The International Institute:
First Organized Opposition
To the Metric System
By EDWARD F. Cox*
SWEEPING AROUND THE GLOBE in the nineteenth century
was a new reform bidding for universal
acceptance: the
metric system of weights and measures.
Coming into a world
burdened with a fantastic metrological
diversity, it arose in
answer to the articulate needs of an
emerging modern science,
an expanding world economy of commerce
and industry, and a
growing trend of international
cooperation. Although in-
tended primarily to give France a
national metrological uni-
formity, the system was christened by
the scientists who
devised it during the French
Revolution, A tous les temps, a
tous les pecuples. To accord with its hoped-for destiny of uni-
versality, these philosophes based
their system on a standard
taken directly from nature, that is, a
quadrant of a meridian
of the earth; they made its units of
length, weight, and
capacity interconnected; they placed
its divisions and multiples
on the decimal scale. Thus possessed of
the characteristics
of invariability, commensurability,
consistency, and ease of
calculation, the metric system could be
expected to anticipate
nothing but a bright future. And soon
after the premature
first adoption of the new system by
France (1799), glow-
ingly favorable appraisals rose from
other lands. John Play-
fair, Scottish mathematician and
geologist, in 1807 declared,
"The system adopted by the French,
if not absolutely the
* Edward F. Cox is professor of history
at Bethel College, McKenzie, Tennessee.
THE INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE 55
best, is so very near it, that the
difference is of no account. . . .
The wisest measure . . . for the other
nations of Europe, is
certainly to adopt the metrical
system."1 Across the Atlantic,
John Quincy Adams, then secretary of
state, later president
of the United States, extolled the new
system as being "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 in-
genuity since that of printing. . . .
Its universal establishment
would be a universal blessing."2
Although rather late in
commencement--France did not
finally adopt it exclusively until
1837--the metric system
did indeed, soon after the middle of
the nineteenth century,
begin a remarkable diffusion.3 By
the year 1866 twenty-two
nations either had initiated steps to
adopt it as compulsory
for their inhabitants or had proclaimed
its use official and
required in government transactions.
Two years previously
Great Britain had legalized the system,
as did the United
States in 1866,4 having been prodded by
its National Academy
of Sciences.5 In the years
immediately following these acts
1 "Review of Mechain et
Delambre," Edinburgh Review, IX (1807); also in
The Works of John Playfair (Edinburgh, 1822), IV, 223-258.
2 Report
of the Secretary of State, upon Weights and Measures (Prepared in
Obedience to a Resolution of the
House of Representatives of December, 1819),
Read February 22, 1821 (Washington, 1821), 91-92. See also the uniformly
highly eulogistic congressional reports:
Report by John A. Kasson, Chairman of
Committee on Coinage, Weights, and
Measures, House of Representatives,
Report
No. 62, 39 cong., 1 sess., 7-19 (cited
hereafter as H. R. Report No. 62); On the
Adoption of the Metric System of
Weights and Measures, House of
Representa-
tives, Committee on Coinage, Weights,
and Measures, Report No. 14, 46 cong., 1
sess., 10-13, 31-38, 41-42 (cited
hereafter as H. R. Report No. 14); and others
later in the nineteenth century.
3 Today its employment is obligatory for the more than
one billion inhabitants
of seventy sovereign nations and legally
optional for the one and one-third billions
in fifteen other countries. Henri
Moreau, Les Recents Progres du Systeme
Metrique (1948-1954): Rapport
Presente a la Dixieme Conference Generale des
Poids et Mesures (Paris, 1955). It is also highly attractive and
beneficial to a host
of occupational groups--scientists, engineers,
physicians and pharmacists, educators,
military personnel, many men of commerce and industry,
and so forth--even in
basically non-metric nations.
4 United States Revised Statutes, sec. 3569-3570.
5 See National Academy of Sciences
(referred to hereafter as N.A.S.), Pro-
56
THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
of approval, friends and advocates of
the metric system
launched vigorous campaigns in these
two English-speaking
countries. Their objectives were twofold: (1) to
promote
familiarity with and voluntary popular
employment of the
system; and (2) to encourage the
exertion of popular pressure
on each government to undertake one or
both of the following
two steps: (a) the use of the system in
government trans-
actions; and (b) legislation making
employment of the sys-
tem obligatory for all citizens. In the
United States, at least,
all of these steps would be
consecutive, each contingent upon
the preceding, with varying intervals
allowed for the fulfill-
ment of each.
A rash of publications poured forth in
this country devoted
to the accomplishment of the first
objective: expositions,
argumentative works, textbooks and
supplements to arithmetic
books, pamphlets, and others.6 Similar
articles appeared in
various journals.7 Many
schools, especially colleges, com-
menced the instruction and use of the
metric system; in fact,
in the states of Connecticut, New
Jersey, and Massachusetts
legislative action either encouraged or
required such instruc-
tion in public schools.8 The
National Academy of Sciences
ceedings, I (1863-94), 8-10, 52; N.A.S., Annual for 1863-1864 (Cambridge,
Mass.,
1865), 52-53; N.A.S., Annual for 1866
(Cambridge, Mass., 1867), 43; H. R. Report
No. 62.
6 The author has been able to discover at least twenty-six such works
published
in the United States in the seventeen
years after 1866; there were no doubt others.
7 See,
for example, [Charles William Eliot], "The Metrical System of Weights
and Measures," The Nation, II
(1866), 731-732; "Measures of Length, Capacity,
and Weight [Resolutions of Congress
Legalizing the Metric System]," in Frank-
lin Institute, Journal, LXXXII
(1866), 268-271; A. M. Mayer, "Advantages of the
Metric System," ibid., C
(1875), 145-152; J. P. Putnam, "The Metric System:
Action of the Architects," American
Architect and Building News, I (1876),
198-200; idem, "Some of the
Advantages of the Metric System to Architects
and Builders," ibid., III
(1878), 79-80; "The Metric System in the United States
of America," Practical Magazine,
VI (1876), 71-72; C. G. R., "Teaching the
Metric System," Schermerhorn's
Monthly, XIII (1876), 373-374; Persifor Frazer,
Jr., "Some Tables for the
Interconversion of Metric and English Units," in
American Philosophical Society, Proceedings,
XVII (1877-78), 536-539; Samuel
Barnett, "Metric Reform," Popular
Science Monthly, XIII (1878), 82-92.
8 See American Metrological Society (referred to hereafter as A.M.S.),
THE INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE 57
lent its powerful support to the
campaign, as did the American
Association for the Advancement of
Science.9 The United
States Congress authorized use of the
metric system in the
post office department (1872) and in
the coinage system
(1873).10 This country was a charter
member of the Inter-
national (now Universal) Postal Union
(1874), which, from
its inception, employed the system, and
of the International
Bureau of Weights and Measures (1875),
which, though
charged with many metrological and
scientific duties, was
given a special obligation "to
discuss and initiate measures
necessary for the dissemination and
improvement of the
metrical system."11 Two pro-metric
propaganda organiza-
tions arose, anxious to secure any or
all of the objectives of
the campaign: the American Metrological
Society (1873) and
the American Metric Bureau (1876).
The ground swell of pro-metric
sentiment had reached
such a point by 1874 that an almost
spontaneous movement
swept through the nation's architects
and engineers; many
pledged themselves to use the metric
system exclusively in
their professional work following the
Centennial of 1876.12
Proceedings, I (1873-78), 62-63, 94; II (1878-81), 128; The
Metric Bulletin:
Official Journal of the American
Metric Bureau, No. 3-4 (October 1876),
32-33.
9 N.A.S., Proceedings, I, 60-61, 63-64, 68, 70, 101, 125, 156; "Report of the
Committee on Weights, Measures and
Coinage," in American Association for the
Advancement of Science, Proceedings,
1875 (Salem, Mass., 1876), 19-25.
10 U. S. Revised Statutes, sec.
3880, 3513.
11 Metric System of Weights and
Measures, House of Representatives, Commit-
tee on Coinage, Weights and Measures,
Report No. 795, 54 cong., 1 sess., 22
(cited hereafter as H. R. Report No.
