[Pg i]

[Pg ii]

[Pg iii]

New York
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
1918

All rights reserved
[Pg v]Set up and electrotyped. Published October, 1918.

THE MACMILLAN COMPANY NEW YORK · BOSTON · CHICAGO · DALLAS
ATLANTA - SAN FRANCISCO
MACMILLAN & CO., Limited LONDON · BOMBAY · CALCUTTA MELBOURNE
THE MACMILLAN CO. OF CANADA, Ltd. TORONTO

The science of eugenics consists of a foundation of biology and a superstructure of sociology. Galton, its founder, emphasized both parts in due proportion. Until recently, however, most sociologists have been either indifferent or hostile to eugenics, and the science has been left for the most part in the hands of biologists, who have naturally worked most on the foundations and neglected the superstructure. Although we are not disposed to minimize the importance of the biological part, we think it desirable that the means of applying the biological principles should be more carefully studied. The reader of this book will, consequently, find only a summary explanation of the mechanism of inheritance. Emphasis has rather been laid on the practical means by which society may encourage the reproduction of superior persons and discourage that of inferiors.

We assume that in general, a eugenically superior or desirable person has, to a greater degree than the average, the germinal basis for the following characteristics: to live past maturity, to reproduce adequately, to live happily and to make contributions to the productivity, happiness, and progress of society. It is desirable to discriminate as much as possible between the possession of the germinal basis and the observed achievement, since the latter consists of the former plus or minus environmental influence. But where the amount of modification is too obscure to be detected, it is advantageous to take the demonstrated achievement as a tentative measure of the germinal basis. The problem of eugenics is to make such legal, social and economic adjustments that (1) a larger proportion of superior persons will have children than at present, (2) that the average number of offspring of each superior person will be greater than at present, (3) that the most inferior persons will have no children, and finally that [Pg vi](4) other inferior persons will have fewer children than now. The science of eugenics is still young and much of its program must be tentative and subject to the test of actual experiment. It is more important that the student acquire the habit of looking at society from a biological as well as a sociological point of view, than that he put his faith in the efficacy of any particular mode of procedure.

The essential points of our eugenics program were laid down by Professor Johnson in an article entitled "Human Evolution and its Control" in the Popular Science Monthly for January, 1910. Considerable parts of the material in the present book have appeared in the Journal of Heredity. Helpful suggestions and criticism have been received from several friends, in particular Sewall Wright and O. E. Baker of the United States Department of Agriculture.

PAUL POPENOE.

Washington, June, 1918.

[Pg vii]

[Pg ix]

[Pg xi]

The Great War has caused a vast destruction of the sounder portion of the belligerent peoples and it is certain that in the next generation the progeny of their weaker members will constitute a much larger proportion of the whole than would have been the case if the War had not occurred. Owing to this immeasurable calamity that has befallen the white race, the question of eugenics has ceased to be merely academic. It looms large whenever we consider the means of avoiding a stagnation or even decline of our civilization in consequence of the losses the War has inflicted upon the more valuable stocks. Eugenics is by no means tender with established customs and institutions, and once it seemed likely that its teachings would be left for our grandchildren to act on. But the plowshare of war has turned up the tough sod of custom, and now every sound new idea has a chance. Rooted prejudices have been leveled like the forests of Picardy under gun fire. The fear of racial decline provides the eugenist with a far stronger leverage than did the hope of accelerating racial progress. It may be, then, that owing to the War eugenic policies will gain as much ground by the middle of this century as without it they would have gained by the end of the century.

This book could not have been written ten years ago because many of the data it relies on were not then in existence. In view of inquiries now going on, we may reasonably hope that ten years hence it will be possible to make a much better book on the subject. But I am sure that this book is as good a presentation as can be made of eugenics at its present stage of development. The results of all the trustworthy observations and experiments have been taken into account, and the testing of human customs and institutions in the light of biological principles tallies well with the sociology of our times.[Pg xii]

I cannot understand how any conscientious person, dealing in a large way with human life, should have the hardihood to ignore eugenics. This book should command the attention not only of students of sociology, but, as well, of philanthropists, social workers, settlement wardens, doctors, clergymen, educators, editors, publicists, Y. M. C. A. secretaries and industrial engineers. It ought to lie at the elbow of law-makers, statesmen, poor relief officials, immigration inspectors, judges of juvenile courts, probation officers, members of state boards of control and heads of charitable and correctional institutions. Finally, the thoughtful ought to find in it guidance in their problem of mating. It will inspire the superior to rise above certain worldly ideals of life and to aim at a family success rather than an individual success.

Edward Alsworth Ross.

The University of Wisconsin
Madison, Wisconsin
July 1918.
[Pg 1]

At the First Race Betterment Conference held at Battle Creek, Mich., many methods were suggested by which it was believed that the people of America might be made, on the average, healthier, happier, and more efficient. One afternoon the discussion turned to the children of the slums. Their condition was pictured in dark colors. A number of eugenists remarked that they were in many cases handicapped by a poor heredity. Then Jacob Riis—a man for whom every American must feel a profound admiration—strode upon the platform, filled with indignation.

"We have heard friends here talk about heredity," he exclaimed. "The word has rung in my ears until I am sick of it. Heredity! Heredity! There is just one heredity in all the world that is ours—we are children of God, and there is nothing in the whole big world that we cannot do in His service with it."

It is probably not beyond the truth to say that in this statement Jacob Riis voiced the opinion of a majority of the social workers of this country, and likewise a majority of the people who are faithfully and with much self-sacrifice supporting charities, uplift movements, reform legislation, and philanthropic attempts at social betterment in many directions. They suppose that they are at the same time making the race better by making the conditions better in which people live.

It is widely supposed that, although nature may have distributed some handicaps at birth, they can be removed if the body is properly warmed and fed and the mind properly exercised. It is further widely supposed that this improvement in the condition of the individual will result in his production of better[Pg 2] infants, and that thus the race, gaining a little momentum in each generation, will gradually move on toward ultimate perfection.

There is no lack of efforts to improve the race, by this method of direct change of the environment. It involves two assumptions, which are sometimes made explicitly, sometimes merely taken for granted. These are:

1. That changes in a man's surroundings, or, to use the more technical biological term, in his nurture, will change the nature that he has inherited.

2. That such changes will further be transmitted to his children.

Any one who proposes methods of race betterment, as we do in the present book, must meet these two popular beliefs. We shall therefore examine the first of them in this chapter, and the second in Chapter II.

Galton adopted and popularized Shakespere's antithesis of nature and nurture to describe a man's inheritance and his surroundings, the two terms including everything that can pertain to a human being. The words are not wholly suitable, particularly since nature has two distinct meanings,—human nature and external nature. The first is the only one considered by Galton. Further, nurture is capable of subdivision into those environmental influences which do not undergo much change,—e.g., soil and climate,—and those forces of civilization and education which might better be described as culture. The evolutionist has really to deal with the three factors of germ-plasm, physical surroundings and culture. But Galton's phrase is so widely current that we shall continue to use it, with the implications that have just been outlined.

The antithesis of nature and nurture is not a new one; it was met long ago by biologists and settled by them to their own satisfaction. The whole body of experimental and observational evidence in biology tends to show that the characters which the individual inherits from his ancestors remain remarkably constant in all ordinary conditions to which they may be subjected. Their constancy is roughly proportionate[Pg 3] to the place of the animal in the scale of evolution; lower forms are more easily changed by outside influence, but as one ascends to the higher forms, which are more differentiated, it is found more and more difficult to effect any change in them. Their characters are more definitely fixed at birth.[1]

It is with the highest of all forms, Man, that we have now to deal. The student in biology is not likely to doubt that the differences in men are due much more to inherited nature than to any influences brought to bear after birth, even though these latter influences include such powerful ones as nutrition and education within ordinary limits.

But the biological evidence does not lend itself readily to summary treatment, and we shall therefore examine the question by statistical methods.[2] These have the further advantage of being more easily understood; for facts which can be measured and expressed in numbers are facts whose import the reader can usually decide for himself: he is perfectly able to determine, without any special training, whether twice two does or does not make four. One further preliminary remark: the problem of nature vs. nurture can not be solved in general terms; a moment's thought will show that it can be understood only by examining one trait at a time. The problem is to decide whether the differences between the people met in everyday life are due more to inheritance or to outside influences, and these differences must naturally be examined separately; they can not be lumped together.

To ask whether nature in general contributes more to a man than nurture is futile; but it is not at all futile to ask whether the differences in a given human trait are more affected by differences in nature than by differences in nurture. It is easy[Pg 4] to see that a verdict may be sometimes given to one side, sometimes to the other. Albinism in animals, for instance, is a trait which is known to be inherited, and which is very slightly affected by differences of climate, food supply, etc. On the other hand, there are factors which, although having inherited bases, owe their expression almost wholly to outside influences. Professor Morgan, for example, has found a strain of fruit flies whose offspring in cold weather are usually born with supernumerary legs. In hot weather they are practically normal. If this strain were bred only in the tropics, the abnormality would probably not be noticed; on the other hand, if it were bred only in cold regions, it would be set down as one characterized by duplication of limbs. The heredity factor would be the same in each case, the difference in appearance being due merely to temperature.

Mere inspection does not always tell whether some feature of an individual is more affected by changes in heredity or changes in surroundings. On seeing a swarthy man, one may suppose that he comes of a swarthy race, or that he is a fair-skinned man who has lived long in the desert. In the one case the swarthiness would be inheritable, in the other not. Which explanation is correct, can only be told by examining a number of such individuals under critical conditions, or by an examination of the ancestry. A man from a dark-skinned race would become little darker by living under the desert sun, while a white man would take on a good deal of tan.

The limited effect of nurture in changing nature is in some fields a matter of common observation. The man who works in the gymnasium knows that exercise increases the strength of a given group of muscles for a while, but not indefinitely. There comes a time when the limit of a man's hereditary potentiality is reached, and no amount of exercise will add another millimeter to the circumference of his arm. Similarly the handball or tennis player some day reaches his highest point, as do runners or race horses. A trainer could bring Arthur Duffy in a few years to the point of running a hundred yards in 9-3/5 seconds, but no amount of training after that could clip off another fifth[Pg 5] of a second. A parallel case is found in the students who take a college examination. Half a dozen of them may have devoted the same amount of time to it—may have crammed to the limit—but they will still receive widely different marks. These commonplace cases show that nurture has seemingly some power to mold the individual, by giving his inborn possibilities a chance to express themselves, but that nature says the first and last word. Francis Galton, the father of eugenics, hit on an ingenious and more convincing illustration by studying the history of twins.[3]

There are, everyday observation shows, two kinds of twins—ordinary twins and the so-called identical twins. Ordinary twins are merely brothers, or sisters, or brother and sister, who happen to be born two at a time, because two ova have developed simultaneously. The fact that they were born at the same time does not make them alike—they differ quite as widely from each other as ordinary brothers and sisters do. Identical twins have their origin in a different phenomenon—they are believed to be halves of the same egg-cell, in which two growing-points appeared at a very early embryonic stage, each of these developing into a separate individual. As would be expected, these identical twins are always of the same sex, and extremely like each other, so that sometimes their own mother can not tell them apart. This likeness extends to all sorts of traits:—they have lost their milk teeth on the same day in one case, they even fell ill on the same day with the same disease, even though they were in different cities.

Now Galton reasoned that if environment really changes the inborn character, then these identical twins, who start life as halves of the same whole, ought to become more unlike if they were brought up apart; and as they grew older and moved into different spheres of activity, they ought to become measurably dissimilar. On the other hand, ordinary twins, who start dissimilar, ought to become more alike when brought up in the[Pg 6] same family, on the same diet, among the same friends, with the same education. If the course of years shows that identical twins remain as like as ever and ordinary twins as unlike as ever, regardless of changes in conditions, then environment will have failed to demonstrate that it has any great power to modify one's inborn nature in these traits.

With this view, Galton collected the history of eighty pairs of identical twins, thirty-five cases being accompanied by very full details, which showed that the twins were really as nearly identical, in childhood, as one could expect to find. On this point, Galton's inquiries were careful, and the replies satisfactory. They are not, however, as he remarks, much varied in character. "When the twins are children, they are usually distinguished by ribbons tied around the wrist or neck; nevertheless the one is sometimes fed, physicked, and whipped by mistake for the other, and the description of these little domestic catastrophes was usually given by the mother, in a phraseology, that is sometimes touching by reason of its seriousness. I have one case in which a doubt remains whether the children were not changed in their bath, and the presumed A is not really B, and vice versa. In another case, an artist was engaged on the portraits of twins who were between three and four years of age; he had to lay aside his work for three weeks, and, on resuming it, could not tell to which child the respective likeness he had in hand belonged. The mistakes become less numerous on the part of the mother during the boyhood and girlhood of the twins, but are almost as frequent as before on the part of strangers. I have many instances of tutors being unable to distinguish their twin pupils. Two girls used regularly to impose on their music teacher when one of them wanted a whole holiday; they had their lessons at separate hours, and the one girl sacrificed herself to receive two lessons on the same day, while the other one enjoyed herself from morning to evening. Here is a brief and comprehensive account: 'Exactly alike in all, their schoolmasters could never tell them apart; at dancing parties they constantly changed partners without discovery; their close resemblance is scarcely diminished by age."

[Pg 7]

"The following is a typical schoolboy anecdote:

"'Two twins were fond of playing tricks, and complaints were frequently made; but the boys would never own which was the guilty one, and the complainants were never certain which of the two it was. One head master used to say he would never flog the innocent for the guilty, and the other used to flog them both.'

"No less than nine anecdotes have reached me of a twin seeing his or her reflection in the looking-glass, and addressing it in the belief that it was the other twin in person.

"Children are usually quick in distinguishing between their parent and his or her twin; but I have two cases to the contrary. Thus, the daughter of a twin says:

"'Such was the marvelous similarity of their features, voice, manner, etc., that I remember, as a child, being very much puzzled, and I think, had my aunt lived much with us, I should have ended by thinking I had two mothers!'

"In the other case, a father who was a twin, remarks of himself and his brother:

"'We were extremely alike, and are so at this moment, so much so that our children up to five and six years old did not know us apart.'

"Among my thirty-five detailed cases of close similarity, there are no less than seven in which both twins suffered from some special ailment or had some exceptional peculiarity. Both twins are apt to sicken at the same time in no less than nine out of the thirty-five cases. Either their illnesses, to which I refer, were non-contagious, or, if contagious, the twins caught them simultaneously; they did not catch them the one from the other."

Similarity in association of ideas, in tastes and habits was equally close. In short, their resemblances were not superficial, but extremely intimate, both in mind and body, while they were young; they were reared almost exactly alike up to their early manhood and womanhood.

Then they separated into different walks of life. Did this change of the environment alter their inborn character? For[Pg 8] the detailed evidence, one should consult Galton's own account; we give only his conclusions:

In many cases the resemblance of body and mind continued unaltered up to old age, notwithstanding very different conditions of life; in others a severe disease was sufficient to account for some change noticed. Other dissimilarity that developed, Galton had reason to believe, was due to the development of inborn characters that appeared late in life. He therefore felt justified in broadly concluding "that the only circumstance, within the range of those by which persons of similar conditions of life are affected, that is capable of producing a marked effect on the character of adults, is illness or some accident which causes physical infirmity. The twins who closely resembled each other in childhood and early youth, and were reared under not very dissimilar conditions, either grow unlike through the development of natural [that is, inherited] characteristics which had lain dormant at first, or else they continue their lives, keeping time like two watches, hardly to be thrown out of accord except by some physical jar."

Here was a distinct failure of nurture to modify the inborn nature. We next consider the ordinary twins who were unlike from the start. Galton had twenty such cases, given with much detail. "It is a fact," he observes, "that extreme dissimilarity, such as existed between Jacob and Esau, is a no less marked peculiarity of twins of the same sex than extreme similarity." The character of the evidence as a whole may be fairly conveyed by a few quotations:

(1) One parent says: "They have had exactly the same nurture from their birth up to the present time; they are both perfectly healthy and strong, yet they are otherwise as dissimilar as two boys could be, physically, mentally, and in their emotional nature."

(2) "I can answer most decidedly that the twins have been perfectly dissimilar in character, habits, and likeness from the moment of their birth to the present time, though they were nursed by the same woman, went to school together, and were never separated until the age of thirteen."[Pg 9]

(3) "They have never been separated, never the least differently treated in food, clothing, or education; both teethed at the same time, both had measles, whooping cough, and scarlatina at the same time, and neither has had any other serious illness. Both are and have been exceedingly healthy, and have good abilities; yet they differ as much from each other in mental cast as any one of my family differs from another."

(4) "Very dissimilar in mind and body; the one is quiet, retiring, and slow but sure; good-tempered, but disposed to be sulky when provoked;—the other is quick, vivacious, forward, acquiring easily and forgetting soon; quick-tempered and choleric, but quickly forgiving and forgetting. They have been educated together and never separated."

(5) "They were never alike either in mind or body, and their dissimilarity increases daily. The external influences have been identical; they have never been separated."

(6) "The two sisters are very different in ability and disposition. The one is retiring, but firm and determined; she has no taste for music or drawing. The other is of an active, excitable temperament; she displays an unusual amount of quickness and talent, and is passionately fond of music and drawing. From infancy, they have been rarely separated even at school, and as children visiting their friends, they always went together."

And so on. Not a single case was found in which originally dissimilar characters became assimilated, although submitted to exactly the same influences. Reviewing the evidence in his usual cautious way, Galton declared, "There is no escape from the conclusion that nature prevails enormously over nurture, when the differences of nurture do not exceed what is commonly to be found among persons of the same rank in society and in the same country."

This kind of evidence was a good start for eugenics but as the science grew, it outgrew such evidence. It no longer wanted to be told, no matter how minute the details, that "nature prevails enormously over nurture." It wanted to know exactly how much. It refused to be satisfied with the statement that a certain quantity was large; it demanded that it be measured[Pg 10] or weighed. So Galton, Karl Pearson and other mathematicians devised means of doing this, and then Professor Edward L. Thorndike of Columbia University took up Galton's problem again, with more refined methods.

The tool used by Professor Thorndike was the coefficient of correlation, which shows the amount of resemblance or association between any two things that are capable of measurement, and is expressed in the form of a decimal fraction somewhere between 0 and the unit 1. Zero shows that there is no constant resemblance at all between the two things concerned,—that they are wholly independent of each other, while 1 shows that they are completely dependent on each other, a condition that rarely exists, of course.[4] For instance, the correlation between the right and left femur in man's legs is .98.

Professor Thorndike found in the New York City schools fifty pairs of twins of about the same age and measured the closeness of their resemblance in eight physical characters, and also in six mental characters, the latter being measured by the proficiency with which the subjects performed various tests. Then children of the same age and sex, picked at random from the same schools, were measured in the same way. It was thus possible to tell how much more alike twins were than ordinary children in the same environment.[5]

"If now these resemblances are due to the fact that the two members of any twin pair are treated alike at home, have the same parental models, attend the same school and are subject in general to closely similar environmental conditions, then [Pg 11](1) twins should, up to the age of leaving home, grow more and more alike, and in our measurements the twins 13 and 14 years old should be much more alike than those 9 and 10 years old. Again (2) if similarity in training is the cause of similarity in mental traits, ordinary fraternal pairs not over four or five years apart in age should show a resemblance somewhat nearly as great as twin pairs, for the home and school condition of a pair of the former will not be much less similar than those of a pair of the latter. Again, (3) if training is the cause, twins should show greater resemblance in the case of traits much subject to training, such as ability in addition or multiplication, than in traits less subject to training, such as quickness in marking off the A's on a sheet of printed capitals, or in writing the opposites of words."

The data were elaborately analyzed from many points of view. They showed (1) that the twins 12-14 years old were not any more alike than the twins 9-11 years old, although they ought to have been, if environment has great power to mold the character during these so-called "plastic years of childhood." They showed (2) that the resemblance between twins was two or three times as great as between ordinary children of the same age and sex, brought up under similar environment. There seems to be no reason, except heredity, why twins should be more alike. The data showed (3) that the twins were no more alike in traits subject to much training than in traits subject to little or no training. Their achievement in these traits was determined by their heredity; training did not measurably alter these hereditary potentialities.

"The facts," Professor Thorndike wrote, "are easily, simply and completely explained by one simple hypothesis; namely, that the nature of the germ-cells—the conditions of conception—cause whatever similarities and differences exist in the original natures of men, that these conditions influence mind and body equally, and that in life the differences in modification of mind and body produced by such differences as obtain between the environments of present-day New York City public school children are slight."[Pg 12]

"The inferences," he says, "with respect to the enormous importance of original nature in determining the behavior and achievements of any man in comparison with his fellows of the same period of civilization and conditions of life are obvious. All theories of human life must accept as a first principle the fact that human beings at birth differ enormously in mental capacities and that these differences are largely due to similar differences in their ancestry. All attempts to change human nature must accept as their most important condition the limits set by original nature to each individual."

Meantime other investigators, principally followers of Karl Pearson in England, were working out correlation coefficients in other lines of research for hundreds of different traits. As we show in more detail in Chapter IV, it was found, no matter what physical or mental trait was measured, that the coefficient of correlation between parent and child was a little less than .5 and that the coefficient between brother and brother, or sister and sister, or brother and sister, was a little more than .5. On the average of many cases the mean "nature" value, the coefficient of direct heredity, was placed at .51. This gave another means of measuring nurture, for it was also possible to measure the relation between any trait in the child and some factor in the environment. A specific instance will make this clearer.

Groups of school children usually show an appalling percentage of short-sightedness. Now suppose it is suggested that this is because they are allowed to learn to read at too early an age. One can find out the age at which any given child did learn to read, and work out the coefficient of correlation between this age and the child's amount of myopia. If the relation between them is very close—say .7 or .8—it will be evident that the earlier a child learns to read, the more short-sighted he is as he grows older. This will not prove a relation of cause and effect, but it will at least create a great suspicion. If on the contrary the correlation is very slight, it will be evident that early reading has little to do with the prevalance of defective vision among school children. If investigators similarly work out all the other correlations that can be suggested, finding [Pg 13]whether there is any regular relation between myopia and overcrowding, long hours of study, general economic conditions at home, general physical or moral conditions of parents, the time the child spends out of doors, etc., and if no important relation is found between these various factors and myopia, it will be evident that no factor of the environment which one can think of as likely to cause the trouble really accounts for the poor eyesight of school children.

This has actually been done,[6] and none of the conditions enumerated has been found to be closely related to myopia in school children. Correlations between fifteen environmental conditions and the goodness of children's eyesight were measured, and only in one case was the correlation as high as .1. The mean of these correlations was about .04—an absolutely negligible quantity when compared with the common heredity coefficient of .51.

Does this prove that the myopia is rather due to heredity? It would, by a process of exclusion, if every conceivable environmental factor had been measured and found wanting. That point in the investigation can never be reached, but a tremendously strong suspicion is at least justified. Now if the degree of resemblance between the prevalence of myopia in parents and that in children be directly measured, and if it be found that when the parent has eye trouble the child also has it, then it seems that a general knowledge of heredity should lead to the belief that the difficulty lies there, and that an environmental cause for the poor vision of the school child was being sought, when it was all the time due almost entirely to heredity. This final step has not yet been completed in an adequate way,[7] but the evidence, partly analogical, gives every[Pg 14] reason to believe in the soundness of the conclusion stated, that in most cases the schoolboy must wear glasses because of his heredity, not because of overstudy or any neglect on the part of his parents to care for his eyes properly during his childhood.

The extent to which the intelligence of school children is dependent on defective physique and unfavorable home environment is an important practical question, which David Heron of London attacked by the methods we have outlined. He wanted to find out whether the healthy children were the most intelligent. One is constantly hearing stories of how the intelligence of school children has been improved by some treatment which improved their general health, but these stories are rarely presented in such a way as to contribute evidence of scientific value. It was desirable to know what exact measurement would[Pg 15] show. The intelligence of all the children in fourteen schools was measured in its correlation with weight and height, conditions of clothing and teeth, state of nutrition, cleanliness, good hearing, and the condition of the cervical glands, tonsils and adenoids. It could not be found that mental capacity was closely related to any of the characters dealt with.[8] The particular set of characters measured was taken because it happened to be furnished by data collected for another purpose; the various items are suggestive rather than directly conclusive. Here again, the correlation in most cases was less than .1, as compared with the general heredity correlation of .5.

The investigation need not be limited to problems of bad breeding. Eugenics, as its name shows, is primarily interested in "good breeding;" it is particularly worth while, therefore, to examine the relations between heredity and environment in the production of mental and moral superiority.

If success in life—the kind of success that is due to great mental and moral superiority—is due to the opportunities a man has, then it ought to be pretty evenly distributed among all persons who have had favorable opportunities, provided a large enough number of persons be taken to allow the laws of probability full play. England offers a good field to investigate this point, because Oxford and Cambridge, her two great universities, turn out most of the eminent men of the country, or at least have done so until recently. If nothing more is necessary to ensure a youth's success than to give him a first-class education and the chance to associate with superior people, then the prizes of life ought to be pretty evenly distributed among the graduates of the two universities, during a period of a century or two.

This is not the case. When we look at the history of England, as Galton did nearly half a century ago, we find success in life to an unexpected degree a family affair. The distinguished father is likely to have a distinguished son, while the son of two[Pg 16] "nobodies" has a very small chance of becoming distinguished. To cite one concrete case, Galton found[9] that the son of a distinguished judge had about one chance in four of becoming himself distinguished, while the son of a man picked out at random from the population had about one chance in 4,000 of becoming similarly distinguished.

The objection at once occurs that perhaps social opportunities might play the predominant part; that the son of an obscure man never gets a chance, while the son of the prominent man is pushed forward regardless of his inherent abilities. This, as Galton argued at length, can not be true of men of really eminent attainments. The true genius, he thought, frequently succeeds in rising despite great obstacles, while no amount of family pull will succeed in making a mediocrity into a genius, although it may land him in some high and very comfortable official position. Galton found a good illustration in the papacy, where during many centuries it was the custom for a pope to adopt one of his nephews as a son, and push him forward in every way. If opportunity were all that is required, these adopted sons ought to have reached eminence as often as a real son would have done; but statistics show that they reached eminence only as often as would be expected for nephews of great men, whose chance is notably less, of course, than that of sons of great men, in whom the intensity of heredity is much greater.

Transfer the inquiry to America, and it becomes even more conclusive, for this is supposed to be the country of equal opportunities, where it is a popular tradition that every boy has a chance to become president. Success may be in some degree a family affair in caste-ridden England; is it possible that the past history of the United States should show the same state of affairs?

Galton found that about half of the great men of England had distinguished close relatives. If the great men of America have fewer distinguished close relatives, environment will be able to make out a plausible case: it will be evident that in[Pg 17] this continent of boundless opportunities the boy with ambition and energy gets to the top, and that this ambition and energy do not depend on the kind of family he comes from.

Frederick Adams Woods has made precisely this investigation.[10] The first step was to find out how many eminent men there are in American history. Biographical dictionaries list about 3,500, and this number provides a sufficiently unbiased standard from which to work. Now, Dr. Woods says, if we suppose the average person to have as many as twenty close relatives—as near as an uncle or a grandson—then computation shows that only one person in 500 in the United States has a chance to be a near relative of one of the 3,500 eminent men—provided it is purely a matter of chance. As a fact, the 3,500 eminent men listed by the biographical dictionaries are related to each other not as one in 500, but as one in five. If the more celebrated men alone be considered, it is found that the percentage increases so that about one in three of them has a close relative who is also distinguished. This ratio increases to more than one in two when the families of the forty-six Americans in the Hall of Fame are made the basis of study. If all the eminent relations of those in the Hall of Fame are counted, they average more than one apiece. Therefore, they are from five hundred to a thousand times as much related to distinguished people as the ordinary mortal is.

To look at it from another point of view, something like 1% of the population of the country is as likely to produce a man of genius as is all the rest of the population put together,—the other 99%.

This might still be due in some degree to family influence, to the prestige of a famous name, or to educational advantages afforded the sons of successful men. Dr. Woods' study of the royal families of Europe is more decisive.[11][Pg 18]

In the latter group, the environment must be admitted—on the whole—to be uniformly favorable. It has varied, naturally, in each case, but speaking broadly it is certain that all the members of this group have had the advantage of a good education, of unusual care and attention. If such things affect achievement, then the achievements of this class ought to be pretty generally distributed among the whole class. If opportunity is the cause of a man's success, then most of the members of this class ought to have succeeded, because to every one of royal blood, the door of opportunity usually stands open. One would expect the heir to the throne to show a better record than his younger brothers, however, because his opportunity to distinguish himself is naturally greater. This last point will be discussed first.

Dr. Woods divided all the individuals in his study into ten classes for intellectuality and ten for morality, those most deficient in the qualities being put in class 1, while the men and women of preëminent intellectual and moral worth were put in class 10. Now if preëminent intellect and morality were at all linked with the better chances that an inheritor of succession has, then heirs to the throne ought to be more plentiful in the higher grades than in the lower. Actual count shows this not to be the case. A slightly larger percentage of inheritors is rather to be found in the lower grades. The younger sons have made just as good a showing as the sons who succeeded to power; as one would expect if intellect and morality are due largely to heredity, but as one would not expect if intellect and morality are due largely to outward circumstances.

Are "conditions of turmoil, stress and adversity" strong forces in the production of great men, as has often been claimed? There is no evidence from facts to support that view. In the case of a few great commanders, the times seemed particularly favorable. Napoleon, for example, could hardly have been Napoleon had it not been for the French revolution. But in general there have been wars going on during the whole period of modern European history; there have always been opportunities for a royal hero to make his appearance; but often the[Pg 19] country has called for many years in vain. Circumstances were powerless to produce a great man and the nation had to wait until heredity produced him. Spain has for several centuries been calling for genius in leadership in some lines; but in vain. England could not get an able man from the Stuart line, despite her need, and had to wait for William of Orange, who was a descendant of a man of genius, William the Silent. "Italy had to wait fifty years in bondage for her deliverers, Cavour, Garibaldi and Victor Emmanuel."

"The upshot of it all," Dr. Woods decides, "is that, as regards intellectual life, environment is a totally inadequate explanation. If it explains certain characters in certain instances, it always fails to explain many more, while heredity not only explains all, or at least 90%, of the intellectual side of character in practically every instance, but does so best when questions of environment are left out of discussion."

Despite the good environment almost uniformly present, the geniuses in royalty are not scattered over the surface of the pedigree chart, but form isolated little groups of closely related individuals. One centers in Frederick the Great, another in Queen Isabella of Spain, a third in William the Silent, and a fourth in Gustavus Adolphus. Furthermore, the royal personages who are conspicuously low in intellect and morality are similarly grouped. Careful study of the circumstances shows nothing in the environment that would produce this grouping of genius, while it is exactly what a knowledge of heredity leads one to expect.

In the next place, do the superior members of royalty have proportionately more superior individuals among their close relatives, as was found to be the case among the Americans in the Hall of Fame? A count shows at once that they do. The first six grades all have about an equal number of eminent relatives, but grade 7 has more while grade 8 has more than grade 7, and the geniuses of grade 10 have the highest proportion of nearer relatives of their own character. Surely it cannot be supposed that a relative of a king in grade 8 has on the average a much less favorable environment than a relative of a king in[Pg 20] grade 10. Is it not fair, then, to assume that this relative's greater endowment in the latter case is due to heredity?

Conditions are the same, whether males or females be considered. The royal families of Europe offer a test case because for them the environment is nearly uniformly favorable. A study of them shows great mental and moral differences between them, and critical evidence indicates that these differences are largely due to differences in heredity. Differences of opportunity do not appear to be largely responsible for the achievements of the individuals.

But, it is sometimes objected, opportunity certainly is responsible for the appearance of much talent that would otherwise never appear. Take the great increase in the number of scientific men in Germany during the last half century, for example. It can not be pretended that this is due to an increased birth-rate of such talent; it means that the growth of an appreciation of scientific work has produced an increased amount of scientific talent. J. McKeen Cattell has argued this point most carefully in his study of the families of one thousand American men of science (Popular Science Monthly, May, 1915). "A Darwin born in China in 1809," he says, "could not have become a Darwin, nor could a Lincoln born here on the same day have become a Lincoln had there been no Civil War. If the two infants had been exchanged there would have been no Darwin in America and no Lincoln in England." And so he continues, urging that in the production of scientific men, at least, education is more important than eugenics.

This line of argument contains a great deal of obvious truth, but is subject to a somewhat obvious objection, if it is pushed too far. It is certainly true that the exact field in which a man's activities will find play is largely determined by his surroundings and education. Young men in the United States are now becoming lawyers or men of science, who would have become ministers had they been born a century or two ago. But this environmental influence seems to us a minor one, for the man who is highly gifted in some one line is usually, as all the work of differential psychology shows, gifted more than the average in[Pg 21] many other lines. Opportunity decides in just what field his life work shall lie; but he would be able to make a success in a number of fields. Darwin born in America would probably not have become the Darwin we know, but it is not to be supposed that he would have died a "mute, inglorious Milton": it is not likely that he would have failed to make his mark in some line of human activity. Dr. Cattell's argument, then, while admissible, can not properly be urged against the fact that ability is mainly dependent on inheritance.

We need not stop with the conclusion that equality of training or opportunity is unable to level the inborn differences between men. We can go even farther, and produce evidence to show that equality of training increases the differences in results achieved.

This evidence is obtained by measuring the effects of equal amounts of exercise of a function upon individual differences in respect to efficiency in it. Suppose one should pick out, at random, eight children, and let them do problems in multiplication for 10 minutes. After a number of such trials, the three best might average 39 correct solutions in the 10 minutes, and the three poorest might average 25 examples. Then let them continue the work, until each one of them has done 700 examples. Here is equality in training; does it lead to uniform results?

Dr. Starch made the actual test which we have outlined and found that the three best pupils gained on the average 45 in the course of doing 700 examples; while the three poorest gained only 26 in the same course of time.

Similar tests have been made of school children in a number of instances, and have shown that equality of training fails to bring about equality of performance. All improve to some extent; but those who are naturally better than their comrades usually become better still, when conditions for all are the same. E. L. Thorndike gives[12] the following tabular statement of a test he conducted:

[Pg 22]

The Effect of Equal Amounts of Practice upon Individual Differences in the Mental Multiplication of a Three-place by a Three-place Number

Similar results have been obtained by half a dozen other experimenters, using the tests of mental multiplication, addition, marking A's on a printed sheet of capitals, and the like. It would be a mistake to conclude too much from experiments of such restricted scope; but they all agree in showing that if every child were given an equal training, the differences in these traits would nevertheless be very great.

And although we do not wish to strain the application of these results too far, we are at least justified in saying that they strongly indicate that inborn mediocrity can not be made into a high grade of talent by training. Not every boy has a chance to distinguish himself, even if he receives a good education.

We are driven back to the same old conclusion, that it is primarily inborn nature which causes the achievements of men and women to be what they are. Good environment, opportunity, training, will give good heredity a chance to express itself; but they can not produce greatness from bad heredity.

These conclusions are familiar to scientific sociologists, but they have not yet had the influence on social service and practical attempts at reform which they deserve. Many popular writers continue to confuse cause and effect, as for example[Pg 23] H. Addington Bruce, who contributed an article to the Century Magazine, not long ago, on "The Boy Who Goes Wrong." After alleging that the boy who goes wrong does so because he is not properly brought up, Mr. Bruce quotes with approval the following passage from Paul Dubois, "the eminent Swiss physician and philosopher:

"If you have the happiness to be a well-living man, take care not to attribute the credit of it to yourself. Remember the favorable conditions in which you have lived, surrounded by the relatives who loved you and set you a good example; do not forget the close friends who have taken you by the hand and led you away from the quagmires of evil; keep a grateful remembrance for all the teachers who have influenced you, the kind and intelligent school-master, the devoted pastor; realize all these multiple influences which have made you what you are. Then you will remember that such and such a culprit has not in his sad life met with these favorable conditions; that he had a drunken father or a foolish mother, and that he has lived without affection, exposed to all kinds of temptation. You will then take pity upon this disinherited man, whose mind has been nourished upon malformed mental images, begetting evil sentiments such as immoderate desire or social hatred."

Mr. Bruce indorses this kind of talk when he concludes, "The blame for the boy who goes wrong does not rest with the boy himself, or yet with his remote ancestors. It rests squarely with the parents who, through ignorance or neglect, have failed to mold him aright in the plastic days of childhood."

Where is the evidence of the existence of these plastic days of childhood? If they exist, why do not ordinary brothers become as much alike as identical twins? How long are we to be asked to believe, on blind faith, that the child is putty, of which the educator can make either mediocrity or genius, depending on his skill? What does the environmentalist know about these "plastic days"? If a boy has a drunken father or foolish mother, does it not suggest that there is something wrong with his pedigree? With such an ancestry, we do not expect him to turn out brilliantly, no matter in what home he is brought up.[Pg 24] If a boy has the kind of parents who bring him up well; if he is, as Dr. Dubois says, surrounded by relatives who love him and set him a good example, we at once have ground for a suspicion that he comes of a pretty good family, a stock characterized by a high standard of intellectuality and morality, and it would surprise us if such a boy did not turn out well. But he turns out well because what's bred in the bone will show in him, if it gets any kind of a chance. It is his nature, not his nurture, that is mainly responsible for his character.[Pg 25]

Every living creature was at some stage of its life nothing more than a single cell. It is generally known that human beings result from the union of an egg-cell and a sperm-cell, but it is not so universally understood that these germ-cells are part of a continuous stream of germ-plasm which has been in existence ever since the appearance of life on the globe, and which is destined to continue in existence as long as life remains on the globe.

