Mr. SUMNER. Mr. President, at another time I might be induced to go into this question at some length; but now, in these latter days of a weary session, and under these heats, I feel that I must be brief. And yet I could not pardon myself if I did not undertake, even at this time, to present a plain and simple account of the great change which is now proposed. There is something captivating in the idea. of one system of weights and measures, which shall be common to all the civilized world; so that, at least in this particular. the confusion of Babel may be overcome. Kindred to this is the idea of one system of money. And both of these ideas are, perhaps, the forerunners of that grander idea of one language for all the civilized world. Philosophy does not despair of the fulfillment of this aspiration at some distant day; but a common system of weights and measures and a common system of money are already within the sphere of actual legislation. The work has already begun, and it cannot ceaseuntil this great objectis accomplished. If the U.S. seem to come tardily into the circle of nations, recognizing a common system of weights and measures, I confess that I have pleasure in calling attention to the historic fact that, at, a very early day, this important subject was commended to Congress. Washington in his message to the 1st congress touched the key note when he used the word “ uniformity” in connection with this subject. “Uniformity, ” he said, “in the currency, weights, and measures of the U.S. is an object of“ great importance, and will, I am persuaded, be attended to.” Then again in his message to the next Congress he wentfurther in expressinga desire for a “ standard at once invariable and universal.” In these words he foreshadowed a system that should be common to the civilized world. It is for us now to recognize the standard which he thus sententiously described. All bail to a standard “invariable and universal.” I shall not occupy your time in developing the history of" these efforts on the part of our Government. But I cannot. forbeur mentioning that Mr. Jefferson, while SecyState made an elaborate report, in which he proposed. to reduce “every branch to the same decimal mtio already established in coins, and thus bring the calculation of the principal affairs of life within the arithmetic of every man who can multiply and divide plain numbers.” Here is an essential element in that common system which we seek to establish. This was in 1790, while France was just beginning those efforts which ended at last in the establishment of the metric system. The subject was revived at different times in Congress without definite result. President Madison, in his annual mes age of 1816, called attentionto itin the following" words: he great utility of a standardfixed in itsnature a foundedonthemapruleof decimalpruportiomis sufficientlyobvious. t early stage led the Governmentat an to preparatorystepsfor introducing it; and a completion of"the work will be a.just title to the public gratitude." Out of this recommendation originated that call of the Senate which drew forth the masterly report of John Quincy Adams on the whole subject of weights and measures, where learning. philosophy, and prophetic aspiration vie with each other. After reviewing all that had appeared in the past, and subjecting it all to a careful examination, he says of the metric system of France, which was then only an experiment: “ This systemapproachesto the idealperfection of uniformity applied to weights and measures and whctherdvslmed to succeedor doomedto fail will shed unfailing glory upon the age in which it was conceivedand upon the nation by which its execution wasattemptedand hasbeenin part achieved." This was in 1821, when the metric system, already invented, was still struggling for adoption in France. This bricfsketch will show how from the be ginning our Government has been looking to a system which shall be common to the civilized world. And now this aspiration seems about to be fulfilled. The bills before you, which have already passed the other House, if they become a law, will be the practical commencement of the “new order.” Before proceeding to explain the proposed system, consider for one moment the necessity of a.change, as illustrated by an historic glimpse at weights and measures. Language is, ofcoursc. coeval with man use social being. Weightsand measures are hardly less early in their origin. They are essential to the operations of society, and are naturally common to all who belong to the same social circle. At the beginning each people had a system of its own; but as nations gradually intermingle and distant places are broughtto gether by the attractions of commerce, e sys tem of one nation becomes inadequate to the necessities of the composite body. A common system becomes important, just in proportion to the community of interests among different nations. Next to the diversity of languages, the