POPULATION REFERENCE BUREAU

WASHINGTON SQUARE EAST
NEW YORK CITY

ROOM SEVENTY
SOUTH BUILDING

GRemercy 7-8776

HENRY P. FAIRCHILD
President

CLARENCE C. LITTLE
Secretary-Treasurer

GUY IRVING BURCH
Director

HELEN E. DICKINSON
Statistician

COUNCIL

ROBERT L. DICKINSON
EDWARD M. EAST
HENRY P. FAIRCHILD
ELLSWORTH HUNTINGTON
CLARENCE C. LITTLE
RAYMOND PEARL
EDWARD A. ROSS

Glencarlyn, Virginia

May 8, 1935

Dr. Ellsworth Huntington,
Yale University,
New Haven, Conn.

Dear Professor Huntington:

Thank you for your letter of May 6th. It is always a pleasure to me to be of any assistance to the work of Eugenics, but I think all of us in this work should be very grateful to you. And, of course, I am especially grateful to you for your kindness in writing to Dr. Rice, Dr. Truesdell, and Mr. Batschelet. I shall try to be worthy of this trust.

I have read over the Eugenics Catechism again, this time with my wife, and have made a rather large number of notes, some of which I shall send you after I think them over more at leisure. The more I study the work the more interested I become with it. I think Who Shall Inherit America is an extraordinarily good name, but I am inclined to believe that A Eugenics Catechism fits this particular book better. As a matter of fact I was rather disappointed when I learned that the original name was to be changed. While I haven't thought about it very much, I don't see very much objection to a catechism being a hundred pages long. I have a Roman Catholic catechism which I believe is more than two hundred pages long. The book is in what is popularly thought of as the catechism form, so why not call it a catechism? Then also, the word Eugenics places the book.

Some of Mrs. Burch's reactions as a layman are rather interesting. She is inclined to agree with Cook that Eugenics is not a science, but (to use her own words) "an educational movement based on the science of genetics to improve the human race--a movement that must necessarily be popular, therefore popularized, to be effective." I must say that this matter has puzzled me for some years. It has always been difficult for me to think of Eugenics as strictly a science or the American Eugenics Society as a strictly scientific organization. A movement based upon scientific principles I can understand, or an organization of scientific men I can understand, in this connection. If we mean by Eugenics the application of the science of genetics to mankind, that is understandable, but does this make Eugenics itself a science? I am not trying to split hairs, but merely raising these questions for my own information and for the purpose of guarding the Eugenics Catechism from attacks along these lines.

This brings up another matter, I would like to see the Catechism

-3-

present population to less than 10 per cent of the future
population in five generations. On the other hand those
groups having four-child families in each generation will
rapidly increase to from 10 per cent of the present population
to 90 per cent of the population five generations hence.
In the mean time, the one-child family group which now
comprises 60 per cent of the population will practically become
extinct (.53 per cent) in five generations." (see Journal of
Heredity, April, 1935)

Better still, it seems to me, this paragraph, which is rather
long already, might be cut into three paragraphs. What I have
added might be used to answer a separate question: "What happens
to the two-child family group in five generations?" Then the
remainder of the paragraph as it originally stood might go to
answer a third question: "Must the eugenists also take into
consideration such things as death before maturity, failure to
marry, and failure of married people to have children?"

P.5. In speaking of the birth rate of Ireland it would be better to say that the birthrate of that country as a whole <u>has been very low for a long time instead of</u>

I shall not attempt to criticise the more genetic parts of the book but we
should attempt to make this part as scientific and as easy for popular
consumption as possible. I suppose men like Little and Laughlin might
be interested in this part. When the whole book is ready for publication
it might not be a bad idea to have a few newspaper or magazine editors
look it over for improvement in popular appeal.

P.15 (third answer) Would it not be more correct to say that human generations are separated by an average period of <u>approximately 30 years instead of "more than 30 years."</u>?

P.22. Added to end of third paragraph, after "increase in the future," Furthermore, <u>all</u> <u>men</u>, <u>and</u> <u>women</u>, <u>in</u> a democracy we also need a <u>high quality of</u> <u>all</u> <u>citizens</u> <u>to</u> <u>elect</u> <u>high quality of</u> <u>leaders</u>.

P.30 After third paragraphing <u>leased</u> <u>understood</u> aspects of eugenics," might be added: Dr. Friedrich Burgdorfer has discovered that in large Germany cities where birth control has reached the lower classes <u>that the number of children of families with large incomes is not diminishing but increasing.</u>" (See Bulletin, International Population Union, September 1930, p.12.)

P. 38. (Last line) Would it not be <u>more</u> <u>correct</u> to say
<u>more dogmatic</u> <u>demoninations</u>, instead of <u>more "conservative"</u> <u>demoninations</u>?

-4-

P. 41. (Second answer) I quite agree that the so-called upper classes are not now generally having large families. But I have mentioned that Burgdorfer has shown that in large Germany cities where birth control has reached the lower classes the families are the higher income groups is increasing. In fact, he says that the highest income group (over 50,000 reichsmarks) is producing 140 children to every 100 married taxpayers and that the fertility goes down with the income until the lowest income group (under 1,500 reichsmarks) have only 96 children per 100 married taxpayers. There is some reason to believe that when birth control generally reaches the lower classes throughout the country and post war economic conditions improve, the upper classes will have more than enough children to reproduce themselves. Furthermore, it is fair to single out the city of Stockholm as an example of a population that is not replacing itself, when you know that cities as a rule do not replace themselves. Milan, in Italy, could be cited as another example of this, etc. etc.

p. 42. (second A. from the bottom) would it not be better to say that the purpose of sterilization is to prevent the birth of children among those who are most likely to transmit serious defects instead of "unfavorable tendencies"?

p. 43. (middle of page) would it not be more diplomatic to say "those afflicted with certain types of insanity or extremely dangerous emotional instability, instead of merely "emotional instability"? Some of our greatest artists, actors, and writers are those who have shown signs of "emotional instability."

p. 44. At end of first paragraph might it not be added: Some authorities believe that sterilization, the mental, physical, and emotional qualities of their patients.

p. 44. (Third A.) After first sentence might this not be added: In meeting a similar objection to the "Rhythm" method of birth control, and eminent Roman Catholic authority says that such an objection "utterly ignores the ineradicable love of children which fills the heart of every normal human being." (see quotation from Rev. John A. O'Brien, Ph.D. in The Rhythm, p. 105, 3rd Ed.)

p. 45. (After third A.) Sterilization is also generally recommended by physicians when the mechanical defects of the woman's childbearing function are such that normal childbirth would seriously endanger her life.

p./First paragraph: "far more numerous" might be underlined.

Second "... ten or even twenty billion dollars" might be more effective if written both in words and in figures. This might also help to prevent the possible mistake of confusing millions with billions.

Third paragraph: If the much cheaper ... (instead of merely cheaper) method of sterilization....

p. 47 (After end of first sentence might be added) "But this is far preferable to having feebleminded people increase their chances of doing at the present time." (see enclosed page of Journal of Sterility, July 1932)

"Increase of Mental Deficiency"

-5-

p. 43 (Second A.) (first sentence) I am debating with myself if the word "unfortunate" would not be a better word than "low grade" in this particular sentence.

p.49 (top of page) You were somewhat anxious about people on relief increasing their birth rate <u>after</u> going on relief. I believe <u>Staffer</u> (Sp.?) treats this subject and answers the question in the affirmative. I believe I saw news item about birth rate in New York which indicated the same trend. But I am sorry I do not have the references with me here.

p.51. (Second A.) Add words underlined: "The girl who marries at 16 has a start of about ten years (<u>or approximately one-third of the childbearing period</u>) over the average girl who goes to college."

p.62. (First paragraph, third from last line) "<u>some types of migration</u>"

p. 64. (first Q. first line) Should we not say "economic <u>and social conditions</u>" ?

p.65. (second line) Would not the word "responsible" be better than the word "thrifty" ?

ing

p.72. In stress/the element of uncertainty should we not say something about the uncertain economic and social conditions brought about by a rapid growth of population which stimulates schemes for expansion, which in turn create severe booms and depressions--and last but not least, uncertainty! Has it not been repeatedly stated by population authorities that a stationary population will bring with it a higher standard of living? Less severe booms and depressions which should make for less uncertainty in economic and social conditions? It seems to me that now is the time to bring out the value of a stationary population (as far as quantity is concerned) to a stabilized economic and social life. This might be mentioned as a fourth item on page 73.

p.74. (line four to six) Would it not be better to say: "But will not the energetic and individualistic young people of America always insist on marrying to suit their own fancies and ways of life of the moment instead of taking into consideration valuable knowledge accumulated by eugenists?"

p.75 (seventh line) "transmit undesirable qualities <u>to his children</u>" (The addition of the underline words may help to bring the matter home to the individual.)

(Sixth line from the bottom) "How, then, can eugenics <u>knowledge</u> be applied to marriage?" Why not substitute "<u>knowledge</u>" for "<u>principle</u>"?

Special
Note

p.79. (second A.) I feel very strongly against the last half of this answer, namely: "It takes faith to make such investments, for our generation may see little result, but future generations will rise up and call such investors blessed." This is not only a bad policy but <u>unwise</u>. (A sound

-6-

eugenic program if followed should prevent the birth of thousands of
defective, undesirable, and unwanted children within a single year and
these results should make themselves felt on the economic and social
conditions (especially in the families who are spared this suffering)
immediately. In the families in which hundreds of thousands of conceptions
end in abortion the beneficial results of "negative" eugenics should be
felt even sooner by hundreds of thousands of people.

I recommend that the above quoted sentence be stricken out. It might
even be wise to show how soon the benefits of a sound eugenic knowledge
may be felt. I believe this idea that eugenics is only a long term invest-
ment has been one of the things that has been holding the eugenics move-
ment back.

P.82. (Second Answer) (Second Line) After a considerable study of immigration problems I should say that the words "for the present" should be omitted. The experience of more than fifty years which led me to the quota system was a very dear experience for the American people and the quota system was the result of a long and hard fight. This experience is not likely to be forgotten very soon. The lack of a quota system nearly resulted in disaster to the American people, and I know many experienced students of immigration who would consider it a national tragedy with the quota system were changed. The quota system is the backbone of our entire immigration policy. To say "for the present" would indicate that we are not any too sure of the value of the quota system, and would give hope to those who are now trying to break down our current immigration controls. The quotas may be enlarged or further restricted, but do do away with quotas altogether would be suicidal.

(Last A. on this page) after "they cannot be assimilated" add "nor their quality ascertained." "assimilated" is a very vague term, and, furthermore, without numerical limitation we could not effectively ascertain the quality of the large numbers of immigrants that would flow into this country in time of prosperity in this country.

