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 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 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 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 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.

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 role 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 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 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. 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:

Russia in Europe (1909) 44.0 Japan (1911) 34.1 Italy (1913) 31.7 Austria (1912) 31.3 Spain (1913) 30.4 Austria (1913) 28.3 German Empire (1912) 28.3 Holland (1913) 28.1 Denmark (1913) 25.6 Norway (1913) 25.3 United States (registration area only, 1915) 24.9 England and Wales (1913) 24.1 Sweden (1912) 23.8 Switzerland (1913) 23.1 Belgium (1912) 22.6 France (1912) 19.0

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.

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:

Very poor 108 Poor 99 Well-to-do 72 Very prosperous 65 Rich 53 Very rich 35

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:

Berlin Vienna London Very poor quarters 157 200 147 Poor quarters 129 164 140 Comfortable quarters 114 155 107 Very comfortable 96 153 107 Rich 63 107 87 Very rich 47 81 63 —- —- —- Average 102 153 109

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 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:

Group

I. 10 domestic servants for 100 families 34.97 II. 10-20 38.32 III. 20-30 25.99 IV. 30-40 25.83 V. 40-60 25.11 VI. Over 60 18.24

"In order to find out how far the differences shown by these figures are due to differences in the percentage of women who 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:

Group

I 31.56 II 25.82 III 25.63 IV 25.50 V 25.56 VI 20.45

"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:

Group

I 16.56 II 13.89 III 11.43 IV 13.81 V 10.29 VI 5.79

"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:

Artists 4.30 Well-to-do Commercial Classes 4.27 High Officials 4.00 University Professors (excluding theological) 3.50 23 Scholars and Artists of the first rank 2.60

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 celibates 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:

BOTH SEXES (AVERAGED)

Grades for virtues 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Average number of adult children. 1.66 2.86 2.99 2.41 3.44 3.49 3.05 3.03 3.93 3.83

Investigations of Karl Pearson and Alexander Graham Bell[72] show that fecundity and longevity are associated. It follows 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.

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.



CHAPTER VII

ORIGIN AND GROWTH OF THE EUGENICS MOVEMENT

"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? 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 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, "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 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; 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, reemphasizing 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.

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 researches 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 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 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, 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 thousand 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 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]

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 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 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.

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.

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 philosophical 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 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.



CHAPTER VIII

DESIRABILITY OF RESTRICTIVE EUGENICS

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. 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 reestablish the debasing atmosphere to which it has always been accustomed.[76] Those who 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.



[Illustration: A CHIEFTAIN OF THE HICKORY CLAN

FIG. 27.—This is "Young Hank," otherwise known as "Sore-Eyed Hank." He is the eldest son and heir of that Hank Hickory who, with his wife and seven children, applied for admission to their County Infirmary when it was first opened. For generation after generation, his family has been the chief patron of all the charities of its county. "Young Hank" married his cousin and duplicated his father's record by begetting seven children, three of whom (all feeble-minded) are now living. The number of his grandchildren and great-grandchildren is increasing every year, but the total can not be learned from him, for he is mentally incapable of counting even the number of his own children. He is about 70 years of age, and has never done any work except to make baskets. He has lived a wandering life, largely dependent on charity. For the last 25 years he has been partly blind, due to trachoma. He gets a blind pension of $5 a month, which is adequate to keep him supplied with chewing tobacco, his regular mastication being 10 cents a day. Such specimens can be found in many rural communities; if they were segregated in youth both they and the community would be much better off. Photograph from Mina A. Sessions.]

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 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 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 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: