THE METRIC SYSTEM OP WEIGHTS 
AND MEASURES. 
SPEECH 
4 
fl- 
op . * 
HON. CHARLES SUMNER 
IN THE 
SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, 
JULY IT, 1866. 
BOSTON: 
WRIGHT & POTTER, PRINTERS, 
No. 4 Spring Lank . 
1 8 6 6. SPEECH. 
lx Senate, July 27th, 1865.—Mr. Sumner called 
up the bill and joint resolution reported by him from 
the special committee on the metric system of weights 
and measures, viz.: “ A bill to authorize the use of 
the metric system of weights and measures;” “A 
joint resolution to authorize the Secretary of the 
Treasury to furnish to each State one set ofthe weights 
and measures of the metric system;” “A bill to 
authorize the use in post-offices of weights of the 
denomination of grains.” The bills and joint reso- 
lution were considered and passed. 
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 hail 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 canhot forbear mention- 
ing that Mr. Jefferson, while Secretary of State, 
made an elaborate report, in which he proposed 
to reduce “ every branch to the same decimal 
ratio 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- 
sage of 1816, called attention to it in the follow- 
ing words : 
“ The great utility of a standard fixed in its nature and 
founded on the easy rule of decimal proportions is suffi- 
ciently 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.” 
Out of this recommendation originated that 
call of the Senate which drew forth the mas- 
terly 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 system approaches to the ideal perfection of uni- 
formity applied to weights aud 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 and has been 
in part achieved.” 
This was in 1821, when the metric system, 
already invented, was still struggling for adop- 
tion in France. 
This brief sketch 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 
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 that 
other 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 fulfilment 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 legisla- 
tion. The work has already begun, and it can- 
not cease until this great object is accomplished. 
If the United States seem to come tardily 
into the circle of nations recognizing a com- 
mon system of weights and measures, I con- 
fess 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 First Con- 
gress touched the key-note when he used the 
word “ uniformity ” in connection with this 
subject. “ Uniformity,” he said, “ in the cur- 
rency, weights, and measures of the United 
States is an object of great importance and 
will, I am persuaded, be attended to.” Then 
again in his message to the next Congress he 
went further in expressing a desire for a “ stand- 
ard at once invariable and universal.” In 4 
to be fulfilled. The bills before you, which 
have already passed the other House, if they 
become a law, will be the practical commence- 
ment of the “ new order.” 
Before proceeding to explain the proposed 
system, consider for one moment the necessity 
of a change, as illustrated by a glimpse at 
weights and measures in times past. 
Language is, of course, coeval with man as a 
social being. Weights and 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 brought 
together by the attractions of commerce, the 
system 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 meas- 
ures attest the insulation of nations. 
The earliest measures jvere naturally de- 
rived 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 twenty-two inches. Such 
also, were the foot, the hand, the span, the 
nail, and the thumb. These measures were de- 
rived 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 de- 
pended on the conscience of the chancellor, to 
a measure which was determined by the length 
of the chancellor’s foot, he exposed not only 
the uncertainty of equity, but also 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, gave the Grecian foot. 
Our own standards, derived from England, 
are of an equally fanciful character. The unit 
of length is the barleycorn, taken from the 
middle of the ear and well dried. Three of 
these in a straight line make an inch. The 
unit of weight is a grain of wheat taken, like 
the barleycorn, from the middle of the ear 
and well dried. Of these, thirty-two are equal 
to a pennyweight. Twenty pennyweights 
make an ounce, and twelve ounces make a 
pound. The unit of capacity is derived from 
the wei; li of grains of wheat. Eight pounds 
-of these make one gallon of wine measure. 
Nor is the extreme vagueness and instability 
of these standards the only matter of surprise. 
'1 here is no principle of science or convenience 
in the progression of the different series. Thus 
we have two pints to a quart, three scruples to 
a dram, four quarts to a gallon, five quarters 
to an ell, five and a half yards to a perch, six 
feet to a fathom, eight furlongs to a mile, twelve 
inches to a foot, sixteen ounces to a pound, 
twenty units to a score. 
Then, as if the only ruling principle which 
governed the selection was discord, we have 
different measures bearing the same name, 
such as the wine pint and the dry pint, the 
ounce Troy and the ounce avoirdupois. Take 
these two last measures as illustrating the pre- 
vailing confusion. They both seem-to come 
from France. The Troy weight is supposed to 
derive its name from the French town of 
Troyes, where a celebrated fair was once held. 
The term avoirdupois 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 constant differences, 
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 Eng- 
land the diversity Avas almost infinite, so that 
these same measures differed in different coun- 
ties, and sometimes in different towns of the 
same county. Latterly in the United States 
the standard has been regulated by law, but 
the confusion from the measures still continues. 
The question naturally arises why such confu- 
sion has been allowed to continue so long 
without correction. The answer is e£sy. 
Except in rare instances the triumphs of 
science are slow and gradual. Traditional 
prejudices must be overcome. Each nation 
is attached to its own imperfect systdta, as 
to its own language. Even though inferior 
to another 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 establish- 
ing a uniform system of weights and measures 
which shall satisfy the demands of civilization 
in scientific precision, in immediate practical 
applicability, and in nomenclature. 
Take, for instance, the application of the 
decimal system, which seems at first sight sim- 
ple 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 philosophy. 
I know not if any better reason can be given 
for its adoption than because man has every- 
where reckoned by his ten fingers. On this 
account it has been often called “ natural.” 
But on considering whether the number ten 
possesses any intrinsic excellence, conven- 
ience, or fitness as a ratio of progression, 
good authorities have answered in the nega- 5 
tive. It is the duplication of an odd num- 
ber which can furnish, neither a square or a 
eube, 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 
eight, 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 three-cent piece. 
In fact, eight divisions to the dollar, as prevailed 
in Spain, are available in the business of life, 
more than the decimal division. The number 
eight 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 happy system of notation borrowed from 
the Hindoos, which might be applied equally 
well to an octaval scale. But at this time, it 
would be vain to propose a change in the radix 
of the numerical scale. The number ten is the 
recognized starting point, and gives its name to 
the scale. It only remains for us at present 
to follow other nations in applying it to an 
improved system of weights and measures. 
A system of weights and measures born of 
philosophy rather than of chance, is what we 
now seek. To this end old systems must be 
abandoned. A chance system cannot be uni- 
versal. 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 three essential conditions. First, 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 
measures, from time or imperfect manufacture, 
may be corrected. Secondly, the parts should 
be divided decimally, as nearly as practice will 
warrant, in conformity with our arithmetic. 
Thirdly, 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 standard 
on an inaccessible island might be reproduced 
with mathematical certainty. There is but one 
magnitude in nature, which, so far as we know, 
approximates to these requisites. I refer, of 
course, to the length of the pendulum, vibrating 
seconds, which in our latitude is about 39.1 
inches. This length, however, varies in travel- 
ing 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 the pendulum. At 
the same time the French Government, just 
struggling to throw off ancestral 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 mea- 
sure derived from the pendulum. They con- 
ceived the idea of measuring an arc 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-operation of other nations, so that the sys- 
tem should become universal. The work pro- 
ceeded. An arc of the meridian, embracing 
upward of nine degrees of latitude, and extend- 
ing from Dunkirk, in France, to the Mediter- 
ranean near Barcelona, in Spain, was mea- 
sured with the most scientific care. Some of 
the most illustrious names in French science 
were engaged in it, of whom I may mention 
Mechain, Delambre, Biot, and Arago, the lat- 
ter just beginning his great career. The work 
proceeded, notwithstanding domestic convul- 
sion and foreign war. The reign of terror at 
home and invasion from abroad did not arrest 
it. Ten years elapsed before the measure- 
ments were completed, when again other 
nations were invited to cooperate in the estab- 
lishment of the new system. 
The unit of measure adopted was one ten 
millionth part of the distance between the 
equator and the north pole thus measured. It 
receives the name of metre, from the Greek, 
signifying measure. A bar of platinum was 
carefully prepared representing this length 
with all possible accuracy. This bar was 
deposited in the archives of France as the per- 
petual standard. Other bars have been copied 
from it and distributed throughout France and 
in foreign countries. 
There is something transcendental 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 
seems to have been rather vast than practical. 
There is reason to believe, from later labors, 
that there was a serious error in the work. 
Thus the distance of 10,000,000 meters from' 
the equator to the north pole, established by the 
French observers, is too small by 935 y ;ui*, 
according to Bessel; by 1,410 yards, accord- 
ing to Puissant; and by 1,967 according.to 6 
Chazallon. Sir John Herscliell has also testi- 
fied 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 what it was originally called, 
one ten millionth part of the distance from the 
equator to the north 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 
artificial standard, by another scientific enter- 
prise, requiring years for its completion. 
Therefore, for all practical purposes the meter 
is really nothing else than a bar 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 perpetu- 
ated in practice only by the distribution of 
exact copies of the original bar, which is the 
assumed meter. 
I have entered into 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 my 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 north pole, but as 
an artificial measure determined with peculiar 
care. Had the same 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, inches or 39.37 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 measures of 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 stere, from 
the Greek, and is the cube of a meter, or, in 
other words, a solid mass one meter long, one 
broad, and one meter high. 
\ The unit of liquid measure is the liter, from 
the Greek, and is the cube of the tenth part of 
thq meter, which is the decimeter, or, in other 
wokls, it is a vessel, where by interior mea- 
surement each side and the bottom are square 
decimeters. 
The unit of weight is the gram, also derived 
from the Greek, and is the one-thousandth 
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 multiples 
and its subdivisions. It is multiplied decimally 
upward and divided decimally downward. 
The multiples are derived from the Greek. 
Thus, deca, ten; hecto, hundred; kilo, thou- 
sand; and myria, ten thousand, prefixed to 
meter, signify ten meters, one hundred meters, 
one thousand meters, and ten thousand meters. 
The subdivisions are derived from the Latin. 
Thus deci, centi, milli, prefixed to meter, sig- 
nify one-tenth, one-hundredth, and one-thou- 
sandth of a meter. All this will appear in the 
following table:— 
Metric denominations and Equivalents in denomi- 
values nations in use. 
Myriameter, 10,000;meters, . . 6.2137 miles. 
Kilometer, 1,000 meters, . . . .62137 mile, or 3,280 
feet and 10 inches. 
Hectometer, 100 meters, . . . 328 feet and 1 inch. 
Decameter, 10 meters, .... 393.7 inches. 
Meter, 1 meter, 39.37 inches. 
Decimeter, 1-10 of a meter, . . 3.937 inches. 
Centimeter, 1-100 of a meter, . . .3937 inch. 
Millimeter, 1-1000 of a meter, . . .0394 inch. 
These same prefixes may be applied in 
ascending and descending scales to the are, the 
liter and the gram. Thus, for example, we 
have in the ascending scale, decagram, hecto- 
gram, kilogram, and myriagram ; and in the 
descending scale, decigram, centigram, milli- 
gram. 
In this brief space you behold the whole 
metric system of weights and measures. What 
a contrast to the anterior confusion ! 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 first four 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 
system. On this account it may be acquired 
by the young with comparative facility, and 
when once acquired 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 adopted. A superficial criticism has 
objected to the Greek and Latin prefixes; but 
this forgets that a system intended for univer- 7 
sal adoption must discard all local or national 
terms. The prefixes employed are equally 
intelligible in all countries. 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 denomination of the measure. 
They combine the peculiar advantages of a 
universal name and a definition. The name 
instantly suggests the measure with ex- 
quisite precision. If these words seem to 
be scholastic or pedantic you must bear this 
for the sake of their universality and defining 
power. 
Unquestionably it is difficult for a genera- 
tion 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 engineer who answered his inquiry in 
meters—“ What are meters ? Tell me in 
toises.” It was only in 1840 that the system 
was definitely required in the transaction of 
business. Since then it has been the legal 
system of France. Cloth is sold by the meter. 
Roads 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 
varjous abridgments in that light. But no 
abridgment should be allowed to sacrifice that 
cosmopolitan character which belongs to the 
system. Thus 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 iden- 
tical, or so nearly alike as to be recognized at 
once. This may be accomplished by an 
abbreviated nomenclature. 
For instance, we may say met, ar, lit, and 
gram; and, in describing the denomination, 
we may say in the ascending scale dec, hec, 
kil, and in the descending scale dec, cen, and 
mil, indicating respectively 10, 100, 1000, and 
1-10, 1-100, and 1-1000. Compounding these 
words we should have, for example, kilmet, 
killit, kilqram, and cenmet, cenlit, cengram. 
These abbreviations might be substantially 
the same in all languages. They would pre- 
serve 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; as grain, 
dram, gross, ounce, pound, stone, ton. Where 
a word is often repeated in the hurry of busi- 
ness it is instinctively abridged. We shall not 
err if we profit by this experience, and seek 
to reduce the new nomenclature to its smallest 
proportions. 
Twelve words are all that are required by 
this system. In learning these you learn all. 
There are the five words designating the 
different units of length, surface, solid capac- 
ity, liquid capacity, and weight. Then there 
are the seven prefixes, being four in the 
ascending scale, expressing multiples or aug- 
mentations of the meter or other units, derived 
from the Greek ; and also three in the descend- 
ing scale, expressing subdivisions or diminu- 
tions of the meter and other units, derived from 
the Latin. These twelve words contain the 
Avhole system. 
In closing this chapter of the unquestion- 
able advantages of the metric system, I 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, Belgium, France, 
Hamburg, Hanover, Hesse, Mecklenburg, the 
Netherlands, Parma, Portugal, Saxony, Sar- 
dinia, Spain, Switzerland, Tuscany, the Two 
Sicilies, and Wurtemburg. Since then Great 
Britain, by an act of Parliament, has added 
her name to this list. The first step is taken 
there by making the metric system permissive, 
as is now proposed in the bills before Congress. 
The example of Great Britain is of especial 
importance to us, since the commercial rela- 
tions between the two countries render it 
essential that there should be a common system 
of weights and measures. On this point we 
cannot afford to differ from each other. 
The adoption of the metric system by the 
United States will go far to complete that 
circle by which this great improvement will be 
assured to mankind. Here is a new agent 
of civilization which will bi felt in all the con- 
cerns 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 primeval confusion of which the 
Tower of Babel was the representative. 
As the first 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. They who have already 
Eassed a certain period of life may not adopt it; 
ut the rising generation will embrace it and 
ev'er afterwards number it among the choicest 
possessions of an advanced civilization.