Important

P.83. (Second A.) "It is based upon the percentage of the total population of the United States derived from immigrant families and their descendants from each of the other countries." (The national origins provision also considers the descendants of immigrants and colonists.) (The word "total" should be underlined.)

The last line in this paragraph should read "appreciably changed by quota immigration." It should be remembered that we also have non-quota immigration and immigration from countries of the Western Hemisphere which do not have quotas.

Last question on this page should read : "Does our immigration legislation (not the national origins method of limiting immigration) need any special changes in order to meet the requirements of eugenics?"

And the answer to this question should read: "Students of eugenics and of immigration problems are generally agreed that the national origins quota system should be extended to the countries of the Western Hemisphere, countries for which there are now no numerical restrictions and whose immigrants to this country are only limited by our 'public charge' clause which would be of doubtful value during more prosperous times."

p. 84. (First A.) After the sentence, "Yes, this is happening all the time",

-7-

"It was recently estimated in Congress that there are now (1935) 3,500,000 aliens illegally and unlawfully in this country, or approximately the same number of people, which the nearly $5,000,000,000 work relief bill intends to furnish employment." (These statements were made by Congressman Martin Dies in Congress and again in the Saturday Evening Post. Congressman Dies, formerly of the House Immigration Committee, now elevated to the most important Committee in the House, the Rules Committee, is not only one of the most capable legislators in Washington, but also perhaps the keenest student of immigration problems in this country.) ( I think there is general agreement on Mr. Dies ability and authority in this field.)

p. 85. (Last paragraph) Be be more conservative should we not say that families on relief "had from 35 to 50 percent more children than families not on relief."?

p. 86 (middle of page) Would it not be more conservative to say "discourage people who are biologically unfit from having children".?

p. 93. (last line) Omit the word "very" before the word imperfect. Many methods of contraception are more than 90 per cent effective and this is a pretty high per cent for any medical treatment.

p.101. End of first paragraph add "and in certain large cities of Germany where birth control has reached all economic and social classes of the population."

Well, I see I have gone right ahead to put my notes in this letter. In making these notes I have tried to keep in mind the view point of the scientist and the view point of the general public. When the notes from the various reviewers are all in I hope the members of the Board, perhaps in conference, will read over the entire manuscript to make certain of the final product.

I may also prepare a few more questions and answers on the subject of immigration and submit them to you for your consideration.

Have you any suggestions to whom I may give the manuscript? It appears to me that O. E. Baker would be a good man as he has shown a deep and sincere interest in the problems of eugenics and population.

I have high hopes for the Eugenics Catechism and think it will be a most valuable instrument in stimulating activity in eugenics in this country. I sincerely hope that it (the book) will be called *A Eugenics Catechism*.

P.S. I hope I have not been too dogmatic in trying to save space. You will find two extra pages of suggested questions for the immigration section of *A Eugenics Catechism* enclosed.

Suggested questions and answers for immigration section of
<u>A Eugenics Catechism</u> by Guy Irving Burch

P.S. It may be preferable to give Question and Answer #3 first, #2 second, #4 third, then #1 fourth. Population figures are from Wilcox "International Migration" V.2. Dublin in the population authority referred to. Thompson is the source of children to women in the U.S. Thompson, Wilcox, and Chaddock are the authorities who take middle ground on immigration depressing U.S. natural increase.

Q. Has migration relieved economic pressure and social unrest in emigrant-exporting countries?

A. During the seventy-year period 1845 to 1915, nearly 50,000,000 persons emigrated from Europe, but notwithstanding this unprecedented exodus, the population of Europe during that period increased from 250,000,000 to 450,000,000 and the seventy-year period ended in a World War.

Q. Was the World War in any way caused by population pressure?

A. Many students of population problems believe that population pressure was one underlying cause of the World War. For example, the president of the Population Association of America, when president of the American Statistical Association in 1924, stated that the World War was essentially an outgrowth of a pressing population problem which confronted the nation of Europe in 1914.

Q. Is War a serious eugenic problem?

A. Yes. Because apart from the social unrest and waste of natural resources caused by war many of the most valuable human resources of nations are killed in battle while the weak and defective remain at home to multiply their kind.

Q. Is population pressure still a threat to peace?

A. Yes. The population authority quoted above also stated in 1924 that the condition that existed in Europe at the outbreak of the World War is an outstanding example of an almost universal condition.

Q. Why is not emigration an effective means of relieving population pressure and social unrest?

A. Because in the absence of some effective means of birth control the temporary relief experienced by emigration is offset by births and population pressure and social unrest still remain a serious problem.

Q. Are there any good examples of this?

A. Yes. Italy is one of the best examples. That country has been the greatest exporter of emigrants during the past fifty years and still population pressure and social unrest remain a serious problem.

Q. In the absence of some reliable means of birth control, does not emigration have a tendency to stimulate the birth rate of the emigrant-exporting country?

A. This problem has not been solved, but many students of population problems believe that emigration does have a tendency to stimulate the natural increase rate, births over deaths.

-2-

Q. Are there any indications of this?

A. Yes. Italy furnishes such an indication. As Italy's immigration to the United States increased from 55,000 during the decade 1871-1880, to 2,000,000 during the decade 1901-10, the average annual natural increase, births over deaths, increased from 7 to 11 per 1,000 population, and the population in Italy increased from 26,000,000 to 35,000,000 during the forty-five year period 1870 to 1915.

Q. While the natural increase rate of Italy was increasing during this period, was the natural increase rate of the United States also increasing.

A. No. The natural increase rate of the United States was decreasing. We do not have birth or death rates for the United States as a whole during this period, and consequently no natural increase rates. But the study of the number of children under five years of age per 1,000 women aged 15 to 44 years, shows a decrease in such children of more than one-sixth between 1870 and 1910.

Q. Are there any indications that mass immigration has had a tendency to depress the natural increase of the United States? The increase of the natural increase of the United States has had a tendency to depress the natural increase of the United States? The increase of the natural increase of the United States has had a tendency to depress the natural increase of the United States?

A. The majority of the students of this problem in this country believe that mass immigration has had a tendency to depress the natural increase of the American people. There is a difference of opinion, however, to what extent. Many students of this problem believe that foreign immigration into this country, has from the time it first assumed large proportions, about 1830 or 1840, amounted, not to a reenforcement of our population but to a replacement of native by foreign stock. Other students take a middle ground on this question believing that while mass immigration has not been a net gain to the population of this country and has depressed the natural increase of the American people, it has nevertheless increased the inhabitants to a greater or lesser extent.

Q. Does this problem deserve the consideration of eugenists?

A. Yes. Because if immigration has a tendency to depress the natural increase of a nation we must make doubly sure that the immigrant stock is at least the equal of the native stock which it tends to replace.

Q. Is there any statistical indication that immigration has depressed the natural increase of the American people?

A. Yes. Before the first big wave of mass immigration in the 1840s the fertility of the American people was lower than the fertility of the original stock in New England, and the highest in the civi

Q. What, then, should be our policy toward immigration?

A. The eugenist believes that if we permit immigration, we ought to take stringent measures to make sure of the quality of the immigrants.

Q. What are some of the measures that may be taken to make sure of the quality of immigrants?

A. Legislative experience over a half-century has demonstrated that plans for economic and biological selection of immigrants are necessarily dependent for success upon definite and sound numerical quota limitations controlling mass immigration into this country.

are

Q. Why is numerical quota limitations necessary to make sure of the quality of immigrants?

A. Because unless quantity of immigration is limited, immigrants may crowd into the country so rapidly that their quality is hopelessly impossible to determine. Before the World War more than a million and a quarter immigrants entered this country in a single year, and more than twenty thousand arrived at the port of New York in a single day.

Q. What is a sound method of numerical quota limitation?

A. Perhaps no quota law can obtain perfection or completely satisfy all countries or racial elements in our population, but after careful consideration of numerous means of numerical limitation the Committee on Selective Immigration of the American Eugenics Society stated that the National Origins basis of immigration restriction, now in operation for countries of Europe, is the most scientific, soundest in principle and fairest to all elements in the population of any method of quota limitation which has yet been proposed.

-2-

Q. Should not the National Origins method of quota limitation of immigrants be extended to countries of the Western Hemisphere?

A. Students of eugenics and immigration problems believe that it should and/are working toward that end.

Q. But even if we have a sound method of numerical quota limitation may not thousands of aliens sneak into this country through our thousand of miles or be bootlegged into the country through our thousand of miles of land and water border?

A. Yes.

Q. Then do we not need additional measures to make sure of the quality of aliens who may enter this country?

A. The registration of the population, or at least the immigrant alien population in this country, would be one of the most effective measures that could be employed to check up upon alien illegally in this country and to discourage smuggling of alines into this country.

Q. Are there any other measures that could be taken which would help us to make sure of the quality of immigrants?

A. Yes. Overseas medical inspection of intending immigrants, which has proved humane to the aliens themselves and helped us in enforcing our immigration laws, should be kept at the highest possible degree of efficiency, and should if possible, be extended to include a consideration of the hereditary history of all aliens proposing to migrate to this country.

Continuation of yesterday's letter.

POPULATION REFERENCE BUREAU

ROOM SEVENTY
SOUTH BUILDING

GRamercy 7-8776

HENRY P. FAIRCHILD
President

GUY IRVING BURCH
Director

COUNCIL

ROBERT L. DICKINSON

EDWARD M. EAST

HENRY P. FAIRCHILD

ELLSWORTH HUNTINGTON

CLARENCE C. LITTLE

RAYMOND PEARL

EDWARD A. ROSS

May 11, 1935

Glencarlyn, Virginia

Dear Professor Hungtinton:

After reading over *A Eugenics Catechism* for the third time this week with Mrs. Burch, I think it best to withdraw my opposition to the idea that eugenics is a science, an applied science.

p.37. In the first paragraph it appears that the writer assumes that decay of the teeth may be entirely prevented by brushing them. In the second line I should think the phrase "they never have a chance to decay," should be changed to "they have less chance to decay." In the fifth line in this paragraph the phrase "no defective people would ever be born" might be changed to "defective people would rarely be born."

p.39. Third Answer. The "safe period" method may turn out to be a great deal more reliable than we now suppose--that is, when the woman's menstrual cycle is absolutely regular. It seems to me that one of the chief defects in this type of birth control is the variation in a woman's menstrual cycle. And, in many cases, the very women who need a reliable method of birth control most are usually the ones whose cycles are likely to be most irregular. In other words, the woman's condition may not fit the method. Taking this and other things into consideration, the "safe period" method does not appear generally practicable. Even if most physicians discover that the method under ideal circumstances can be relied upon, it still might not be generally practicable. Should we not guard ourselves in this matter?

p.40. Last paragraph: "Among Harvard and Yale graduates and presumably among college graduates in general who usually have a greater knowledge of birth control than the general public,..." Words underlined might be added.

p.41. First Answer: "Yes, in Sweden, especially Stockholm, in large German cities, and the Protestant parts of Holland...." Underlined words might be added.

p.53. Second Answer. If we wished to be somewhat alarming about the differential birth rate, which may be doubtful, we might add to the end of this answer: "A continuation of the differential birth rate may lead to serious national consequences, especially in a democracy."

