CHAPTER X

RACE BETTERMENT THROUGH HEREDITY

Most of us have heard in one form or another the fairy story of the youth

on adventure bent, who was captured by the giant and under dire penalty in

case of failure was set the task of sweeping out the giant's stable before

sundown. The peculiarity of this stable, it will be recalled, was that, as

fast as the refuse was swept out at the door an even greater quantity

poured in through the windows so that the sweeper, just in proportion to

his zeal, became more and more encumbered with his burden.

=A Questionable Form of Charity.--=Though we smile at the childishness of

this legend, are we not as a civilized people attempting through our

charities a feat parallel to that of this unfortunate youth? We foster and

favor our social wastage with the inevitable result that it runs riot

under our sheltering hand and deluges us with an ever accumulating flood

of its like. For are we not constantly building more asylums, sanitaria

and prisons, to preserve more unfit, to produce more defectives, to

require still greater numbers of asylums, sanitaria and prisons, to

preserve more unfit, and so on in unending progression?

At nearly every period of history there have been certain individuals who

have seen the necessity of a state eliminating its supply of defectives.

=Past Protests.--=For instance, we find the importance of this strongly

urged by Plato. After pointing out the fact that the shepherd, in order to

maintain the standard of his flocks, bred only from the best individuals,

as did likewise the huntsman with his dogs and horses, and the fancier

with his various pets, Plato went on to show the danger to the state of

allowing the constantly increasing body of defectives and degenerates to

multiply their kind. Repeated expression of the same idea has occurred

from time to time during the succeeding centuries.

Little heed was paid to these remonstrances, however, with the result that

is known to us all. To-day, "the glory that was Greece and the grandeur

that was Rome" is still sung by the poet, but the original nations

themselves have long since passed into the night.

=An Increasing Flood of Defectives.--=Strive to ignore the unpleasant

facts as we may, we have to admit that the same problem of what the human

harvest shall be is with us in grave form to-day. The alarming phase of

the situation, however, lies in the fact that we are facing an ever

increasing flood of social wastage.

But _why_ this increase of defectives? It can not be attributed to

oppression, to grinding poverty, or to decline in attention to our sick

and needy, for never was prosperity greater, never were charities more

flourishing, never such activity in the search for palliatives and cures.

The simple fact is that we are breeding our defectives. The human harvest

like the grain harvest is based fundamentally on heritage. And to get a

better crop of human beings, we must, as with other crops, weed out bad

strains.

To whatever source of information we turn the facts are essentially the

same. Abroad we find that in England, for example, the ratio of defectives

to normals more than doubled between 1764 and 1896. At home, from the

investigation of Davenport and Weeks we learn that in the state of New

Jersey the number of epileptics doubles every thirty years. And other

investigators estimate that the fecundity of mental defectives in general

is about twice as great as that of the average of our population. In a

recent report of the New York State Board of Charities we read, "There are

about thirty thousand feeble-minded persons in the state of New York, of

whom four thousand are intermittently sequestered while twenty-six

thousand who are a menace to society are at liberty and may produce the

unfit." And a passage from the last Massachusetts report reads as follows:

"We have been obliged to refuse a very large number of applicants for the

admission of feeble-minded women--many of whom have given birth to one or

more children. The prolific progeny of these women almost without

exception are public charges from the date of their birth."

How fertile defective types may be is shown by a passage in one of Doctor

Wilmarth's papers which runs as follows: "One feeble-minded woman, now

removed from this state, had by different men eighteen children in

nineteen years, she alleges." In a letter Doctor Wilmarth tells me that

the birth of the twenty-third child of this woman has just been

announced! In one English workhouse Potts reports sixteen feeble-minded

women who have produced one hundred sixteen mentally defective children,

and Branthwaite ninety-two female habitual drunkards who have had eight

hundred fifty babies. If we include the two million individuals cared for

annually in various institutional homes, hospitals and dispensaries as

dependents, the estimated total of insane, feeble-minded, epileptic, deaf

and dumb, criminals, juvenile delinquents, paupers and other dependents in

the United States in 1910 was approximately three million, or one in every

thirty of our population! With the higher fertility of certain of these

classes and with only a small percentage under custodial care where will

it all end? Is it not time for us to waken from our lethargy and stem this

tide of national deterioration?

=Natural Elimination of Defectives Done Away With.--=With our improved

methods of sanitation and care of the sick, the pauper and the defective,

these classes have been freed from the stress of an environment that under

natural conditions would have resulted in their premature death and

consequent infertility. Or in the terminology of the biologist, we have

done away with the factor of _natural selection_, the factor which in

state of nature keeps all races purged of the unfit, the ill-adapted. With

this restraining, and purifying influence removed, however, the weakling,

the defective, may arrive at maturity and commingle his blood with that of

the strong, with the inevitable result that the general vigor of the

progeny from generation to generation is sapped and progressively

undermined. Thus we are confronted by the stubborn fact that through

present humanitarian methods we are driving the race toward decadence.

=Why Not Prevent Our Social Maladies?--=Now there is no reasonable person,

I think, who will not admit that the motives underlying our modern

altruistic practises are the noblest fruitage of our slow upward struggle

from the brute to man. As humane beings, we can not cast aside these

principles and return to the painful and pitiless method of nature which

would leave the sick and the defective alone to perish miserably; the

sacrifice would be too great.

Is there then no escape from this dilemma? To this query the modern

student of heredity answers yes; let us but add more wisdom to our charity

and the enigma is solved. We need no sacrifice of pity but rather an

expansion of it. Let us but extend our vision from immediate suffering to

the prospective suffering of the countless unborn descendants of our

present unfit and ask ourselves the question, why should they be born? Why

not prevent our social maladies instead of waiting to cure them? This is

the province of eugenics.

=Eugenics Defined.--=The term Eugenics was coined in 1883 by Francis

Galton in his book entitled _Inquiries Into Human Faculties_, and we may

therefore look to him for a satisfactory definition. He says, "Eugenics is

the study of the agencies under social control, that may improve or impair

the racial qualities of future generations, either physically or

mentally." And again, "I take Eugenics very seriously, feeling that its

principles ought to become one of the dominant motives in a civilized

nation, much as if they were one of its religious tenets.... Man is gifted

with pity and other kindly feelings, but he also has the power of

preventing many kinds of suffering. I conceive it to fall well within his

province to replace natural selection by other processes that are more

merciful and not less effective. This is precisely the aim of Eugenics.

Its first object is to check the birth-rate of the unfit instead of

allowing them to come into being, though doomed in large numbers to perish

prematurely. The second object is the improvement of the race by

furthering the productivity of the fit, by early marriages and the

healthful rearing of their children."

=Improved Environment Alone Will Not Cure Racial Degeneracy.--=While many

an enthusiastic humanitarian is laboring under the assumption that if we

can improve external conditions human deficiencies will disappear, the

student of heredity realizes that this is in large part a delusion unless

we can secure an accompanying improvement in intrinsic qualities of the

human species itself through the suitable mating of individuals. Just as

the intelligent farmer to-day demands selected seed as well as good soil

and proper cultivation, so one with the facts of heredity at hand would,

as he views social problems, urge the fundamental importance of having

selected stock with which to start. No shifts or shapings of environment

will ever enable men to "gather grapes of thorns or figs of thistles."

=Heredity and Environment.--=To wrangle over the question of which is the

more important, heredity or environment, is about as idle a proceeding as

to argue which is the more important, the stomach or something to put in

the stomach. Man would soon come to grief without either. So, too, the

question of human development is not one of heredity alone nor of

environment alone; both are necessary and must work hand in hand. Dormant

capacities must have proper environment to call them forth, but on the

other hand no kind of environment can evoke responses if some degree of

aptitude is not present.

Professor Thorndike undertook experiments with groups of school children

of high and of low initial ability respectively to determine whether equal

opportunity or equal special training would produce an equalizing effect

in easily alterable traits such as rapidity in addition and the like.

Without exception he found that at the end of such experiments, although

both groups had improved, the superior individuals were farther ahead than

ever, that equality of opportunity and training had widened rather than

narrowed the gap between the two classes. Others who have made special

studies on the causes of individual differences have come to the same

conclusion; namely, that individuals differ widely by original nature and

that similarity in conditions of nurture and training will not avail in

deleting these differences.

Galton and others, from extensive studies based on English sources, have

shown that notable achievements have run in certain families to a degree

that is inexplicable on the basis of opportunity alone; it can be fully

accounted for only by attributing much to superior inborn capacity. Doctor

Woods has shown much the same thing for certain families in America.

Schuster and Elderton have proved that there is a high degree of

similarity in scholastic standing between fathers and sons in Oxford.

Professor Pearson's measurements of mental characters in brothers and

sisters while at school show a high degree of innate resemblance in many

cases and certain cases of decided contrast. Where contrasts exist in

certain families they remain unreduced in spite of the similarity of

environment, thus proving that environment is less operative in the final

intellectual establishment of such individuals than are their inborn

aptitudes. Even in twins, as both Galton and Thorndike have shown, there

is no tendency for similar education, home life and the like to render

those originally different any more similar with advancing years.