The corollaries of this fact are of great importance. Some of them will be considered in this chapter.

Early investigators tended naturally to look on the germ-cells as a product of the body. Being supposedly products of the body, it was natural to think that they would in some measure reproduce the character of the body which created them; and Darwin elaborated an ingenious hypothesis to explain how the various characters could be represented in the germ-cell. The idea held by him, in common with most other thinkers of his period, is still held more or less unconsciously by those who have not given particular attention to the subject. Generation is conceived as a direct chain: the body produces the germ-cell which produces another body which in turn produces another germ-cell, and so on.

But a generation ago this idea fell under suspicion. August Weismann, professor of zoölogy in the University of Freiburg, Germany, made himself the champion of the new idea, about 1885, and developed it so effectively that it is now a part of the creed of nearly every biologist.

Weismann caused a general abandonment of the idea that the germ-cell is produced by the body in each generation, and popularized the conception of the germ-cell as a product of a stream of undifferentiated germ-plasm, not only continuous but[Pg 26] (potentially at least) immortal. The body does not produce the germ-cells, he pointed out; instead, the germ-cells produce the body.

The basis of this theory can best be understood by a brief consideration of the reproduction of very simple organisms.

"Death is the end of life," is the belief of many other persons than the Lotus Eaters. It is commonly supposed that everything which lives must eventually die. But study of a one-celled animal, an Infusorian, for example, reveals that when it reaches a certain age it pinches in two, and each half becomes an Infusorian in all appearance identical with the original cell. Has the parent cell then died? It may rather be said to survive, in two parts. Each of these daughter cells will in turn go through the same process of reproduction by simple fission, and the process will be continued in their descendants. The Infusorian can be called potentially immortal, because of this method of reproduction.

The immortality, as Weismann pointed out, is not of the kind attributed by the Greeks to their gods, who could not die because no wound could destroy them. On the contrary, the Infusorian is extremely fragile, and is dying by millions at every instant; but if circumstances are favorable, it can live on; it is not inevitably doomed to die sooner or later, as is Man. "It dies from accident often, from old age never."

Now the single-celled Infusorian is in many respects comparable with the single-celled germ of the higher animals. The analogy has often been carried too far; yet it remains indisputable that the germ-cells of men reproduce in the same way—by simple fission—as the Infusorian and other one-celled animals and plants, and that they are organized on much the same plan. Given favorable circumstances, the germ-cell should be expected to be equally immortal. Does it ever find these favorable circumstances?

The investigations of microscopists indicate that it does—that evolution has provided it with these favorable circumstances, in the bodies of the higher animals. Let us recall in outline the early history of the fertilized germ-cell, the zygote[Pg 27] formed by the union of ovum and spermatozoön. These two unite to form a single cell, which is essentially the same, physiologically, as other germ-cells. It divides in two similar cells; these each divide; the resulting cells again divide, and so the process continues, until the whole body—a fully developed man,—has been produced by division and redivision of the one zygote.

But the germ-cell is obviously different from most of the cells that make up the finished product, the body. The latter are highly differentiated and specialized for different functions—blood cells, nerve cells, bone cells, muscle cells, and so on, each a single cell but each adapted to do a certain work, for which the original, undifferentiated germ-cell was wholly unfit. It is evident that differentiation began to take place at some point in the series of divisions, that is to say, in the development of the embryo.

Th. Boveri, studying the development of a threadworm, made the interesting discovery that this differentiation began at the first division. Of the two daughter-cells produced from the zygote, one continued dividing at a very slow rate, and without showing any specialization. Its "line of descent" produced only germ-cells. The products of division of the other daughter-cell began to differentiate, and soon formed all the necessary kinds of cells to make up the body of the mature worm. In this body, the cells from the first daughter-cell mentioned were inclosed, still undifferentiated: they formed the germ-cells of the next generation, and after maturity were ready to be ejected from the body, and to form new threadworms.

Imagine this process taking place through generation after generation of threadworms, and one will realize that the germ-plasm was passed on directly from one generation to the next; that in each generation it gave rise to body-plasm, but that it did not at any time lose its identity or continuity, a part of the germ-plasm being always set aside, undifferentiated, to be handed on to the next generation.

In the light of this example, one can better understand the definition of germ-plasm as "that part of the substance of the[Pg 28] parents which does not die with them, but perpetuates itself in their offspring." By bringing his imagination into play, the reader will realize that there is no limit to the backward continuity of this germ-plasm in the threadworm. Granted that each species has arisen by evolution from some other, this germ-cell which is observed in the body of the threadworm, must be regarded as part of what may well be called a stream of germ-plasm, that reaches back to the beginning of life in the world. It will be equally evident that these is no foreordained limit to the forward extension of the stream. It will continue in some branch, as long as there are any threadworms or descendants of threadworms in the world.

The reader may well express doubt as to whether what has been demonstrated for the threadworm can be demonstrated for the higher animals, including man. It must be admitted that in many of these animals conditions are too unfavorable, and the process of embryology too complicated, or too difficult to observe, to permit as distinct a demonstration of this continuity of the germ-plasm, wherever it is sought. But it has been demonstrated in a great many animals; no facts which impair the theory have been discovered; and biologists therefore feel perfectly justified in generalizing and declaring the continuity of germ-plasm to be a law of the world of living things.

Focusing attention on its application to man, one sees that the race must represent an immense network of lines of descent, running back through a vast number of different forms of gradually diminishing specialization, until it comes to a point where all its threads merge in one knot—the single cell with which it may be supposed that life on this globe began. Each individual is not only figuratively, but in a very literal sense, the carrier of the heritage of the whole race—of the whole past, indeed. Each individual is temporarily the custodian of part of the "stuff of life"; from an evolutionary point of view, he may be said to have been brought into existence, primarily to pass this sacred heritage on to the next generation. From Nature's standpoint, he is of little use in the world, his existence is scarcely justified, unless he faithfully discharges this trust, passing on to the future[Pg 29] the "Lamp of Life" whose fire he has been created to guard for a short while.

Immortality, we may point out in passing, is thus no mere hope to the parent: it is a real possibility. The death of the huge agglomeration of highly specialized body-cells is a matter of little consequence, if the germ-plasm, with its power to reproduce not only these body-cells, but the mental traits—indeed, we may in a sense say the very soul—that inhabited them, has been passed on. The individual continues to live, in his offspring, just as the past lives in him. To the eugenist, life everlasting is something more than a figure of speech or a theological concept—it is as much a reality as the beat of the heart, the growth of muscles or the activity of the mind.

This doctrine of the continuity of germ-plasm throws a fresh light on the nature of human relationships. It is evident that the son who resembles his father can not accurately be called a "chip off the old block." Rather, they are both chips off the same block; and aside from bringing about the fusion of two distinct strains of germ-plasm, father and mother are no more responsible for endowing the child with its characters except in the choice of mate, than is the child for "stamping his impress" on his parents. From another point of view, it has been said that father and son ought to be thought of as half-brothers by two different mothers, each being the product of the same strain of paternal germ-plasm, but not of the same strain of maternal germ-plasm. Biologically, the father or mother should not be thought of as the producer of a child, but as the trustee of a stream of germ-plasm which produces a child whenever the proper conditions arise. Or as Sir Michael Foster put it, "The animal body is in reality a vehicle for ova or sperm; and after the life of the parent has become potentially renewed in the offspring, the body remains as a cast-off envelope whose future is but to die." Finally to quote the metaphor of J. Arthur Thomson, one may "think for a moment of a baker who has a very precious kind of leaven; he uses much of this in baking a large loaf; but he so arranges matters by a clever contrivance that part of the original leaven is always carried on unaltered, carefully preserved[Pg 30] for the next baking. Nature is the baker, the loaf is the body, the leaven is the germ-plasm, and each baking is a generation."

When the respective functions and relative importance, from a genetic point of view, of germ-plasm and body-plasm are understood, it must be fairly evident that the natural point of attack for any attempt at race betterment which aims to be fundamental rather than wholly superficial, must be the germ-plasm rather than the body-plasm. The failure to hold this point of view has been responsible for the disappointing results of much of the sociological theory of the last century, and for the fact that some of the work now carried on under the name of race betterment is producing results that are of little or no significance to true race betterment.

On the other hand, it must be fairly evident, from the pains which Nature has taken to arrange for the transmission of the germ-plasm from generation to generation, that she would also protect it from injury with meticulous care. It seems hardly reasonable to suppose that a material of this sort should be exposed, in the higher animals at least, to all the vicissitudes of the environment, and to injury or change from the chance of outward circumstances.

In spite of these presumptions which the biologist would, to say the least, consider worthy of careful investigation, the world is full of well-intentioned people who are anxious to improve the race, and who in their attempts to do so, wholly ignore the germ-plasm. They see only the body-plasm. They are devoted to the dogma that if they can change the body (and what is here said of the body applies equally to the mind) in the direction they wish, this change will in some unascertainable way be reproduced in the next generation. They rarely stop to think that man is an animal, or that the science of biology might conceivably have something to say about the means by which his species can be improved; but if they do, they commonly take refuge, deliberately or unconsciously, in the biology of half a century ago, which still believed that these changes of the body could be so impressed on the germ-plasm as to be continued in the following generation.[Pg 31]

Such an assumption is made to-day by few who have thoroughly studied the subject. Even those who still believed in what is conventionally called "the inheritance of acquired characteristics" would be quick to repudiate any such application of the doctrine as is commonly made by most of the philanthropists and social workers who are proceeding without seeking the light of biology. But the idea that these modifications are inherited is so widespread among all who have not studied biology, and is so much a part of the tradition of society, that the question must be here examined, before we can proceed confidently with our program of eugenics.

The problem is first to be defined.

It is evident that all characters which make up a man or woman, or any other organism, must be either germinal or acquired. It is impossible to conceive of any other category. But it is frequently hard to say in which class a given character falls. Worse still, many persons do not even distinguish the two categories accurately—a confusion made easier by the quibble that all characters must be acquired, since the organism starts from a single cell, which possesses practically none of the traits of the adult.

What we mean by an inborn character is one whose expression is due to something which is present in the germ-plasm; one which is inherent and due to heredity. An acquired character is simply a modification, due to some cause external to the germ-plasm acting on an inborn character. In looking at an individual, one can not always say with certainty which characters are which; but with a little trouble, one can usually reach a reliable decision. It is possible to measure the variation in a given character in a group of parents and their children, in a number of different environments; if the degree of resemblance between parent and offspring is about the same in each case, regardless of the different surroundings in which the children may have been brought up, the character may properly be called germinal. This is the biometric method of investigation. In practice, one can often reach a decision by much simpler means: if the character is one that appears at[Pg 32] birth, e.g., skin color, it is usually safe to assume that it is a germinal character, unless there is some evident reason for deciding otherwise, as in the case of a child born with some disease from which the mother had been suffering for the previous few months. In general, it is more difficult to decide whether a mental trait is germinal, than whether a physical one is; and great care should be used in classification.

To make the distinction, one ought to be familiar with an individual from birth, and to have some knowledge of the conditions to which he was exposed, in the period between conception and birth,—for of course a modification which takes place during that time is as truly an acquired character as one that takes place after parturition. Blindness, for example, may be an inborn defect. The child from conception may have lacked the requisites for the development of sight. On the other hand, it may be an acquired character, due to an ill-advised display of patriotism on July 4, at some time during childhood; or even to infection at the moment of birth. Similarly small size may be an inborn character, due to a small-sized ancestry; but if the child comes of a normal ancestry and is stunted merely because of lack of proper care and food, the smallness is an acquired character. Deafness may be congenital and inborn, or it may be acquired as the result, say, of scarlet fever during childhood.

Now the inborn characters (excepting modifications in utero) are admittedly heritable, for inborn characters must exist potentially in the germ-plasm. The belief that acquired characters are also inherited, therefore, involves belief that in some way the trait acquired by the parent is incorporated in the germ-plasm of the parent, to be handed on to the child and reappear in the course of the child's development. The impress on the parental body must in some way be transferred to the parental germ-plasm; and not as a general influence, but as a specific one which can be reproduced by the germ-plasm.

This idea was held almost without question by the biologists of the past, from Aristotle on. Questionings indeed arose from time to time, but they were vague and carried no weight, until[Pg 33] a generation ago several able men elaborated them. For many years, it was the question of chief dispute in the study of heredity. The last word has not yet been said on it. It has theoretical bearings of immense importance; for our conception of the process of evolution will be shaped according to the belief that acquired characters are or are not inherited. Herbert Spencer went so far as to say, "Close contemplation of the facts impresses me more strongly than ever with two alternatives—either that there has been inheritance of acquired characters, or there has been no evolution." But its practical bearings are no less momentous. Again to quote Spencer: "Considering the width and depth of the effects which the acceptance or non-acceptance of one or the other of these hypotheses must have on our views of life, the question, Which of them is true? demands beyond all other questions whatever the attention of scientific men. A grave responsibility rests on biologists in respect of the general question, since wrong answers lead, among other effects, to wrong belief about social affairs and to disastrous social actions."

Biologists certainly have not shirked this "grave responsibility" during the last 30 years, and they have, in our opinion, satisfactorily answered the general question. The answer they give is not the answer Herbert Spencer gave.

But the popular mind frequently lags a generation behind, in its grasp of the work of science, and it must be said that in this case the popular mind is still largely under the influence of Herbert Spencer and his school. Whether they know it or not, most people who have not made a particular study of the question still tacitly assume that the acquirements of one generation form part of the inborn heritage of the next, and the present social and educational systems are founded in large part on this false foundation. Most philanthropy starts out unquestioningly with the assumption that by modifying the individual for the better, it will thereby improve the germinal quality of the race. Even a self-styled eugenist asks, "Can prospective parents who have thoroughly and systematically disciplined themselves, physically, mentally and morally, transmit to their offspring[Pg 34] the traits or tendencies which they have developed?" and answers the question with the astounding statement, "It seems reasonable to suppose that they have this power, it being simply a phase of heredity, the tendency of like to beget like."

The right understanding of this famous problem is therefore fraught with the most important consequences to eugenics. The huge mass of experimental evidence that has been accumulated during the last quarter of a century has, necessarily, been almost wholly based on work with plants and lower animals. Even though we can not attempt to present a general review of this evidence, for which the reader must consult one of the standard works on biology or genetics, we shall point out some of the considerations underlying the problem and its solution.

In the first place, it must be definitely understood that we are dealing only with specific, as distinguished from general, transmission. As the germ-cells derive their nourishment from the body, it is obvious that any cause profoundly affecting the latter might in that way exercise an influence on the germ-cells; that if the parent was starved, the germ-cells might be ill-nourished and the resulting offspring might be weak and puny. There is experimental evidence that this is the case; but that is not the inheritance of an acquired character. If, however, a white man tanned by long exposure to the tropical sun should have children who were brunettes, when the family stock was all blond; or if men whose legs were deformed through falls in childhood should have children whose legs, at birth, appeared deformed in the same manner; then there would be a distinct case of the transmission of an acquired characteristic. "The precise question," as Professor Thomson words it, "is this: Can a structural change in the body, induced by some change in use or disuse, or by a change in surrounding influence, affect the germ-cells in such a specific or representative way that the offspring will through its inheritance exhibit, even in a slight degree, the modification which the parent acquired?" He then lists a number of current misunderstandings, which are so widespread that they deserve to be considered here.

(1) It is frequently argued (as Herbert Spencer himself sug[Pg 35]gested) that unless modifications are inherited, there could be no such thing as evolution. Such pessimism is unwarranted. There is abundant explanation of evolution, in the abundant supply of germinal variations which every individual presents.

(2) It is common to advance an interpretation of some observation, in support of the Lamarckian doctrine, as if it were a fact. Interpretations are not facts. What is wanted are the facts; each student has a right to interpret them as he sees fit, but not to represent his interpretation as a fact. It is easy to find structural features in Nature which may be interpreted as resulting from the inheritance of acquired characters; but this is not the same as to say and to prove that they have resulted from such inheritance.

(3) It is common to beg the question by pointing to the transmission of some character that is not proved to be a modification. Herbert Spencer cited the prevalence of short-sightedness among the "notoriously studious" Germans as a defect due to the inheritance of an acquired character. But he offered no evidence that this is an acquirement rather than a germinal character. As a fact, there is reason to believe that weakness of the eyes is one of the characteristics of that race, and existed long before the Germans ever became studious—even at a time when most of them could neither read nor write.

(4) The reappearance of a modification may be mistaken for the transmission of a modification. Thus a blond European family moves to the tropics, and the parents become tanned. The children who grow up under the tropical sun are tanned from infancy; and after the grandchildren or great-grandchildren appear, brown from childhood, some one points to the case as an instance of permanent modification of skin-color. But of course the children at the time of birth are as white as their distant cousins in Europe, and if taken back to the North to be brought up, would be no darker than their kinsmen who had never been in the tropics. Such "evidence" has often been brought forward by careless observers, but can deceive no one who inquires carefully into the facts.

(5) In the case of diseases, re-infection is often mistaken for[Pg 36] transmission. The father had pneumonia; the son later developed it; ergo, he must have inherited it. What evidence is there that the son in this case did not get it from an entirely different source? Medical literature is heavily burdened with such spurious evidence.

(6) Changes in the germ-cells along with changes in the body are not relevant to this discussion. The mother's body, for example, is poisoned with alcohol, which is present in large quantities in the blood and therefore might affect the germ-cells directly. If the children subsequently born are consistently defective it is not an inheritance of a body character but the result of a direct modification of the germ-plasm. The inheritance of an acquired modification of the body can only be proved if some particular change made in the parent is inherited as such by the child.

(7) There is often a failure to distinguish between the possible inheritance of a particular modification, and the possible inheritance of indirect results of that modification, or of changes correlated with it. This is a nice but crucial point on which most popular writers are confused. Let us examine it through a hypothetical case. A woman, not herself strong, bears a child that is weak. The woman then goes in for athletics, in order better to fit herself for motherhood; she specializes on tennis. After a few years she bears another child, which is much stronger and better developed than the first. "Look," some one will say, "how the mother has transmitted her acquirement to her offspring." We grant that her improved general health will probably result in a child that is better nourished than the first; but that is a very different thing from heredity. If, however, the mother had played tennis until her right arm was over-developed, and her spine bent; if these characteristics were nowhere present in the ancestry and not seen in the first child; but if the second child were born with a bent spine and a right arm of exaggerated musculature, we would be willing to consider the case on the basis of the inheritance of an acquired character. We are not likely to have such a case presented to us.[Pg 37]

To put the matter more generally, it is not enough to show that some modification in the parent results in some modification in the child. For the purposes of this argument there must be a similar modification.

(8) Finally, data are frequently presented, which cover only two generations—parent and child. Indeed, almost all the data alleged to show the inheritance of acquired characteristics are of this kind. They are of little or no value as evidence. Cases covering a number of generations, where a cumulative change was visible, would be of weight, but on the rare occasions when they are forthcoming, they can be explained in some other way more satisfactorily than by an appeal to the theory of Lamarck.[13]

If the evidence currently offered to support a belief in the inheritance of acquired characters is tested by the application of these "misunderstandings," it will at once be found that most of it disappears; that it can be thrown out of court without further formality. The Lamarckian doctrine is now held mainly by persons who have either lacked training in the evaluation of evidence, or have never examined critically the assumptions on which they proceed. Medical men and breeders of plants or animals are to a large extent believers in Lamarckism, but the evidence (if any) on which they rely is always susceptible of explanation in a more reasonable way. It must not be forgotten that some of the ablest intellects in the world have been assidously engaged in getting at the truth in the case, during the last half-century; and it is certainly worthy of consideration that not in a single case has the transmission of an acquired body[Pg 38] character ever been proved beyond dispute. Those who still hold a belief in it (and it is fair to say that some men of real ability are among that number) too often do so, it is to be feared, because it is necessary for the support of some theoretical doctrine which they have formulated. Certainly there are few men who can say that they have carefully examined the evidence in the case, and accept Lamarckism because the evidence forces them to do so. It will be interesting to review the various classes of alleged evidence, though we can cite only a few cases from the great number available (most of them, however, dealing with plants or lower animals).

Nearly all the evidence adduced can be put in one of these four classes:

(1)  Mutilations.
(2)  Diseases.
(3)  Results of use or disuse.
(4)  Physico-chemical effects of environment.

The case in regard to mutilations is particularly clear cut and leaves little room for doubt. The noses and ears of oriental women have been pierced for generations without number, yet girls are still born with these parts entire. Circumcision offers another test case. The evidence of laboratory experiments (amputation of tails) shows no inheritance. It may be said without hesitation that mutilations are not heritable, no matter how many generations undergo them.

(2) The transmissibility of acquired diseases is a question involved in more of a haze of ignorance and loose thinking. It is particularly frequent to see cases of uterine infection offered as cases of the inheritance of acquired characters. To use the word "heredity" in such a case is unjustified. Uterine infection has no bearing whatever on the question.

Taking an historical view, it seems fairly evident that if diseases were really inherited, the race would have been extinct long ago. Of course there are constitutional defects or abnormalities that are in the germ-plasm and are heritable: such is the peculiar inability of the blood to coagulate, which marks "bleeders" (sufferers from hemophilia, a highly hereditary[Pg 39] disease). And in many cases it is difficult to distinguish between a real germinal condition of this sort, and an acquired disease.

The inheritance of an acquired disease is not only inconceivable, in the light of what is known about the germ-plasm, but there is no evidence to support it. While there is most decidedly such a thing as the inheritance of a tendency to or lack of resistance to a disease, it is not the result of incidence of the disease on the parent. It is possible to inherit a tendency to headaches or to chronic alcoholism; and it is possible to inherit a lack of resistance to common diseases such as malaria, small-pox or measles; but actually to inherit a zymotic disease as an inherent genetic trait, is impossible,—is, in fact, a contradiction of terms.

(3) When we come to the effects of use and disuse, we reach a much debated ground, and one complicated by the injection of a great deal of biological theorizing, as well as the presence of the usual large amount of faulty observation and inference.

It will be admitted by every one that a part of the body which is much used tends to increase in size, or strength, and similarly that a part which is not used tends to atrophy. It is further found that such changes are progressive in the race, in many cases. Man's brain has steadily increased in size, as he used it more and more; on the other hand, his canine teeth have grown smaller. Can this be regarded as the inheritance of a long continued process of use and disuse? Such a view is often taken, but the Lamarckian doctrine seems to us just as mystical here as anywhere else, and no more necessary. Progressive changes can be satisfactorily accounted for by natural selection; retrogressive changes are susceptible of explanation along similar lines. When an organ is no longer necessary, as the hind legs of a whale, for instance, natural selection no longer keeps it at the point of perfection. Variation, however, continues to occur in it. Since the organ is now useless, natural selection will no longer restrain variation in such an organ, and degeneracy will naturally follow, for of all the variations that occur in the organ, those tending to loss are more numerous than those tending to[Pg 40] addition. If the embryonic development of a whale's hind leg be compared to some complicated mechanical process, such as the manufacture of a typewriter, it will be easier to realize that a trivial variation which affected one of the first stages of the process would alter all succeeding stages and ruin the final perfection of the machine. It appears, then, that progressive degeneration of an organ can be adequately explained by variation with the removal of natural selection, and that it is not necessary or desirable to appeal to any Lamarckian factor of an unexplainable and undemonstrable nature.

The situation remains the same, when purely mental processes, such as instincts, are considered. Habit often repeated becomes instinctive, it is said; and then the instinct thus formed by the individual is passed on to his descendants and becomes in the end a racial instinct. Most psychologists have now abandoned this view, which receives no support from investigation. Such prevalence as it still retains seems to be largely due to a confusion of thought brought about by the use of the word "instinctive" in two different senses,—first literally and then figuratively.

A persistent attempt has been made in America during recent years, by C. L. Redfield, a Chicago engineer, to rehabilitate the theory of the inheritance of the effects of use and disuse. He has presented it in a way that, to one ignorant of biology, appears very exact and plausible; but his evidence is defective and his interpretation of his evidence fallacious. Because of the widespread publicity, Mr. Redfield's work has received, we discuss it further in Appendix B.

Since the importance of hormones (internal secretions) in the body became known, it has often been suggested that their action may furnish the clue to some sort of an inheritance of modifications. The hormone might conceivably modify the germ-plasm but if so, it would more likely be in some wholly different way.

In general, we may confidently say that there is neither theoretical necessity nor adequate experimental proof for belief that the results of use and disuse are inherited.[Pg 41]

(4) When we come to consider whether the effects of the environment are inherited, we attack a stronghold of sociologists and historians. Herbert Spencer thought one of the strongest pieces of evidence in this category was to be found in the assimilation of foreigners in the United States. "The descendants of the immigrant Irish," he pointed out, "lose their Celtic aspect and become Americanised.... To say that 'spontaneous variation,' increased by natural selection, can have produced this effect, is going too far." Unfortunately for Mr. Spencer, he was basing his conclusions on guesswork. It is only within the last few months that the first trustworthy evidence on the point has appeared, in the careful measurements of Hrdlička who has demonstrated that Spencer was quite wrong in his statement. As a fact, the original traits persist with almost incredible fidelity. (Appendix C.)

In 1911, Franz Boas of Columbia University published measurements of the head form of children of immigrants[14] which purported to show that American conditions caused in some mysterious manner a change in the shape of the head. This conclusion in itself would have been striking enough, but was made more startling when he announced that the change worked both ways: "The East European Hebrew, who has a very round head, becomes more long-headed; the south Italian, who in Italy has an exceedingly long head, becomes more short-headed"; and moreover this potent influence was alleged to be a subtle one "which does not affect the young child born abroad and growing up in American environment, but which makes itself felt among the children born in America, even a short time after the arrival of the parents in this country." Boas' work was naturally pleasing to sociologists who believe in the reality of the "melting-pot," and has obtained widespread acceptance in popular literature. It has obtained little acceptance among his fellow-anthropologists, some of whom allege that it is unsound because of the faulty methods by which the measurements were made and the incorrect standards used for comparison.[Pg 42]

The many instances quoted by historians, where races have changed after immigration, are to be explained in most cases by natural selection under new conditions, or by interbreeding with the natives, and not as the direct result of climate. Ellsworth Huntington, the most recent and careful student of the effect of climate on man,[15] finds that climate has a great deal of influence on man's energy, but as far as inherited traits in general are concerned, he is constantly led to remark how little heredity is capable of being changed.

Most members of the white race have little toes that are partly atrophied, and considerably deformed. In many cases one of the joints has undergone ankylosis—that is, the bones have coalesced. It is confidently alleged that this is due to the inheritance of the effects of wearing tight shoes through many centuries. When it is found that the prehistoric Egyptians, who knew not tight shoes, suffered from the same defect in a similar degree, one's confidence in this kind of evidence is much diminished.

The retrogression of the little toe in man is probably to be explained like the degeneration of the hind leg of the whale, as a result of the excess of deteriorating variations which, when not eliminated by natural selection, lead to atrophy. Since man began to limit the use of his feet to walking on the ground, the little toe has had much less value to him.

The feet of Chinese women offer another illustration along this line. Although they have been tightly bound for many generations, no deformity is apparent in the feet of girl babies.

Breeders are generally of the opinion that good care and feed bestowed on their stock produce results in succeeding generations. This is in a way true, but it is due merely to the fact that the offspring get better nourishment and therefore a better start in life. The changes in breeds, the increase in milk yield, and similar facts, often explained as due to inheritance of acquired characters, are better explained as the results of selection, sometimes conscious, sometimes quite unconscious.

[Pg 43]

The question of inherited immunity to diseases, as the result of vaccination or actual illness from them, has appeared in the controversy in a number of forms, and is a point of much importance. It is not yet clear, partly because the doctors disagree as to what immunity is. But there is no adequate evidence that an immunity to anything can be created and transmitted through the germ-plasm to succeeding generations.

In short, no matter what evidence we examine, we must conclude that inheritance of acquired bodily characters is not a subject that need be reckoned with, in applied eugenics.

On the other hand, there is a possible indirect influence of modifications, which may have real importance in man. If the individual is modified in a certain way, in a number of generations, even though such a modification is not transmitted to his descendants, yet its continued existence may make possible, the survival of some germinal variation bearing in the same direction, which without the protecting influence of the pre-existing modification, would have been swamped or destroyed.

Finally, it should be borne in mind that even if physical and mental characters acquired during a man's lifetime are not transmitted, yet there is a sort of transmission of acquired characters which has been of immense importance to the evolution of the race. This is the so-called "inheritance" of the environment; the passing on from one generation to the next of the achievements of the race, its accumulated social experience; its civilization, in short. It is doubtful whether any useful end is gained by speaking of this continuance of the environment as "heredity;" it certainly tends to confuse many people who are not used to thinking in biological terms. Tradition is the preferable term.

There is much to be said in favor of E. B. Poulton's definition,—"Civilization in general is the sum of those contrivances which enable human beings to advance independently of heredity." Whatever wisdom, material gain, or language is acquired by one generation may be passed on to the next. As far as the environment is concerned, one generation stands on the shoul[Pg 44]ders of its predecessor. It might simplify the task of eugenics if the same could be said of biological heredity. But it can not. Each generation must "start from scratch."

In August Weismann's words, the development of a function in offspring begins at the point where it began in his parents, not at the point where it ended in them. Biological improvement of the race (and such improvement greatly fosters all other kinds) must be made through a selective birth-rate. There is no short-cut by way of euthenics, merely.

We must now consider whether there is any direct way of impairing good heredity. It is currently believed that there are certain substances, popularly known as "racial-poisons," which are capable of affecting the germ-plasm adversely and permanently in spite of its isolation and protection. For example, the literature of alcoholism, and much of the literature of eugenics, abounds with statements to the effect that alcohol originates degeneracy in the human race.

The proof or disproof of this proposition must depend in the last analysis on direct observation and carefully controlled experiments. As the latter cannot be made feasibly on man, a number of students have taken up the problem by using small animals which are easily handled in laboratories. Many of these experiments are so imperfect in method that, when carefully examined, they are found to possess little or no value as evidence on the point here discussed.

Hodge, Mairet and Combemale, for example, have published data which convinced them that the germ-plasm of dogs was injured by the administration of alcohol. The test was the quality of offspring directly produced by the intoxicated animals under experiment. But the number of dogs used was too small to be conclusive, and there was no "control": hence these experiments carry little weight.

Ovize, Fêrê and Stockard have shown that the effect of alcohol on hen's eggs is to produce malformed embryos. This, however, is a case of influencing the development of the individual, rather than the germ-plasm. Evidence is abundant that individual development can be harmed by alcohol, but[Pg 45] the experiments with eggs are not to the point of our present purpose.

Carlo Todde and others have carried out similar experiments on cocks. The conclusions have in general been in favor of injury to the germ-plasm, but the experiments were inadequate in extent.

Laitinen experimented on rabbits and guinea pigs, but he used small doses and secured only negative results.

Several series of experiments with rats indicate that if the dosage is large enough, the offspring can be affected.

Nice, using very small numbers of white mice, subjected them not only to alcohol, but to caffein, nicotin, and tobacco smoke. The fecundity of all these sets of mice was higher than that of the untreated ones used as control; all of them gained in weight; of 707 young, none was deformed, none stillborn, and there was only one abortion. The young of the alcoholized mice surpassed all others in growth. The dosage Nice employed was too small, however, to give his experiment great weight.

At the University of Wisconsin, Leon J. Cole has been treating male rabbits with alcohol and reports that "what appear to be decisive results have already been obtained. In the case of alcoholic poisoning of the male the most marked result has been a lessening of his efficiency as a sire, the alcohol apparently having had some effect on the vitality of his spermatozoa." His experiment is properly planned and carried out, but so far as results have been made public, they do not appear to afford conclusive evidence that alcohol originates degeneracy in offspring.

The long-continued and carefully conducted experiment of Charles R. Stockard at the Cornell Medical College is most widely quoted in this connection. He works with guinea-pigs. The animals are intoxicated daily, six days in the week, by inhaling the fumes of alcohol to the point where they show evident signs of its influence; their condition may thus be compared to that of the toper who never gets "dead drunk" but is never entirely sober. Treatment of this sort for a period as long as three years produces no apparent bad effect on the individuals;[Pg 46] they continue to grow and become fat and vigorous, taking plenty of food and behaving in a normal manner in every particular. Some of them have been killed from time to time, and all the tissues, including the reproductive glands, have been found perfectly normal. "The treated animals are, therefore, little changed or injured so far as their behavior and structure goes. Nevertheless, the effects of the treatment are most decidedly indicated by the type of offspring to which they give rise, whether they are mated together or with normal individuals."

Before the treatment is begun, every individual is mated at least once, to demonstrate its possibility of giving rise to sound offspring. The crucial test of the influence of alcohol on the germ-cells is, of course, the mating of a previously alcoholized male with a normal, untreated female, in a normal environment.

When the experiment was last reported,[16] it had covered five years and four generations. The records of 682 offspring produced by 571 matings were tabulated, 164 matings of alcoholized animals, in which either the father, mother, or both were alcoholic, gave 64, or almost 40%, negative results or early abortions, while only 25% of the control matings failed to give full-term litters. Of the 100 full-term litters from alcoholic parents 18% contained stillborn young and only 50% of all the matings resulted in living litters, while 47% of the individuals in the litters of living young died soon after birth. In contrast to this record 73% of the 90 control matings gave living litters and 84% of the young in these litters survived as normal, healthy animals.

"The mating records of the descendants of the alcoholized guinea pigs, although they themselves were not treated with alcohol, compare in some respects even more unfavorably with the control records than do the above data from the directly alcoholized animals." The records of the matings in the second filial generation "are still worse, higher mortality and more pronounced deformities, while the few individuals which have[Pg 47] survived are generally weak and in many instances appear to be quite sterile even though paired with vigorous, prolific, normal mates."

We do not minimize the value of this experiment, when we say that too much weight has been popularly placed on its results. Compare it with the experiment with fowls at the University of Maine, which Raymond Pearl reports.[17] He treated 19 fowls with alcohol, little effect on the general health being shown, and none on egg production. From their eggs 234 chicks were produced; the average percentage of fertility of the eggs was diminished but the average percentage of hatchability of fertile eggs was increased. The infant mortality of these chicks was smaller than normal, the chicks were heavier when hatched and grew more rapidly than normal afterwards. No deformities were found. "Out of 12 different characters for which we have exact quantitative data, the offspring of treated parents taken as a group are superior to the offspring of untreated parents in 8 characters," in two characters they are inferior and in the remaining two there is no discernible difference. At this stage Dr. Pearl's experiment is admittedly too small, but he is continuing it. As far as reported, it confirms the work of Professor Nice, above mentioned, and shows that what is true for guinea pigs may not be true for other animals, and that the amount of dosage probably also makes a difference. Dr. Pearl explains his results by the hypothesis that the alcohol eliminated the weaker germs in the parents, and allowed only the stronger germs to be used for reproduction.

Despite the unsatisfactory nature of much of the alleged evidence, we must conclude that alcohol, when given in large enough doses, may sometimes affect the germ-plasm of some lower animals in such a way as to deteriorate the quality of their offspring. This effect is probably an "induction," which does not produce a permanent change in the bases of heredity, but will wear away in a generation or two of good surroundings. It must be remembered that although the second-generation treated males of Dr. Stockard's experiment produced defective[Pg 48] offspring when mated with females from similarly treated stock, they produced normal offspring when mated with normal females. The significance of this fact has been too little emphasized in writings on "racial poisons." If a normal mate will counteract the influence of a "poisoned" one, it is obvious that the probabilities of danger to any race from this source are much decreased, while if only a small part of the race is affected, and mates at random, the racial damage might be so small that it could hardly be detected.

There are several possible explanations of the fact that injury is found in some experiments but not in others. It may be, as Dr. Pearl thinks, that only weak germs are killed by moderate treatment, and the strong ones are uninjured. And it is probable (this applies more particularly to man) that the body can take care of a certain amount of alcohol without receiving any injury therefrom; it is only when the dosage passes the "danger point" that the possibility of injury appears. As to the location of this limit, which varies with the species, little is known. Much more work is needed before the problem will be fully cleared up.

Alcohol has been in use in parts of the world for many centuries; it was common in the Orient before the beginning of historical knowledge. Now if its use by man impairs the germ-plasm, then it seems obvious that the child of one who uses alcohol to a degree sufficient to impair his germ-plasm will tend to be born inferior to his parent. If that child himself is alcoholic, his own offspring will suffer still more, since they must carry the burden of two generations of impairment. Continuing this line of reasoning over a number of generations, in a race where alcohol is freely used by most of the population, one seems unable to escape from the conclusion that the effects of this racial poison, if it be such, must necessarily be cumulative. The damage done to the race must increase in each generation. If the deterioration of the race could be measured, it might even be found to grow in a series of figures representing arithmetical progression.