Passed by the Board

MAJOR PROPOSALS

AMERICAN EUGENICS SOCIETY, INC.

1. Promote the inclusion of eugenics as an integral part of various appropriate courses throughout the SCHOOL SYSTEM, in the elementary grades and high schools as well as the encouragement of special courses in eugenics in colleges and universities.

2. Dissemination of POPULAR EDUCATION concerning established facts of eugenics by means of: (1) the general press, (2) lecturers, (3) exhibits, (4) pamphlets, books, etc.

3. In relation to parenthood:

(a) Encouragement of research into the relative desirability of various specific hereditary traits in modern life.

(b) ENCOURAGEMENT OF PARENTHOOD among those endowed richly with hereditary traits of demonstrated desirability.

(c) Investigation of causes which prevent larger families among those thus richly endowed.

4. Encouragement of the RECORDING OF DEFINITE TRAITS of body and mind in family genealogies. This is not assuming that all traits which "run in families" are purely hereditary, but such data would be useful in attempting to ascertain the relative importance of heredity.

5. Prevention of the procreation of persons socially inadequate because of defective inheritance, by encouraging the passage of scientifically sound laws for the EUGENICAL STERILIZATION—on a selective basis—of certain potential parents carrying degenerate hereditary qualities. This refers chiefly to the hereditarily feebleminded, insane, and epileptic.

6. SEGREGATION of certain potential parents who are socially inadequate because of defective inheritance, in cases where custodial care, treatment, or training is advisable.

7. IMMIGRATION REGULATION according to the recommendations of the Committee on Selective Immigration, including the quota system, National Origins, increase of immigration service appropriations, and further selective provisions for intending emigrants based on knowledge of their heredity.

8. Foster eugenical content in LAWS RELATING TO MARRIAGE:

(a) Minimum age for marriage — at least 16 years.

(b) Deferment of issuance of marriage license for at least three days from application, and official publication of intent to marry.

(c) Adequate certification of freedom from serious hereditary defects (hereditary feeblemindedness, insanity, epilepsy, etc.), and from infectious venereal diseases, as prerequisite to issuance of marriage license.

(d) Persons of more distant kinship than first cousins, or of those related by marriage but not by heredity, should not be denied marriage license.

(e) Grounds for divorce should be widened to include besides adultery, the following: hereditary insanity and feeblemindedness, desertion, and sterility (except when the result of old age).

9. The diffusion of CONTRACEPTIVE INFORMATION by authorized physicians particularly through public clinics, so that the masses may be provided with the means of conscious control now exercised by the more favored classes.

-x-

(January 1931)

POPULATION REFERENCE BUREAU

ROOM SEVENTY
SOUTH BUILDING

GRamercy 7-8776

HENRY P. FAIRCHILD
President

GUY IRVING BURCH
Director

COUNCIL

April 8, 1935

Dear Professor Huntington:

I have read over the revised "Eugenics Catechism" with a great deal of interest and enthusiasm, and I believe it to be one of the most important documents on eugenics which we have to date. I, therefore, naturally believe that every detail should be studied before it is published.

I am not qualified to speak upon the genetics and certain other angles of the Catechism, but I do believe the Committee programs of the Society, and especially the immigration program, should be considered seriously in connection with the Catechism. The Committee on Selective Immigration of the Society was composed of some of the foremost students of immigration problems in this country and that Committee's program was worked out after many months of deliberation. I am therefore taking the liberty of embodying some of the fundamentals of the Committee's program in the enclosed manuscript which I feel very strongly should be added to the Catechism on page 70,--in place of the last two questions and answers

The immigration problem, especially as far as legislation is concerned, is not settled by any means in this country. I have watched the situation in Washington for a number of years, and if we were to have a taste of prosperity there would be a tremendous pressure upon Congress to lift the bars, and as the immigration service from the Secretary of Labor, through the Commissioner General, to the Chairmen of the Immigration Committees, is now in the hands of foreign stock there is no telling what might happen.

P.S. I shall send the copy of the Eugenics Catechism I have tomorrow, after reading it over again.

AMERICAN GENETIC ASSOCIATION
Eugenics-Heredity-Breeding

Publishers of the
Journal of Heredity

Victor Building

Washington, D.C.

May 10, 1935

Dr. Ellsworth Huntington
Yale University
New Haven, Conn.

Dear Doctor Huntington:

I ran up some twenty pages of criticisms and comments on the eugenic catechism before turning it over to Frank Lorimer today. He has an opportunity to go over it over the week-end and I thought it best to save time by letting him have it before I had quite finished. Perhaps I have talked too much already!

I must confess that my feelings with regard to the catechism are quite mixed. Evidently it has been prepared by a number of authors through a process of fusion rather than synthesis. I have gotten a lot of ideas by reading it over but I personally feel that in its present form it might be well to consider just how extensive the list of collaborators should be. I don't think this is what I am wont to call "scientific pharisaism" so much as being due to a feeling that the cause of eugenics may be best fostered by not getting all our eggs into one basket.

To my mind the biggest difficulty with the catechism is the rather insidious tincture of emotionalism that seems to run through it. This is particularly marked when birth control is mentioned. Now I am not an anti-birth controller but I do think that getting too much "steamed up" about birth control is bad eugenic policy. We really have no idea whatever what would happen if we really did have what the birth control folks call "a wanted generation". I am not at all sure it would usher in the millennium. We have opinions about what might happen should such an eventuality occur, but only opinions. We had opinions about the Eighteenth Amendment. Some of us have had a lot of opinions about the New Deal and some of them hav'nt worked out so very well. I don't think we are justified in claiming that when we jiggle such important matters we are sure to get the particular result we wish we would get.

In view of that I don't see why we should let ourselves in for too much highly charged emotionalism on these rather debatable points -- and I do submit that some of the answers are far from objective.

Perhaps I should have saved these remarks until I sent the catechism along. The fact that I had not gotten to it as fast as I had hoped and that Lorimer had taken it away from me for a few days led me to write you to show that I am still acutely interested in the subject and had not let it go by default.

The above remarks and those contained in my comments are, please let it be perfectly clear, very frank, and no doubt quite emotional, reactions to the catechism. I find that one of the great difficulties in the Journal is to get really hard headed frank

Victor Building

Washington, D.C.

May 15, 1935

Dear Doctor Huntington:

I was sorry after I had mailed my letter of the tenth because after it had gone I had the feeling that it would have been better to have held my remarks until the whole catechism went. Since that letter was sent I have gotten the catechism back from Lorimer and have finished going over it. My comments occupy some twenty-eight typed pages which I hope will be taken as proof that I am acutely interested in the project even though most of my remarks must put me down as a dissenter.

I am glad I wrote you because what you say about Popenoe and Davenport gives me a chance to outline rather more clearly where I stand in the matter. Apparently I am located at the third corner of a triangle as far as those two gentlemen are concerned. By whatever name we call it I am convinced that the application of a eugenic outlook on life and on society offers us the only hope of getting out of the present mess that we are in. I think we have plenty of knowledge to go ahead on: I have no sympathy with the attitude that demands that we keep everything foggy and muddled "because we don't know enough". I think the problem of how to get such a program across is a major problem in statesmanship. At that point I think I depart from Popenoe's view who, if I apprehend it rightly, feels that just a little ballyhooing propaganda is going to do the trick. Frankly I don't know how the trick is to be done. I think that finding out is one of the most fascinating assays in social invention that confronts us today. To my mind we are nearing the end of a cycle of mechanical invention; we have gotten nowhere in the last five hundred years in really fruitful social invention. As I envision the problem, this invention is one that fits in with fire and speech and writing but it has about as much connection with these more or less unconscious developments as the first crude efforts of our stone age ancestors have with a Mergenthaler linotype machine. We are going to substitute for a few crude scratchings on the wall of a cave a highly coordinated device that will combine hundreds of now or less conflicting elements.

Invention is technically defined as the application of new principles to a problem, -- principles that are *not* obvious to a person "skilled in the art" under consideration. I don't think Popenoe's propaganda solution constitutes invention because I don't think it supplies any of the unique and not previously apprehended elements. Frankly I don't claim to be the inventor of this marvellous new social

Dr. Ellsworth Huntington -- 2

machine I'm talking about. I have some quite definite ideas of my
own about some of the elements that will constitute it but I have
yet to see any suggestion of how they are to be combined on a prac-
tical plane. That problem is to my mind the major challenge of the
times, -- and that is a real eugenic goal. Perhaps it may be argued
that it is wholly impracticable. At the moment, quite true, but will
anything else do the business? I am not sure that shooting high is
bad policy. I think that a rather surprising number of intelligent
people are looking consciously or unconsciously for some kind of a
star to hook their wagons to. If that guess is correct, let's give
them a planet to hook to and not Mr. Smith's beacon on top of the
Empire State Building.

I think that as far as the catechism itself is concerned my
view, evidently straddles that of Davenport and Popence. I think
we claim much more than has been claimed in many instances and have
indicated some of these places in my comments. When we consider the
astonishing success in changing a type that such breeders as Bates
have had without any genetic knowledge whatever it is tommyrot to
say that in the present state of our knowledge we cannot make a be-
ginning in applying the principles of genetics to human affairs. Turn
the thing around and figure out what would happen to any animal breeder
who applied existing educational and political concepts to his operations.
It would take the 3 A's and all the other letters of the alphabet to
keep him in business very long!

As to a name for the booklet, I am glad that "Who Shall Inherit
America" is "out". It is a good title for a book by a private person
like Wiggam. But I had a feeling that it somewhat misconstrued the
purpose of the booklet and furthermore it might prove to be bad policy
as I can see some of our anti-eugenic friends warping it to their own
purposes. The booklet really doesn't give you the answer to the question
anyway. "Who I Your Heir?" suggests a legalistic publication. I think
this ought to be kept on the biological side. How about "What of Your
Grandchildren?" "Americans of Tomorrow" might do. "The World of Our
Children" might have possibilities. I will talk it over with Lorimer
and others and if any better ideas appear will send them along.

