Roswell H. Johnson

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.

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.

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

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.