Professor Karl Pearson has done more perhaps than any other individual

toward attempting actually to measure the relative strength of heredity

and environment. Numerous statistical measurements lead him to conclude

that it is a conservative estimate to regard heredity as at least five or

ten times as important as environment in the development of the

individual. A vigorous defense by him of this position will be found in

_Biometrika_ for April, 1914.

=Inter-Racial Marriage.--=Some of the dangers of racial deterioration

which threaten us because of our laxity regarding immigration have already

been indicated. It is high time that we give this whole question the most

serious consideration of which we are capable. From the rate at which

immigrants are increasing it is obvious that our very life-blood is at

stake. For our own protection we must face the question of what types or

races should be ruled out. Aside from the dangers which lie in the

defective or unsuccessful types already discussed in Chapter IX, many

students of heredity feel that there is great hazard in the mongrelizing

of distinctly unrelated races no matter how superior the original strains

may be. Unfortunately there is a great lack of reliable data on this

point. The mulatto of our own country, the Eurasians in India and the

mixed races of South America are, according to the testimony of many

observers, eloquent arguments against such hybridization. Agassiz remarked

on this point as follows:

"Let any one who doubts the evil of the mixture of races and who is

inclined from mistaken philanthropy to break down all barriers between

them come to Brazil. He can not deny the deterioration consequent upon

the amalgamation of races, more wide-spread here than in any other

country in the world, and which is rapidly effacing the best qualities

of the white man, the Indian, and the negro, leaving a mongrel

nondescript type deficient in physical and mental energy."

Of the American mulatto one not infrequently meets with the assertion that

he is on the average inferior mentally, morally and physically to either

the white or the negro race. Thus Doctor J. B. Taylor[17] states that,

"It is demonstrated by well-attested facts that these hybrids of black and

white are vastly more susceptible to certain infections; their moral as

well as physical stamina is lower than that of either original race."

Others would deny that conclusive evidence to this effect exists. However,

it is certain that under existing social conditions in our own country

only the most worthless and vicious of the white race will tend in any

considerable numbers to mate with the negro and the result can not but

mean deterioration on the whole for either race.

There is certainly not one iota of evidence that the crossing of any two

widely different human races will yield superior offspring in any respect

and there are many indications that such intermixture lowers the average

of the population. Our evidence derived from plant and animal breeding is

also against pronounced crosses. The inferiority of the mongrel is

universally recognized. No sane farmer, for example, would seek to improve

his Jerseys or his Herefords by crossing one with the other. It is true

that in pure breeds of plants and animals we sometimes venture on a cross

to introduce some new desirable character but we follow up such mixture by

a rigid selection in which is eliminated all but the rare individuals

having the desired characteristics, and we continue this elimination

generation after generation to fix our characters again. It is obvious

that no such selection as this would be possible among the progeny of

human crosses.

It clearly becomes our duty then to determine as accurately as possible

the degree of non-relationship between races it is inadvisable to

transcend in inter-racial marriages. We are certainly taking great risks

in accepting in any considerable numbers those races we can not assimilate

to advantage into our own stock.

=War.--=The deteriorating effect of war on national physique and vigor has

been so frequently cited by eugenists[18] and is so obvious as scarcely to

require further comment. It should be pointed out, however, that where, as

is the case at present in Great Britain, armies are assembled from

volunteers, instead of by conscription, there is the greatest danger from

the eugenic standpoint, since not only physical but moral qualities are

involved. For it is the brave, the generous, the individual with a high

sense of duty who goes forward to the slaughter leaving the cowardly, the

selfish or the indifferent to father the race. With the awful deadliness

of modern warfare upon exhibition before our very eyes to-day, the extreme

seriousness of such selective action must be evident to every thoughtful

person.

=Human Conservation.--=We talk much in recent years of _conservation_; but

what are our forests and frontiers, our minerals and our waterways,

compared with our national health and life-blood? No farmer would think of

setting aside a diseased or physically defective _animal_ for breeding

purposes, yet the same man together with the majority of mankind is wholly

oblivious to similar faults when it comes to the mating of human beings.

But is it not as important to look to fitness in man as in Poland China

hogs or Holstein cows? Certainly the various strains are as marked and

breed as true in the human family as in our live stock. Why face

complacently in our own families what we would not tolerate in our

piggery?

From the expenditure of comparatively small sums in studying the

inheritance of various qualities in wheat, corn and other grain,

improvements based on the laws of genetics have been secured which are

enormously increasing our agricultural output and thereby adding to our

national wealth. But if it costs relatively little to discover and

conserve millions of dollars' worth of hereditary qualities in our plants

and animals, what are we to think of ourselves, an intelligent people who,

knowing that "every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, but a corrupt

tree bringeth forth evil fruit," still go on placidly permitting the

production of defectives and delinquents? Can we continue to drink the

sluggish blood of the pauper and the imbecile into our veins and hope to

escape unscathed?

We are all familiar with the fate of Babylon, Assyria, Persia, Egypt and

Rome. Why not America? Certainly we have no pledge of special immunity

from Divine Powers. If so, what then is the meaning of our 366 hospitals

for insane which cost us annually $21,000,000; our 63 institutions for

feeble-minded costing us over $5,000,000; our 1,300 prisons maintained at

a cost of more than $13,000,000; our 1,500 hospitals whose annual

maintenance requires at least $30,000,000; our 115 schools or homes for

deaf and dumb; our 2,500 almshouses with an annual expense account of

$20,000,000 and our 1,200 refuge homes costing annually several millions

of dollars more? To say that we spend annually over $100,000,000 on the

custody of insane, feeble-minded, paupers, epileptics, deaf, blind and

other charges is expressing the situation very conservatively.

=Kindness in the Long Run.--=There is no one I think who will not admit

that the sympathy and charity of the human heart are its noblest virtues.

But we must face the problem of what is kindness in the long run. Havelock

Ellis well says, "The superficially sympathetic man flings a coin to the

beggar; the more deeply sympathetic man builds an almshouse for him so

that he need no longer beg; but perhaps the most radically sympathetic of

all is the man who arranges that the beggar shall not be born."

What shall we do?

=The Problem Has Two Phases.--=For an intelligent consideration of the

problem one must recognize at the outset that it has two distinct phases;

namely, (1) a selective union of the fittest, or in other words, a

conscious attempt to breed a superior race; and (2) the elimination of the

obviously unfit by preventing their reproduction, with the purpose of

purifying the present race. It is evident at a glance that these are two

essentially distinct problems although the practise of either method could

result in racial improvement. The first is sometimes spoken of as

_positive_ or _constructive eugenics_, the second as _negative_ or

_restrictive eugenics_.

=Constructive Eugenics Must Be Based on Education.--=As to the first

phase, direct selection for superiority, the campaign must, in the very

nature of things, be one of education. With the necessary knowledge of the

facts in mind, the awakening conscience of the individual together with

an enlightened public opinion will form the safest guide. Increasing

popular comprehension of the inevitable nature of human inheritance must

engender a sense of responsibility as to the positive eugenic fitness of a

contemplated marriage. The growth of this sentiment will doubtless be

slow, and properly so, for as yet we have but half-lights on what are the

most desirable types of humanity. No one can say what the highest type of

man should be, but almost any one can readily pick out types which

certainly should _not_ be.

=Inferior Increasing More Rapidly Than Superior Stocks.--=Modern

eugenists, although realizing that the constructive phase is of great

importance, are making no attempt to map out any fixed mode of procedure

for it beyond pointing out the desirability of larger families among the

better classes. The need for individuals of superior physical, mental and

moral qualities to multiply is so obvious as scarcely to require comment.

Yet the fact is that judging from all appearances these are the very ones

who have the lowest birth-rate. Eugenics is mainly concerned with the

relative rates of increase of the various classes, not with mere fertility

in itself. And the actual increase must be measured in terms of the extent

to which birth-rate exceeds death-rate. If a high birth-rate is

accompanied by a high death-rate then it is not especially significant in

increasing a given class as a whole. All available evidence points to the

fact that to-day the lower strata of society are far outbreeding the

middle and higher, with an almost negligible difference in death-rate, and

just in the measure that these lower strata are innately inferior just in

that degree must the race deteriorate. The seriousness of the whole

situation as it exists to-day hinges, therefore, on the extent to which

the lower strata are inferior to those above them.

=An Unselected Population May Contain Much Valuable Material.--=In

evaluating these lower strata a matter of very great importance is whether

the population is a selected or an unselected one. If the population has

been long resident in a given region and has had fairly good opportunity

for education then we will find in the lower reaches a larger percentage

of sedimentation made up of the worthless and inferior stocks. If,

however, a continual fomentation and geographical shifting of the

population is in progress as in parts of America, or if adequate

educational opportunities are lacking, as in some parts of Russia, the

poor and less well-to-do classes may contain, no one can tell how much,

relatively valuable stock.

Forel remarks on this point as follows:

"If we compare the nature of delinquents, abandoned children,

vagabonds, etc., in a country where little or nothing has been done

for the people (Russia, Galicia, Vienna, etc.), with that of the same

individuals in Switzerland, for example, where much has already been

done for the poor, we find this result: In Switzerland, these

individuals are nearly all tainted with alcoholism, or pathological

heredity; they consist of alcoholics, incorrigibles, and congenital

decadents, and education can do little for them because nearly all

those who have a better hereditary foundation have been able to earn

their living by honest work. In Russia, Galicia, and even in Vienna,

we are, on the contrary, astonished to see how many honest natures

there are among the disinherited when they are provided with work and

education."

=The Lack of Criteria for Judging Fitness.--=Barring the untold hordes of

actual defectives who have gravitated into this lower stratum, there are

few positive criteria by which we can measure the real fitness of the

remainder. Before we can set out on a campaign of positive eugenics we

must have some standard by which to steer, and it would be a rash advocate

indeed who would assert that class distinction alone, or even success as

measured by public opinion to-day should be our whole criterion of

fitness. Shall we measure fitness in terms of how successfully one can

acquire worldly goods, or in other words, by the property test, or what

shall be our standard?

=The College Graduate.--=Many of our modern critiques of the birth-rate

situation make much of the fact that our college graduates as a group are

scarcely reproducing themselves. According to Davenport, Bryn Mawr College

between 1888 and 1913 has graduated 1,193 bachelors of arts, but these

women have produced up to January, 1913, only 263 girls to take their

place in the next generation. He also points out that statistics on some

of the graduate classes of Harvard of twenty years ago or earlier show

that they are little more than maintaining themselves; thus one class of

328 graduates twenty years later had produced 195 sons, and in another

case a class of 278 individuals had produced, twenty-five years later, 141

sons. Relatively similar statistics can be cited for other eastern

colleges.

All such cases of college graduates cited as especially deplorable

declines in birth-rate are based on the assumption that these individuals

are a particularly superior stock.[19] But one might question this premise

as a generalization. It may or may not be true. Are they superior or have

they had mainly a combination of luck and incentive, luck in that their

parents had sufficient means, acquired possibly through their own

superiority, possibly not, to send them to college, and incentive derived

from a fortunate environment which awakened a desire in them--or in their

parents for them--for college education? Is the woolly-witted son of

opulence, so abundant in our colleges to-day, who is boosted through by

hook or by crook, of superior eugenical value to the alert eager boy--and

his name is legion--destined for economic reasons to go to work at or

before the completion of his high-school course, perhaps because of the

very fact of an unlimited fecundity in his own family which necessitates

his help for the general support?

When one first learns of the declining birth-rate among college women and

men he feels appalled, but immediately the question flashes up, if this is

_the_ superior stock, and up to date it has died out or is dying out

rapidly, whence then this ever augmenting rush of young folk who fairly

deluge our universities and colleges to-day? Does it not rather point to

the fact that in our own country at least, the man who will and can take

a college education successfully is not so much the product of breeding

from college men, but of a prosperity which leaves a sufficient surplus in

the family exchequer to enable sons and daughters to go to college, and is

it not reasonable to suppose that there is yet an abundant stock back of

these who similarly await but the golden touch of opportunity? When we

consider such men as Carlyle, Lincoln and a host of others who were not

the sons of collegians, although we may be university pedigreed ourselves

we can not but feel doubtful of the validity of a premise which takes a

college stock unqualifiedly as having any considerable monopoly of innate

superiority. After all, college can mean little more than opportunity, and

the obtaining of such opportunity in this world of economic maladjustments

and accidents of social position is too largely a matter of chance, at

least in America, to stamp the possessors of these advantages, on this

criterion alone, as of inborn superiority. Undoubtedly much that is

intrinsically good now slumbers in the lower strata of society because of

lack of favorable environment to call forth the latent possibilities.

=Native Ability, Independence and Energy Eugenically Desirable.--=Although

we can not sift out with certainty the superior from the inferior in our

normal population by the property test or the educational standard alone,

it is undoubtedly true that, on the whole, native ability, independence

and energy are present to a higher degree in our well-to-do and prosperous

families than in the stocks which merely hold their own or which

gradually decline, and there is no gainsaying the fact that in so far as

the lower classes are where they are through actual deficiency--and there

are enormous numbers in this category--they threaten our very existence as

a race. It is imperative that the great middle class in particular

establish in some way a selective birth-rate, by increased fertility on

their own part, and diminished fecundity on the part of inferior stocks,

which will offset or more than offset the disproportionate increase of the

socially unfit.

=Four Children to Each Marriage Required to Maintain a Stock.--=It is

estimated that under present conditions an average of at least four

children should be born to each marriage if a stock is to maintain its

numbers undiminished. Some of our most valuable strains are falling far

short of this average. In a statistical table on the relative fertility of

different stocks, prepared by Pearson, we find the mentally defective,

criminal, deaf-mute and degenerate stocks heading the list with averages

ranging from five to seven children per family, while the American

graduate (based on Harvard statistics) and the English intellectual types

average less than two children per marriage. While the death-rate is

higher in the undesirable classes mentioned, it is by no means enough

higher to compensate for the difference in birth-rates. Thus while certain

very desirable types are not maintaining themselves genetically, other

extremely undesirable ones are rapidly more than replacing themselves.

Investigations made by Heron in London show that this condition as regards

English desirables did not exist sixty years ago; then the richer a

community was in professional men and well-to-do families, the higher was

the birth-rate.

=Factors Contributing to Low Birth-Rate in Desirable Strains.--=Most

students of the subject believe that the fecundity of much of the best

blood in our country has reached such a low ebb as to threaten the whole

fabric of our commonwealth. How to correct this is the pressing problem to

which no one has found a solution. However much one may deplore it the

fact remains that always in the history of the civilized world with the

rise of material conditions in any class of a population there has come an

accompanying limitation of child-birth. Explain this as we may in modern

times--whether as an awakened individualism which looks only to the

immediate interest of the individual as against the ultimate interest of

the race, or a desire for luxuries or for a better opportunity for smaller

numbers of children, or as a determined effort of the wage earner to

better his conditions, or to the feminist movement with its accompaniment

of a greater personal freedom of married women and the recognition of the

fact that marriage and child-bearing are often bars to employment, or to

general increasing pressure of economic burdens--in brief whatever the

cause or causes, there is no denying the fact of a diminishing birth-rate

among our abler men and women. Moreover, no amount of coaxing, cajoling or

dire prophecy seems to avail in altering the conditions. Various partial

remedies, many of them of questionable practicability, have been proposed,

but so far there has been no far-reaching effort made to put any of them

into effect. It has been suggested that society return to the simple life

so that our young folk may marry earlier and live more easily on limited

means, but so far few volunteers have appeared to lead the procession.

While there is no doubt that present economic conditions tend to penalize

parenthood, the simple life will not return for the mere asking. It has

been pointed out that the father is in unfair competition with the

bachelor and is also unfairly taxed in comparison, and some would

therefore tax unmarried men more heavily. Others would pay a direct bounty

on reproduction, but it is probable that such rewards would merely

stimulate families of the lower types to increased fruitfulness. And so

one panacea after another may be weighed and found wanting.

=The Educated Public Must Be Made to Realize the Situation.--=It seems

probable that the most success will be met with through the slow and

unspectacular methods of education. The necessity of the situation must be

driven home so that it becomes part and parcel of the collective

intelligence of the educated public. Different ideals of life will have to

be established in the young. If knowledge of the facts of heredity is

thoroughly disseminated among the people and ideals regarding parenthood

are fostered, then much will have been accomplished by the psychic power

of suggestion alone toward the end desired.

=Utilization of Family Pride as a Basis for Constructive Eugenics.--=There

are few more powerful incentives to make the best of one's abilities, or

few greater deterrents from vice than family pride; and there is no

reason why this same sentiment may not be aroused in behalf of unborn

generations. The sentiment of caste or aristocracy in some form is well

nigh universal in mankind. The family of Mr. A came over in the Mayflower

and is therefore worlds above the family of Mr. B, who arrived fifty years

later. Mr. X's income is $5,000 a year, Mr. Y's only $1,500. The poor

family in the front suite of the tenement regards itself as far superior

to the one in the rear. Among criminals the professional house-breaker

feels himself to be of higher caste than the sneak-thief, and in turn is

surpassed by the bank-burglar. Even in the insane asylum the feeling is

rampant. With such a wide-spread tendency for a foundation the creation of

a sentiment of eugenic aristocracy is by no means a visionary undertaking.

=The Tendency for Like to Marry Like.--=Even now there is a decided though

unconscious tendency for like to marry like and thus create particular

strains. We have lines, for instance, which produce notably families of

scholars, others which yield mainly statesmen, and still other strains of

inventors, of financiers, of naval men, of soldiers, and of actors

respectively. And there is little doubt that people, with the facts of

inheritance of ability once before them, will be led to act more or less

in accordance with their knowledge. On the other hand, due apparently to

the same unconscious tendency for like to marry like, we find produced

criminalistic, feeble-minded, deaf-mute and tubercular stocks. The first

type of family is often termed _aristogenic_ and the second or defective

type, _cacogenic_.

=Public Opinion as an Incentive to Action.--=Much of our social conduct is

the result of the pressure of public opinion, yet so accustomed are we to

this that we ordinarily do not feel it as a hardship. There is little

doubt that similarly the more wholesome attitude toward parenthood

advocated by the eugenist would be taken as a matter of course, once the

idea became prevalent. It would come to be one of those socially

preconceived ideas which are as much actualities and which become

unconscious guides to action no less certainly than do the more obvious

personal habits of the individual. And just in the degree that we as a

race get the "feeling" that intellect, morals and skill are highly

desirable attributes in marriage selection, just in that degree will one's

affections in their earlier stages gravitate toward individuals who

possess such qualities in high degree. In the main, those stocks which

have shown by ancestral as well as personal achievement their superiority

will tend to insure most certainly a continuation of this superiority in

offspring.

=Choosing a Marriage Mate Means Choosing a Parent.--=Although marriages,

as all young folks know, are made in Heaven, it is interesting to see what

a vast number of these foreordained matches coincide with propinquity in

college, in church, or in the same social set. Moreover, children are born

here on earth. The one thing of all things that the eugenist desires is

for these young folk to get a clear-eyed vision of the fact that in

choosing a marriage mate they are also choosing the future father or

mother of their children with all that this implies.

=The Best Eugenic Marriage Also a Love Match.--=A few recent writers, who

show an utter misconception of what the aim of modern eugenics is, have

raised the cry of give us the old-fashioned love match instead of the

eugenic marriage, as if the eugenist's ideal of moral cleanliness, freedom

from transmissible physical taints or mental enfeeblement, and an attitude

of special approval toward marriages which bring together individuals of

more than average mental or spiritual endowment, had anything in it that

was inimical to love. No one better than he realizes the sordid depths to

which marital relations devoid of mutual affection and regard must reach.

Certainly there is nothing in the eugenic ideal when its full import is

understood that can shock the sensibilities of the most delicate-minded.

Indeed it is people of fine susceptibilities who will be the first to feel

repugnance toward a marriage which means mental or physical deterioration

of their own blood.

=Good Traits No Less Than Bad Ones Inherited.--=An inspection of such

charts as those shown in Figs. 37, 38 and 39, pp. 313, 314, 316--and an

abundance of such encouraging records may now be found--reassures us in

our convictions that good traits are no less inheritable than bad ones.

And what any healthy, mentally well-endowed person may be depriving the

world of if he or she declines to enter into a fruitful marriage can not

be better exemplified than in the following excerpt from Davenport:

"Many a man at the opening of his life work vows, as Judge John Lowell

of the middle of the eighteenth century did, as he was being graduated

from Harvard College, that he will never marry. But nature was too

strong for John Lowell and he married three times, and among his

descendants was the director of a great astronomical observatory, the

president of Harvard College, a principal founder and promoter of the

Massachusetts General Hospital and the Boston Atheneum; the founder of

the city of Lowell and its cotton mills; the founder of the Lowell

Institute at Boston; the beloved General Charles Russell Lowell and

his brother, James, both of whom fell in the Civil War, and James

Russell Lowell, poet, professor and ambassador; besides brilliant

lawyers and men entrusted with large interests as executors of

estates. Do you think John Lowell would have taken that vow could he

have foreseen the future?"

[Illustration: FIG. 37

Pedigree of family with artistic (dark upper section), literary (dark

right section) and musical (dark left section) ability (from Davenport).]

=The Elimination of the Grossly Unfit Urgent.--=But even if, under present

conditions of partial knowledge and lack of an adequate standard, the

constructive phase of eugenics must be left in the main to the awakening

conscience of the individual as humanity improves in general

enlightenment, the second phase, the elimination of the grossly unfit is

one of the greatest social obligations that confronts us to-day. For if

there is an alarming amount of mental impairment in civilized nations, and

if the problems of pauperism, inebriety, prostitution and criminality are

closely interwoven with the problems of mental unsoundness, as we have

every reason to believe from available data, then any means which will

operate toward securing normally functioning brains will at the same time

operate toward diminishing, defects and delinquencies. And inasmuch as a

considerable proportion of defects, both mental and physical, are

inheritable, it is obvious that if we can diminish the number of children

born into the world with defective brains or bodies we have made a long

stride in the right direction.

[Illustration: FIG. 38

Inheritance of ability (from Kellicott after Whetham).]

=Suggested Remedies.--=But how go about it? Various schemes have been

proposed, of which the chief are as follows:

1. Laws restricting marriage.

2. Systems of mating with the purpose of covering up and gradually

diluting out defective traits.

3. Segregation during the reproductive period.

4. Sterilization.

5. Education in the principles of eugenics.

=Inefficacy of Laws Which Forbid Marriage of Mental Defectives.--=The

utter inefficacy of the first proposition, namely the enactment of laws

restricting marriage, at least as regards the socially unfit whose

condition is based on impaired mentality, has been demonstrated time and

again. If they are forbidden marriage, they merely have children without

getting married. Most states have laws to prevent the marriage of such

individuals but these laws are almost wholly ineffective in preventing

procreation on their part. We might as well recognize once for all that in

such cases nothing short of close custodial care or sterilization will

accomplish the end desired.

As to the second proposition, systems of mating with the purpose of

covering up and gradually diluting out defective traits, this has been

shown to be possible with certain types of defectives. Whether it is

desirable or not is a different question.

[Illustration: FIG. 39

Inheritance of ability (chart condensed and incomplete) in three markedly

able families (from Kellicott after Whetham):

1, Charles Darwin; 2, his cousin, Francis Galton, founder of the modern

eugenic movement.]

=Systems of Mating Impracticable in the Main.--=By systems of mating, it

should be said, is not meant the arbitrary marrying of two individuals

willy-nilly, but rather it is the prevention from marriage of two

individuals having similar defects. In general the facts at our command

indicate that in the majority of cases the offspring from a marriage of an

insane, feeble-minded or epileptic person with a normal individual free

from all neuropathic taints are normal or at most show but slight effects

of the taint. But what normal individual would knowingly marry into such a

stock? With few exceptions such traits where inheritable are apparently

negative, that is, not represented by some positive abnormal factor but

due to the lack of some element or elements necessary to the proper

working of the normal brain. In the offspring of such a union the

necessary missing factors are supplied by the normal parent. Or in

Mendelian phraseology, the defective traits are recessive and are

dominated by the normality of the other parent. Such offspring, however,

while apparently normal of body are not normal of germ-plasm, inasmuch as

half of their germ-cells will carry the abnormality of the defective

parent as earlier explained (page 119) under Mendelism. We have already

seen (page 119) how by continually marrying into strong strains the

liability to recessive defect can be diluted out until the descendants are

no more likely to have defective children than are members of our ordinary

population. If, however, as is estimated in Bulletin No. 5 of the

_Eugenics Record Office_, about thirty per cent. of our general population

already carry recessive neuropathic taints, it certainly is a hazardous

proceeding to attempt thus to breed out nervous defects unless one is

absolutely sure of the normality of the strain into which it is proposed

to marry. The great difficulty is in determining whether or not there is a

defective ancestry in a given stock. We have at present no criteria for

identifying normal individuals who have defective germ-plasm. As a

practical test, however, if no defect has appeared in the stock for three

or four generations back, the marriage would be relatively as safe as are

the marriages of our average population to-day.

=Corrective Mating Presupposes Knowledge of Eugenics.--=But such a scheme

of corrective mating presupposes a relatively high degree of intelligence

and judgment on the part of the participants, and this is just what we do

not have and in the nature of things can not get, in the types of

feeble-minded, epileptic and degenerate strains we are striving to

eliminate. All our evidence shows that when unrestricted there is a marked

tendency for feeble-minded to mate with feeble-minded, degenerate with

degenerate. About sixteen per cent. of the feeble-minded, in fact, come

from consanguineous marriages. If we try to legislate them into specific

types of marriage then we encounter the same futility pointed out under

our discussion of restrictive legislation, they will produce offspring

without the formality of marriage.

In certain cases of insanity and in other than neuropathic defects one can

see how the system might be inaugurated with greater prospects of success,

but even then a knowledge of the principles of eugenics would be necessary

to the participants, or in other words we could only accomplish our end

through our fifth proposition, education.

=Segregation Has Many Advocates.--=As to the third proposition,

segregation during the reproductive period, this seems to have a larger

number of advocates than any other coercive measure. While on theoretical

grounds it is plausible enough, when we face the actual putting of the

method into practise we are confronted by the fact that tremendous sums of

money would be required to sequestrate and maintain colonies or industrial

refuges.

When one realizes that no state now provides for more than a small

minority of its defectives, and knowing also of the pressure that must be

brought to bear on legislatures to secure sufficient funds to provide for

these cases of extremest urgency, one can not be overly optimistic about

the practicability of extensive sequestration.

E. R. Johnstone, the superintendent of a large training school for

feeble-minded in New Jersey, points out that no state in the Union is

providing for many more than one-tenth of her feeble-minded and

epileptics. If his estimate is true, to place in institutions, treat and

train all its feeble-minded and epileptics would even now almost swamp any

state treasury. But what _will_ it be in the future if we permit this

unrestricted nine-tenths to go on and multiply their kind?

Leaving out of account the enormous sums spent in private charities even

now from one-fifth to one-seventh the total public expenditures of almost

any one of our states is going to maintain its defectives, dependents and

criminals. From the 1912 report of the secretary of state, in the state of

Wisconsin, for instance, I learn that of the total expenses for 1912,

sixteen per cent. was for charitable and penal institutions. The situation

is even worse in some other states. Think of it! Think what a large total

of expense it becomes! And the expense is far secondary from the

humanitarian standpoint to the misery involved.

In the _Survey_ of May 24, 1913, we find Mr. Hastings H. Hart, Director of

the Department of Child Helping of the Russell Sage Foundation, proposing

very specifically "a working program for the extinction of the defective

delinquent," which involves segregation during the reproductive period. He

gives the number of feeble-minded under public care as 20,000 in

institutions for the feeble-minded, 16,000 in almshouses, 5,000 in

hospitals for the insane, and 26,000 in prisons and reformatories, or a

total of 67,000 already under custodial care. And he asserts that as

nearly as can be judged, this is one-third of the feeble-minded persons in

the United States.

Between this estimate that one-third of our feeble-minded are in

institutions and Doctor Johnstone's that we are not providing for many

more than one-tenth of our feeble-minded and epileptic, there is a wide

discrepancy, but I know of no accurate data[20] whereby the matter can be

settled definitely. One point of difference may be that Doctor Johnstone

specifically includes epileptics and another may be one of definition of

feeble-minded. However, supposing that we could get them all into

institutions, institutional care at present by no means also implies

prevention of propagation. It is not an unusual history of feeble-minded

women in our county poor-houses that they alternate between periods of

housework in some family and periods of residence in the almshouse, the

return to the latter being only too often to bear an additional child.

Not a few students of the problem, however, advocate a rigid segregation

as the only reasonable preventive measure, no matter what the expense.

They point out that the cost is mounting up higher each year and that we

are only increasing it ultimately by procrastination. They urge, moreover,

that when counting the cost of the segregation of the feeble-minded we

should bear in mind also that we are reducing the expenses of our other

charity and penal institutions, since much of degeneracy, pauperism and

petty criminality centers in mental enfeeblement. Some believe that

colonies can be established which are in considerable measure

self-supporting. Doctor Johnstone, for instance, although his estimates of

the number of feeble-minded and epileptic is one of the highest, sketches

out in a recent paper (in _Pediatrics_, August, 1912) a plan which he

considers feasible.

But what assurance have we that we can prevent the production of

defectives by segregation? In reply may be cited a recent experiment on an

extensive scale. Cretinism is a condition due to disease of the thyroid

glands. It is characterized by goiter, marked deformities and imbecility.

It is hereditary and has been very prevalent in certain valleys of

southern Switzerland and northern Italy. Cretin mated with cretin and

consequently a large new supply was constantly produced. In recent years

in certain communities the sexes have been segregated (see _Eugenic

Review_, 1910, Jordan) with the result that in such places cretinism has

about disappeared.

Coming now to the fourth solution proposed, namely, sterilization,[21] let

us consider some of its alleged advantages and disadvantages.

=Sterilization.--=First of all, since there is some considerable popular

misunderstanding on the subject, it should be made plain that by

sterilization is not necessarily, nor in fact generally, meant

asexualization, or the removal of the reproductive glands. On the

contrary, in the male, sterilization is ordinarily accomplished by an

operation known as _vasectomy_, in which a small piece of each sperm duct

is removed. Such reports on it as I have found indicate that it is a

comparatively simple minor operation which involves no special

inconvenience or hardship on the subject beyond the deprivation of

offspring. In fact, according to Doctor Sharp's report, in the majority of

cases where it has been put into practise the patient has usually

submitted voluntarily after having the details of the situation explained

to him and has often advised fellow delinquents to do likewise.

Even should later developments show that a mistake had been made, in all

probability the matter could be remedied by a second operation in which

the cut ends of the ducts can be reunited. This has been accomplished

experimentally in dogs, and furthermore, in men rendered sterile by

occlusion of the duct through inflammatory diseases, the sterility has

been remedied by removing the blocked area and reuniting the ends of the

duct on either side.

In women the corresponding operation--a section of the oviduct--is termed

_salpingectomy_. Here, however, the operation is a more serious one as it

usually involves opening the abdominal cavity and the accompanying hazard

of infection, a danger sufficiently great that it is safe to say that the

operation will be resorted to more rarely than vasectomy in man.

=As a Eugenic Measure.--=Sterilization as a eugenic measure has many

advocates and perhaps more opponents; and among the latter, it must be

said, are many competent and thoughtful students of the subject who

recognize existing conditions and deplore their continuance as much as any

one. They maintain that while we may have to come to it as a last resort,

we are yet too ignorant of the actual effects of the operation, or are too

little informed on the inheritability of the specific traits we are trying

to eradicate, to launch forth on so radical a program. We must not forget

that when we put sterilization into effect we are going to have to deal

with individual cases, not general averages.

=To What Conditions Applicable.--=And just here, it seems to me, is the

crux of the situation. When confronted by the defective individual, in a

practical case, just what criteria are we going to use to determine

whether this particular individual should be sterilized or not? Nearly all

of the twelve states which have sterilization laws specify insanity,

feeble-mindedness, epilepsy and criminality.

=In Insanity.--=When it comes to insanity I strongly suspect that those

who have the selection of the examining board will have difficulty in

finding an alienist who is willing to take the responsibility of deciding

on just which insane individuals shall be operated on and which not. For

among the insane there are so many kinds and degrees of mental

unsoundness, and these are of such varying and as yet unknown eugenical

significance, that a positive decision is frequently out of the question.

Of the twenty-seven or more recognized forms of insanity who knows with

any considerable degree of certainty which are heritable, which not? Shall

we treat all manic-depressives alike? Shall we treat them as, for

instance, we would those suffering from dementia precox? Who will take the

responsibility of answering positively? Again, what shall we do in cases

of paresis, or general paralysis of the insane, an affliction which

probably invariably has syphilis as its antecedent? Yet it constitutes one

of the commonest forms of insanity found in asylums. Doctor George H.

Kirby, director of Clinical Psychiatry, Manhattan State Hospital, says

that with one exception there are more admissions of paretics to Manhattan

State Hospital than sufferers from any other form of mental disorder. He

continues, "We find that when either the father or the mother suffers from

paresis that many other members of the family may be infected with

syphilis, and furthermore, we find that a surprisingly large number of

children in these families are feeble-minded, nervous, or in other ways

abnormal." But here, it is clear, the patient has done the damage before

he reached the hospital, nor was it paresis as such that did the harm but

the syphilitic infection of which paresis itself was but the outcome.

Certainly the one fact which stands out conspicuously when we face most

concrete cases, is that at present we need more urgently than

sterilization laws for the insane, exhaustive studies of the

inheritability of specific mental infirmities that we may know with some

degree of certainty which warrant sterilization.

Yet on the other hand one of the most disquieting facts that confronts us

to-day is the large number of patients who are on parole from our

hospitals for the insane, subject to recall. What shall we do with them?

Shall we submit them to the tremendous hardship of still remaining under

custodial care although to all intents and purposes sane, or shall we make

their release contingent upon their submission to vasectomy or

salpingectomy?

In a few cases such as Huntington's chorea (Figs. 26, 27, pp. 114, 115) we

can proceed with a fair degree of assurance, for we know that this

dreadful malady is transmitted as a positive trait and that in all

probability half of the children of an afflicted individual will inherit

the defect. Such patients, if they ever rally sufficiently temporarily to

leave the hospital, or where encountered outside the hospital should

certainly be restrained from procreation. It is questionable if even their

children, though apparently normal, should be allowed to have offspring,

for usually the disorder does not manifest itself until middle life and

then it is too late to try to prevent its transmission since the affected

individual has already probably married and had children. But Huntington's

chorea is a comparatively rare form of insanity, and one of only a few

about which our knowledge as regards its transmissibility is fairly

satisfactory.

=In Feeble-Mindedness.--=When we come to institutions for the

feeble-minded, however, there seems to be much more unanimity of opinion

among physicians in charge of such institutions that sterilization would

be an effective and satisfactory disposition to make of many cases, if we

are to release the patients in question from custody. Unquestionably in

cases of imbecility it is easier than in insanities to pass conclusive

judgment on the inheritability of the condition in a large class of cases.

Practically all are agreed that either permanent custodial care through

the reproductive period or sterilization should be enforced. Some maintain

that such individuals should remain permanently in institutions anyway and

that therefore to sterilize them is needless, while others urge that if

sterilized many capable of making their own living could be freed and

allowed to do so.

According to Goddard the feeble-minded woman is about three times as

likely to find a mate as a feeble-minded man, hence it would seem to be of

much greater importance to sterilize the woman than the man.

Again it might be urged with much justification, that even though

sterilized, the feeble-minded individual because of lack of self-control

will transgress sexually and will thus certainly become a menace to

society in the spread of venereal diseases. If Mr. Hart's estimate is

anywhere near correct, that there are 60,000 feeble-minded women in the

United States of child-bearing age, and that 13,000 are already in

custody, then the task of getting all women of this class into custody is

not so insurmountable as would at first appear.

=In Cases of Epilepsy.--=As to epilepsy, I find a very decided difference

of opinion among physicians. Some consider it, on account of its

apparently strong inheritability, together with the shocking crimes

perpetrated by epileptic criminal types, one of the most serious menaces,

while others point out that we know nothing of the real cause of epilepsy,

that there are all degrees and shades, that it is probably referable to

different causes in different cases and that no one is able to say what

the offspring of any given epileptic will be.

