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.

6th.  I propose to leave out the words ’shall be equal to the pound avoirdupois now in use, and,’ for the reasons suggested on the second resolution, to wit, that our object is, to have one determinate standard.  The pound avoirdupois now in use, is an indefinite thing.  The committee of parliament reported variations among the standard weights of the exchequer.  Different persons weighing the cubic foot of water have made it, some more and some less than one thousand ounces avoirdupois; according as their weights had been tested by the lighter or heavier standard weights of the exchequer.  If the pound now in use be declared a standard, as well as the weight of sixteen thousand cubic cents of a foot in water, it may hereafter, perhaps, be insisted that these two definitions are different, and that being of equal authority, either may be used, and so the standard pound be rendered as uncertain as at present.

7th.  For the same reasons I propose to omit the words ’equal to seven grains troy.’  The true ratio between the avoirdupois and troy weights, is a very contested one.  The equation of seven thousand grains troy to the pound avoirdupois, is only one of several opinions, and is indebted perhaps to its integral form for its prevalence.  The introduction either of the troy or avoirdupois weight into the definition of our unit, will throw that unit under the uncertainties now enveloping the troy and avoirdupois weights.

When the House of Representatives were pleased to refer to me the subject of weights and measures, I was uninformed as to the hypothesis on which I was to take it up; to wit, whether on that, that our citizens would not approve of any material change in the present system, or on the other, that they were ripe for a complete reformation.  I therefore proposed plans for each alternative.  In contemplating these, I had occasion to examine well all the middle ground between the two, and among others which presented themselves to my mind, was the plan of establishing one of the known weights and measures as the unit in each class; to wit, in the measures of lines, of surfaces, and of solids, and in weights, and to compound and