Lorimer's baby was a little more hopeful yesterday morning. I
don't know what the real prospects are but fear they are not good.
Living in a vector where the ticks seem to have a good chance of carrying
spotted fever is not a pleasant experience as I can testify. From now
on until September the children must be minutely searched every evening
for these lovely creatures which heretofore have only been a nuisance
and now suddenly become a deadly menace. It's nice to contemplate what
may happen if one's attention wanders!

It has been a great pleasure going over the catechism and I hope
that I have not been too slow with it. I hope also that some of the
remarks will prove useful.

RCC:MAS

POPULATION ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA

510 VICTOR BUILDING
WASHINGTON, D. C.

BOARD OF DIRECTORS
1934-1935

HENRY PRATT FAIRCHILD
PRESIDENT

LOUIS I. DUBLIN
FIRST VICE PRESIDENT

WARREN S. THOMPSON
SECOND VICE PRESIDENT

FRANK LORIMER
SECRETARY-TREASURER

O. E. BAKER
JOHN D. BLACK
EDMUND DE S. BRUNNER
NILES CARPENTER
ROBERT E. CHADDOCK
CLARENCE G. DITTMER
FRANK H. HANKINS
ELLSWORTH HUNTINGTON
FRANK W. NOTESTEIN
WILLIAM F. OGBURN
FREDERICK OSBORN
RAYMOND PEARL
HAROLD A. PHELPS
LOWELL J. REED
LEON E. TRUESDELI
A. B. WOLFE

May 14, 1935.

Professor Ellsworth Huntington
Yale University
New Haven, Conn.

My dear Huntington:

I have been reading the text of "Who Shall Inherit America?" with great interest. My attention to it has been somewhat distracted by a severe illness in our family. In order to avoid delay, therefore, I am returning it to Cook without spending as much time on it now as I should like to do. I understand that he will send it to you shortly.

The document has very great values, but I also feel that it has some serious difficulties. Some of the program suggestions seem to me very fine, but not perfectly integrated or sufficiently related to other current movements. Frankly, the introductory material on genetics seems to me of much more dubious value and definitely inaccurate at some points. The presentation has some of the qualities of a catechism and some of the qualities of a literary dialogue, and I feel that this style is one that is difficult to apply to a group project. Also, it appears to me that in spots the document unnecessarily stirs up class reactions, which lie very near the surface these days and have terrific dynamite. I have made some more detailed comments, but I am not going to send them along because I feel they are inadequate. The subject is so important that I would like to talk it over with you rather than to rely on transmission of written notes.

Could you manage to spend a day with me and with Osborn, if this can be arranged, in New York some time this month? It would be fine if Andrews could come too, and if you and Osborn and Andrews and I could have a long talk about this program and about the future of the Eugenics Society.

One suggestion that you might be considering in the meantime is that it would be a help to Andrews in the work of the Society if the program on which this work is based could carry the authority of a larger scientific group, or, at least, a committee including a representative psychologist, one or two geneticists, several population experts, and one or two others with broad interest in public affairs--of course, it would be necessary that such a committee be com-

-2-

posed of persons who were open-minded to the logic of eugenics.
The program that such a committee would formulate would necessarily
agree with the present document in its scientific foundations, at
least, to a large extent. Conceivably, such a committee might be
set up under the National Research Council, or the Social Science
Research Council, or perhaps more practically under the Council of
Population Policy of which Osborn and Fairchild and you and I are
members.

I realize that the delay involved in any
such procedure may seem very unfortunate to you. Yet I believe
that the development of a program that could be assured of a large
measure of scientific support in this field (which has in the past
received so little of the support that it properly deserves) would
justify even further expenditure of time and strength and conse-
crated effort.

If these suggestions strike you as ill-
considered, I am quite ready to drop them, as I should not want
to press any ideas of mine to the fore. However, if you think this
line may be worth further consideration, you can count on me for
hearty cooperation.

-3-

Given a strong force of public opinion in this direction, methods must be further developed to make it effective. While some may urge continence or late marriage, it is likely that methods will center chiefly about the wider dissemination of birth control information, clinics, etc., and the improvement and cheapening of birth control techniques.

The eugenist will insist upon the aim, which must not be obscured by controversies as to the method.

3. The absolute segregation, during their entire period of child-bearing age, of all known carriers of hereditary defect; the only alternative to be voluntary sterilization before release.

This is the only part of a eugenics program requiring legal action. It is not the most important part of the eugenics program, for the reason that only a small proportion of hereditary defects can be eliminated in this way, as the majority of defects spring from the union of couples with recessive genes who are not ascertainable as carriers. Nevertheless, the increased cost of segregation would undoubtedly pay for itself in one generation, by the decreased number of defective charges on society which would result. It is a measure which, more than any other, society owes to itself. If urged on the basis of compulsory segregation, it should have the support of all thinking people, no matter what their emotional bias. Quite apart from considerations of heredity, it is unthinkable that we should continue to permit children to be brought into the world to be reared and cared for by feebleminded parents.

["-5-", "Fortunately, this task is not so difficult as the first, for it is already under way. The idea of family limitation is now spreading quite rapidly through almost all groups, and with its spread there is a change, not in the number of couples with children, but in the proportion of couples with families of five or more. Eugenic opinion should foster this change among those particularly ill equipped for raising children. When the proportion of large families among those unable to give many children proper care is reduced from over 25 per cent to an insignificant number, their rate of reproduction will be below replacement and the eugenic aim will have been achieved, without compulsion, and without denial of having children in proportion as ability to care for them may justify.", "The third aim, the absolute prevention of reproduction among that limited number of people known to be carriers of serious hereditary defect, is the most obvious and direct. It should meet universal approval if the eugenist can keep from getting embroiled in controversy as to methods.", "Behind all aims there must be a strong force of public opinion. It should be possible to arouse it. The soundest eugenics program, in the light of modern knowledge, and if properly understood, is in no way repugnant to other forms of social progress. There is no finer material purpose than the desire to improve the life of man on earth, and an important part of such an effort must be the improvement of man himself. Nor can it be regarded solely as a material effort. Its force and dignity derive too evidently from XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

FREDERICK OSBORN

52 BROADWAY

NEW YORK

TELEPHONE DIGBY 4-4200

April 17, 1935

Ellsworth Huntington, Esq.,
American Eugenics Society,
185 Church Street,
New Haven, Conn.

Dear Ellsworth:

Thanks for your nice remarks about the draft of Eugenics Program I sent you. I will be delighted to have you use any part of it, in my words or in any words you want to put it into, and of course without any use of my name, for this is really a synthesis of words and ideas from many sources which are in a common pool. I think the idea which perhaps has most value is the one which has to do with selection by size of family. We have already noted that the proportion of large families in a population group is the thing which varies most and which has most to do with their rate of reproduction. Where birth control is not practised the proportion of large families is related to ignorance and often hopelessness. Where birth control is generally practised the proportion of large families is related to a great many of the finest human qualities, belief in life, willingness to accept responsibility. The desire and ability to have large families may thus be a pretty good test of eugenic worth.

Mr. Andrews has been kind enough to let me read over the revised Catechism and I will take the liberty of making a few additional comments.

On page 20 the sentence, "they will have families so small" might perhaps better read, "such a small proportion will have large families."

I agree with the commentator who has noted in pencil on the margin, "omit the Jukes."

On page 33, at the foot, can the statement regarding doubling of morons in each generation be sustained?

I like your statement and program of positive eugenics a lot. Would you consider reversing its position and putting it in ahead of negative eugenics, due to the fact that we are undoubtedly in a period of declining population and people will probably soon be getting anxious about it?

On page 40, Eugenic Education. You know, I think, that this is perhaps the only part of the entire Catechism with which I am in some disagreement. My own feeling is that the first aim of positive eugenics must be to change the conditions which so

CHARTER
MEMBERS

E. S. GOSNEY
OTIS H. CASTLE
HENRY M. ROBINSON
DAVID STARR JORDAN
PAUL McB. PERIGORD
RUDOLPH I. COFFEE
LEWIS M. TERMAN
C. M. GOETHE
JOE G. CRICK
PAUL POPENOE
GEORGE DOCK
OSCAR FORD
A. D. SHAMEL
SARAH H. GOSNEY
LOIS G. CASTLE
GLADYS G. CRICK
ROBERT FREEMAN
MERLE N. SMITH
S. J. HOLMES
HERBERT M. EVANS
CHAS. H. PRISK
A. B. RUDDOCK
JUSTIN MILLER
JOHN VRUWINK
WILLIAM B. MUNRO
R. B. VON KLEINSMID

THE HUMAN BETTERMENT FOUNDATION
(A NON-PROFIT CORPORATION)

EXECUTIVE OFFICES:
SUITE 321, PACIFIC SOUTHWEST BUILDING
PHONE WAKEFIELD 6374

PASADENA, CALIFORNIA

April 4, 1935.

OFFICERS AND
TRUSTEES

E. S. GOSNEY
PRESIDENT

OTIS H. CASTLE
VICE-PRESIDENT

GEORGE DOCK
VICE-PRESIDENT

PAUL POPENOE
SECRETARY

JOE G. CRICK
TREASURER

JUSTIN MILLER

C. M. GOETHE

WILLIAM B. MUNRO

HENRY M. ROBINSON

Dr. Ellsworth Huntington,
Yale University,
New Haven, Connecticut.

Dear Dr. Huntington:

I am not at all satisfied with the first draft of the
eugenics catechism. It is far too long and detailed. If the
reader wants a full discussion he might better be referred to
some standard book on the subject. A catechism is not a dis-
cussion of pro's and con's such as you have given here, but a
brief didactic and dogmatic statement of what are assumed to
be incontestable facts and principles. I think there is need
for a catechism of that sort to answer questions about eugenics
but it should not cover more than sixteen pages at the outside
and twelve would be better.

The whole of Part I is, in my opinion, particularly unsatisfactory. I don't think you should go into Mendelism at all. No one denies that human traits are inherited to some degree in some way. For the purpose of eugenics it really does not make the slightest difference what the actual Mendelism mechanism of heredity is. Your attempt to give a brief outline of Mendelism will simply confuse the reader and you yourself raise so many doubtful points that you injure your own case.

Throughout the whole manuscript you suggest too many objec-
tions to your own statements. This is a tribute to your scien-
tific honesty, but incompatible with the nature of a catechism
and damaging to your case. When the Westminster authorities asked,
"What is the chief end of man?" they did not go on to say that
opinions differed on this point and that any conclusion must be
accepted as tentative and that a good deal more research was
needed to decide the question satisfactorily. The catechism must
be brought down to such simple terms that the points about which
quibbling can be done are eliminated. I think the whole treatment
of the subject must be more direct, positive, and non-controversial.

Dr. Huntington, #2.

The finale of the manuscript is weak.