As to criminal types, here again we face the difficulty of deciding any

particular case. Let us suppose that twenty-five per cent. of criminals

are mental defectives, how shall we sift them out from the seventy-five

per cent. who are supposed to be eugenically normal? Doubtless in many of

the twenty-five per cent. class, the indications of defective mentality

are sufficiently evident to prevent mistakes, but a considerable number of

uncertain status must also remain near the border-line.

=Sterilization Laws.--=Although twelve of our states already have

sterilization laws, only two, Indiana and California, seem to have made

any active attempt to enforce them. The situation is too new yet in

Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania for these states to have shown what

they intend to do. Although the Indiana law says, "it shall be compulsory

for each and every institution" to maintain the practise, it has fallen

into disuse since 1911, presumably because the governor believed the law

unconstitutional. It is of interest to see the motive underlying the law

in various states. In the majority it is purely eugenic. In Connecticut it

is mainly eugenic though partly therapeutic. In California it is

apparently in part therapeutic, since it is stated as being for the

physical, mental or moral benefit of inmates of various state

institutions, and in part punitive and eugenic, since individuals twice

committed for sexual offenses or three times for other crimes are subject

to the operation.

In Washington and Nevada the object is purely punitive, the persons

specified being habitual criminals and persons adjudged guilty of carnal

abuse of female persons under ten years of age, or of rape. In these

states also the court orders the operation instead of leaving it to the

decision of a board of medical experts.

=Social Dangers in Vasectomy.--=It has been urged against vasectomy that

it will work untold harm because it relieves of the responsibility of a

probable parentage. This argument does not appeal to one as very weighty

as far as the imbecile or other degenerate is concerned, because one of

the very traits characteristic of such individuals is lack of any sense of

responsibility. By this same token, however, we have a very good argument

for sequestration as against sterilization, for the degenerate, even

though sterilized, will not be restrained sexually and will be likely to

disseminate venereal diseases or commit rape. Furthermore, there will be

the temptation to sterilize and liberate certain types that would

otherwise have been kept permanently in custody.

=Our Present Knowledge Insufficient.--=When all is said and done, after we

take into account the meagerness of our present knowledge on the subject,

it is not to be wondered at that many thoughtful students of a

conservative turn of mind, feel that any considerable practise of

sterilization is premature. The problem has so many phases, and despite

occasional bits of positive knowledge, we are yet in such a sea of

ignorance regarding it, that in no field is the good Friar Laurence's

admonition of "wisely and slow; they stumble that run fast," needed more

at present than it is here.

There is little doubt that in theory the feeble-minded and similar

defectives should be sent to institutions and kept there, but the

important practical question is, can this be done? We can have no final

answer until it is tried. While the initial expense would undoubtedly be

great, if we could keep our defectives from propagation for a single

generation we could very materially lessen their numbers and in succeeding

generations the expenses of their care would rapidly diminish.

The one crying need that stands out most prominently in this whole field

is that of careful investigation of individual cases and specific types of

malady, together with an accurate census of conditions as a whole. Our

knowledge of individual malign heredities is too meager to carry us very

far at present. When we have found after adequate investigation in just

which specific types of defects heredity is an important factor--and we

shall undoubtedly find it to be one in many cases--then we can proceed

confidently with sterilization, if it will prove to be more practical and

desirable than sequestration.

=Sterilization Laws on Trial.--=It will be of great interest and

instruction to see how extensively, in the various states which have

recently passed sterilization laws, the experts selected will find it

expedient to carry on sterilization, and what criteria they will use in

deciding on individual cases. That sterilization can be put into effect is

indisputable, as may be seen from the fact that several hundred operations

have been performed in Indiana. If the board on whom the decision depends

happens to be one which feels that many people are likely to distress

themselves unduly over the border-line cases, and overlook the fact that

there is always a goodly residue with which to proceed without great risk

of mistake, then we may expect to see a vigorous campaign inaugurated, and

those of us who are still undecided in the matter will have an opportunity

of learning more certainly the merits or the failings of the scheme.

Certain married degenerate types would seem to be the ones most urgently

demanding attention. Having already begotten several defective children

and with nothing else in prospect but the production of the same kind, it

is difficult to see from any standpoint why a vasectomy on the male would

not be a merciful act. There are not a few such families where the father

is periodically in the hands of the law and yet not in permanent

restraint. Once in custody his release could be made contingent on

vasectomy.

=An Educated Public Sentiment the Most Valuable Eugenic Agent.--=Coming

now to the last proposition, education of the public in the principles of

eugenics, this is the method calculated to be of more far-reaching service

than any other, in the negative as well as in the positive phases of

eugenics. Education is necessary before we can have effective restrictive

measures for the mentally incompetent established and enforced, and it is

also a prerequisite to intelligent procedure on the part of normal

individuals in considering their own fitness for marriage.

Of greatest importance in preventing undesirable marriages, as far as

people of normal intelligence is concerned, will be the sentiment of

disapproval which will arise on the part of society itself when it becomes

really convinced that certain marriages are inimical to social welfare.

Public opinion is, in fact, one of the most potent influences in marital

affairs, simply because refusal to abide by the dictates of the community

means social ostracism.

That social disapproval of certain unions can become a very real factor in

preventing such marriage is evinced on all sides by the numerous barriers

to marriage already in existence based on race, religious sect or social

status. Even in our much vaunted democracies one is looked down on who

marries "beneath" his or her social set. This sentiment of taboo, so

readily and often so senselessly cultivated in our present human society,

will inevitably spring up in consequence of a wide-spread knowledge of the

facts of human heredity. It is to such a growth, to the establishment of a

disapproval which is the product of its own sentiments rather than to

legislative enactments, that society must look for the greatest

furtherance of the eugenic program.

Necessary as legal restraint is in certain cases, it must obviously be

restricted to only the most glaring defects. Moreover, legislation can not

run far in advance of public opinion.

=The Question of Personal Liberty.--=It must be admitted that there is a

reluctance on the part of many even thoughtful individuals to the

application of methods which savor in any way of restraint. An objection

not infrequently urged by such persons against the application of certain

eugenic principles is that they demand an unwarranted curtailment of

personal liberty.

To those who hoist the flag of personal liberty, it may fairly be asked,

how much personal liberty does the syphilitic accord his doomed and

suffering wife and children, or how much personal liberty is the portion

of the offspring of feeble-minded parents? Or, what quota of personal

liberty will accrue to the ill-fated descendants of the epileptic, the

habitual drunkard or criminal, the gross moral pervert, the congenially

deaf and dumb, or to even the progeny which may result from the union of

two well-established tubercular strains?

We do not hesitate to send the pick of our stalwart healthy manhood to war

to be slaughtered by the thousands and tens of thousands when an affront

is offered to an abstraction which we term our national honor, and,

sublimely unconscious of the irony of it all, we throw ourselves into a

well-nigh hysterical frenzy of protest when it is proposed to stop the

breeding of defectives by infringing to a certain extent on their personal

liberties.

Society has already found it necessary to suppress certain individuals

and yet we hear little complaint about loss of personal liberty in such

cases. But if it is necessary to restrain the man who would steal a purse

or a horse, is it not still more urgent to restrain one who would poison

the blood of a whole family or even of an entire stock for generations?

Surely there can be but one answer; society owes it to itself as a matter

of self-preservation to enforce the restraint of persons infected with

certain types of disease and of individuals possessing highly undesirable

inheritable traits, so that perpetuation of such defects is impossible.

=Education of Women in Eugenics Needed.--=One of the most crying needs of

the present is the awakening and educating of women to the significance of

the known facts. For they are perhaps the greatest sufferers, and once

informed, as a mere matter of safety if for no other reason, they will see

the necessity of demanding a clean bill of health on the part of their

prospective mates. Furthermore in the last analysis woman is the decisive

factor in race betterment, for it is she who says the final yea or nay

which decides marriage and thus determines in large measure the qualities

which will be possessed by her children. Above all, young women must come

to realize that the fast or dissipated young man, no matter how

interestingly or romantically he may be depicted by the writer of fiction,

is in reality unsound physically, and is an actual and serious danger to

his future wife and children.

=Much Yet to Be Done.--=But plain as is our duty regarding the application

of facts already known, when we consider that the student of heredity has

made only a beginning, it is equally evident that he must be urged on in

his quest for new facts, and the establishment of new principles. There is

imperative need to carry on proper experiments with plants and animals, to

collect necessary data regarding man, and for what is scarcely less

important, the publication of the facts already acquired so that the

public may be guided aright.

Just at present it is of the utmost importance to secure more trustworthy

statistics in order that we may intelligently go about instituting

suitable restrictive measures for undesirable human strains. We must know

the exact number and kinds of feeble-minded, epileptic and insane in our

population, and we must have more insight into the personal status and

pedigrees of our delinquents and criminals. For purposes of rational

procedure such information is indispensable. Much can be done by

hospitals, "homes" and penal institutions by determining and recording

more accurately all obtainable facts regarding the ancestry of their

charges. Moreover, in such states as Wisconsin, where the state hospitals

for the insane have each an "after-care-agent," the duties of such

officers might well include the collection of more adequate data regarding

the hereditary aspects of their patient's condition. And lastly, if in

every census, whether state or national, it were made an important part of

the work to secure accurate vital statistics, particularly as they pertain

to human heredity, the contribution toward enabling us ultimately to

purge the blood of our nation of certain forms of suffering, degeneracy

and crime would be inestimably great.

