The first, I presume, is intended as a basis for the adoption of that alternative of the report on measures and weights, which proposed retaining the present system, and fixing its several parts by a reference to a rod vibrating seconds, under the circumstances therein explained: and to fulfil its object, I think the resolutions there proposed should be followed by this; ‘that the standard by which the said measures of length, surface, and capacity shall be fixed, shall be an uniform cylindrical rod of iron, of such length, as in latitude forty-five degrees, in the level of the ocean, and in a cellar or other place of uniform natural temperature, shall perform its vibrations in small and equal arcs, in one second of mean time, and that rain-water be the substance, to some definite mass of which the said weights shall be referred.’ Without this, the committee employed to prepare a bill on those resolutions, would be uninstructed as to the principle by which the Senate mean to fix their measures of length, and the substance by which they will fix their weights. The second motion is a middle proposition between the first and the last alternatives in the report. It agrees with the first in some of the present measures and weights, and with the last, in compounding and dividing them decimally. If this should be thought best, I take the liberty of proposing the following alterations of these resolutions. 2nd. For ‘metal’ substitute ‘iron.’ The object is to have one determinate standard. But the different metals having different degrees of expansibility, there would be as many different standards as there are metals, were that generic term to be used. A specific one seems preferable, and ‘iron ‘the best, because the least variable by expansion. 3rd. I should think it better to omit the chain of 66 feet, because it introduces a series which is not decimal, viz. 1. 66. 80. and because it is absolutely useless. As a measure of length, it is unknown to the mass of our citizens; and if retained for the purpose of superficial measure, the foot will supply its place, and fix the acre as in the fourth resolution. 4th. For the same reason I propose to omit the words ‘or shall be ten chains in length and one in breadth.’ 5th. This resolution would stand better, if it omitted the words ‘shall be one foot square, and one foot and twenty cents of a foot deep, and,’ because the second description is perfect, and too plain to need explanation. Or if the first expression be preferred, the second may be omitted, as perfectly tautologous.