About thirty years ago, the Americans took it into serious consideration whether they should adopt the ready-made scale of France entire. On that occasion (1821), Mr John Quincy Adams produced a most elaborate report to Congress, containing an immense amount of information on the subject of metrology. He found great fault with the French nomenclature, so puzzling to the unlearned. 'Give the people,' said he, 'but their accustomed _words_, and they will call 16 a dozen; 120, 112, or any other number, a hundred.' He disapproved, likewise, of thrusting the decimal principle upon things incompatible with it. 'Decimal arithmetic,' said he, 'is a contrivance of man for computing numbers, and not a property of time, space, or matter. It belongs essentially to the keeping of accounts, but is merely an incident to the transactions of trade. Nature has no partiality for the number 10; and the attempt to shackle her freedom with them [decimal gradations], will for ever prove abortive.' And again: 'To the mensuration of the surface and the solid, the number 10 is of little more use than any other. If decimal arithmetic is incompetent to give the dimensions of most artificial forms, the square and the cube, still more incompetent is it to give the circumference, the area, and the contents of the circle and the sphere.' And once more: 'The new metrology of France, after trying the principle of decimal division in its almost universal application, has been compelled to renounce it for all the measures of astronomy, geography, navigation, time, the circle, and the sphere; to modify it even for superficial and cubical linear measure.' The conclusion of the Americans was, that it was better to continue the use of the system of weights and measures inherited from the father-land. Partly on account of our intimate commercial relations with them, they are content to wait, and allow us to take the lead in the work of reform.