The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1895-04-17
FOR NATIONAL REGULATION.

The system of weights and meas
ures in general use in this country
ought not to be disturbed by state
changes and regulations. If one or a
few states adopt a different system to
that in vogue. confusion will be Gre
alted by the conflict between the old
system and the new. Interstate COM
merce requires uniformity for mutual
convenience, and this cannot be main
tanned if two conflicting standards
are in use.
Whatever merits may attach. to the
metric system, which some enthusi-
astic people are endeavoring to make
obligatory in Utah by incorporation
In the state constitution, it ought not
TO be attempted by one state alone, or
BY a number of them. without its &C
ceptance by the rest of the states. 1t
should therefore be a matter of ma
tional and not state arrangement.
Under the Constitution of the United
States it becomes the province and
the duty of the Congress to regulate
the standard of weights and meas
lu,es, just as it is to coin money. The
constitution does not provide directly
for either the coinage of money or the
fixing Of the standard of weights and
measures, but imposes those duties
upon Congress. They are not matters
Of constitutional provision but Of
statutory law.
Congress has fixed the standard of
weights and measures in this country
as we'll as the coin standard. But
permission is given to- establish the
metric system, and it may he law
fully used. Yet it has not superseded
the old system, although it has been
lawful to use it for a great many
years. But the last Congress made
provision for a committee to dnVesu-
gate and report upon the propriety OF
establishing the metric system. IL
consists of The Secretary of the Treas
,,rv the Director of the Mint, and the
Director of THE Coast Survey. This
committee is to report at the next ses-
sion of Congress.
That being the case, IS it not better
for our constitution makers TO leave
this matter entirely alone? Indeed,
would it not be folly to NEEDLE with It,
seeing that it really belongs to the
national legislature rather than the
state legislatures? 1t is a question OF
national concern. It affects the bust
ness of the whole country. If one
state adopted the metric system and
others continued the old system, it
needs no argument to show what con-
fusion would. in the nature OF things, |
be the inevitable result.
AS long ago as 1917 Congress took
this question UP, and a committee or
one was appointed to investigate and
report upon it. John Quincy Adams
was that committee. The report was
not rendered until four years after
wards, as he took time to inquire into
the question fully. 1t was not favor
able to the change, the chief reason
being the confusion that it would oc-
casion.
That, however, is no argument
against the adoption Of the system
now. The nation is much further ad-
vanced in every respect, and what was
nexpedient three-fourths of century
1RO may DS tAQCQ1CAiI anu 1SAASAASAe~&
now. That the metric system IS in
most respects better and simpler than
the old method. is clear. 1t is now
more a question Of uniformity than of
The relative merits Of the two systems.
In urging, therefore. that the con-
vention will not yield to the persua-
,ions of the metric men, we do not
,ffer objections to the metric system
IN its merits. But we do not want to
zee Utah meddling with something
hat properly belongs to national legis-
alton, nor attempting to establish
system which will complicate business
iffairs, cause unnecessary expense and
.reate great confusion.
Leave the local question to the local
legislature. 1t is probable that Con-
,ress will at some time fix the metric
ystem as the NATIONAL standard of
Weights and measures. when 1t will be-
ome practical because universal. If ii