



Produced by Mary Glenn Krause, MWS and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
file was produced from images generously made available
by The Internet Archive)










                           THE KALLIKAK FAMILY

                        [Illustration: The MM Co.]

                          THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
                       NEW YORK · BOSTON · CHICAGO
                         DALLAS · SAN FRANCISCO

                        MACMILLAN & CO., LIMITED
                       LONDON · BOMBAY · CALCUTTA
                                MELBOURNE

                    THE MACMILLAN CO. OF CANADA, LTD.
                                 TORONTO

[Illustration: DEBORAH KALLIKAK, AS SHE APPEARS TO-DAY AT THE TRAINING
SCHOOL.]

                                   THE
                             KALLIKAK FAMILY

                       A STUDY IN THE HEREDITY OF
                            FEEBLE-MINDEDNESS

                                   BY
                      HENRY HERBERT GODDARD, PH.D.

       _Director of the Research Laboratory of the Training School
            at Vineland, New Jersey, for Feeble-minded Girls
                                and Boys_

                                New York
                          THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
                                  1916
                          _All rights reserved_

                            COPYRIGHT, 1912,
                        BY THE MACMILLAN COMPANY.

      Set up and electrotyped. Published September, 1912. Reprinted
            February, 1913; February, 1914; September, 1916.

                             _Norwood Press
                 J. S. Cushing Co.--Berwick & Smith Co.
                         Norwood, Mass., U.S.A._




                                   To

                           MR. SAMUEL S. FELS

           A LAYMAN WITH THE SCIENTIST’S LOVE OF TRUTH AND THE
            TRUE CITIZEN’S LOVE OF HUMANITY WHO MADE POSSIBLE
                     THIS STUDY AND WHO HAS FOLLOWED
                    THE WORK FROM ITS INCIPIENCY WITH
                       KINDLY CRITICISM AND ADVICE
                         THIS BOOK IS DEDICATED




PREFACE


On September 15, 1906, the Training School for Backward and Feeble-minded
Children at Vineland, New Jersey, opened a laboratory and a Department of
Research for the study of feeble-mindedness.

A beginning was made in studying the mental condition of the children who
lived in the Institution, with a view to determining the mental and
physical peculiarities of the different grades and types, to getting an
accurate record of what deficiencies each child had and what he was
capable of doing, with the hope that in time these records could be
correlated with the condition of the nervous system of the child, if he
should die while in the Institution and an autopsy should be allowed.

As soon as possible after the beginning of this work, a definite start was
made toward determining the cause of feeble-mindedness. After some
preliminary work, it was concluded that the only way to get the
information needed was by sending trained workers to the homes of the
children, to learn by careful and wise questioning the facts that could be
obtained. It was a great surprise to us to discover so much mental defect
in the families of so many of these children. The results of the study of
more than 300 families will soon be published, showing that about 65 per
cent of these children have the hereditary taint.

The present study of the Kallikak family is a genuine story of real
people. The name is, of course, fictitious, as are all of the names
throughout the story. The results here presented come after two years of
constant work, investigating the conditions of this family.

Some readers may question how it has been possible to get such definite
data in regard to people who lived so long ago.

A word of explanation is hence in order. In the first place, the family
itself proved to be a notorious one, so the people, in the community where
the present generations are living, know of them; they knew their parents
and grandparents; and the older members knew them farther back, because of
the reputation they had always borne. Secondly, the reputation which the
Training School has in the State is such that all have been willing to
coöperate as soon as they understood the purpose and plan of the work.
This has been of great help. Thirdly, the time devoted to this
investigation must not be overlooked. A hasty investigation could never
have produced the results which we have reached. Oftentimes a second, a
third, a fifth, or a sixth visit has been necessary in order to develop an
acquaintance and relationship with these families which induced them
gradually to relate things which they otherwise had not recalled or did
not care to tell. Many an important item has been gathered after several
visits to these homes. Chapter IV will throw still more light on the
method used.

If the reader is inclined to the view that we must have called a great
many people feeble-minded who were not so, let him be assured that this is
not the case. On the contrary, we have preferred to err on the other side,
and we have not marked people feeble-minded unless the case was such that
we could substantiate it beyond a reasonable doubt. If there was good
reason to call them normal, we have so marked them. If not, and we are
unable to decide in our own minds, we have generally left them unmarked.
In a few cases, we have marked them normal or feeble-minded, with a
question mark. By this is meant that we have studied the case and after
deliberation are still in doubt, but the probabilities are “N” or “F” as
indicated. The mere fact of the doubt shows, however, that they are at
least border-line cases.