I would suggest a completely new catechism for propaganda purposes which would be short, unequivocal, and straight to the point. Then take the material of this manuscript and break it up into a number of brief pamphlets. The question and answer device cannot be carried successfully through 60 pages. It becomes too tedious. I have checked a number of statements that seem to me to be inaccurate or misleading but have not tried to revise it line by line, because I do not believe you will want to use it in that way. The general treatment seems to be too largely traditional and an echo of eugenic literature of ten or twenty years ago. I believe a fresh start will be necessary for the present purpose.

I am sorry to be so destructive but I know you want me to be frank. I will be glad to be of further help in anyway possible.

With best regards, I am,

B

Paul Popenoe, Secretary

COMMENTS ON

DR. HUNTINGTON'S REVISED EUGENICS CATECHISM

The following remarks are lettered through and the lettering refers to comments noted on the margin of the manuscript. In making these comments I have tried to look at the matter, not only from the genetic and eugenic angle, but also from that of the prospective victim, -the man if not in the street, at least in his office or library trying to find out what eugenics is about.

Page 1, A

I don't think eugenics is well defined as the science of genetics applied to the improvement of mankind. I mean by that that if I had a mandate to improve mankind and the authority to do the job I would be quite likely tempted to use which measures which might very well not receive social sanction in existing society. Therefore the measures would not be eugenic. I think in the first-off definition this matter of "forcing under social control" should be brought in. Submit something like following: "Eugenics is a combination of art and science like engineering and medicine. Its basis is the science of heredity called genetics and it must be applied to the existing social structure where the art of the art of the statement comes into play. By eugenic methods it would be possible to improve the human race very materially in a relatively short number of generations.-- Perhaps that explanation is too involved but I don't believe eugenics is all science, quite likely I am wrong. Up to the present I do not think it has been.

B

I submit that at present the eugenist is not doing very much to guard the human germ plasm, he would like to. Suggest following: "Just as the medical profession has made great contributions to the health of humankind to the eugenist believes that the health of future generations should be a

-2-

matter of intelligent consideration. We hear much of conservation of many resources. The eugenist is a conservator of most priceless resource in the universe, human germ plasm in which is resident all the inborn potentialities of our race.

Page 2, C

I question whether there might not be other alternatives though I'll admit I am a little vague about just what they are. Suggest modifying as follows: Because only through a rational eugenic program can we see any reasonable prospect that future generations will be born with higher and better capacity than those possessed by man today. -- Does'nt this lack of dogmatism strengthen rather than weaken the statement?

D

I am inclined to wonder just when man's increasing control over nature began to introduce harmful evolutionary tendencies. Possibly it would be good to be a little more specific here and recite the fact that no complex culture, even the Chinese, has solved the problem of its harmful evolutionary tendencies by the fact that all of them have declined. I don't believe that there's any getting around the fact that complex civilizations always have been self limited. The ultimate object of eugenics is, after all, a permanent tragic human culture, not subject to the cycles of cycles which involve beginning over again every so often.

Page 3, E

Suggest revision as follows: "They plan to determine the causes of the unfavorable birth rate through scientific research methods, and then to use the facts in a plan that will tend to correct this serious condition." -- My objection is that even after we find out about unfavorable birth rates (of which we know a good deal), the problem of bringing about a properly balanced one is not simple as any intelligent person is likely to suspect.

F

Suggest modifying as follows: Any general improvements in the inborn

-3-

qualities of a people will very probably increase the number and variety
of highly gifted individuals and geniuses but this is by no means the main
object of a eugenic program. It is the general improvement of the physical
and mental traits of mankind as a whole that is held to be most important."

Page 4, G

Suggest modifying last sentence: The rank and file were indifferent to this problem or were unable to take any effective measures to remedy an often tragic situation. (Certain economic tendencies sometimes favored large families, -e. g. English cotton mills of last century and Colorado sugar beet industry. --It seems to me that ~~this~~ is a somewhat neglected factor in the size of family business ~~that~~ in the lower grades of society and in quite a number of situations a large family has not been necessarily a liability. It is only when we develop a certain amount of responsibility that this becomes the case.)

Page 7, H

Suggest that "every personality type" be included to include "every
physical and mental trait of the individual has its basis in some inherited
quality which possesses more of less potentiality for development". After
all personality traits are those we know least about and ~~we~~ feel that we need
not make the matter needlessly shaky. Toward the end of this question I
think that the matter might be expanded a little somewhat as follows:

"On the other hand every trait, however deeply established in the inheritance, owes part of its quality to the environment; a certain minimum environment comprising definitely prescribed conditions of temperature, humidity, chemical composition, etc. etc. is necessary for a given organism to develop at all. But when this minimum environment is available the characteristics produced in an organism depend overwhelmingly on the complex of characteristics ~~are a result~~ of a number of more or less inherited by that organism. Thus there ~~are~~ a number of more or less indifferent factors in the environment whose presence or absence is not a

matter of any considerable importance. Genetic research has shown recently that for most of the genes studied experimentally the *absence of a single gene is lethal* to the organism. Of course the absence of the *necessary elements of the environment is also lethal to the organism*; that is the absence of oxygen would be lethal to the organism. Looking at the matter in another way it would be *practically impossible* to tell by inspection whether a given mammalian egg was that of a horse, an elephant, a cow, or a human.

In order to develop each of these eggs must have a certain very specialized environment, -the uterine lining of the proper species of mammal. We do not know of any environment that would *change* the egg of a horse to produce an adult form resembling an elephant. The important point is that an organism is an interacting, -an end-product, - between a given environment and a given organism. The environment includes not only the surrounding physical medium but the *growth medium* of the developed organism during its early developmental stages. This is an environment that cannot be altered very much without producing fatal results. (---The matter might be expanded more but this is not a dissertation on developmental genetics.)

I

I feel that this discussion is seriously misleading. The real miracle of germ cells is not that they give rise to all manner of other kind of cells but that they have the *astonishing property* of meiotic division instead of mitotic. This peculiar form of cell division is a normal property only of germ cells as far as I am aware. Suggest rewording the statement somewhat as follows: The stream of life is carried by a very remarkable type of rather primitive and unspecialized cell called the germ plasm. in animals. These germ cells have capacity of reproducing themselves for a considerable number of cell generations without any change and then at certain times in the life cycle they undergo a very

profound changes which give them their unique capacity of sexual reproduction.
The essential part of this process is a very exact mechanism for dividing the
units of heredity into two groups, --separating paternal and maternal heredity
for any given characteristic. The specialized "half heredity" sex cells formed
then fuse to form a new individual. Following this fusion the resulting
cell division gives rise to new individuals of the species from which they
are descended. These functions make germ cells distinct from any type of
matter and since they are the basis of all the higher forms of life we are
justified in saying that germ cells represent the most important form of
matter of which have knowledge.

Page 8, I

It seems rather too bad that the genes are not located on the chromosomes
at this point. Suggest following: Every germ cell contains a multitude of
exceedingly small units or genes which are grouped together in a regular
order in or on the chromosomes, --dark staining bodies found in the cells of
all higher forms of life. The location of the heredity-controlling genes
in the chromosomes represents a biological invention of the first importance
because it is the behavior of these chromosomes in the formation of germ cells
(touched on above) which makes possible an orderly process of heredity, a
prerequisite to the development of higher organisms.

J

It is distinctly questionable whether all the elements of true heredity
are carried by the genes. It may be that cytoplasmic inheritance is as well
recognized phenomenon quite different in its nature from chromosomal inheritance
which we now look upon as gene inheritance. The cytoplasm is an absolutely
essential part of gene environment. It is inherited too. Suggest modifying
as follows: The genes represented do not represent all the hereditary material.
In the reproductive cells there are other cells, e.g., gametes, etc., substances
outside the chromosomes which carry the gene. The genes and the substances The
chromosomes are contained in the nucleus of the cell which might be likened to

-6-

the control room of a ship. Outside this nucleus is the cytoplasm which also plays a very important but still somewhat indeterminate part in heredity. The female germ cells (the egg) contain a considerable quantity of cytoplasm and this is inherited just as much as the chromosomes and the genes. This inherited cytoplasmic material, might be considered as "gene environment." Some biologists consider that the general form of a given species is a matter of cytoplasmic inheritance but little is known about this.

K

I favor leaving plants out of this. The germ plasm situation in plants is not as nice and clear as it is in animals. Germ cell *is* essentially undifferentiated tissue and there seems to be plenty of sufficiently primitive plant tissue to function as germ cells. I believe that rather than get into this it would be better to just leave plants out of the picture.

L

I think the statement as made is misleading. The orderly progress of *NATURE* / development of hereditary characteristics is one of the most amazing phenomena in nature. It is wholly misleading to say that a germ cell *promptly* begins to produce a *vast variety* of new kinds of cells. For quite a *WHILE*, *WE*, *KIND*, *POSSIBILITIES*, *WHAT*, *THE*, *CELLS* number of cell divisions we know positively that the cells are not different from each other and then the differences begin to take place only gradually and in an astonishing orderly manner. Suggest the following: When fertilization takes place, the one-celled *BACTERIA* (zygote) begins life by simply dividing to form a *TWO* *CELLS*, *followed by other* a three-celled individual. This cell division *goes on at a very rapid rate*. In fact the rate of growth of an embryo during the early stages of development is almost explosive in its rapidity. In spite of this the process is an amazingly orderly one. The great variety of cells which form the body of an adult human being are produced by the process of differentiation during one development which is one of the fundamental properties of heredity and of the

-7-

most astonishing examples of control and coordination of which we have any knowledge.

M

I question too much subdividing here. After a certain amount of cell division the germ cells seem to go into a resting stage where they remain relatively inactive until puberty.

N

I object to the germ cells as specialized cells. I object to their flowing. The break between the generations is a single cell. This might be remedied in two ways: by altering the question or altering the answer. The answer might be altered as follows: It is not correct to think of the germ plasm as a continuous stream. The connection between the germ plasm of one individual and its parent and off spring is a single cell. This tiny, precarious bridge between the generations extends unbroken to the time when life began. It is this concept of a direct organic connection between the germ cells of any living individual going back in an unbroken train to the beginning of life that is the essence of Weismann's theory of the continuity of the germ plasm.

Page 10, 0

I think this part in here suffers from having left the chromosomes out earlier. I think that the first question and answer on page 11 follow the first answer on page 10, --that is, having got the allelomorph business on board, one immediately wonders what happens when a person has a pair of allels. Having established that, the question of the passing on of these allelomorphs to the children becomes to the fore.

Page 11, 0

recessive

though

We know that a certain gene will remain unchanged or unexpressed for fifty generations. I think it would be desirable to be more specific about what "the circumstances" are. Suggest following: A recessive gene may

-8-

lie latent for fifty or a hundred generations and then when two parents mating marry who carry such a recessive trait, it will appear on the average in a quarter of their offspring.

