THE 
METRIC SYSTEM 
J. F. BALDWIN, M. D. 
COLUMBUS, 
PROFESSOR OF ANATOMY, COLUMBUS MEDICAL COLLEGE, 
r&am*'BEFORE THE 
OHIO ST ATE MEDICAL SOCIET V, 
June 30, 1879. 
COLUMBUS, O.: / 
Cott & Flann* Book Printers. THE METRIC SYSTEM 
-BY- 
J. F. BALDWIN, M. D. 
COLUMBUS, 
PROFESSOR OF ANATOMY, COLUMBUS MEDICAL COLLEGE. THE METRIC SYSTEM, 
-BY- 
J. F. BALDWIN, M. D., 
COLUMBUS, 
PROFESSOR OF ANATOMY, COLUMBUS MEDICAL COLLEGE. 
[NOTElmmediately upon the opening of the session of the Society, a 
number of Charts were suspended, by the Secretary, conspicuously upon the 
walls of the hall, and a quantity of tracts, entitled ; “The Metric System in a 
Nutshell,” and “Why should we Use the Metric Systen?”, were placed by 
him upon the seats: both the charts and the tracts had been furnished him, 
with the request that they be thus used, by the Metric Bureau, of Boston, 
Mass. The Society met, there being an unusually large attendance. The 
charts were examined, the tracts read. An hour before the close of the last 
day's session, and while the attendance was probably as full as at any time 
during the entire session, the following resolution was introduced; 
Resolved: That the Metric System of weights and measures be hereafter 
used, in expressing all measurements, in the printed Transactions of this 
Society ; that all members presenting papers be requested to use this system 
in such papers; and that the individual members be requested to use this 
system in their practice. 
An opportunity for remarks being offered, the writer arose, not to oppose, 
nor yet to advocate, the system, but simply to present the subject in such a 
manner that the members might vote intelligently. 
A.t the conclusion of his remarks, which were received by the members 
with the closest attention, and with repeated indications of approbation, Dr. 
Hyatt,* of Delaware, said that he entirely approved of every word that had 
been spoken : it was just such a speech as he had wanted to have made, and 
he was satisfied that it was from lack of just such speeches that other State 
Societies, and the American Medical Association had been led to nominally 
approve of and adopt this system. Wherever it had been thus adopted, in 
this country, it had, as he had predicted, brought confusion. He had exam- 
ined the system for himself, and was opposed to it. 
of Materia Medica, Columbus Medical College. 4 
Dr. Herrick,* of Cleveland, said that lie had been highly pleased with the 
gentleman’s rema.rks ; that they were very opportune, and just what he him- 
self had felt like making, but lacked the necessary facts and figures. He 
moved “that the speaker be requested to embody his remarks in writing, as 
nearly as may be as he has delivered them, and that the article thus made be 
printed in the Transactions.” This motion was amended by Dr. Pratt, of Mt. 
Sterling, by adding that “ in order that the paper may not be buried in the 
Transactions, copies be sent by the Secretary to the medical journals, with 
the request to publish.” Amendment, and motion as amended, were both 
carried unanimously. 
, The question then being upon the original resolution, it was decided unan- 
imously in the negative; unanimously, not merely because no one voted for 
it, but because every one voted against it. 
In compliance with the request of the Society, the following article has 
been prepared, with a strict adherence to the spirit, and, so far as may be, to 
the letter of the delivery.] 
I wish to occupy your attention but a very few moments. 
Resolutions similar to the one just offered here, have, as 
you know, been adopted by the American Medical Asso- 
ciation, by a number of State Societies, and by numerous 
local organizations. We are now asked to adopt the same. 
Before the vote is taken, however, I wish, in order that 
each one may vote intelligently, to explain briefly what 
this system is, and just what is implied in its adoption. 
In the course of my remarks, I shall frequently draw from 
a paper on the Metric System, in the April number of the 
Popular Science Monthly. 