795); Commission Internationale du Metre,
Reunions Generaux de 1872 (Paris,
1872); "Methodical Statement of the Resolu-
tions Passed by the International Metric
Commission During Their Metting [sic]
at Paris in 1872," in H. R.
Report No. 14, 52-55; "Diplomatic Convention on the
Meter," ibid., 43-50.
12 A.M.S., Proceedings, I, 29,
33, 38, 40-45; Putnam, "The Metric System:
Action of the Architects," 198-200;
Boston Society of Civil Engineers, Report
on "Metric System of Weights and
Measures" (Boston, 1876); idem,
Report of
Standing Committee on the Metric
System of Weights and Measures (Boston,
1876). By the end of 1875 pledges had
been secured from one hundred individuals
and firms in Boston, ninety-five in New
York, sixty-two in Chicago, eleven in
Baltimore, and many others.
58
THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
A mass petition began circulating in
the same year (1874),
in which the signatories pledged
"to do all that may be in
their power. . . to promote this
important reform [of extended
employment of the metric system]."
What is so impressive
is the lengthy list of "literary,
scientific, and otherwise in-
fluential public men" who endorsed
the cause.13 Continued agi-
tation and increased pressure led the
committee on coinage,
weights, and measures of the house of
representatives to
conduct a survey of the executive
departments of the federal
government to ascertain the
advisability of use of the metric
system in government transactions (1877-79). On the basis
of the replies, the committee prepared
a strongly pro-metric
report, urging passage of a
bill--frankly labeled, "To encour-
age the adoption of the metric
system"--to provide for em-
ployment of the system in the
collection of customs duties.14
The American Medical Association and
the American Social
Science Association both
enthusiastically endorsed the reform.
The American Metrological Society had
no trouble in secur-
ing more than 4,000 signatures to a
memorial sent to the
house committee urging use of the
system in government
13 Among the signers were the following: Charles Francis Adams, lawyer,
rail-
road man, historian; F. A. P. Barnard,
educator; John Bigelow, writer and
diplomat; Samuel Blatchford, jurist;
Peter Cooper, manufacturer, financier, philan-
thropist; Howard Crosby, clergyman and
author; Richard H. Dana, author,
sailor, lawyer; John W. Draper,
scientist and author; Charles William Eliot,
educator; William M. Evarts, lawyer and
statesman; Wolcott Gibbs, chemist;
Winfield S. Hancock, soldier and
politician; Joseph R. Hawley, legislator; Thomas
Hill, clergyman and educator; Oliver
Wendell Holmes, man of letters; Timothy
0. Howe, politician; John J. Ingalls,
politician, orator, writer; Henry W. Long-
fellow, poet; Charles O'Conor, lawyer;
Andrew P. Peabody, clergyman and
educator; Samuel J. Randall, legislator;
William B. Rogers, geologist; Robert
C. Schenck, soldier and politician;
Horatio Seymour, politician; John Sherman,
statesman; Samuel J. Tilden, politician;
Israel Washburn, lawyer and politician;
Alexander S. Webb, soldier; William A.
Wheeler, lawyer and politician; Fernando
Wood, politician. A.M.S., Proceedings,
I, 46-55; J. Pickering Putnam, The
Metric System of Weights and Measures
(New York, 1874), 24-28. The identify-
ing labels are from Webster's
Biographical Dictionary (Springfield, Mass., 1943).
14 On the Adoption of the Metric System of Weights and
Measures, House of
Representatives, Committee on Coinage,
Weights, and Measures, Report No. 53,
45 cong., 3 sess.; H. R. Report No.
14, 2-42.
THE INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE 59
departments.15 It can be
seen that this metric campaign was
of formidable proportions.
Such a phenomenon is understandable in
view of contem-
porary developments. With the signing
of the Diplomatic
Convention on the Meter, the metric
system had been formally
sanctioned by the leading nations of
the world--six of the so-
called Great Powers (Austria-Hungary, France, Germany,
Italy, Russia, and the United States)
were original signa-
tories, and two others adhered later
(Great Britain in 1884
and Japan in 1885)--as the international
system. An ever-
growing number of countries were
adopting it--by 1879
nine more had enacted laws pertaining
to the system. An
effective campaign was being waged
simultaneously in Great
Britain, several times coming close to
success.16 Successive
actions by the American government had
indicated its will-
ingness to adopt the system once
familiarity with it was com-
mon among the people. Not only had
there been no organized
opposition, but no voice had been
raised to uphold retention
of the existing English customary
system in its entirety; the
situation in this country was similar
to that in Great Britain,
where a committee of parliament had
noted that the members
"have sought for advocates of the
existing [English custo-
mary] system, but they have found it
difficult to discover
them."17 Most informed
persons even caustically assailed the
existing system. One official report, for example, declared
it "has been considered by the
great men who have written
upon it as temporary. . . .
Arrangements more worthy to be
called a system will one day
prevail."18 Another stated: "We
have only custom without coherence,
stability, or uniformity.
. . . [It] is ridiculous in its
inconsistency. . . . [Our metrolog-
15 A.M.S., Proceedings, II,
54-63, 122-131, 86-87, 144-145; V (1884-85), 148-149.
16 Edward Franklin Cox, "The Metric System: A Quarter-Century of
Accept-
ance (1851-1876)," Osiris, XIII
(1959).
17 Report from the Select
Committee on Weights and Measures, p. iii, in Ses-
sional Papers, 1862, VII (London, 1862).
18 A. D. Bache, Letter from the Secretary of the Treasury: The Report of
the
Superintendent of the Construction of
Standard Weights and Measures, Senate
Executive Document No. 73, 30
cong., 1 sess., 6.
60
THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
ical] diversity is nearly as great as
prevailed in feudal times
in Europe."19
With the nation's youth learning it,
and with a vigorous
campaign underway, adoption of the
metric system was ap-
parently inevitable. With its
advantages so obvious as to
be seldom questioned, the system's
advocates benefited from
a favorable public opinion; in fact,
the metric movement was
generally awarded the status of a
"cause" so worthy and
ameliorative as to be above denial,
almost beyond criticism.20
Thus the appearance, during the very
height of the movement,
of an organization dedicated to
opposition to this system--
the first founded21--comes
as something of a surprise, to
say the least.
On November 8, 1879, three
persons--Charles Latimer,
Lucian I. Bisbee, and G. M. Hardy--met
at the Old South
Church in Boston and formed the
International Institute for
Preserving and Perfecting Weights and
Measures. Their
purpose was to organize "a Society
for opposing the introduc-
tion of the French Metric System into
this country." Offi-
cers were elected--Latimer was named
first vice president,
19 H. R. Report No. 795, 29-31. Even opponents of the metric system generally
admitted the need to improve the
existing system.
20 This
sentiment is apparent in the remark of Josh Billings, American humorist,
concerning the Diplomatic Convention on
the Meter (1875), which established the
International Bureau of Weights and
Measures: "Never did so many Kaizers,
Kzars, Kings, kum kling knit together in
so Klean a Kawse to work so Kom-
mendable a kure." Quoted in Aubrey
Drury, comp., World Metric Standardization,
an Urgent Issue: A Volume of Testimony Urging Worldwide
Adoption of the
Metric Units of Weights and
Measures--Mcter-Liter-Gram (San
Francisco, 1922),
157.
21 According to Sir Frederick J. Bramwell, British engineer and
technologist,
a "British Association for the
preservation of English weights and measures" had
been formed in 1864: "We [three or
four opponents of the metric system] got
ourselves so appointed because there was
a committee existing for the introduction
of the metric system. We never reported--we never had
anything to report;
but we caused ourselves to be
re-appointed year by year until we found that the
other committee had, if you will pardon
the expression, 'fizzled out'; and then we
dissolved ourselves, because there was
nothing more to do." Report from the
Select Committee on Weights and Measures, 136-146, in Sessional Papers, 1895,
XIII (London, 1895). However, no mention
of this "Association" appears in the
contemporary literature, and, by admission, no
accomplishments can be credited
to it. Obviously it was not an organization in the full
meaning of the word,
only a handful of querulous
"standpatters."