It seems impossible, with such a state of affairs, that a race in[Pg 49] which alcohol was widely used for a long period of time, could avoid extinction. At any rate, the races which have used alcohol longest ought to show great degeneracy—unless there be some regenerative process at work constantly counteracting this cumulative effect of the racial poison in impairing the germ-plasm.

Such a proposition at once demands an appeal to history. What is found in examination of the races that have used alcohol the longest? Have they undergone a progressive physical degeneracy, as should be expected?

By no means. In this particular respect they seem to have become stronger rather than weaker, as time went on; that is, they have been less and less injured by alcohol in each century, as far as can be told. Examination of the history of nations which are now comparatively sober, although having access to unlimited quantities of alcohol, shows that at an earlier period in their history, they were notoriously drunken; and the sobriety of a race seems to be proportioned to the length of time in which it has had experience of alcohol. The Mediterranean peoples, who have had abundance of it from the earliest period recorded, are now relatively temperate. One rarely sees a drunkard among them, although many individuals in them would never think of drinking water or any other non-alcoholic beverage. In the northern nations, where the experience of alcohol has been less prolonged, there is still a good deal of drunkenness, although not so much as formerly. But among nations to whom strong alcohol has only recently been made available—the American Indian, for instance, or the Eskimo—drunkenness is frequent wherever the protecting arm of government does not interfere.

What bearing does this have on the theory of racial poisons?

Surely a consideration of the principle of natural selection will make it clear that alcohol is acting as an instrument of racial purification through the elimination of weak stocks. It is a drastic sort of purification, which one can hardly view with complacency; but the effect, nevertheless, seems clear cut.

To demonstrate the action of natural selection, we must first demonstrate the existence of variations on which it can act.[Pg 50] This is not difficult in the character under consideration—namely, the greater or less capacity of individuals to be attracted by alcohol, to an injurious degree.

As G. Archdall Reid has pointed out,[18] men drink for at least three different reasons: (1) to satisfy thirst. This leads to the use of a light wine or a malt liquor. (2) To gratify the palate. This again usually results in the use of drinks of low alcohol content, in which the flavor is the main consideration. (3) Finally, men drink "to induce those peculiar feelings, those peculiar frames of mind" caused by alcohol.

Although the three motives may and often do coexist in the same individual, or may animate him at different periods of life, the fact remains that they are quite distinct. Thirst and taste do not lead to excessive drinking; and there is good evidence that the degree of concentration and the dosage are important factors in the amount of harm alcohol may do to the individual. The concern of evolutionists, therefore, is with the man who is so constituted that the mental effects of alcohol acting directly on the brain are pleasing, and we must show that there is a congenital variability in this mental quality, among individuals.

Surely an appeal to personal experience will leave little room for doubt on that point. The alcohol question is so hedged about with moral and ethical issues that those who never get drunk, or who perhaps never even "take a drink," are likely to ascribe that line of conduct to superior intelligence and great self-control. As a fact, a dispassionate analysis of the case will show that why many such do not use alcoholic beverages to excess is because intoxication has no charm for them. He is so constituted that the action of alcohol on the brain is distasteful rather than pleasing to him. In other cases it is variation in controlling satisfaction of immediate pleasures for later greater good.

Some of the real inebriates have a strong will and a real desire[Pg 51] to be sober, but have a different mental make-up, vividly described by William James:[19] "The craving for drink in real dipsomaniacs, or for opium and chloral in those subjugated, is of a strength of which normal persons can have no conception. 'Were a keg of rum in one corner of the room, and were a cannon constantly discharging balls between me and it, I could not refrain from passing before that cannon in order to get that rum. If a bottle of brandy stood on one hand, and the pit of hell yawned on the other, and I were convinced I should be pushed in as surely as I took one glass, I could not refrain.' Such statements abound in dipsomaniacs' mouths." Between this extreme, and the other of the man who is sickened by a single glass of beer, there are all intermediates.

Now, given an abundant and accessible supply of alcohol to a race, what happens? Those who are not tempted or have adequate control, do not drink to excess; those who are so constituted as to crave the effects of alcohol (once they have experienced them), and who lack the ability to deny themselves the immediate pleasure for the sake of a future gain, seek to renew these pleasures of intoxication at every opportunity; and the well attested result is that they are likely to drink themselves to a premature death.

Although it is a fact that the birth-rate in drunkard's families may be and often is larger than that of the general population,[20] it is none the less a fact that many of the worst drunkards leave no or few offspring. They die of their own excesses at an early age; or their conduct makes them unattractive as mates; or they give so little care to their children that the latter die from neglect, exposure or accident. As these drunkards would tend to hand down their own inborn peculiarity, or weakness for alcohol, to their children, it must be obvious that their death results in a smaller proportion of such persons in the next generation. In other words, natural selection is at work again here, with[Pg 52] alcohol as its agent. By killing off the worst drunkards in each generation, nature provides that the following generation shall contain fewer people who lack the power to resist the attraction of the effect of alcohol, or who have a tendency to use it to such an extent as to injure their minds and bodies. And it must be obvious that the speed and efficacy of this ruthless temperance reform movement are proportionate to the abundance and accessibility of the supply of alcohol. Where the supply is ample and available, there is certain to be a relatively high death-rate among those who find it too attractive, and the average of the race therefore is certain to become stronger in this respect with each generation. Such a conclusion can be abundantly justified by an appeal to the history of the Teutonic nations, the nations around the Mediterranean, the Jews, or any race which has been submitted to the test.

There seems hardly room for dispute on the reality of this phase of natural selection. But there is another way in which the process of strengthening the race against the attraction and effect of alcohol may be going on at the same time. If the drug does actually injure the germ-plasm, and set up a deterioriation, it is obvious that natural selection is given another point at which to work. The more deteriorated would be eliminated in each generation in competition with the less deteriorated or normal; and the process of racial purification would then go on the more rapidly. The fact that races long submitted to the action of alcohol have become relatively resistant to it, therefore, does not in itself answer the question of whether alcohol injures the human germ-plasm.

The possible racial effect of alcoholization is, in short, a much more complicated problem than it appears at first sight to be. It involves the action of natural selection in several important ways, and this action might easily mask the direct action of alcohol on the germ-plasm, if there be any measurable direct result.

No longer content with a long perspective historical view, we will scrutinize the direct investigations of the problem which have been made during recent years. These investigations have[Pg 53] in many cases been widely advertised to the public, and their conclusions have been so much repeated that they are often taken at their face value, without critical examination.

It must be borne in mind that the solution of the problem depends on finding evidence of degeneracy or impairment in the offspring of persons who have used alcohol, and that this relation might be explainable in one or more of three ways:

(1) It may be that alcoholism is merely a symptom of a degenerate stock. In this case the children will be defective, not because their parents drank, but because their parents were defective—the parents' drinking being merely one of the symptoms of their defect.

(2) It may be that alcohol directly poisons the germ-plasm, in such a way that parents of sound stock, who drink alcoholic beverages, will have defective offspring.

(3) It may be that the degeneracy observed in the children of drunkards (for of course no one will deny that children of drunkards are frequently defective) is due solely to social and economic causes, or other causes in the environment: that the drunken parents, for instance, do not take adequate care of their children, and that this lack of care leads to the defects of the children.

The latter influence is doubtless one that is nearly always at work, but it is wholly outside the scope of the present inquiry, and we shall therefore ignore it, save as it may appear incidentally. Nor does it require emphasis here; for the disastrous social and economic effects of alcoholism are patent to every observer. We find it most convenient to concentrate our attention first on the second of the questions above enumerated: to ask whether there is any good evidence that the use of alcoholic beverages by men and women really does originate degeneracy in their offspring.

To get such evidence, one must seek an instance that will be crucial, one that will leave no room for other interpretations. One must, therefore, exclude consideration of cases where a mother drank before child birth. It is well-known that alcohol can pass through the placenta, and that if a prospective mother drinks, the percentage of alcohol in the circulation of the unborn[Pg 54] child will very soon be nearly equal to that in her own circulation. It is well established that such a condition is extremely injurious to the child; but it has nothing directly to do with heredity. Therefore we can not accept evidence of the supposed effect of alcohol on the fertilized egg-cell, at any stage in its development, because that is an effect on the individual, not on posterity. And the only means by which we can wholly avoid this fallacy is to give up altogether an attempt to prove our case by citing instances in which the mother was alcoholic. If this is not done, there will always be liability of mistaking an effect of prenatal nutrition for a direct injury to the germ-plasm.

But if we can find cases where the mother was of perfectly sound stock, and non-alcoholic; where the father was of sound stock, but alcoholic; and where the offspring were impaired in ways that can be plausibly attributed to an earlier injury to the germ-plasm by the father's alcohol; then we have evidence that must weigh heavily with the fair-minded.

An interesting case is the well-known one recorded by Schweighofer, which is summarized as follows: "A normal woman married a normal man and had three sound children. The husband died and the woman married a drunkard and gave birth to three other children; one of these became a drunkard; one had infantilism, while the third was a social degenerate and a drunkard. The first two of these children contracted tuberculosis, which had never before been in the family. The woman married a third time and by this sober husband again produced sound children."

Although such evidence is at first sight pertinent, it lacks much of being convincing. Much must be known about the ancestry of the drunken husband, and of the woman herself, before it can be certain that the defective children owe their defect to alcoholism rather than to heredity.

We can not undertake to review all the literature of this subject, for it fills volumes, but we shall refer to a few of the studies which are commonly cited, by the believers in the racial-poison character of alcohol, as being the most weighty.

Taav Laitinen of Helsingfors secured information from the[Pg 55] parents of 2,125 babies, who agreed to weigh their infants once a month for the first eight months after birth, and who also furnished information about their own drinking habits. His conclusion is that the average weight of the abstainer's child is greater at birth, that these children develop more rapidly during the first eight months than do the children of the moderate drinker, and that the latter exceed in the same way the children of the heavier drinker. But a careful analysis of his work by Karl Pearson, whose great ability in handling statistics has thrown light on many dark places in the alcohol problem, shows[21] that Professor Laitinen's statistical methods were so faulty that no weight can be attached to his conclusions. Furthermore, he appears to have mixed various social classes and races together without distinction; and he has made no distinction between parents, one of whom drank, and parents, both of whom drank. Yet, this distinction, as we have pointed out, is a critical one for such inquiries. Professor Laitinen's paper, according to one believer in racial poisons, "surpasses in magnitude and precision all the many studies of this subject which have proved the relation between drink and degeneracy." As a fact, it proves nothing of the sort as to race degeneracy.

Again, T. A. MacNicholl reported on 55,000 American school children, from 20,147 of whom he secured information about the parents' attitude to alcoholic drinks. He found an extraordinarily large proportion (58%) of deficient and backward children in the group. But the mere bulk of his work, probably, has given it far more prestige than it deserves; for his methods are careless, his classifications vague, his information inadequate; he seems to have dealt with a degenerate section of the population, which does not offer suitable material for testing the question at issue; and he states that many of the children[Pg 56] drank and smoked,—hence, any defects found in them may be due to their own intemperance, rather than that of their parents. In short, Dr. MacNicholl's data offer no help in an attempt to decide whether alcoholism is an inheritable effect.

Another supposed piece of evidence which has deceived a great many students is the investigation of Bezzola into the distribution of the birth-rate of imbeciles in Switzerland. He announced that in wine-growing districts the number of idiots conceived at the time of the vintage and carnival is very large, while at other periods it is almost nil. The conclusion was that excesses of drunkenness occurring in connection with the vintage and carnival caused this production of imbeciles. But aside from the unjustified assumptions involved in his reasoning, Professor Pearson has recently gone over the data and shown the faulty statistical method; that, in fact, the number of imbeciles conceived at vintage-time, in excess of the average monthly number, was only three in spite of the large numbers! Bezzola's testimony, which has long been cited as proof of the disastrous results of the use of alcohol at the time of conception, must be discarded.

Demme's plausible investigation is also widely quoted to support the belief that alcohol poisons the germ-plasm. He studied the offspring of 10 drunken and 10 sober pairs of parents, and found that of the 61 children of the latter, 50 were normal, while of the 57 progeny of the drunkards, only nine were normal. This is a good specimen of much of the evidence cited to prove that alcohol impairs the germ-plasm; it has been widely circulated by propagandists in America during recent years. Of course, its value depends wholly on whether the 20 pairs of parents were of sound, comparable stock. Karl Pearson has pointed out that this is not the case. Demme selected his children of drunkards by selecting children who came to his hospital on account of imperfect development of speech, mental defect, imbecility or idiocy. When he found families in which such defective children occurred, he then inquired as to their ancestry. Many of these children, he found, were reduced to a condition approaching epilepsy, or actually epileptic, because[Pg 57] they themselves were alcoholic. Obviously such material can not legitimately be used to prove that the use of alcohol by parents injures the heredity of their children. The figures do not at all give the proof we are seeking, that alcohol can so affect sound germ-plasm as to lead to the production of defective children.

Dr. Bertholet made a microscopic examination of the reproductive glands of 75 chronic male alcoholics, and in 37 cases he found them more or less atrophied, and devoid of spermatozoa. Observing the same glands in non-alcoholics who had died of various chronic diseases, such as tuberculosis, he found no such condition. His conclusion is that the reproductive glands are more sensitive to the effects of alcohol than any other organ. So far as is known to us, his results have never been discredited; they have, on the contrary, been confirmed by other investigators. They are of great significance to eugenics, in showing how the action of natural selection to purge the race of drunkards is sometimes facilitated in a way we had not counted, through reduced fertility due to alcohol, as well as through death due to alcohol. But it should not be thought that his results are typical, and that all chronic alcoholists become sterile: every reader will know of cases in his own experience, where drunkards have large families; and the experimental work with smaller animals also shows that long-continued inebriety is compatible with great fecundity. It is probable that extreme inebriety reduces fertility, but a lesser amount increases it in the cases of many men by reducing the prudence which leads to limited families.

In 1910 appeared the investigation of Miss Ethel M. Elderton and Karl Pearson on school children in Edinburgh and Manchester.[22] Their aim was to take a population under the same environmental conditions, and with no discoverable initial[Pg 58] differentiation, and inquire whether the temperate and intemperate sections had children differing widely in physique and mentality. Handling their material with the most refined statistical methods, and in an elaborate way, they reached the conclusion that parental alcoholism does not markedly affect the physique or mentality of the offspring as children. Whether results might differ in later life, their material did not show. Their conclusions were as follows:

"(1) There is a higher death-rate among the offspring of alcoholic than among the offspring of sober parents. This appears to be more marked in the case of the mother than in the case of the father, and since it is sensibly higher in the case of the mother who has drinking bouts [periodical sprees] than of the mother who habitually drinks, it would appear to be due very considerably to accidents and gross carelessness and possibly in a minor degree to toxic effect on the offspring.

"Owing to the greater fertility of alcoholic parents, the net family of the sober is hardly larger than the net family of the alcoholic. [It should be remembered that the study did not include childless couples.]

"(2) The mean weight and height of the children of alcoholic parents are slightly greater than those of sober parents, but as the age of the former children is slightly greater, the correlations when corrected for age are slightly positive, i.e., there is slightly greater height and weight in the children of the sober."

"(3) The wages of the alcoholic as contrasted with the sober parent show a slight difference compatible with the employers' dislike for an alcoholic employee, but wholly inconsistent with a marked mental or physical inferiority in the alcoholic parent.

"(4) The general health of the children of alcoholic parents appears on the whole slightly better than that of sober parents. There are fewer delicate children, and in a most marked way cases of tuberculosis and epilepsy are less frequent than among the children of sober parents. The source of this relation may be sought in two directions; the physically strongest in the community have probably the greatest capacity and taste for alcohol. Further the higher death rate of the children of al[Pg 59]coholic parents probably leaves the fittest to survive. Epilepsy and tuberculosis both depending upon inherited constitutional conditions, they will be more common in the parents of affected offspring, and probably if combined with alcohol, are incompatible with any length of life or size of family. If these views be correct, we can only say that parental alcoholism has no marked effect on filial health.

"(5) Parental alcoholism is not the source of mental defect in offspring.

"(6) The relationship, if any, between parental alcoholism and filial intelligence is so slight that even its sign can not be determined from the present material.

"(7) The normal visioned and normal refractioned offspring appear to be in rather a preponderance in the families of the drinking parents, the parents who have 'bouts' give intermediate results, but there is no substantial relationship between goodness of sight and parental alcoholism. Some explanation was sought on the basis of alcoholic homes driving the children out into the streets. This was found to be markedly the case, the children of alcoholic parents spending much more of their spare time in the streets. An examination, however, of the vision and refraction of children with regard to the time they spent in-and out-of-doors, showed no clear and definite result, the children who spent the whole or most of their spare time in the streets having the most myopia and also most normal sight. It was not possible to assert that the outdoor life was better for the sight, or that the better sight of the offspring of alcoholic parentage was due to the greater time spent outdoors.

"(8) The frequency of diseases of the eye and eyelids, which might well be attributed to parental neglect, was found to have little, if any, relation to parental alcoholism.

"To sum up, then no marked relation has been found between the intelligence, physique or disease of the offspring and the parental alcoholism in any of the categories mentioned. On the whole the balance turns as often in favor of the alcoholic as of the non-alcoholic parentage. It is needless to say that we do not attribute this to the alcohol but to certain physical and possibly[Pg 60] mental characters which appear to be associated with the tendency to alcohol."

Of the many criticisms made of this work, most are irrelevant to our present purpose, or have been satisfactorily met by the authors. It must be said, however, that as the children examined were all school children, the really degenerate offspring of alcoholics, if any such existed, would not have been found, because they would not have been admitted to the school. Further, it is not definitely known whether the parents' alcoholism dated from before or after the birth of the child examined. Then, the report did not exactly compare the offspring of drinkers and non-drinkers, but classified the parents as those who drank, and those who were sober; the latter were not, for the most part, teetotalers, but merely persons whose use of alcohol was so moderate that it exercised no visible bad influence on the health of the individual or the welfare of the home. Something can be said on both sides of all these objections; but giving them as much weight as one thinks necessary, the fact remains that the Elderton-Pearson investigation failed to demonstrate any racial poisoning due to alcohol, in the kind of cases where one would certainly have expected it to be demonstrated, if it existed.

Much more observation and measurement must be made before a generalization can be safely drawn, as to whether alcohol is or is not a racial poison, in the sense in which that expression is used by eugenists. It has been shown that the evidence which is commonly believed to prove beyond doubt that alcohol does injure the germ-plasm, is mostly worthless. But it must not be thought that the authors intend to deny that alcohol is a racial poison, where the dosage is very heavy and continuous. If we have no good evidence that it is, we equally lack evidence on the other side. We wish only to suggest caution against making rash generalizations on the subject which lack supporting evidence and therefore are a weak basis for propaganda.

So far as immediate action is concerned, eugenics must proceed on the basis that there is no proof that alcohol as ordinarily consumed will injure the human germ-plasm. To say[Pg 61] this is not in any way to minify the evil results which alcohol often has on the individual, or the disastrous consequences to his offspring, euthenically. But nothing is to be gained by making an assumption of "racial poisoning," and acting on that assumption, without evidence that it is true; and the temperance movement would command more respect from genetics if it ceased to allege proof that alcohol has a directly injurious effect on the race, by poisoning the human germ-plasm, when no adequate proof exists.

How, then, can one account for the immense bulk of cases, some of which come within everyone's range of vision, where alcoholism in the parent is associated with defect in the offspring? By a process of exclusion, we are driven to the explanation already indicated: that alcoholism may be a symptom, rather than a cause, of degeneracy. Some drunkards are drunkards, because they come of a stock that is, in a way, mentally defective; physical defects are frequently correlated in such stocks; naturally the children inherit part or all of the parental defects including, very likely, alcoholism; but the parent's alcoholism, we repeat, must not be considered the cause of the child's defect. The child would have been defective in the same way, regardless of the parent's beverage.

It follows, then, as a practical consequence for eugenics, that in the light of present knowledge any campaign against alcoholic liquors would be better based on the very adequate ground of physiology and economics, than on genetics. From the narrowest point of view of genetics, the way to solve the liquor problem would be, not to eliminate drink, but to eliminate the drinker: to prevent the reproduction of the degenerate stocks and the tainted strains that contribute most of the chronic alcoholics. We do not mean to advocate this as the only proper basis for the temperance campaign, because the physiological and economic aspects are of sufficient importance to keep up the campaign at twice the present intensity.[23] But it is desirable to have the eugenic aspect of the matter clearly[Pg 62] understood, and to point out that in checking the production of defectives in the United States, eugenics will do its share, and a big share, toward the solution of the drink problem, which is at the same time being attacked along other and equally praiseworthy lines by other people.

A number of other substances are sometimes credited with being racial poisons.

The poison of Spirochæte pallida, the microörganism which causes syphilis, has been widely credited with a directly noxious effect on the germ-plasm, and the statement has been made that this effect can be transmitted for several generations. On the other hand, healthy children are reported as being born to cured syphilitics. Further evidence is needed, taking care to eliminate cases of infection from the parents. If the alleged deterioration really occurs, it will still remain to be determined if the effect is permanent or an induction, that is, a change in the germ-cells which does not permanently alter the nature of the inherited traits, and which would disappear in a few generations under favorable conditions.

The case against lead is similar. Sir Thomas Oliver, in his Diseases of Occupation, sums up the evidence as follows:

"Rennert has attempted to express in statistical terms the varying degrees of gravity in the prognosis of cases in which at the moment of conception both parents are the subjects of lead poisoning, also when one alone is affected. The malign influence of lead is reflected upon the fetus and upon the continuation of the pregnancy 94 times out of 100 when both parents have been working in lead, 92 times when the mother alone is affected, and 63 times when it is the father alone who has worked in lead. Taking seven healthy women who were married to lead workers, and in whom there was a total of 32 pregnancies, Lewin (Berlin) tells us that the results were as follows: 11 miscarriages, one stillbirth, 8 children died within the first year after their birth, four in the second year, five in the third year and one subsequent to this, leaving only two children out of 32 pregnancies as likely to live to manhood. In cases where women have had a series of miscarriages so long as their [Pg 63]husbands worked in lead, a change of industrial occupation on the part of the husband restores to the wives normal child-bearing powers." The data of Constantin Paul, published as long ago as 1860, indicated that lead exercised an injurious effect through the male as well as the female parent. This sort of evidence is certainly weak, in that it fails to take into account the possible effects of environment; and one would do well to keep an open mind on the subject. In a recent series of careful experiments at the University of Wisconsin, Leon J. Cole has treated male rabbits with lead. He reports: "The 'leaded' males have produced as many or more offspring than normal fathers, but their young have averaged smaller in size and are of lowered vitality, so that larger numbers of them die off at an early age than is the case with those from untreated fathers."

There is, then, a suspicion that lead is a racial poison, but no evidence as yet as to whether the effect is permanent or in the nature of an induction.

This concludes the short list of substances for which there has been any plausible case made out, as racial poisons. Gonorrhea, malaria, arsenic, tobacco, and numerous other substances have been mentioned from time to time, and even ardently contended by propagandists to be racial poisons, but in the case of none of them, so far as we know, is there any evidence to support the claim. And as has been shown, in the case of the three chief so-called racial poisons, alcohol, syphilis and lead, the evidence is not great. We are thus in a position to state that, from the eugenists' point of view, the origination of degeneracy, by some direct action of the germ-plasm, is a contingency that hardly needs to be reckoned with. Even in case the evidence were much stronger than it is, the damage done may only be a physiological or chemical induction, the effects of which will wear off in a few generations; rather than a radical change in the hereditary constituents of the germ-plasm. The germ-plasm is so carefully isolated and guarded that it is almost impossible to injure it, except by treatment so severe as to kill it altogether; and the degeneracy with which eugenists are called on to deal is a[Pg 64] degeneracy which is running along from generation to generation and which, when once stopped by the cessation of reproduction, is in little danger of being originated anew through some racial poison.

Through these facts, the problem of race betterment is not only immensely simplified, but it is clearly shown to be more a matter for treatment by the biologist, acting through eugenics, than for the optimistic improver of the environment.

There is another way in which it is widely believed that some such result as a direct influence of the germ-plasm can be produced: that is through the imaginary process known as maternal impression, prenatal influence, etc. Belief in maternal impressions is no novelty. In the book of Genesis[24] Jacob is described as making use of it to get the better of his tricky father-in-law. Some animal breeders still profess faith in it as a part of their methods of breeding: if they want a black calf, for instance, they will keep a white cow in a black stall, and express perfect confidence that her offspring will resemble midnight darkness. It is easy to see that this method, if it "works," would be a potent instrument for eugenics. And it is being recommended for that reason. Says a recent writer, who professes on the cover of her book to give a "complete and intelligent summary of all the principles of eugenics":

"Too much emphasis can not be placed upon the necessity of young people making the proper choice of mates in marriage; yet if the production of superior children were dependent upon that one factor, the outlook would be most discouraging to prospective fathers and mothers, for weak traits of character are to be found in all. But when young people learn that by a conscious endeavor to train themselves, they are thereby training their unborn children, they can feel that there is some hope[Pg 65] and joy in parentage; that it is something to which they can look forward with delight and even rapture; then they will be inspired to work hard to attain the best and highest that there is in them, leading the lives that will not only be a blessing to themselves, but to their succeeding generation."

The author of this quotation has no difficulty in finding supporters. Many physicians and surgeons, who are supposed to be trained in scientific methods of thought, will indorse what she says. The author of one of the most recent and in many respects admirable books on the care of babies, is almost contemptuous in her disdain for those who think otherwise:

"Science wrangles over the rival importance of heredity and environment, but we women know what effects prenatal influence works on children." "The woman who frets brings forth a nervous child. The woman who rebels generally bears a morbid child." "Self-control, cheerfulness and love for the little life breathing in unison with your own will practically insure you a child of normal physique and nerves."

Such statements, backed up by a great array of writers and speakers whom the layman supposes to be scientific, and who think themselves scientific, can not fail to influence strongly an immense number of fathers and mothers. If they are truly scientific statements, their general acceptance must be a great good.

But think of the misplaced effort if these widespread statements are false!

Is there, or is there not, a short cut to race betterment? Everyone interested in the welfare of the race must feel the necessity of getting at the truth in the case; and the truth can be found only by rigorously scientific thought.

Let us turn to the observed facts. This sample is taken from the health department of a popular magazine, quite recently issued:

"Since birth my body has been covered with scales strikingly resembling the surface of a fish. My parents and I have expended considerable money on remedies and specialists without deriving any permanent benefit. I bathe my entire body with[Pg 66] hot water daily, using the best quality of soap. The scales fall off continually. My brother, who is younger than myself, is afflicted with the same trouble, but in a lesser degree. My sister, the third member of the family, has been troubled only on the knees and abdomen. My mother has always been quite nervous and susceptible to any unusual mental impression. She believes that she marked me by craving fish, and preferring to clean them herself. During the prenatal life of my brother, she worried much lest she might mark him in the same way. In the case of my sister she tried to control her mind."[25]

Another is taken from a little publication which is devoted to eugenics.[26] As a "horrible example" the editor gives the case of Jesse Pomeroy, a murderer whom older readers will remember. His father, it appears, worked in a meat market. Before the birth of Jesse, his mother went daily to the shop to carry a luncheon to her husband, and her eyes naturally fell upon the bloody carcases hung about the walls. Inevitably, the sight of such things would produce bloody thoughts in the mind of the unborn child!

These are extreme cases; we quote from a medieval medical writer another case that carries the principle to its logical conclusion: A woman saw a Negro,—at that time a rarity in Europe. She immediately had a sickening suspicion that her child would be born with a black skin. To obviate the danger, she had a happy inspiration—she hastened home and washed her body all over with warm water. When the child appeared, his skin was found to be normally white—except between the fingers[Pg 67] and toes, where it was black. His mother had failed to wash herself thoroughly in those places!

Of course, few of the cases now credited are as gross as this, but the principle involved remains the same.

We will take a hypothetical case of a common sort for the sake of clearness: the mother receives a wound on the arm; when her child is born it is found to have a scar of some sort at about the same place on the corresponding arm. Few mothers would fail to see the result of a maternal impression here. But how could this mark have been transmitted? This is not a question of the transmission of acquired characters through the germ-plasm, or anything of that sort, for the child was already formed when the mother was injured. One is obliged, therefore, to believe that the injury was in some way transmitted through the placenta, the only connection between the mother and the unborn child; and that it was then reproduced in some way in the child.

Here is a situation which, examined in the cold light of reason, puts a heavy enough strain on the credulity. Such an influence can reach the embryo only through the blood of the mother. Is it conceivable to any rational human being, that a scar, or what not, on the mother's body can be dissolved in her blood, pass through the placenta into the child's circulation, and then gather itself together into a definite scar on the infant's arm?

There is just as much reason to expect the child to grow to resemble the cow on whose milk it is fed after birth, as to expect it to grow to resemble its mother, because of prenatal influence, as the term is customarily used, for once development has begun, the child draws nothing more than nourishment from its mother.

Of course we are accustomed to the pious rejoinder that man must not expect to understand all the mysteries of life; and to hear vague talk about the wonder of wireless telegraphy. But wireless telegraphy is something very definite and tangible—there is little mystery about it. Waves of a given frequency are sent off, and caught by an instrument attuned to the same frequency. How any rational person can support a belief in[Pg 68] maternal impressions by such an analogy, if he knows anything about anatomy and physiology, passes comprehension.

Now we are far from declaring that a reason can be found for everything that happens. Science does not refuse belief in an observed fact merely because it is unexplainable. But let us examine this case of maternal impressions a little further. What can be learned of the time element?

Immediately arises the significant fact that most of the marks, deformities and other effects which are credited to prenatal influence must on this hypothesis take place at a comparatively late period in the antenatal life of the child. The mother is frightened by a dog; the child is born with a dog-face. If it be asked when her fright occurred, it is usually found that it was not earlier than the third month, more likely somewhere near the sixth.

But it ought to be well known that the development of all the main parts of the body has been completed at the end of the second month. At that time, the mother rarely does more than suspect the coming of the child, and events which she believes to "mark" the child, usually occur after the fourth or fifth month, when the child is substantially formed, and it is impossible that many of the effects supposed to occur could actually occur. Indeed, it is now believed that most errors of development, such as lead to the production of great physical defects, are due to some cause within the embryo itself, and that most of them take place in the first three or four weeks, when the mother is by no means likely to influence the course of embryological development by her mental attitude toward it, for the very good reason that she knows nothing about it.

Unless she is immured or isolated from the world, nearly every expectant mother sees many sights of the kind that, according to popular tradition, cause "marks." Why is it that results are so few? Why is it that women doctors and nurses, who are constantly exposed to unpleasant sights, have children that do not differ from those of other mothers?

Darwin, who knew how to think scientifically, saw that this is the logical line of proof or disproof. When Sir Joseph Hooker,[Pg 69] the botanist and geologist who was his closest friend, wrote of a supposed case of maternal impression, one of his kinswomen having insisted that a mole which appeared on her child was the effect of fright upon herself for having, before the birth of the child, blotted with sepia a copy of Turner's Liber Studiorum that had been lent her with special injunctions to be careful, Darwin[27] replied: "I should be very much obliged, if at any future or leisure time you could tell me on what you ground your doubtful belief in imagination of a mother affecting her offspring. I have attended to the several statements scattered about, but do not believe in more than accidental coincidences. W. Hunter told my father, then in a lying-in hospital, that in many thousand cases he had asked the mother, before her confinement, whether anything had affected her imagination, and recorded the answers; and absolutely not one case came right, though, when the child was anything remarkable, they afterwards made the cap to fit."

Any doctor who has handled many maternity cases can call to mind instances where every condition was present to perfection, for the production of maternal impression, on the time-honored lines. None occurred. Most mothers can, if they give the matter careful consideration, duplicate this experience from their own. Why is it that results are so rare?

That Darwin gave the true explanation of a great many of the alleged cases is perfectly clear to us. When the child is born with any peculiar characteristic, the mother hunts for some experience in the preceding months that might explain it. If she succeeds in finding any experience of her own at all resembling in its effects the effect which the infant shows, she considers she has proved causation, has established a good case of prenatal influence.

It is not causation; it is coincidence.

If the prospective mother plays or sings a great deal, with the idea of giving her child a musical endowment, and the child actually turns out to have musical talent, the mother at once[Pg 70] recalls her yearning that such might be the case; her assiduous practice which she hoped would be of benefit to her child. She immediately decides that it did benefit him, and she becomes a convinced witness to the belief in prenatal culture. Has she not herself demonstrated it?

She has not. But if she would examine the child's heredity, she would probably find a taste for music running in the germ-plasm. Her study and practice had not the slightest effect on this hereditary disposition; it is equally certain that the child would have been born with a taste for music if its mother had devoted eight hours a day for nine months to cultivating thoughts of hatred for the musical profession and repugnance for everything that possesses rhythm or harmony.

It necessarily follows, then, that attempts to influence the inherent nature of the child, physically or mentally, through "prenatal culture," are doomed to disappointment. The child develops along the lines of the potentialities which existed in the two germ-cells that united to become its origin. The course of its development can not be changed in any specific way by any corresponding act or attitude of its mother, good hygiene alone need be her concern.

It must necessarily follow that attempts to improve the race on a large scale, by the general adoption of prenatal culture as an instrument of eugenics, are useless.

Indeed, the logical implication of the teaching is the reverse of eugenic. It would give a woman reason to think she might marry a man whose heredity was most objectionable, and yet, by prenatal culture, save her children from paying the inevitable penalty of this weak heritage. The world has long shuddered over the future of the girl who marries a man to reform him; but think what it means to the future of the race if a superior girl, armed with correspondence school lessons in prenatal culture, marries a man to reform his children!

Those who practice this doctrine are doomed to disillusion. The time they spend on prenatal culture is not cultivating the child; it is merely perpetuating a fallacy. Not only is their[Pg 71] time thus spent wasted, but worse, for they might have employed it in ways that really would have benefited the child—in open-air exercise, for instance.

To recapitulate, the facts are:

(1) That there is, before birth, no connection between mother and child, by which impressions on the mother's mind or body could be transmitted to the child's mind or body.

(2) That in most cases the marks or defects whose origin is attributed to maternal impression, must necessarily have been complete long before the incident occurred which the mother, after the child's birth, ascribes as the cause.

(3) That these phenomena usually do not occur when they are, and by hypothesis ought to be, expected. The explanations are found after the event, and that is regarded as causation which is really coincidence.

Pre-natal care as a euthenic measure is of course not only legitimate but urgent. The embryo derives its entire nourishment from the mother; and its development depends wholly on its supply of nourishment. Anything which affects the supply of nourishment will affect the embryo in a general, not a particular way. If the mother's mental and physical condition be good, the supply of nourishment to the embryo is likely to be good, and development will be normal. If, on the other hand, the mother is constantly harassed by fear or hatred, her physical health will suffer, she will be unable properly to nourish her developing offspring, and it may be its poor physical condition when born, indicates this.

Further, if the mother experiences a great mental or physical shock, it may so upset her health that her child is not properly nourished, its development is arrested, mentally as well as physically, and it is born defective. H. H. Goddard, for example, tells[28] of a high-grade imbecile in the Training School at Vineland, N. J. "Nancy belongs to a thoroughly normal, respectable family. There is nothing to account for the condition unless one accepts the mother's theory. While it sounds[Pg 72] somewhat like the discarded theory of maternal impression, yet it is not impossible that the fright and shock which the mother received may have interfered with the nutrition of the unborn child and resulted in the mental defect. The story in brief is as follows. Shortly before this child was born, the mother was compelled to take care of a sister-in-law who was in a similar condition and very ill with convulsions. Our child's mother was many times frightened severely as her sister-in-law was quite out of her mind."

It is easily understandable that any event which makes such an impression on the mother as to affect her health, might so disturb the normal functioning of her body that her child would be badly nourished, or even poisoned. Such facts undoubtedly form the basis on which the airy fabric of prenatal culture was reared by those who lived before the days of scientific biology.

Thus, it is easy enough to see the real explanation of such cases as those mentioned near the beginning of this discussion. The mothers who fret and rebel over their maternity, she found, are likely to bear neurotic children. It is obvious (1) that mothers who fret and rebel are quite likely themselves to be neurotic in constitution, and the child naturally gets its heredity from them: (2) that constant fretting and rebellion would so affect the mother's health that her child would not be properly nourished.

When, however, she goes on to draw the inference that "self-control, cheerfulness and love ... will practically insure you a child normal in physique and nerves," we are obliged to stop. We know that what she says is not true. If the child's heredity is bad, neither self-control, cheerfulness, love, nor anything else known to science, can make that heredity good.