Page 12, R

I take violent exception to this. A great deal of genetic research is being done on this question and the gene is always present at each locus. We may have a series of allelomorphs, ranging from black to albinism but an albino gene is not an "absence". Demerec has much evidence on this point and the great majority of gene deficiencies - single gene deficiencies - are lethal to the organism and to the cell. There are only two alternatives but there are series of allelomorphs, a point which is not touched on. Suggest the following treatment, "Are genes for every particular trait always present?". The genes which determine a trait are some of them represented by several alternative forms. Thus in mammals generally there is a series of alternatives (allelomorphs) which condition color of hair. These range from black through red, yellow, or sandy to albinism. The present concept based on considerable experimental work is that there is a gene present for all these characteristics. A given individual can have any two genes of the series. Even the extreme cases of feeble mindedness represent a definite gene, not an absence of gene.

S

I think the word *thoroughbred* is unfortunate here. A *thoroughbred* is a breed of horses. It's not an especially pure breed, and there is a good deal of evidence that it has quite a variety of genes, probably not as many as the average man. For that reason would favor *"purebred"* or some such phrase. Of course our most highly selected domestic animals are still highly heterozygous for a great many characteristics. They are uniform for a few superficial ones like color and stature but not so very uniform for these either.

Page 13, T

Suggest following modifications: Probably in a considerable number of generations people might become somewhat more alike, in the sense that the

-9-

extreme undesirable variations such as pin-headedness (microcephaly), extra fingers, and feeble mindedness would be rarer in the population. A great majority of the characters which give people their interesting individuality have no particular selective value and eugenic measures would have no effect on their frequency in the population.

Page 13, U

I don't think we can accuse Father Mendel of genes. Suggest the following: Because we owe to him the fundamental discovery which enabled us to understand heredity as an orderly process capable of exact measurement. He enunciated the principle that various characters were inherited as definite independent units and that the alternative forms of these (dominant and recessive) were pairs. ... we occur in a given cross.

Page 14, V

Does'nt mendelian law enable us to do much more than make generalized predictions as to what inheritance may be expected in successive generations of a given species? We are quite capable of making definite predictions that the off spring of a given mating will be of certain definite classes. We can be quite categorical in saying that all the offspring of a pair of albinos will be albinos. We can be quite categorical in saying that if an albino marries a normal person the chances are overwhelmingly in favor of all the children being non-albinos (we can figure the chance that a normal person will carry the recessive albinism gene). Suggest rewording it as follows: Thus the mendelian laws enable us to make exact statistical predictions as to what inheritance may be expected when any pair of alternative mendelian characters are involved. Thus we can say on the basis of mendelian inheritance that if two albinos marry all the children will be albinos. We can say, on the basis of inheritance, that none of the sons of a color blind man will inherit color blindness, nor will they pass it on to any of their off spring. We can say the same thing for hemophilia and with a high though somewhat variable degree of probability for some hundred and fifty human characteristics - I

-10-

think this statement as it is now is a statement of the Galtonian theory of inheritance and not the mendelian. Admittedly we don't know enough about many important human characteristics to make exact predictions on the basis of mendelian inheritance at present. That, however, is more due to the lack of knowledge than to the limitations of mendelian inheritance. In following question the same difficulty holds. Suggest rewording this as follows:

> When the mendelian properties of any inherited character have been established by experiment or observations with adequate statistical control, it is possible to predict with a high degree of accuracy what proportions of the offspring of any given mating will exhibit the character under consideration whose inheritance is known. It will not enable us to predict what particular characteristics any given child will exhibit any more than it is possible to say whether a tested penny will fall heads up or tails up.

W

I object to hiding our light under a bushel. Crew lists several pages in small packages of human characteristics on which type of human characteristics regarding which there is enough evidence to state with some degree of exactitude that mendelian inheritance is involved. We know much about the inheritance of certain important human characteristics, therefore I suggest changing this as follows: In the lower forms of life exact experimental studies have demonstrated that the mendelian form of heredity is characteristic of all organisms studied except bacteria. Exact genetic studies have been made on fruit flies, on corn, on poultry and other domestic animals, on rats, mice, and guinea pigs. The universality of the mendelian form of inheritance enables us to recognize in human material characteristics which are inherited according to the mendelian scheme. It is possible by statistical means to establish with a very high degree of certainty the mendelian nature of much human inheritance. Further evidence of mendelism in human heredity is given by such special cases as sex linked and dominant inheritance characteristic of color blindness, hemophilia. About many

-11-

important human characteristics we still do not have enough information on which to base definite predictions but on many other characteristics we can be quite dogmatic. Thus there are families in the United States which for generations have been transmitting glaucoma, a very painful eye defect, as an hereditary mendelian dominant character. We can say that half the off spring of glaucomatic individuals will have glaucoma. We can say that those individuals free from the same defect in the same family will not transmit the condition to their off spring. The blood groups which are accepted in courts of law as evidence of paternity are inherited according to mendelian law. No intelligent person can question the existence of mendelian inheritance in man and the increase in our knowledge in this field since the beginning of the twentieth century is one of the most hopeful developments of modern science. In the following question I think that we should modify it as follows: ****but our knowledge of the heredity of specific characters in man is limited because we cannot carry on experiment breeding in man as in some of the lower animals. It is necessary by animal experimentation to establish the mechanism of heredity. Then by statistical technique which has only recently begun to be satisfactorily worked out it is possible to test the mechanism established definitely in lower animals against the observed inheritance in human pedigrees. By this complicated but exact "gene frequency method" great advances in human genetics are possible without the experimental breeding which is necessary to establish the principles of heredity.

Page 16 A

/ can we go a little farther here, suggest following: be careful before taking precautions to prevent the reproduction

I question the philosophy at this point. If a trait is sufficiently serious to justify us in taking precautions to prevent the marriage of two people with genes for the defect it is not a desirable trait. If this is the case we are not playing the game eugenically by continencing the wider dissemination of this trait in the population. I think we must admit that the ideal situation

cannot be obtained. I don't think we can keep our eugenic faces straight if we continence a program of ploughing in recessive genes. Can't we straddle a little by saying: "be handled by taking as precautions as far as possible to prevent the production of people bearing such defects of excessively large families." -- I don't see any virtue in being swamped with color blindness in an economy where red and green lights are getting so important.

Page 16, B

I don't feel that we are justified in claiming that mental traits are more complex in their inheritance than physical traits, unless there is some evidence in support of such a view. I don't know of any. For that reason suggest: "Mental traits just as all physical traits are due to a highly complex combination of genetic factors derived not only from the parents but from the grand parents and other more remote ancestors as well. Slight differences in the combination of the genes in the fertilized egg may cause even more significant differences in mental capacity and in physical characteristics. Of the exact details of mental inheritance and of much physical inheritance we are as yet not well enough informed."

-14-

where genetic principles enable us to predict in a high degree of probability
that undesirable inheritance is involved.

B

B

Captions for "genetic principles here too."

Page 29, A

Two things might be added here it seems to me. One is some reference to
the progeny test, - that is where a given pair has produced one defective offspring the probability that they will produce others is tremendously increased.
Where a given pair have produced a normal or superior offspring the probability of their producing other socially desirable offsprings is very low. It might go something like this: A modification of the "progeny test" which is really the basis of all genetic research can be applied here in human affairs. Where a given pair of parents have produced one or more palpably defective offsprings the probability that they will produce still further defective offsprings is immeasurably increased. In such circumstances a careful study is indicated, and if the conclusion is that the defects are due to genetic causes, certainly society should not be called upon to bear the burden of further defective children, - because society does bear this burden in the long run. Where a couple have produced one or more normal or superior children the chances that they will produce any defective offsprings are lessened in proportion to the number of normal children they have. This principle if conservatively and intelligently applied would probably be the most important single element of preventative eugenics."

Page 35, B

I question the simile. The difficulty with the defective business is that they resemble cancer in being insidious in early growth and not producing acute symptoms. Suggest following: "The defectives whom we have just been considering may be compared to an insidious disease affecting the body politic. Because there is no overwhelming increase in any one generation the problem appears to be a remote one, and we are inclined to leave the matter for later generations just as the individual is tested to delay examination of apparently trivial physical symptoms which may be forebodings of cancer. Eugenics is racial preventative medicine."

On the following page the preceding change if accepted would involve a certain amount of rewording. On page 27 I think the answer at the top of the page is still further questionable. The tooth paste bretheren having produced an enormous ballyhoo of "danger line" and "pale pink brushes." I am not at all sure that a really well controlled study would yield much comfort for those who hold that tooth decay can be prevented by the application of an expensive dentifrice and a certain amount of elbow grease. I have discussed this matter at length with some very good dentists and they have rather regretfully to admit that a nice thick coat of tarter may be nature's idea of a really adequately protected set of teeth. I don't believe that eugenics needs to lean on the advertising efforts of Amos and Andy for support and I move that our simile be shifted to the American Society for the Control of Cancer which is a coordinated effort to use what knowledge we have in immediate efforts at combating the cancer death rate and at the same time

-16-

encouraging research, clinical and in the laboratory, to discover the real
causes of cancer. Cancer is a matter of relative cell growth and is very
good material for this purpose because in an organism the question of relative
cell growth, that is of differential birth rates, is absolutely fundamental.
Without differential birth rates we could have no higher organisms. If you
have an adverse differential cell birth rate, - if you have a group of cells
that are not playing according to the coordinated plan, - you have cancer. If
in the body politic you overstep certain rather limited bounds in this matter of
differential individual birth rates you begin to have economic, sociological,
and political cancer. The American Eugenic Society might be called the Society
for the Control of Social Cancer and it would not be a misnomer.

Page 39, A

I don't think the eugenic answer is purely objective. It may be objective
on some planes but is it objective on the eugenic plane? The eugenist is interested
in the "forces under social control which affect the survival of characteristics".
As an individual, the eugenist may be interested in parents having children when
they choose, that is quite beside the eugenic point. As a eugenist he is interested
in the improvement of the human race. I submit that it is perfectly good
eugenics, though undesirable in other ways, to take thought as to whether there
are any "forces under social control" as society is now constituted whereby very
gifted parents might be allowed to have children who are better than they
they "choose". I don't see what, within limits, the matter of the "least" possible
emotional stress has got to do with the matter. Undoubtedly many of the very
large families in charter New England were produced under a great deal of very
unfavorable emotional stress. The eugenist feels that these large families were
and important contribution to the greatness of America. If he is really being
objective he can do a little speculating about the effect American history of
too much latitude in "choosing" and too much preoccupation in the matter of

"emotional stress" might have had no real influence on the group until it had no real influence on the future history of America. I submit that the answer is said to be purely objective and that it is very far from being objective at all. If the catechism comes out with this statement in it, stand out from under!