The metric system is based on the meter. When the 
meter was agreed upon as the unit, it was supposed to be, 
by actual measurement, one ten-millionth of a quadrant of 
the terrestrial meridian of Paris. The men who had 
charge of this survey, had the audacity to suppose that 
their instruments were accurate, and that they could use 
them with accuracy. They forgot that accuracy is an at- 
tribute of Infinity, and not of the finite. The first survey 
was, as was to have been expected, soon pronounced in- 
correct, and therefore the meter, being no longer an exact 
subdivision of anything, lost at once its claims as a scien- 
tific standard, and became as much an arbitrary unit as our 
familiar yard. This unscientific and arbitrary unit equals 
39.37079 inches, plus. This is the unit of length. 
The unit of weight—the gram—is the weight of a cubic 
centimeter (hundredth of a meter) of water. This equals 
15.43234874 grains, plus. 
-Professor of Principles of Surgery, Medical Department University of 
Wooster. 5 
The unit of capacity—the liter—is the cube of a deci- 
meter (tenth of a meter). This holds 2.1134908 pints, 
plus. 9 
The unit of space—the stere—is a cubic meter, and 
equals 35.386636 cubic feet, plus. 
The unit of land measure—the hectare—is ten thousand 
square meters, and equals 2.47114 acres, plus. 
• The commercial unit of weight is the kilogram (one 
thousand grams), and equals 2.20462125 pounds avoirdu- 
pois, plus. 
The significant “plus ” connected with each of these 
units, not only shows that there is nothing in common be- 
tween the two systems, but also serves to indicate the 
feeling of incompleteness, of uncertainty, of inaccuracy, 
which must attend all attempts at reducing one into the 
other. , But I will return to this point further on. 
Before passing to the consideration of the practical as- 
pect of the question, I wish to speak briefly of its theory : 
In the first paragraph of one of the tracts, of which you 
have all received copies, /am quoted as saying that, “ In 
commerce, where we are dealing with large quantities, and 
where long columns of figures, whether expressing weights, 
measures, or money, must be added up, and the amount 
multiplied, divided, or otherwise treated as an arithmetical 
factor, the metric system is a perfect marvel of elegance 
and symplicity. ” (That the writer of this tract calls me 
“the most virulently conservative exponent of the vis in- 
ertias of egoism, ”is not pertinent to the question. Epi- 
thets are not arguments.) This ‘‘ elegance and simplicity, ” 
however, are due to the decimal character of the system, 
and not to the meter. But in the writing of prescriptions, 
each quantity stands by itself and is subject to no further 
arithmetical processes, and hence even the decimal system 
here possesses no advantage over the other. Decimals 
are advantageous in large transactions, but are unnatural 
in small ones. 
We are told that the adoption of this system will “save 
a full year of the school life of every child.” That state- 
ment, gentlemen, I think is one of those glittering gener- 
alities which you will find scattered throughout these tracts, 
and which will not bear rigid scrutiny. The adoption of 
this system will serve to simplify Compound Numbers, and 
some problems in Mensuration ; no more, no less, I have 6 
taught school: many of you have taught school; I have 
talked with teachers on this subject, and I have only this 
to say: that, although this is a Boston tract, andj am not 
prepared to vouch for Boston teachers or Boston pupils, 
yet, so far as Ohio teachers and Ohio pupils are concerned, 
one quarter of this time is ample. But suppose it does re- 
quire a year, what of it? We study Latin and Greek at 
College for five or six years : not because we expect to 
use those languages in practical life, but because their 
study gives us that discipline of mind, that culture and 
training, which shall serve us so well in after life. I have 
children that I must educate, and I would not, for the 
world, deprive them of that “year of school life,” which is 
to develop and train their reasoning faculties by their thor- 
ough mastering of Compound Numbers. 
Again: this Bureau tells us that. 