To the scientific reader we would say that the data here presented are,
we believe, accurate to a high degree. It is true that we have made rather
dogmatic statements and have drawn conclusions that do not seem
scientifically warranted from the data. We have done this because it seems
necessary to make these statements and conclusions for the benefit of the
lay reader, and it was impossible to present in this book all of the data
that would substantiate them. We have, as a matter of fact, drawn upon the
material which is soon to be presented in a larger book. The reference to
Mendelism is an illustration of what we mean. It is, as it is given here,
meager and inadequate, and the assumption that the given law applies to
human heredity is an assumption so far as the data presented are
concerned. We would ask that the scientist reserve judgment and wait for
the larger book for the proof of these statements and for an adequate
discussion of Mendelism in relation to the problem.

The necessary expense for this study, as well as for all of the work of
the Research Laboratory, has been met by voluntary contributions from
philanthropic men and women, who believe that here is an opportunity to
benefit humanity, such as is hardly equaled elsewhere.

We take this means of expressing to them our deep appreciation of their
sympathy and generosity. I wish also to make special mention of the
indefatigable industry, wisdom, tact, and judgment of our field workers
who have gathered these facts and whose results, although continually
checked up, have stood every test put upon them as to their accuracy and
value.

The work on this particular family has been done by Elizabeth S. Kite, to
whom I am also indebted for practically all of Chapter IV.

I am also greatly indebted to my assistants in the laboratory, for help in
preparing the charts, keeping the records, and correcting manuscript and
proof.

To Superintendent Edward R. Johnstone, whose wisdom and foresight led to
the establishment of this Department of Research, whose help, sympathy,
and encouragement have been constant throughout the work of preparing this
study, the thanks and gratitude of the entire group of readers who find in
these facts any help toward the solution of the problems that they are
facing, are due.

                                                        HENRY H. GODDARD.

VINELAND, N.J., SEPTEMBER, 1912.




CONTENTS


                                                                      PAGE

    PREFACE                                                            vii

      I. THE STORY OF DEBORAH                                            1

     II. THE DATA                                                       13

         THE CHARTS                                                     33

    III. WHAT IT MEANS                                                  50

     IV. FURTHER FACTS ABOUT THE KALLIKAK FAMILY                        70

      V. WHAT IS TO BE DONE?                                           101




LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS


    DEBORAH KALLIKAK AS SHE APPEARS TO-DAY AT THE
        TRAINING SCHOOL                                      _Frontispiece_

                                                               FACING PAGE

    DEBORAH AT THE SEWING MACHINE                                        4

    DEBORAH AS WAITRESS                                                  4

    SPECIMENS OF DEBORAH’S HANDIWORK                                     6

    DEBORAH, AGED FIFTEEN                                                8

    DEBORAH, AGED SEVENTEEN                                              8

    LAST HOME OF MILLARD KALLIKAK                                       20

    ESTHER, DAUGHTER OF “DADDY” KALLIKAK                                20

    RUINS OF MOUNTAIN HUT BUILT BY MARTIN KALLIKAK, JR.                 24

    SITE OF MOUNTAIN HOME OF MILLARD KALLIKAK                           24

    GREAT-GRANDSON OF “DADDY” KALLIKAK                                  84

    MELINDA, DAUGHTER OF “JEMIMA”                                       84

    GREAT-GRANDCHILDREN OF “OLD SAL”                                    88

    CHILDREN OF GUSS SAUNDERS, WITH THEIR GRANDMOTHER                   88




THE KALLIKAK FAMILY

A STUDY IN THE HEREDITY OF FEEBLE-MINDEDNESS




CHAPTER I

THE STORY OF DEBORAH


One bright October day, fourteen years ago, there came to the Training
School at Vineland, a little eight-year-old girl. She had been born in an
almshouse. Her mother had afterwards married, not the father of this
child, but the prospective father of another child, and later had divorced
him and married another man, who was also the father of some of her
children. She had been led to do this through the efforts of well-meaning
people who felt that it was a great misfortune for a child to be born into
the world illegitimately. From their standpoint the argument was good,
because the mother with four or five younger children was unable to
provide adequately for this little girl, whom both husbands refused to
support.

On the plea that the child did not get along well at school and might
possibly be feeble-minded, she gained admission to the Training School,
there to begin a career which has been interesting and valuable to the
Institution, and which has led to an investigation that cannot fail to
prove of great social import.