=A Working Program.--=And now after reviewing at some length various

aspects of man's hereditary and congenital endowment, the important

question arises as to whether it is possible, with the knowledge at

present available, to go ahead with a practical program which will insure

to the child of the future its right of rights, that of _being well-born_.

When one considers the matter it is evident that much can be done at once.

Most of the needs set forth in the preceding paragraph can clearly be met

in a fair degree by instituting the procedures indicated.

One of the obvious duties in a restrictive way that confronts us right at

the start is the care and control of the feeble-minded and of the

defective delinquent in such a way as to prevent procreation. Much help

can be given also through intelligent agitation for the establishment of

colonies for epileptics and the higher grades of feeble-minded which can

be made in considerable measure self-supporting. A given colony must, of

course, be for one sex alone. Much can be done, furthermore, by putting

into operation, both in and out of institutions, effective systems of

registering births and deaths together with accompanying facts which may

prove of eugenical significance.

Again, we should more surely identify and exclude undesirable immigrants

and also undertake thoroughgoing investigations to determine which races

we can not profitably assimilate into our own blood.

Physicians should pay more attention to the hereditary and congenital

aspects of their cases and make it more a matter of conscience than they

do at present to advise patients with regard to marriage. Prenuptial

medical inspection should become the custom, if not by law at least as a

voluntary procedure. Every parent must come to realize the grave risk to

which he is subjecting his daughter if a guarantee of physical fitness,

even more than assurance of financial standing or social position, is not

forthcoming from her prospective mate.

Wholly apart from the field of heredity though in a realm intimately

concerned with the birthright of the child, much practical good can be

accomplished by pondering the facts and the fictions of prenatal influence

and in the light of the knowledge thus gained, seeing that while foolish

and unnecessary worries are abolished, the conditions of health, nutrition

and occupation surrounding the expectant mother are the best obtainable.

It is the sacred duty of every individual, moreover, to see that the

maximal possibilities of his own germ-plasm are not lowered by vicious or

unwholesome living.

As individuals we can cultivate a greater sense of responsibility

regarding marriage and parenthood in those for whose training we are

responsible. We can study this whole subject conscientiously, keep pace

with new knowledge and see that other people are likewise informed. In

showing an enlightened interest in the ideals of eugenics and a

sympathetic approval of wholesome marriages, a sentiment toward parenthood

will gradually arise which will make it seem more desirable to many worthy

people than it does at present. If we are of good stock ourselves we

should recognize that it is highly desirable that we give to the race at

least four children. On the other hand, if we come from a strain which is

eugenically undesirable we should with equal conscientiousness refrain

from contributing to human misery. For where serious obstacles to a union

exist, renunciation is certainly a higher manifestation of love than is

consummation of a marriage which will result in untold misery to the

object of the affections. As a matter of fact, with adequate preliminary

knowledge as to what actually constitutes a serious drawback to marriage,

where such really exists and is recognized by the associated individuals,

love of the kind that leads to marriage is not likely to arise.

As has been suggested by various students of eugenics, it is even at

present perhaps not infeasible for earnest individuals to start in a quiet

way local centers for the keeping and filing of accurate records of their

family traits for the future use of their descendants. Such groups,

voluntary though they be, would soon acquire a degree of distinction that

would make other people of good endowments wish to join in and go on

record as eugenically desirable.

Lastly, it should not be forgotten that good traits are inherited as

certainly as bad ones. Moreover, in the realm of human conduct, even

though the fundamental features of behavior are based on an inherited

organization, man is not always driven by an inexorable linkage of

inherited neutral units into only one line of conduct, since more or less

capacity for alternative action is also inherited. It is the personal

duty of every member of society to aid in affording the opportunity and

providing the proper stimuli to insure that out of the many possibilities

of behavior which exist in the young at birth, those forms are realized

which are best worth while to the individual and to society. And while we

recognize that improved environment alone can not correct human

deficiencies we must nevertheless not relax our efforts to get cleaner

foods, cleaner surroundings, cleaner politics and cleaner hearts.

Why go on alleviating various kinds of misery that might equally well be

prevented? When one squarely faces the issue, surely the absurdity of our

present practises can not but be evident to even the most thoughtless.

=Which Shall It Be?--=As a matter of social evolution, human homes

originated in the necessity of an abiding place for the nurture and

training of the young past their first period of helplessness. Well in the

foreground of the mental picture which arises when we hear the very word

_home_, are children. What shall the home of the future be with regard to

its most important assets, the children? Shall we as a people continue to

be confronted at every turn by the dull countenance of the imbecile, the

inevitable product of a bad parental mating; or the feeble body and the

clouded intellect of the child sprung from a parentage of polluted blood;

or the furtive cunning of the born criminal, the will-less mind of the

bred degenerate, or the shiftless spawn of the pauper? Or shall it be a

type with laughing face, with bounding muscles, with unclouded brain,

overflowing with health and happiness--in short, _the well-born child_?

The answer is in our own hands. The fate of many future generations is

ours to determine and we are false to our trusteeship if we evade the

responsibility clearly laid before us. How conscientiously we heed known

facts, how actively we acquaint ourselves with new facts, and how

effectively we execute the obvious duties demanded by these facts, will

give us the answer.

THE END

GLOSSARY

ACQUIRED CHARACTERS, traits developed in the body through changes in

environment or function, in contra-distinction to those which have their

specific causes in the germ-cells.

ADAPTATION (L. _ad_, to; _aptus_, fit), fitness to environment.

ALBINISM (L. _albus_, white), a condition of deficiency in pigment.

ALLELOMORPH (Gr. _allelon_, of one another; _morphe_, form), one of a pair

of alternate Mendelian characters.

AMEBA (Gr. _amoibe_, change), a primitive single-celled animal.

AMPHIBIAN (Gr. _amphi_, both; _bios_, life), capable of living both on

land and in water.

ANTHROPOID (Gr. _anthropos_, man; _eidos_, form), man-like.

ARISTOGENIC (Gr. _aristos_, best; _genesis_, origin), pertaining to the

genetically most desirable human strains.

ASSOCIATION AREAS, those regions of the brain in which presumably the

higher mental processes are effected.

ATAVISM (L. _ad_, before; _avus_, grandfather), a return in one or more

characters to an ancestral type. See p. 8 for restricted modern usage.

ATROPHY (Gr. _a_, negative; _trophe_, nourishment), a wasting away of a

part of a living organism.

AXON (Gr. _axon_, axis), the process from a nerve cell which becomes a

nerve fiber.

BINET-SIMON SCALE, a series of tests graded to age and previous training

of the average normal child, much used in measuring mental deficiency.

BIOLOGY (Gr. _bios_, life; _logos_, discourse), the study of life and of

living things.

BIOMETRY (Gr. _bios_, life; _metron_, measure), the study of biological

problems by means of statistical methods.

BLASTOMERE (Gr. _blastos_, germ; _meros_, part), one of the early cells

formed by the division of the ovum.

BLASTOPHTHORIA (Gr. _blastos_, germ; _phtheiro_, destroy), deterioration

of the germ as the result of direct pathogenic or other disturbing agents.

BLENDING INHERITANCE, inheritance in which the characters of the parents

seem to blend in the offspring.

CACOGENIC (Gr. _kakos_, bad; _genesis_, origin), pertaining to genetically

undesirable human strains.

CELL, the fundamental unit of structure in plants and animals.

CENTROSOME (Gr. _kentron_, center; _soma_, body), a small body which

functions in indirect cell-division.

CHARACTER, any distinguishing feature, trait or property of an organism.

CHEMOTROPISM (chemical and tropism), defined, p. 198.

CHROMATIN (Gr. _chroma_, color), deeply staining substance of the

cell-nucleus.

CHROMOSOMES (Gr. _chroma_, color; _soma_, body), characteristic deeply

staining bodies, typically constant in number and appearance in each

species of animal or plant, which appear in the cell during indirect

division.

CHROMOTROPISM (Gr. _chroma_, color; _trope_, turning), defined, p. 198.

CLEAVAGE, the division of the egg-cell into many cells.

CONGENITAL (L. _con_, together; _gigno_, bear), present at birth.

CONJUGATION (L. _con_, together; _jugum_, yolk), the union of germ-cells

or unicellular individuals for reproduction.

CONSTRUCTIVE (or positive) EUGENICS, a system of securing a superior race

through propagation of the fittest individuals.

CORTEX (L. _cortex_, bark), the outer or investing layer of the brain.

CYTOPLASM (Gr. _kytos_, cell; _plasso_, form), the protoplasm of the cell

outside of the nucleus.

DALTONISM, the commonest form of color-blindness in which the affected

individual is unable to discriminate between red and green.

DENDRITES (Gr. _dendron_, tree), branching processes which spring from

nerve-cells.

DETERMINER (L. _determinare_, to determine), the distinctive cause or unit

in a germ-cell which determines the development of a particular character

in the individual derived from that cell. The terms _gene_ and _factor_

are sometimes used as synonyms of determiner.