At first thought, one may wish it were otherwise. There is something inspiring in the idea of a mother overcoming the effect of heredity by the sheer force of her own will-power. But perhaps in the long run it is as well; for there are advantages on the other side. It should be a satisfaction to mothers to know that their children will not be marked or injured by un[Pg 73]toward events in the antenatal days; that if the child's heredity can not be changed for the better, neither can it be changed for the worse.

The prenatal culturists and maternal-impressionists are trying to place on her a responsibility which she need not bear. Obviously, it is the mother who is most nearly concerned with the bogy of maternal impressions, and it should make for her peace of mind to know that it is nothing more than a bogy. It is important for the expectant mother to keep herself in as nearly perfect condition as possible, both physically and mentally. Her bodily mechanism will then run smoothly, and the child will get from her blood the nourishment needed for its development. Beyond that there is nothing the mother can do to influence the development of her child.

There is another and somewhat similar fallacy which deserves a passing word, although it is of more concern to the livestock breeder than to the eugenist. It is called telegony and is, briefly, this: that conception by a female results in a definite modification of her germ-plasm from the influence of the male, and that this modification will be shown in the offspring she may subsequently bear to a second male. The only case where it is often invoked in the human race is in miscegenation. A white woman has been married to a Negro, for instance, and has borne one or more mulatto offspring. Subsequently, she mates with a white man; but her children by him, instead of being pure white, it is alleged, will be also mulattoes. The idea of telegony, the persistent influence of the first mating, may be invoked to explain this discrepancy.

It is a pure myth. There is no good evidence[29] to support it, and there is abundant evidence to contradict it. Telegony is still believed by many animal breeders, but it has no place in science. In such a case as the one quoted, the explanation is undoubtedly that the supposed father is not the real one; and this explanation will dispose of all other cases of telegony which can not be explained, as in most instances they can be,[Pg 74] by the mixed ancestry of the offspring and the innate tendency of all living things to vary.

Now to sum up this long chapter. We started with a consideration of the germ-plasm, the physical basis of life; pointing out that it is continuous from generation to generation, and potentially immortal; that it is carefully isolated and guarded in the body, so that it is not likely to be injured by any ordinary means.

One of the logical results of this continuity of the germ-plasm is that modifications of the body of the parent, or acquired characters, can hardly be transferred to the germ-plasm and become a part of the inheritance. Further the experimental evidence upholds this position, and the inheritance of acquired body characters may be disregarded by eugenics, which is therefore obliged to concern itself solely with the material already in existence in the germ-plasm, except as that material may be changed by variation which can neither be predicted nor controlled.

The evidence that the germ-plasm can be permanently modified does not warrant the belief; and such results, if they exist at all, are not large enough or uniform enough to concern the eugenist.

Pre-natal culture and telegony were found to be mere delusions. There is no justification for hoping to influence the race for good through the action of any kind of external influences; and there is not much danger of influencing it for ill through these external influences. The situation must be faced squarely then: if the race is to be improved, it must be by the use of the material already in existence; by endeavor to change the birth-and death-rates so as to alter the relative proportions of the amounts of good and bad germ-plasm in the race. This is the only road by which the goal of eugenics can be reached.[Pg 75]

While Mr. Jefferson, when he wrote into the Declaration of Independence his belief in the self-evidence of the truth that all men are created equal, may have been thinking of legal rights merely, he was expressing an opinion common among philosophers of his time. J. J. Rousseau it was who made the idea popular, and it met with widespread acceptance for many years. It is not surprising, therefore, that the phrase has long been a favorite with the demagogue and the utopian. Even now the doctrine is by no means dead. The American educational system is based largely on this dogma, and much of the political system seems to be grounded on it. It can be seen in the tenets of labor unions, in the practice of many philanthropies—traces may be found almost anywhere one turns, in fact.

Common enough as applied to mental qualities, the theory of human equality is even more widely held of "moral" qualities. Men are considered to be equally responsible for their conduct, and failure to conform to the accepted code in this respect brings punishment. It is sometimes conceded that men have had differing opportunities to learn the principles of morality; but given equal opportunities, it is almost universally held that failure to follow the principles indicates not inability but unwillingness. In short, public opinion rarely admits that men may differ in their inherent capacity to act morally.

In view of its almost universal and unquestioned, although half unconscious, acceptance as part of the structure of society, it becomes of the utmost importance that this doctrine of human equality should be examined by scientific methods.

Fortunately this can be done with ease. Methods of mental and physical measurement that have been evolved during the[Pg 76] last few decades offer results that admit of no refutation, and they can be applied in hundreds of different places.

It will not be worth while to spend any time demonstrating that all individuals differ, at birth and during their subsequent life, physically. The fact is patent to all. It carries with it as a necessary corollary mental differences, since the brain is part of the body; nevertheless, we shall demonstrate these mental differences independently.

We present in Fig. 8 a graph from E. L. Thorndike, showing the number of 10-year-old children in Connecticut (1903) in each school grade. If the children are all intellectually equal, all the 10-year-olds ought to be in the same grade, or near it. Numerous explanations of their wide distribution suggest themselves; as a working hypothesis one might adopt the suggestion that it is because the children actually differ in innate ability to[Pg 77] the extent here indicated. This hypothesis can be tested by a variety of mental measurements. S. A. Courtis' investigation of the arithmetical abilities of the children in the schools of New York City will be a good beginning. He measured the achievements of pupils in responding to eight tests, which were believed to give a fair idea of the pupil's capacity for solving simple arithmetical problems. The results were, on the average, similar to the result he got in a certain eighth-grade class, whose record is shown in Fig. 9. It is evident that some of the children were good in arithmetic, some were poor in it; the bulk of them were neither good nor bad but half way between, or, in statistical language, mediocre.

The literature of experimental psychology and anthropology is crammed with such examples as the above. No matter what trait of the individual be chosen, results are analogous. If one takes the simplest traits, to eliminate the most chances for confusion, one finds the same conditions every time. Whether it be speed in marking off all the A's in a printed sheet of capitals, or in putting together the pieces of a puzzle, or in giving a reaction to some certain stimulus, or in making associations between ideas, or drawing figures, or memory for various things, or giving the opposites of words, or discrimination of lifted weights, or success in any one of hun[Pg 78]dreds of other mental tests, the conclusion is the same. There are wide differences in the abilities of individuals, no two being alike, either mentally or physically, at birth or any time thereafter.

Whenever a large enough number of individuals is tested, these differences arrange themselves in the same general form. It is the form assumed by the distribution of any differences that are governed absolutely by chance.

Suppose an expert marksman shoots a thousand times at the center of a certain picket in a picket fence, and that there is no[Pg 79] wind or any other source of constant error that would distort his aim. In the long run, the greatest number of his shots would be in the picket aimed at, and of his misses there would be just as many on one side as on the other, just as many above as below the center. Now if all the shots, as they struck the fence, could drop into a box below, which had a compartment for each picket, it would be found at the end of his practice that the compartments were filled up unequally, most bullets being in that representing the middle picket and least in the outside ones. The intermediate compartments would have intermediate numbers of bullets. The whole scheme is shown in Fig. 11. If a line be drawn to connect the tops of all the columns of bullets, it will make a rough curve or graph, which represents a typical chance distribution. It will be evident to anyone that the distribution was really governed by "chance," i.e., a multiplicity of causes too complex to permit detailed analysis. The imaginary sharp-shooter was an expert, and he was trying to hit the same spot with each shot. The deviation from the center is bound to be the same on all sides.

Now suppose a series of measurements of a thousand children be taken in, let us say, the ability to do 18 problems in subtraction in 10 minutes. A few of them finish only one problem in that time; a few more do two, more still are able to complete three, and so on up. The great bulk of the children get through from 8 to 12 problems in the allotted time; a few finish the whole task. Now if we make a column for all those who did one problem, another column beside it for all those who did two, and so on up for those who did three, four and on to eighteen, a line drawn over the tops of the columns make a curve like the above from Thorndike.[Pg 80]

Comparing this curve with the one formed by the marksman's spent bullets, one can not help being struck by the similarity. If the first represented a distribution governed purely by chance, it is evident that the children's ability seems to be distributed in accordance with a similar law.

With the limited number of categories used in this example, it would not be possible to get a smooth curve, but only a kind of step pyramid. With an increase in the number of categories, the steps become smaller. With a hundred problems to work out, instead of 18, the curve would be something like this:

And with an infinite number, the steps would disappear altogether, leaving a perfectly smooth, flowing line, unmarred by a single step or break. It would be an absolutely continuous distribution.

If then, the results of all the tests that have been made on all mental traits be studied, it will be found that human mental ability as shown in at least 95% of all the traits that have been measured, is distributed throughout the race in various degrees, in accordance with the law of chance, and that if one could measure all the members of the species and plot a curve for these measurements, in any trait, he would get this smooth, continuous curve. In other words, human beings are not sharply divided into classes, but the differences between them shade off into each other, although between the best and the worst, in any respect, there is a great gulf.

If this statement applies to simple traits, such as memory for numbers, it must also apply to combinations of simple traits in complex mental processes. For practical purposes, we are therefore justified in saying that in respect of any mental quality,—ability, industry, efficiency, persistence, attentiveness, [Pg 81]neatness, honesty, anything you like,—in any large group of people, such as the white inhabitants of the United States, some individuals will be found who show the character in question in a very low degree, some who show it in a very high degree; and there will be found every possible degree in between.

The consequences of this for race progress are significant. Is it desired to eliminate feeble-mindedness? Then it must be borne in mind that there is no sharp distinction between feeble-mindedness and the normal mind. One can not divide sheep from goats, saying "A is feeble-minded. B is normal. C is feeble-minded. D is normal," and so on. If one took a scale of a hundred numbers, letting 1 stand for an idiot and 100 for a genius, one would find individuals corresponding to every single number on the scale. The only course possible would be a somewhat arbitrary one; say to consider every individual corresponding to a grade under seven as feeble-minded. It would have to be recognized that those graded eight were not much better than those graded seven, but the drawing of the line at seven would be justified on the ground that it had to be drawn somewhere, and seven seemed to be the most satisfactory point.

In practice of course, students of retardation test children by standardized scales. Testing a hundred 10-year-old children, the examiner might find a number who were able to do only those tests which are passed by a normal six-year-old child. He might properly decide to put all who thus showed four years of retardation, in the class of feeble-minded; and he might justifiably decide that those who tested seven years (i.e., three years mental retardation) or less would, for the present, be given the benefit of the doubt, and classed among the possibly normal. Such a procedure, in dealing with intelligence, is necessary and justifiable, but its adoption must not blind students, as it often does, to the fact that the distinction made is an arbitrary one, and that there is no more a hard and fast line of demarcation between imbeciles and normals than there is between "rich men" and "poor men."

If a group of soldiers be measured as the children were meas[Pg 82]ured for arithmetical ability, their height will be distributed in this same curve of probability. Fig. 14 shows the cadets of Connecticut Agricultural College; it is obvious that a line drawn [Pg 83]along the tops of the files would again make the step-pyramid shown in Figures 10, 11 and 13. If a larger number were taken, the steps would disappear and give place to a smooth curve; the fact is well shown in a graph for the heights of recruits to the American Army (Fig. 15).

The investigation in this direction need not be pursued any farther. For the purpose of eugenics, it is sufficient to recognize that great differences exist between men, and women, not only in respect of physical traits, but equally in respect of mental ability.

This conclusion might easily have been reached from a study of the facts in Chapter I, but it seemed worth while to take time to present the fact in a more concrete form as the result of actual measurements. The evidence allows no doubt about the existence of considerable mental and physical differences between men.

The question naturally arises, "What is the cause of these differences?"

The study of twins showed that the differences could not be due to differences in training or home surroundings. If the reader will think back over the facts set forth in the first chapter, he will see clearly that the fundamental differences in men can not be due to anything that happens after they are born; and the facts presented in the second chapter showed that these differences can not be due in an important degree to any influences acting on the child prior to birth.[Pg 84]

We have come to the climax of the eugenist's preliminary argument; if the main differences between human beings are not due to anything in the environment or training, either of this or previous generations, there can be but one explanation for them.

They must be due to the ancestry of the individual—that is, they must be matters of heredity in the ordinary sense, coupled with the fortuitous variations which accompany heredity throughout the organic world.

We need not limit ourselves, however, to the argument by exclusion, for it is not difficult to present direct evidence that the differences between men are actually inherited by children from parents. The problem, formally stated, is to measure the amount by which the likeness of individuals of like ancestry surpasses the likeness of individuals of different ancestry. After subtraction of the necessary amount for the greater likeness in training, that the individuals of like ancestry will have, whatever amount is left will necessarily, represent the actual inheritance of the child from its ancestors—parents, grandparents, and so on.

Obviously, the subtraction for environmental effects is the point at which a mistake is most probable. We may safely start, therefore, with a problem in which no subtraction whatever need be made for this cause. Eye color is a stock example, and a good one, for it is not conceivable that home environment or training would cause a change in the color of brothers' eyes.

The correlation[30] between brothers, or sisters, or brothers and[Pg 85] sisters—briefly, the fraternal resemblance—for eye-color was found by Karl Pearson, using the method described in Chapter I, to be .52. We are in no danger of contradiction if we state with positiveness that this figure represents the influence of ancestry, or direct inheritance, in respect to this particular trait.

Suppose the resemblance between brothers be measured for stature—it is .51; for cephalic index, that is, the ratio of width of skull to length of skull—it is .49; for hair color—it is .59. In all of these points, it will be admitted that no home training, or any other influence except heredity, can conceivably play an important part. We could go on with a long list of such measurements, which biometrists have made; and if they were all summed up it would be found that the fraternal correlation in these traits as to the heritability of which there can be no dispute, is about .52. Here is a good measure, albeit a technical one, of the influence of heredity from the near ancestry. It is possible, too, to measure the direct correlation between a trait in parent and the same trait in offspring; the average of many cases where only heredity can be thought to have had any effect in producing the result, is .49. By the two methods of measurement, therefore, quite comparable results are obtained.

So much work has been done in this subject that we have no hesitation in affirming .5 to represent approximately the average intensity of heredity for physical characters in man. If any well-marked physical character be measured, in which training and environment can not be assumed to have had any part, it will be found, in a large enough number of subjects, that the resemblance, measured on a scale from 0 to 1, is just about one-half of unity. Of course, perfect identity with the parents is not to be expected, because the child must inherit from both parents, who in turn each inherited from two parents, and so on.

So far, it may be said, we have had plain sailing because we have carefully chosen traits in which we were not obliged to make[Pg 86] any subtraction whatever for the influence of training. But it is evident that not all traits fall in that class.

This is the point at which the inheritance of mental traits has been most often questioned. Probably no one will care to dispute the inheritance of such physical traits as eye-color. But in considering the mind, a certain school of popular pseudo-psychological writers question the reality of mental inheritance, and allege that the proofs which the geneticist offers are worthless because they do not make account of the similarity in environment or training. Of course, it is admitted that some sort of a mental groundwork must be inherited, but extremists allege that this is little more than a clean slate on which the environment, particularly during the early years of childhood, writes its autograph.

We must grant that the analysis of the inheritance of mental traits is proceeding slowly. This is not the fault of the geneticist, but rather of the psychologist, who has not yet been able to furnish the geneticist with the description of definite traits of such a character as to make possible the exhaustive analysis of their individual inheritance. That department of psychology is only now being formed.

We might even admit that no inherited "unit character" in the mind has yet been isolated; but it would be a great mistake to assume from this admission that proof of the inheritance of mental qualities, in general, is lacking.

The psychologists and educators who think so appear either to be swayed by metaphysical views of the mind, or else to believe that resemblance between parent and offspring is the only evidence of inheritance that can be offered. The father dislikes cheese, the son dislikes cheese. "Aha, you think that that is the inheritance of a dislike for cheese," cries the critic, "but we will teach you better." An interesting example of this sort of teaching is furnished by Boris Sidis, whose feelings are outraged because geneticists have represented that some forms of insanity are hereditary. He declaims for several pages[31] in this fashion:[Pg 87]

"The so-called scientific method of the eugenists is radically faulty, in spite of the rich display of colored plates, stained tables, glittering biological speculations, brilliant mathematical formulæ and complicated statistical calculations. The eugenists pile Ossa on Pelion of facts by the simple method of enumeration which Bacon and the thinkers coming after him have long ago condemned as puerile and futile. From the savage's belief in sympathetic, imitative magic with its consequent superstitions, omens, and taboos down to the articles of faith and dogmas of the eugenists we find the same faulty, primitive thought, guided by the puerile, imbecile method of simple enumeration, and controlled by the wisdom of the logical post hoc, ergo propter hoc."

Now if resemblance between parent and offspring were, as Dr. Sidis supposes, the only evidence of inheritance of mental traits which the eugenist can produce, his case would indeed be weak. And it is perfectly true that "evidence" of this kind has sometimes been advanced as sufficient by geneticists who should have known better. But this is not the real evidence which genetics offers. The evidence is of numerous kinds, and several lines might be destroyed without impairing the validity of the remainder. It is impossible to review the whole body of evidence here, but some of the various kinds may be indicated, and samples given, even though this involves the necessity of repeating some things we have said in earlier chapters. The reader will then be able to form his own opinion as to whether the geneticists' proofs or the mere assurances of those who have not studied the subject are the more weighty.

1. The analogy from breeding experiments. Tame rats, for instance, are very docile; their offspring can be handled without a bit of trouble. The wild rat, on the other hand, is not at all docile.

W. E. Castle, of Harvard University, writes:[32] "We have[Pg 88] repeatedly mated tame female rats with wild males, the mothers being removed to isolated cages before the birth of the young. These young which had never seen or been near their father were very wild in disposition in every case. The observations of Yerkes on such rats raised by us indicates that their wildness was not quite as extreme as that of the pure wild rat but closely approached it."

Who can suggest any plausible explanation of their conduct, save that they inherited a certain temperament from their sire? Yet the inheritance of temperament is one of the things which certain psychologists most "view with alarm." If it is proved in other animals, can it be considered wholly impossible in man?

2. The segregation of mental traits. When an insane, or epileptic, or feeble-minded person mates with a normal individual, in whose family no taint is found, the offspring (generally speaking) will be mentally sound, even though one parent is not. On the other hand, if two people from tainted stocks marry, although neither one may be personally defective, part of their offspring will be affected.

This production of sound children from an unsound parent, in the first case, and unsound children from two apparently sound parents in the second case, is exactly the opposite of what one would expect if the child gets his unsoundness merely by imitation or "contagion." The difference can not reasonably be explained by any difference in environment or external stimuli. Heredity offers a satisfactory explanation, for some forms of feeble-mindedness and epilepsy, and some of the diseases known as insanity, behave as recessives and segregate in just the way mentioned. There are abundant analogies in the inheritance of other traits in man, lower animals and plants, that behave in exactly the same manner.

If mental defects are inherited, then it is worth while investigating whether mental excellencies may not also be.

3. The persistence of like qualities regardless of difference in environment. Any parent with open eyes must see this in his own children—must see that they retained the inherited traits[Pg 89] even when they left home and lived under entirely different surroundings. But the histories of twins furnish the most graphic evidence. Galton, who collected detailed histories of thirty-five pairs of twins who were closely alike at birth, and examined their history in after years, writes:[33] "In some cases the resemblance of body and mind had continued unaltered up to old age, notwithstanding very different conditions of life;" in other cases where some dissimilarity developed, it could be traced to the influence of an illness. Making due allowance for the influence of illness, yet "instances do exist of an apparently thorough similarity of nature, in which such differences of external circumstances as may be consistent with the ordinary conditions of the same social rank and country do not create dissimilarity. Positive evidence, such as this, can not be outweighed by any amount of negative evidence."

Frederick Adams Woods has brought forward[34] a piece of more exact evidence under this head. It is known from many quantitative studies that in physical heredity, the influence of the paternal grandparents and the influence of the maternal grandparents is equal; on the average one pair will contribute no more to the grandchildren than the other. If mental qualities are due rather to early surroundings than to actual inheritance, this equality of grandparental influence is incredible in the royal families where Dr. Woods got his material; for the grandchild has been brought up at the court of the paternal grandfather, where he ought to have gotten all his "acquirements," and has perhaps never even seen his maternal grandparents, who therefore could not be expected to impress their mental peculiarities on him by "contagion." When Dr. Woods actually measured the extent of resemblance to the two sets of grandparents, for mental and moral qualities, he found it to be the same in each case; as is inevitable if they are inherited, but as is incomprehensible if heredity is not largely responsible for one's mental make-up.

4. Persistence of unlike qualities regardless of sameness in the[Pg 90] environment. This is the converse of the preceding proposition, but even more convincing. In the last paragraph but one, we mentioned Galton's study (cited at some length in our Chapter I) of "identical" twins, who are so much alike at birth for the very good reason that they have identical heredity. This heredity was found to be not modified, either in the body or the mind, by ordinary differences of training and environment. Some of Galton's histories[35] of ordinary, non-identical twins were also given in Chapter I; two more follow:

One parent says: "They have been treated exactly alike; both were brought up by hand; they have been under the same nurse and governess from their birth, and they are very fond of each other. Their increasing dissimilarity must be ascribed to a natural difference of mind and character, as there has been nothing in their treatment to account for it."

Another writes: "This case is, I should think, somewhat remarkable for dissimilarity in physique as well as for strong contrast in character. They have been unlike in mind and body throughout their lives. Both were reared in a country house and both were at the same schools until the age of 16."

In the face of such examples, can anyone maintain that differences in mental make-up are wholly due to different influences during childhood, and not at all to differences in germinal make-up? It is not necessary to depend, under this head, on mere descriptions, for accurate measurements are available to demonstrate the point. If the environment creates the mental nature, then ordinary brothers, not more than four or five years apart in age, ought to be about as closely similar to each other as identical twins are to each other; for the family influences in each case are practically the same. Professor Thorndike, by careful mental tests, showed[36] that this is not[Pg 91] true. The ordinary brothers come from different egg-cells, and, as is known from studies on lower animals, they do not get exactly the same inheritance from their parents; they show, therefore, considerable differences in their psychic natures. Real identical twins, being two halves of the same egg-cell, have the same heredity, and their natures are therefore much more nearly identical.

Again, if the mind is molded during the "plastic years of childhood," children ought to become more alike, the longer they are together. Twins who were unlike at birth ought to resemble each other more closely at 14 than they did at 9, since they have been for five additional years subjected to this supposedly potent but very mystical "molding force." Here again Professor Thorndike's exact measurements explode the fallacy. They are actually, measurably, less alike at the older age; their inborn natures are developing along predestined lines, with little regard to the identity of their surroundings. Heredity accounts easily for these facts, but they cannot be squared with the idea that mental differences are the products solely of early training.

5. Differential rates of increase in qualities subject to much training. If the mind is formed by training, then brothers ought to be more alike in qualities which have been subject to little or no training. Professor Thorndike's measurements on this point show the reverse to be true. The likeness of various traits is determined by heredity, and brothers may be more unlike in traits which have been subjected to a large and equal amount of training. Twins were found to be less alike in their ability at addition and multiplication, in which the schools had been training them for some years, than they were in ability to mark off the A's on a printed sheet, or to write the opposites to a list of words—feats which they had probably never before tried to do.

This same proposition may be put on a broader basis.[37] "In so far as the differences in achievement found amongst a group of men are due to the differences in the quantity and quality[Pg 92] of training which they had had in the function in question, the provision of equal amounts of the same sort of training for all individuals in the group should act to reduce the differences." "If the addition of equal amounts of practice does not reduce the differences found amongst men, those differences can not well be explained to any large extent by supposing them to have been due to corresponding differences in amount of previous practice. If, that is, inequalities in achievement are not reduced by equalizing practice, they can not well have been caused by inequalities in previous practice. If differences in opportunity cause the differences men display, making opportunity more nearly equal for all, by adding equal amounts to it in each case should make the differences less.

"The facts found are rather startling. Equalizing practice seems to increase differences. The superior man seems to have got his present superiority by his own nature rather than by superior advantages of the past, since, during a period of equal advantage for all, he increases his lead." This point has been tested by such simple devices as mental multiplication, addition, marking A's on a printed sheet of capitals and the like; all the contestants made some gain in efficiency, but those who were superior at the start were proportionately farther ahead than ever at the end. This is what the geneticist would expect, but fits very ill with some popular pseudo-science which denies that any child is mentally limited by nature.

6. Direct measurement of the amount of resemblance of mental traits in brothers and sisters. It is manifestly impossible to assume that early training, or parental behavior, or anything of the sort, can have influenced very markedly the child's eye color, or the length of his forearm, or the ratio of the breadth of his head to its length. A measure of the amount of resemblance between two brothers in such traits may very confidently be said to represent the influence of heredity; one can feel no doubt that the child inherits his eye-color and other physical traits of that kind from his parents. It will be recalled that the resemblance, measured on a scale from 0 to 1, has been found to be about 0.5.[Pg 93]

Karl Pearson measured the resemblance between brothers and sisters in mental traits—for example, temper, conscientiousness, introspection, vivacity—and found it on the average to have the same intensity—that is, about 0.5. Starch gets similar results in studying school grades.

Professor Pearson writes:[38]

"It has been suggested that this resemblance in the psychological characters is compounded of two factors, inheritance on the one hand and training and environment on the other. If so, one must admit that inheritance and environment make up the resemblance in the physical characters. Now these two sorts of resemblance being of the same intensity, either the environmental influence is the same in both cases or it is not. If it is the same, we are forced to the conclusion that it is insensible, for it can not influence eye-color. If it is not the same, then it would be a most marvelous thing that with varying degrees of inheritance, some mysterious force always modifies the extent of home influence, until the resemblance of brothers and sisters is brought sensibly up to the same intensity! Occam's razor[39] will enable us at once to cut off such a theory. We are forced, I think, literally forced, to the general conclusion that the physical and psychical characters in man are inherited within broad lines in the same manner, and with approximate intensity. The average parental influence is in itself largely a result of the heritage of the stock and not an extraneous and additional factor causing the resemblance between children from the same home."

A paragraph from Edgar Schuster[40] may appropriately be added. "After considering the published evidence a word must be said of facts which most people may collect for themselves. They are difficult to record, but are perhaps more convincing than any quantity of statistics. If one knows well several members of a family, one is bound to see in them likenesses with[Pg 94] regard to mental traits, both large and small, which may sometimes be accounted for by example on the one hand or unconscious imitation on the other, but are often quite inexplicable on any other theory than heredity. It is difficult to understand how the inheritance of mental capacity can be denied by those whose eyes are open and whose minds are open too."

Strictly speaking, it is of course true that man inherits nothing more than the capacity of making mental acquirements. But this general capacity is made up of many separate capacities, all of these capacities are variable, and the variations are inherited. Such seems to us to be the unmistakable verdict of the evidence.

Our conclusions as to the inheritance of all sorts of mental capacity are not based on the mere presence of the same trait in parent and child. As the psychological analysis of individual traits proceeds, it will be possible to proceed further with the study of the inheritance of these traits. Some work has been done on spelling, which is particularly interesting because most people, without reflection, would take it for granted that a child's spelling ability depends almost wholly on his training. Professor Thorndike's exposition[41] of the investigation is as follows:

"E. L. Earle ('03) measured the spelling abilities of some 800 children in the St. Xavier school in New York by careful tests. As the children in this school commonly enter at a very early age, and as the staff and methods of teaching remain very constant, we have in the case of the 180 pairs of brothers and sisters included in the 600 children closely similar school training. Mr. Earle measured the ability of any individual by his deviation from the average for his grade and sex, and found the coefficient of correlation between children of the same family to be .50. That is, any individual is on the average 50% as much above or below the average for his age and sex as his brother or sister.

"Similarities of home training might account for this, but any one experienced in teaching will hesitate to attribute much[Pg 95] efficacy to such similarities. Bad spellers remain bad spellers though their teachers change. Moreover, Dr. J. M. Rice in his exhaustive study of spelling ability ('97) found little or no relationship between good spelling and any one of the popular methods, and little or none between poor spelling and foreign parentage. Cornman's more careful study of spelling ('07) supports the view that ability to spell is little influenced by such differences in school or home training as commonly exist."

This is a very clear-cut case of a definite intellectual ability, differences in which might be supposed to be due almost wholly to the child's training, but which seem, on investigation, to be largely due to heredity.

The problem may be examined in still greater detail. Does a man merely inherit manual skill, let us say, or does he inherit the precise kind of manual skill needed to make a surgeon but not the kind that would be useful to a watchmaker? Is a man born merely with a generalized "artistic" ability, or is it one adapted solely for, let us say, music; or further, is it adapted solely for violin playing, not for the piano?

Galton, in his pioneer studies, sought for data on this question. In regard to English judges, he wrote: "Do the judges often have sons who succeed in the same career, where success would have been impossible if they had not been gifted with the special qualities of their fathers? Out of the 286 judges, more than one in every nine of them have been either father, son or brother to another judge, and the other high legal relationships have been even more numerous. There can not, then, remain a doubt but that the peculiar type of ability that is necessary to a judge is often transmitted by descent."

Unfortunately, we can not feel quite as free from doubt on the point as Galton did. The judicial mind, if that be the main qualification for a judge, might be inherited, or it might be the result of training. Such a case, standing alone, is inconclusive.

Galton similarly showed that the sons of statesmen tended to be statesmen, and that the same was true in families of great commanders, literary men, poets and divines. In his list of eminent painters, all the relatives mentioned are painters save[Pg 96] four, two of whom were gifted in sculpture, one in music and one in embroidery. As to musicians, Mendelssohn and Meyerbeer are the only ones in his list whose eminent kinsmen achieved their success in other careers than music.

Havelock Ellis, who likewise studied British men of genius, throws additional light on the subject. "Painters and sculptors," he found, "constitute a group which appears to be of very distinct interest from the point of view of occupational heredity. In social origin, it may be noted, the group differs strikingly in constitution from the general body of men of genius in which the upper class is almost or quite predominant. Of 63 painters and sculptors of definitely known origin, only two can be placed in the aristocratic division. Of the remainder 7 are the sons of artists, 22 the sons of craftsmen, leaving only 32 for all other occupations, which are mainly of lower middle class character, and in many cases trades that are very closely allied to crafts. Even, however, when we omit the trades as well as the cases in which the fathers were artists, we find a very notable predominance of craftsmen in the parentage of painters, to such an extent indeed that while craftsmen only constitute 9.2% among the fathers of our eminent persons generally, they constitute nearly 35% among the fathers of the painters and sculptors. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that there is a real connection between the father's aptitude for craftsmanship and the son's aptitude for art.

"To suppose that environment adequately accounts for this relationship is an inadmissible theory. The association between the craft of builder, carpenter, tanner, jeweller, watchmaker, woodcarver, ropemaker, etc., and the painter's art is small at best, and in most cases is non-existent."

Arreat, investigating the heredity of 200 eminent European painters, reached results similar to those of Ellis, according to the latter's citation.

Arithmetical ability seems similarly to be subdivided, according to Miss Cobb.[42] She made measurements of the efficiency[Pg 97] with which children and their parents could do problems in addition, subtraction, multiplication and division, and could copy a column of figures. "The measurements made," she writes, "show that if, for instance, a child is much quicker than the average in subtraction, but not in addition, multiplication or division, it is to be expected that one at least of his parents shows a like trait; or if he falls below the average in subtraction and multiplication, and exceeds it in addition and division, again the same will hold true of at least one of his parents." These various kinds of arithmetic appear to be due to different functions of the brain, and are therefore probably inherited independently, if they are inherited at all.

To assume that the resemblance between parent and offspring in arithmetical ability is due to association, training and imitation is not plausible. If this were the case, a class of children ought to come to resemble their teacher, but they do not. Moreover, the child sometimes resembles more closely the parent with whom he has been less associated in daily life.

From such data as these, we conclude that mental inheritance is considerably specialized. This conclusion is in accord with Burris' finding (cited by Thorndike) that the ability to do well in some one high school study is nearly or quite as much due to ancestry as is the ability to do well in the course as a whole.

To sum up, we have reason to believe not only that one's mental character is due largely to heredity, but that the details of it may be equally due to heredity, in the sense that for any particular trait or complex in the child there is likely to be found a similar trait or complex in the ancestry. Such a conclusion should not be pushed to the point of assuming inheritance of all sorts of dispositions that might be due to early training; on the other hand, a survey of the whole field would probably justify us in concluding that any given trait is more likely than not to be inherited. The effect of training in the formation of the child's mental character is certainly much less than is popularly supposed; and even for the traits that are most due to training, it must never be forgotten that there are inherited mental bases.[Pg 98]

If the reader has accepted the facts presented in this chapter, and our inferences from the facts, he will admit that mental differences between men are at bottom due to heredity, just as physical differences are; that they are apparently inherited in the same manner and in approximately the same degree.[Pg 99]

We have now established the bases for a practicable eugenics program. Men differ; these differences are inherited; therefore the make-up of the race can be changed by any method which will alter the relative proportions of the contributions which different classes of men make to the following generation.

For applied eugenics, it is sufficient to know that mental and physical differences are inherited; the exact manner of inheritance it would be important to know, but even without a knowledge of the details of the mechanism of heredity, a program of eugenics is yet wholly feasible.

It is no part of the plan of this book to enter into the details of the mechanism of heredity, a complicated subject for which the reader can refer to one of the treatises mentioned in the bibliography at the close of this volume. It may be worth while, however, to outline in a very summary way the present status of the question.

As to the details of inheritance, research has progressed in the last few years far beyond the crude conceptions of a decade ago, when a primitive form of Mendelism was made to explain everything that occurred.[43] One can hardly repress a smile at the simplicity of those early ideas,—though it must be said that some students of eugenics have not yet outgrown them. In[Pg 100] those days it was thought that every visible character in man (or in any other organism) was represented by some "determiner" in the germ-plasm; that by suitable matings a breeder could rid a stream of germ-plasm of almost any determiner he wished; and that the corresponding unit character would thereupon disappear from the visible make-up of the individual. Was a family reported as showing a taint, for instance, hereditary insanity? Then it was asserted that by the proper series of matings, it was possible to squeeze out of the germ-plasm the particular concrete something of which insanity was the visible expression, and have left a family stock that was perfectly sound and sane.

The minute, meticulous researches of experimental breeders[44] have left such a view of heredity far behind. Certainly the last word has not been said; yet the present hypotheses work, whenever the conditions are such as to give a fair chance. The results of these studies have led to what is called the factorial hypothesis of heredity,[45] according to which all the visible characters of the adult are produced by (purely hypothetical) factors in the germ-plasm; it is the factors that are inherited, and they, under proper conditions for development, produce the characters. The great difference between this and the earlier view is that instead of allotting one factor to each character, students now believe that each individual character of the organism is produced by the action of an indefinitely large number of factors,[46] and they [Pg 101]have been further forced to adopt the belief that each individual factor affects an indefinitely large number of characters, owing to the physiological interrelations and correlations of every part of the body.

The sweet pea offers a good illustration of the widespread effects which may result from the change of a single factor. In addition to the ordinary climbing vine, there is a dwarf variety, and the difference between the two seems to be proved, by exhaustive experimental breeding, to be due to only one inherited factor. Yet the action of this one factor not only changes the height of the plant, but also results in changes in color of foliage, length of internodes, size and arrangement of flowers, time of opening of flowers, fertility and viability.

Again, a mutant stock in the fruit fly (Drosophila) has as its most marked characteristic very short wings. "But the factor for rudimentary wings also produces other effects as well. The females are almost completely sterile, while the males are fertile. The viability of the stocks is poor. When flies with rudimentary wings are put into competition with wild flies relatively few of the rudimentary flies come through, especially if the culture is crowded. The hind legs are also shortened. All of these effects are the results of a single factor-difference." To be strictly accurate, then, one should not say that a certain variation affects length of wing, but that its chief effect is to shorten the wing.

"One may venture to guess," T. H. Morgan says,[47] "that some of the specific and varietal differences that are characteristic of wild types and which at the same time appear to have no survival value, are only by-products of factors whose most im[Pg 102]portant effect is on another part of the organism where their influence is of vital importance."

"I am inclined to think," Professor Morgan continues, "that an overstatement to the effect that each factor may affect the entire body, is less likely to do harm than to state that each factor affects only a particular character. The reckless use of the phrase 'unit character' has done much to mislead the uninitiated as to the effects that a single change in the germ-plasm may produce on the organism. Fortunately the expression 'unit character' is being less used by those students of genetics who are more careful in regard to the implications of their terminology."

One of the best attested single characters in human heredity is brachydactyly, "short-fingerness," which results in a reduction in the length of the fingers by the dropping out of one joint. If one lumps together all the cases where any effect of this sort is [Pg 103]found, it is evident that normals never transmit it to their posterity, that affected persons always do, and that in a mating between a normal and an affected person, all the offspring will show the abnormality. It is a good example of a unit character.

But its effect is by no means confined to the fingers. It tends to affect the entire skeleton, and in a family where one child is markedly brachydactylous, that child is generally shorter than the others. The factor for brachydactyly evidently produces its primary effect on the bones of the hand, but it also produces a secondary effect on all the bones of the body.