“In iB6O the foreign business of the United States 
equalled $792,000,000.* Of this, $700,000,000 was with 
nations using the metric system, and that, too, before 
Germany had adopted it.” Yet I find, from the report of 
the Chief of the Bureau of Statistics on Commerce, that our 
business in that year with Great Britain and her Provinces 
alone amounted to over $416,000,000, while in 1878, with 
a total of $1,132,000,000, our British transactions alone 
amounted to over $630,000,000. 
This Bureau tells us that ‘ ‘ every civilized nation has 
adopted it, except Russia and Pmgland.” Yet from the 
report of the chief of engineers we learn that Switzerland, 
Sweden, Denmark, and Austria have not adopted it. 
This Bureau tells us that “It is exclusively used by the 
U. S. coast survey.” Yet the Secretary of the Navy re 
ports that the adoption of the system would cause a total 
loss of all the charts and chart-plates, now in use, and 
would also prevent that free exchange of charts with Eng- 
land which now exists and which is so essential to our navi- 
gators. 
This Bureau tells us that “in England it is legalized, 
and makes annual progress in the British Parliament.” 
Yet by act of Parliament of last winter, the system has 
been, since January first, not only not legal, but absolutely 
//-legal, in England. This may be progress—real progress, 
but it is not the kind meant by this Bureau, nor the kind 
which it loves to herald. Indeed, it will probably not an 7 
nounce this adverse fact at all; any more than, should this 
society decline to adopt the system, it would candidly 
publish that fact also. 
The truth is, gentlemen, this Metric Bureau seems much 
more anxious to introduce the system, than to arrive at 
the mere truth; and we may well look with some degree 
of suspicion upon the boasted disinterestedness of these 
notoriously thrifty Bostonians, when we find them found- 
ing their strongest arguments on statements that, to say 
the least, seem carelessly, if not scrupulously, inexact. 
Practically now, what will be the consequences of the 
proposed adoption ? The consequences so far as the gen- 
eral public is concerned, may be summed up briefly as fol- 
lows ; 
i. The new units are not, in most respects, as conveni- 
ent as our old ones, while the subdivisions are unnatural. 
We naturally divide into halves, quarters, etc., but never 
into tenths. 
2. Our commercial relations with Great Britain, which 
are of paramount importance to us, will be seriously inter- 
fered with. 
3 All our charts and chart-plates, which have been ob- 
tained at such an immense outlay, must be thrown aside, 
and all exchange of charts with England must at once 
cease. 
4. A radical change must be made in the putting up of 
packages, which are now sold, ready-packed, in pound or 
ounce, or yard or foot, packages. 
5. In manufacture, all our guages, dies, lathes, screws, 
augers, chisels, machinery of every description, are made 
with the inch as the standard. All this must be changed, 
and at a cost of much money and confusion. 
6. But it is land measurements that the most dire confu- 
sion will manifest itself. We buy and sell land, by the 
front foot in cities, by the acre in the country. All our 
deeds and mortgages must be overhauled, the measure- 
ment by chains, &c., rectified, and the contents, in the 
one case, obtained by dividing the number of acres by 
2.47114+ (the hectare,) and, in the other case,the frontage 
obtained by reducing our present measurements, in feet, 
to inches, and dividing by 39.37079+ (the meter). In- 
stead of a lot with a frontage of 60 feet, there will be a 
frontage of 18.287669614 + meters; that “+” repre- 8 
senting a column of figures extending, like Banquo’s mir- 
rored descendants, “to'the crack o’ doom,” and furnishing 
ample ground for many a legal Shylock to hang a case 
upon. 
While this system would answer in the laying out of new 
lots and farms, the attempt to use it in already settled 
communities, can but result in inextricable confusion and 
interminable law suits. Yet all this is implied in the 
adoption of the system. 
/So much for general considerations, in which all are 
equally interested. Now for considerations of a more 
special nature, embracing the medical aspect of the case. 
It is claimed for this system that its adoption (i) will se- 
cure un iformity with the metric nations; (2) will from its 
so-called greater simplicity—as it has but a single unit, the 
gram—cause fewer mistakes in writing and filling prescrip- 
tions; and (3), according to no less an authority than the 
N. Y. Medical Record, will prove convenient in calculating 
and altering formulas. 
This last advantage can hardly be regarded as other 
than fanciful. The formula given, by the journal alluded 
to,(and which, by the way, is metrically incorrect,) was de- 
signed to show how easy it is to alter a metric prescription 
for an adult into one for a child. Of course they may do 
these things differently in New York, but we of Ohio, I 
take it, are not in the habit usually of getting up an elab- 
orate prescription for the head of the house, and then 
modifying the same for the junior members by the “ rule 
of three.” 
As to the matter of uniformity, we differ from the na- 
tions of Continental Europe in language, literature, laws, 
customs and politics; is it of very grave importance that 
we shall not differ from them in pharmacy ? But in a mat- 
ter of this kind, it will certainly be considered fair—since 
we are the ones interested—to resort to the argumentum 
ad hominent:—How many members of the Ohio State 
Medical Society, or of any other State Society, or even of 
the American Medical Association, read French or German 
medical periodicals, or other medical works, in the original ? 
How many will travel in those countries ? How many, 
finally, will know, or care, whether one system or the other 9 
is in use in those countries? We read English and Ameri- 
can books and journals, and these use the old system. 
This is the practical, and the only correct, way to look at 
this question: will uniformity benefit the mass of the pro- 
fession ? Will it benefit you and me ? Or is this simply 
another glittering generality, designed merely to catch the 
unthinking ? 
Finally, as to the vaunted simplicity of this system : 
It has, so far as we as physicians are directly concerned, 
but a single unit—the gram—which, as I have already 
said, equals 15.43234874 grains, plns. This is the unit, 
whether we prescribe powders or liquids; for, says 
German Pharmacopeia, “ Mensuris nunquam, sed semper 
ponderibus liquorum quantitas indicanda et determinanda 
est. ” This is the method used by Continental physicians, 
and is the method which we must use if we would be uni- 
form with them. This is the method advocated by* the 
New York Record and by the Boston Metric Bureau. The 
Chicago Medical Journal and Examiner, however, is cham- 
pioning a “system” in which liquids are prescribed by 
volume instead of weight: while in Philadelphia it is pro- 
posed to use a “ system ” in which all quantities, of both 
solids and liquids, shall be expressed by weight, and then, 
in order that there may be a certain and assured volume 
for bed-side administration (in “ teaspoonful ” and “ table- 
spoonful ” doses, etc.), enough simple syrup, or other 
menstruum, is added to make a certain quantity by volume. 
We thus have presented to us three different “ systems,” 
each “metric” in name, each, probably, good enough of 
its kind, yet, altogether, threatening us with a condition of 
most undesirable confusion. 
Again : I have already mentioned the feeling of inexact- 
ness which must accompany the attempt to change doses 
from the old system into the new, owing to the fact that 
there is nothing in common between the two. We are 
told that we may regard §j as equal to 30.00 grams—an 
error of four per cent.; grs. xv as equal to 1.00 gram—an 
error of three per cent. ; and gr. j as equal to six centi- 
grams (0.06)—an error of eight per cent. This feeling 
that we are giving about so much of each drug, is not a 
particularly pleasant one. 
If we adopt the “system” in use in Europe, we must 
prescribe everything by weight. In writing a prescription, we determine first the size of the dose we will give, and 
next the number of doses. The first, multiplied by the 
second, gives us the amount to be set down in the pre- 
scription. It becomes necessary to know the bulk that 
the mixture will make, in order that we may know how 
many doses, of a teaspoonful or tablespoonful each, it will 
make. If the same weight, as an ounce, of all liquids 
gave us the same bulk, there would be no difficulty in pre- 
scribing by weight. But as such is not the case, as the 
relative weight—the specific gravity—must be taken into 
account, it becomes necessary to know the specific gravity 
of each liquid prescribed, in order to prescribe accurately. 