DIHYBRIDS (L. _di_, two; _hybrida_, mongrel), the offspring of parents

differing in two characters.

DIPLOID (Gr. _diploos_, double; _eidos_, form), the dual or somatic number

of chromosomes.

DOMINANT CHARACTER (L. _dominare_, to be a master), a character from one

parent which manifests itself in offspring to the exclusion of a

contrasted character from the other parent.

DROSOPHILA, a genus of fruit-flies of which there are several species.

DUPLEX (L. _duo_, two; _plico_, fold), the condition in which a character

is represented by two determiners, one from each parent.

ELECTROTROPISM (Gr. _electron_, amber; _trope_, turning), defined, p. 198.

EMBRYO (Gr. _embryon_), the young organism in its earliest stages of

development.

EMBRYOGENY (Gr. _embryon_; _genesis_, generation), the development of the

embryo.

EUGENICS (Gr. _eugenes_, well-born), the science relating to improvement

of the human race through good breeding.

FACTOR, the determiner of a particular hereditary character.

FEEBLE-MINDEDNESS, deficiency in mental development. For grades, see p.

244.

FERTILIZATION, union of the sexual cells.

FETUS (L. _feuere_, to bring forth), the unborn young animal in its later

(after the second month in man) stages of development.

FLAGELLUM (L. _flagellum_, little whip), a vibratile, thread-like organ of

locomotion.

GAMETE (Gr. _gamos_, marriage), a mature germ-cell.

GENETICS (Gr. _genesis_, origin), the science which deals with heredity

and the origin of individuals in general.

GENOTYPE (Gr. _genea_, race; _typto_, strike), the germinal constitution

of an organism.

GEOTROPISM (Gr. _ge_, earth; _trope_, turning), defined, p. 198.

GERM-CELL, a reproductive cell.

GERMINAL VARIATIONS, variations which owe their origin to some

modification in the germ-cells.

GERM-PLASM, the material basis of inheritance.

GONAD (Gr. _gonos_, generation), a germ-gland.

HAPLOID (Gr. _haploos_, single; _eidos_, form), the single or reduced

number of chromosomes as found, for instance, in the mature germ-cells.

HELIOTROPISM (Gr. _helios_, sun; _trope_, turning), defined, p. 198.

HEREDITY (L. _heres_, heir), resemblance of individuals to their

progenitors based on community of origin.

HERITAGE (L. _heres_, heir), all that is inherited by an individual.

HETEROZYGOTE (Gr. _heteros_, other; _zygon_, yolk), an individual produced

through the union of germ-cells which are unlike in one or more

determiners. Adjective, _heterozygous_.

HOMOZYGOTE (Gr. _homos_, same; _zygon_, yolk), an individual produced

through the union of germ-cells which are alike in determiners. Adjective,

_homozygous_.

HYBRID (L. _hybrida_, mongrel), the offspring of parents which differ in

one or more characters.

IDENTICAL TWINS, twins which show identical inborn characters, both having

come presumably from the same ovum.

IDIOT (Gr. _idios_, peculiar, private), defined, p. 244.

IMBECILE (L. _imbecillis_, weak), defined, p. 244.

INHERITANCE (L. _in_, in; _heres_, heir), the sum of all characters which

are transmitted by the germ-cells from generation to generation.

INHIBITOR (L. _in_, in; _habeo_, hold, have), that which checks or

restrains.

INSTINCT (L. _in_, in; _stingno_, prick), defined, p. 203.

INTRA-UTERINE (L. _intra_, within; _uterus_, the womb), within the womb.

IRRITABILITY (L. _irrito_, excite), the property of responding to stimuli.

LININ (L. _linum_, flax), filaments of the cell-nucleus not readily

stained by dyes.

LUETIN TEST (L. _lues_, pest), a test for syphilis; see p. 188.

MAMMALS (L. _mamma_, breast), warm-blooded, hairy animals which suckle

their young.

MATURATION (L. _maturus_, ripe), the final stages in the development of

the sex-cells characterized by two divisions in one of which the number of

chromosomes is reduced by one-half.

MENDELIAN, MENDELISM, referring to Mendel, the founder of a theory of

heredity. See p. 67.

METAZOA (Gr. _meta_, over; _zoon_, animal), all animals higher than the

protozoa.

MITOSIS (Gr. _mitos_, thread), indirect nuclear division, characterized by

the appearance of a fibrous spindle and a definite number of chromosomes.

The latter split to form daughter chromosomes which diverge to the poles

of the spindle to form parts of the new nuclei.

MONGOLIAN, a type of feeble-minded individual, see p. 248.

MONOHYBRID (Gr. _monos_, single; L. _hybrida_, mongrel), the offspring of

parents, differing in one character.

MORON (Gr. _moros_, foolish), defined, p. 244.

MUTATIONS (L. _mutare_, to change), abrupt, inheritable germinal

variations. Frequently though not necessarily they are changes of

considerable extent.

NEURAL (Gr. _neuron_, nerve), pertaining to the nervous system.

NEURON (Gr. _neuron_, nerve), a nerve-unit consisting of a nerve-cell with

branching processes called dendrites and an axon or axis cylinder process

which gives rise to a nerve fiber.

NEUROPATHIC (Gr. _neuron_, nerve; _pathos_, suffering), relating to

disease of the nervous system.

NUCLEOLUS (L. dim. of nucleus), a well-defined body found within the

nucleus of a cell.

NUCLEUS (L. _nux_, a nut), the central organ of a cell.

NULLIPLEX (L. _nullus_, not any; _plico_, fold), the condition in which no

determiners of a given character exist in a particular individual.

OOeCYTE (Gr. _oon_, egg; _kytos_, cell), the ovarian egg in one stage of

development.

OOeGENESIS (Gr. _oon_, egg; _genesis_, origin), the development of ova from

primitive sex-cells.

OOeGONIUM (Gr. _oon_, egg; _gonos_, generation), a primordial egg-cell.

OVARY (L. _ovum_, egg), the organ in which the egg-cells multiply and are

nourished.

OVUM (L. _ovum_, an egg), the female sex cell.

PARTHENOGENESIS (Gr. _parthenos_, virgin; _genesis_, origin), development

of an egg which has not united with a male gamete.

PHENOTYPE (Gr. _phaino_, show; _typto_, strike), the existing type of

individual irrespective of hereditary possibilities which may reside in it

undeveloped.

PHOTOTROPISM (Gr. _phos_, light; _trope_, turning), defined, p. 198.

PLACENTA (L. _placenta_, a flat cake), the organ by which the fetus of the

higher mammals is attached to the uterine wall of the mother for purposes

of nourishment, respiration and excretion. In it the maternal and fetal

blood, although not intermingling, are brought into such close proximity

that an interchange of dissolved substances is possible.

POLAR BODIES, the minute cells which are separated from the egg in its

maturation divisions.

PRIMATE (L. _primus_, first), the highest order of animals, including

monkeys, apes and man.

PRONUCLEUS, the nucleus of the mature ovum or sperm-cell.

PROTOPLASM (Gr. _protos_, first; _plasma_, form), the essential living

substance.

PROTOZOA (Gr. _protos_, first; _zoon_, animal), single-celled animals or

animals composed of cells not separable into different tissues.

PSYCHICAL (Gr. _psyche_, the soul), pertaining to the mind.

RECESSIVE CHARACTER (L. _recessus_, a going back), a character from one

parent which remains undeveloped in offspring when associated with the

corresponding dominant character from the other parent.

REDUCTION DIVISION, a division of the maturing germ-cells in which the

dual or somatic (diploid) number of chromosomes is reduced to the single

(haploid) number.

REFLEX ACTION (L. _re_, back; _flectere_, bend), an automatic response of

the nervous and motor mechanism of the body.

RESTRICTIVE (or negative) EUGENICS, a system of improving the human race

by preventing reproduction of the unfit.

REVERSION (L. _re_, back; _verto_, turn), the reappearance of ancestral

traits which have for some generations been in abeyance.

RHEOTROPISM (Gr. _rheo_, to flow; _trope_, turning), defined, p. 198.

SALPINGECTOMY (Gr. _salpinx_, trumpet; _ectome_, cutting out), removal of

part or all of a Fallopian tube (oviduct).

SEGREGATION (L. _se_, aside; _grex_, flock), separation.

SEX CHROMOSOME, a special chromosome which is supposed to be concerned in

the determination of sex.

SEX-LINKED CHARACTERS, defined, p. 60.

SIMIAN (L. _simia_, ape), ape-like.

SIMPLEX (L. _sim_, same; _plico_, fold), the condition in which a

character is represented by a determiner from only one of the two parents.

SOMA (Gr. _soma_, body), the body considered apart from the germ-cells.

SPERMATID (Gr. _sperma_, seed), a cell resulting from the last division of

the germ-cell in spermatogenesis. It transforms into the spermatozoon.

SPERMATOCYTES (Gr. _sperma_, seed; _kytos_, cell), cells concerned in the

maturation divisions of the male germ-cells.

SPERMATOGENESIS (Gr. _sperma_, seed; _genesis_, origin), the development

of spermatozoa from primitive sex-cells.

SPERMATOGONIUM (Gr. _sperma_, seed; _gonos_, generation), a primordial

sperm-cell.