discordant systems of weights and mens ures attest the insulation of nations. The earliest measures were naturally derived from the several parts of the human body. such was the cubit, which was the distance between the elbow and the end of the middle finger, being about 22 inches. such also, were the foot, the hand, the span, the nail, and the thumb. These measures were derived from nature, and they were to be found wherever a human being existed. But they partook of the uncertainty in the proportions of the human form. When Selden, in his Table Talk, wittily likened equity, so far as it do pended on the conscience of the chancellor, to a measure which was determined by the length of the chancellor’s foot, he exosed not only the uncertainty of equity, but a so the uncer tainty of such a measure. Even in Greece, where art prevailed in the most beautiful forms, the famous stadium was none the less uncertain. It was the distance that Hercules could run without taking breath, which, divided by 600, ve the Grecian foot. Our own standards, erived from England, are of an equally fanciful character. The unit of length is the barleycorn, taken from the mid dle of' the car and well dried. 3 of these in a straight line make an inch. The unit of weight is a grain of wheat taken, like the bar leycorn, from the middle of the ear and well dried. Of these, 32 are equal to a pennyweight. 20 pennyweights make an ounce, and 12 ounces make a pound. The unit of capacity is derived from the weight of grains of wheat. 8 pounds of these make one gallon of wine measure. Nor is the extreme vagueness and instability of these standards the only matter of surprise. There isno principle of science or convenience in the progression of the different series. Thus we have 2 pints to a quart, 3 scruples to a drum, 4 quarts to agallon, 5 uarters to an ell, 5 and a half yards to a pere, 6 feet to afathom, 8 furlongs to u milq 12 inches to a foot, 16 ounces to apound, 20 units to a score. Then, as if the only ruling principle which governed the selection was variety, we have different measures bearin the same name, such as the wine pint an the dry pint. the ounce Troy and the ounce avoirdupois. Take these 2 last measures as illustrating the prevailing confusion. They both seem to come from France. The Tro weightis supposed to derive its name from the rench town of Troyes, where a celebrated fair was once held. The term avm'rdupois is French, and seems to have been part of a statute which declared how weights should be determined. But Troy and avoirdupois are different measures. These measures, having constantdifferences, had accidental differences also, in different parts of" England, and also in different parts of our own country. Even where the names are alike the measures are often unlike. In England the diversity was almost infinite, so that these same measures differed in different counties, and sometimes in different towns of the same county. Latterly in the U.S. the slandard has been regulated by law, but the confusion from the measures still continues. The question naturally arises why such confusion has been allowed to continue so long without correction. The answer is easy. The triumphs of science are slow and gradual. Traditional prejudices must be overcome. Each nation is attached to its own imperfect system, as to its own language. Even though inferior to anuther system, it has the great advantage of being already known to the people that use it. To this constant impediment it is only proper to add the intrinsic difficulty of establishing a uniform system of weights and measures which shall satisfy the demands of civilization in scientific precision, in immediate practical appli cability, and in nomenclature. Take, for instance, the application of the decimal system, which seems at 1st sight sim lc and complete. It is unquestionably an immense improvement on the old confusion; but even here we encounter a difficulty in the circumstance, long since recognized by mathe maticians, that our scale of decimal arithmetic is more the child of chance than of hilose by. It has been arbitrarily adopte simply because man has everywhere reckoned by is ten fingers. On this account it has been often called “ natural.” But on considering whether thennmber ten possesses any intrinsic excel lence, convenience, or fitness as a ratio of progression, we shall be obliged to answer in the negative. It is the duplication of an odd number which can furnish, neither a square or a cube, and which cannot be halved without departing from the decimal scale. In this scale we seem to see always those early days when “wild in woods the noble savage ran, ” and for his arithmetic used his fingers or his toes. An octaval system, founded on the number 8, would have been better adapted to the divisions of' material things. Among us the decimal system is adopted for money; but you all know that we are not able to carry it into rigid practice. Thus convenience, if not necessity, requires the half dollar, the quarter dollar, the half dime, and the thrcc centpicce. In fact, 8 divisions to the dollar, as prevailed in Spain, are available in the business of life, more than the decimal division. The number 8 is capable of an indefinite bisection. The progression beginning with 2 would proceed to 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, and so on. The decimal scale is made easy of use by the happysystem of notation borrowed from the Hindoos, which might be applied equally well to an octaval scale. But, at this time, it would be vain topro ose a change in the radix of the numerical sea a The number ten is the recognized starting point, and gives its nameto the scale. It only remains for us at present to follow other nations in appling it to an improved system of weights an measures. A system of weights and measures, born of philosophy rather than of chance, is what we now seek. To this and old systems must be abandoned. A chance system cannot be universal. Science is universal. Therefore, what is produced by science may find a home every where. If we consider the proper elements or characteristics of such a system we shall find at least 3 essential conditions. 1st, the new system must have in itself the assurance of unvarying stability, and, to this end, it should be derived from some standard in nature by which any errors creeping into the weights and mean ures from time or imperfect manufacture may be corrected. 2nd ly, the parts should be divided decimally, as nearly as practice will warrant, in conformity with our arithmetic. 3rd ly, it should be of such a character as to disturb national prejudices as little as possible. To a common observer the difficulties of finding an unvarying standard are not. readily apparent; but philosophy shows that all things in nature are undergoing a constant change, so that there would seem to be no invariable magnitude, the same in all countries and in all times, as Cicero described the great principles of Natural Law, by which a lost stanard on an inaccessible island might be reproduced with mathematical certainty. Thereis but one mag nitude in nature, which, so far as we know approximates to these requisites. I refer, of course, to the length of the pendulum, vibrating 2nd s, which in our latitude is about 30.1 inches. This length, however, varies in trav eling from the equator to the pole, and it also varies slightly under different meridians and the same latitude; but the law of variation has been determined with considerable accuracy. One element in this variation is the difference of temperature. Mr. Jefferson, in his report on weights and measures, proposed that we should find our standard in he pendulum. At the same time the French Government, just struggling to throw offancestral institutions, conceived the idea of a new system of weights and measures which, founded in science, should be common to the civilized world. The French began not only by discarding all old systems, but also by discarding a measure derived from the pendulum. They conceived the idea of measuring an are of the meridian of the earth, and finding a new unit in a subdivision of this immense span. At the same time the National Assembly invited the co 0 cration of other nations, so that the system 5 ould become universal. The work procceded. An are of the meridian, embracing upward of 9 degrees of latitude, and extending from Dunkirk, in France, to the Mediterranean near Barcelona, in Spain, was measured with the most scientific care. Some of the most illus trious names in French science were engaged in it, of whom I may mention Mechain, De lambre. Blot, and Arago, the latterjust be in ning his great career. The work procee ed, notwithstanding domestic convulsion and foreign war. The reign of terror at home and invasion from abroad did not arrest it. Ten years elapsed before the measurements were complete, when again other nations were invite to cooperate in the establishment of the new system. The unit of measure adopted was one ten millionth part of the distance between the equator and the pole thus measured. It received the name of metre, from the Greek, sig nifying measure. A bar of platinum was care fully prepared representing this length with all possible accuracy. This bar was deposited in the archives of Franceas the perpetual stand ard. Other bars have been cop"?d from it and distributed throughout France and in foreign countries. There is somethingtranscendental in the idea of this measurement of the earth in order to find a measure for daily life. It was an immense undertaking. But. the conception seemsto have been rather vast than practical. There is reason to believe, from later labors, that there was a serious crrorinthe work. Thus the distance of 10,000,000 metres from the equator to the established by the French observers, pflp, is '0 small by 035 yards, according to Bessel; by 1, 410yards, according to Puissant; and by 