THE INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE 61
and Latimer, Charles Piazzi Smyth, the
Astronomer Royal
for Scotland, and the Rev. Joseph Wild,
author and lecturer
of Brooklyn, New York, were named
counsellors--and a
constitution was drawn up which
stressed the propagandistic
intent of the society. Its aims were
"to promote the knowl-
edge of and allegiance to our ancient
standard of Weights
and Measures, according to the Divine Command--'Thou
shalt have a Perfect and Just
Weight, a Perfect and Just
Measure shalt thou have,'" and to publish "books, charts,
printed matter and other appropriate
material ... for diffus-
ing essential knowledge" for this
purpose and to combat the
metric system. Members were pledged to
"participate in all
worthy efforts to arrest the
progress" of that system.22
On the following December 3 Latimer met
with a group
in Cleveland, Ohio, his place of
residence, for the purpose
of organizing the Ohio Auxiliary
Society of the International
Institute. Latimer was called to the
chair, and opened the
meeting with an address entitled
"An Appeal to the People
of the United States." After the
speech a temporary con-
stitution was adopted, and J. H.
Devereux was elected presi-
dent and M. E. Rawson treasurer of the
new organization.
Latimer's address had set forth the
society's objectives:
It is vital to your interests to oppose
with all of your power this
innovation [the metric system], which if
successful will bring confusion,
damage, and shame to our people, utterly
destroying the value of our
present records and the standards of
weight and measure, used in every
house and shop in the land.... [Our
units] have varied little in ages
and are capable of being made complete
and perfect without the direful
consequences of overthrow, and for this
purpose this society and
institute is formed, desiring to avail
itself of the combined wisdom of
the people and through it . . .
accomplish the objects of its organization.
We hope that every one who loves his
country will think this a part of
his work and duty.23
22 The Ohio Auxiliary Society of the
International Institute for Preserving and
Perfecting Weights and Measures
(referred to hereafter as O.A.S.), Proceed-
ings (Cleveland,
1880), 3, 7-11; The International Standard (cited hereafter as
I.S.), III (1885-86), 524; V (1888), Memorial Number, p. 10.
23 O.A.S., Proceedings, 11-12.
62
THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
The institute at Boston never
functioned as a separate
society, serving only as a
"front" for the enlistment of mem-
bers from other countries.24 Although
another auxiliary
arose later in the New York-New Jersey
area (1883), from
beginning to end the Ohio Auxiliary
Society was the whole
of the International Institute. Meetings of the O.A.S. oc-
curred every two weeks or so at
Cleveland--and meetings
of the institute there annually--for
the next nine years, mem-
bers in attendance for the most part
reading papers prepared
on various subjects, some related to
the metric system, most,
as will be seen, to an assortment of
unusual matters.
The individual most responsible for the
formation of this
anti-metric organization--and its
driving force throughout
its existence--was Latimer (1827-1888),
for many years
chief engineer of the Atlantic and
Great Western Railway.
This unusual man had already attained
some fame from
apparent successes with the use of a
divining rod in locating
mineral and metal deposits, waterpipes,
and other subter-
ranean objects. In fact, it was in this
manner that Latimer
discovered the "Witch-Hazel Coal
Mine" near Youngstown,
Ohio, and his fees and royalties, being
turned over to that
end, were instrumental in promoting the
work of the institute
and sustaining its publications.25
Mesmerism and astrology
also interested Latimer, and he was
capable of engaging in
some very remarkable symbolic flights.26
Thus, already pos-
sessed of a mystical turn of mind,
Latimer in 1878 read two
books by Charles Piazzi Smyth--Our
Inheritance in the Great
Pyramid (New York, 1864) and Life and Work at the Great
Pyramid (Edinburgh, 1867)-- which convinced him of the
24 An amusing incident in this
connection occurred at the Ohio Auxiliary Society
meeting of January 21, 1880, when a
motion for the O.A.S. to dissolve its ties
with the Boston "society" was
defeated on the appeal of a Mr. Wainright that the
O.A.S. "should not become a little
one-horse concern by cutting loose from the
Boston society, there should be a head
somewhere." Ibid., 30.
25 I.S., I (1883-84), 440; V, Memorial Number, pp. 10-11, 38.
26 See I.S., V, Memorial Number, pp. 19, 37, and Latimer's series of
eight
articles, "The Unveiling of
Isis," I.S., 1, No. 6; II (1884-85), Nos. 1-6; III, No. 1
--an almost unbelievable hodgepodge of
sheer nonsense.
THE INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE 63
divine origin of English metrological
units, and thus of the
need of a concerted opposition to the
metric movement.27
Though, as has been noted, the initial
grounds for the
institute's opposition to the metric
system included a decla-
ration of "allegiance to our
ancient standard of Weights and
Measures, according to the Divine
Command," the institute's
subsequent call "To the Citizens
of the United States" to
join its movement emphasized the
postulated cost of making
a change in the metrological system:
A bill is now ready to be presented to
the next Congress making
compulsory the adoption of this
arbitrary and unjust system--involving
the loss of millions of dollars and
years of labor in changing all the
costly machinery, tools, standard
gauges, etc., now in use--all maps,
charts and surveys; indeed, every kind
of business, of all classes of
mechanics, science and commerce, is
involved. The enormity of such an
action is inconceivable.
Yet other criticisms were made: the
meter was artificial and
arbitrary; the metric system was
unscientific, founded on a
curved (therefore "impure")
line rather than upon a straight
("pure") line, and based on
the Paris meridian to the ex-
clusion of all others; the system was
bilingual, had cumbrous
and long terms, and used a unit of
length with no human
referent. The existing English
customary system was as-
serted to "have been handed down
to us from the remotest
ages . . . and [is] interwoven in our
very life and being,"
whereas the metric system was "of
a foreign tongue and of a
recent invention."28 The
institute was of the opinion that
the existing system could be rendered
completely serviceable
--or "perfected"--merely by decimalizing it.
It was not long, however, before the
real reason for the
society's opposition to the metric
system became quite evident
in its proceedings. In March 1880,
three papers, each read at
meetings, heralded the onslaught: J.
Wainright's "The Great
Pyramid, Its Location, Origin and
Construction," J. Ralston
27 I.S., V, Memorial Number, pp.
10, 39.
28 O.A.S.,
Proceedings, 5-6, 13-16, 37-38.
64
THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
Skinner's discussion of the actual
measurements of this pyra-
mid, and Latimer's "The Origin of
the Sacred Cubit."29
Then Thomas Wilson, in a paper entitled
"The Great Pyra-
mid,"30 claimed that
this structure (1) "contains astronomical
knowledge of the most refined
character"; (2) "contains God-
given standards of weights and
measures, both of capacity
and length"; and (3) contains
"a perfect chronological rec-
ord from the beginning of the world to
the present time, and
still future." The strange point
was thus being taken that
the English customary system was
"God-given," incorporated
into the dimensions of the Great
Pyramid of Egypt by its
supposedly Hebrew builders, and then
transmitted somehow--
" a miracle beyond the power of
the human mind to grasp"31
--and unbeknown to its users, to the
English people!
But why the absorbing interest in the
Great Pyramid of
Gizeh, at that time a "novel
subject" in the United States?32
Over the years, investigators and
students of this structure
had found some remarkable relationships
and coincidences
which had led some of them to conclude
that Egyptian metro-
logy had been determined by refined and
accurate astronomical
observations.33 For example,
the height of the pyramid was
found to be to the length of a base
approximately as seven
is to eleven; by doubling the base,
then dividing this sum by
the height, a figure extremely close to
pi results. Again, the
base of the pyramid is close to 1/500
of a degree of the earth's
latitude, and the pyramid is close to
the latitude where one
29 Ibid., 60-67; Appendix; 70-91.
30 Ibid., 93-110.
31 I.S., IV (January, 1887), 37.
32 I.S., V,
Memorial Number, p. 10.
33 See, in addition to the two works by Piazzi Smyth,
John Greaves, Pyramido-
graphia, or a Description of the
Pyramids in Egypt (London, 1664); M.
Bailly,
Histoire de I'Astronomie Moderne
Depuis la Fondation de l'Ecole d'Alexandrie
Jusqu'd l'Epoque de 1730 (Paris, 1779-82), I, 156; A. J. P. Paucton, Metrologie,
ou Traite des Mesures, Poids, et
Monnaies des Anciens Peuples et des Modernes
(Paris, 1780), 102, 109; E. Jomard, Memoire
sur le Systeme Metrique des Anciens
Egyptiens (Paris, 1817); Howard Vyse, Operations at the
Pyramids (London,
1840); John Taylor, The Great
Pyramid: Why Was It Built? And Who Built It?
(London, 1859); Charles A. L. Totten, An
Important Question in Metrology
(New York, 1884).
THE INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE 65
minute of longitude equals one English
mile of 5,280 feet.
These and many other even more amazing
relationships gave
John Taylor and Piazzi Smyth reason for
assuming that the
Great Pyramid was "the material
embodiment of a mass of
scientific truth . . . incorporated
into [the builders'] work
through a divine guidance."34
What could be more natural,
then, than the subsequent appearance of
a small but wide-
spread occult--or even
obscurantist--"pyramid" sect, given to
discovering, by hook or by crook, all
sorts of additional mys-
tical knowledge and meanings in this
ancient structure?35 As
will be seen, the International
Institute for the most part com-
prised the American "branch"
of this sect, and its members
contributed their share to the
accumulation of "pyramid lore."
Within eight months the society had
ceased publishing its
proceedings, the reason being
financial, and for the next
three years little is heard of it. It
continued to hold its bi-
weekly meetings--and its annual
conventions in November--
in Cleveland. Notices of these
meetings, together with some
fragmentary accounts of the
proceedings, appeared in the
Cleveland Leader and Cleveland Herald periodically. How-
ever, it is only with the publication
of The International
Standard, in March 1883, that we can resume our connected
story of the complete papers read in,
and other activities of,
the organization. This bimonthly magazine
had been prom-
34 Frederick A. P. Barnard, "The
Metrology of the Great Pyramid," in A.M.S.,
Proceedings, IV (1883), 121.
35 Most metrologists brand the seemingly
advanced scientific and astronomical
features of the pyramid as either purely
coincidental or based on erroneous
observation (with more than one case of
deliberate falsification). See, for ex-
ample, W. M. Flinders Petrie, Inductive
Metrology (London, 1877); idem, Pyra-
mids and Temples of Gizeh (London, 1883); Barnard, "The Metrology of the
Great Pyramid," 117-225; H. W.
Chisholm, On the Science of Weighing and
Measuring and Standards of Measure
and Weight (London, 1877), 24-25; Sir
Charles Warren, "The Ancient
Standards of Measure in the East," Palestine
Exploration Quarterly, April, July, October 1899; William 'Hallock and Herbert
T. Wade, Outlines of the Evolution of
Weights and Measures and the Metric
System (New York, 1906), 7, 9-10, 15; Martin Gardner, Fads
and Fallacies in
the Name of Science (New York, 1957), 173-185. Gardner gives an
enlightening
and highly entertaining
"expose" of "pyramidology."
66
THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
ised at the formation of the institute
in 1879, but publication
was delayed for financial reasons.
During the interim, Latimer aired his
metrological views in
a booklet which must surely rank as the
most violently and
rabidly anti-metric tract ever to
appear.36 Much of his
argument had already been advanced at
meetings of the
O.A.S., albeit not in such perfervid
and scathing tones.
Relying on the assumed religious
connotations of metrology,
he claimed, for the Egyptian and Hebrew
cubit, that "of all
things recorded . . . nothing in the
shape of a measuring rod
comes down to us more certainly and
clearly distinguished
as God-given." From it, all
existing customary units, of
whatever land, have been derived. Yet
"certain inconsiderate
persons, in addition to schemers for
gain"--"closet philos-
ophers" and " a band of men
as dangerous as the young man
[sic] whose advice Rehoboam took"--were desperately
urging
learned societies, congressmen, and the
general public to re-
place the "God-given" system
with one which was the product
of a time when "the French people
were in a bloody revolu-
tion, and being very radical . . . even
'to the changing of
times and laws,' they concluded to have
SOMETHING BRAN [sic]
NEW." Latimer envisaged
truly frightening consequences to
follow any such replacement, and no
description can do justice
to his feverish words:
The adoption of this [the metric] system
would be a law to put in
the hands of a ring the making of all
Metric standards . . . a ring
doubtless already inaugurated and
sitting like a great vulture ready to
pounce upon its lamb-like prey. It will be a law to
establish a ring
to make all of the Metric scales of the
country, so that no man might
buy nor sell unless they had this mark
of the beast upon him.... [The
results would be] to change all of the
Government maps, records, meas-
ures, and to prescribe them for the
people; . . . to sell all the proceeds
of the farmer, and the poor mechanic and
laborer, that the rich may
become richer and the poor poorer; . . .
to change all the medical and
surgical books; . . . to fill our
graveyard [sic] with untimely graves; . . .
36 The French Metric System, or the Battle of the
Standards: A Discussion
of the Comparative Merits of the
Metric System and the Standards of the Great
Pyramid (Chicago, 1880).
THE INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE 67
to flood the country with quacks of
every description, legalized to
measure and kill according to the Metric
system, flooding the country
with cormorants who will destroy its
substance with useless and indeed
damnable litigation; . . . to produce
confusion worse confounded, to
make a very Babel of the whole earth,
and finally result in an uprising,
which will exterminate, in a battle, the
whole horde of leeches, monop-
olies, rings and excresences [sic] of
every kind, which would, and
indeed now to a great degree do, mar the
beauty of God's earth.
It is plain that the introduction of
this system into our country will
be very detrimental to the poor man
everywhere; it will be especially
a curse to the farmer.
Piazzi Smyth was quoted as saying that
in Great Britain
adoption of the metric system would be
"to the excessively
great inconvenience of 9,999 persons out of every 10,000."
The London Times was reported as
writing, "There is not a
household it would not fill with
perplexity, confusion and
shame." Sir John F. W. Herschel, noted British astronomer
and scientist, was quoted in favor of
the existing metrological
system. Another Britisher wrote to
Latimer as follows: "If
other countries are going
helter-skelter down the road
to
atheistical ruin, it is happily the
spirit of the Pilgrim Fathers
which keeps . . . America the last
in such a negative and sui-
cidal race as that."37 And so on ad infinitum.
A more vindictive and vituperative
assault upon what was
generally regarded as a necessary,
emendatory reform than
that delivered by this frenetically
dedicated man can hardly
be imagined.38 To assert
that adoption of the metric system
would endanger the very fabric of the
American way of life,
37 Ibid., 6, 7-11, 27-32, 33.
38 An earlier measure of the man's
approach to contemporary issues can be seen
in another paper he read to the O.A.S.,
"The Inter-Oceanic Canal--Is It to Be a
French or an American Measure."
O.A.S., Proceedings, 53-59. Latimer resented
Colombia's commissioning of a French
company to build a Panamanian canal,
and demanded its construction by Americans, for
American interests, and with
the use of American weights and
measures. Even the Monroe Doctrine was
invoked to give the American government
warrant to prevent the invasion of
the western hemisphere by European
metrological units! Latimer also took
umbrage at the fact that the Statue of
Liberty, recently received from the French,
was measured "in French milli-meters, 'the result
of caprice," rather than "in
good earth-commensurable Anglo-Saxon
inches." I.S., IV (January), 49.
68
THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
and even Christianity itself, that such
a preposterous list of
disastrous results would ensue--even
revolution or civil war
--demonstrates the intense emotionalism
which could build up
among extremists over a matter the
importance of which
had been magnified out of all
proportion.
To return to the International
Institute, its new publication,
The International Standard, was subtitled "a Magazine de-
voted to the discussion and dissemination
of the wisdom con-
tained in the Great Pyramid of Jeezeh
in Egypt." Obviously
the institute had become increasingly
"pyramidist" during
the interval since the last appearance
of the proceedings of the
O.A.S., even though it was rather a
"sore point" to the society
to be so termed--at least at first.
Latimer in 1883 defended
his society in the following manner:
Whoever talks of the Institute having
"degenerated into a Pyramid
Society," and of its having
"adopted that Pagan structure as a symbol,"
forgets that the reverse of the Great
Seal of the United States is "a
pyramid unfinished." . . . We care
nothing for the crude opinions on
which such objections are founded. . . .