The following are extracts from her history since she came to the
Institution:--

    From Admission Blanks, _Nov. ’97_.--Average size and weight. No
    peculiarity in form or size of head. Staring expression. Jerking
    movement in walking. No bodily deformity. Mouth shut. Washes and
    dresses herself, except fastening clothes. Understands commands. Not
    very obedient. Knows a few letters. Cannot read nor count. Knows all
    the colors. Not fond of music. Power of memory poor. Listens well.
    Looks steadily. Good imitator. Can use a needle. Can carry wood and
    fill a kettle. Can throw a ball, but cannot catch. Sees and hears
    well. Right-handed. Excitable but not nervous. Not affectionate and
    quite noisy. Careless in dress. Active. Obstinate and destructive.
    Does not mind slapping and scolding. Grandmother somewhat deficient.
    Grandfather periodical drunkard and mentally deficient. Been to
    school. No results.

From Institution Reports:--

    _Jan. ’99._--Conduct better. Counts 1-10 and 10-1. Knows at sight
    and can write from memory “see,” “me,” “ran,” “man,” “rat,” “can.”
    Weaves difficult mat in steps of 1 and 3, but requires much
    assistance.

    _Feb. ’99._--Counts 1-30; writes 1-15. Orderly. Folds neatly.

    _March, ’99._--Draws circle and square. Writes 1-29. Combines simple
    numbers.

    _April, ’99._--Conduct quite bad--impudent and growing worse.
    Transferred from Seguin Cottage to Wilbur for a while. Seems some
    better.

    SCHOOL. _Dec. ’00._ Disobedient. Graceful. Good in drill. Can copy.
    Knows a number of words. Writes them from memory. Reads a little.
    Adds with objects. Counts and knows value of numbers. Does all
    ladder and pole drills nicely. Good in entertainment work. Memorizes
    quickly. Can always be relied upon for either speaking or singing.
    Marches well. A good captain. Knows “Halt,” “Right,” and “Left Face”
    and “Forward March.” Always in step.

    MUSIC. Knows different notes. Plays “Jesus, Lover of my Soul”
    nicely. Plays scale of C and F on cornet.

    _May, ’01._--Plays scales of C and F and first two exercises in
    “Beginners’ Band Book” on cornet. She plays by ear. She has not
    learned to read the notes of these two scales, simply because she
    will not put her mind to it. She has played hymns in simple time,
    but the fingering has had to be written for her.

    SCHOOL. Excellent worker in gardening class. Has just completed a
    very good diagram of our garden to show at Annual Meeting.

    COTTAGE. Helps make beds and waits on table, is quick with her work,
    but is very noisy.

    _Oct. ’01._--Has nearly finished outlining a pillow sham. Can do
    very good work when she tries.

    ENGLISH. Does better in number work than in any other branch. Her
    mind wanders a great deal. In the midst of a lesson, that she has
    apparently paid a great deal of attention to, she will ask a
    question that has no bearing on the lesson at all. Is slow to learn.

    _Nov. ’01._--Is very good in number work, especially in addition.
    Can add 25 and 15. Spells a few words, such as “wind,” “blows,”
    “flowers.” Writes fairly well from copy if she tries. Her attention
    is very hard to keep. Is restless in class. Likes to be first in
    everything. The one thing she does best in school is to add numbers
    with pegs. Knows about fifteen words, such as “cat,” “fan,” “run,”
    “man.” She could learn more in school if she would pay attention,
    but her mind seems away off from the subject in discussion. Could
    play scale of C and F on cornet and would play some by ear if she
    could have kept up her lessons. Was taken out on account of sore
    throat.

    _Nov. ’04._--Understands how to make bead chains. Has made four.
    Knows how to use a sewing machine. Has made a shirtwaist. Uses tape
    measure accurately. Can play on cornet four hard band pieces and
    three solos, also reads at sight easy songs and hymns. Band pieces
    are: “Attention, March!” “Quick Step Sterling,” “Onward, Christian
    Soldiers,” and “Star-spangled Banner.” Solos are: “America,” “Old
    Black Joe,” and “Onward, Christian Soldiers.” Conduct at school,
    fair.

    [Illustration: DEBORAH AT THE SEWING MACHINE.]

    [Illustration: DEBORAH AS WAITRESS.]

    _Jan. ’07._--Took the part of Mrs. Doe in “Fun in a Photograph
    Gallery.”

    _Feb. ’08._--Can write a fairly good story, but spells very few
    words. Has little idea of the use of capitals. It is difficult for
    her to separate her sentences. Drawing, painting, coloring, and any
    kind of hand work she does quite nicely. In clay modeling, her idea
    of form is quite good. Is much improved in conduct. Does not act so
    wild in class.

    In wood-carving class, she starts a thing she wants to do very
    enthusiastically, but if it takes her very long, her interest flags
    and she has to be spurred on by the thought of the result when well
    done. This year she has made a carved book rest with mission ends
    and is now working on a shirtwaist box with mortise and tenon joints
    and lap joints. The top will be paneled. She can do most of her own
    marking when shown how.

    Has made a great improvement in “Band” during the last year. Can get
    a better tone on the cornet and more volume. Reads by note all music
    that she plays. Plays second cornet parts to about twenty-five
    pieces.

    _Jan. ’09._--Has embroidered the front of a shirtwaist and the front
    gore of a skirt. She has shown a great amount of patience,
    perseverance, and judgment in her work this year, has been anxious
    to do her work, and has been a good girl. In wood carving she is
    doing much more careful work than last year.

    Has made a large “Skolcroft” chair with only a little help in
    putting it into clamps. Did her own measuring and carved the wood.
    She filled the wood herself before staining. This she had never done
    before.

    _June, ’09._--Made the suit which she had embroidered earlier in the
    year, using the machine in making it. Helped F. B. put her chair
    together and really acted as a teacher in showing her how to
    upholster it. Will be a helper in wood-carving class this summer.

    Took important part in the Christmas play of 1908 and was a “Fan
    Girl” in the Japanese play given Annual Day, 1909.

    _Mar. ’11._--Works just about the same in wood-carving class as she
    has other years. Can work very rapidly when she tries, but does not
    very often try. Does not have much confidence in herself when
    marking out her work, but when urged, keeps trying until she gets it
    right. Is making a large dressing case this year. Is doing very nice
    work, especially in physical culture class.

    _May, ’11._--Finished her dressing case, but was careless towards
    the last, so it is not quite as nice as was expected. Made a very
    handsome embroidered linen dress (satin stitch and eyelets), also an
    embroidered corset cover. Made up both pieces under direction. Can
    write a well-worded story, but has to have more than half the words
    spelled for her. Knows very few of her number combinations. Retains
    a great many interesting facts connected with nature work.

[Illustration: SPECIMENS OF DEBORAH’S HANDIWORK.]

The reader will see that Deborah’s teachers have worked with her
faithfully and carefully, hoping for progress, even seeing it where at a
later date it became evident that no real advance had been made. Note the
oft-repeated “She could if she would,” or “If she would only pay
attention,” and similar expressions, which show the unwillingness of the
teachers to admit even to themselves that she is really feeble-minded. In
the earlier records it was noted that Deborah was not fond of music, while
in later reports it is shown to be her one great accomplishment. To-day
she is a woman of twenty-two. The consensus of opinion of those who have
known her for the last fourteen years in the Institution is as follows:--

    “She is cheerful, inclined to be quarrelsome, very active and
    restless, very affectionate, willing, and tries; is quick and
    excitable, fairly good-tempered. Learns a new occupation quickly,
    but requires a half hour or twenty-four repetitions to learn four
    lines. Retains well what she has once learned. Needs close
    supervision. Is bold towards strangers, kind towards animals. Can
    run an electric sewing machine, cook, and do practically everything
    about the house. Has no noticeable defect. She is quick and
    observing, has a good memory, writes fairly, does excellent work in
    wood-carving and kindergarten, is excellent in imitation. Is a poor
    reader and poor at numbers. Does fine basketry and gardening.
    Spelling is poor; music is excellent; sewing excellent; excellent in
    entertainment work. Very fond of children and good in helping care
    for them. Has a good sense of order and cleanliness. Is sometimes
    very stubborn and obstinate. Is not always truthful and has been
    known to steal, although does not have a reputation for this. Is
    proud of her clothes. Likes pretty dresses and likes to help in
    other cottages, even to temporarily taking charge of a group.”

The children at the Training School write letters to Santa Claus asking
for such things as they want for Christmas. Here are Deborah’s requests
each year, beginning with ’99, when she was ten years old:--

    “’99.--Book and harmonica.

    ’00.--Book, comb, paints, and doll.

    ’01.--Book, mittens, toy piano, handkerchief, slate pencil.

    ’02.--Wax doll, ribbon, music box.

    ’03.--Post cards, colored ribbons, gloves and shears.

    ’04.--Trunk, music box, Fairy Tales, games, ribbons, big doll.

    ’05.--Ribbons of different colors, games, handkerchiefs, music box,
    Fairy Tales.

    ’06.--Pair of stockings, ribbons, rubbers.

    ’07.--Watch, red ribbon, brush and comb, paper.

    ’08.--Three yards of lawn, rubbers.

    ’09.--Nice shoes, pink, dark blue, and white ribbons.

    ’10.--Money for dentist bill.

    ’11.--Rubbers, three shirts, blue scarf, three yards linen, two
    yards lawn for fancy work.”

[Illustration: AGE 15. AGE 17.

DEBORAH.]

It will be remembered that in her history, number was mentioned as being
one of her strong points. Indeed, she had a great deal of thorough drill
in this branch. In a recent testing to determine how much of this she
still retained, or whether the work had been of any value as mental
discipline, the results were negative. It was discovered that she could
neither add nor subtract, except where it was a question of concrete
objects connected with her daily life. For example, she can set a table
and wait on it very nicely. She can put the right number of plates at the
head of the table, if she knows the people who are to sit there, but at a
table with precisely the same number of strangers, she fails in making the
correct count.

At a recent test made before a prominent scientist, the question was
asked, “How many are 12 less 3?” She thought for a moment, looked around
the room and finally answered, “Nine.” “Correct,” said her questioner. “Do
you know how I did it?” she asked, delighted at her success. “I counted on
my fingers.”

Some of the questions asked her and her answers are as follows:--

    _Q._ There are ten people to eat dinner. Seven have eaten. For how
    many must you keep dinner warm?

    _A._ Three.

    _Q._ Suppose you had eight ergographs and sell six. How many would
    be left?

    _A._ (after twenty-eight seconds’ pondering). Two.

    _Q._ Suppose you had eight Deltas and gave two away. What would you
    have left?

    _A._ Five.

    _Q._ Suppose there are eight at the table and two leave. How many
    would remain?

    _A._ (after thirteen seconds). Six.

By the Binet Scale this girl showed, in April, 1910, the mentality of a
nine-year-old child with two points over; January, 1911, 9 years, 1 point;
September, 1911, 9 years, 2 points; October, 1911, 9 years, 3 points. She
answers correctly all of the questions up to age 7 except the repetition
of five figures, where she transposes two of them. She does not read the
selection in the required time, nor does she remember what she reads. In
counting the stamps, her first answer was “ten cents,” which she later
corrected. Under age 9, none of her definitions are “_better than by
use_”--“Fork is to eat with,” “Chair to sit on,” etc. She can sometimes
arrange the weights in their proper order and at other times not. The same
is true of putting the three words into a sentence. She does not know
money. Her definitions of abstract terms are very poor, in some cases
barely passable, nor can she put together the dissected sentences. She
rhymes “storm” with “spring,” and “milk” with “mill,” afterwards using
“bill,” “will,” “till.”

In the revised questions, she does not draw the design which is Question 2
in age 10, nor does she resist suggestion, Question 4 in age 12. To the
first part of Question 5, age 12, she answered, “A bird hanging from the
limb,” and to the second part, “Some one was very sick.”

This is a typical illustration of the mentality of a high-grade
feeble-minded person, the moron, the delinquent, the kind of girl or woman
that fills our reformatories. They are wayward, they get into all sorts of
trouble and difficulties, sexually and otherwise, and yet we have been
accustomed to account for their defects on the basis of viciousness,
environment, or ignorance.

It is also the history of the same type of girl in the public school.
Rather good-looking, bright in appearance, with many attractive ways, the
teacher clings to the hope, indeed insists, that such a girl will come
out all right. Our work with Deborah convinces us that such hopes are
delusions.

Here is a child who has been most carefully guarded. She has been
persistently trained since she was eight years old, and yet nothing has
been accomplished in the direction of higher intelligence or general
education. To-day if this young woman were to leave the Institution, she
would at once become a prey to the designs of evil men or evil women and
would lead a life that would be vicious, immoral, and criminal, though
because of her mentality she herself would not be responsible. There is
nothing that she might not be led into, because she has no power of
control, and all her instincts and appetites are in the direction that
would lead to vice.

We may now repeat the ever insistent question, and this time we indeed
have good hope of answering it. The question is, “How do we account for
this kind of individual?” The answer is in a word “Heredity,”--bad stock.
We must recognize that the human family shows varying stocks or strains
that are as marked and that breed as true as anything in plant or animal
life.

Formerly such a statement would have been a guess, an hypothesis. We
submit in the following pages what seems to us conclusive evidence of its
truth.




CHAPTER II

THE DATA


The Vineland Training School has for two years employed field workers.
These are women highly trained, of broad human experience, and interested
in social problems. As a result of weeks of residence at the Training
School, they become acquainted with the condition of the feeble-minded.
They study all the grades, note their peculiarities, and acquaint
themselves with the methods of testing and recognizing them. They then go
out with an introduction from the Superintendent to the homes of the
children and there ask that all the facts which are available may be
furnished, in order that we can know more about the child and be better
able to care for him and more wisely train him.