For illustration : according to Prof. Maisch—one of the 
editors of the National Dispensatory, the specific gravity of 
ether is .750; ether fortior, .720; spir. etheris comp., 
.815; spir. etheris nit., .837; glycerine, 1.25; syrups, 
1.317 ; chloroform, 1.48 ; while the fluid extracts vary so 
widely that “no reliable rule can be given for their relative 
proportion of weight to volume.” 
But we are told by these Bureau tracts that “not 
enough chloroform or ether is included in any one pre- 
scription ” to do any harm, even if the weight is not con- 
sidered ; while infusions and tinctures (and, presumably, 
fluid extracts) ‘ ‘ may be regarded as identical in weight 
with water,” and the glycerines and syrups “ as one-third 
heavier.” 
These again are glittering generalities; now for a few 
practical and bare particulars : 
The New York Medical Record, to the prominent posi- 
tion of which, as a leader among medical journals, I need 
not allude, some two years ago, strongly advocated the 
adoption of this system. It gave a formula to illustrate 
the simplicity of the system, in which, owing to its neg- 
lect of this matter of the weight of syrups, it made an er- 
ror, according to this rule of the Bureau—the rule itself, 
however, being, at least practically, erroneous—of not less 
than percent. And this error was made, too, by a 
writer who had investigated the subject sufficiently to write 
four consecutive articles upon it i If a leader in the profes- 
sion is liable to thus err in using the system, what will not 
the rank and file do when they come to use it ? 
The Record regarded 30. grams of syrup as making a 
fluid ounce ; the Bureau tells us it takes 40. grams; the 11 
Chicago Medical Journal and Examiner, in its standing head, 
tells us it takes 43. grams. Now how is this, practically? 
I have tested the syrups, as prepared for dispensing by six 
of the principal druggists of Columbus, taking four syrups 
in each case, and I found that the heaviest specimen 
weighed grams to the ounce, and the lightest 
grams; the average weight being 36.6 grams. The 
extremes were found in the same syrup—tolu. So, if we 
of Columbus adopt the Bureau rule, we have an error of 
nearly 10 per cent., while the Chicago rule would cause an 
error of 17% per cent. 
In truth, gentlemen, the degree of ignorance betrayed 
by, at least some of, those who are “adopting” this sys- 
tem, is marvelous, is pitiable, is disgraceful. Thus the 
New Orleans Medical and Surgical Journal tells us that: 
“ In future, The Medical Tribune will employ the metric system 
in its formulas and calculations. The civilized world has gener- 
ally adopted it, and we propose to continue with that class of the 
human race. It is high time to do away with the scruples, 
drachms and ounces, and the confusing ciphers ( 3 o ) of apothe- 
caries’ weight. The unit of weight is the gram, equivalent to 
15.433 grains. The half-dime token (nickel) weighs a gram, 
and is a metre (39.369 inches) in diameter. Contributors report- 
ing cases or formulas, will help us by conforming to the new 
scale.” 
The Toledo Medical and Surgical Journal, coptf^-this 
without a word of comment. 
We have here then the humiliating spectacle of Irfer-ge 
medical journals telling us that the familiar “nickel” 
is over a yard in diameter, and that it weighs 15 grains (+); 
when, as as a matter of fact, it weighs almost exactly five 
times fifteen grains. Suppose some doctor or druggist 
should undertake to dispense some powerful drug, using 
the nickel at a gram weight! Perhaps some of these 
erudite editors, who have done away with the old familiar 
“confusing ciphers,” have already tried it. If so, they 
should give us the benefit of their experience. 
