Kansas City journal. [volume] (Kansas City, Mo.) 1897-1928, 1898-01-21
The New Sc. Theory.

Ahe NcN sex lheOHS' |
From the Philadelphia Press.
The guarded announcement by froies-
scr Schenck. of Vienna. that he has dis
covered a method of treatment by which
the sex of offspring can be decided aho
determined in advance in both man ana
the lower animals comes at a time when
embryology has reached a point at which
some such discovery could not be far dis
tant, unless the progress of embryological
science were to stop altogether.
Predictions have not been wanting that
this would take place. The study of the
cell embryo has come near the limits OF
human knowledge. In the development OF
the embryo. Il single microscopic cell. 1T Is
a familiar fact that there appear the gen.
eric. specific and individual characteristics
OF the parent. But how a single cell from
either parent carries all this 10 one yet
knows. No theory is satisfactory. explain
atory or adequate. On this point, the
transmission of traits. the scientific world
is to-day almost as ignorant as to causes
as was Aristotle.
But while the method Of transmission is
unknown. more and more is learned every
day as TO the method of development. y
long series of experiments which began
with frogs have demonstrated that with
automatic regularity when food is plenty
more females are produced and when food
is scarce more males. The first natural
explanation of this is that more females
mean a more rapid increase of individuals
with the increase of food. and that more
males. with less food, give a less rapid
increase of individuals and also increase
the general aggressive force of the COM
munity in which this multiplication OF
males takes place.
Broadly speaking, the difference between
the sexes may be defined to be that in
the female the powers of assimilation are
more developed and in the male the powers
of action. 1t was therefore considered not
unnatural by scientific investigators that
the increase of food should be followed by
the production of more females and its de-
crease by more males. In the simplest or
sanism. the amoeba. the increase of the
species is altogether a question of food.
When an amoeba has eaten and digested
enough to be more than so big it simply
splits in two and there are two amoebaS
where there was before only one.
In its ultimate analysis, therefore,. the
increase of vital beings is altogether a
question of food. No one could, therefore.
be surprised if sex turned on food. There
Is also In human experience the broad fact
that in rich. ~well-nurtured families the
number of female children is generally, not
always. larger-a fact to which Gallon has
drawn attention by pointing out how much
more often in England the line of such
families, when reduced to one Individual,
ends in 4 female and an heiress than a
male and an heir. That large properties
constantly gravitate to the ownership of
heiresses has been observed more than
Cnce.
The greater predominance of action in
the male and of assimilation in the fe-
male IS correlated with the presence of
more corpuscles In the blood of the male
than of the female. just as the male brain
is larger. 1t is possible by appropriate
treatment to increase the number of blood
corpuscies in the blood. diet and massage
being used for this purpose. If. as DIR.
Scheack is said to hint. the probability
OF the offspring being male or female de-
ponds on the blood corpuscles being more
or less numerous in the blood of the fu-
ture mother. then the right treatment
might tend to produce the result desired.
Long and arduous experiment will. how
ever, be needed to determine this. For
a long time TO come the world of science
and medicine will maintain a suspended
attitude on this discovery, and laymen
will be wise to take the same course. Many
things are possible. Few are proved. Only
these are either useful or valuable.
o Foes With New Faces"
From the New York Tribune.
There is nothing new in the objections
that are made to the annexation of Hawaii.
They are nothing but echoes of those that
nave been made hitherto to every step for
ward which the nation has taken. What
do they amount to-? Briefly this: That the
Hawaiian government has not a good title
to the islands, and therefore has no right
to transfer the ownership of them to this
country; that the Islands are too far away
from the rest of the union: that there is
no constitutional way of holding and gov
erning such a possession, and that the
United States has already territory enough,
Those are the objections. They were first
made and we'll answered nearly a century
ago, every one of them
In 1905 the annexation of Louisiana, ne
cotiated by Jefferson and Monroe, was con-
sidered by congress-. and was opposed bit
terly. In the house Calvin Goddard. OF
Connecticut. disputed the right of France
to sell the territory. saying: There Is ne
evidence that France has an incontestiblt
title to Louisiana" Roger Griswold, alsc
of Connecticut, declared 1t would be re
pugnant to the constitution to take ant
hold and govern the territory in the man
ner proposed. In the senate similar senti
ments were expressed. Samuel White, o.
Delaware, said:
'If it should ever be incorporated into
this Union. which 1 have no idea can b.
done but by altering the constitution.
believe 1t will be the greatest curse tina
could at present befall us. Louisi
ana must and will become settled.
Thus our citizens will be removed to tn,
immense distance Of two or three thousand
; miles from the capital of the Union: thei
: affections will become alienatcd; they will
begin to view us as strangers. &. . Thes'
| with other causes : will in time eff
Z feet n separation. . F.. We have alread.
} territory enough"
r DESPITE these and many like u~tterances
in congress and out of it, the treaty wa
: ratified and carried into effect. and thu
. the whole vast region lying between tn
l Mississippi river and the Rocky mountains
was secured to this nation: and not tina
. alone, but it was made possible for tn
: Union to extend its limits clear across tn
| continent to the Pacific ocean. Docs any
{ body now think that was "the creates
{ curse that could befall us?' Does anybod,
| regret that the states of Mississippi. Hi
Z nois and Wisconsin do not to this da,
p, mark our Western frontier. with an allie
y Land perhaps hostile power just across tn
:. river? Then why rehash in 1888 the old
stale, discredited arguments of 1903?
Not on Schedule Time.
G From the Atlanta Constitution
they were blasting rocks near a river, an
dynamite had been placed in different lC
~calitieS.