the reduction in value of the unit would put the whole AngloSaxon world in line (quarter-shilling-mark, practically or with slight adjustment), and what is far more, it would be an important lesson to the masses in domestic economy. Four marks may not quite equal one dollar, but it sounds bigger and we should be more careful in spending it. Experto crede. 10. The fundamental measurement is of length, and the most important of all units is the linear. The hunt for a natural unit of length is to be sure a very interesting and instructive one, especially inspiring when led on by such "winged hounds of Zeus" as Maxwell and Thompson. As for practical results, however, it is a kind of red-fox chase, yielding much fun but little fur. It is in vain that the meter professes to be the ten-millionth of a quadrant through Paris; it is no such thing, and even if it were,-cui bono? It is really a purely arbitrary length carefully preserved. Any other standard will in last analysis prove to be equally arbitrary. The British yard, familiar to all of us, is as good as any. It is already divided into twelfths, each of three inches. Call this twelfth a trinch. The twelfth of this last would be our wellknown quarter-inch, a very convenient unit for small lengths and, of course, capable of any degree of sub-division. For greater measurements we have already at hand the mile, 1760 yards, or, with a slight accommodation, 1728, that is 1000 (tripo) yards. For the immense stretches of astronomy the square, or even the cube, of this would be suited. So we may pass from the decimal to the duodecimal system in this cardinal matter with hardly a jar and with loss of naught but impedimenta. The areal and voluminal units would, of course, be the squares and cubes of the linear units; the mass-units. would be the mass of the voluminal unit of some standard substance under standard conditions. Other derivative units require no notice. II. The operations of mercantile and commercial as well as of mechanical life would be greatly shortened and facilitated by the change proposed. For example, a movement of the duodecimal point one place leftward would convert yearly into monthly interest. Multiplication and division by three and four, so important in "business," at every step would check each other. The construction of instruments for all kinds of measurement, whether of commerce or of scientific precision, would be made easy and their correct use facilitated. Most of all, however, the enormous burden of learning, retaining, and using our tables of weights and measures would be rolled off once and forever in one huge mass from the minds of the coming generation. How great is the load that our forefathers, unknowing what they did, have bound upon the shoulders of their descendants is felt keenly, if only in part, by every pupil and every teacher. Like the superincumbent atmosphere, it presses on us continually and continuously, at every point both of time and of space. For this very reason we cannot come to perfect consciousness of the oppression. But once relieve it, and see how the elastic mind of youth will revive and erect itself, once more a freeman. Adopt the duodenary system in toto, and you despoil at one stroke the great giant Arithmos of his most formidable terrors. Nay more, you will add a full year, now so greatly desiderated, to the life of every youth that attains majority. 12. The complete triumph, either of ten or of twelve, is assured. The incoherences of our present system are universally recognized, and the structure cannot long withstand the blows of Example and of Reason. But the victory of ten would certainly be deplorable, for it would exalt body over spirit, and fasten clogs forever on the feet of humanity. The denary system can lay no claim to finality, as being the best either conceivable or practicable; it leaves much to be desired. But the duodenary is the best conceivable, the best that the nature of number admits. It and it only can pretend to be an absolute finality. 13. The triumph of ten is the triumph of the Kelt, of Latin civilization. The Anglo-Saxon, truer to the nature of things, still clings here and there to twelve. And shall he at last meekly resign himself to artificiality? Shall the historian of the fourth millenium record that France imposed upon the superior Anglo-Saxon race her own inferior notation? Here is opportunity and also occasion for our proud lineage to assert itself, as the roof and crown of humanity, by one bold stroke that shall smite from our intellectual limbs the shackles of centuries and leave them strong and nimble and free. But especially it is the privilege of America to advance herself at one giant stride to the forefront of the world, not only in politics, but also in practical intelligence, by adopting consistently and thoroughgoingly that metric and numerical system which, once introduced, must surely and speedily subdue all others to itself. What other conceivable feat, either of peace or of war, could so glorify our intelligence and civilization as a people? But some one will say, "after all, is the change practicable?" The discerning reader might be left to answer for himself. The change to the decimal system has been proved by actual experiment to be practicable throughout western and central Europe. The change to duodecimals would be even easier for us, because twelve already lies deep-rooted in many of our notions and modes of measuring. The only peculiar difficulty about this change is in reality a very slight and unimportant one, namely, we need two new symbols (for ten and eleven), a new termination (for multiples of twelve), and a half-dozen new names (for powers of twelve). But any foundry can cast the symbols, the ending tel is ready at hand, and the new names are coined and learned in a moment. This done, learning to count, add, subtract, multiply, divide in the new system is not the work of a day for the adult mind, and would be easier for the child than the tasks he now has to master. To be sure, there would be a great inertia of custom, ignorance, and prejudice to overcome, but these oppose themselves alike to all progress. A thorough-going adoption, either of the decimal or of the duodecimal system, is unavoidable and impending. If we choose the latter, all future generations will rise up and call us blessed; if the former, then we shall put into the mouth of posterity, but with sharper emphasis, with wider application, and with deeper meaning than ever Mephistopheles dreamed of, the just complaint: Es erben sich Gesetz, und Rechte, Wie eine ewige Krankheit fort; Sie schleppen von Geschlecht sich zum Geschlechte, Und rücken sacht von Ort zu Ort. Vernunft wird Unsinn, Wohlthat Plage; Weh dir, dass du ein Enkel bist ! WILLIAM B. SMITH. UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI, COLUMBIA, Mo. V DISCUSSIONS. WOMEN AS TEACHERS. The general conference of the Joint Education Committees of Wales and Monmouthshire has undertaken to collect systematically certain definite information regarding the success of women as teachers. A number of the question-blanks were forwarded to this country, and it is now possible to lay before the readers of the EDUCATIONAL REVIEW a summary of the answers that have been received and transmitted to England. The Commissioner of Education and the Superintendents of representative cities in which large numbers of women are employed as teachers, were invited to answer the inquiries. The Commissioner of Education responds, giving his impressions and conclusions regarding the United States as a whole, where the last census shows that 65.5 per cent. of the entire teaching body, or 238,333, are women. Each Superintendent responds for his own city, the number of women teachers in the public schools being as follows: New York, 3282; Chicago, 2811; Philadelphia, 2601; Brooklyn, 1968; Boston, 1308; Cleveland, 733; Jersey City, 393; Denver, 260. The questions and answers are appended: I. Are women employed as teachers of classes either (a) of boys only, or (b) boys and girls together? The Commissioner of Education: In the schools of the United States, women are employed as teachers of classes in many schools exclusively for boys, but the employment of women as teachers of classes of boys and girls together is much more frequent. New York: (a) Yes; (b) Yes. Chicago: (a) There are no exclusively boys' classes; (b) Yes. Philadelphia: (a) Yes; (b) Yes. Brooklyn: (a) Yes; (b) Yes. Boston: (a) Yes; (b) Yes. Cleveland: (a) No separate classes for boys; (b) Yes. Jersey City: (a) Yes; (b) Yes. Denver: (b) Yes. |