Moreover, it will be found, if a number of brachydactylous persons are examined, that no two of them are affected to exactly the same degree. In some cases only one finger will be abnormal; in other cases there will be a slight effect in all the fingers; in other cases all the fingers will be highly affected. Why is there such variation in the results produced by a unit character? Because, presumably, in each individual there is a different set of modifying factors or else a variation in the factor. It has been found that an abnormality quite like brachydactyly is produced by abnormality in the pituitary gland. It is then fair to suppose that the factor which produces brachydactyly does so by affecting the pituitary gland in some way. But there must be many other factors which also affect the pituitary and in some cases probably favor its development, rather than hindering it. Then if the factor for brachydactyly is depressing the pituitary, but if some other factors are at the same time stimulating that gland, the effect shown in the subject's fingers will be much less marked than if a group of modifying factors were present which acted in the same direction as the brachydactyly factor,—to perturb the action of the pituitary gland.

This illustration is largely hypothetical; but there is no room for doubt that every factor produces more than a single effect. A white blaze in the hair, for example, is a well-proved unit factor in man; the factor not only produces a white streak in the hair, but affects the pigmentation of the skin as well, usually resulting in one or more white spots on some part of the body. It is really a factor for "piebaldism."[Pg 104]

For the sake of clear thinking, then, the idea of a unit character due to some unit determiner or factor in the germ-plasm must be given up, and it must be recognized that every visible character of an individual is the result of numerous factors, or differences in the germ-plasm. Ordinarily one of these produces a more notable contribution to the end-product than do the others; but there are cases where this statement does not appear to hold good. This leads to the conception of multiple factors.

In crossing a wheat with brown chaff and one with white chaff, H. Nilsson-Ehle (1909) expected in the second hybrid generation to secure a ratio of 3 brown to 1 white. As a fact, he got 1410 brown and 94 white, a ratio of 15:1. He interpreted this as meaning that the brown color in this particular variety was due not to one factor, but to two, which were equivalent to each other, and either one of which would produce the same result alone as would the two acting together. In further crossing red wheat with white, he secured ratios which led him to believe that the red was produced by three independent factors, any one of which would produce red either alone or with the other two. A. and G. Howard later corroborated this work,[48] but showed that the three factors were not identical: they are qualitatively slightly different, although so closely similar that the three reds look alike at first sight. E. M. East has obtained evidence from maize and G. H. Shull from shepherd's-purse, which bears out the multiple factor hypothesis.

Apart from multiple factors as properly defined (that is, factors which produce the same result, either alone or together), extensive analysis usually reveals that apparently simple characters are in reality complex. The purple aleurone color of maize seeds is attributed by R. A. Emerson to five distinct factors, while E. Baur found four factors responsible for the red color of snapdragon blossoms. There are, as G. N. Collins [Pg 105]says,[49] "still many gross characters that stand as simple Mendelian units, but few, if any, of these occur in plants or animals that have been subjected to extensive investigation. There is now such a large number of characters which at first behaved as units, but which have since been broken up by crossing with suitable selected material, that it seems not unreasonable to believe that the remaining cases await only the discovery of the right strains with which to hybridize them to bring about corresponding results."

In spite of the fact that there is a real segregation between factors as has been shown, it must not be supposed that factors and their determiners are absolutely invariable. This has been too frequently assumed without adequate evidence by many geneticists. It is probable that just as the multiplicity and interrelation and minuteness of many factors have been the principal discoveries of genetics in recent years that the next few years will see a great deal of evidence following the important lead of Castle and Jennings, as to variation in factors.

Knowing that all the characters of an individual are due to the interaction of numerous factors, one must be particularly slow in assuming that such complex characters as man's mental traits are units, in any proper genetic sense of the word. It will, for instance, require very strong evidence to establish feeble-mindedness as a unit character. No one who examines the collected pedigrees of families marked by feeble-mindedness, can deny that it does appear at first sight to behave as a unit character, inherited in the typical Mendelian fashion. The psychologist H. H. Goddard, who started out with a strong bias against believing that such a complex trait could even behave as a unit character, thought himself forced by the tabulation of his cases to adopt the conclusion that it does behave as a unit character. And other eugenists have not hesitated to affirm, mainly on the strength of Dr. Goddard's researches, that this unit character is due to a single determiner in the germ-plasm, which either is or is not present,—no halfway business about it.[Pg 106]

How were these cases of feeble-mindedness defined? The definition is purely arbitrary. Ordinarily, any adult who tests much below 12 years by the Binet-Simon scale is held to be feeble-minded; and the results of this test vary a little with the skill of the person applying it and with the edition of the scale used. Furthermore, most of the feeble-minded cases in institutions, where the Mendelian studies have usually been made, come from families which are themselves of a low grade of mentality. If the whole lot of those examined were measured, it would be difficult to draw the line between the normals and the affected; there is not nearly so much difference between the two classes, as one would suppose who only looks at a Mendelian chart.

[Pg 107]

It would be well to extend our view by measuring a whole population with one of the standard tests. If the intelligence of a thousand children picked at random from the population be measured, it will prove (as outlined in Chapter III) that some of them are feeble-minded, some are precocious or highly intelligent; and that there is every possible degree of intelligence between the two extremes. If a great number of children, all 10 years old, were tested for intelligence, it would reveal a few absolute idiots whose intelligence was no more than that of the ordinary infant, a few more who were as bright as the ordinary kindergarten child, and so up to the great bulk of normal 10-year-olds, and farther to a few prize eugenic specimens who had as much intelligence as the average college freshman. In other words, this trait of general intelligence would be found distributed through the population in accordance with that same curve of chance, which was discussed and illustrated when we were talking about the differences between individuals.

Now what has become of the unit character, feeble-mindedness? How can one speak of a unit character, when the "unit" has an infinite number of values? Is a continuous quantity a unit?

If intelligence is due to the inheritance of a vast, but indeterminate, number of factors of various kinds, each of which is independent, knowledge of heredity would lead one to expect that some children would get more of these factors than others and that, broadly speaking, no two would get the same number. All degrees of intelligence between the idiot and the genius would thus exist; and yet we can not doubt that a few of these factors are more important than the others, and the presence of even one or two of them may markedly affect the level of intelligence.

It may make the matter clearer if we return for a moment to the physical. Height, bodily stature, offers a very good analogy for the case we have just been discussing, because it is obvious that it must depend on a large number of different factors, a man's size being due to the sum total of the sizes of a great number of bones, ligaments, tissues, etc. It is obvious that one can be long in the trunk and short in the legs, or vice versa, and[Pg 108] so on through a great number of possible combinations. Here is a perfectly measurable character (no one has ever claimed that it is a genetic "unit character" in man although it behaves as such in some plants) as to the complex basis of which all will agree. And it is known, from common observation as well as from pedigree studies, that it is not inherited as a unit: children are never born in two discontinuous classes, "tall" and "short," as they are with color blindness or normal color vision, for example. Is it not a fair assumption that the difference between the apparent unit character of feeble-mindedness, and the obvious non-unit character of height, is a matter of difference in the number of factors involved, difference in the degree to which they hang together in transmission, variation in the factors, and certainly difference in the method of measurement? Add that the line between normal and feeble-minded individuals is wholly arbitrary, and it seems that there is little reason to talk about feeble-mindedness as a unit character. It may be true that there is some sort of an inhibiting factor inherited as a unit, but it seems more likely that feeble-mindedness may be due to numerous different causes; that its presence in one child is due to one factor or group of factors, and in another child to a different one.[50]

It does not fall wholly into the class of blending inheritance, for it does segregate to a considerable extent, yet some of the factors may show blending. Much more psychological analysis must be done before the question of the inheritance of feeble-mindedness can be considered solved. But at present one can say with confidence of this, as of other mental traits, that like tends to produce like; that low grades of mentality usually come from an ancestry of low mentality, and that bright children are usually produced in a stock that is marked by intelligence.

Most mental traits are even more complex in appearance than feeble-mindedness. None has yet been proved to be due to [Pg 109]a single germinal difference, and it is possible that none will ever be so demonstrated.

Intensive genetic research in lower animals and plants has shown that a visible character may be due to

1. Independent multiple factors in the germ-plasm, as in the case of wheat mentioned a few pages back.

2. Multiple allelomorphs, that is, a series of different grades of a single factor.

3. One distinct Mendelian factor (or several such factors), with modifying factors which may cause either (a) intensification, (b) inhibition, or (c) dilution.

4. Variation of a factor.

5. Or several or all of the above explanations may apply to one case.

Moreover, the characters of which the origin has been most completely worked out are mostly color characters, whose physiological development seems to be relatively simple. It is probable that the development of a mental character is much more complicated, and therefore there is more likelihood of additional factors being involved.

To say, then, that any mental trait is a unit character, or that it is due to a single germinal difference, is to go beyond both the evidence and the probabilities.

And if mental traits are, in their germinal foundations, not simple but highly complex, it follows that any advice given as to how human matings should be arranged to produce any precise result in the progeny, should be viewed with distrust. Such advice can be given only in the case of a few pathological characters such as color-blindness, night-blindness, or Huntington's Chorea. It is well that the man or woman interested in one of these abnormalities can get definite information on the subject; and Huntington's Chorea, in particular, is a dysgenic trait which can and should be stamped out. But it can not be pretended that any of man's traits, as to whose inheritance prediction can be made with confidence, is of great importance to national eugenics.

In short, a knowledge of heredity shows that attempts to[Pg 110] predict the mode of inheritance of the important human traits (particularly mental traits) are still uncertain in their results. The characters involved are too complex to offer any simple sequences. If two parents have brown eyes, it can not be said that all their children will have brown eyes; still less can it be said that all the children of two musically gifted parents are certain to be endowed with musical talent in any given degree.

Prediction is possible only when uniform sequences are found. How are such sequences to be found in heredity, if they do not appear when a parent and his offspring are examined? Obviously it is necessary to examine a large number of parents and their offspring,—to treat the problem by statistical methods.

But, it may be objected, a uniformity gained by such methods is spurious. It is merely shutting the eyes to the mass of contradictions which are concealed by an apparent statistical uniformity.

This objection would be valid, if the statistical results were used for prediction in individual cases. The statistician, however, expressly warns that his conclusions must not be used for such prediction. They are intended to predict only general trends, only average results; and for this purpose they are wholly legitimate. Moreover, evolution itself is a problem of statistics, and therefore the statistical method of studying heredity may offer results of great value to eugenics, even though it can not furnish in individual cases the prediction which would be desirable.

From this standpoint, we return to attack the problem of the relation between parent and offspring. We noted that there is no uniform sequence in a single family, and illustrated this by the case of brown eyes. But if a thousand parents and their offspring be selected and some trait, such as eye-color, or stature, or general intelligence, be measured, a uniformity at once appears in the fact of regression. Its discoverer, Sir Francis Galton, gives this account of it:

"If the word 'peculiarity' be used to signify the difference between the amount of any faculty possessed by a man, and the average of that possessed by the population at large, then the [Pg 111]law of regression may be described as follows: each peculiarity in a man is shared by his kinsmen, but on the average in a less degree. It is reduced to a definite fraction of its amount, quite independently of what its amount might be. The fraction differs in different orders of kinship, becoming smaller as they are more remote. When the kinship is so distant that its effects are not worth taking into account, the peculiarity of the man, however remarkable it may have been, is reduced to zero in his kinsmen. This apparent paradox is fundamentally due to the greater frequency of mediocre deviations than of extreme ones, occurring between limits separated by equal widths."

As to the application of this law, let Galton himself speak: "The Law of Regression tells heavily against the full hereditary transmission of any gift. Only a few out of many children would be likely to differ from mediocrity so widely as their Mid-Parent [i. e., the average of their two parents], allowing for sexual differences, and still fewer would differ as widely as the more exceptional of the two parents. The more bountifully the parent is gifted by nature, the more rare will be his good fortune if he begets a son who is as richly endowed as himself, and still more so if he has a son who is endowed yet more largely. But the law is evenhanded; it levies an equal succession-tax on the transmission of badness as of goodness. If it discourages the extravagant hopes of a gifted parent that his children on the average will inherit all his powers, it not less discountenances extravagant fears that they will inherit all his weakness and disease.

"It must be clearly understood that there is nothing in these statements to invalidate the general doctrine that the children of a gifted pair are much more likely to be gifted than the children of a mediocre pair." To this it should be added that progeny of very great ability will arise more frequently in proportion to the quality of their parents.

It must be reiterated that this is a statistical, not a biological, law; and that even Galton probably goes a little too far in applying it to individuals. It will hold good for a whole population, but not necessarily for only one family. Further, we can afford[Pg 112] to reëmphasize the fact that it in no way prevents the improvement of a race by selection and assortative mating.

Stature is the character which Dr. Galton used to get an exact measurement of the amount of regression. More recent studies have changed the value he found, without invalidating his method. When large numbers are taken it is now abundantly proved that if parents exceed the average stature of their race by a certain amount their offspring will, in general, exceed the racial average by only one-half as much as their parents did. This is due, as Galton said, to the "drag" of the more remote ancestry, which when considered as a whole must represent very nearly mediocrity, statistically speaking.

The general amount of regression in heredity, then, is one-half. If it be expressed as a decimal, .5, the reader will at once note its identity with the coefficient of correlation which we have so often cited in this book as a measure of heredity. In fact, the coefficient of correlation is nothing more than a measure of the regression, and it is probably simpler to think of it as correlation than it is to speak of a Law of Regression, as Sir Francis did.

This correlation or regression can, of course, be measured for other ancestors as well as for the immediate parents. From studies of eye-color in man and coat-color in horses, Karl Pearson worked out the necessary correlations, which are usually referred to as the law of Ancestral Inheritance. Dr. Galton had pointed out, years before, that the contributions of the several generations of individuals probably formed a geometrical series, and Professor Pearson calculated this series, for the two cases mentioned, as:

In other words, the two parents, together, will on the average of a great many cases be found to have contributed a little more than three-fifths of the hereditary peculiarities of any given individual; the four grandparents will be found responsible for a little less than one-fifth, and the eight great-grandparents for about six hundredths, and so on, the contribution of each gener[Pg 113]ation becoming smaller with ascent, but each one having, in the average of many cases, a certain definite though small influence, until infinity.

It can not be too strongly emphasized that this is a statistical law, not a biological law. It must not be applied to predict the character of the offspring of any one particular mating, for it might be highly misleading. It would be wholly unjustified, for example, to suppose that a certain man got three-tenths of his nature from his father, because the Law of Ancestral Heredity required it: in point of fact, he might get one-tenth or nine-tenths, none or all of a given trait. But, when dealing with a large population, the errors on one side balance the errors on the other, and the law is found, in the cases to which it has been applied, to express the facts.[51]

While, therefore, this Galton-Pearson law gives no advice in regard to individual marriages, it is yet of great value to applied eugenics. In the first place, it crystallizes the vague realization that remote ancestry is of much less importance than immediate ancestry, to an individual, while showing that every generation has a part in making a man what he is. In the second place, it is found, by mathematical reasoning which need not here be repeated, that the type of a population may be quickly changed by the mating of like with like; and that this newly established type may be maintained when not capable of further progress. Regression is not inevitable, for it may be overcome by selection.

To put the matter in a more concrete form, there is reason to think that if for a few generations superior people would marry only people on the average superior in like degree (superior in ancestry as well as individuality), a point would be reached[Pg 114] where all the offspring would tend to be superior, mediocrities of the former type being eliminated; and this superiority could be maintained as long as care was taken to avoid mating with inferior. In other words, the Galton-Pearson Law gives statistical support for a belief that eugenic marriages will create an improved breed of men. And this, it seems to us, is the most important implication of that law for eugenics, although it is an implication that is generally ignored.

We do not propose to discuss further the laws of heredity; but it is likely that the reader who has made no other study of the subject may by this time find himself somewhat bewildered. "Can we talk only in generalities?" he may well ask; "Does eugenics know no laws of heredity that will guide me in the choice of a wife? I thought that was the purpose of eugenics!"

We reply: (1) The laws of heredity are vastly complicated in man by the complex nature of most of his characters. The definite way in which some abnormalities are inherited is known; but it has not been thought necessary to include an account of such facts in this work. They are set forth in other books, especially Davenport's Heredity in Relation to Eugenics. The knowledge of how such a trait as color-blindness is inherited may be of importance to one man out of a thousand in choosing a wife; but we are taking a broader view of eugenics than this. As far as the great mass of human characters go, they are, in our opinion, due to so many separately inheritable factors that it is not safe to dogmatize about exactly how they will behave in heredity. Such knowledge, desirable as it may be, is not necessary for race progress.

(2) But it is possible, with present knowledge, to say that human traits, mental as well as physical, are inherited, in a high degree. Even before the final details as to the inheritance of all traits are worked out—a task that is never likely to be accomplished—there is ample material on which to base action for eugenics. The basal differences in the mental traits of man (and the physical as well, of course) are known to be due to heredity, and little modified by training. It is therefore possible to raise the level of the human race—the task of eugenics—by getting[Pg 115] that half of the race which is, on the whole, superior in the traits that make for human progress and happiness, to contribute a larger proportion to the next generation than does the half which is on the whole inferior in that respect. Eugenics need know nothing more, and the smoke of controversy over the exact way in which some trait or other is inherited must not be allowed for an instant to obscure the known fact that the level can be raised.[Pg 116]

Man has risen from the ape chiefly through the action of natural selection. Any scheme of conscious race betterment, then, should carefully examine nature's method, to learn to what extent it is still acting, and to what extent it may better be supplanted or assisted by methods of man's own invention.

Natural selection operates in two ways: (1) through a selective death-rate and (2) through a selective birth-rate. The first of these forms has often been considered the whole of natural selection, but wrongly. The second steadily gains in importance as an organism rises in the scale of evolution; until in man it is likely soon to dwarf the lethal factor into insignificance. For it is evident that the appalling slaughter of all but a few of the individuals born, which one usually associates with the idea of natural selection, will take place only when the number of individuals born is very large. As the reproductive rate decreases, so does the death-rate, for a larger proportion of those born are able to find food and to escape enemies.

When considering man, one realizes at once that relatively few babies or adults starve to death. The selective death-rate therefore must include only those who are unable to escape their enemies; and while these enemies of the species, particularly certain microörganisms, still take a heavy toll from the race, the progress of science is likely to make it much smaller in the future.

The different aspects of natural selection may be classified as follows:

[Pg 117]

The lethal factor is the one which Darwin himself most emphasized. Obviously a race will be steadily improved, if the worst stock in it is cut off before it has a chance to reproduce, and if the best stock survives to perpetuate its kind. "This preservation of favourable individual differences and variations, and the destruction of those which are injurious, I have called natural selection, or the survival of the fittest," Darwin wrote; and he went on to show that the principal checks on increase were overcrowding, the difficulty of obtaining food, destruction by enemies, and the lethal effects of climate. These causes may be conveniently divided as in the above diagram, into sustentative and non-sustentative. The sustentative factor has acquired particular prominence in the human species, since Malthus wrote his essay on population—that essay which both Darwin and Wallace confess was the starting point of their discovery of natural selection.

There is a "constant tendency in all animated life to increase beyond the nourishment prepared for it," Malthus declared. "It is incontrovertibly true that there is no bound to the prolific plants and animals, but what is made by their crowding and interfering with each others' means of subsistence." His deduction is well known: that as man tends to increase in geometrical ratio, and can not hope to increase his food-supply more rapidly than in arithmetical ratio, the human race must eventually face starvation, unless the birth-rate be reduced.

Darwin was much impressed by this argument and ever since his time it has usually been the foundation for any discussion of natural selection. Nevertheless it is partly false for all animals, as one of the authors showed[52] some years ago, since a species which regularly eats up all the food in sight is rare indeed; and it is of very little racial importance in the present-day evolution of man. Scarcity of food may put sufficient pressure on him to cause emigration, but rarely death. The importance of Malthus' argument to eugenics is too slight to warrant further discussion.[Pg 118]

When the non-sustentative forms of lethal selection are considered, it is seen very clearly that man is not exempt from the workings of this law. A non-sustentative form of natural selection takes place through the destruction of the individual by some adverse feature of the environment, such as excessive cold, or bacteria; or by bodily deficiency; and it is independent of mere food-supply. W. F. R. Weldon showed by a long series of measurements, for example, that as the harbor of Plymouth, England, kept getting muddier, the crabs which lived in it kept getting narrower; those with the greatest frontal breadth filtered the water entering their gills least effectively, and died.

But, it was objected, man is above all this. He has gained the control of his own environment. The bloody hand of natural selection may fall on crabs: but surely you would not have us think that Man, the Lord of Creation, shares the same fate?

Biologists could hardly think otherwise. Statisticians were able to supply the needed proof. A selective death-rate in man can not only be demonstrated but it can be actually measured.

"The measure of the selective death-rate." says[53] Karl Pearson, to whom this achievement is due, "is extraordinarily simple. It consists in the fact that the inheritance of the length of life between parent and offspring is found statistically to be about one-third of the average inheritance of physical characters in man. This can only be due to the fact that the death of parent or of offspring in a certain number of cases is due to random and not to constitutional causes." He arrived at the conclusion[54] that 60% of the deaths were selective, in the Quaker families which he was then studying. The exact proportion must vary in accordance with the nature of the material and the environment, but as A. Plœtz found at least 60% of the deaths to be selective in the European royal families and nobility, where the[Pg 119] environment is uniformly good, there is no reason to think that Professor Pearson's conclusion is invalid.

Dr. Plœtz[55] investigated the relation between length of life in parents, and infant mortality, in about 1,000 families including 5,500 children; half of these were from the nobility and half from the peasantry. The results were of the same order in each case, indicating that environment is a much less important factor than many have been wont to suppose. After discussing Professor Pearson's work, he continued:

In general, then, one may believe that more than a half of the persons who die nowadays, die because they were not fit by by nature (i. e., heredity) to survive under the conditions into which they were born. They are the victims of lethal natural selection, nearly always of the non-sustentative type. As Karl Pearson says, "Every man who has lived through a hard winter, every man who has examined a mortality table, every man who has studied the history of nations has probably seen natural selection at work."

There is still another graphic way of seeing natural selection at work, by an examination of the infant mortality alone. Imagine a thousand babies coming into the world on a given day. It is known that under average American conditions more than one-tenth of them will die during the first year of life. Now if those who die at this time are the inherently weaker, then the death-rate among survivors ought to be correspondingly less during succeeding years, for many will have been cut down at once, who might otherwise have lingered for several years, although doomed to die before maturity. On the other hand, if only a few die during the first year, one might expect a proportionately greater number to die in succeeding years. If it is actually found that a high death-rate in the first year of life is associated[Pg 121] with a low death-rate in succeeding years, then there will be grounds for believing that natural selection is really cutting off the weaker and allowing the stronger to survive.

E. C. Snow[56] analyzed the infant mortality registration of parts of England and Prussia to determine whether any such conclusion was justified. His investigation met with many difficulties, and his results are not as clear-cut as could be desired, but he felt justified in concluding from them that "the general result can not be questioned. Natural selection, in the form of a selective death-rate, is strongly operative in man in the early years of life. We assert with great confidence that a high mortality in infancy (the first two years of life) is followed by a correspondingly low mortality in childhood, and vice-versa.... Our work has led us to the conclusion that infant mortality does effect a 'weeding out' of the unfit."

"Unfitness" in this connection must not be interpreted too narrowly. A child may be "unfit" to survive in its environment, merely because its parents are ignorant and careless. Such unfitness makes more probable an inheritance of low intelligence.

Evidence of natural selection was gathered by Karl Pearson from another source and published in 1912. He dealt with material analogous to that of Dr. Snow and showed "that when allowance was made for change of environment in the course of 50 years, a very high association existed between the deaths in the first year of life and the deaths in childhood (1 to 5 years). This association was such that if the infantile death-rate increased by 10% the child death rate decreased by 5.3% in males, while in females the fall in the child death-rate was almost 1% for every 1% rise in the infantile death-rate."

To put the matter in the form of a truism, part of the children born in any district in a given year are doomed by heredity to a premature death; and if they die in one year they will not be alive to die in some succeeding year.

Lately a new mathematical method, which is termed the Variate Difference Correlation method, has been invented and[Pg 122] gives more accurate results, in such an investigation as that of natural selection, than any hitherto used. With this instrument Professor Pearson and Miss Elderton have confirmed the previous work. Applying it to the registered births in England and Wales between 1850 and 1912, and the deaths during the first five years of life in the same period, they have again found[57] that "for both sexes a heavy death-rate in one year of life means a markedly lower death-rate in the same group in the following year of life." This lessened death-rate extends in a lessened degree to the year following that, but is not by the present method easy to trace further.

"It is difficult," as they conclude, "to believe that this important fact can be due to any other source than natural selection, i. e., a heavy mortality leaves behind it a stronger population."

To avoid misunderstandings, it may be well to add to this review the closing words of the Elderton-Pearson memoir. "Nature is not concerned with the moral or the immoral, which are standards of human conduct, and the duty of the naturalist is to point out what goes on in Nature. There can now be scarcely a doubt that even in highly organized human communities the death-rate is selective, and physical fitness is the criterion for survival. To assert the existence of this selection and measure its intensity must be distinguished from an advocacy of high infant mortality as a factor of racial efficiency. This reminder is the more needful as there are not wanting those who assert that demonstrating the existence of natural selection in man is identical with decrying all efforts to reduce the infantile death-rate." A further discussion of this point will be found in a later chapter.

The conclusion that, of the infants who die, a large number do so through inherent weakness—because they are not "fit" to survive—is also suggested by a study of the causes of death. From a third to a half of the deaths during the first year of life, and particularly during the first month, are due to what may be termed uterine causes, such as debility, atrophy, inanition, or[Pg 123] premature birth. Although in many cases such a death is the result of lack of prenatal care, in still more it must be ascribed to a defect in the parental stock.

In connection with infant mortality, it may be of interest to point out that the intensity of natural selection is probably greater among boys than among girls. There is a steady preponderance of boys over girls at birth (about 105 to 100, in the United States), while among the stillborn the proportion is 158 to 100, if the Massachusetts figures for 1891-1900 may be taken as general in application. Evidently a large number of weak males have been eliminated before birth. This elimination continues for a number of years to be greater among boys than among girls, until in the period of adolescence the death-rates of the two sexes are equal. In adult life the death-rate among men is nearly always higher than that among women, but this is due largely to the fact that men pursue occupations where they are more exposed to death. In such cases, and particularly where deaths are due to accident, the mortality may not only be non-selective, but is sometimes contra-selective, for the strongest and most active men will often be those who expose themselves most to some danger. Such a reversal of the action of natural selection is seen on a large scale in the case of war, where the strongest go to the fray and are killed, while the weaklings stay at home to perpetuate their type of the race.

A curious aspect of the kind of natural selection under consideration,—that which operates by death without reference to the food-supply,—is seen in the evolution of a wide pelvis in women. Before the days of modern obstetrics, the woman born with an unusually narrow pelvis was likely to die during parturition, and the inheritance of a narrower type of pelvis was thus stopped. With the introduction and improvement of instrumental and induced deliveries, many of these women are enabled to survive, with the necessary consequence that their daughters will in many cases have a similarly narrow pelvis, and experience similar difficulty in childbirth. The percentage of deliveries in which instrumental aid is necessary is thus increasing from generation to generation, and is likely to continue to[Pg 124] increase for some time. In other words, natural selection, because of man's interference, can no longer maintain the width of woman's pelvis, as it formerly did, and a certain amount of reversion in this respect is probably taking place—a reversion which, if unchecked, would necessarily lead after a long time to a reduction in the average size of skull of that part of the human race which frequently uses forceps at childbirth. The time would be long because the forceps permit the survival of some large-headed infants who otherwise would die.

But it must not be supposed that lethal, non-sustentative selection works only through forms of infant mortality. That aspect was first discussed because it is most obvious, but the relation of natural selection to microbic disease is equally widespread and far more striking.

As to the inheritance of disease as such there is little room for misunderstanding: no biologist now believes a disease is actually handed down from parent to child in the germ-plasm. But what the doctors call a diathesis, a predisposition to some given disease, is most certainly heritable—a fact which Karl Pearson and others have proved by statistics that can not be given here.[58] And any individual who has inherited this diathesis, this lack of resistance to a given disease, is marked as a possible victim of natural selection. The extent to which and the manner in which it operates may be more readily understood by the study of a concrete case. Tuberculosis is, as everyone knows, a disease caused directly by a bacillus; and a disease to which immunity can not be acquired by any process of vaccination or inoculation yet known. It is a disease which is not directly inherited as such. Yet every city-dweller in the United States is almost constantly exposed to infection by this bacillus, and autopsies show that most persons have actually been infected at[Pg 125] some period of life, but have resisted further encroachment. Perhaps a fraction of them will eventually die of consumption; the rest will die of some other disease, and will probably never even know that they have carried the bacilli of tuberculosis in their lungs.

Of a group of men picked at random from the population, why will some eventually die of tuberculosis and the others resist infection? Is it a matter of environment?—are open-air schools, sanitary tenements, proper hygiene, the kind of measures that will change this condition? Such is the doctrine widely preached at the present day. It is alleged that the white plague may be stamped out, if the open cases of tuberculosis are isolated and the rest of the population is taught how to live properly. The problem is almost universally declared to be a problem of infection.

Infection certainly is the immediate problem, but the biologist sees a greater one a little farther back. It is the problem of natural selection.

To prove this, it is necessary to prove (1) that some people are born with less resistance to tuberculosis than others and (2) that it is these people with weak natural resistance who die of phthisis, while their neighbors with stronger resistance survive. The proof of these propositions has been abundantly given by Karl Pearson, G. Archdall Reid and others. Their main points may be indicated. In the first place it must be shown that the morbidity from tuberculosis is largely due to heredity—a point on which most medical men are still uninformed. Measurement of the direct correlation between phthisis in parent and child shows it to be about .5, i. e., what one expects if it is a matter of heredity. This is the coefficient for most physical and mental characters: it is the coefficient for such pathological traits as deafness and insanity, which are obviously due in most cases to inheritance rather than infection.

But, one objects, this high correlation between parent and child does not prove inheritance,—it obviously proves infection. The family relations are so intimate that it is folly to overlook this factor in the spread of the disease.[Pg 126]

Very well, Professor Pearson replied, if the relations between parent and child are so intimate that they lead to infection, they are certainly not less intimate between husband and wife, and there ought to be just as much infection in this relationship as in the former. The correlation was measured in thousands of cases and was found to lie around .25, being lowest in the poorer classes and highest in the well-to-do classes.

At first glance this seems partly to confirm the objection—it looks as if there must be a considerable amount of tubercular infection between husband and wife. But when it is found that the resemblance between husband and wife in the matter of insanity is also .25, the objection becomes less formidable. Certainly it will hardly be argued that one of the partners infects the other with this disability.

As a fact, a correlation of .25 between husband and wife, for tuberculosis, is only partly due to infection. What it does mean is that like tends to mate with like—called assortative mating. This coefficient of resemblance between husband and wife in regard to phthisis is about the same as the correlation of resemblance between husband and wife for eye color, stature, longevity, general health, truthfulness, tone of voice, and many other characters. No one will suppose that life partners "infect" each other in these respects. Certainly no one will claim that a man deliberately selects a wife on the basis of resemblance to himself in these points; but he most certainly does so to some extent unconsciously, as will be described at greater length in Chapter XI. Assortative mating is a well-established fact, and there is every reason to believe that much of the resemblance between husband and wife as regards tuberculosis is due to this fact, and not to infection.[59][Pg 127]

Again, it is objected that the infection of children is not a family matter, but due to tuberculous cows' milk: how then does it appear equally among the Japanese, where cows are not tuberculous and cow's milk rarely used as an infant food: or among such people as the Esquimaux and Polynesians, who have never seen a cow?

But, it is argued, at any rate bad housing and unsanitary conditions of life will make infection easier and lower the resistance of the individual. Perhaps such conditions may make infection easier, but that is of little importance considering how easy it is for all city dwellers—for the population as a whole. The question remains, will not bad housing cause a greater liability to fatal phthisis? Will not destitution and its attendant conditions increase the probability that a given individual will succumb to the white plague?

Most physicians think this to be the case, but they have not taken the pains to measure the respective rôles, by the exact methods of modern science. S. Adolphus Knopf of New York, an authority on tuberculosis, recognizes the importance of the heredity factor, but says that after this, the most important predisposing conditions are of the nature of unsanitary schools, unsanitary tenements, unsanitary factories and workshops. This may be very true; these conditions may follow after heredity in importance—but how near do they follow? That is a matter capable of fairly accurate measurement, and should be discussed with figures, not generalities.

Taking the case of destitution, which includes, necessarily, most of the other evils specified, Professor Pearson measured the correlation with liability to phthisis and found it to be .02. The correlation for direct heredity—that is, the resemblance between parent and offspring—it will be remembered, is .50. As compared with this, the environmental factor of .02 is utterly insignificant. It seems evident that whether or not one dies from tuberculosis, under present-day urban conditions, depends mainly on the kind of constitution one has inherited.

There is no escape, then, from the conclusion that in any individual, death from tuberculosis is largely a matter of natural[Pg 128] selection. But by taking a longer view, one can actually see the change to which natural selection is one of the contributors. The following table shows the deaths from consumption in Massachusetts, per 10,000 population:

F. L. Hoffman further points out[60] that in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut, 1872-1911, the decline in the death-rate from tuberculosis has been about 50%. "The evidence is absolutely conclusive that actually as well as relatively, the mortality from tuberculosis in what is the most intensely industrial area of America has progressively diminished during the last 40 years."

It will be noted that the great increase in death from consumption in this area began in the decade following 1840, when the large Irish immigration began. The Irish are commonly believed to be particularly susceptible to phthisis. Crowded together in industrial conditions, they rapidly underwent infection, and their weak racial resistance led to a high death-rate. The weak lines of heredity were rapidly cut off; in other words, the intensity of natural selection was great, for a while. The result was to leave the population of these New England states much more resistant, on the average, than it was before; and as the Irish immigration soon slowed down, and no new stocks with great weakness arrived, tuberculosis naturally tended to "burn itself out." This seems to be a partial explanation of the decline in the death-rate from phthisis in New England during the last half century, although it is not suggested that it represents the complete explanation: improved methods of treatment and sanitation doubtless played their part. But[Pg 129] that they are the sole cause of the decline is made highly improbable by the low correlation between phthisis and environmental factors, which was mentioned above, and by all the other biometric study of tuberculosis, which has proved that the results ascribed to hygiene, including sanitorium treatment, are to some degree illusory.

That tuberculosis is particularly fatal to the Negro race is well known. Even to-day, after several centuries of natural selection in the United States, the annual death-rate from consumption among Negroes in the registration area is 431.9 per 100,000 population (census of 1900) as compared with 170.5 for the whites; in the cities alone it is 471.0. That overcrowding and climate can not be the sole factors is indicated by the fact that the Negro race has been decimated, wherever it has met tuberculosis. "In the years 1803 and 1810 the British government imported three or four thousand Negroes from Mozambique into Ceylon to form into regiments, and of these in December, 1820, there were left just 440, including the male descendants. All the rest had perished mainly from tuberculosis, and in a country where the disease is not nearly so prevalent as in England."[61] Archdall Reid has pointed out[62] that the American, Polynesian and Australian aborigines, to whom tuberculosis was unknown before the advent of Europeans, and who had therefore never been selected against it, could not survive its advent: they were killed by much smaller infections than would have injured a European, whose stock has been purged by centuries of natural selection.

These racial histories are the most important evidence available to the student of natural selection in man. The conclusion to be drawn from them seems plain. Natural selection, which has in the past never had an opportunity to act upon the Negro race through tuberculosis, is now engaged in hastening, at a relatively rapid rate, the evolution of this race toward immunity from death by tuberculosis. The evolution of the white race[Pg 130] on this line is, as the figures show, going on simultaneously, but having begun centuries earlier, it is not now so rapid. The weakest white stocks were cut off hundreds of years ago, in Great Britain or Europe; those of the black race are only now going. Despite all the efforts of medicine and sanitation, it is likely that the Negro death-rate from phthisis will continue high for some years, until what is left of the race will possess a degree of resistance, or immunity, not much inferior to that of the whites among whom they live. The blacks in North America now must be already more resistant than their ancestors; the mulattoes descended of normal healthy unions should be more resistant than the pure Negroes, although no statistics are available on the point; but were a new immigration to take place from Africa to-day, and the immigrants to be put into villages with their Americanized brethren, the high death-rate would result.

While the Negroes were thus undergoing the radical surgery of natural selection, what was happening to the aborigines of America? The answer of history is unmistakable; they were meeting the same fate, in an even more violent form. Not tuberculosis alone, but small-pox, measles, alcohol and a dozen other importations of the conquerors, found in the aborigines of the New World a stock which had never been selected against these diseases.

It is the custom of sentimentalists sometimes to talk as if the North American Indian had been killed off by the white man. So he was,—but not directly: he was killed off by natural selection, acting through the white man's diseases and narcotics. In 1841 Catlin wrote, "Thirty millions of white men are now scuffling for the goods and luxuries of life over the bones of twelve millions of red men, six millions of whom have fallen victims to small-pox." Small-pox is an old story to the white race, and the death of the least resistant strains in each generation has left a population that is fairly resistant. It was new to the natives of America, and history shows the result. Alcohol, too, counted its victims by the thousand, for the same reason. The process of natural selection among the North American Indians has not yet stopped; if there are a century from now any Indians[Pg 131] left, they will of necessity belong to stocks which are relatively resistant to alcohol and tuberculosis and the other widespread and fatal diseases which were unknown upon this continent before Columbus.

The decrease of natives following the Spanish conquest of tropical America has long been one of the most striking events of history. Popular historians sometimes speak as if most of the native population had been killed off by the cruelty of the conquistadores. Surely such talk could not proceed from those who are familiar with the action of natural selection. It is obvious that when the Spaniard brought the natives together, making them work in mines and assemble in churches, he brought them under conditions especially favorable for infection by the new diseases which he had brought. The aborigines of the New World, up to the time the Spaniards came, had undergone no evolution whatever against these diseases; consequently the evolution began at so rapid a rate that in a few centuries only those who lived in out-of-the-way places remain unscathed.

The same story is repeated, in a survey of the history of the Pacific Islands. Even such a disease as whooping-cough carried off adults by the hundred. Robert Louis Stevenson has left a graphic picture[63] of natural selection at work:

"The tribe of Hapaa," he writes, "is said to have numbered some four hundred when the small-pox came and reduced them by one-fourth. Six months later a woman developed tubercular consumption; the disease spread like fire about the valley, and in less than a year two survivors, a man and a woman, fled from the newly-created solitude.... Early in the year of my visit, for example, or late the year before, the first case of phthisis appeared in a household of 17 persons, and by the end of August, when the tale was told me, one soul survived, a boy who had been absent at his schooling."

In Tasmania is another good illustration of the evolution of a race proceeding so rapidly as to be fatal to the race. When[Pg 132] the first English settled on the island, in 1803, the native population consisted of several thousand. Tuberculosis and many other new diseases, and, most of all, alcohol, began to operate on the aborigines, who were attracted to the settlements of the whites. In a quarter of a century there were only a few hundred left. Many, of course, had met violent deaths, but an enlightened perusal of any history of the period,[64] will leave no doubt that natural selection by disease was responsible for most of the mortality. By 1847 the number of native Tasmanians was reduced to 44, who were already unmistakably doomed by alcohol and bacteria. When the last full-blood Tasmanian died in 1876, a new chapter was written in the story of the modern evolution of the human race.

No such stories are told about the white settlements on this continent, even before the days of quarantine and scientific medicine. There is no other adequate explanation of the difference, than that the two races have evolved to a different degree in their resistance to these diseases. It is easily seen, then, that man's evolution is going on, at varying rates of speed, in probably all parts of the human race at the present time.

We do not mean, of course, to suggest that all the natives who have died in the New World since the landing of Columbus, have died because the evolution of their race had not proceeded so far in certain directions as had that of their conquerors. But the proportion of them who were eliminated for that reason is certainly very large. In the more remote parts of South America the process is still going on. Recent press dispatches have carried the account of the University of Pennsylvania's Amazon Expedition, under the direction of William C. Farrabee. In a letter dated March 16, 1916, the leader told of the discovery of the remains of the tribe of Pikipitanges, a once populous tribe of which a chief, six women and two boys alone are left. The tribe had been almost wiped out, Dr. Farabee reported, by an epidemic of influenza!

If the aborigines of the New World succumb to the diseases[Pg 133] of the European, it is not less true that the European succumbs to diseases against which his race has not been selected. The deadliness of yellow fever to Americans in the tropics, and the relative immunity of Negroes, is familiar; so too is the frequently fatal result of the African tropical fevers on the white man, while the natives suffer from them much less, having been made more resistant by centuries of natural selection.

This long discussion may now be summarized. We dealt with lethal selection, that form of natural selection which operates by prematurely killing off the less fit and leaving the more fit to survive and reproduce their kind. It is of course understood that the word "fit" in this connection does not necessarily mean morally or mentally superior, but merely fit for the particular environment. In a community of rascals, the greatest rascal might be the fittest to survive. In the slums of a modern city the Jewish type, stringently selected through centuries of ghetto life, is particularly fit to survive, although it may not be the physical ideal of an anthropologist.

Two forms of lethal selection were distinguished, one depending on starvation and the other on causes not connected with the food supply. Direct starvation is not a factor of importance in the survival of most races during most of the time at the present day so far as the civilized portion of the world is concerned. But disease and the other lethal factors not connected with the food-supply, through which natural selection acts, are still of great importance. From a half to two-thirds of all deaths are of a selective character, even under favorable conditions.

It is also to be noted, however, that with the progress of medicine, and the diminution of unfit material, this kind of natural selection will tend to become less and less widespread. For a long time, natural selection in man has probably done little to cause marked change in his physical or mental characteristics. Man's interference has prevented. In recent centuries natural selection has probably done no more on the whole than keep the race where it was: it is to be feared that it has not even done that. It is doubtful if there is any race to-day which attains the physical and mental average of the Athenians of 2,500 years ago.[Pg 134]

Lethal natural selection, then, has been and still is a factor of great importance in the evolution of the race, but at present it is doing little or nothing that promises to further the ideal of eugenics—race betterment.

But lethal natural selection is only half the story. It is obvious that if the constitution of a race can be altered by excess of deaths in a certain class, it can equally be altered by excess of births in a certain class. This is reproductive selection, which may appear in either one of two forms. If the individual leaves few or no progeny because of his failure to mate at the proper time, it is called sexual selection; if, however, he mates, yet leaves few or no progeny (as compared with other individuals), it is called fecundal selection.

Even in man, the importance of the rôle of reproductive selection is insufficiently understood; in the lower animals scientists have tended still more to undervalue it. As a fact, no species ordinarily multiplies in such numbers as to exhaust all the food available, despite the teaching of Malthus and Darwin to the contrary. The rate of reproduction is the crux of natural selection; each species normally has such a reproduction rate as will suffice to withstand the premature deaths and sterility of some individuals, and yet not so large as to press unduly upon the food supply. The problem of natural selection is a problem of the adjustment between reproductive rate and death-rate, and the struggle for subsistence is only one of several factors.

While the reproductive rate must be looked upon as a characteristic which has its adaptations like other characteristics, it has one peculiarity—its increase is always opposed by lethal selection. The chances of life are reduced by reproducing, inasmuch as more danger is entailed by the extra activities of courtship, and later, in bearing and caring for the young, since these duties reduce the normal wariness of individual life. The reproductive rate, therefore, always remains at the lowest point which will suffice for the reproductive needs of the species. For this reason alone the non-sustentative form of selection might be expected to be the predominant kind.

J. T. Gulick and Karl Pearson have pointed out that there is[Pg 135] a normal conflict between natural selection and fecundal selection. Fecundal selection is said by them to be constantly tending to increase the reproductive rate, because fecundity is partly a matter of heredity, and the fecund parents leave more offspring with the same characteristic. Lethal selection, on the contrary, constantly asserts its power to reduce the reproductive rate, because the reproductive demands on the parents reduce their chances of life by interference with their natural ability of self-protection. This is quite true, but the analysis is incomplete, for an increased number of progeny not only decreases the life chances of the parents, but also of the young, by reducing the amount of care they receive.

In short, lethal selection and reproductive selection accomplish the same end—a change in the constitution of the species—by different means; but they are so closely linked together and balanced that any change in the operation of one is likely to cause a change in the operation of the other. This will be clearer when the effect of reproductive selection is studied in man.

Recalling the truism that most human characters have a hereditary basis, it is evident that the constitution of society will remain stable from generation to generation, only if each section of society is reproducing at the same rate as every other (and assuming, for the moment, that the death-rate remains constant). Then if the birth-rate of one part of the population is altered, if it is decreased, for example, the next generation will contain proportionately fewer representatives of this class, the succeeding generation fewer still, and so on indefinitely—unless a selective death-rate is operating at the same time. It is well known not only that the death-rate varies widely in different parts of the population, as was pointed out in the earlier part of this chapter, but that the birth-rate is rarely the same in any two sections of the population. Evidently, therefore, the make-up of society must necessarily be changing from generation to generation. It will be the object of the rest of this chapter to investigate the ways in which it is changing, while in the latter half of the book we shall point out some of the ways in[Pg 136] which it might be changed to better advantage than it is at present.

Sexual selection, or differential success in marrying, will be discussed at some length in Chapter XI; here it may be pointed out that the number who fail to marry is very much greater than one often realizes. It has already been noted that a large part of the population dies before it reaches the age of marriage. Of 1,000 babies born in the United States, only 750 will reach the average age of marriage; in some countries half of the thousand will have fallen by that time. These dead certainly will leave no descendants; but even of the survivors, part will fail to marry. The returns of the thirteenth U. S. census showed that of the males 45-64 years of age, 10% were single, while 11% of the females, 35-44 years old, were single. Few marriages will take place after those ages. Add the number who died unmarried previous to those ages, but after the age of 20, and it is safe to say that at least one-third of the persons born in the United States die (early or late) without having married.

The consideration of those who died before the age of marriage properly comes under the head of lethal selection, but if attention is confined to those who, though reaching the age of marriage, fail to marry, sexual selection still has importance. For instance, it is generally known (and some statistical proof will be given in Chapter XI) that beauty is directly associated with the chance of marriage. The pretty girls in general marry earlier as well in larger percentage; many of the ugly ones will never find mates. Herbert Spencer argued ingeniously that beauty is associated with general mental and moral superiority, and the more exact studies of recent years have tended to confirm his generalization. A recent, but not conclusive, investigation[65] showed beauty to be correlated with intelligence to the extent of .34. If this is confirmed, it offers a good illustration of the action of sexual selection in furthering the progressive evolution of the race. Miss Gilmore, studying a group of normal school graduates, found a direct correlation between intelligence (as judged by class marks) and early marriage after graduation.[Pg 137] Anyone who would take the trouble could easily investigate numerous cases of this sort, which would show the effect of sexual selection in perpetuating desirable qualities.

But sexual selection no longer has the importance that it once had, for nowadays the mere fact of marriage is not a measure of fecundity, to the extent that it once was. In the old days of unlimited fecundity, the early marriage of a beautiful, or intelligent, woman meant a probable perpetuation of her endowments; but at present, when artificial restraint of fertility is so widespread, the result does not follow as a matter of course: and it is evident that the race is little or not at all helped by the early marriage of an attractive woman, if she has too few or no children.

Fecundal selection, then, is becoming the important phase of reproductive selection, in the evolution of civilized races. The differential birth-rate is, as we have often insisted, the all-important factor of eugenics, and it merits careful consideration from all sides.

Such consideration is made difficult by the inadequate vital statistics of the United States (which ranks with Turkey and China in this respect); but there is no doubt that the birth-rate as a whole is low, as compared with that of other countries; although as a whole it is not dangerously low and there is, of course, no necessary evil in a low birth-rate, of itself, if the quality be satisfactory. The U. S. Census tabulation for 1915 gives the following comparison of the number of babies born alive each year, per 1,000 population, in various countries:

[Pg 138]

The United States birth-rate may, on its face, appear high enough; but its face does not show that this height is due largely to the fecundity of immigrant women. Statistics to prove this are given in Chapter XIII, but may be supplemented here by some figures from Pittsburgh.

Ward 7, in that city, contains the homes of many well-to-do, and contains more representatives of the old American stock than any other ward in the city, having 56.4% of residents who are native born of native parents while the majority of the residents in nearly all the other wards in the city are either themselves foreign-born, or the offspring of foreign-born parents.

Ward 7 has the lowest birth-rate and the lowest rate of net increase of any ward in the city.

With this may be contrasted the sixth ward, which runs along the south bank of the Allegheny river. It is one of the great factory districts of the city, but also contains a large number of homes. Nearly 3,000 of its 14,817 males of voting age are illiterate. Its death-rate is the highest in the city. Almost nine-tenths of its residents are either foreigners or the children of foreigners. Its birth-rate is three times that of the seventh ward.

Taking into account all the wards of the city, it is found that the birth-rate rises as one considers the wards which are marked by a large foreign population, illiteracy, poverty and a high death-rate. On the other hand, the birth-rate falls as one passes to the wards that have most native-born residents, most education, most prosperity—and, to some extent, education and prosperity denote efficiency and eugenic value. For 27 wards there is a high negative correlation (-.673), between birth-rate and percentage of native-born of native parents in the population. The correlation between illiteracy and net increase[66] is +.731.[Pg 139]

The net increase of Pittsburgh's population, therefore, is greatest where the percentage of foreign-born and of illiterates is greatest.

The significance of such figures in natural selection must be evident. Pittsburgh, like probably all large cities in civilized countries, breeds from the bottom. The lower a class is in the scale of intelligence, the greater is its reproductive contribution. Recalling that intelligence is inherited, that like begets like in this respect, one can hardly feel encouraged over the quality of the population of Pittsburgh, a few generations hence.

Of course these illiterate foreign laborers are, from a eugenic point of view, not wholly bad. The picture should not be painted any blacker than the original. Some of these ignorant stocks, in another generation and with decent surroundings, will furnish excellent citizens.

But taken as a whole, it can hardly be supposed that the fecund stocks of Pittsburgh, with their illiteracy, squalor and tuberculosis, their high death-rates, their economic straits, are as good eugenic material as the families that are dying out in the more substantial residence section which their fathers created in the eastern part of the city.

And it can hardly be supposed that the city, and the nation, of the future, would not benefit by a change in the distribution of births, whereby more would come from the seventh ward and its like, and fewer from the sixth and its like.

Evidently, there is no difficulty about seeing this form of natural selection at work, and at work in such a way as greatly to change the character of one section of the species. For comparison, some figures are presented from European sources. In the French war budget of 1911 it appears that from 1,000 women between the ages of 15 and 50, in different districts of Paris, the number of yearly births was as follows:[Pg 140]

Disregarding the last class altogether, it is yet evident that while the mother in a wealthy home bears two children, the mother in the slums bears four. It is evident then that in Paris at the present time reproductive selection is changing the mental and moral composition of the population at a rapid rate, which can not be very materially reduced even if it is found that the death-rate in the poorer districts is considerably greater than it is on the more fashionable boulevards.

J. Bertillon has brought together[67] in a similar way data from a number of cities, showing the following birth-rates:

Obviously, in all these cases reproductive selection will soon bring about such a change in the character of the population, that a much larger part of it than at present will have the hereditary characteristics of the poorer classes and a much smaller part of it than at present the hereditary characteristics of the well-to-do classes.

David Heron and others have recently studied[68] the relation which the birth-rate in different boroughs of London bears to their social and economic conditions. Using the correlation method, they found "that in London the birth-rate per 1,000[Pg 141] married women, aged 15 to 54, is highest where the conditions show the greatest poverty—namely, in quarters where pawnbrokers abound, where unskilled labor is the principal source of income, where consumption is most common and most deadly, where pauperism is most rife, and, finally, where the greatest proportion of the children born die in infancy. The correlation coefficients show that the association of these evil conditions with the relative number of children born is a very close one; and if the question is put in another way, and the calculations are based on measures of prosperity instead of on measures of poverty, a high degree of correlation is found between prosperity and a low birth-rate.

"It must not be supposed that a high rate of infant mortality, which almost invariably accompanies a high birth-rate, either in London or elsewhere, goes far toward counteracting the effects of the differential birth-rate. Where infant mortality is highest the average number of children above the age of two for each married woman is highest also, and although the chances of death at all ages are greater among the inhabitants of the poorer quarters, their rate of natural increase remains considerably higher than that of the inhabitants of the richer.

"From the detailed study of the figures made by Newsholme and Stevenson, conclusions essentially the same as those of Heron can be drawn.... Their first step was to divide the London boroughs into six groups according to the average number of domestic servants for 100 families in each. This is probably as good a measure of prosperity as any other. They then determined the total birth-rate of the population in each group, and arrived at the following figures:

"In order to find out how far the differences shown by these figures are due to differences in the percentage of women who[Pg 142] marry in each group and the age at which they marry, they corrected the figures in such a way as to make them represent what the birth-rates would be in each group, if the proportion of wives of each age to the whole population comprising the group was the same as it is in the whole of England and Wales. The corrected birth-rates thus obtained were as follows:

"It will readily be seen that the effect of the correction has been to reduce the difference between the two extreme groups by about one-third, showing that to this extent it is due to the way in which they differ as to the average age and number of the women who marry. Further, Groups II, III, IV and V have all been brought to about the same level, with a corrected birth-rate about halfway between the highest and the lowest. This shows that there is no gradual decrease in fertility associated with a gradually increasing grade of prosperity, but that three sharply divided classes may be distinguished: a very poor class with a high degree of fertility, to which about a quarter of the population of London belong, a rich class with a low degree of fertility, and a class intermediate in both respects."

"Eugenics is less directly concerned with this side of the question that with the relative rate of increase of the different classes. This may be found for the six groups in the usual way by deducting the death-rate from the birth-rate. The following figures for the rate of natural increase are then obtained:

[Pg 143]

"The figures show in a manner which hardly admits of any doubt that in London at any rate the inhabitants of the poorest quarters—over a million in number—are reproducing themselves at a much greater rate than the more well-to-do."

A research on similar lines by S. R. Steinmetz[69] in Holland shows that the average number of children in the lowest class families is 5.44. People in industry or small trade, skilled mechanics and professors of theology have five children to the family; in other classes the number is as follows:

It is not hard to see that the next generation in Holland is likely to have proportionately fewer gifted individuals than has the present one.

Fortunately, it is very probable that the differential birth-rate is not of such ominous import in rural districts as it is in cities, although some of the tribes of degenerates which live in the country show birth-rates of four to six children per wife.[70] But in the more highly civilized nations now, something like a half of the population lives in urban districts, and the startling extent to which these urban populations breed from the bottom involves a disastrous change in the balance of population within a few generations, unless it is in some way checked.

Just how great the change may be, statistically, has been emphasized by Karl Pearson, who points out that "50% of the married population provide 75% of the next generation," owing to the number of deaths before maturity, the number of celi[Pg 144]bates and the number of childless marriages. "The same rule may be expressed in another way: 50% of the next generation is produced by 25% of the married population." At this rate in a few generations the less efficient and socially valuable, with their large families, will overwhelm the more efficient and socially valuable, and their small families.

Fecundal selection is at work to-day on a large scale, changing the character of the population, and from a eugenic point of view changing it for the worse. Fortunately, it is not impossible to arrest this change.

But, it may be objected, is not this change merely "the survival of the fittest?" In a sense, yes; and it is necessary that the more intelligent classes should make themselves "fitter" to survive, by a change of attitude toward reproduction. But the dying-out of the intellectually superior part of the population is a pathological condition, not a part of normal evolution; for barring artificial interference with the birth-rate, fertility has been found to go hand in hand with general superiority. This demonstration is due to F. A. Woods' study[71] of 608 members of the royal families of Europe, among whom, for reasons of state, large families are desired, and among whom there has probably been little restraint on the birth-rate. Averaging the ratings of his individuals from grade 1, the mentally and physically very inferior, to grade 10, the mentally and physically very superior, he found that the number of children produced and brought to maturity increased in a fairly direct ratio. His figures are as follows:

Investigations of Karl Pearson and Alexander Graham Bell[72] show that fecundity and longevity are associated. It follows[Pg 145] that the mentally and morally superior, who are the most fecund, are also the longest-lived; and as this longevity is largely due to inheritance it follows that, under natural conditions, the standard of the stratum of society under consideration would gradually rise, in respect to longevity, in each generation.

Such is probably one of the methods by which the human race has gradually increased its level of desirable characters in each generation. The desirable characters were associated with each other, and also with fecundity. The desirable characters are still associated with each other, but their association with fecundity is now negative. It is in this change that eugenics finds justification for its existence as a propaganda. Its object is to restore the positive correlation between desirable characters and fecundity, on which the progressive evolution of the race depends.

The bearing of natural selection on the present-day evolution of the human race, particularly in the United States of America, must be reviewed in a few closing paragraphs.

Selection by death may result either from inadequate food supply, or from some other lethal factor. The former type, although something of a bugaboo ever since the time of Malthus, has in reality relatively little effect on the human race at present. Non-sustentative lethal selection in man is operating chiefly through zymotic diseases and the bad hygiene of the mentally inferior.

Reproductive selection is increasingly effective and its action is such as to cause grave alarm both through the failure of some to marry properly (sexual selection) and the failure of some to bear enough children, while others bear too many (fecundal selection). It is obvious that the racial result of this process will depend on what kind of people bear and rear the most children; and it has been shown that in general the larger families are in the section of the population that makes fewer contributions to human prosperity and happiness, while those endowed with great gifts, who ought to be transmitting them to their children, are in many cases not even reproducing their own number.[Pg 146]

Natural selection raised man from apehood to his present estate. It is still operating on him on a large scale, in several ways, but in none of these ways is it now doing much actually to improve the race, and in some ways, owing to man's own interference, it is rapidly hastening race degeneracy.[Pg 147]

"Eugenics," wrote Francis Galton, who founded the science and coined the name, "is the study of agencies under social control that may improve or impair the racial qualities of future generations, either physically or mentally." The definition is universally accepted, but by its use of the word "study" it defines a pure science, and the present book is concerned rather with the application of such a science. Accepting Galton's definition, we shall for our purposes slightly extend it by saying that applied eugenics embraces all such measures, in use or prospect either individually or collectively, as may improve or impair the racial qualities of future generations of man, either physically or mentally, whether or not this was the avowed purpose.

It is one of the newest of sciences. It was practically forced into existence by logical necessity. It is certainly here to stay, and it demands the right to speak, in many cases to cast the deciding vote, on some of the most important questions that confront society.

The science of eugenics is the natural result of the spread and acceptance of organic evolution, following the publication of Darwin's work on The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, in 1859. It took a generation for his ideas to win the day; but then they revolutionized the intellectual life of the civilized world. Man came to realize that the course of nature is regular; that the observed sequences of events can be described in formulas which are called natural laws; he learned that he could achieve great results in plant and animal breeding by working in harmony with these laws. Then the question logically arose, "Is not man himself subject to these same laws?[Pg 148] Can he not use his knowledge of them to improve his own species, as he has been more or less consciously improving the plants and animals that were of most value to him, for many centuries?"

The evolutionist answered both these questions affirmatively. However great may be the superiority of his mind, man is first of all an animal, subject to the natural laws that govern other animals. He can learn to comply with these laws; he can, therefore, take an active share in furthering the process of evolution toward a higher life.

That, briefly, is the scope of the science of eugenics, as its founder, Sir Francis Galton, conceived it. "Now that this new animal, man, finds himself somehow in existence, endowed with a little power and intelligence," Galton wrote 30 years ago, "he ought, I submit, to awake to a fuller knowledge of his relatively great position, and begin to assume a deliberate part in furthering the great work of evolution. He may infer the course it is bound to pursue, from his observation of that which it has already followed, and he might devote his modicum of power, intelligence and kindly feeling to render its future progress less slow and painful. Man has already furthered evolution very considerably, half consciously, and for his own personal advantages, but he has not yet risen to the conviction that it is his religious duty to do so, deliberately and systematically."

But, it may well be asked, how does this sudden need for eugenics arise, when the world has gone along without it for hundreds of millions of years in the past, and the human race has made the great ascent from an ape-like condition in spite of the fact that such a science as eugenics was never dreamed of?

For answer recall that natural selection, which is mainly responsible for bringing man to his present situation, has worked chiefly through a differential death-rate. The less fit die: the more fit survive. In the earlier stages of society, man interfered little with natural selection. But during the last century the increase of the philanthropic spirit and the progress of medicine have done a great deal to interfere with the selective process. In some ways, selection in the human race has almost[Pg 149] ceased; in many ways it is actually reversed, that is, it results in the survival of the inferior rather than the superior. In the olden days the criminal was summarily executed, the weakly child died soon after birth through lack of proper care and medical attention, the insane were dealt with so violently that if they were not killed by the treatment they were at least left hopelessly "incurable" and had little chance of becoming parents. Harsh measures, all of these, but they kept the germ-plasm of the race reasonably purified.

To-day, how is it? The inefficients, the wastrels, the physical, mental, and moral cripples are carefully preserved at public expense. The criminal is turned out on parole after a few years, to become the father of a family. The insane is discharged as "cured," again to take up the duties of citizenship. The feeble-minded child is painfully "educated," often at the expense of his normal brother or sister. In short, the undesirables of the race, with whom the bloody hand of natural selection would have made short work early in life, are now nursed along to old age.

Of course, one would not have it otherwise with respect to the prolongation of life. To expose deformed children as the Spartans did would outrage our moral sentiments; to chloroform the incurable is a proposition that almost every one condemns.

But this philanthropic spirit, this zealous regard for the interests of the unfortunate, which is rightly considered one of the highest manifestations of Christian civilization, has in many cases benefited the few at the expense of the many. The present generation, in making its own life comfortable, is leaving a staggering bill to be paid by posterity.

It is at this point that eugenics comes in and demands that a distinction be made between the interests of the individual and the interests of the race. It does not yield to any one in its solicitude for the individual unfortunate; but it says, "His happiness in life does not need to include leaving a family of children, inheritors of his defects, who if they were able to think might curse him for begetting them and curse society for allowing them to be born." And looking at the other side of the problem, eugenics says to the young man and young woman,[Pg 150] "You should enjoy the greatest happiness that love can bring to a life. But something more is expected of you than a selfish, short-sighted indifference to all except yourselves in the world. When you understand the relation of the individual to the race, you will find your greatest happiness only in a marriage which will result in a family of worthy children. You are temporarily a custodian of the inheritance of the whole past; it is far more disgraceful for you to squander or ruin this heritage, or to regard it as intended solely for your individual, selfish gratification, than it would be for you to dissipate a fortune in money which you had received, or to betray any trust which had been confided to you by one of your fellow men."

Such is the teaching of eugenics. It is not wholly new. The early Greeks gave much thought to it, and with the insight which characterized them, they rightly put the emphasis on the constructive side; they sought to breed better men and women, not merely to accomplish a work of hygiene, to lessen taxes, and reduce suffering, by reducing the number of unfortunates among them. As early as the first half of the sixth century B. C. the Greek poet Theognis of Megara wrote: "We look for rams and asses and stallions of good stock, and one believes that good will come from good; yet a good man minds not to wed an evil daughter of an evil sire, if he but give her much wealth.... Wealth confounds our stock. Marvel not that the stock of our folk is tarnished, for the good is mingling with the base." A century later eugenics was discussed in some detail by Plato, who suggested that the state intervene to mate the best with the best, and the worst with the worst; the former should be encouraged to have large families, and their children should be reared by the government, while the children of the unfit were to be, as he says, "put away in some mysterious, unknown places, as they should be." Aristotle developed the idea on political lines, being more interested in the economic than the biological aspects of marriage; but he held firmly to the doctrine that the state should feel free to intervene in the interests of reproductive selection.

For nearly two thousand years after this, conscious eugenic[Pg 151] ideals were largely ignored. Constant war reversed natural selection, as it is doing to-day, by killing off the physically fit and leaving the relatively unfit to reproduce the race; while monasticism and the enforced celibacy of the priesthood performed a similar office for many of the mentally superior, attracting them to a career in which they could leave no posterity. At the beginning of the last century a germ of modern eugenics is visible in Malthus' famous essay on population, in which he directed attention to the importance of the birth-rate for human welfare, since this essay led Darwin and Wallace to enunciate the theory of natural selection, and to point out clearly the effects of artificial selection. It is really on Darwin's work that the modern science of eugenics is based, and it owes its beginning to Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton.

Galton was born in 1822, studied mathematics and medicine, traveled widely, attained fame as an explorer in South Africa, and after inheriting sufficient income to make him independent, settled down in London and gave his time to pioneering experiments in many branches of science. He contributed largely to founding the science of meteorology, opened new paths in experimental psychology, introduced the system of finger prints to anthropology, and took up the study of heredity, publishing in 1865 a series of articles under the title of "Hereditary Talent and Genius," which contained his first utterances on eugenics.

The present generation can hardly understand what a new field Galton broke. Even Darwin had supposed that men do not differ very much in intellectual endowment, and that their differences in achievement are principally the result of differences in zeal and industry. Galton's articles, whose thesis was that better men could be bred by conscious selection, attracted much attention from the scientific world and were expanded in 1869 in his book Hereditary Genius.

This was an elaborate and painstaking study of the biographies of 977 men who would rank, according to Galton's estimate, as about 1 to 4,000 of the general population, in respect to achievement. The number of families found to contain more than one eminent man was 300, divided as follows: Judges, 85;[Pg 152] Statesmen, 39; Commanders, 27; Literary, 33; Scientific, 43; Poets, 20; Artists, 28; Divines, 25. The close groupings of the interrelated eminence led to the conclusion that heredity plays a very important part in achievement. The greater success of real sons of great men as compared with adopted sons of great men likewise indicated, he thought, that success is due to actual biological heredity rather than to the good opportunities afforded the scion of the illustrious family. Galton's conclusion was that by selecting from strains that produced eminence, a superior human stock could be bred.

In 1874 he published a similar study of the heredity of 180 eminent English scientists, reëmphasizing the claims of nature over nurture, to use his familiar antithesis. In 1883 he published "Inquiries into the Human Faculty and Its Development," a collection of evolutionary and anthropometric essays where the word Eugenics was first used in a new exposition of the author's views. "Natural Inheritance" appeared in 1889, being the essence of various memoirs published since "Hereditary Genius," dealing with the general biological principles underlying the study of heredity and continuing the study of resemblances between individuals in respect to stature, eye color, artistic faculty and morbid conditions.

Galton's interest in eugenics was not lessened by the abundant criticism he received, and in 1901 he defended "The Possible Improvement of the Human Breed under Existing Conditions of Law and Sentiment" before the Anthropological Society. Three years later he read a paper entitled "Eugenics; Its Definition, Scope and Aims," to the Sociological Society. His program, in brief, was as follows:

1. Disseminate knowledge of hereditary laws as far as surely known and promote their further study.

2. Inquire into birth rates of various strata of society (classified according to civic usefulness) in ancient and modern nations.

3. Collect reliable data showing how large and thriving families have most frequently originated.

4. Study the influences affecting marriage.[Pg 153]

5. Persistently set forth the national importance of Eugenics.

The following year, Galton again read a paper before the Society, suggesting the award of certificates of quality to the eugenically fit. He also maintained that marriage customs which are largely controlled by public opinion could be modified for racial welfare through a molding of public sentiment.

In 1904 he founded a Research Fellowship at the University of London to determine, if possible, what the standard of fitness is, and in 1905 a Scholarship was added. Edgar Schuster and Miss E. M. Elderton held these posts until 1907, when Professor Karl Pearson took charge of the research work and, at the resignation of Mr. Schuster, David Heron was appointed Fellow. On Galton's death, January 17, 1911, it became known that through the terms of his will a professorship was founded and Professor Pearson was invited to hold it. His corps of workers constitutes the Galton Eugenics Laboratory staff.

To spread throughout the British Empire such knowledge of eugenics as might be gathered by specialists, the Eugenics Education Society was formed in 1908 with Galton as honorary president. Its field comprises: (1) Biology in so far as it concerns hereditary selection; (2) Anthropology as related to race and marriage; (3) Politics, where it bears on parenthood in relation to civic worth; (4) Ethics, in so far as it promotes ideals that lead to the improvement of social quality; (5) Religion, in so far as it strengthens and sanctifies eugenic duty.

In America the movement got an early start but developed slowly. The first definite step was the formation of an Institute of Heredity in Boston, shortly after 1880, by Loring Moody, who was assisted by the poet Longfellow, Samuel E. Sewall, Mrs. Horace Mann, and other well-known people. He proposed to work very much along the lines that the Eugenics Record Office later adopted, but he was ahead of his time, and his attempt seems to have come to nothing.

In 1883 Alexander Graham Bell, who may be considered the first scientific worker in eugenics in the United States, published a paper on the danger of the formation of a deaf variety of the human race in this country, in which he gave the result of re[Pg 154]searches he had made at Martha's Vineyard and other localities during preceding years, on the pedigrees of congenitally deaf persons—deaf mutes, as they were then called. He showed clearly that congenital deafness is largely due to heredity, that it is much increased by consanguineous marriages, and that it is of great importance to prevent the marriage of persons, in both of whose families congenital deafness is present. About five years later he founded the Volta Bureau in Washington, D. C., for the study of deafness, and this has fostered a great deal of research work on this particular phase of heredity.

In 1903 the American Breeders' Association was founded at St. Louis by plant and animals breeders who desired to keep in touch with the new subject of genetics, the science of breeding, which was rapidly coming to have great practical importance. From the outset, the members realized that the changes which they could produce in races of animals and plants might also be produced in man, and the science of eugenics was thus recognized on a sound biological basis. Soon a definite eugenics section was formed, and as the importance of this section increased, and it was realized that the name of Breeders' Association was too narrowly construed by the public, the association changed its name (1913) to the American Genetic Association, and the name of its organ from the American Breeders' Magazine to the Journal of Heredity.

Under the auspices of this association, the Eugenics Record Office was established at Cold Spring Harbor, Long Island, by Dr. C. B. Davenport. It has been mainly supported by Mrs. E. H. Harriman, but has since been taken over by the Carnegie Institution of Washington. It is gathering pedigrees in many parts of the United States, analyzing them and publishing the results in a series of bulletins.

In the last few years, the public has come to take a keen interest in the possibilities of eugenics. This has led some sex hygienists, child welfare workers, and persons similarly engaged, to attempt to capitalize the interest in eugenics by appropriating the name for their own use. We strongly object to any such misuse of the word, which should designate the application of[Pg 155] genetics to the human race. Sex hygiene, child welfare, and other sanitary and sociological movements should stand on their own feet and leave to eugenics the scope which its Greek derivation indicates for it,—the science of good breeding.[73]

In all parts of Europe, the ideas of eugenics have gradually spread. In 1912 the first International Eugenics Congress was held at London, under auspices of the Eugenics Education Society; more than 700 delegates were in attendance.

Germany, Sweden, Switzerland and Austria are united in an International Eugenics Society and the war led to the formation of a number of separate societies in Germany. Hungary has formed an organization of its own, France has its society in Paris, and the Italian Anthropological Society has given much attention to the subject. The Anthropological Society of Denmark has similarly recognized eugenics by the formation of a separate section. The Institut Solvay of Belgium, a foundation with sociological aims, created a eugenics section several years ago; and in Holland a strong committee has been formed. Last of all, Sweden has put a large separate organization in the field.

In the United States the subject has interested many women's clubs, college organizations and Young Men's Christian Associations, while the periodical press has given it a large amount of attention. Public enthusiasm, often ill-guided, has in a few cases outrun the facts, and has secured legislation in some states, which by no means meets the approval of most scientific eugenists.

When we speak of scientific eugenists, it may appear that we[Pg 156] use the word in an invidious way. We use it deliberately, and by using it we mean to intimate that we do not think enthusiasm is an adequate substitute for knowledge, in anyone who assumes to pass judgment upon a measure as being eugenic or dysgenic—as likely to improve the race or cause its deterioration. Eugenics is a biological science which, in its application, must be interpreted with the help of the best scientific method. Very few social workers, whose field eugenics touches, are competent to understand its bearings without some study, and an appreciation of eugenics is the more difficult for them, because an understanding of it will show them that some of their work is based on false premises. The average legislator is equally unlikely to understand the full import of eugenics, unless he has made a definite effort to do so. All the more honor, then, to the rapidly increasing number of social workers and legislators who have grasped the full meaning of eugenics and are now striving to put it in effect. The agriculturist, through his experience with plants and animals, is probably better qualified than anyone else to realize the practicability of eugenics, and it is accordingly not a matter of mere chance that the science of eugenics in America was built up by a breeders' association, and has found and still finds hundreds of effective advocates in the graduates of the agricultural colleges.

The program of eugenics naturally divides itself in two parts:

(1) Reducing the racial contribution of the least desirable part of the population.

(2) Increasing the racial contribution of the superior part of the population.

The first part of this program is the most pressing and the most easily dealt with; it is no cause for surprise, then, that to many people it has seemed to be the predominant aim of eugenics. Certainly the problem is great enough to stagger anyone who looks it full in the face; although for a variety of reasons, satisfactory statistical evidence of racial degeneracy is hard to get.

Considering only the "institutional population" of the United States, one gets the following figures:

Blind: total, 64,763 according to census of 1900. Of these,[Pg 157] 35,645 were totally blind and 29,118 partly blind. The affection is stated to have been congenital in 4,730 cases. Nineteen per cent of the blind were found to have blind relatives; 4.5% of them were returned as the offspring of cousin marriages.

Deaf: total, 86,515, according to the census of 1900. More than 50,000 of them were deaf from childhood (under 20), 12,609 being deaf from birth. At least 4.5% of the deaf were stated to be offspring of cousin marriages, and 32.1% to have deaf relatives. The significance of this can not be determined unless it is known how many normal persons have deaf relatives (or blind relatives, in considering the preceding paragraph), but it points to the existence of families that are characterized by deafness (or blindness).

