038. 
 "Should U.S. Adopt Metric System for General Use." Congressional Digest. Vol. IV, No. 4 
 
 (April, 1926). 
 Spencer, Herbert. Against the Metric System. New York: 1 906. 
 Stevens, W. LeConte. "The Metric System: Shall It Be Compulsory?" Popular Science 
 
 Monthly. Vol. 66, No. 2 (February, 1905). pp. 394-395. 
 Strauss, Lewis L. Remarks Prepared for Delivery at the Spring Meeting Banquet of the Amer- 
 ican Physical Society, May I, 1959. U.S. Department of Commerce News Release. 
 
 1959. 
 Stutz, C. C. "Metric Bugaboo Again in Congress." American Industries. February, 1920. 
 . "Some Effects of 'Compulsory' Use of the Metric System." American Machinist. Vol. 
 
 52, No. 13 (March 25, 1920). pp. 693-694. 
 . "The British and the American Inch Identical." American Machinist, Vol. 54, No. 17 
 
 (April 28, 1921). 
 
 . "The Cost of the Metric System to the Machinist." Vol. 54, No. 17 (April 28, 1 92 1 ). 
 
 . "Tools of Our Industry: Shall We Scrap Them?" The Rotarian, June, 1925. p. 19. 
 
 Toledo System. "Metric System of Weights and Measures vs. English System." Vol. 13, No. 
 
 19 (April 3, 1920). 
 Totten, Charles A. L. An Important Question in Metrology: A Challenge to the Metric System. 
 
 New York: 1884. 
 Towne, Henry R. "Our Present Weights and Measures and the Metric System." Transactions 
 
 of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Vol. XXXIII (1906). pp. 845-925. 
 . "Adoption of the Metric System Would Do Untold Damage." Industrial Management. 
 
 June, 1920. 
 United States Chamber of Commerce. Summary of Arguments In Favor of Further Adoption 
 
 of the Metric System. Pamphlet, issued February 9, 1922. 
 U.S. National Bureau of Standards. Metric Manual for Soldiers. (Misc. Publication No. 21). 
 
 Washington, D.C.: 1918. 
 Valve World. "What Will the Metric System Cost." Vol. 9, No. 1 1 (November, 1912). pp. 3-8. 
 'Encouraging Interest. Vol. 9, No. 1 1 (Nov., 1912) p. 10. 
 
 'Fact and Fancy of the Metric System." Vol. 10, No. 2. (February, 1913) pp. 47-51. 
 'Encouragement from 'The Enemy'." Vol. 10, No. 3 (March, 1913) pp. 72-73. 
 'Putting the Metric System Into Practice." Vol. 10, No. 3 (March, 1913) pp. 77-81. 
 'Chaos or Clarity in Our Metrology?" Vol. 1 0, No. 6 (June, 1 9 1 3). pp. 1 80- 1 82. 
 "Halsey and the Metric System- Again." Vol. 1 1, No. 10 (October, 1914). pp. 319- 
 
 321. 
 "What Real He-Men Think of the Compulsory Metric System." A merican Machinist. Vol. 52, 
 
 February 12, 1920. pp. 360-364; February 19, 1920, pp. 415-420. 
 White, William F. "The Metric System Psychologically Considered." School Science. 
 
 Reprinted by the School Science Press, 1904. 
 World Metric Standardization Council; Aubrey Drury, Compiler. World Metric Standardiza- 
 tion: An Urgent Issue. San Francisco: 1922. 
 World Trade Club. An Evening at the World Trade Club. (Book 2). 1919. 
 
 . Meter-Liter-Gram in World Trade and World War. 1919. 
 
 . Who Urges Meter-Liter-Gram? (Book 4). 1919. 
 
296 HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM CONTROVERSY IN THE U.S. 
 
 . Who Opposes Meter-Liter-Gram? (Book 5). 1919. 
 
 . Who Suffers? (Book 7). c. 1920. 
 
 . Metric Literature Clues. (Book 8). c. 1920. 
 
 . World Trade, World Unity and Metric Standardization. (Book 10). c. 1920. 
 
 . What Will Metric Standardization Cost?(Book 12). c. 1920. 
 
 . Metric Units of Weight and Measure. (Book 13). c. 1920. 
 
 . Keep the World War Won. (Letter 1 ). c. 1919. 
 
 . Metric Units to Unite the World. (Letter 3). c. 1919. 
 
 . Some Significant History. (Book 14). c. 1920. 
 
 . The Weekly Metergram. 1 issues, c. 1919-1 920. 
 
 5. Selected Documents Pertaining to Metric Campaigns In Great Britain 
 
 Allock, Harry. "Commentary Upon the Findings of Lord Balfour of Burleigh's Committee with 
 Regard to Decimal Coinage and the Metric System." Nature. June 6, 1918. 
 
 . The Decimal System of Coinage, Weights and Measures. London: 1917. 
 
 . "Great Britain's Interest in the Metric System of Weights and Measures." Electrical 
 
 Review. March 1,1918. 
 
 . "The Decimal System a Necessity for Great Britain." BEAM A Journal. October, 
 
 1919. 
 
 Allock, Harry. Industrial Reconstruction and the Metric System. London: 1919. 
 
 . "Metric System and Decimal Coinage." Nature. 1918. pp. 274-277. 
 
 Allen, Arthur H. The Engineering Pros and Cons of the Metric System. British Society of En- 
 gineers. 1908. 
 
 Anthony, Edwin. An Enquiry Into the Metric System. London: 1904. 
 
 Arnold-Foerster, H. O. The Coming of the Kilogram: or the Battle of the Standards. London: 
 1900. 
 
 Barton, E. C. and Morres, George. For and Against the Metric System. London: 1916. 
 
 British Association for the Advancement of Science and The Association of British Chambers 
 of Commerce. Decimal Coinage and the Metric System: Should Britain Change? 
 London: 1960. 
 
 British Weights and Measures Association. The British Weights and Measures Association. 
 1904. 
 
 . British Weights and Measures. Annual Report of the Association. July, 1905. 
 
 . Second Annual Report. 1906. 
 
 Conjoint Board of Scientific Societies. Report on Compulsory Adoption of the Metric System 
 of Weights and Measures. February, 1920. 
 
 Decimal Association. The Decimal Association, c. 1898. 
 
 . The Decimal Educator. Magazine of the Association, o. 1918-1922. 
 
 . A Few Opinions on the Decimal Associations Lectures. 
 
 . Lord Kelvin's Views on the Advantages of the Metric System. 
 
 .Is A Duodecimal System Possible? 
 
 . Report of Debate on the Metric System in the House of Representatives of the Com- 
 monwealth of Australia on the 4th of August, 1910. 
 
 . Summary of Official Reports on the Metric System. 
 
 Great Britain, Board of Trade. Report of the Committee on Weights and Measures Legislation. 
 London: 1951. 
 
 Great Britain, Government of. Report from Her Majesty's Representatives in Europe on the 
 Metric System. London: 1900. 
 
 Great Britain, House of Commons. Second Report of the Commissioners Appointed to Inquire 
 Into the Condition of the Exchequer Standards. "On the Question of the Introduction of 
 the Metric System Into the United Kingdom." London: 1869. (Sessional Papers — Vol. 
 XXIII). 
 
 . Report from the Select Committee on Weights and Measures. London: 1895. (Ses- 
 sional Papers — Vol. XIII). 
 
APPENDIX B 297 
 
 Siemens, Alexander. "The Metrical System of Weights and Measures." Journal of the Royal 
 Statistical Society. Vol. LXVI,Pt. 4(31 Dec. 1903). 
 
 . Bradford and the Metric System. Manchester: 1913. 
 
 Spencer, Herbert. Against the Metric System. London: 1896. 
 
 6. Other References 
 
 Gardner, Martin. Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science. New York: 1957. pp. 173-185. 
 
 Herring, E. Pendleton. Group Representation Before Congress. Baltimore: 1929. 
 
 Lowrey, Edward G. "The Special Interests — New Sly\e." Saturday Evening Post. January 31, 
 1920. pp. 4-5. 
 
 Morison, Samuel Eliot, and Commager, Henry Steele. The Growth of the American Republic. 
 Vol. II. New York: 1958. 
 
 Sullivan, Mark. Our Times. Vols. I and II. New York: 1930. 
 
 U.S. Bureau of the Census. Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1957. 
 Washington, D.C.: 1960. 
 
 U.S. Congress, Senate. Index of Congressional Committee Hearings (Not Confidential in Na- 
 ture) Prior to January 3, 1935 in the United States Library. 75th Congress, 1st Session. 
 Washington, D.C.: 1935. 
 
 U.S. Library of Congress. Harold O. Thomen, Ed. Checklist of Hearings Before Congres- 
 sional Committees Through the Sixty-Seventh Congress. Washington, D.C.: 1959. 
 
Appendix C 
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 
 
 For assistance received in locating and utilizing the source documents 
 and published material from which this volume was prepared, the author 
 would like to express his gratitude to: 
 
 John Price and Connie Carter, the Library of Congress 
 
 Elizabeth Tate and the staff of the National Bureau of Standards 
 Library 
 
 Hugh Macdonald, The Libraries, Columbia University 
 
 Eleanor Bartlett and E. N. Hartley, Institute Archives, Massachu- 
 setts Institute of Technology 
 
 Louis Sokol, Secretary, The Metric Association, Inc. 
 
 Robert Fischelis, Past President, The Metric Association, Inc. 
 
 Arthur Hecht, National Archives and Record Services 
 
 Edward F. Cox, Wright State University 
 
 Stephen L. Hatos, Office of Weights and Measures, National 
 Bureau of Standards 
 
 Raymond G. Kammer, Jr. and H. Arthur Sauer, Jr., National Bureau 
 of Standards 
 
 The author is also indebted to Mary Keeney and Jo Ann Lorden, who 
 rendered invaluable aid by assisting in organizing much of the material and 
 by typing the manuscript for this report. 
 
 Others who merit thanks, for reasons which they know, include Mr. 
 A. G. McNish, Dr. Robert E. Ferguson, Dr. Howard E. Sorrows, and Mr. 
 Paul H. Kratz. 
 
 2Qg U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1971 OL- 429-523 
 
FORM NBS-114A (1-71) 
 
 2. Gov't Accession 
 No. 
 
 U.S. DEPT. OF COMM. 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA 
 SHEET 
 
 1. PUBLICATION OR REPORT NO. 
 
 NBS SP 345-10 
 
 3. Recipient's Accession No. 
 
 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 
 
 A History of the Metric System Controversy in the 
 United States 
 
 5. Publication Date 
 August 19 71 
 
 6. Performing Organization Code 
 
 7. AUTHOR(S) 
 
 Charles F. 
 
 8. Performing Organization 
 
 Treat 
 
 10. Project/Task/Work Unit No. 
 
 9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 
 
 NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS 
 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 
 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20234 
 
 11. Contract/Grant No. 
 
 12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address 
 
 13. Type of Report & Period 
 Covered 
 
 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 
 
 15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 
 
 Component of U.S. Metric Study 
 
 16. ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less factual summary of most significant information. If document includes a significant 
 bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.) 
 
 A review of the debate between 1790 and 1968 on the question of whether or not the 
 United States should adopt the metric system of weights and measures. Legislative 
 activities with respect to weights and measures and campaigns for and against 
 adoption of the metric system are reviewed. Significant investigations of the 
 question by both public and private bodies are highlighted. An extensive 
 bibliography is included. 
 
 17. KEY WORDS (Alphabetical order, separated by semicolons) 
 
 Metric system; weights and measures. 
 
 18. AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 
 
 ^71 UNLIMITED. 
 
 I I FOR OFFICIAL DISTRIBUTION. DO NOT RELEASE 
 TO NTIS. 
 
 19. SECURITY CLASS 
 (THIS REPORT) 
 
 UNCLASSIFIED 
 
 20. SECURITY CLASS 
 (THIS PAGE) 
 
 UNCLASSIFIED 
 
 21. NO. OF PAGES 
 312 
 
 22. Price 
 
 $2.25 
 
 USCOMM-DC 66244-P71 
 
2957 
 

u 
 
 Wert ~] 
 Bookbinding 
 
 Grantville PA 
 JULY-DEC 2000 
 
 « 
 
ADDDDES2bDDD7