Ohio History Journal

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 founded^21--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.