1,067 accordingto Chazallon. SirJohn Herschell has also testified with the authority of his great name against the accuracy of this result. If there be an error, such as is supposed, then the meter ceases to be whatit was originally called, one ton millionth part of the distance from the equator to the pole. Even assuming that there is no error, and that the meter is precisely what it purports to be, yet it is not easy to see how the artificial standard can be corrected by a recurrence to the standard in nature. The massive work originally undertaken will not be repeated. The astronomers of France will not verify the accuracy of the bar of platinum which is the arti ficial standard, by another scientific enterprise, requiring years for its completion. Therefore, for all practical purposes the meter is really nothing else than argar of platinum of a certain length preserved in the archives of France. It is not less arbitrary as a standard than the yard or foot, and it. can be perpetuated in practice only by the distribution of exact copies of the original bar, which is the assumed meter. I have enteredinto this explanation of the origin and character of the meter because I desire that the admirable system which is founded on it should be seen actually as it is. To m mind it gains nothing from the theory which presided at. its origin. Its unit is not to be regarded as a certain portion'of the distance between the equator and the ole, but as an artificial measure determinedp with peculiar care. Had the some or any other measure been selected, without any measurement of the earth, the metric system would not have been less beautiful or perfect. Look now at.the system. The meter, which is assumed to be one ten millionth part of the distance from the equator to the poles, is, in fact, 39} inches or 30.37 inches in length. It is especially the unit of length, but it is also the unit from which all measures of weight and capacity, square or cubic, are derived. It is at once foundation stone and cap stone to the whole system. It is foundation stone to all in the ascending series and cap stone to all in the descending series. The unit of measuresof surface or land measures is the are, from the Latin area, and is the square of ten meters, or, in other words, a square of which each side is ten meters in length. The unit of solid measure is the stars, from the Greek, and is the cube of a meter, or, in other words, a solid mass one meter long, one meter broad, and one meter high. The unit. of liquid measure is the liter, from the Greek, and is the cube of the 10th part of the meter, which is the decimeter, or, in other words, it is a vessel.where by interior measurement each side and the bottom are square deci meters. The unit of weight is the gram, also derived from the Greek, and is the 1,000th part of the weight of a cubic liter of distilled water at its greatest density this being just above the freezing point. such are the main elements of the metric system. But each of these has its multi lo and its subdivisions. It is multi lied decima l upward and divided decimal y downwardy. The multiples are derived from the Greek. Thus, deca, ten; hecto, 100; kilo, 1,000; and myria, 10,000, prefixed to meter signify ten meters, 100 meters, 1,000 meters, and 10,000 meters. The subdivisions are derived from the Latin. Thus daci, centi, milli, prefixed to meter, sig nify one 10th, 100 th, and 1,000th of a meter. All this wrll appear in the following table: These same prefixes may be aplied in as cending and descendin scales to the are, the liter, and the gram. ‘hus, for example, we have in the ascending scale, decagram, hecto ram, kilogram, and myriagram; and in the esceuding scale, decigram, ceniigram, milli gram., In this brief space you behold the whole metric system of weights and measures. What a contrast to the anterior confusionl A boy at school can master the metric system in an afternoon. Months, if not years, are required to store away the perplexities, incongruities, and inconsistencies of the existing weights and measures; and then memory must often fail in reproducing them. The mystery of compound arithmetic is essential in the calculations which they require. All this is done away by the decimal progression, so that the 1st 4 rules of arithmetic are ample for the pupil. If we look closely at the metric system we must confess its simplicity and symmetry. Like every creation of science, it is according to rule. Master the rule and you master the sys tem. On this account it may be acquired by the young with comparative acility, and when once acuired it may be used with dispatch. Thus it becomes labor saving and time saving. I cannot hesitate to mention among its merits the nomenclature which it has aoted. A superficial criticism has objected to the greek and Latin prefixes; but this forgets that a system intended for universal adoption must discard all local or national terms. The prefixes employed are equally