METHODS OF RESTRICTION
The means of restriction can be divided into coercive and non-coercive.
We shall discuss the former first, interpreting the word "coercive" very
broadly.
From an historical point of view, the first method which presents itself
is execution. This has been used since the beginning of the race, very
probably, although rarely with a distinct understanding of its eugenic
effect; and its value in keeping up the standard of the race should not
be underestimated. It is a method the use of which prevents the
rectification of mistakes. There are arguments against it on other
grounds, which need not be discussed here, since it suffices to say that
to put to death defectives or delinquents is wholly out of accord with
the spirit of the times, and is not seriously considered by the eugenics
movement.
The next possible method castration. This has practically nothing to
recommend it, except that it is effective--an argument that can also be
made for the "lethal chamber." The objections against it are
overwhelming. It has hardly been advocated, even by extremists, save for
those whose sexual instincts are extremely disordered; but such advocacy
is based on ignorance of the results. As a fact, castration frequently
does not diminish the sexual impulses. Its use should be limited to
cases where desirable for therapeutic reasons as well.
It is possible, however, to render either a man or woman sterile by a
much less serious operation than castration. This operation, which has
gained wide attention in recent years under the name of "sterilization,"
usually takes the form of vasectomy in man and salpingectomy in woman;
it is desirable that the reader should have a clear understanding of its
nature.
Vasectomy is a trivial operation performed in a few minutes, almost
painlessly with the use of cocain as a local anæsthetic; it is sometimes
performed with no anæsthetic whatever. The patient's sexual life is not
affected in any way, save in the one respect that he is sterile.
Salpingectomy is more serious, because the operation can not be
performed so near the surface of the body. The sexual life of the
subject is in no way changed, save that she is rendered barren; but the
operation is attended by illness and expense.
The general advantage claimed for sterilization, as a method of
preventing the reproduction of persons whose offspring would probably be
a detriment to race progress, is the accomplishment of the end in view
without much expense to the state, and without interfering with the
"liberty and pursuit of happiness" of the individual. The general
objection to it is that by removing all fear of consequences from an
individual, it is likely to lead to the spread of sexual immorality and
venereal disease. This objection is entitled to some consideration; but
there exists a still more fundamental objection against sterilization as
a program--namely, that it is sometimes not fair to the individual. Its
eugenic effects may be all that are desired; but in some cases its
euthenic effects must frequently be deplorable. Most of the persons whom
it is proposed to sterilize are utterly unfit to hold their own in the
world, in competition with normal people. For society to sterilize the
feeble-minded, the insane, the alcoholic, the born criminals, the
epileptic, and then turn them out to shift for themselves, saying, "We
have no further concern with you, now that we know you will leave no
children behind you," is unwise. People of this sort should be humanely
isolated, so that they will be brought into competition only with their
own kind; and they should be kept so segregated, not only until they
have passed the reproductive age, but until death brings them relief
from their misfortunes. Such a course is, in most cases, the only one
worthy of a Christian nation; and it is obvious that if such a course is
followed, the sexes can be effectively separated without difficulty, and
any sterilization operation will be unnecessary.
Generally speaking, the only objection urged against segregation is
that of expense. In reply, it may be said that the expense will decrease
steadily, when segregation is viewed as a long-time investment, because
the number of future wards of the state of any particular type will be
decreasing every year. Moreover, a large part of the expense can be met
by properly organizing the labor of the inmates. This is particularly
true of the feeble-minded, who will make up the largest part of the
burden because of their numbers and the fact that most of them are not
now under state care. As for the insane, epileptic, incorrigibly
criminal, and the other defectives and delinquents embraced in the
program, the state is already taking care of a large proportion of them,
and the additional expense of making this care life-long, and extending
it to those not yet under state control, but equally deserving of it,
could probably be met by better organization of the labor of the persons
involved, most of whom are able to do some sort of work that will at
least cover the cost of their maintenance.
That the problem is less serious than has often been supposed, may be
illustrated by the following statement from H. Hastings Hart of the
Russell Sage Foundation:
"Of the 10,000 (estimated) mentally defective women of child-bearing age
in the state of New York, only about 1,750 are cared for in institutions
designated for the care of the feeble-minded, and about 4,000 are
confined in insane asylums, reformatories and prisons, while at least
4,000 (probably many more) are at large in the community.
"With reference to the 4,000 feeble-minded who are confined in hospitals
for insane, prisons and reformatories and almshouses, the state would
actually be the financial gainer by providing for them in custodial
institutions. At the Rome Custodial Asylum 1,230 inmates are humanely
cared for at $2.39 per week. The same class of inmates is being cared
for in the boys' reformatories at $4.66; in the hospitals for insane at
$3.90; in the girls' reformatory at $5.47, and in the almshouse at about
$1.25. If all of these persons were transferred to an institution
conducted on the scale of the Rome Custodial Asylum, they would not only
relieve these other institutions of inmates who do not belong there and
who are a great cause of care and anxiety, but they would make room for
new patients of the proper class, obviating the necessity for
enlargement. The money thus saved would build ample institutions for the
care of these people at a much less per capita cost than that of the
prisons, reformatories and asylums where they are now kept, and the
annual per capita cost of maintenance would be reduced from 20 to 50 per
cent., except in almshouses, where the cost would be increased about $1
per week, but the almshouse inmates compose only a small fraction of the
whole number.
