1From Thomas Jefferson to David Rittenhouse, 12 June 1790 (Jefferson Papers)
I know not what apology to make for the trouble I am about to give you. I am sure I must call your publick spirit in aid of your private friendship to me. You will see by the head of the inclosed report, that the house of representatives have instructed me to lay before them a plan for establishing uniform weights, measures and coins. Five and twenty years ago I should have undertaken such a...
2From Thomas Jefferson to David Rittenhouse, 1[5] June 1790 (Jefferson Papers)
I inclosed you, the day before yesterday a rough draught of the report I had prepared on the subject of weights and measures. I have this morning recieved from Mr. Short a proposition made by the Bishop of Autun to the National assembly of France on the same subject, which I inclose you, and will beg the favor of you to return it by post after you shall have perused it. He mentions that the...
3From Thomas Jefferson to David Rittenhouse, 20 June 1790 (Jefferson Papers)
I inclosed you on the 17th. the alterations I had made in my report in consequence of the Bp. of Autun’s proposition which had come to my hands two days before. On the 18th. I received from Mr. Cutting in London a packet of newspapers, among which were the two inclosed, containing the speech in parliament of Sr. John Riggs Miller on the subject of weights and measures. I observe he states the...
4From Thomas Jefferson to David Rittenhouse, 26 June 1790 (Jefferson Papers)
Your favor of the 21st. came duly to hand, and I admit all your corrections with great thankfulness. The first was an inaccuracy of expression. I meant to say that there existed not in nature any one species of body or thing, such as a digit, palm, span, foot, cubit, barley corn &c. which furnished us with a constant uniform dimension. I have corrected it accordingly. The statement of the...
5From Thomas Jefferson to David Rittenhouse, 30 June 1790 (Jefferson Papers)
Your favor of the 25th. came to hand last night, for which I give you many thanks. The conversion of 36.71428 pouce[s] into 39.1923 inches was an error in division, and consequently the mean taken between that and Graham’s computation is wrong. It has rendered it necessary for me to suppress the note on that subject, and to put it into the form now inclosed. In this I state the reaso[n] for...