We can do no less than study
that venerable and stupendous monument
which was erected, as we
believe, for "an Altar to the Lord
in the midst of the land of Egypt"
--Isa. XIX:19.39
Yet, in the years following, opposition
to the metric system
--the stated reason for the formation
of the society--was
almost forgotten in the flurry of
pyramidist speculations, and
in the pursuit of even more ridiculous
aberrations. One writer
echoed Piazzi Smyth in claiming that a
set of marks in the
Great Pyramid, representing a
mathematical series, was the
scale of a "Pyramid
Thermometer." Others improved on
Smyth's contention that certain
markings and distances, when
"translated" from inches or
cubits to years, furnished a chron-
ology in which important historical
dates, past and future,
were specifically indicated.40 Several
amazing astronomical
39 I.S., I, 4-5. See also I.S., II, 185-187, and J. W.
Redfield's "The Altar and
Pillar to Jehovah," I.S., I,
No. 6; II, Nos. 1-6; III, Nos. 1-2, 4.
40 I.S., I, 70-71; III, 79, 242-247, 470-480; IV (January),
13-16; IV (March-
November), 188-190.
THE INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE 69
phenomena could be interpreted from
various measurements
in this structure: for example, the
length of the King's Cham-
ber in spans (each equaling 8.83922
inches), when multiplied
by ten to the ninth power,
"approximately" gives the distance
from the earth to the sun; again, the
length of one base of
the pyramid in inches (9,131.055), when
multiplied by four,
and the product divided by one hundred,
gives the length of
the tropical year in days (365.2422).41
Aside from a com-
mon usage of cubits--albeit of varying
lengths!--Egyptian
and Hebrew metrology were
interconnected in several ways:
for example, the coffer in the King's
Chamber in the Great
Pyramid was declared to possess proportionately
the same
measurements as Noah's Ark, and the
temple-vision of Ezekiel
(Ezek. 40) was thought to have
contained proportionately the
same measurements as those found in the
pyramid.42 The
affinity of Anglo-Saxon measures to
Egyptian also appeared
in devious ways: for example, one
writer claimed that the
Egyptians adopted as their unit of
circular measure the length
of one second of an arc of a circle
with a radius of 10,000
cubits, which second, strangely enough,
equaled one Anglo-
Saxon inch; again, it was found that
the diameter of a circle
with a circumference of 1,296 inches
(the number of square
inches in a square yard) is roughly
412.5 inches, which is ten
times the height of the coffer in the
King's Chamber in inches,
and the depth of this coffer in inches
equals the diameter of
this circle in feet (34.395).43 Further
"evidence" of the
religious derivation of English
metrology emerged from the
calculation of Herschel of the polar
axis of the earth to be
500,497,056 inches.44 The
conclusion seemed obvious to the
institute that "the inch, being
one five-hundred-millionth of
the earth's polar diameter, and in use
by the people of
41 I.S., IV (March-November),
28-33, 163-168.
42 I.S., V (1888), 21-23; III, 1197-210.
43 I.S., IV (January),
33-35; IV (March-November), 54-60.
44 Familiar Lectures on
Scientific Subjects (New York, 1872),
419-451.
70 THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
God from the remotest antiquity, is of
Divine origin."45
Members of the society tried valiantly
to show that at the
time of its building the pyramid stood
on the latitude where
one minute of longitude equals one
mile, a point 3.71 miles
south of the monument today.46
Even stranger subjects were
investigated, and their claims
espoused. Numerology was a favorite
pursuit, the members
delighting in exercising their
considerable ingenuity in dis-
covering amazing relationships. A
"prize" example might
be cited: a circle with a diameter of
100 yards has a circumfer-
ence of 11,309 inches; this,
"approximately in round num-
bers," is 100 x 113; 113 is 2 x
56.5; 565 is the numerical sym-
bol of HaVaH, which is the root of
Jehovah (this derivation
is based on the Hebraic use of letters
of that alphabet to de-
note numbers); one degree of the
circumference of this circle
is 31.41 inches, or
"approximately" 10 x pi; 100 minutes of
this circle equals 52.36 inches, or
"approximately" the number
of weeks in a year; a "prophetic
reed" of 6 cubits equals
123.75888 inches; 3,600 inches (the
diameter of the circle) di-
vided by this number gives 29.09, which
is 1/200 of the height
of the Great Pyramid.47 Members
found a multitude of etymo-
logical relationships between the
Egyptians, Hebrews, and
Anglo-Saxons. Interest in Biblical
prediction was high, and
one member, by the improbable name of
Asahel Abbot,
worked out a chronology of universal
history--in astonishing
detail--based on references to years
and other numbers in the
Bible.48 The Kabbalah and
Freemasonry were both "revealed"
as aspects of pyramidism. The institute
revived the ancient
Egyptian cult of the goddess Isis, and
devised an elaborate seal
centered on this deity, highly fraught
with the most abstruse
symbolism. The Great Pyramid was
identified at one time
45 I.S., I, 5-7. See also I.S., III, 137-138, 501-504; IV
(March-November),
36-39, 40-46.
46 The
favorite explanation was that the earth's poles had shifted the necessary
amount to account for the deviation. I.S.,
IV (January), 41-45; IV (March-
November), 50-54, 85-92, 100-104,
163-168; V, 17-20, 67-73.
47 I.S., V, 43-46.
48 I.S., IV (March-November),
213-222, 280-289; V, 81.
THE INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE 71
with the Tower of Babel. The institute
lent its full support
to contemporary efforts being made to
prove that the Anglo-
Saxons were the Lost Ten Tribes of
Israel,49 that the Irish
also were descended from the
Israelites, and that the Druids
were descendants of the priests of the
Lost Ten Tribes, prac-
ticing a religion which was but the
progressively degenerated
worship of Jehovah.50 In
fact, few occult movements current
at the time failed to elicit the
approval of the International
Institute, including physiognomy,
phrenology, clairvoyance,
spiritualism, millenarianism, and
Rosicrucianism. In view
of such bizarre intellectual pursuits,
and such mystical mean-
derings on the borderline of
reasonableness, the opprobrium
pronounced upon the institute by a
contemporary newspaper
should occasion no surprise: "A
gathering of very worthy
fossils took place at Cleveland
yesterday. . . . It is hard to
understand how men of average common
sense can waste
their time in such folly."51
Nevertheless, opposition to its great
adversary, the metric
system, was never completely forgotten.
Although seem-
ingly with some reluctance--which
appeared to increase with
time--the society turned from its more
tantalizing pyramidist
aberrations often enough to maintain a
running battle with
the metric system to the very end. In
fact, it was claimed
that only the formation of the
institute had saved the country
from "metricalism." "The
people have this Institute to
49 See
especially I.S., III, 3-12, and Edward Hine's series of articles,
"Evidences
of Identification of the American and
British Peoples with Lost Israel: A Marvel-
ous Discovery!" I.S., III,
Nos. 3-5; IV (January); IV (March-November); V,
Nos. 1-3. Hine's type of
"evidence" came from such far-fetched identifications
of the Lost Israelites as being in
modern times an island nation (Isa. 42:12),
northwest of Palestine (Jer. 23:8), with
the strongest army of the world (Isa.
54:17), possessing colonies (Gen.
35:11), a Christian people (Isa. 45:17), in fact
the only missionary peoples (Isa. 32:6),
freers of the slaves (Isa. 58:6), etc. A
glance at the passages cited will reveal
how tenuous, even nonsensical, were such
"proofs." There were, in fact, at least two
periodicals being published at the
time specifically dedicated to this
thesis: the Banner of Israel (London), and
The Messenger (London). See Gardner, Fads and Fallacies, 182-183,
on the
present status of this
"Anglo-Israel" movement.
50 I.S., III,
144-150, 225-242; and E. Bedell Benjamin's series of articles, "The
Druids," I.S., III, Nos.
2-5; IV (January) ; IV, Nos. 1-2 (March-May).