"I desire to emphasize the fact that one-half of the feeble-minded of
this state are already under public care, but that two-thirds of them
are cared for in the wrong kind of institutions. This difficulty can be
remedied without increasing the public burden, in the manner already
suggested. That leaves 15,000 feeble-minded for whom no provision has
yet been made. It must be remembered that these 15,000 persons are being
cared for in some way. We do not allow them to starve to death, but they
are fed, clothed and housed, usually by the self-denying labor of their
relatives. Thousands of poor mothers are giving up their lives largely
to the care of a feeble-minded child, but these mothers are unable to so
protect them from becoming a menace to the community, and, in the long
run, it would be far more economical for the community to segregate them
in institutions than to allow them to remain in their homes, only to
become ultimately paupers, criminals, prostitutes or parents of children
like themselves."
Some sort of provision is now made for some of the feeble-minded in
every state excepting eleven, viz.: Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia,
Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, South Carolina, Tennessee and Utah and
West Virginia. Delaware sends a few cases to Pennsylvania institutions;
other states sometimes care for especially difficult cases in hospitals
for the insane. The District of Columbia should be added to the list, as
having no institution for the care of its 800 or more feeble-minded.
Alaska is likewise without such an institution.
Of the several hundred thousand feeble-minded persons in the United
States, probably not more than a tenth are getting the institutional
care which is needed in most cases for their own happiness, and in
nearly every case for the protection of society. It is evident that a
great deal of new machinery must be created, or old institutions
extended, to meet this pressing problem--[86] a problem to which,
fortunately, the public is showing signs of awakening. In our opinion,
the most promising attempt to solve the problem has been made by the
Training School of Vineland, New Jersey, through its "Colony Plan."
Superintendent E. R. Johnstone of the Training School describes the
possibilities of action along this line, as follows:[87]
There are idiots, imbeciles, morons and backward children. The
morons and the backward children are found in the public schools in
large numbers. Goddard's studies showed twelve per cent. of an
entire school district below the high school to be two or three
years behind their grades, and three per cent. four or more years
behind.
It is difficult for the expert to draw the line between these two
classes, and parents and teachers are loth to admit that the morons
are defective. This problem can best be solved by the establishment
of special classes in the public schools for all who lag more than
one year behind. If for no other reason, the normal children should
be relieved of the drag of these backward pupils. The special
classes will become the clearing houses. The training should be
largely manual and industrial and as practical as possible. As the
number of classes in any school district increases, the
classification will sift out those who are merely backward and a
little coaching and special attention will return them to the
grades. The others--the morons--will remain and as long as they are
not dangerous to society (sexually or otherwise) they may live at
home and attend the special classes. As they grow older they will
be transferred to proper custodial institutions. In the city
districts, where there are many classes, this will occur between
twelve and sixteen years of age. In the country districts it will
occur earlier.
These institutions will be the training schools and will form the center
for the training and care of the other two groups, i. e., the imbeciles
and idiots. Branching out from the training schools should be colonies
(unless the parent institution is on a very large tract of ground, which
is most advisable). These colonies, or groups of comparatively small
buildings, should be of two classes. For the imbeciles, simple buildings
costing from two to four hundred dollars per inmate. The units might
well be one hundred. A unit providing four dormitories, bath house,
dining-halls, employees' buildings, pump house, water tank, sewage
disposal, laundry, stables and farm buildings can be built within the
above figures providing the buildings are of simple construction and one
story. This has been done at Vineland by having the larger imbecile and
moron boys make the cement blocks of which the buildings are
constructed.
For the idiots the construction can be much the same. Larger porches
facing the south and more toilet fixtures will be necessary, and so add
a little to the cost.
The colony should be located on rough uncleared land--preferable
forestry land. Here these unskilled fellows find happy and useful
occupation, waste humanity taking waste land and thus not only
contributing toward their own support, but also making over land that
would otherwise be useless.
One reason for building inexpensive buildings is that having cleared a
large tract--say 1,000 acres--the workers can be moved to another waste
tract and by brushing, clearing of rocks, draining and what not,
increase its value sufficiently to keep on moving indefinitely.
Many of these boy-men make excellent farmers, dairymen, swineherds and
poultry raisers under proper direction, and in the winter they can work
in the tailor, paint, carpenter, mattress and mat shops.
Nor need this be confined to the males alone. The girl-women raise
poultry, small fruits and vegetables very successfully. They pickle and
can the products of the land, and in winter do knitting, netting and
sewing of all kinds.
No manufacturer of to-day has let the product of his plant go to waste
as society has wasted the energies of this by-product of humanity. And
the feeble-minded are happy when they have occupation suited to their
needs. If one will but see them when they are set at occupations within
their comprehension and ability, he will quickly understand the joy they
get out of congenial work.
Colonies such as Mr. Johnstone describes will take care of the
able-bodied feeble-minded; other institutions will provide for the very
young and the aged; finally, there will always be many of these
defectives who can best be "segregated" in their own homes; whose
relatives have means and inclination to care for them, and sufficient
feeling of responsibility to see that the interests of society are
protected. If there is any doubt on this last point, the state should
itself assume charge, or should sterilize the defective individuals; but
it is not likely that sterilization will need to be used to any large
extent in the solution of this problem. In general it may be said that
feeble-mindedness is the greatest single dysgenic problem facing the
country, that it can be effectively solved by segregation, and that it
presents no great difficulty save the initial one of arousing the public
to its importance.