Page 29, B

I know a lot of scientists and I don't think the great majority of them have any particular opinion on this matter and if they do have it is only an opinion. I challenge the authors of the catechism to produce a dozen people in the world whose opinion on this matter is worth a eugenics damn. I'll gladly admit that you can find any quantity of "opinions" from a great many people who have either a mass of preconceptions, a certain amount of anecdotal clinical evidence or a few observations. If you want to say that it is common knowledge that continents don't work, that is all right, but having the Amos and Andy advertising campaign I now protest that the eugenists and better adopting people from the Fleishman Yeast ideal should be scolded by the Amos and Andy.

Page 29, C

If I protest against the scientists above, I now on similar grounds object to the physicians as authorities. Any detailed reference to literature on this subject shows what a mass of conflicting data physicians can muster. The problem of a control is an almost insuperable one. Suggest the following: Its chief defect at present is that we do not have enough knowledge. Our experimental knowledge of the safe period is based on observation of other mammals and the transfer of this to the human ovulation cycle is fraught with some difficulties. It is altogether possible that the method may be worked out in the future with a high degree of probability, but at present the data available are rather inadequate and somewhat indefinite. This is the fault, not of the method but of our lack of knowledge."

Page, 29D

I suppose that the form of question is one that a layman might ask.

-18-

His wrist should certainly be slapped for the "belief in" formulation of his question. One may believe in the Holy Ghost as an act of faith but one must either accept contraception as a fact or deny its existence. If it is accepted as a fact, what are its effects? If the effects are thus and so, what is their racial significance? This being as it is, suggest therefore the following:

Birth control or contraception is a fact. Since time immemorial various methods have been used by all branches of the human race to reduce fertility. Eugenics is concerned with the differential birth rate. Contraception is a factor that affects the differential birth rate either for good or for ill, therefore no eugenic program can ignore the fact of contraception. Since eugenics is an art based on科学, the methods used to produce a given result are a matter of human opinion. While no eugenist can ignore the fact of contraception, there is however, a legitimate ground for differences of opinion as to the part the social phenomenon of contraception plays in a eugenic program."

Page 40, E

My objections to this answer go back to the question on previous page regarding "choosing". The eugenist, as I see it, is a racial physician. Physicians sometimes prescribe bitter medicine. Sometimes put their patients under severe emotional strain. They sometimes decide the question of the life and death of a patient. The racial physician is in the same situation regarding his patient, the body politic. I submit that there may well be times when the needs of the body politic and the needs of the individual may not coincide. I don't think that this answer is either eugenic or objective. I can suppose you half a dozen cases where it might be a matter of racial survival to have more children than parents are adequately able to provide for. I don't say I like such a situation or consider it free from emotional strain, but I submit that in the world as it is such a situation can exist and very likely still exists. Just to take a case in point. The present trend in the United States is to "soak the rich" for the benefit of a large unemployed class. Let's just shut our eyes for a minute and assume that the rich are miraculously of better eugenic stuff than the unemployed.

-19-

With taxes mounting to unheard of heights, the number of children the rich can adequately provide for becomes very much limited, ~~as~~ *the rich but the property classes*. The number of children the mob can adequately provide for under government subsidy becomes almost limitless. If this situation produced a birth rate of five per thousand among the rich and of thirty or forty per thousand among the poor, I submit that ~~as~~ *some way* the only possible eugenic hope would be to find some way to maintain the reservoir of superior genes by somehow figuring out ways to make the rich have more children than they can adequately provide for. The example is crude and hastily drawn but here again I feel very strongly~~ that if the catechism comes out with this statement in it, stand out from under.

Page 43, A

Suggest altering next to last sentence in first answer thus: "Thus along with their great benefits these agencies bring grave dangers. Sterilization seems to be protection the simplest and most effective measure of keeping we have. Sterilization is not a punitive measure."

B

My suspicion is that vasectomy is rather less painful than pulling a tooth.
Perhaps I am fussy about the dental implications of eugenics.

Page 44, C

I think this answer is badly in need of revision. The argument heretofore has
birth control
been that sterilization propaganda is necessary to get birth control practices applied
by the lower grades of society. Now we learn that the morons and the feeble minded
are adepts. If there is a case for both arguments it should be stated much more
clearly than it is, personally I think this statement is incorrect.

Page 45, B

More objections! I don't see why imaginary recessive genes are adequate grounds
for sterilization. That simply means that conscientious people whose cousin Lizzie
died in an insane asylum talk themselves into being sterilized for the good of the
race. Such a situation could easily be absurd if it were not tragic. I think that it
will be to our advantage to refuse to countenance sterilization operations on normal
people unless good grounds exist for believing that defective genes are involved.
voluntary sterilization may be
certainly/advisable for people who are neither defective
nor dependent but only on the basis of very strong probability of production children,
or of carriers of defects.

Page 47, A

It seems that the person who wrote this answer was not the one who was so much more
optimistic earlier. Is it true that we might expect as much as fifty per cent
reduction in feeble mindedness in a single generation? How about commenting on the
greatly increased effectiveness of sterilization if and when we can pick out carriers?
The "progeny test" suggested previously would have a definite bearing on this point.

(continued)

Suggest adding to the question the following: "If a method can be worked out for identifying the carriers of genes for feeble mindedness the effectiveness of sterilization is of course tremendously increased. As yet this is not possible."

Page 48, B

I think this answer is distinctly questionable. Is there really adequate evidence that the vast majority of low grade people only want two children? I'm not at all sure about it, furthermore where did eugenics get the slogan "A wanted generation". I thought that was distinctly Margaret Sangerism rather than eugenics. Has such a slogan ever been adopted by any eugenics organization? in the present

Page 57, A

I am skeptical about this proposition possibly because it seems too simple.

How do we know that making children of no economic moment whatever is going to do certain things to the birth rate? Even when children are a matter of a certain amount of discomfort and dislocation they somehow or other arrive. I'm not sure I see how making their arrival a matter of entire economic indifference is going to lower the birth rate. The reason that fattening people tends to lower the birth rate is because children are not a matter of economic indifference. They interfere with the pleasure of the fattening process. This proposition eliminates that fact and yet the effects are assumed to be the same. I don't see any really valid grounds for making this assumption.

Page 61, A

More objections. What kind of leader? I grant that in a eugenically sane state the leaders need to know about eugenics but in the present social order I can think of dozens of kinds of leaders that are probably better off without a knowledge of eugenics. I don't say the race is better off. How about modifying it to say, "leaders calculated to improve the long run social status of mankind" or something like that?

Furthermore I would like to enter an objection about the "poor quality of the average person". I'd like to see the "average person" get a really decent start in life before I made such broad statements. I think that nobody will question the statement that we don't use much over fifty per cent of our abilities on the average. If this is true our primary problem is an educational one. There is where eugenics comes in. Eugenics can't get anywhere without reorganizing the educational system and the economic system. That of course is a good sized order just to start with. Don't forget that the swell Percheron and thoroughbred race-horse have been well fed and carefully groomed all their days and that they have been skillfully trained to do the job for which they are intended. I think this question is a good example of the difficulty of producing a eugenic program along narrow lines.

Page 62, B

I don't understand why genetics doesn't appear in the list of eugénical educational subjects. If you are trying to be low brow and non-technical all right. But in that case leave out larythmics, which has me down. I don't believe one person in ten thousand would have the slightest idea what that subject would be about. I do think that genetics and human genetics should be specifically included. The really basic part of the program is missing, --that is an elementary, adequate, and compellingly interesting introduction in biology in the primary schools. That

**is fundamental.** Without that kind of a sympathetic biological background, which
shows
the present educational system ~~has~~ absolutely no promise of producing, a high
falluting eugenics program of education is out of the question. I don't think
it is very serious that we spend years trying to teach pupils to learn to spell
and then turn out stenographers who can't spell and bookkeepers who can't add.

I do think it is serious that none of these people have the slightest concept of
their place in nature or any inkling really of the kind of ~~ALL~~ that ~~make~~ the
human machine function at all. Such a program fits in well in any kind of an
enlightened society and can be ~~worked~~ in without hurting the cause of eugenics—put in without hurting the cause of eugenics—put in courtesy.

The preceding remarks apply here too. I think the recent researches in
biological education carried on at the Malthus House School, I believe it's at
Oxford, should be carefully considered in formulating this part of the program.
It seems to me that this educational section is pitifully inadequate. There is
a major part of the program of eugenics, which after all really can't expect to get
going for a generation or so, wasting time because we have not given any worthwhile
consideration to the basic educational program and of ways and means that will
give some hope of getting it into effect.

I should think the cooperative section could be expanded somewhat. There are two distinct kinds of cooperatives,—possibly three. There are the cooperative agricultural enterprises such as the California citrus growers that have been primarily agricultural/enterprises/ economic up to the present time in their effect. They might well be broadened to have definite eugenic importance. Certainly in effecting the standards of living of farm populations they have an important effect today and it will probably become greater in the years to come. Then there are the consumer cooperatives which are doing a quite considerable business in the United States today and which have very much greater influence in some other countries, notably the Scandinavian. Economically they seem to me to be much beyond "their infancy", since they have a pretty direct history of continuous development for something over a century. They are at present, of course, totally nullogenic in their outlook. They might have also some definite eugenic possibilities because such a system ought to tend to reflect to a greater extent than the present system the value of the individual to a socialized society.

The third class of cooperatives, if that is what they are, is the living cooperatives which seem to be the only kind mentioned in the discussion in the catechism. They could well merge over into the consumer cooperatives and I think any very long range look at the situation would suggest that the primary producer cooperatives of the agricultural type may also fit into the picture. It seems to me that in this section again the treatment could be expanded to really give a good look at the cooperative business from the eugenic point of view with the effect of making it very informing and interesting to a lot of people and adding really greatly to the value of the catechism. I think the present treatment is bad politics because as the matter stands it does not provide anything worth while in the way of background to the seeker after knowledge. To a person who knew anything about the cooperative situation it is quite obvious that the answer was written by some one who was not very much up on/cooperative situation and if that is true of one

section what is his opinion of the rest of the catechism?

Page 70, A

A lawyer friend of mine once remarked that you don't know people until you see them in a probate court. I wish you would try this statement on a lawyer specializing on probate work and see what he thinks of it. My objection is that selection, if it is any good, is going to have to go on inside of families as well as outside them. Setting up a hypothetical case let's pretend there's a family with three children -- a competent, hard working individual with reasonable pride and a couple of others with not so much competence, not so much get-aheadness, and quite likely with a larger family. Assume that all three children are exposed to a certain amount of economic stringency. Which one do you think will get the money? The competent independent one or the others? Ask the probate lawyer and he'll give you the answer. The French dowry system, I suspect is quite hard boiled and I'll bet it's a lot more eugenic than some systems of investment on children when they are born.