51 Philadelphia Record, November 10, 1882.
72
THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
thank that the friends of the metre
have not yet succeeded
in forcing . . . sweeping enactments
upon us"; the institute
"has caused a halt, and, so far,
has proved a stumbling block
to our adversary." This was the
boast of the International
Standard.52
For the moment conceding the institute
this claimed credit,
just how had the task been
accomplished? What methods
were used to combat the campaign of
metric advocates--"to
give such blows . . . as will forever
neutralize their designs"?53
Several propaganda techniques were
employed, some of which
have already been noted. One of the
first activities of the
institute was to canvass Cleveland for
members, which can-
vass also gathered information from
those contacted as to
"the estimated probable or
possible losses which might be
entailed upon yourself or firm from the
enforcement of the
new French metric system." The
society broadcast its views
in the International Standard, which
was published until
Latimer's death in March 1888, except
for a year in 1886,
when finances were low. Even during
this interval "back
numbers, pamphlets, circulars and
newspapers" were "con-
stantly and widely distributed."
The institute prepared and
distributed numerous circulars to
"the people of the United
States," to "manufacturers,
mechanics and agriculturists," to
"the Mechanics of America,"
and to other occupational
groups, which were urged to petition
their congressmen
against any pro-metric bills.54
In 1880 the society drew up a memorial
to congress asking
"that no further legislation on
the introduction of the French
metric system into any of the
departments or by the people
be enacted." The fact that the
bill calling for use of this
system in customs houses did not pass
was enough for Latimer
to trumpet, "I believe I state the
exact fact when I say that
the memorial of the International
Institute . . . prevented
[the bill's] adoption," and that
"the Institute issued a counter
52 I.S., I,
3, 24.
53 Charles
Latimer, quoted in A.M.S., Proceedings, II, 195.
54 O.A.S., Proceedings, 17,
30; I.S., IV (January), 52; I, 28-30; III, 174.
`
THE INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE 73
petition [to one of the American
Metrological Society], which
helped effectually in killing this
measure in Congress."55 Bills
introduced in the congress to establish
American coinage fully
on a metric basis (1882) brought forth
another protesting
memorial; it was claimed that 9,000
copies were distributed
in different states for signature, and
"the protest of the Ohio
Legislature was also obtained."
Again the institute took
credit for defeating the bills:
"We have checked [its] onset
and forced the advocates of the French
system to the defen-
sive. . . . Before our organization
they had it all their way." In
1884 an open letter was sent to the
president of the United
States to try to forestall the feared
universal adoption of
the metric system--which incidentally
did not materialize--
at the international "Meridian
Conference" held in Wash-
ington in the same year.56
Members of the institute, especially
Latimer--who also took
several trips to Washington to
"lobby" personally--produced
a stream of letters to congressmen,
growing with each new
metric threat in congress. In 1886
Latimer became alarmed
at the congressional appropriation of
$2,270 for the American
share of the expenses of the
International Bureau of Weights
and Measures; he summoned up his
considerable store of
patriotism and proclaimed with evident
shock, "That money
went to France."57 Some
members desired to go so far as to
memorialize "to quietly have
Congress repeal whatever rela-
tions to the French metric system [as
are] on our National
Statutes." Interested congressmen
were offered free copies
of anti-metric literature. It was
Latimer who defined the in-
stitute's relations to congress:
"Our work is one of watching,
as well as of preaching, teaching and
writing. Each one of
us should note every move of the enemy,
and if possible,
checkmate him."58
55 O.A.S., Proceedings, 37-38; I.S.,
I, 9; A.M.S., Proceedings, II, 195.
56 I.S., I, 8, 9-10; II, 90,
409-413.
57 I.S., IV (January), 49-50. The
location of the International Bureau of Weights
and Measures is at Sevres, a suburb of
Paris, France.
58 I.S., IV (January), 70; V, 32,
27.
74 THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
It was also intended to cover the
nation with a network of
auxiliary societies. Although a mere
twenty members in a
state or country sufficed to organize
such a group, only one
did appear besides the O.A.S., the
establishment of others
being termed "impracticable."59
Apparently anti-metricalism
was not too infectious.
Arguments against the metric system
furnished the insti-
tute with propaganda. Emphasized often
was the supposedly
prohibitive cost of making a change,
estimated to be in excess
of $50,000,000.60 Efforts were made to
"prove, from cumu-
lative evidence gathered everywhere, by
writers, experts, each
in his own department, that the French
metric system is not
worthy to supersede our own." The
institute did indeed col-
lect and publish evidence--from letters
to the society, from
letters to editors of newspapers, from
anti-metric articles
appearing in other periodicals, and
from other places--which
satisfied members that, wherever
accepted and tested, the
metric system had been "found to
be utterly impracticable."61
Opposition to the system was so strong,
in fact, that some
members even favored abandoning decimal
enumeration--one
of the most frequently cited advantages
of the metric system
--from the proposed reform of the
English system. These
persons called for uniform use of
duodecimal or octonary
scales in metrology; however, they did
not carry the day.62
To popularize the customary system the
institute requested
59 I.S., V, Memorial Number, p. 66.
60 I.S., I, 6. Cited approvingly
was a calculation that in a well regulated machine
shop employing 250 workmen, the cost of
a new outfit, adapted to new measures,
would be not less than $150,000, or $600
per man. Coleman Sellers, "The Metric
System in Our Workshops," in
Franklin Institute, Journal, XCVII (1874), 388.
61 I.S., I, 17-18. See the
"testimonials" in I.S., I, 388-389; II, 185, 634; III,
542-545; IV (January), 52; IV
(March-November), 131-133; O.A.S., Proceedings,
14-16, 47, 137. Noteworthy was a
poll--one of the earliest on the metric
question--taken of physicians and
pharmacists by a Dr. A. C. Matchett and
reported in I.S., IV
(March-November), 202: 48 of those polled were found
to favor the metric system, 6,405
opposed it. Any foreign opposition to the
system was also hailed jubilantly: cited
specifically were England, Norway, and
Germany. I.S., II, 306, 543-547;
III, 79, 261-262; IV (March-November), 271-273.
62 I.S., I, 49-58, 95-101,
168-177; II, 280-292; III, 494-497; IV (March-Novem-
ber), 20-23, 95-96, 308-321.
THE INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE 75
of governors of states information on
state weights and
measures, which data were published in
the journal.63
Countless other arguments attuned to
American idiosyn-
crasies poured forth in opposition to
the metric system. Its
adoption would be undemocratic, since
"the people are almost
universally ignorant of the passage of
the law [of 1866]," and
the "people do not want"
metric reform.64 Its adoption would
run counter to America's future
starring role in history, which
meant that the customary system was the
one destined for
universal adoption. The contention was
that their age-old
metrology was an intrinsic part of the
culture of Anglo-Saxon
peoples; consequently, more widespread
employment of their
weights and measures would inevitably
accompany the grow-
ing British and American economic
superiority in the world.
Charles A. L. Totten claimed that since
these two peoples
mined 69 percent of the world's
minerals and metals, and had
1/2 the industry, 56 percent of the
commerce, 922/1666 of the
textile raw materials, and 2/3 of the
carrying trade, "the truly
international system of metrology,
then, is in fact our Anglo-
Saxon." Another member took an
ethnic approach certain
to appeal to Americans:
The metre has conquered the German and
the Latin States, but we
have the Anglo-Saxon world. We have
England, Australia and Russia.
We have Egypt, too, with its
Pyramid, and India .... And we have
America, whose English civilization will
some day supplant the mongrel
civilization of Spain and Portugal, and
give uniformity of laws, land,
manners, customs and measures to all the
western world. The inch is
mightier than the metre.
Again, it was asked whether the English
customary system
"may not have had something to do
with the making of the
Anglo-Saxon races by far the richest in
the world." The
institute proclaimed, as one of its
objectives, its intention
"to render the Anglo-Saxon weights
and measures, by means
of their preservation and perfection, worthy of
adoption and
63 I.S., III, 61-69.
64 O.A.S.,
Proceedings, 37-38.
76 THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
use in the scientific and commercial
intercourse of the whole
civilized world."65 Appeals
for retention of the English
system continued to be made in the name
of patriotism,
Americanism, anti-foreignism,
traditionalism, conservatism,
and practicality.
The institute also calumniated the
metric campaign. It
questioned the authenticity of
pro-metric petitions of various
organizations, claiming that few of
their members had had an
opportunity to vote on the matter. It
asserted that force was
necessary to compel acceptance of the
metric system in France
"and other despotic Governments of
Europe, in Brazil, and
some few other countries."
Agitation for passage of Ameri-
can pro-metric legislation was made
"by the monarchial
nations, and within this country by
their followers." These
instigators were labeled as "the
avowed atheistic enemies of
the English system, a few importing
merchants on the sea-
board, a few closet philosophers . . .
who . . . prepare text-
books . . . with the metric system, and
a few book publishers
who would like to do the
printing." The institute also con-
demned educators for "ignorantly
trying to force the metric
system upon the youth of the
country." But it especially
singled out the nation's scientists,
"men distinguished for
their attainments as scholars and
ability as aggressors," as
the culprits who were pushing the
campaign "most assidu-
ously, and . . . also insidiously,"
directed toward "bartering
our birthright for a mess of metric
pottage."66
Serving also as valuable propaganda was
the concerted
effort to prove the divinity of the
customary system, through
65 I.S., I, 371-375; II, 132,
377, 616; V, 10-17. Strangely enough, today one of
the main concerns of the International
Bureau of Weights and Measures--com-
mitted, as seen, to the metric
system--is "an excessive utilization of Anglo-Saxon
measures" in metric nations,
induced by the world dominance of the United States
following World War II, and by its
economic and military assistance programs.
This trend, it is feared, might easily
lead to "a hybrid 'system,'" without order
or consistency. Henri Moreau, "Le
Systeme Metrique dans le Monde," Revue de
Metrologie Pratique et Legale, XXXIV (1956), 119-124. Could it be that the
International Institute was more
accurately forecasting the future than metric
advocates?
66 O.A.S., Proceedings, 37; I.S., II, 129; III, 277-279; I,
23, 434; II, 413.
THE INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE 77
the agency of the Great Pyramid, and
therefore, as a metric
advocate complained, to show "that
to prefer any others
[systems] is an act not of folly
merely, but of sin."67 Again
and again the metric system was
identified with atheism, the
English with Christianity. Latimer
stated--as historical
truth--that "the same class of men
who compelled . . .
[metric] adoption [in revolutionary
France] burnt the Bible,
thinking that they could destroy the
Divine evidence of the
origin of our weights and measures by
destroying the book."
He could also aver without a qualm,
"We believe our work
to be of God." Typical of this
religious tactic was the gloomy
appraisal of the contemporary situation
in his country by
the Abbe F. Moigno, canon of the
cathedral of St. Denis of
France, a frequent correspondent with
the institute:
But the revolution has again resumed the
command over France,
and the metre is the mouse brought forth
by the mountain. The metre
which, in its way, is the negation of
holy traditions and of God, will
obviously be swept away. . . . When she
is again the France of God,
and of her Christ, she will repudiate
the metre, and adopt the standard
and first units of mensuration [of the
Great Pyramid]. . . . Glory unto
God Almighty; glory be to His Great
Pyramid.68
Finally, an interesting propaganda
device, designed for the
consumption of the common man, was a
song--an anti-metric
anthem--composed by Totten. It was
called "A Pint's a
Pound the World Around," with a
tune resembling today's
"Rambling Wreck from Georgia
Tech." The last verse and
chorus went as follows:
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!
67 A.M.S., Proceedings, IV, 120-121.
68 I.S., III, 278; I, 5, 60-61.
78
THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
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!69
The International Institute was never
large in numbers.
"At first composed of [Latimer's]
personal friends," it
reached a total listed membership of
680.70 Nevertheless,
quite often so few appeared at the
biweekly meetings that
no business could be transacted; once,
in 1887, even the
annual "convention" was so
poorly attended that it was
postponed for nine days. Actually the
membership was largely
nominal, and included no notable
Americans, even though an
unsuccessful effort was made to include
President James A.
Garfield.71
The organization's financial condition
was none too healthy;
it was barely financially solvent
through most of its existence,
and hardly able to engage in its
limited work. Total receipts
of the institute during its first six
years were but $12,452.69,
total expenditures, $12,451.04.
Receipts included annual mem-
bership dues ($2.00), annual
subscriptions to the Standard
($1.00), and various contributions or
donations, all of which
never sufficed. In a typical year,
1884-85, the foregoing
revenues totaled $767.43, while
$1,361.77 came from the
Witch-Hazel Coal Mine and from
Latimer's private funds.
A perennial feature of the Standard was
a steady stream of
pitiable appeals exhorting members for
payment of dues,
begging for "patron saints,"
and hoping for emulation among
69 I.S., I,
272-274.
70 I.S., V,
Memorial Number, p. 39; IV (January), 52; II, 89.
71 According to Latimer, Garfield was elected first president of the
institute,
"and only declined to accept
because he concluded that, as a member of Congress
[in 1879], he could not properly occupy
that position where he might be called
upon some day to sit as judge, should the question of a
change in our system
of weights and measures come up in
Congress." I.S., I, 63.
THE INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE 79
members by references to Latimer's
personal contributions,
which tended to become more difficult
to make with the
lapse of time. With Latimer's death, a
final appeal came for
funds to carry on the work. They were
not forthcoming.72
What appraisal can be made of the
effectiveness of the
International Institute as an
instrument in the fight over
adoption of the metric system? The
society was certainly
not of the same caliber as the two
concurrent pro-metric
organizations. It was not nearly so
energetically propagan-
distic as the American Metric Bureau,
what with its poorly
attended meetings of Latimer's knot of
friends, their pseudo-
scholarly papers, mostly obscure and
incidental, and their
drab little magazine, esoteric and
wistfully erudite. The
institute had none of the stature or
eminent membership of
the American Metrological Society, nor
did its occultist and
untenable stands on the metric question
challenge this organi-
zation's sound scientific, economic,
and cultural arguments.
Nevertheless, the institute's
anti-metric activities were of
sufficient significance to draw from
supporters of the metric
movement grudging recognition. Thus, in
1880 they lamented
that "the opponents of the metric
system have spoken louder
than its friends of late." In 1883
Frederick Barnard of
Columbia, president of the American
Metrological Society,
confessed that the institute
"during the past three or four
years, has been flooding this country
with its circulars, and
bombarding Congress with its petitions.
This agitation may
not be without some temporary effect,
especially in the way
of scaring politicians, who are always
frightened by clamor
of any kind, whether accompanied by
sense or not."73
Though the metric campaign did indeed
fail, it appears
that such a tribute to the influence of
the institute--echoed
by Latimer's boast in 1887 "that
not a single step has been
gained by our adversary since our
organization in 1879"74--
72 I.S., III, 519; IV
(March-November), 337-338; I, 72; III, 80-81; IV
(January), 53; III, 387-391; V, Memorial
Number, pp. 10, 27, 66-69.
73 A.M.S., Proceedings, II,
193; IV, 120.
74 I.S., V, 25.
80
THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
is unwarranted. Metric advocates faced
far more imposing
impediments than those erected by a
minuscule band of die-
hards and obscurantists: obstacles like
human inertia, the
unwillingness of congress to embark on
new courses until
the populace was either prepared for or
insistent upon them,
fears of the cost of change or of the
inconvenience involved,
and perhaps lack of a truly effective
pro-metric propaganda
drive.
None the less, the institute has
significance in its own right.
As the first anti-metric organization,
it performed the function
of first raising and crystallizing
opposition to this hitherto
unquestionably ameliorative
system. Not that the metric
system had never been criticized
before, and in many of the
same ways.75 But the attack
had never been so scathing, so
all-inclusive, so well-organized. A
veritable campaign was
launched against this system,
and this was the novelty of the
situation. As ammunition in the battle,
the institute employed
every conceivable argument, many coming
from sources
hitherto remote from the public, which,
moreover, were
trumpeted over the land. It called up
every possible bugbear
to help fan an anti-metric hysteria.