Insane: the census of 1910 enumerated only the insane who were in institutions; they numbered 187,791. The number outside of institutions is doubtless considerable but can not be computed. The institutional population is not a permanent, but mainly a transient one, the number of persons discharged from institutions in 1910 being 29,304. As the number and size of institutions does not increase very rapidly, it would appear probable that 25,000 insane persons pass through and out of institutions, and back into the general population, each year. From this one can get some idea of the amount of neurotic weakness in the population of the United States,—much of it congenital and heritable in character.

Feeble-minded: the census (1910) lists only those in institutions, who totaled about 40,000. The census experts believe that 200,000 would be a conservative estimate of the total number of feeble-minded in the country, and many psychologists think that 300,000 would be more nearly accurate. The number of feeble-minded who are receiving institutional care is almost certainly not more than 10% or 15% of the total, and many of these (about 15,000) are in almshouses, not special institutions.

Paupers: There were 84,198 paupers enumerated in almshouses on January 1, 1910, and 88,313 admitted during the year, which indicates that the almshouse paupers are a rapidly shifting group. This population, probably of several hundred thou[Pg 158]sand persons, who drift into and out of almshouses, can hardly be characterized accurately, but in large part it must be considered at least inefficient and probably of mentally low grade.

Criminals: The inmates of prisons, penitentiaries, reformatories, and similar places of detention numbered 111,609 in 1910; this does not include 25,000 juvenile delinquents. The jail population is nearly all transient; one must be very cautious in inferring that conviction for an offense against the law indicates lack of eugenic value; but it is worth noting that the number of offenders who are feeble-minded is probably not less than one-fourth or one-third. If the number of inebriates could be added, it would greatly increase the total; and inebriacy or chronic alcoholism is generally recognized now as indicating in a majority of cases either feeble-mindedness or some other defect of the nervous system. The number of criminals who are in some way neurotically tainted is placed by some psychologists at 50% or more of the total prison population.

Add to these a number of epileptics, tramps, prostitutes, beggars, and others whom the census enumerator finds it difficult to catch, and the total number of possible undesirable parents becomes very large. It is in fact much larger than appears in these figures, because of the fact that many people carry defects that are latent and only appear in the offspring of a marriage representing two tainted strains. Thus the feeble-minded child usually if not always has feeble-mindedness in both his father's and mother's ancestry, and for every one of the patent feeble-minded above enumerated, there may be several dozen latent ones, who are themselves probably normal in every way and yet carry the dangerously tainted germ-plasm.

The estimate has frequently been made that the United States would be much better off eugenically if it were deprived of the future racial contributions of at least 10% of its citizens. While literally true this estimate is too high for the group which could be considered for attempts to directly control in a practical eugenics program.

Natural selection, in the early days of man's history, would have killed off many of these people early in life. They would[Pg 159] have been unable to compete with their physically and mentally more vigorous fellows and would have died miserably by starvation or violence. Natural selection's use of the death-rate was a brutal one, but at least it prevented such traits as these people show from increasing in each generation. Eugenists hope to arrive at the same result, not by the death-rate but by the birth-rate. If germinally anti-social persons are kept humanely segregated during their lifetime, instead of being turned out after a few years of institutional life and allowed to marry, they will leave no descendants, and the number of congenital defectives in the community will be notably diminished. If the same policy is followed through succeeding generations, the number of defectives, of those incapable of taking a useful part in society, will become smaller and smaller. One who does not believe that these people hand on their traits to their descendants may profitably consider the famous history of the so-called Juke family, a strain originating among the "finger lakes" of New York, whose history was published by R. L. Dugdale as far back as 1877 and lately restudied by A. H. Estabrook.

"From one lazy vagabond nicknamed 'Juke,' born in 1720, whose two sons married five degenerate sisters, six generations numbering about 1,200 persons of every grade of idleness, viciousness, lewdness, pauperism, disease, idiocy, insanity and criminality were traced. Of the total seven generations, 300 died in infancy; 310 were professional paupers, kept in almshouses a total of 2,300 years; 440 were physically wrecked by their own 'diseased wickedness'; more than half the women fell into prostitution; 130 were convicted criminals; 60 were thieves; 7 were murderers; only 20 learned a trade, 10 of these in state prison, and all at a state cost of over $1,250,000."[74][Pg 160]

How heredity works both ways, is shown by the history of the Kallikak family, published by H. H. Goddard a few years ago.

"At the beginning of the Revolutionary War a young man, known in the history as Martin Kallikak, had a son by a nameless, feeble-minded girl, from whom there have descended in the direct line four hundred and eighty individuals. One hundred and forty-three of these are known to have been feeble-minded, and only forty-six are known to have been normal. The rest are unknown or doubtful. Thirty-six have been illegitimate; thirty-three, sexually immoral, mostly prostitutes; twenty-four, alcoholic; three, epileptic; eighty-two died in infancy; three were criminal, and eight kept houses of ill-fame. After the war, Martin Kallikak married a woman of good stock. From this union have come in direct line four hundred and ninety-six, among whom only two were alcoholic, and one known to be sexually immoral. The legitimate children of Martin have been doctors, lawyers, judges, educators, traders, landholders, in short, respectable citizens, men and women prominent in every phase of social life. These two families have lived on the same soil, in the same atmosphere, and in short, under the same general environment, yet the bar sinister has marked every generation of one and has been unknown in the other."

If it were possible to improve or eradicate these defective strains by giving them better surroundings, the nation might easily get rid of this burden. But we have given reasons in Chapter I for believing that the problem can not be solved in that way, and more evidence to the same effect will be present in other chapters of the book.

An understanding of the nature of the problem will show that present methods of dispensing justice, giving charity, dealing with defectives and working for social betterment need careful examination and numerous modifications, if they are not to be ineffectual or merely palliative, or worse still, if they are not to[Pg 161] give temporary relief at the cost of greatly aggravating the social disease in the end.

In the past America has given and at present still gives much thought to the individual and little, if any, to posterity. Eugenics does not want to diminish this regard for the individual, but it does insistently declare that the interests of the many are greater than those of the few, and it holds that a statesmanlike policy requires thought for the future as well as the present. It would be hard to find a eugenist to-day who would propose, with Plato, that the infants with bad heredity should be put to death, but their right to grow up to the fullest enjoyment of life does not necessarily include the right to pass on their defective heredity to a long line of descendants, naturally increasing in number in each generation. Indeed a regard for the totality of human happiness makes it necessary that they should not so continue.

While it is the hope of eugenics that fewer defective and anti-social individuals shall be born in the future, it has been emphasized so much that the program of eugenics is likely to be seen in false perspective. In reality it is the less important side of the picture. More good citizens are wanted, as well as fewer bad ones. Every race requires leaders. These leaders appear from time to time, and enough is known about eugenics now to show that their appearance is frequently predictable, not accidental. It is possible to have them appear more frequently; and in addition, to raise the level of the whole race, making the entire nation happier and more useful. These are the great tasks of eugenics. America needs more families like that old Puritan strain which is one of the familiar examples of eugenics:

"At their head stands Jonathan Edwards, and behind him an array of his descendants numbering in 1900, 1,394, of whom 295 were college graduates; 13 presidents of our greatest colleges; 65 professors in colleges, besides many principals of other important educational institutions; 60 physicians, many of whom were eminent; 100 and more clergymen, missionaries, or theological professors; 75 were officers in the army and navy; 60[Pg 162] prominent authors and writers, by whom 135 books of merit were written and published and 18 important periodicals edited; 33 American states and several foreign countries, and 92 American cities and many foreign cities have profited by the beneficent influences of their eminent activity; 100 and more were lawyers, of whom one was our most eminent professor of law; 30 were judges; 80 held public office, of whom one was vice president of the United States; three were United States senators; several were governors, members of Congress, framers of state constitutions, mayors of cities and ministers of foreign courts; one was president of the Pacific Mail Steamship Company; 15 railroads, many banks, insurance companies, and large industrial enterprises have been indebted to their management. Almost if not every department of social progress and of the public weal has felt the impulse of this healthy and long-lived family. It is not known that any one of them was ever convicted of crime."

Every one will agree that the nation needs more families like that. How can it get them? Galton blazed the way in 1865, when he pointed to selective breeding as the effective means. The animal breeder knows what marvels he can accomplish by this means; but it is not practicable to breed human beings in that direct way. Is there any indirect method of reaching the same ends?

There are, in our opinion, a good many such means, and it is the principal purpose of this book to point them out. The problem of constructive or positive eugenics, naturally divides itself into two parts:

1. To secure a sufficient number of marriages of the superior.

2. To secure an adequate birth-rate from these marriages.

The problem of securing these two results is a complex one, which must be attacked by a variety of methods. It is necessary that superior people first be made to desire marriage and children; and secondly, that it be economically and otherwise possible for them to carry out this desire.

It may be of interest to know how the Germans are attacking the problem, even though some of their measures may be considered ineffective or inadvisable.[Pg 163]

At its annual meeting in 1914 the German Society for Race Hygiene adopted a resolution on the subject of applied eugenics. "The future of the German people is at stake," it declares. "The German empire can not in the long run maintain its true nationality and the independence of its development, if it does not begin without delay and with the greatest energy to mold its internal and external politics as well as the whole life of the people in accordance with eugenic principles. Most important of all are measures for a higher reproduction of healthy and able families. The rapidly declining birth-rate of the healthy and able families necessarily leads to the social, economical and political retrogression of the German people," it points out, and then goes on to enumerate the causes of this decline, which it thinks is partly due to the action of racial poisons but principally to the increasing willful restriction of the number of children.

The society recognizes that the reasons for this limitation of the size of families are largely economic. It enumerates the question of expense, considerations of economic inheritance—that is, a father does not like to divide up his estate too much; the labor of women, which is incompatible with the raising of a large family; and the difficulties caused by the crowded housing in the large cities.

In order to secure a posterity sufficient in number and ability, the resolution continues, The German Society for Race Hygiene demands:

1. A back-to-the farm movement.

2. Better housing facilities in the cities.

3. Economic assistance of large families through payment of a substantial relief to married mothers who survive their husbands, and consideration of the number of children in the payment of public and private employees.

4. Abolition of certain impediments to marriage, such as the army regulation forbidding officers to marry before they reach a certain grade.

5. Increase of tax on alcohol, tobacco and luxuries, the proceeds to be used to subsidize worthy families.

6. Medical regulations of a hygienic nature.[Pg 164]

7. Setting out large prizes for excellent works of art (novels, dramas, plastic arts) which glorify the ideal of motherhood, the family and simple life.

8. Awakening a national mind ready to undergo sacrifices on behalf of future generations.

In spite of some defects such a program brings out clearly the principle of eugenics,—the substitution of a selective birth-rate for the selective death-rate by which natural selection has brought the race to its present level. Nature lets a multitude of individuals be born and kills off the poorer ones; eugenics proposes to have fewer poor ones and more good ones born in each generation.

Any means which tends to bring about one of those ends, is a part of Applied Eugenics.

By this time the reader will have seen that eugenics has some definite ideals not only as to how the race can be kept from deteriorating further, under the interference with natural selection which civilization entails, but as to how its physical, mental and moral level can actually be raised. He can easily draw his own conclusions as to what eugenics does not propose. No eugenist worthy of the name has ever proposed to breed genius as the stockman breeds trotting horses, despite jibes of the comic press to the contrary. But if young people, before picking out their life partners, are thoroughly imbued with the idea that such qualities as energy, longevity, a sound constitution, public and private worth, are primarily due to heredity, and if they are taught to realize the fact that one marries not an individual but a family, the eugenist believes that better matings will be made, sometimes realized, sometimes insensibly.

Furthermore, if children from such matings are made an asset rather than a liability; if society ceases to penalize, in a hundred insidious ways, the parents of large and superior families, but honors and aids them instead, one may justifiably hope that the birth-rate in the most useful and happy part of the population will steadily increase.

Perhaps that is as far as it is necessary that the aim of eugenics should be defined; yet one can hardly ignore the phil[Pg 165]osophical aspect of the problem. Galton's suggestion that man should assist the course of his own evolution meets with the general approval of biologists; but when one asks what the ultimate goal of human evolution should be, one faces a difficult question. Under these circumstances, can it be said that eugenics really has a goal, or is it merely stumbling along in the dark, possibly far from the real road, of whose existence it is aware but of whose location it has no knowledge?

There are several routes on which one can proceed with the confidence that, if no one of them is the main road, at least it is likely to lead into the latter at some time. Fortunately, eugenics is, paradoxical as it may seem, able to advance on all these paths at once; for it proposes no definite goal, it sets up no one standard to which it would make the human race conform. Taking man as it finds him, it proposes to multiply all the types that have been found by past experience or present reason to be of most value to society. Not only would it multiply them in numbers, but also in efficiency, in capacity to serve the race.

By so doing, it undoubtedly fulfills the requirements of that popular philosophy which holds the aim of society to be the greatest happiness for the greatest number, or more definitely the increase of the totality of human happiness. To cause not to exist those who would be doomed from birth to give only unhappiness to themselves and those about them; to increase the number of those in whom useful physical and mental traits are well developed; to bring about an increase in the number of energetic altruists and a decrease in the number of the anti-social or defective; surely such an undertaking will come nearer to increasing the happiness of the greatest number, than will any temporary social palliative, any ointment for incurable social wounds. To those who accept that philosophy, made prominent by Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, Herbert Spencer, and a host of other great thinkers, eugenics rightly understood must seem a prime necessity of society.

But can any philosophy dispense with eugenics? Take those to whom the popular philosophy of happiness seems a dangerous goal and to whom the only object of evolution that one is[Pg 166] at present justified in recognizing is that of the perpetuation of the species and of the progressive conquest of nature, the acquiring of an ascendancy over all the earth. This is now as much a matter of self-preservation as it is of progress: although man no longer fights for life with the cave bear and saber-toothed tiger, the microbes which war with him are far more dangerous enemies than the big mammals of the past. The continuation of evolution, if it means conquest, is not a work for dilettantes and Lotos Eaters; it is a task that demands unremitting hard work.

To this newer philosophy of creative work eugenics is none the less essential. For eugenics wants in the world more physically sound men and women with greater ability in any valuable way. Whatever the actual goal of evolution may be, it can hardly be assumed by any except the professional pessimist, that a race made up of such men and women is going to be handicapped by their presence.

The correlation of abilities is as well attested as any fact in psychology. Those who decry eugenics on the ground that it is impossible to establish any "standard of perfection," since society needs many diverse kinds of people, are overlooking this fact. Any plan which increases the production of children in able families of various types will thereby produce more ability of all kinds, since if a family is particularly gifted in one way, it is likely to be gifted above the average in several other desirable ways.

Eugenics sets up no specific superman, as a type to which the rest of the race must be made to conform. It is not looking forward to the cessation of its work in a eugenic millenium. It is a perpetual process, which seeks only to raise the level of the race by the production of fewer people with physical and mental defects, and more people with physical and mental excellencies. Such a race should be able to perpetuate itself, to subdue nature, to improve its environment progressively; its members should be happy and productive. To establish such a goal seems justified by the knowledge of evolution which is now available; and to make progress toward it is possible.[Pg 167]

In a rural part of Pennsylvania lives the L. family. Three generations studied "all show the same drifting, irresponsible tendency. No one can say they are positively bad or serious disturbers of the communities where they may have a temporary home. Certain members are epileptic and defective to the point of imbecility. The father of this family drank and provided little for their support. The mother, though hard working, was never able to care for them properly. So they and their 12 children were frequent recipients of public relief, a habit which they have consistently kept up. Ten of the children grew to maturity, and all but one married and had in their turn large families. With two exceptions these have lived in the territory studied. Nobody knows how they have subsisted, even with the generous help they have received. They drift in and out of the various settlements, taking care to keep their residence in the county which has provided most liberally for their support. In some villages it is said that they have been in and out half a dozen times in the last few years. First one family comes slipping back, then one by one the others trail in as long as there are cheap shelters to be had. Then rents fall due, neighbors become suspicious of invaded henroosts and potato patches, and one after another the families take their departure, only to reappear after a year or two.

"The seven children of the eldest son were scattered years ago through the death of their father. They were taken by strangers, and though kept in school, none of them proved capable of advancement. Three at least could not learn to read or handle the smallest quantities. The rest do this with difficulty. All but two are now married and founding the fourth generation of this line. The family of the fourth son are now county charges.[Pg 168] Of the 14 children of school age in this and the remaining families, all are greatly retarded. One is an epileptic and at 16 can not read or write. One at 15 is in the third reader and should be set down as defective. The remainder are from one to four years retarded.

"There is nothing striking in the annals of this family. It comes as near the lowest margin of human existence as possible and illustrates how marked defect may sometimes exist without serious results in the infringement of law and custom. Its serious menace, however, lies in the certain marriage into stocks which are no better, and the production of large families which continue to exist on the same level of semi-dependency. In place of the two dependents of a generation ago we now find in the third generation 32 descendants who bid fair to continue their existence on the same plane—certainly an enormous multiplication of the initial burden of expense."[75]

From cases of this sort, which represent the least striking kind of bad breeding, the student may pass through many types up to the great tribes of Jukes, Nams, Kallikaks, Zeros, Dacks, Ishmaels, Sixties, Hickories, Hill Folk, Piney Folk, and the rest, with which the readers of the literature of restrictive eugenics are familiar. It is abundantly demonstrated that much, if not most, of their trouble is the outcome of bad heredity. Indeed, when a branch of one of these clans is transported, or emigrates, to a wholly new environment, it soon creates for itself, in many cases, an environment similar to that from which it came. Whether it goes to the city, or to the agricultural districts of the west, it may soon manage to reëstablish the debasing atmosphere to which it has always been accustomed.[76] Those who [Pg 169]see in improvement of the environment the cure for all such plague spots as these tribes inhabit, overlook the fact that man largely creates his own environment. The story of the tenement-dwellers who were supplied with bath tubs but refused to use them for any other purpose than to store coal, exemplifies a wide range of facts.

Although conditions may be worst in the older and more densely populated states, it is probable that there is no state in the union which has not many families, or group of families, of this dependent type, which in favorable cases may attract little notice, but therefore do all the more harm eugenically; in other cases may be notorious as centers of criminality. Half a dozen well-defined areas of this kind have been found in Pennsylvania, which is probably not exceptional in this respect. "These differ, of course, in extent and character and the gravity of the problems they present. In some there is great sexual laxity, which leads to various forms of dependency and sometimes to extreme mental defect. In others alcoholism prevails and the people show a propensity for deeds of violence. All informants, however, practically agreed to the following characterization:

"1. Because of the thefts and depredations and the frequent applications for charitable relief from such sections they constitute a parasitic growth which saps the resources of the self-respecting, self-sustaining contingent of the population.

"2. They furnish an undue proportion of court cases, and are thus a serious expense to county and state.

"3. They are a source of physical decay and moral contamination, and thus menace the integrity of the entire social fabric."[77]

Society has long since admitted that it is desirable to restrict the reproduction of certain classes of gross defectives, and criminals, by the method of segregation. The ground for this is[Pg 170] sometimes biological, perhaps more often legal, as in the case of the insane and criminal, where it is held that the individual is legally incapacitated from entering into a contract, such as that of marriage. It would be better to have the biological basis of restriction on marriage and reproduction recognized in every case; but even with the present point of view the desired end may be reached.

From an ethical standpoint, so few people would now contend that two feeble-minded or epileptic persons have any "right" to marry and perpetuate their kind, that it is hardly worth while to argue the point. We believe that the same logic would permit two individuals to marry, but deny them the privilege of having children. The reasons for this may be considered under three heads.

1. Biological. Are there cases in which persons may properly marry but may properly be prevented by society from having any offspring, on the ground that such offspring would be undesirable components of the race?

The right of marriage is commonly, and may well be properly, regarded as an inalienable right of the individual, in so far as it does not conflict with the interests of the race. The companionship of two persons between whom true love exists, is beyond all question the highest happiness possible, and one which society should desire and strive to give its every member. On that point there will be no difference of opinion, but when it is asked whether there can be a separation between the comradeship aspect and the reproduction aspect, in marriage, whether any interest of the race can justifiably divorce these two phases, often considered inseparable, protests are at once aroused. In these protests, there is some justice. We would be the last ones to deny that a marriage has failed to achieve its goal, has failed to realize for its participants the greatest possible happiness, unless it has resulted in sound offspring.

That word "sound" is the key to the distinction which must be made. The interests of the race demand sound offspring from every couple in a position to furnish them—not only in the interests of that couple,—interests the importance of which it is[Pg 171] not easy to underestimate—but in the interests of the future of the race, whose welfare far transcends in importance the welfare of any one individual, or any pair of individuals. As surely as the race needs a constant supply of children of sound character, so surely is it harmed by a supply of children of inherently unsound character, physically or mentally, who may contribute others like themselves to the next generation. A recollection of the facts of heredity, and of the fact that the offspring of any individual tend to increase in geometric ratio, will supply adequate grounds for holding this conviction:—that from a biological point of view, every child of congenitally inferior character is a racial misfortune. The Spartans and other peoples of antiquity fully realized this fact, and acted on it by exposing deformed infants. Christianity properly revolted as such an action; but in repudiating the action, it lost sight of the principle back of the action. The principle should have been regarded, and civilized races are now coming back to a realization of that fact—are, indeed, realizing its weight far more fully than any other people has ever done, because of the growing realization of the importance of heredity. No one is likely seriously to argue again that deformed infants (whether their deformity be physical or mental) should be exposed to perish; but the argument that in the interests of the future of the race they would better not be born, is one that admits of no refutation.

From a biological point of view, then, it is to the interest of the race that the number of children who will be either defective themselves, or transmit anti-social defects to their offspring, should be as small as possible.

2. The humanitarian aspect of the case is no less strong and is likely, in the present state of public education, to move a larger number of individuals. A visit to the children's ward of any hospital, an acquaintance with the sensitive mother of a feeble-minded or deformed child, will go far to convince anyone that the sum total of human happiness, and the happiness of the parents, would be greater had these children never been born. As for the children themselves, they will in many cases grow up to regret that they were ever brought into the world. We do not[Pg 172] overlook the occasional genius who may be crippled physically or even mentally; we are here dealing with only the extreme defectives, such as the feeble-minded, insane, and epileptic. Among such persons, human happiness would be promoted both now and in the future if the number of offspring were naught.

3. There is another argument which may legitimately be brought forward, and which may appeal to some who are relatively insensitive to the biological or even the humanitarian aspects of the case. This is the financial argument.

Except students of eugenics, few persons realize how staggering is the bill annually paid for the care of defectives. The amount which the state of New York expends yearly on the maintenance of its insane wards, is greater than it spends for any other purpose except education; and in a very few years, if its insane population continues to increase at the present rate, it will spend more on them than it does on the education of its normal children. The cost of institutional care for the socially inadequate is far from being all that these people cost the state; but those figures at least are not based on guesswork. The annual cost[78] of maintaining a feeble-minded ward of the state, in various commonwealths, is:

At such prices, each state maintains hundreds, sometimes thousands, of feeble-minded, and the number is growing each year. In the near future the expenditures must grow much more rapidly, for public sentiment is beginning to demand that [Pg 173]the defectives and delinquents of the community be properly cared for. The financial burden is becoming a heavy one; it will become a crushing one unless steps are taken to make the feeble-minded productive (as described in the next chapter) and an intangible "sinking fund" at the same time created to reduce the burden gradually by preventing the production of those who make it up. The burden can never be wholly obliterated, but it can be largely reduced by a restriction of the reproduction of those who are themselves socially inadequate.

Alike then on biological, humanitarian and financial grounds, the nation would be the better for a diminution in the production of physically, mentally or morally defective children. And the way to secure this diminution is to prevent reproduction by parents whose offspring would almost certainly be undesirable in character.

Granted that such prevention is a proper function of society, the question again arises whether it is an ethically correct procedure to allow these potentially undesirable parents to marry at all. Should they be doomed to perpetual celibacy, or should they be permitted to mate, on condition that the union be childless.

The eugenic interests of society, of course, are equally safeguarded by either alternative. All the other interests of society appear to us to be better safeguarded by marriage than by celibacy. Adding the interests of the individual, which will doubtless be for marriage, it seems to us that there is good reason for holding such a childless marriage ethically correct, in the relatively small number of cases where it might seem desirable.

Though such unions may be ethically justifiable, yet they would often be impracticable; the limits will be discussed in the next chapter.

It is constantly alleged that the state can not interfere with an individual matter of this sort: "It is an intolerable invasion of personal liberty; it is reducing humanity to the level of the barn-yard; it is impossible to put artificial restraints on the relations[Pg 174] between the sexes, founded as they are on such strong and primal feelings."

The doctrine of personal liberty, in this extreme form, was enunciated and is maintained by people who are ignorant of biology and evolution;[79] people who are ignorant of the world as it is, and deal only with the world as they think it ought to be. Nature reveals no such extreme "law of personal liberty," and the race that tries to carry such a supposed law to its logical conclusion will soon find, in the supreme test of competition with other races, that the interests of the individual are much less important to nature than the interests of the race. Perpetuation of the race is the first end to be sought. So far as according a wide measure of personal liberty to its members will compass that end, the personal liberty doctrine is a good one; but if it is held as a metaphysical dogma, to deny that the race may take any action necessary in its own interest, at the expense of the individual, this dogma becomes suicidal.

As for "reducing humanity to the level of the barn-yard," this is merely a catch-phrase intended to arouse prejudice and to obscure the facts. The reader may judge for himself whether the eugenic program will degrade mankind to the level of the brutes, or whether it will ennoble it, beautify it, and increase its happiness.

The delusion which so many people hold, that it is impossible to put artificial restraint on the relations between the sexes, is amazing. Restraint is already a fait accompli. Every civilized nation already puts restrictions on numerous classes of people, as has been noted—minors, criminals, and the insane, for example. Even though this restriction is usually based on legal, rather than biological grounds, it is nevertheless a re[Pg 175]striction, and sets a precedent for further restrictions, if any precedent were needed.

It is, we conclude, both desirable and possible to enforce certain restrictions on marriage and parenthood. What these restrictions may be, and to whom they should be applied, is next to be considered.[Pg 176]

Before examining the methods by which society can put into effect some measure of negative or restrictive eugenics, it may be well to decide what classes of the population can properly fall within the scope of such treatment. Strictly speaking, the problem is of course one of individuals rather than classes, but for the sake of convenience it will be treated as one of classes, it being understood that no individual should be put under restriction with eugenic intent merely because he may be supposed to belong to a given class; but that each case must be investigated on its own merits,—and investigated with much more care than has hitherto usually been thought necessary by many of those who have advocated restrictive eugenic measures.

The first class demanding attention is that of those feeble-minded whose condition is due to heredity. There is reason to believe that at least two-thirds of the feeble-minded in the United States owe their condition directly to heredity,[80] and will transmit it to a large per cent of their descendants, if they have any. Feeble-minded persons from sound stock, whose arrested development is due to scarlet fever or some similar disease of childhood, or to accident, are of course not of direct concern to eugenists.

The number of patent feeble-minded in the United States is probably not less than 300,000, while the number of latent individuals—those carrying the taint in their germ-plasm and capable of transmitting it to their descendants, although the individuals themselves may show good mental development—is necessarily much greater. The defect is highly hereditary in[Pg 177] nature: when two innately feeble-minded persons marry, all their offspring, almost without exception, are feeble-minded. The feeble-minded are never of much value to society—they never present such instances as are found among the insane, of persons with some mental lack of balance, who are yet geniuses. If restrictive eugenics dealt with no other class than the hereditarily feeble-minded, and dealt with that class effectively, it would richly justify its existence.

But there are other classes on which it can act with safety as well as profit, and one of these is made up by the germinally insane. According to the census of 1910, there are 187,791 insane in institutions in the United States; there are also a certain number outside of institutions, as to whom information can not easily be obtained. The number in the hospitals represented a ratio of 204.3 per 100,000 of the general population. In 1880, when the enumeration of insane was particularly complete, a total of 91,959 was reported—a ratio of 188.3 per 100,000 of the total population at that time. This apparent increase of insanity has been subjected to much analysis, and it is admitted that part of it can be explained away. People are living longer now than formerly, and as insanity is primarily a disease of old age, the number of insane is thus increased. Better means of diagnosis are undoubtedly responsible for some of the apparent increase. But when every conceivable allowance is made, there yet remains ground for belief that the proportion of insane persons in the population is increasing each year. This is partly due to immigration, as is indicated by the immense and constantly increasing insane population of the state of New York, where most immigrants land. In some cases, people who actually show some form of insanity may slip past the examiners; in the bulk of cases, probably, an individual is adapted to leading a normal life in his native environment, but transfer to the more strenuous environment of an American city proves to be too much for his nervous organization. The general flow of population from the country to large cities has a similar effect in increasing the number of insane.

But when all is said, the fact remains that there are several[Pg 178] hundred thousand insane persons in the United States, many of whom are not prevented from reproducing their kind, and that by this failure to restrain them society is putting a heavy burden of expense, unhappiness and a fearful dysgenic drag on coming generations.

The word "insanity," as is frequently objected, means little or nothing from a biological point of view—it is a sort of catch-all to describe many different kinds of nervous disturbance. No one can properly be made the subject of restrictive measures for eugenic reasons, merely because he is said to be "insane." It would be wholly immoral so to treat, for example, a man or woman who was suffering from the form of insanity which sometimes follows typhoid fever. But there are certain forms of mental disease, generally lumped under the term "insanity," which indicate a hereditarily disordered nervous organization, and individuals suffering from one of these diseases should certainly not be given any chance to perpetuate their insanity to posterity. Two types of insanity are now recognized as especially transmissible:—dementia precox, a sort of precocious old age, in which the patient (generally young) sinks into a lethargy from which he rarely recovers; and manic-depressive insanity, an over-excitable condition, in which there are occasional very erratic motor discharges, alternating with periods of depression. Constitutional psychopathic inferiority, which means a lack of emotional adaptability, usually shows in the family history. The common type of insanity which is characterized by mild hallucinations is of less concern from a eugenic point of view.

In general, the insane are more adequately restricted than any other dysgenic class in the community; not because the community recognizes the disadvantage of letting them reproduce their kind, but because there is a general fear of them, which leads to their strict segregation; and because an insane person is not considered legally competent to enter into a marriage contract. In general, the present isolation of the sexes at institutions for the insane is satisfactory; the principal problem which insanity presents lies in the fact that an individual is[Pg 179] frequently committed to a hospital or asylum, kept there a few years until apparently cured, and then discharged; whereupon he returns to his family to beget offspring that are fairly likely to become insane at some period in their lives. Every case of insanity should be accompanied by an investigation of the patient's ancestry, and if there is unmistakable evidence of serious neuropathic taint, such steps as are necessary should be taken to prevent that individual from becoming a parent at any time.

The hereditary nature of most types of epilepsy is generally held to be established,[81] and restrictive measures should be used to prevent the increase of the number of epileptics in the country. It has been calculated that the number of epileptics in the state of New Jersey, where the most careful investigation of the problem has been made, will double every 30 years under present conditions.

In dealing with both insanity and epilepsy, the eugenist faces the difficulty that occasionally people of the very kind whose production he most wishes to see encouraged—real geniuses—may carry the taint. The exaggerated claims of the Italian anthropologist C. Lombroso and his school, in regard to the close relation between genius and insanity, have been largely disproved; yet there remains little doubt that the two sometimes do go together; and such supposed epileptics as Mohammed, Julius Cæsar, and Napoleon will at once be called to mind. To apply sweeping restrictive measures would prevent the production of a certain amount of talent of a very high order. The situation can only be met by dealing with every case on its individual merits, and recognizing that it is to the interests of society to allow some very superior individuals to reproduce, even though part of their posterity may be mentally or physically somewhat unsound.

A field survey in two typical counties of Indiana (1916) showed that there were 1.8 recognizable epileptics per thousand popula[Pg 180]tion. If these figures should approximately hold good for the entire United States, the number of epileptics can hardly be put at less than 150,000. Some of them are not anti-social, but many of them are.

Feeble-mindedness and insanity were also included in the census mentioned, and the total number of the three kinds of defectives was found to be 19 per thousand in one county and 11.4 per thousand in the other. This would suggest a total for the entire United States of something like one million.

In addition to these well-recognized classes of hopelessly defective, there is a class of defectives embracing very diverse characteristics, which demands careful consideration. In it are those who are germinally physical weaklings or deformed, those born with a hereditary diathesis or predisposition toward some serious disease (e.g., Huntington's Chorea), and those with some gross defect of the organs of special sense. The germinally blind and deaf will particularly occur to mind in the latter connection. Cases falling in this category demand careful scrutiny by biological and psychological experts, before any action can be taken in the interest of eugenics; in many cases the affected individual himself will be glad to coöperate with society by remaining celibate or by the practice of birth control, to the end of leaving no offspring to bear what he has borne.

Finally, we come to the great class of delinquents who have hitherto been made the particular object of solicitude, on the part of those who have looked with favor upon sterilization legislation. The chronic inebriate, the confirmed criminal, the prostitute, the pauper, all deserve careful study by the eugenist. In many cases they will be found to be feeble-minded, and proper restriction of the feeble-minded will meet their cases. Thus there is reason to believe that from a third to two-thirds of the prostitutes in American cities are feeble-minded.[82] They should be committed to institutions for the feeble-minded and kept there. It is certain that many of the pauper class, which fills up almshouses, are similarly deficient. Indeed, the census of 1910 discovered that of the 84,198 paupers in institutions on[Pg 181] the first of January in that year, 13,238 were feeble-minded, 3,518 insane, 2,202 epileptic, 918 deaf-mute, 3,375 blind, 13,753 crippled, maimed or deformed. A total of 63.7% of the whole had some serious physical or mental defect. Obviously, most of these would be taken care of under some other heading, in the program of restrictive eugenics. While paupers should be prohibited from reproduction as long as they are in state custody, careful discrimination is necessary in the treatment of those whose condition is due more to environment than heredity.

In a consideration of the chronic inebriate, the problem of environmental influences is again met in an acute form, aggravated by the venom of controversy engendered by bigotry and self-interest. That many chronic inebriates owe their condition almost wholly to heredity, and are likely to leave offspring of the same character, is indisputable. As to the possibility of "reforming" such an individual, there may be room for a difference of opinion; as to the possibility of reforming his germ-plasm, there can be none. Society owes them the best possible care, and part of its care should certainly be to see that they do not reproduce their kind. As to the borderland cases—and in the matter of inebriety borderland is perhaps bigger than mainland—it is doubtful whether much direct action can be taken in the present state of scientific knowledge and of public sentiment. Education of public opinion to avoid marriage with drunkards will probably be the most effective means of procedure.

Finally, there is the criminal class, over which the respective champions of heredity and environment have so often waged partisan warfare. There is probably no field in which restrictive eugenics would think of interfering, where it encounters so much danger as here—danger of wronging both the individual and society. Laws such as have been passed in several states, providing for the sterilization of criminals as such, must be deplored by the eugenist as much as they are by the pseudo-sociologist who "does not believe in heredity"; but this is not saying that there are not many cases in which eugenic action is desirable; for inheritance of a lack of emotional control makes a[Pg 182] man in one sense a "born criminal."[83] He is not, in most respects, the creature which he was made out to be by Lombroso and his followers; but he exists, nevertheless, and no ameliorative treatment given him will be of such value to society as preventing his reproduction.

The feeble-minded who make up a large proportion of the petty criminals that fill the jails, must, of course, be excluded from this discussion except to note that their conviction assists in discovering their defect. They should be treated as feeble-minded, not as criminals.[84] Those who may have been made criminals by society, by their environment, must also be excepted. In an investigation, the benefit of the doubt should be given to the individual. But when every possible concession is made to the influence of environment, the psychiatric study of the individual and the investigation of his family history still show that there are criminals who congenitally lack the inhibitions and instincts which make it possible for others to be useful members of society.[85] When a criminal of this natural type is found, the duty of society is unquestionably to protect itself by cutting off that line of descent.

This, we believe, covers all the classes which are at this time proper subjects for direct restrictive action with eugenic intent;[Pg 183] and we repeat that the problem is not to deal with classes as a whole, but to deal with individuals of the kind described, for the sake of convenience, in the above categories. Artificial class names mean nothing to evolution. It would be a crime to cut off the posterity of a desirable member of society merely because he happened to have been popularly stigmatized by some class name that carried opprobrium with it. Similarly it would be immoral to encourage or permit the reproduction of a manifestly defective member of society of the kinds indicated, even though that individual might in some way have secured the protection of a class name that was generally considered desirable. Bearing this in mind, we believe no one can object to a proposal to prevent the reproduction of those feeble-minded, insane, epileptic, grossly defective or hopelessly delinquent people, whose condition can be proved to be due to heredity and is therefore probably transmissible to their offspring. We can imagine only one objection that might be opposed to all the advantages of such a program—namely, that no proper means can be found for putting it into effect. This objection is occasionally urged, but we believe it to be wholly without weight. We now propose to examine the various possible methods of restrictive eugenics, and to inquire which of them society can most profitably adopt.[Pg 184]

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,[Pg 185] 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 segre[Pg 186]gation 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[Pg 187] 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[Pg 188] 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]

[Pg 189]

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.[Pg 190]

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,[Pg 191] 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,[Pg 192] 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.

Iowa's comprehensive statute applies to inmates of public institutions for criminals, rapists, idiots, feeble-minded, im[Pg 193]beciles, 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.[Pg 194]

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[Pg 195] 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[Pg 196] 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[Pg 197] 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[Pg 198] 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,[Pg 199] 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,[Pg 200] 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[Pg 201] 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[Pg 202] 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,[Pg 203] 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[Pg 204] 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,[Pg 205] 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[Pg 206] 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[Pg 207] 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,[Pg 208] 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[Pg 209] 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.[Pg 210]

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.[Pg 211]

"Love is blind" and "Marriage is a lottery," in the opinion of proverbial lore. But as usual the proverbs do not tell the whole truth. Mating is not wholly a matter of chance; there is and always has been a considerable amount of selection involved. This selection must of course be with respect to individual traits, a man or woman being for this purpose merely the sum of his or her traits. Reflection will show that with respect to any given trait there are three ways of mating: random, assortative and preferential.

1. Random mating is described by J. Arthur Harris[95] as follows:

"Suppose a most highly refined socialistic community should set about to equalize as nearly as possible not only men's labor and their recompense, but the quality of their wives. It would never do to allow individuals to select their own partners—superior cunning might result in some having mates above the average desirability, which would be socially unfair!

"The method adopted would be to write the names of an equal number of men and women officially condemned to matrimony on cards, and to place those for men in one lottery wheel and those for women in another. The drawing of a pair of cards, one from each wheel, would then replace the 'present wasteful system' of 'competitive' courtship. If the cards were thoroughly shuffled and the drawings perfectly at random, we should expect only chance resemblances between husband and wife for age, stature, eye and hair color, temper and so on; in the long run, a wife would resemble her husband no more than the[Pg 212] husband of some other woman. In this case, the mathematician can give us a coefficient of resemblance, or of assortative mating, which we write as zero. The other extreme would be the state of affairs in which men of a certain type (that is to say men differing from the general average by a definite amount) always chose wives of the same type; the resemblance would then be perfect and the correlation, as we call it, would be expressed by a coefficient of 1."

If all mating were at random, evolution would be a very slow process. But actual measurement of various traits in conjugal pairs shows that mating is very rarely random. There is a conscious or unconscious selection for certain traits, and this selection involves other traits because of the general correlation of traits in an individual. Random mating, therefore, need not be taken into account by eugenists, who must rather give their attention to one of the two forms of non-random mating, namely, assortative and preferential.

2. If men who were above the average height always selected as brides women who were equally above the average height and short men selected similarly, the coefficient of correlation between height in husbands and wives would be 1, and there would thus be perfect assortative mating. If only one half of the men who differed from the average height always married women who similarly differed and the other half married at random, there would be assortative mating for height, but it would not be perfect: the coefficient would only be half as great as in the first case, or .5. If on the other hand (as is indeed the popular idea) a tall man tended to marry a woman who was shorter than the average, the coefficient of correlation would be less than 0; it would have some negative value.

Actual measurement shows that a man who exceeds the average height by a given amount will most frequently marry a woman who exceeds the average by a little more than one-fourth as much as her husband does. There is thus assortative mating for height, but it is far from perfect. The actual coefficient given by Karl Pearson is .28. In this case, then, the idea that "unlikes attract" is found to be the reverse of the truth.[Pg 213]

If other traits are measured, assortative mating will again be found. Whether it be eye color, hair color, general health, intelligence, longevity, insanity, or congenital deafness, exact measurements show that a man and his wife, though not related by blood, actually resemble each other as much as do uncle and niece, or first cousins.

In some cases assortative mating is conscious, as when two congenitally deaf persons are drawn together by their common affliction and mutual possession of the sign language. But in the greater number of cases it is wholly unconscious. Certainly no one would suppose that a man selects his wife deliberately because her eye color matches his own; much less would he select her on the basis of resemblance in longevity, which can not be known until after both are dead.

Sigmund Freud and Ernest Jones explain such selection by the supposition that a man's ideal of everything that is lovely in womankind is based on his mother. During his childhood, her attributes stamp themselves on his mind as being the perfect attributes of the female sex; and when he later falls in love it is natural that the woman who most attracts him should be one who resembles his mother. But as he, because of heredity, resembles his mother, there is thus a resemblance between husband and wife. Cases where there is no resemblance would, on this hypothesis, either be not love matches, or else be cases where the choice was made by the woman, not the man. Proof of this hypothesis has not yet been furnished, but it may very well account for some part of the assortative mating which is so nearly universal.

The eugenic significance of assortative mating is obvious. Marriage of representatives of two long-lived strains ensures that the offspring will inherit more longevity than does the ordinary man. Marriage of two persons from gifted families will endow the children with more than the ordinary intellect. On the other hand, marriage of two members of feeble-minded strains (a very common form of assortative mating) results in the production of a new lot of feeble-minded children, while marriage contracted between families marked by criminality or alcoholism[Pg 214] means the perpetuation of such traits in an intensified form. For alcoholism, Charles Goring found the resemblance between husband and wife in the following classes to be as follows:

The resemblance of husband and wife, in respect of possession of a police record, he found to be .20. Of course alcoholism and criminality are not wholly due to heredity; the resemblance between man and wife is partly a matter of social influences. But in any case the existence of assortative mating for such traits is significant.

3. Preferential mating occurs when certain classes of women are discriminated against by the average man, or by men as a class; or vice versa. It is the form of sexual selection made prominent by Charles Darwin, who brought it forward because natural selection, operating solely through a differential death-rate, seemed inadequate to account for many phases of evolution. By sexual selection he meant that an individual of one sex, in choosing a mate, is led to select out of several competitors the one who has some particular attribute in a high degree. The selection may be conscious, and due to the exercise of æsthetic taste, or it may be unconscious, due to the greater degree of excitation produced by the higher degree of some attribute. However the selection takes place, the individual so selected will have an opportunity to transmit his character, in the higher degree in which he possesses it, to his descendants. In this way it was supposed by Darwin that a large proportion of the ornamental characters of living creatures were produced: the tail of the peacock, the mane of the lion, and even the gorgeous coloring of many insects and butterflies. In the early years of Darwinism, the theory of sexual selection was pushed to what now seems an unjustifiable extent. Experiment has often failed to demonstrate any sexual selection, in species where speculation supposed it to exist. And even if sexual selection, conscious or unconscious, could be demonstrated in the lower animals, yet[Pg 215] the small percentage of unmated individuals indicates that its importance in evolution could not be very great.[96]

In man, however, there is—nowadays at least—a considerable percentage of unmated individuals. The Census of 1910 shows that in the United States one-fourth of all the men between 25 and 44 years of age, and one-sixth of all the women, were unmarried. Many of the men, and a smaller number of the[Pg 216] women, will still marry; yet at the end there will remain a large number, particularly in the more highly educated classes, who die celibate. If these unmated individuals differ in any important respect from the married part of the population, preferential mating will be evident.

At the extremes, there is no difficulty in seeing such mating. Certain men and women are so defective, physically, mentally, or morally, as to be unable to find mates. They may be idiots, or diseased, or lacking normal sexuality, or wrongly educated.

But to get any adequate statistical proof of preferential mating on a broad scale, has been found difficult. Two small but suggestive studies made by Miss Carrie F. Gilmore of the University of Pittsburgh are interesting, though far from con[Pg 217]clusive. She examined the records of the class of 1902, Southwestern State Normal School of Pennsylvania, to find which of the girls had married. By means of photographs, and the opinions of disinterested judges, the facial appearance of all the girls in the class was graded on a scale of 100, and the curve in Fig. 32 plotted, which shows at a glance just what matrimonial advantage a woman's beauty gives her. In general, it may be said that the prettier the girl, the better her chance of marriage.

Miss Gilmore further worked out the marriage rate of these normal school girls, on the basis of the marks they obtained in their class work, and found the results plotted in Fig. 33. It is[Pg 218] evident that the most intelligent girls, measured by their class standing, were preferred as wives.

It will be noted that these studies merely show that the brighter and prettier girls were preferred by men as a class. If the individual men whom the girls married had been studied, it would probably have been found that the mating was also partly assortative.

If the choice of a life partner is to be eugenic, random mating must be as nearly as possible eliminated, and assortative and preferential mating for desirable traits must take place.

The concern of the eugenist is, then, (1) to see that young people have the best ideals, and (2) to see that their matings are actually guided by these ideals, instead of by caprice and passion alone.

1. In discussing ideals, we shall ask (a) what are the present[Pg 219] ideals governing sexual selection in the United States; (b) is it psychologically possible to change them; (c) is it desirable that they be changed, and if so, in what ways?

(a) There are several studies which throw light on the current ideals. Physical Culture magazine lately invited its women readers to send in the specifications of an ideal husband, and the results are worth considering because the readers of that publication are probably less swayed by purely conventional ideas than are most accessible groups of women whom one might question. The ideal husband was held by these women to be made up of the following qualities in the proportions given:

Without laying weight on the exact figures, and recognizing that each woman may have defined the qualities differently, yet one must admit aside from a low concern for mental ability that this is a fairly good eugenic specification. Appearance, it is stated, meant not so much facial beauty as intelligent expression and manly form. Financial success is correlated with intelligence and efficiency, and probably is not rated too high. The importance attached to paternity—which, it is explained, means a clean sex life as well as interest in children—is worth noticing.

For comparison there is another census of the preferences of 115 young women at Brigham Young College, Logan, Utah. This is a "Mormon" institution and the students, mostly farmers' daughters, are probably expressing ideals which have[Pg 220] been very little affected by the demoralizing influences of modern city life. The editor of the college paper relates that:

Physical Culture, on another occasion, invited its male readers to express their requirements of an ideal wife. The proportions of the various elements desired are given as follows:[Pg 221]

One might feel some surprise at the low valuation placed on "character," but it is really covered by other points. On the whole, one can not be dissatisfied with these specifications aside from its slight concern about mental ability.

Such wholesome ideals are probably rather widespread in the less sophisticated part of the population. In other strata, social and financial criteria of selection hold much importance. As a family ascends in economic position, its standards of sexual selection are likely to change. And in large sections of the population, there is a fluctuation in the standards from generation to generation. There is reason to suspect that the standards of sexual selection among educated young women in the United States to-day are higher than they were a quarter of a century, or even a decade, ago. They are demanding a higher degree of physical fitness and morality in their suitors. Men, in turn, are beginning to demand that the girls they marry shall be fitted for the duties of home-maker, wife and mother,—qualifications which were essential in the colonial period but little insisted on in the immediate past.

(b) It is evident, then, that the standards of sexual selection do change; there is therefore reason to suppose that they can change still further. This is an important point, for it is often alleged as an objection to eugenics that human affections are capricious and can not be influenced by rational considerations. Such an objection will be seen, on reflection, to be ill-founded.

As to the extent of change possible, the psychologist must have[Pg 222] the final word. The ingenious Mr. Diffloth,[97] who reduced love to a series of algebraical formulæ and geometrical curves, and proposed that every young man should find a girl whose curve was congruent to his own, and at once lead her to the altar, is not likely to gain many adherents. But the psychologist declares without hesitation that it is possible to influence the course of love in its earlier, though rarely in its later, stages. Francis Galton pointed this out with his usual clearness, showing that in the past the "incidence" of love, to borrow a technical term, had been frequently and sometimes narrowly limited by custom—by those unwritten laws which are sometimes as effective as the written ones. Monogamy, endogamy, exogamy, Australian marriages, tabu, prohibited degrees and sacerdotal celibacy all furnished him with historical arguments to show that society could bring about almost any restriction it chose; and a glance around at the present day will show that the barriers set up by religion, race and social position are frequently of almost prohibitive effect.

There is, therefore, from a psychological point of view, no reason why the ideals of eugenics should not become a part of the mores or unwritten laws of the race, and why the selection of life partners should not be unconsciously influenced to a very large extent by them. As a necessary preliminary to such a condition, intelligent people must cultivate the attitude of conscious selection, and get away from the crude, fatalistic viewpoint which is to-day so widespread, and which is exploited ad nauseam on the stage and in fiction. It must be remembered that there are two well-marked stages preceding a betrothal: the first is that of mere attraction, when reason is still operative, and the second is that of actual love, when reason is relegated to the background. During the later stage, it is notorious that good counsel is of little avail, but during the preliminary period direction of the affections is still possible, not only by active interference of friends or relatives, but much more easily and usefully by the tremendous influence of the mores.

Eugenic mores will exist only when many intelligent people[Pg 223] become so convinced of the ethical value of eugenics that that conviction sinks into their subconscious minds. The general eugenics campaign can be expected to bring that result about in due time. Care must be taken to prevent highly conscientious people from being too critical, and letting a trivial defect outweigh a large number of good qualities. Moreover, changes in the standards of sexual selection should not be too rapid, as that results in the permanent celibacy of some excellent but hyper-critical individuals. The ideal is an advance of standards as rapidly as will yet keep all the superior persons married. This is accomplished if all superior individuals marry as well as possible, yet with advancing years gradually reduce the standard so that celibacy may not result.

Having decided that there is room for improvement in the standards of sexual selection, and that such improvement is psychologically feasible, we come to point (c): in what particular ways is this improvement needed? Any discussion of this large subject must necessarily be only suggestive, not exhaustive.

If sexual selection is to be taken seriously, it is imperative that there be some improvement in the general attitude of public sentiment toward love itself. It is difficult for the student to acquire sound knowledge[98] of the normal manifestations of love: the psychology of sex has been studied too largely from the abnormal and pathological side; while the popular idea is based too much on fiction and drama which emphasize the high lights and make love solely an affair of emotion. We are not arguing for a rationalization of love, for the terms are almost contradictory; but we believe that more common sense could profitably be used in considering the subject.

If a typical "love affair" be examined, it is found that propinquity and a common basis for sympathy in some probably trivial matter lead to the development of the sex instinct; the parental instinct begins to make itself felt, particularly among women; the instincts of curiosity, acquisitiveness,[Pg 224] and various others play their part, and there then appears a well-developed case of "love." Such love may satisfy a purely biological definition, but it is incomplete. Love that is worthy of the name must be a function of the will as well as of the emotions. There must be a feeling on the part of each which finds strong satisfaction in service rendered to the other. If the existence of this constituent of love could be more widely recognized and watched for, it would probably prevent many a sensible young man or woman from being stampeded into a marriage of passion, where the real community of interest is slight;[99] and sexual selection would be improved in a way that would count immensely for the future of the race. Moreover, there would be much more real love in the world. Eugenics, as Havelock Ellis has well pointed out,[100] is not plotting against love but against those influences that do violence to love, particularly: (1) reckless yielding to mere momentary desire; and (2) still more fatal influences of wealth and position and worldly convenience which give a factitious value to persons who would never appear attractive partners in life were love and eugenic ideals left to go hand in hand.

"The eugenic ideal," Dr. Ellis foresees, "will have to struggle with the criminal and still more resolutely with the rich; it will have few serious quarrels with normal and well-constituted lovers."

The point is an important one. To "rationalize" marriage, is out of the question. Marriage must be mainly a matter of the emotions; but it is important that the emotions be exerted in the right direction. The eugenist seeks to remove the obstacles that[Pg 225] are now driving the emotions into wrong channels. If the emotions can only be headed in the right direction, then the more emotions the better, for they are the source of energy which are responsible for almost everything that is done in the world.

There is in the world plenty of that love which is a matter of mutual service and of emotions unswayed by any petty or sordid influences; but it ought not only to be common, it ought to be universal. It is not likely to be in the present century; but at least, thinking people can consciously adopt an attitude of respect toward love, and consciously abandon as far as possible the attitude of jocular cynicism with which they too often treat it,—an attitude which is reflected so disgustingly in current vaudeville and musical comedy.

It is the custom to smile at the extravagantly romantic idea of love which the boarding-school girl holds; but unrealizable as it may be, hers is a nobler conception than that which the majority of adults voice. Very properly, one does not care to make one's deepest feelings public; but if such subjects as love and motherhood can not be discussed naturally and without affectation, they ought to be left alone. If intelligent men and women will set the example, this attitude of mind will spread, and cultured families at least will rid themselves of such deplorable habits as that of plaguing children, not yet out of the nursery, about their "sweethearts."

No sane man would deny the desirability of beauty in a wife, particularly when it is remembered that beauty, especially as determined by good complexion, good teeth and medium weight, is correlated with good health in some degree, and likewise with intelligence. Nevertheless, we are strongly of the opinion that beauty of face is now too highly valued, as a standard of sexual selection.[101][Pg 226]

Good health in a mate is a qualification which any sensible man or woman will require, and for which a "marriage certificate" is in most cases quite unnecessary.[102] What other physical standard is there that should be given weight?

Alexander Graham Bell has lately been emphasizing the importance of longevity in this connection, and in our judgment he has thereby opened up a very fruitful field for education. It goes without saying that anyone would prefer to marry a partner with a good constitution. "How can we find a test of a good, sound constitution?" Dr. Bell asked in a recent lecture. "I think we could find it in the duration of life in a family. Take a family in which a large proportion live to old age with unimpaired faculties. There you know is a good constitution in an inheritable form. On the other hand, you will find a family in which a large proportion die at birth and in which there are relatively few people who live to extreme old age. There has developed an hereditary weakness of constitution. Longevity is a guide to constitution." Not only does it show that one's vital organs are in good running order, but it is probably the only means now available of indicating strains which are resistant to zymotic disease. Early death is not necessarily an evidence of physical weakness; but long life is a pretty good proof of constitutional strength.

Dr. Bell has elsewhere called attention to the fact that, longevity being a characteristic which is universally considered creditable in a family, there is no tendency on the part of families to conceal its existence, as there is in the case of unfavorable characters—cancer, tuberculosis, insanity, and the like. This gives it a great advantage as a criterion for sexual selection, since there will be little difficulty in finding whether or not the ancestors of a young man or woman were long-lived.[103][Pg 227]

Karl Pearson and his associates have shown that there is a tendency to assortative mating for longevity: that people from long-lived stocks actually do marry people from similar stocks, more frequently than would be the case if the matings were at random. An increase of this tendency would be eugenically desirable.[104] So much for the physique.

Though eugenics is popularly supposed to be concerned almost wholly with the physical, properly it gives most attention to mental traits, recognizing that these are the ones which most frequently make races stand or fall, and that attention to the physique is worth while mainly to furnish a sound body in which the sound mind may function. Now men and women may excel mentally in very many different ways, and eugenics, which seeks not to produce a uniform good type, but excellence in all desirable types, is not concerned to pick out any particular sort of mental superiority and exalt it as a standard for sexual selection. But the tendency, shown in Miss Gilmore's study, for men to prefer the more intelligent girls in secondary schools, is gratifying to the eugenist, since high mental endowment is principally a matter of heredity. From a eugenic point of view it would be well could such intellectual accomplishments weigh even more heavily with the average young man, and less weight be put on such superficial characteristics as "flashiness," ability to use the latest slang freely, and other "smart" traits which are usually considered attractive in a girl, but which have no real value and soon become tiresome. They are not wholly bad in themselves, but certainly should not influence a young man very seriously in his choice of a wife, nor a young woman in her choice of a husband. It is to be feared that such standards are largely promoted by the stage, the popular song, and popular fiction.

In a sense, the education which a young woman has received[Pg 228] is no concern of the eugenist, since it can not be transmitted to her children. Yet when, as often happens, children die because their mother was not properly trained to bring them up, this feature of education does become a concern of eugenics. Young men are more and more coming to demand that their wives know something about woman's work, and this demand must not only increase, but must be adequately met. Woman's education is treated in more detail in another chapter.

It is proper to point out here, however, that in many cases woman's education gives no great opportunity to judge of her real intellectual ability. Her natural endowment in this respect should be judged also by that of her sisters, brothers, parents, uncles, aunts and grandparents. If a girl comes of an intellectual ancestry, it is likely that she herself will carry such traits germinally, even if she has never had an opportunity to develop them. She can, then, pass them on to her own children. Francis Galton long ago pointed out the good results of a custom obtaining in Germany, whereby college professors tended to marry the daughters or sisters of college professors. A tendency for men of science to marry women of scientific attainments or training is marked among biologists, at least, in the United States; and the number of cases in which musicians intermarry is striking. Such assortative mating means that the offspring will usually be well endowed with a talent.

Finally, young people should be taught a greater appreciation of the lasting qualities of comradeship, for which the purely emotional factors that make up mere sexual attraction are far from offering a satisfactory substitute.

It will not be out of place here to point out that a change in the social valuation of reputability and honor is greatly needed for the better working of sexual selection. The conspicuous waste and leisure that Thorstein Veblen points out as the chief criterion of reputability at present have a dubious relation to high mental or moral endowment, far less than has wealth. There is much left to be done to achieve a meritorious distribution of wealth. The fact that the insignia of success are too often awarded to trickery, callousness and luck does not argue for the abolition[Pg 229] altogether of the financial success element in reputability, in favor of a "dead level" of equality such as would result from the application of certain communistic ideals. Distinctions, rightly awarded, are an aid, not a hindrance to sexual selection, and effort should be directed, from the eugenic point of view, no less to the proper recognition of true superiority than to the elimination of unjustified differentiations of reputability.

This leads to the consideration of moral standards, and here again details are complex but the broad outlines clear. It seems probable that morality is to a considerable extent a matter of heredity, and the care of the eugenist should be to work with every force that makes for a clear understanding of the moral factors of the world, and to work against every force that tends to confuse the issues. When the issue is clear cut, most people will by instinct tend to marry into moral rather than immoral stocks.

True quality, then, should be emphasized at the expense of false standards. Money, social status, family alignment, though indicators to some degree, must not be taken too much at their face value. Emphasis is to be placed on real merit as shown by achievement, or on descent from the meritoriously eminent, whether or not such eminence has led to the accumulation of a family fortune and inclusion in an exclusive social set. In this respect, it is important that the value of a high average of ancestry should be realized. A single case of eminence in a pedigree should not weigh too heavily. When it is remembered that statistically one grandparent counts for less than one-sixteenth in the heredity of an individual, it will be obvious that the individual whose sole claim to consideration is a distinguished grandfather, is not necessarily a matrimonial prize. A general high level of morality and mentality in a family is much more advantageous, from the eugenic point of view, than one "lion" several generations back.

While we desire very strongly to emphasize the importance of breeding and the great value of a good ancestry, it is only fair to utter a word of warning in this connection. Good ancestry does not necessarily make a man or woman a desirable partner. What stockmen know as the "pure-bred scrub" is a recognized evil in[Pg 230] animal breeding, and not altogether absent from human society. Due to any one or more of a number of causes, it is possible for a germinal degenerate to appear in a good family; discrimination should certainly be made against such an individual. Furthermore, it is possible that there occasionally arises what may be called a mutant of very desirable character from a eugenic point of view. Furthermore a stock in general below mediocrity will occasionally, due to some fortuitous but fortunate combination of traits, give rise to an individual of marked ability or even eminence, who will be able to transmit in some degree that valuable new combination of traits to his or her own progeny. Persons of this character are to be regarded by eugenists as distinctly desirable husbands or wives.

The desirability of selecting a wife (or husband) from a family of more than one or two children was emphasized by Benjamin Franklin, and is also one of the time-honored traditions of the Arabs, who have always looked at eugenics in a very practical, if somewhat cold-blooded way. It has two advantages: in the first place, one can get a better idea of what the individual really is, by examining sisters and brothers; and in the second place, there will be less danger of a childless marriage, since it is already proved that the individual comes of a fertile stock. Francis Galton showed clearly the havoc wrought in the English peerage, by marriages with heiresses (an heiress there being nearly always an only child). Such women were childless in a much larger proportion than ordinary women.

"Marrying a man to reform him" is a speculation in which many women have indulged and usually—it may be said without fear of contradiction—with unfortunate results. It is always likely that she will fail to reform him; it is certain that she can not reform his germ-plasm. Psychologists agree that the character of a man or woman undergoes little radical change after the age of 25; and the eugenist knows that it is largely determined, potentially, when the individual is born. It is, therefore, in most cases the height of folly to select a partner with any marked undesirable trait, with the idea that it will change after a few years.[Pg 231]

All these suggestions have in general been directed at the young man or woman, but it is admitted that if they reach their target at all, it is likely to be by an indirect route. No rules or devices can take the place, in influencing sexual selection, of that lofty and rational ideal of marriage which must be brought about by the uplifting of public opinion. It is difficult to bring under the control of reason a subject that has so long been left to caprice and impulse; yet much can unquestionably be done, in an age of growing social responsibility, to put marriage in a truer perspective. Much is already being done, but not in every case of change is the future biological welfare of the race sufficiently borne in mind. The interests of the individual are too often regarded to the exclusion of posterity. The eugenist would not sacrifice the individual, but he would add the welfare of posterity to that of the individual, when the standards of sexual selection are being fixed. It is only necessary to make the young person remember that he will marry, not merely an individual, but a family; and that not only his own happiness but to some extent the quality of future generations is being determined by his choice.

We must have (1) the proper ideals of mating but (2) these ideals must be realized. It is known that many young people have the highest kind of ideals of sexual selection, and find themselves quite unable to act on them. The college woman may have a definite idea of the kind of husband she wants; but if he never seeks her, she often dies celibate. The young man of science may have an ideal bride in his mind, but if he never finds her, he may finally marry his landlady's daughter. Opportunity for sexual selection must be given, as well as suitable standards; and while education is perhaps improving the standards each year, it is to be feared that modern social conditions, especially in the large cities, tend steadily to decrease the opportunity.

Statistical evidence, as well as common observation, indicates that the upper classes have a much wider range of choice in marriage than the lower classes. The figures given by Karl Pearson for the degree of resemblance between husband and[Pg 232] wife with regard to phthisis are so remarkable as to be worth quoting in this connection:

It can hardly be argued that infection between husband and wife would vary like this, even if infection, in general, could be proved. Moreover, the least resemblance is among the poor, where infection should be greatest. Professor Pearson thinks, as seems reasonable, that this series of figures indicates principally assortative mating, and shows that among the poor there is less choice, the selection of a husband or wife being more largely due to propinquity or some other more or less random factor. With a rise in the social scale, opportunity for choice of one from a number of possible mates becomes greater and greater; the tendency for an unconscious selection of likeness then has a chance to appear, as the coefficients graphically show.

If such a class as the peerage of Great Britain be considered, it is evident that the range of choice in marriage is almost unlimited. There are few girls who can resist the glamor of a title. The hereditary peer can therefore marry almost anyone he likes and if he does not marry one of his own class he can select and (until recently) usually has selected the daughter of some man who by distinguished ability has risen from a lower social or financial position. Thus the hereditary nobilities of Europe have been able to maintain themselves; and a similar process is undoubtedly taking place among the idle rich who occupy an analogous position in the United States.

But it is the desire of eugenics to raise the average ability of the whole population, as well as to encourage the production of leaders. To fulfill this desire, it is obvious that one of the necessary means is to extend to all desirable classes that range of choice which is now possessed only by those near the top of the social ladder. It is hardly necessary to urge young[Pg 233] people to widen the range of their acquaintance, for they will do it without urging if the opportunity is presented to them. It is highly necessary for parents, and for organizations and municipalities, deliberately to seek to further every means which will bring unmarried young people together under proper supervision. Social workers have already perceived the need of institutional as well as municipal action on these lines, although they have not in every case recognized the eugenic aspect, and from their efforts it is probable that suitable institutions, such as social centers and recreation piers, and municipal dance halls, will be greatly multiplied.

It is an encouraging sign to see such items as this from a Washington newspaper: "The Modern Dancing Club of the Margaret Wilson Social Center gave a masquerade ball at the Grover Cleveland school last night, which was attended by about 100 couples." Still more promising are such institutions as the self-supporting Inkowa camp for young women, at Greenwood Lake, N. J., conducted by a committee of which Miss Anne Morgan is president, and directed by Miss Grace Parker. Near it is a similar camp, Kechuka, for young men, and during the summer both are full of young people from New York City. A newspaper account says:

The churches have been important instruments in this connection, and the worth of their services can hardly be over-estimated, as they tend to bring together young people of similar tastes and, in general, of a superior character. Such organizations as the Young People's Society of Christian Endeavor serve the eugenic end in a satisfactory way; it is almost the unanimous opinion of competent observers that matches "made in the church" turn out well. Some idea of the importance of the churches may be gathered from a census which F. O. George of the University of Pittsburgh made of 75 married couples of his acquaintance, asking them where they first met each other. The answers were:

These results need not be thought typical of more than a small part of the country's population, yet they show how far-reaching the influence of the church may be on sexual selection. Quite apart from altruistic motives, the churches might well encourage social affairs where the young people could meet, because to do so is one of the surest way of perpetuating the church.

An increase in the number of non-sectarian bisexual societies,[Pg 235] clubs and similar organizations, and a diminution of the number of those limited to men or to women alone is greatly to be desired. It is doubtful whether the Y. M. C. A. and Y. W. C. A. are, while separated, as useful to society as they might be. Each of them tends to create a celibate community, where the chance for meeting possible mates is practically nil. The men's organization has made, so far as we are aware, little organized attempt to meet this problem. The women's organization in some cities has made the attempt, but apparently with indifferent success. The idea of a merger of the two organizations with reasonable differentiation as well would probably meet with little approval from their directors just now, but is worth considering as an answer to the urgent problem of providing social contacts for young people in large cities.

It is encouraging that thoughtful people in all walks of life are beginning to realize the seriousness of this problem of contacts for the young, and the necessity of finding some solution. The novelist Miss Maria Thompson Davies of Sweetbriar Farm, Madison, Tenn., is quoted in a recent newspaper interview as saying:

"I'm a Wellesley woman, but one reason why I'm dead against women's colleges is because they shut girls up with women, at the most impressionable period of the girls' lives, when they should be meeting members of the opposite sex continually, learning to tolerate their little weaknesses and getting ready to marry them."

"The city should make arrangements to chaperon the meetings of its young citizens. There ought to be municipal gathering places where, under the supervision of tactful, warm-hearted women—themselves successfully married—girls and young men might get introduced to each other and might get acquainted."

If it is thought that the time has not yet come for such municipal action, there is certainly plenty of opportunity for action by the parents, relatives and friends of young persons. The match-making proclivities of some mothers are matters of current jest: where subtly and wisely done they might better be taken seriously and held up as examples worthy of imitation. Formal[Pg 236] "full dress" social functions for young people, where acquaintance is likely to be too perfunctory, should be discouraged, and should give place to informal dances, beach parties, house parties and the like, where boys and girls will have a chance to come to know each other, and, at the proper age, to fall in love. Let social stratification be not too rigid, yet maintained on the basis of intrinsic worth rather than solely on financial or social position. If parents will make it a matter of concern to give their boys and girls as many desirable acquaintances of the opposite sex as possible, and to give them opportunity for ripening these acquaintances, the problem of the improvement of sexual selection will be greatly helped. Young people from homes where such social advantages can not be given, or in large cities where home life is for most of them non-existent, must become the concern of the municipality, the churches, and every institution and organization that has the welfare of the community and the race at heart.

To sum up this chapter, we have pointed out the importance of sexual selection, and shown that its eugenic action depends on young people having the proper ideals, and being able to live up to these ideals. Eugenists have in the past devoted themselves perhaps too exclusively to the inculcation of sound ideals, without giving adequate attention to the possibility of these high standards being acted upon. One of the greatest problems confronting eugenics is that of giving young people of marriageable age a greater range of choice. Much could be done by organized action; but it is one of the hopeful features of the problem that it can be handled in large part by intelligent individual action. If older people would make a conscious effort to help young people widen their circles of suitable acquaintances, they would make a valuable contribution to race betterment.[Pg 237]

No race can long survive unless it conforms to the principles of eugenics, and indisputably the chief requirement for race survival is that the superior part of the race should equal or surpass the inferior part in fecundity.

It follows that the superior members of the community must marry, and at a reasonably early age. If in the best elements of the community celibacy increases, or if marriage is postponed far into the reproductive period, the racial contribution of the superior will necessarily fall, and after a few generations the race will consist mainly of the descendants of inferior people, its eugenic average being thereby much lowered.

In a survey of vital statistics, to ascertain whether marriages are as frequent and as early as national welfare requires, the eugenist finds at first no particularly alarming figures.

In France, to whose vital statistics one naturally turns whenever race suicide is suggested (and usually with a holier-than-thou attitude which the Frenchman might much more correctly assume toward America), it appears that there has been a very slight decrease in the proportion of persons under 20 who are married, but that between the ages of 20 and 30 the proportion of those married has risen during recent years. The same condition exists all over Europe, according to F. H. Hankins,[105] except in England and Scotland. "Moreover on the whole marriages take place earlier in France than in England, Germany or America. Nor is this all, for a larger proportion of the French population is married than in any of these countries. Thus the birth-rate in France has continued to fall in spite of those very[Pg 238] conditions which should have sustained it or even caused it to increase."

In America, conditions are not dissimilar. Although it is generally believed that young persons are marrying at a later age than they did formerly, the census figures show that for the population as a whole the reverse is the case. Marriages are not only more numerous, but are contracted at earlier ages than they were a quarter of a century ago. Comparison of census returns for 1890, 1900 and 1910, reveals that for both sexes the percentage of married has steadily increased and the percentage listed as single has as steadily decreased. The census classifies young men, for this purpose, in three age-groups: 15-19, 20-24, and 25-34; and in every one of these groups, a larger proportion was married in 1910 than in 1900 or 1890. Conditions are the same for women. So far as the United States as a whole is concerned, therefore, marriage is neither being avoided altogether, nor postponed unduly,—in fact, conditions in both respects seem to be improving every year.

So far the findings should gratify every eugenist. But the census returns permit further analysis of the figures. They classify the population under four headings: Native White of Native Parentage, Native White of Foreign Parentage or of Mixed Parentage, Foreign-born White, and Negro. Except among Foreign-born Whites, who are standing still, the returns for 1910 show that in every one of these groups the marriage rate has steadily increased during the past three decades; and that the age of marriage is steadily declining in all groups during the same period, with a slight irregularity of no real importance in the statistics for foreign-born males.

On the whole, then, the marriage statistics of the United States are reassuring. Even if examination is limited to the Native Whites of Native Parentage, who are probably of greater eugenic worth, as a group, than any of the other three, the marriage rate is found to be moving in the right direction.

But going a step farther, one finds that within this group there are great irregularities, which do not appear when the group is[Pg 239] considered as a whole. And these irregularities are of a nature to give the eugenist grave concern.

If one sought, for example, to find a group of women distinctly superior to the average, he might safely take the college graduates. Their superior quality as a class lies in the facts that:

(a) They have survived the weeding-out process of grammar and high school, and the repeated elimination by examinations in college.

(b) They have persevered, after those with less mental ability have grown tired of the strain and have voluntarily dropped out.

(c) Some have even forced their way to college against great obstacles, because attracted by the opportunities it offers them for mental activity.

(d) Some have gone to college because their excellence has been discovered by teachers or others who have strongly urged it.

All these attributes can not be merely acquired, but must be in some degree inherent. Furthermore, these girls are not only superior in themselves, but are ordinarily from superior parents, because

(a) Their parents have in most cases coöperated by desiring this higher education for their daughters.

(b) The parents have in most cases had sufficient economic efficiency to be able to afford a college course for their daughters.

Therefore, although the number of college women in the United States is not great, their value eugenically is wholly disproportionate to their numbers. If marriage within such a selected class as this is being avoided, or greatly postponed, the eugenist can not help feeling concerned.

And the first glance at the statistics gives adequate ground for uneasiness. Take the figures for Wellesley College, for instance:[Pg 240]

From a racial standpoint, the significant marriage rate of any group of women is the percentage that have married before the end of the child-bearing period. Classes graduating later than 1888 are therefore not included, and the record shows the marital status in the fall of 1912. In compiling these data deceased members and the few lost from record are of course omitted.

In the foregoing study care was taken to distinguish as to when the marriage took place. Obviously marriages with the women at 45 or over being sterile must not be counted where it is the fecundity of the marriage that is being studied. The reader is warned therefore to make any necessary correction for this factor in the studies to follow in some of which unfortunately care has not been taken to make the necessary distinction.

Turn to Mount Holyoke College, the oldest of the great institutions for the higher education of women in this country. Professor Amy Hewes has collected the following data:

Bryn Mawr College, between 1888 and 1900, graduated 376 girls, of whom 165, or 43.9%, had married up to January 1, 1913.

Studying the Vassar College graduates between 1867 and 1892, Robert J. Sprague found that 509 of the total of 959 had married, leaving 47% celibate. Adding the classes up to 1900,[Pg 241] it was found that less than half of the total number of graduates of the institution had married.

Remembering what a selected group of young women go to college, the eugenist can hardly help suspecting that the women's colleges of the United States, as at present conducted, are from his point of view doing great harm to the race. This suspicion becomes a certainty, as one investigation after another shows the same results. Statistics compiled on marriages among college women (1901) showed that: