Technikatörténeti szemle 10. (1978)

A MÉRÉS ÉS A MÉRTÉKEK AZ EMBER MŰVELŐDÉSÉBEN című konferencián Budapesten, 1976. április 27–30-án elhangzott előadások II. - Zupkor, R. E.: A méterrendszer az Egyesült Államokban

on at least twelve occasions. The first phase, thus, of America's attempt at metric adoption, beginning in 1790 and terminating about 1820, ended on a dismal note. There were several outstanding reasons for these Congressional failures. First, both the English Imperial and French metric plans did not look promising in the 1790's. British ministers and parliamentary committee members were unsure of whether their recommendations would be accepted on anything other than an experimental basis. As it happened, it was not until 1824 that the Imperial system could be enacted into law. The French plan was legalized officially in 1795 and its standards constructed by 1799, but, by the end of the decade, there was serious resistance to the new system. In fact, use of the system did not spread throughout France, nor was it accepted, for many years. Continued resistance necessitated the issuance of a consular decree in 1800 which reestablished the old names of lieue, livre, once, perche, toise, etc., while retaining those of the meter and decimal division. For 12 years France had two systems of weights and measures operating side by side. In order to ease the difficulties of the changeover, Napoleon issued a decree in 1812 which established as optional a system of measurements based upon the metric system that utilized such divisions and multiples as would make the new units approximately those of the old system. To the units of this newest system—called the Systeme Vsuel—the old terms were applied. It was not until 1837 that a law abolished this makeshift, intermediate arrangement. It was ordered that as of January 1, 1840, use of weights and measures other than those of the metric system would be a penal offense. Hence, the difficulties faced in both England and France in their own metro logical reformations made Congress reluctant to invest time and money in detouring abruptly the course of American weights and measures history. Second, there were serious and complicated diplomatic entanglements involved in this issue. As early as 1790 the French government, upon the request of CharlesMaurice Talleyrand, had invited the United States to join forces with her to adopt jointly the new metrological order and to give an international flavor to the metric system. A similar appeal was proffered to the English prime minister. In the case of England the response—perhaps one of the most shortsighted governmental opinions of the eighteenth century—was that the French plan was considered impractical" and doomed to failure.

8 To the English at this time the metric system was far too radical a departure from tradition largely due to its total decimalization of units and to its complete reliance upon the measurement of the quadrant of the earth's meridian for establishing the standard of linear measure.

9 The Americans, on the other hand, were on the verge of another war with England and it was popularly believed that the acceptance of the French plan—especially as enunciated in the long and scholarly report of John Quincy Adams made when he was secretary of state to James Madison—would aggravate an already volatile situation.

10 The United States did not want to further antagonize England by accepting the French metric system, especially in view of the fact that the English were still incensed over French aid to the Americans during the Revolutionary War. As a result of these governmental, scientific, and diplomatic snags, the first phase of American metrological history ended with no kind of a reform movement initiated at all. Even the existing, pre-Imperial system of weights and measures was not restructured.