With the organization
of the institute, adoption of the
metric system ceased being
merely an academic question, or a
matter on which a decision
would be rendered favorably through
absence of any real
contradiction--in other words, an
inevitable occurrence asso-
ciated with the march of
"Progress." The gauntlet had been
thrown down, and the metric system was
transformed into
a controversial issue, a status which
it has suffered ever since.
But these are long-range effects.
Because of its limited
activities and publications, its
admixture of occult frivolities
75 Especially noteworthy were the
several statements by government officials
and military personnel in opposition to
use of the metric system in government
transactions. See H. R. Report No.
14, 67-122. See also the very critical, anti-
metric Second Report of the Commissioners Appointed
to Inquire into the Con-
dition of the Exchequer (Now Board of
Trade) Standards: On the Question of
the Introduction of the Metric System
of Weights and Measures into the United
Kingdom, in Sessional Papers, 1868-69, XXIII (London,
1869). Both documents,
of course, were often referred to by the
institute.
THE INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE 81
with metric opposition, its absence of
a large contemporary
"press," it is difficult to
determine the specific influence of the
institute on the immediate scene.
Although its role in defeat-
ing the first metric campaign was not
too significant, it is
entirely likely that its attacks on the
metric system induced
some who previously had been confident
of the advantages
and certainty of metric adoption to
grow hesitant, some of the
hesitant to grow doubtful, and some of
the uncommitted to
commit themselves adversely.
A second, more imposing metric campaign
commenced in
the 1890's in Great Britain and the
United States and lasted
into the 1920's. In 1902 a new
opposition arose, first among
American mechanical engineers,76 then
spreading to the manu-
facturers, many of whom were persuaded
that they faced
virtual ruin from the large costs
supposedly involved in mak-
ing a change in metrological systems.
In 1917 the first really
effective anti-metric organization, the
American Institute of
Weights and Measures, was founded by
Frederick A. Halsey
and Samuel S. Dale. In its multifarious
activities and publica-
tions,77 this organization
waged a truly impressive campaign,
which paled by comparison that of the
International Institute.
Was there any connection between the
two anti-metric
campaigns? The answer is elusive, since
no reference to the
earlier one occurs in any of the
voluminous publications and
public statements of the later
antagonists. Certainly the latter
shied away from any occultist grounds
for metric opposition,
76 The two instigators were Frederick A.
Halsey and Samuel S. Dale. See
American Society of Mechanical
Engineers, Transactions, XXIV (1903), 209-211,
397-466, 532-536, 549-579. Halsey and
Dale soon thereafter presented their
arguments in a book, The Metric
Fallacy, and the Metric Failure in the Textile
Industry (New York, 1904). Apparently subsidized by, and its
wide circulation
promoted by, one of the nation's leading
industrial firms (see The Metric System:
Hearings Before a Subcommittee of the
Committee on Manufactures, Senate,
Committee on Manufactures, 67 cong., 1
and 2 sess., 41), this was the most
influential single anti-metric work ever published.
77 Besides various articles contributed
to periodicals, testimonials and prepared
briefs presented at legislative
committee hearings, solicitations of individuals and
firms to the anti-metric cause, and so
forth, members of this society published a
quarterly bulletin, a monthly letter,
several pamphlets and booklets, and an
abundance of miscellaneous printed
matter.
82
THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
relying mostly on practical and
economic positions. Never-
theless, quite a few of the specific
arguments and propaganda
techniques employed by the
International Institute found
repetition in the later campaign. In
fact, some of the very
terminology--and approach--of the
institute had earlier made
its way into the book by Halsey and
Dale:
Anglo-Saxon nations are blessed with
substantial uniformity of
weights and measures, while others are
cursed with a confusion that
is a reproach to their civilization. . .
. In true French style the remedy
was sought not in evolution but in
revolution, and the result was the
metric system. . . . The offspring of
revolution, it has remained the
foster child of force. . . . With their
system of weights and measures as
a foundation, the English-speaking
peoples have built up the greatest
commercial and industrial structure the
world has known. . . . Shall all
these be destroyed for this French fad?78
Interesting also is the fact that the
same name--"Institute"
-- was used to designate both
anti-metric organizations,
although here again the later group
acknowledged no debt to
the former.79 The conclusion
seems probable that the later
metric antagonists were familiar with
the International Insti-
tute, profited by whatever was found
useful in its example,
but, in what might be termed a
"conspiracy of silence," chose
not to admit their indebtedness, no
doubt because they realized
that the many aberrations of Latimer
and his associates
might well have tended to discredit the
anti-metric cause.
Nevertheless, the contribution of the
first institute seems
clear.
Strangely enough, reference to the
International Institute
78 The Metric Fallacy, 11-12.
79 Metric
advocates revealed their ignorance of the previous existence of the
International Institute by their charge
that the later American Institute "deliber-
ately [chose its name] to give the
impression that it had some official status [in the
American government]; the selection of
the title of 'Commissioner' for the
Secretary tends to confirm this
idea." The Decimal Educator: The Official Organ
of the Decimal Association (London), II, 274.
THE INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE 83
has entirely escaped all histories of
the metric system,80 as
well as histories of metrology.81
In view of its influence,
elusive as it may be, it is felt that
the International Institute
deserves some recognition in the story
of the metric system
and the campaigns for its acceptance.
Finally, in advancing
reasons for the failure of the United
States to join the parade
of nations in adopting this
"international" system, perhaps
the International Institute merits some
measure of credit.
80 See, for example, G. Bigourdan, Le
Systeme Metrique des Poids et Mesures:
Son Etablissement et Sa Propagation
Graduelle (Paris, 1901); Hallock and
Wade, Outlines of the Evolution of
Weights and Measures; Gustave Tallent,
Histoire du Systeme Metrique (Paris, 1910); Alfred Perot, The Decimal Metric
System: Foundation, International
Organization, Future Development (Paris,
1915); J. T. Johnson, ed., The Metric
System of Weights and Measures
(Twentieth Yearbook of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, New
York, 1948), 22-50; Henri Moreau, trans.
by Ralph E. Oesper, "The Genesis of
the Metric System and the Work of the
International Bureau of Weights and
Measures," Journal of Chemical
Education, XXX (1953), 3-20.
81 See, for example, Charles Edouard
Guillaume, Unites et Etalons (Paris,
1893); William Ridgeway, The Origin
of Metallic Currency and Weight Standards
(Cambridge, Eng., 1892); Hallock and
Wade, Outlines of the Evolution of
Weights and Measures; Edward Nicholson, Men and Measures: A History of
Weights and Measures Ancient and
Modern (London, 1912); A. E. Berriman,
Historical Metrology: A New Analysis of the
Archaeological and Historical
Evidence Relating to Weights and Measures
(London, 1953). In fact, the only
reference to the institute since the
turn of the century that the author has been
able to find anywhere occurs in Gardner,
Fads and Fallacies, 179-180, where, in
a brief allusion to the society's pyramidism, only the
barest mention is made of
its anti-metricalism.
The International Institute:
First Organized Opposition
To the Metric System
By EDWARD F. Cox*
SWEEPING AROUND THE GLOBE in the nineteenth century
was a new reform bidding for universal
acceptance: the
metric system of weights and measures.
Coming into a world
burdened with a fantastic metrological
diversity, it arose in
answer to the articulate needs of an
emerging modern science,
an expanding world economy of commerce
and industry, and a
growing trend of international
cooperation. Although in-
tended primarily to give France a
national metrological uni-
formity, the system was christened by
the scientists who
devised it during the French
Revolution, A tous les temps, a
tous les pecuples. To accord with its hoped-for destiny of uni-
versality, these philosophes based
their system on a standard
taken directly from nature, that is, a
quadrant of a meridian
of the earth; they made its units of
length, weight, and
capacity interconnected; they placed
its divisions and multiples
on the decimal scale. Thus possessed of
the characteristics
of invariability, commensurability,
consistency, and ease of
calculation, the metric system could be
expected to anticipate
nothing but a bright future. And soon
after the premature
first adoption of the new system by
France (1799), glow-
ingly favorable appraisals rose from
other lands. John Play-
fair, Scottish mathematician and
geologist, in 1807 declared,
"The system adopted by the French,
if not absolutely the
* Edward F. Cox is professor of history
at Bethel College, McKenzie, Tennessee.