One patient has been already killed by this system— 
grams of laudanum being dispensed when centigrams had 
been prescribed ; and a prominent Broadway [N. Y.) drug 
store put up in four powders, six decigrams of morphia, in- 
stead of six centigrams as written—making each powder 12 
contain grains, instead of grain. Fortunately, the 
doctor discovered the mistake. 
Two years ago I wrote; “The adoption of the metric 
system will give us confusion worse confounded.’” Was 
I, or was I not, correct? 
But, you may ask, are not these objections largely theo- 
retical ; and will we not, as we come to use the system, 
find all the objections to vanish, and that the system is 
really as simple as its advocates would have us think it is ? 
I reply ; I have used the metric system, as it is used in 
Europe—prescribing everything by weight, for over a year. 
How many prescriptions I have written in it, I do not 
know. I am, I believe, the only physician in Columbus who 
uses it, and about a dozen of the principal druggists have 
felt the necessity of supplying themselves with the weights ; 
which they have, in most if not all cases, obtained from 
this thrifty bureau. 
During this time, I have made no mistakes in the writ- 
ing of prescriptions; several errors have occurred in the 
filling, but none of a serious nature. 
The principal trouble I have had has been in the feeling 
of uncertainty when prescribing liquids, as to what would 
be the bulk of the resulting mixture. The familiar “g. s. 
ad —,” of the old method, sufficed to make the mixture 
equal a certain bulk ; but the new system, at least as used 
in France and Germany, has no such convenient device. 
Not only does the difference in specific gravity lead to in- 
accuracy, but the various solids that are added also effect 
the bulk, to a greater or less degree ; so that it is impossible 
to predict, with anything like the degree of accuracy de- 
sired, the amount of medicine the patient will get. 
This inaccuracy may be but a mere bagatelle to the vision- 
ary and transcendental Bostonian, but to myself it has 
always been a source of very uncomfortable solicitude, 
and I judge that I am not alone in this, since our friend 
Dr. X. C. Scott,* of Cleveland, who I am sorry was called 
home suddenly last evening, told me in conversation yes- 
terday that after using the metric system for three years, 
while pursuing his studies in Europe, he was glad to return 
to a country where he could use the more reliable methods 
of the old system. 
"'Professor of Ophthalmology, Cleveland Medical College. 13 
If we adopt the Chicago metric system, and use cubic 
centimeters for all liquids, the objection on the ground of 
inaccuracy will no longer hold. But this method will at 
once destroy that uniformity with Europe, which, to my 
mind, constitutes the only real argument, weak as it is, in 
favor of this system. 
So far as my experience goes, then, the metric system 
possesses no advantage over our old method of writing 
prescriptions, (save the scarcely tangible one of uniformity 
with Europe,) while it does possess several manifest and 
even obtrusive disadvantages. 
In conclusion, gentlemen, I thank you for the close at- 
tention which you have given me, and for the manifest in- 
terest you take in this matter. Ido not want to be regard- 
ed as an advocate: what I have said I have tried to say in 
all fairness. I want merely that you shall vote intelligent- 
ly on this question. 
Let resolutions, relating to some matter about which the 
members know little, and, therefore, to which they feel no 
special or personal opposition, be presented to any conven- 
tion, in a neat, well turned, plausible speech, and the 
chances are a thousand to one that those resolutions will 
be “adopted” unanimously. I, therefore, want discus- 
sion, fair and earnest, that whatever action this Society 
takes, we may be able to defend it. 
The question is fairly before you. Will you abandon 
the old system, which has stood the test of a thousand 
years, or will you not? Will you adopt the new system, 
which, as spasmodically and hastily “adopted” by other 
bodies, is bringing such confusion, or will you not? Or 
will you, finally, await the action of some calm, delibera- 
tive, authoritative body—such as the Pharmacopeial Conven- 
tion—which shall decide what is best, and, if a change 
shall seem desirable, when and how it shall be accom- 
plished ? Says Bacon, “ Stand upon the ancient way, and 
look about to discover what is the best way.”