intelligible in all conn trics. They are no more French than English or German. They are in their nature common or cosmopolitan. And in all countries they are equally suggestive in disclosing the denomi nation of the measure. They combine the culiar advantages of a universal name an a definition. The name instantly suggests the measure with exquisite precision. If these words seem to be scholastic or pedantic you must bear this for the sake of their universality and defining power. Unqnestionably it is difficult for a generation to substitute a new system for that which it learned in childhood. Even in France the metric system was tardily adopted. Napoleon himself on one occasion, said impatiently to an e“n inecrwho answered his inquiry in meters {That are meters? Tell me in toises." It was only in 1840 that the system was definitely require in the transaction of business. Since then it has been the legal system of France. Cloth is sold by the meter. Bonds are measured by the kilometer. Meat is sold by the kilogram, or as it is familiarly abridged, by so many kilos. It is generally admitted that the names are too long, although nobody has been able to suggest substitutes, unless we regard the various abridgments in that light. at no abridgment should be allowed to sacrifice that cosmo olitan character which belongs to the system. has in England a nomenclature has been proposed which would secure short names; but these names would be different in each language and would be entirely different from the French names. This is a mistake. The names in all languages should be identical, or so nearl alike as to be recognized at once. This made accomplished by an abbreviated nomenc store. For instance, we may say met, or, lit, and gram; and, in describing the denomination, we may say in the ascending scale, dec, hec, kil, an in the descending scale doc, cm, and nail, pass indicating respectively 1, 100, 1000, and 1 10, 1 100, and 1 1000. Compounding these words we should have, for example, kilmet, killit, ki'lgram, and cenmet, cenlit, ceugram. These abbreviations might be substantially the same in all languages. They would preserve the characteristics of the unabridged terms, so that the simple mention of the measure, even in this abridged form, would disclose the proportion which it bears to its fellow measures. Previous measures have been represented by monosyllables; asgrain, dram, gross, ounce, pound, stone, ton. Where a word is often repeated in the hurry of business it is instinctively abridged. We shall not err if we rolit by this experience, and seek to reduce the new nomenclature to its smallest proportions. 12 wor s are all that are required by this system. In learning these you earn all. There are the 5 words designating the different units of Ion th, surface. solid capacity, liquid capacit, ‘an weight. Then there are the 7 prexes, being 4 in the ascending scale, expressing multiples or angmentations of the meter or other units, derived from the Greek; and also 3 in the descending scale, expressing divisions or diminutions of the meter and other units, derived from the Latin. These 12 words contain the whole system. In closing this chapter of the unnestionable advantages of the metric system, must not forget that it is already the received system in the majority of countries. Thus it appeared at the Statistical Congress assembled at Berlin in 1863, that it was adopted partly or entirely in Austria, Baden, Bavaria, Helgium, France, Hamburg, Hanover, Hesse, Mecklenburg, the Netherlands, Parma, Portugal, Saxony, Sar dinia. Spain, Switzerland, uscany, the 2 Sicilies, and Wurtemburg. Since then GreatBritain, by an act of Parliament, has added her name to this lht. The 1st step is taken there by making the metric system permissive, as is now proposed in the bills before Congress. The example of GreatBritain is of especial importance to us, since the commercial relations between the 2 countries renderit essential that there should be a common system of weights and measures. The adoption of the metric system by the U.S. will go far to complete that cir cle by which this great improvement will be assured to mankind. Here is a new element of civilization which will be felt in all the concerns of life at home and abroad. It will be hardly less important than the Arabic numer als, by which the operations of arithmetic are rendered common to all nations. It will help undo that rimeval confusion of which the Tower of Babel was the representative. As the 1st practical step to this great end I ask the Senate to give its sanction to the bills which have already passed the other House, and which I have reported from the special committee on the metric system. 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. The who have alread passed a certain period of life may not adopt it; but the risin generation will embrace it and ever afterwar s number it among the choicest possessions of an advanced civilization.