Page 73, A

Maybe it is correct that in colonial times the sense of economic security boosted the birth rate. Somehow I don't feel that a chap in the Connecticut Valley in the early days with rumors of French and Indian raids taking the place of further cut in the value of the dollar, was engaged in boosting the birth rate because he felt so terrifically secure. It seems to me that this statement as it stands can be taken by a bright person with anti-eugenic leanings and made into a perfectly beautiful parody. Maybe I'm all wrong but I do feel that it ought to be hedged. After all the peculiar feature about the world today is that for once and for the only time in the history of the race we actually have an abundance of every basic necessity for every member of the human race. No such situation has ever existed before. The fact that we haven't succeeded in EXHIBITING this abundance in any sensible way does not alter the astonishing nature of the situation. It might well be commented on with the great possibilities it has for eugenic improvement or impairment of the race.

Page 80, A

In line with my shooting at birth control all through the review I here take another shot. I'm quite willing to admit that the appeal of birth control is desirable. I don't think that if the measure it's the major objective of eugenics in the field of legislation and public action. I think item 8 on page 81 is much more important from the eugenic point of view and as a matter of policy I again question the wisdom of laying eugenickad open to the criticism that its eugenic activities are primarily birth control activities. Personally I think that item 2, that dealing with sterilization, is probably more important, because I don't believe when you give the physicians the freedom of information you are going to do so very much voluntary sterilization for the birth control of the very low grade. Item 5 on page 81, to require medical examinations before marriage should be expanded. It should include medical examination and an examination of the family history of the contracting parties. I don't see where just an ordinary medical examination is going to get very far. If I'm not mistaken, an earlier section said that most of the aments already were fairly good, and that with birth control measures.

Page 83, A

I think the statement about emigration is excellent. My only question is
with regard to the statement that emigrants from the Western himisphere are now
excluded. My understanding was that, sad as it may seem, the people of the Western
hemisphere are rather too freely to immigrate into the United States. Is't the
reason for extending the quota system to cut down immigration from our southern
neighbors rather than to increase it? I think this point should be clarified.

Page 87, A

Favor expanding this answer somewhat to include more specifically human
genetics. As follows: "In the field of human heredity far less has been done
because controlled experiments are impossible and the length of generation is great.
While enough information has been accumulated to leave no doubt that the same
principles of mendelian heredity apply to man as to other organisms still the details

Page 91 to end

Probably my anti-birth control view again are blinding me to the ultimate beauty of the final chapter. I think it is well done, if we are satisfied to eugenics a have a positive sort of glorified birth control movement. I think it ought to be much more than that. Galton expressed the hope that eugenics would preach the world a new religion. I think that is possible. I think it is the real goal of eugenics. The one element that has been the main driving force of the religion of the past more than anything else perhaps has been the urge to immortality. Man might be defined as a fire-talking creature given to authorship, but more than that he is a creature driven by this emotional urge toward immortality!

Darwin made "Hell a laughing stock and Heaven an empty dream", Galton suggested the possibility of bringing Heaven down to earth. Eugenics is a way this might be done. I see no very hopeful evidence that it will be done as is said in the final chapter. Eugenics is still a promise. At the present writing I should say it was a pretty hopeless sort of promise. If I were going to prophesy on the basis of performance to date I would not feel very hopeful about the next thousand years. Birth control is the young gentleman's knife all right, and he's

got all the blades open and is hacking merrily away on himself and on his neighbors.

The eugenist says the knife can be turned to some useful purpose. With this I agree but I think the eugenist has got to get about getting the knife to some practical use before the bears and wolves do start walking in our streets, -- a custom which they may enjoy following though they never yet have done so.

What is my goal of eugenics? It is much less prescribed, much more exciting and considerably more emotional. The religious dogmas that have been satisfactory for previous generations of humans are more or less bankrupt on account of discoveries during the past two or three centuries. Eugenics has the opportunity to offer a substitute that will satisfy this fundamental human urge and at the same time offer about the only hopeful prospect I see of bettering the human race.

Just as the religious doctrines of the Middle Ages tinctured the entire thought of that time, so it seems to me the eugenic concepts must tincture the thought of any civilization that is likely to endure under present conditions. Our present economic system is absurd, but so are most of the alternatives offered. I submit that an economic system having the _most desirable eugenic aspects_ would be one that it would be _good to live under_. The two billion dollars a year we spend on education are mostly wasted at the present time. I submit that a eugenic interest in such matters which would embrace finding out something about education through studies of identical twins etc. would mean better education here and now as well as some generations hence.

These remarks are only a suggestion of what it seems to me eugenics might be.

I believe that such a broadening of the base of eugenics would enlist enough interest so we might begin to get somewhere and without such a broadening of the base I don't see very much hope that eugenics is going to get started in time to do much with this particular cycle of the <u>deacy</u> with which the "proposition" rests.

A. E. W.
241 CENTRAL PARK WEST
NEW YORK

Professor Ellsworth Huntington,
New Haven, Conn.

April 9th.'35.

Dear Professor Huntington:

The Catechism is a most admirable product.
I do sincerely congratulate you and the Society on your splendid
performance. No other one interested in eugenics to-day could
have done it nearly so well. I am sure it will rouse interest
both in this and foreign lands. I feel it will likely help
bring in some of the skeptics who have held aloof perhaps with
considerable reason.

The slight changes I suggest are
quite trivial and unimportant, and purely editorial. The
product would be just as well off without them.

Just one thought, would it be worth considering to print a short glossary in the front or back, as Popenoe and Johnson have in their "APPLIED EUGENICS?" Better, if considered, at the back. If a lay reader picked it up and struck a list of forbidding, unfamiliar terms on the first page, he would likely pass it up.

Again my congratulations,

I am keeping a number of paragraphs copied to send out through
my newspapers. They cannot appear before July or August.

282

The Journal of Heredity

3,464 ♀) but there is a definite pre-
ponderance of male epileptics: 1,140
males to 810 females. In recent years
a more rapid increase in male epileptics
has been noted.

In 68 state institutions in 1927 the staff personnel totalled 9,019 persons. Of this number 244 were physicians, 30 were psychologists, 110 were graduate nurses, 4,155 were attendants. The total cost of operating and maintaining these institutions was $22,425,135, the cost per inmate being $342.71. This compares with similar costs in prisons of $334.75, and in hospitals for mental disease of $307.81, per inmate per year.

"It is well known that only a small part of the feebleminded in the United States are in institutions established for their care," so that this report gives only an inkling of the total economic burden of feeblemindedness. The three-hundred-per-cent increase in ratio of institutional feeblemindedness to the total population is probably the most alarming statistic presented. The tax cost of the care of these unfortunates is at present only about a dollar per family for the population as a whole. If this amount more than triples every quarter century, as has been the case since 1904, it will rapidly become a very tidy item of taxation in the not-so-distant future. Probably the acceleration in tax-costs for this purpose is not as great as for more vocal "causes." Nevertheless it is rapid enough to be viewed with alarm by many who are today wondering where next year's taxes are coming from. If the rate of increase since 1900 is maintained, it will represent three dollars per family by 1953; $9.00 per family by the turn of

the century. This assumes no accelera-
tion of the rate of increase, which has
been considerable in the past, and which
if maintained might easily double or
triple this already rather staggering
figure.

Even though we fully agree with
some of the rabid anti-eugenicists, abet-
ted by a refinement of statistics, that
feeblemindedness could probably not be
altogether eliminated in a score of gen-
erations, it is nevertheless a fact that
its *rate of increase* can be checked, not
in a decade, but if we wish it sincerely
enough, and are willing to apply exist-
ing knowledge, next year. Its incidence
in the general population could be very
materially reduced in 25 years, and
with little inconvenience even to those
concerned. Rapidly increasing feeble-
mindedness is a luxury that we appear
willing to afford because we prefer to
consider the problem emotionally rather
than objectively. Perhaps the feeble-
minded are happier than the normal and
if this is so their multiplication might
be considered an advanced form of al-
truism. Those who have seen them
"in action," trying to compete in a too
complicated world, or in the rather
dreary restraint of the average institu-
tion, can only feel amazement that such
a view can seriously be advanced. At the
present time only one state, California,
is making any active and intelligent at-
tempt to meet the problem. The rest of
us are content to pay a dollar a year now
and to look forward to paying three
times as much in 1960 and nine or eigh-
ten times as much by the turn of the
century. One wonders, was Linnaeus
really serious when he chose *Sapiens* as
a designation for the fellow members of
the species to which he belonged?

Economics of Mental Disease

THE term "mental disease" covers
a great variety of conditions due to
a large number of causes. Genes and
germs and many other things have a
part in initiating the events that cause
people to be placed in institutions for
the insane. Dr. Horatio N. Pollack,

of the New York Department of Men-
tal Hygiene* has attempted to place a
value on the economic losses due to
mental disease in New York State and

*POLLACK, HORATIO N. Economic Loss to New York State and to the United States because of Mental Disease. 1931. *Mental Hygiene* 16:(62)289-299.

COMMENTS ON EUGENIC CATECHISM - F. C. R.

I feel very incompetent to pass on the questions involved in this matter, both from lack of scientific knowledge, and of time to give the subject careful thought. However, I give my reactions from a hasty personal :

1. It is much too long. A catechism is supposed to be for rapid and more or less cursory reading - for the type of people who have not the patience to go thoroughly into a subject, or who lack the preparation to understand it. I should think this ought to be cut down at least one half in size. It would take too much time to suggest in detail just how this should be done; but broadly speaking I should say the latter parts should especially be curtailed. A bibliography could be annexed for those interested enough to pursue the subject further.

2. From my very meager knowledge, the emphasis on the Mendelian law seems too strong. That is, as I understand it, not all traits are as yet known to be inherited under that law; and certainly there seem to be many exceptions, whether due to mutations or what cause I can not even guess.

3. In discussing leadership on p. 10, it might be added that a higher average intelligence would lead to a greater specialization.

4. It seems to me in discussing the matter of unusual progeny from commonplace or even low grade parents, there is not enough attention given to the fact that in the ancestry behind such persons may lie possibilities which occasionally find a fortunate combination.

5. 27 states have sterilization laws, not 28, see p. 27

6. p. 29 - bottom - does this not over-state the time needed to practically eliminate feeblemindedness?

7. p. 30 I think this over-states the case for birth control. In my judgment the lower types of families should have birth control (prevention) suggested to them by means of sterilization. In many cases they would not object to this but would rather welcome the suggestion. In ordinary homes of the poorer type, the facilities for the use of contraceptive methods are often lacking.