Arizona republican., 1921-02-04

first paragraph is based, unless. lne writer in his expressed concurrence with the advocates of hNgienic mating include himself as an object of his own caution, i. fe., unless he says, T aIso am running ahead too fast The foregoing assumes that the implication in the remainder of the paragraph IS a humorous one, that we would bar marriage entirely if we barred the feeble minded from marrying
 In the fifth paragraph the statement is made that we ina zine more resulting evils from this source than there are that we over estimate the evil conse- auent upon the marriage Of sufferers of transmissible and incuraple ols- eases, lunatics and idiots. But tnls cannot be presented as an argument against hygienic mating or Tn support of the fact that some of us are run ming ahead too fast" as the writer stated with a considerable degree of emphasis in the preceding paragraph that he believed they should not mar ry Then follows an expression or con fidence in nature, which expression also fails to contribute to the opinion ex- pressed in the first paragraph. Here, too is the unwarranted assumption that there are two separate processes one of nature, the other not ot man. but of mans intellect. The paragraph ends with reference to the probable U scientists. It is difficult to tell wheth- CT reference is made to a certain class of scientists, or whether it is the writ CTS opinion that all scientists are su
 perficial, or a further possibility that scientists who descend to the adyoca-
 ton of hygienic mating are the super ficial ones. However that is, 1t has
 become difficult to see just where the
 writer would have man step in and as-
 sist nature with his intellect Git must
 be remembered the writer has classi-
 fled separately nature and mans intel
 lect; they are independent activators)-
 Did nature or man give man his wood en club? Did nature or man teach
 man to leave the trees and hunt shell
 fish on the sea shore2 Did natufe or man make marriage legal? The critic is not concerned with the true answers to these questions, but he is concerned with the answers which the writer or the editorial would give. His answers would help to establish his opinion rel atiye to the subject he is treating and rescue the reader from the maze or 1 ambiguity and inconsistency.
 The critic Is ignorant of the facts pertaining to this subject, but he has | gained a bit of information from gen ! eral reading sufficient to question the
 historical reference in the seventh par ! agraph. Were there not numerous
 
 advocated hygienfc mating before l Frederick William? Was the latter of such mental calibre as would enable 1 him to originate a thing of this sort 1 The last few lines of this paragraph
 attempt to leave the impression that 1 he actually made the experiment, but
 got poor results. Did he make such
 an experiment. or only attempt to make it?
 l The next two paragraphs cite two
 examples of men of .snon- -hygienic families who achieved a worthy and
 notable position in society. The req
 son for this citation, too, is far From
 apparent. These men themselves were
 certainly not idiots, lunatics- diseased.
 or feeble minded. The first mentioned
 lacked merely the early education most of us receive and the latter responded
 normally to educative training. But
 there was idiocy or feeble mindedness
 in both of the families. I believe the
 1dvocators of the hygfenic marriage
 tor eugenic marriage) state that nor- , nal types are produced in families con , taining members abnormal; that is. that this will occur under the circum- stances proper therefor. Observation of human families over a number of | generations, and some million or more l experiments with animals have dem
 onstrated that many of the laws of i, heredity may be and have been dis F covered The marriage of two abnor- : nal persons will result in abnormal , children entirely The marriage of q r. normal and an abnormal person Will re : suit in normal. abnormal and ear i, riers." The latter may be normal him r p self, but his abnormality will reappear li in later generation. Abnormaiity can : be married out of stock if the eandi- I dates are aware of their own heredifN Il and choose their mates well. Thus the i, citation of normal men in abnormal |. families cannot be construed as an . argument against hygienic mating nor f itas an example that some of us are running ahead too fast" It is merely o a statement and is subscribed to bs h hygienic mating adyocators.~ It holds e no refutation of principle or fact. e The last paragraph merely ampli- e fies the ambiguities written into the h body of the editorial. The relation ol : nature and man Is more of a mystery = than before. (That is to say, the writ s CTS views thereon are more of mss- r tery).
 r Summing up the writer's major d proposition of the first paragraph r l ''some of us are running ahead too fast
 has found no logical or even attempted : justification in the treatment. Ti,e . writer has not established his reasons t for his opinions on the subject whicIi = he is treating; nor has he stated whai h his opinions are. In one place hr d states these persons should not marry = and in numerous other places he hints n that perhaps after all, nature . . The exact meaning is too cloudy for l. Identification.
 = Such, Mir. Editor, is the type of writ Q ing say is too common to newspapers
 I am pleased to state that I sec is 'i like but seldom in the Republicans ed y itorials, and believe. me when l say e wish your paper well and hope to read e many more of your better comments. i. c. E. WALKER.
 NOT ERUDiTE
 An Irishman recently went before ! II recruiting sergeant who tried to kid