Similarly the hereditarily insane and epileptic can best be cared for
through life-long segregation--a course which society is likely to adopt
readily, because of a general dread of having insane and epileptic
persons at liberty in the community. There are undoubtedly cases where
the relatives of the affected individual can and should assume
responsibility for his care. No insane or epileptic person whose
condition is probably of a hereditary character should be allowed to
leave an institution unless it is absolutely certain that he or she will
not become a parent: if sterilization is the only means to assure this,
then it should be used. In many cases it has been found that the
individual and his relatives welcome such a step.
The habitual criminals, the chronic alcoholics, and the other defectives
whom we have mentioned as being undesirable parents, will in most cases
need to be given institutional care throughout life, in their own
interest as well as that of society. This is already being done with
many of them, and the extension of the treatment involves no new
principle nor special difficulty.
It should be borne in mind that, from a eugenic point of view, the
essential element in segregation is not so much isolation from society,
but separation of the two sexes. Properly operated, segregation
increases the happiness of the individuals segregated, as well as
working to the advantage of the body politic. In most cases the only
objection to it is the expense, and this, as we have shown, need not be
an insuperable difficulty. For these reasons, we believe that
segregation is the best way in which to restrict the reproduction of
those whose offspring could hardly fail to be undesirable, and that
sterilization should be looked upon only as an adjunct, to be used in
special cases where it may seem advantageous to allow an individual full
liberty, or partial liberty, and yet where he or she can not be trusted
to avoid reproduction.
Having reached this point in the discussion of restrictive eugenics, it
may be profitable to consider the so-called "eugenic laws" which have
been before the public in many states during recent years. They are one
of the first manifestations of an awakening public conscience on the
subject of eugenics; they show that the public, or part of it, feels the
necessity of action; they equally show that the principles which should
guide restrictive eugenics are not properly understood by most of those
who have interested themselves in the legislative side of the program.
Twelve states now have laws on their statute books (but usually not in
force) providing for the sterilization of certain classes of
individuals. Similar laws have been passed in a number of other states,
but were vetoed by the governors; while in many others bills have been
introduced but not passed. We shall review only the bills which are
actually on the statute books in 1916, and shall not attempt to detail
all the provisions of them, but shall consider only the means by which
they propose to attain a eugenic end.
The state of Indiana allows the sterilization of all inmates of state
institutions, deemed by a commission of three surgeons to be
unimprovable physically or mentally, and unfit for procreation. The
object is purely eugenic. After a few hundred operations had been
performed in Jeffersonville reformatory, the law aroused the hostility
of Governor Thomas R. Marshall, who succeeded in preventing its
enforcement; since 1913 we believe it has not been in effect. It is
defectively drawn in some ways, particularly because it includes those
who will be kept in custody for life, and who are therefore not proper
objects of sterilization.
The Washington law applies to habitual criminals and sex offenders; it
is a punitive measure which may be ordered by the court passing sentence
on the offender, but has never been put in force. Sterilization is not a
suitable method of punishment, and its value as a eugenic instrument is
jeopardized by the interjection of the punitive motive.
California applied her law to all inmates (not voluntary) of state
hospitals for the insane and the state home for the feeble-minded, and
all recidivists in the state prisons. The motive is partly eugenic,
partly therapeutic, partly punitive. It is reported[88] that 635
operations have been performed under this law, which is administered by
the state commission for the insane, the resident physician of any state
prison, and the medical superintendent of any state institution for
"fools and idiots." For several years California had the distinction of
being the only state where sterilization was actually being performed in
accordance with the law. The California measure applies to those serving
life sentences--an unnecessary application. Although falling short of an
ideal measure in some other particulars, it seems on the whole to be
satisfactorily administered.
Connecticut's law provides that all inmates of state prisons and of the
state hospitals at Middletown and Norwich may be sterilized if such
action is recommended by a board of three surgeons, on eugenic or
therapeutic grounds. It has been applied to a few insane persons (21, up
to September, 1916).
Nevada has a purely punitive sterilization law applying to habitual
criminals and sex offenders. The courts, which are authorized to apply
it, have never done so.
[Illustration: FEEBLE-MINDED MEN ARE CAPABLE OF MUCH ROUGH LABOR
FIG. 30.--Most of the cost of segregating the mentally
defective can be met by properly organizing their labor, so as to make
them as nearly self-supporting as possible. It has been found that they
perform excellently such work as clearing forest land, or reforesting
cleared land, and great gangs of them might profitably be put at such
work, in most states. Photograph from the Training School, Vineland, N.
J.]
[Illustration: FEEBLE-MINDED AT A VINELAND COLONY
FIG. 31.--They have the bodies of adults but the minds of
children. It is not to the interest of the state that they should be
allowed to mingle with the normal population; and it is quite as little
to their own interest, for they are not capable of competing
successfully with people who are normal mentally.]
Iowa's comprehensive statute applies to inmates of public institutions
for criminals, rapists, idiots, feeble-minded, imbeciles, lunatics,
drug fiends, epileptics, syphilitics, moral and sexual perverts and
diseased and degenerate persons. It is compulsory in case of persons
twice convicted of felony or of a sexual offense other than "white
slavery," in which offense one conviction makes sterilization mandatory.
The state parole board, with the managing officer and physician of each
institution, constitute the executive authorities. The act has many
objectionable features, one of the most striking of which is the
inclusion of syphilitics under the head of persons whom it is proposed
to sterilize. As syphilis is a curable disease, there is scarcely more
reason for sterilizing those afflicted with it than there is for
sterilizing persons with measles. It is true that the sterilization of a
large number of syphilitics might have a eugenic effect, if the cured
syphilitics had a permanently impaired germ-plasm--a proposition which
is very doubtful. But the framers of the law apparently were not
influenced by that aspect of the case, and in any event such a method of
procedure is too round-about to be commendable. Criminals as such, and
syphilitics, should certainly be removed from the workings of this law,
and dealt with in some other way. However, no operations are reported as
having been performed under the act.
New Jersey's law, which has never been operative, represents a much more
advanced statute; it applies to inmates of state reformatories,
charitable and penal institutions (rapists and confirmed criminals) and
provides for a board of expert examiners, as well as for legal
procedure.
New York's law, applying to inmates of state hospitals for the insane,
state prisons, reformatories and charitable institutions, is also fairly
well drawn, providing for a board of examiners, and surrounding the
operation with legal safeguards. No operations have been performed under
it.
North Dakota includes inmates of state prisons, reform school, school
for feeble-minded and asylum for the insane in its law, which is
administered by a special board. Although an emergency clause was tacked
on, when it was passed in 1913, putting it into effect at once, no
operations have been performed under it.
Michigan's law applies to all inmates of state institutions maintained
wholly or in part at public expense. It lacks many of the provisions of
an ideal law, but is being applied to some of the feeble-minded.
The Kansas law, which provides suitable court procedure, embraces
inmates of all state institutions intrusted with the care or custody of
habitual criminals, idiots, epileptics, imbeciles or insane, an
"habitual criminal" being defined as "a person who has been convicted of
some felony involving moral turpitude." It has been a dead letter ever
since it was placed on the statute books.
Wisconsin[89] provides for a special board to consider the cases of "all
inmates of state and county institutions for criminal, insane,
feeble-minded and epileptic persons," prior to their release. The law
has some good features, and has been applied to a hundred or more
feeble-minded persons.
In 1911 the American Breeders' Association appointed a "Committee to
Study and Report on the Best Practical Means of Cutting Off the
Defective Germ-Plasm in the American Population," and this committee has
been at work ever since, under auspices of the Eugenics Record Office,
making a particular study of legal sterilization. It points out[90] that
a sterilization law, to be of the greatest possible value, must:
(1) Consider sterilization as a eugenic measure, not as a punitive or
even therapeutic one.
(2) Provide due process of law, before any operation is carried out.
(3) Provide adequate and competent executive agents.
(4) Designate only proper classes of persons as subject to the law.
(5) Provide for the nomination of individuals for sterilization, by
suitable procedure.
(6) Make an adequate investigation of each case, the family history
being the most important part, and one which is often neglected at
present.
(7) Have express and adequate criteria for determining upon
sterilization.
(8) Designate the type of operation authorized.
(9) Make each distinct step mandatory and fix definitely the
responsibility for it.
(10) Make adequate appropriation for carrying out the measure.
Tested by such standards, there is not a sterilization law in existence
in the United States at the time this is written that is wholly
commendable; and those introduced in various states during the last few
years, but not passed, show few signs of improvement. It is evident that
the commendable zeal has not had adequate guidance, in the drafting of
sterilization legislation. The committee above referred to has drawn up
a model law, and states which wish to adopt a program of legislative
sterilization should pass a measure embodying at least the principles of
this model law. But, as we have pointed out, wholesale sterilization is
an unsatisfactory substitute for segregation. There are cases where it
is advisable, in states too poor or niggardly to care adequately for
their defectives and delinquents, but eugenists should favor segregation
as the main policy, with sterilization for the special cases as
previously indicated.
There is another way in which attempts have recently been made to
restrict the reproduction of anti-social persons: by putting
restrictions on marriage. This form of campaign, although usually
calling itself eugenic, has been due far less to eugenists than to sex
hygienists who have chosen to sail under a borrowed flag. Every eugenist
must wish them success in their efforts to promote sex hygiene, but it
is a matter of regret that they can not place their efforts in the
proper light, for their masquerade as a eugenic propaganda has brought
undeserved reproach on the eugenics movement.
The customary form of legal action in this case is to demand that both
applicants for a marriage license, or in some cases only the male, sign
an affidavit or present a certificate from some medical authority
stating that an examination has been made and the applicant found to be
free from any venereal disease. In some cases other diseases or mental
defects are included. When the law prevents marriage on account of
insanity, feeble-mindedness, or other hereditary defect, it obviously
has a eugenic value; but in so far as it concerns itself with venereal
diseases, which are not hereditary, it is only of indirect interest to
eugenics. The great objection to such laws is that they are too easily
evaded by the persons whom they are intended to reach--a fact that has
been demonstrated conclusively wherever they have been put in force.
Furthermore, the nature of the examination demanded is usually wholly
inadequate to ascertain whether the applicant really is or is not
afflicted with a venereal disease. Finally, it is to be borne in mind
that the denial of a marriage license will by no means prevent
reproduction, among the anti-social classes of the community.
For these reasons, the so-called eugenic laws of several states, which
provide for a certificate of health before a marriage license is issued,
are not adequate eugenic measures. They have some value in awakening
public sentiment to the value of a clean record in a prospective life
partner. To the extent that they are enforced, the probability that
persons afflicted with venereal disease are on the average eugenically
inferior to the unaffected gives these laws some eugenic effect. We are
not called on to discuss them from a hygienic point of view; but we
believe that it is a mistake for eugenists to let legislation of this
sort be anything but a minor achievement, to be followed up by more
efficient legislation.
Laws which tend to surround marriage with a reasonable amount of
formality and publicity are, in general, desirable eugenically. They
tend to discourage hasty and secret marriages, and to make matrimony
appear as a matter in which the public has a legitimate interest, and
which is not to be undertaken lightly and without consideration. Laws
compelling the young to get the consent of their parents before marriage
are to be placed in this category; and likewise the German law which
requires the presentation of birth-certificates before a marriage
license is issued.
A revival under proper form of the old custom of publishing the banns is
desirable. Undoubtedly many hasty and ill-considered marriages are
contracted at the present time, with dysgenic results, which could be
prevented if the relatives and friends of the contracting parties knew
what was going on, and could bring to light defects or objections
unknown or not properly realized by the young people. Among other
states, Missouri has recently considered such a law, proposing that each
applicant for a marriage license be required to present a certificate
from a reputable physician, stating in concise terms the applicant's
health and his fitness to marry. Notice of application for a marriage
license shall be published in a daily paper three consecutive times, at
the expense of the county. If at the expiration of one day from the
publication of the last notice, no charges have been filed with the
recorder alleging the applicants' unfitness to marry, license shall be
granted. If objection be made by three persons not related in blood to
each other, on the ground of any item mentioned in the physician's
certificate, the case shall be taken before the circuit court; if the
court sustains the objection of these three unrelated persons, a license
to wed shall be denied; if the court overrules the objection, the
license shall be granted and court costs charged to the objectors.
Although interesting as showing the drift of public sentiment toward a
revival of the banns, this proposed law is poorly drawn. Three unrelated
laymen and the judge of a circuit court are not the proper persons to
decide on the biological fitness of a proposed marriage. We believe the
interests of eugenics would be sufficiently met at this time by a law
which provided that adequate notice of application for marriage license
should be published, and no license granted (except under exceptional
circumstances) until the expiration of two weeks from the publication of
the notice. This would give families and friends time to act; but it is
probably not practicable to forbid the issuance of a license at the
expiration of the designated time, unless evidence is brought forward
showing that one of the applicants is not legally capable of
contracting marriage because of a previous mate still living and
undivorced, or because of insanity, feeble-mindedness, under age, etc.
Such a law, we believe, could be put on the statute books of any state,
and enforced, without arousing prejudices or running counter to public
sentiment; and its eugenic value, if small, would certainly be real.
This exhausts the list of suggested coercive means of restricting the
reproduction of the inferior. What we propose is, we believe, a very
modest program, and one which can be carried out, as soon as public
opinion is educated on the subject, without any great sociological,
legal or financial hindrances. We suggest nothing more than that
individuals whose offspring would almost certainly be subversive of the
general welfare, be prevented from having any offspring. In most cases,
such individuals are, or should be, given life-long institutional care
for their own benefit, and it is an easy matter, by segregation of the
sexes, to prevent reproduction. In a few cases, it will probably be
found desirable to sterilize the individual by a surgical operation.
Such coercive restriction does, in some cases, sacrifice what may be
considered personal rights. In such instances, personal rights must give
way before the immensely greater interests of the race. But there is a
much larger class of cases, where coercion can not be approved, and yet
where an enlightened conscience, or the subtle force of public opinion,
may well bring about some measure of restraint on reproduction. This
class includes many individuals who are not in any direct way
detrimental to society; and who yet have some inherited taint or defect
that should be checked, and of which they, if enlightened, would
probably be the first to desire the elimination. The number of
high-minded persons who deliberately refrain from marriage, or
parenthood, in the interests of posterity, is greater than any one
imagines, except a eugenist brought into intimate relations with people
who take an intelligent interest in the subject.
X. comes, let us say, from a family in which there is a persistent taint
of epilepsy, or insanity. X. is a normal, useful, conscientious member
of society. To talk of segregating such an individual would be rash. But
X. has given some thought to heredity and eugenics, and decides that he,
or she, will refrain from marriage, in order to avoid transmitting the
family taint to another generation. Here we have, in effect, a
non-coercive restriction of reproduction. What shall we say of the
action of X. in remaining celibate,--is it wise or unwise? To be
encouraged or condemned?
It is perhaps the most delicate problem which applied eugenics offers.
It is a peculiarly personal one, and the outsider who advises in such a
case is assuming a heavy responsibility, not only in regard to the
future welfare of the race, but to the individual happiness of X. We can
not accept the sweeping generalization sometimes made that "Strength
should marry weakness and weakness marry strength." No more can we hold
fast to the ideal, which we believe to be utopian, that "Strength should
only marry strength." There are cases where such glittering generalities
are futile; where the race and the individual would both be gainers by a
marriage which produced children that had the family taint, but either
latent or not to a degree serious enough to counteract their value. The
individual must decide for himself with especial reference to the trait
in question and his other compensating qualities; but he should at least
have the benefit of whatever light genetics can offer him, before he
makes his decision.
For the sake of a concrete example, let us suppose that a man, in whose
ancestry tuberculosis has appeared for several generations, is
contemplating marriage. The first thing to be remembered is that if he
marries a woman with a similar family history, their children will have
a double inheritance of the taint, and are almost certain to be affected
unless living in an especially favorable region. It would _in most
cases_ be best that no children result from such a marriage.
On the other hand, the man may marry a woman in whose family consumption
is unknown. The chance of their children being tuberculous will not be
great; nevertheless the taint, the diathesis, will be passed on just the
same, although concealed, possibly to appear at some future time. Such
a marriage is in some ways more dangerous to the race, in the long run,
than that of "weakness with weakness." Yet society at present certainly
has no safe grounds for interference, if such a marriage is made. If the
two persons come of superior stock, it seems _probable_ that the gain
will outweigh the loss. In any event, it is at least to be expected that
both man and woman would have a deliberate consciousness of what they
are doing, and that no person with any honor would enter into a
marriage, concealing a defect in his or her ancestry. Love is usually
blind enough to overlook such a thing, but if it chooses not to, it
ought not to be blindfolded.
In short, the mating of strength with strength is certainly the ideal
which society should have and which every individual should have. But
human heredity is so mixed that this ideal is not always practicable;
and if any two persons wish to abandon it, society is hardly justified
in interfering, unless the case be so gross as those which we were
discussing in the first part of this chapter. Progress in this direction
is to be expected mainly from the enlightened action of the individual.
Much more progress in the study of heredity must be made before advice
on marriage matings can be given in any except fairly obvious cases. The
most that can now be done is to urge that a full knowledge of the family
history of an intended life partner be sought, to encourage the discreet
inquiries and subtle guidance of parents, and to appeal to the eugenic
conscience of a young man or woman. In case of doubt the advice of a
competent biologist should be taken. There is a real danger that
high-minded people may allow some minor physical defect to outweigh a
greater mental excellence.
There remains one other non-coercive method of influencing the
distribution of marriage, which deserves consideration in this
connection.
We have said that society can not well put many restrictions on marriage
at the present time. We urge by every means at our command that marriage
be looked upon more seriously, that it be undertaken with more
deliberation and consideration. We consider it a crime for people to
marry, without knowing each other's family histories. But in spite of
all this, ill-assorted, dysgenic marriages will still be made. When such
a marriage is later demonstrated to have been a mistake, not only from
an individual, but also from a eugenic point of view, society should be
ready to dissolve the union. Divorce is far preferable to mere
separation, since the unoffending party should not be denied the
privilege of remarriage, as the race in most cases needs his or her
contribution to the next generation. In extreme cases, it would be
proper for society to take adequate steps to insure that the dysgenic
party could neither remarry nor have offspring outside marriage. The
time-honored justifiable grounds for divorce,--adultery, sterility,
impotence, venereal infection, desertion, non-support, habitual
cruelty,--appear to us to be no more worthy of legal recognition
than the more purely dysgenic grounds of chronic inebriety,
feeble-mindedness, epilepsy, insanity or any other serious inheritable
physical, mental or moral defect.
This view of the eugenic value of divorce should not be construed as a
plea for the admission of mutual consent as a ground for divorce. It is
desirable, however, to realize that mismating is the real evil. Divorce
in such cases is merely a cure for an improper condition. Social
condemnation should stigmatize the wrong of mismating, not the undoing
of such a wrong.
Restrictions on age at marriage are almost universal. The object is to
prevent too early marriages. The objections which are commonly urged
against early marriage (in so far as they bear upon eugenics) are the
following:
1. That it results in inferior offspring. This objection is not well
supported except possibly in the most extreme cases. Physically, there
is evidence that the younger parents on the whole bear the sounder
children.
2. That a postponement of marriage provides the opportunity for better
sexual selection. This is a valid ground for discouraging the marriage
of minors.
3. The better educated classes are obliged to marry late, because a man
usually can not marry until he has finished his education and
established himself in business. A fair amount of restriction as to age
at marriage will therefore not affect these classes, but may affect the
uneducated classes. In so far as lack of education is correlated with
eugenic inferiority, some restriction of this sort is desirable, because
it will keep inferiors from reproducing too rapidly, as compared with
the superior elements of the population.
While the widespread rule that men should not marry under 21 and women
under 18 has some justification, then, an ideal law would permit
exceptions where there was adequate income and good mating.
Laws to prohibit or restrict consanguineous marriages fall within the
scope of this chapter, in so far as they are not based on dogma alone,
since their aim is popularly supposed to be to prevent marriages that
will result in undesirable offspring. Examining the laws of all the
United States, C. B. Davenport[91] found the following classes excluded
from marriage:
1. Sibs (i.e., full brothers and sisters) in all states, and half sibs
in most states.
2. Parent and child in all states, and parent and grandchild in all
states except Pennsylvania.
3. Child and parent's sibs (i.e., niece and uncle, nephew and aunt).
Prohibited in all but four states.
4. First cousins. Marriages of this type are prohibited in over a third
of the states, and tacitly or specifically permitted in the others.
5. Other blood relatives are occasionally prohibited from marrying.
Thus, second cousins in Oklahoma and a child and his or her parent's
half sibs in Alabama, Minnesota, New Jersey, Texas, and other states.
In the closest of blood-relationships the well-nigh universal
restrictions should be retained. But when marriage between cousins--the
commonest form of consanguineous marriage--is examined, it is found to
result frequently well, sometimes ill. There is a widespread belief that
such marriages are dangerous, and in support of this idea, one is
referred to the histories of various isolated communities where
consanguineous marriage is alleged to have led to "an appalling amount
of defect and degeneracy." Without questioning the facts, one may
question the interpretation of the facts, and it seems to us that a
wrong interpretation of these stories is partly responsible for the
widespread condemnation of cousin marriage at the present time.
The Bahama Islands furnish one of the stock examples. Clement A. Penrose
writes[92] of them:
"In some of the white colonies where black blood has been excluded, and
where, owing to their isolated positions, frequent intermarriage has
taken place, as for instance at Spanish Wells, and Hopetown, much
degeneracy is present, manifested by many abnormalities of mind and
body.... I am strongly of the opinion that the deplorable state of
degeneracy which we observed at Hopetown has been in a great measure, if
not entirely, brought about by too close intermarrying of the
inhabitants."
To demonstrate his point, he took the pains to compile a family tree of
the most degenerate strains at Hopetown. There are fifty-five marriages
represented, and the chart is overlaid with twenty-three red lines, each
of which is said to represent an intermarriage. This looks like a good
deal of consanguineous mating; but to test the matter a little farther
the fraternity at the bottom of the chart,--eight children, of whom five
were idiots,--was traced. In the second generation it ran to another
island, and when the data gave out, at the fourth generation, there was
not a single case of consanguineous marriage involved.
Another fraternity was then picked out consisting of two men, both
idiots and congenitally blind, and a woman who had married and given
birth to ten normal children. In the fourth generation this pedigree,
which was far from complete, went out of the islands; so far as the data
showed there was not a single case of consanguineous marriage. There was
one case where a name was repeated, but the author had failed to mark
this as a case of intermarriage, if it really was such. It is difficult
to share the conviction of Dr. Penrose, that the two pedigrees
investigated, offer an example of the nefarious workings of
intermarriage.
Finally a fraternity was traced to which the author had called
particular attention because three of its eleven members were born
blind. The defect was described as "optic atrophy associated with a
pigmentary retinitis and choryditis" and "this condition," Dr. Penrose
averred, "is one stated by the authorities to be due to the effects of
consanguineous marriage."
Fortunately, the pedigree was fairly full and several lines of it could
be carried through the sixth generation. There was, indeed, a
considerable amount of consanguineous marriage involved. When the amount
of inbreeding represented by these blind boys was measured, it proved to
be almost identical with the amount represented by the present Kaiser of
Germany.[93]
We are unable to see in such a history as that of Hopetown, Bahama
Islands, any evidence that consanguineous marriage necessarily results
in degeneracy. Dr. Penrose himself points to a potent factor when he
says of his chart in another connection: "It will be noticed that only a
few of the descendants of Widow Malone [the first settler at Hopetown]
are indicated as having married. By this it is not meant that the others
did not marry; many of them did, but they moved away and settled
elsewhere, and in no way affected the future history of the settlement
of Hopetown."
By moving away, it appears to us, they did very decidedly affect the
future history of Hopetown. Who are the emigrants? Might they not have
been the more enterprising and intelligent, the physically and mentally
superior of the population, who rebelled at the limited opportunities of
their little village, and went to seek a fortune in some broader field?
Did not the best go in general; the misfits, the defectives, stay behind
to propagate? Emigration in such a case would have the same effect as
war; it would drain off the best stock and leave the weaklings to stay
home and propagate their kind. Under such conditions, defectives would
be bound to multiply, regardless of whether or not the marriages are
consanguineous.
"It will be seen at a glance," Dr. Penrose writes, "that early in the
history of the Malone family these indications of degeneracy were
absent; but they began in the fourth generation and rapidly increased
afterward until they culminated by the presence of five idiots in one
family. The original stock was apparently excellent, but the present
state of the descendants is deplorable."
Now three generations of emigration from a little community, which even
to-day has only 1,000 inhabitants, would naturally make quite a
difference in the average eugenic quality of the population. In almost
any population, a few defectives are constantly being produced. Take out
the better individuals, and leave these defectives to multiply, and the
amount of degeneracy in the population will increase, regardless of
whether the defectives are marrying their cousins, or unrelated persons.
The family of five idiots, cited by Dr. Penrose, is an excellent
illustration, for it is not the result of consanguineous marriage--at
least, not in a close enough degree to have appeared on the chart. It is
doubtless a mating of like with like; and biologically, consanguineous
marriage is nothing more.
Honesty demands, therefore, that consanguineous marriage be not credited
with results for which the consanguineous element is in no wise
responsible. The prevailing habit of picking out a community or a strain
where consanguineous marriage and defects are associated and loudly
declaring the one to be the cause of the other, is evidence of the lack
of scientific thought that is all too common.
Most of the studies of these isolated communities where intermarriage
has taken place, illustrate the same point. C. B. Davenport, for example,
quotes[94] an anonymous correspondent from the island of Bermuda, which
"shows the usual consequence of island life." He writes: "In some of the
parishes (Somerset and Paget chiefly) there has been much intermarriage,
not only with cousins but with double first cousins in several cases.
Intermarriage has chiefly caused weakness of character leading to drink,
not lack of brains or a certain amount of physical strength, but a very
inert and lazy disposition."
It is difficult to believe that anyone who has lived in the tropics
could have written this except as a practical joke. Those who have
resided in the warmer parts of the world know, by observation if not by
experience, that a "weakness of character leading to drink" and "an
inert and lazy disposition" are by no means the prerogatives of the
inbred.
If one is going to credit consanguineous marriage with these evil
results, what can one say when evil results fail to follow?
What about Smith's Island, off the coast of Maryland, where all the
inhabitants are said to be interrelated, and where a physician who lived
in the community for three years failed to find among the 700 persons a
single case of idiocy, insanity, epilepsy or congenital deafness?
What about the community of Batz, on the coast of France, where Voisin
found five marriages of first cousins and thirty-one of second cousins,
without a single case of mental defect, congenital deafness, albinism,
retinitis pigmentosa or malformation? The population was 3,000, all of
whom were said to be interrelated.
What about Cape Cod, whose natives are known throughout New England for
their ability? "At a recent visit to the Congregational Sunday-School,"
says a student, "I noticed all officers, many teachers, organist,
ex-superintendent, and pastor's wife all Dyers. A lady at Truro united
in herself four quarters Dyer, father, mother and both grandmothers
Dyers."
And finally, what about the experience of livestock breeders? Not only
has strict brother and sister mating--the closest inbreeding
possible--been carried on experimentally for twenty or twenty-five
generations without bad results; but the history of practically every
fine breed shows that inbreeding is largely responsible for its
excellence.
The Ptolemies, who ruled Egypt for several centuries, wanted to keep the
throne in the family, and hence practiced a system of intermating which
has long been the classical evidence that consanguineous marriage is
not necessarily followed by immediate evil effects. The following
fragment of the genealogy of Cleopatra VII (mistress of Julius Cæsar and
Marc Antony) is condensed from Weigall's _Life and Times of Cleopatra_
(1914) and
Ptolemy I
|
|
Ptolemy II
|
|
Ptolemy III m. Berenice II, his half-cousin.
|
|
Ptolemy IV m. Arsinoë III, his full sister.
|
|
Ptolemy V.
|
|
Ptolemy VII m. Cleopatra II, his full sister.
|
|
Cleopatra III m. Ptolemy IX (brother of VII), her uncle.
|
|
Ptolemy X. m. Cleopatra IV, his full sister.
|
-----|
| Berenice II m. Ptolemy XI (brother of X), her uncle.
| |
| |
| Ptolemy XII, d. without issue, succeeded by his uncle.
| |
| |
---Ptolemy XIII.
|
|
Cleopatra VII.
shows an amount of continued inbreeding that has never been surpassed in
recorded history, and yet did not produce any striking evil results. The
ruler's consort is named, only when the two were related. The
consanguineous marriages shown in this line of descent are by no means
the only ones of the kind that took place in the family, many like them
being found in collateral lines.
It is certain that consanguineous marriage, being the mating of like
with like, intensifies the inheritance of the offspring, which gets a
"double dose" of any trait which both parents have in common. If the
traits are good, it will be an advantage to the offspring to have a
double dose of them; if the traits are bad, it will be a disadvantage.
The marriage of superior kin should produce children better than the
parents; the marriage of inferior kin should produce children even worse
than their parents.
In passing judgment on a proposed marriage, therefore, the vital
question is not, "Are they related by blood?" but "Are they carriers of
desirable traits?"
The nature of the traits can be told only by a study of the ancestry. Of
course, characters may be latent or recessive, but this is also the case
in the population at large, and the chance of unpleasant results is so
small, when no instance can be found in the ancestry, that it can be
disregarded. If the same congenital defect or undesirable trait does not
appear in the three previous generations of two cousins, including
collaterals, the individuals need not be discouraged from marrying if
they want to.
Laws which forbid cousins to marry are, then, on an unsound biological
basis. As Dr. Davenport remarks, "The marriage of Charles Darwin and
Emma Wedgewood would have been illegal and void, and their children
pronounced illegitimate in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri,
Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota,
Utah, Washington, Wyoming, and other states." The vitality and great
capacity of their seven children are well known. A law which would have
prevented such a marriage is certainly not eugenic.
We conclude, then, that laws forbidding cousin marriages are not
desirable. Since it would be well to make an effort to increase the
opportunities for further play of sexual selection, the lack of which is
sometimes responsible for cousin marriages, consanguineous marriage is
by no means to be indiscriminately indorsed. Still, if there are cases
where it is eugenically injurious, there are also cases where its
results are eugenically highly beneficial, as in families with no
serious defects and with outstanding ability.
The laws prohibiting marriage between persons having no blood
relationship but connected by marriage should all be repealed. The
best-known English instance, which was eugenically very
objectionable,--the prohibition of marriage between a man and his
deceased wife's sister,--has fortunately been extirpated, but laws still
exist, in some communities, prohibiting marriage between a man and his
stepchild or stepparent, between a woman and her deceased husband's
brother, and between the second husband or wife of a deceased aunt or
uncle and the wife or husband of a deceased nephew or niece, etc.
The only other problem of restrictive eugenics which it seems necessary
to consider is that offered by miscegenation. This will be considered in
Chapters XIV and XV.
To sum up: we believe that there are urgent reasons for and no
objections to preventing the reproduction of a number of persons in the
United States, many of whom have already been recognized by society as
being so anti-social or inferior as to need institutional care. Such
restriction can best be enforced by effective segregation of the sexes,
although there are cases where individuals might well be released and
allowed full freedom, either "on parole," so to speak, or after having
undergone a surgical operation which would prevent their reproduction.
Laws providing for sterilization, such as a dozen states now possess,
are not framed with a knowledge of the needs of the case; but a properly
drafted sterilization law to provide for cases not better treated by
segregation is desirable. Segregation should be considered the main
method.
It is practicable to place only minor restrictions on marriage, with a
eugenic goal in view. A good banns law, however, could meet no
objections and would yield valuable results. Limited age restrictions
are proper.
Marriages of individuals whose families are marked by minor taints can
not justify social interference; but an enlightened conscience and a
eugenic point of view should lead every individual to make as good a
choice as possible.
If a eugenically bad mating has been made, society should minimize as
far as possible the injurious results, by means of provision for
properly restricted divorce.
Consanguineous marriages in a degree no closer than that of first
cousins, are neither to be condemned nor praised indiscriminately. Their
desirability depends on the ancestry of the two persons involved; each
case should therefore be treated on its own merits.