Sometimes all necessary information is obtained from the one central
source, but more often, especially where the parents are themselves
defective, many visits to other homes must be made. Parents often send the
field worker to visit near and distant relatives as well as neighbors,
employers, teachers, physicians, ministers, overseers of the poor,
almshouse directors, etc. These must be interviewed and all the
information thus obtained must be weighed and much of it verified by
repeated visits to the same locality before an accurate chart of the
particular child’s heredity can be made.

In determining the mental condition of people in the earlier generations
(that is, as to whether they were feeble-minded or not), one proceeds in
the same way as one does to determine the character of a Washington or a
Lincoln or any other man of the past. Recourse is had to original
documents whenever possible. In the case of defectives, of course, there
are not many original documents. Oftentimes the absence of these, where
they are to be expected, is of itself significant. For instance, the
absence of a record of marriage is often quite as significant as its
presence. Some record or memory is generally obtainable of how the person
lived, how he conducted himself, whether he was able to make a living, how
he brought up his children, what was his reputation in the community;
these facts are frequently sufficient to enable one to determine, with a
high degree of accuracy, whether the individual was normal or otherwise.
Sometimes the condition is marked by the presence of other factors. For
example, if a man was strongly alcoholic, it is almost impossible to
determine whether he was also feeble-minded, because the reports usually
declare that the only trouble with him was that he was always drunk, and
they say if he had been sober, he would have been all right. This may be
true, but on the other hand, it is quite possible that he was
feeble-minded also.

After some experience, the field worker becomes expert in inferring the
condition of those persons who are not seen, from the similarity of the
language used in describing them to that used in describing persons whom
she has seen.

In Deborah’s case, the woman first visited was the one who interested
herself in the child and its mother when the latter had just given birth
to her baby in the almshouse. From this woman was learned the subsequent
history of Deborah’s mother as given in the first part of this
description. But references, supplied by her, soon led to further
discoveries. The present family was found living within twenty miles of
what was afterwards learned to be its ancestral home and in a region that
was neither the slums of a city nor the wild desolation of the extreme
rural community, but rather in the midst of a populous farming country,
one of the best districts in the State. Thorough and carefully conducted
investigations in the small town and among the farmers of this region
showed that the family had always been notorious for the number of
defectives and delinquents it had produced; and this notoriety made it
possible to trace them back for no less than six generations.

It was determined to make a survey of the entire family and to discover
the condition, as far as possible, of every person in each generation.

The surprise and horror of it all was that no matter where we traced them,
whether in the prosperous rural district, in the city slums to which some
had drifted, or in the more remote mountain regions, or whether it was a
question of the second or the sixth generation, an appalling amount of
defectiveness was everywhere found.

In the course of the work of tracing various members of the family, our
field worker occasionally found herself in the midst of a good family of
the same name, which apparently was in no way related to the girl whose
ancestry we were investigating. In such cases, there was nothing to be
done but to beat a retreat and start again in another direction. However,
these cases became so frequent that there gradually grew the conviction
that ours must be a degenerate offshoot from an older family of better
stock. Definite work was undertaken in order to locate the point at which
the separation took place. Over and over, the investigation was laid aside
in sheer despair of ever being able to find absolute proofs or to
establish missing links in the testimony. Then some freshly discovered
facts, that came often quite unexpectedly, would throw new light on the
situation, and the work would be resumed.

The great-great-grandfather of Deborah was Martin Kallikak.[1] That we
knew. We had also traced the good family, before alluded to, back to an
ancestor belonging to an older generation than this Martin Kallikak, but
bearing the same name. He was the father of a large family. His eldest son
was named Frederick, but there was no son by the name of Martin.
Consequently, no connection could be made. Many months later, a
granddaughter of Martin revealed in a burst of confidence the situation.
She told us (and this was afterwards fully verified) that Martin had a
_half brother_ Frederick,--and that Martin never had an own brother
“because,” as she now naïvely expressed it, “you see, his mother had him
before she was married.” Deeper scrutiny into the life of Martin Kallikak
Sr., which was made possible through well-preserved family records,
enabled us to complete the story.

    [1] All names, both Christian and sur-names, are fictitious.

When Martin Sr., of the good family, was a boy of fifteen, his father
died, leaving him without parental care or oversight. Just before
attaining his majority, the young man joined one of the numerous military
companies that were formed to protect the country at the beginning of the
Revolution. At one of the taverns frequented by the militia he met a
feeble-minded girl by whom he became the father of a feeble-minded son.
This child was given, by its mother, the name of the father in full, and
thus has been handed down to posterity the father’s name and the mother’s
mental capacity. This illegitimate boy was Martin Kallikak Jr., the
great-great-grandfather of our Deborah, and from him have come four
hundred and eighty descendants. One hundred and forty-three of these, we
have conclusive proof, were or are feeble-minded, while only forty-six
have been found normal. The rest are unknown or doubtful.

Among these four hundred and eighty descendants, thirty-six have been
illegitimate.

There have been thirty-three sexually immoral persons, mostly prostitutes.

There have been twenty-four confirmed alcoholics.

There have been three epileptics.

Eighty-two died in infancy.

Three were criminal.

Eight kept houses of ill fame.

These people have married into other families, generally of about the same
type, so that we now have on record and charted eleven hundred and
forty-six individuals.

Of this large group, we have discovered that two hundred and sixty-two
were feeble-minded, while one hundred and ninety-seven are considered
normal, the remaining five hundred and eighty-one being still
undetermined. (“Undetermined,” as here employed, often means not that we
knew nothing about the person, but that we could not decide. They are
people we can scarcely recognize as normal; frequently they are not what
we could call good members of society. But it is very difficult to decide
without more facts whether the condition that we find or that we learn
about, as in the case of older generations, is or was really one of true
feeble-mindedness.)

In 1803, Martin Kallikak Jr., otherwise known as the “Old Horror,” married
Rhoda Zabeth, a normal woman. (See Chart II.) They had ten children, of
whom one died in infancy and another died at birth with the mother. Of
those who lived, the oldest was Millard, the direct ancestor of our
Deborah. He married Althea Haight, and they had fifteen children, of whom
more later.

The next born of Martin Jr. was Nathan, known in the community as “Daddy”
(see Chart III),[2] who died at the advanced age of ninety-three. He was
the father of six children. One of his sons was a criminal, a horse thief,
who also stole a flock of sheep which the owner all unwittingly helped him
to drive away. Three other children of “Daddy” married and themselves had
children. These are all families about whose mentality it is difficult to
decide. They are all peculiar, but more respectable than some other
branches of this family. One is dead. The sixth, a daughter, is
feeble-minded and sexually immoral. She married a man who was
feeble-minded and alcoholic. Of her six children, two at least are
feeble-minded. Whether her husband is the father of all of the children is
very doubtful. Sexual immorality and alcoholism are prevalent in this
family. One of the sons married a feeble-minded woman who came from
feeble-minded stock. They had six children, all of whom were
feeble-minded. One of these is of the Mongolian type, an interesting fact,
as it shows that this particular form of arrest of development may occur
in a defective family.

    [2] It is important to trace out in detail these relationships on
    the charts.

[Illustration: LAST HOME OF MILLARD KALLIKAK.]

[Illustration: ESTHER, DAUGHTER OF “DADDY” KALLIKAK.]

Martin Jr.’s third child was James (Chart II), who went away, and we know
nothing about him.

Martin Jr.’s fourth child, “Old Sal” (Chart IV), was feeble-minded and she
married a feeble-minded man. Two of their children are undetermined, but
one of these had at least one feeble-minded grandchild; the other, an
alcoholic man, had three feeble-minded grandchildren, one of whom is in
the Training School at Vineland. She is thus a cousin of Deborah--a fact
not known until this study was made. The two other children of Old Sal
were feeble-minded, married feeble-minded wives, and had large families of
defective children and grandchildren, as will be seen in the chart.

The fifth child of Martin Jr. was Jemima (Chart V), feeble-minded and
sexually immoral. She lived with a feeble-minded man named Horser, to whom
she was supposed to have been married. Of her five children, three are
known to have been feeble-minded, two are undetermined. From these again,
have come a large number of feeble-minded children and grandchildren.
Jemima had an illegitimate son by a man who was high in the Nation’s
offices. This son married a feeble-minded girl and they had feeble-minded
children, and grandchildren.

The sixth child of Martin Jr., known as “Old Moll” (Chart VI), was
feeble-minded, alcoholic, epileptic, and sexually immoral. She had three
illegitimate children who were sent to the almshouse, and from there bound
out to neighboring farmers. One of these turned out normal, one was
feeble-minded, and the other undetermined. Neither of the two older ones
had any children. The third child, a daughter, was tubercular, but nothing
is known of her descendants, except that there were several children and
grandchildren.

The seventh child of Martin Jr. was a daughter, Sylvia (Chart VII), who
seemed to be a normal woman. She was taken very young by a good family who
brought her up carefully. She later married a normal man. Although we have
marked her normal, she was always peculiar. All her children and
grandchildren were either normal or are undetermined.

The youngest child of Martin Jr. who lived to grow up was Amy Jones, also
normal. (Chart VIII.) She, too, was taken into a good family and married a
normal man, and lived to be very old. Two of Amy’s children died in
infancy. Of two others, one was normal and one feeble-minded. This latter
married a normal man and had one feeble-minded and immoral daughter; five
other children are undetermined.

We now return to Martin Jr.’s oldest son, Millard (Chart IX), to take up
the story of his descendants, of whom our girl Deborah is one.

Millard married Althea Haight about 1830. They had fifteen children born
in the following years: 1830, 1831, 1832, 1834, 1836, 1838, 1840, 1841,
1843, 1845, 1847, 1849, 1851, 1854, 1856. The mother died in 1857. This
mother, Althea Haight, was feeble-minded. That she came from a
feeble-minded family is evidenced by the fact that she had at least one
feeble-minded brother, while of her mother it was said that the “devil
himself could not live with her.” The feeble-minded brother had six
children, of whom three are known to have been feeble-minded. He had seven
grandchildren who were feeble-minded, and no less than nine feeble-minded
great-grandchildren. (These are not shown on the chart.)

The oldest child of Millard and Althea was a daughter who grew up a
feeble-minded and immoral woman. She had several husbands, but only one of
her children lived to be old enough to marry. This one, a daughter of
illegitimate birth, married a man of good family who was a confirmed
alcoholic. Their children are all undetermined, except one who was normal.

The second child of Millard, a daughter, was a bad character. We know of
one illegitimate and feeble-minded son who married a feeble-minded and
immoral girl. They had four children, but all died in infancy. This wife
was also the mother of an illegitimate son, who was feeble-minded and
sexually immoral.

The third child of Millard was Justin (Chart IX, section E), the
grandfather of our Deborah. His family we shall discuss later.

According to Mendelian expectation, all of the children of Millard
Kallikak and Althea Haight should have been feeble-minded, because the
parents were such. The facts, so far as known, confirm this expectation,
with the exception of the fourth child, a daughter, who was taken into a
good family and grew up apparently a normal woman. She married a normal
man and they had one son who was normal. He married a normal woman and
they have two children, a boy and girl, who are normal and above average
intelligence.

The fifth child was Albert, feeble-minded, who died at twenty-five,
unmarried.

The sixth child was Warren, who had four children, three of whom were
feeble-minded and of very doubtful morality. Each of the three had
feeble-minded children. One of these, Guss by name, was specially loose
and much mixed in his marital relations.

[Illustration: RUINS OF MOUNTAIN HUT BUILT BY MARTIN KALLIKAK JR. 1805.]

[Illustration: SITE OF MOUNTAIN HOME OF MILLARD KALLIKAK, WHERE FIFTEEN OF
HIS CHILDREN WERE BORN.]

The seventh child was Lavinia, who died unmarried at the age of
thirty-nine. She had been brought up in a good family and never
manifested any of those characteristics that indicate feeble-mindedness.

The eighth was Cordelia, who died at nine; condition unknown.

The ninth was Prince, who died at four years.

The tenth was Paula, feeble-minded; married and had four children. Her
husband and children are undetermined.

Then comes Gregory, the eleventh, who was feeble-minded and alcoholic. He
married an alcoholic and syphilitic woman, mentality difficult to
determine. They had seven children, of whom two were feeble-minded,
syphilitic, alcoholic, and sexually immoral. One died of delirium tremens,
the other of alcoholism, leaving a long line of descendants. The other
children died young, except one daughter who has a feeble-minded
grandchild who cannot speak.

The twelfth child was Harriet, feeble-minded, twice married, but without
children.

The thirteenth, Sanders, who was drowned as a young man, was feeble-minded
and sexually immoral.

The fourteenth was Thomas, feeble-minded, alcoholic, and sexually immoral.
He died from over self-indulgence. He was married and had a daughter, but
her condition as well as her mother’s is unknown.

The last child was Joseph, feeble-minded. He married his first cousin, Eva
Haight, who was also feeble-minded. They had five children, two dying in
infancy, and the rest feeble-minded. Of their nineteen grandchildren, five
died in infancy, one is undetermined, and the remaining thirteen are all
feeble-minded.

Millard Kallikak married for his second wife a normal woman, a sister of a
man of prominence. She was, however, of marked peculiarity. By her, he had
three children; two died in infancy. The one who grew to manhood was
alcoholic and syphilitic. He ran off with the wife of his nephew, who was
about his own age. His mental condition is undetermined. He was killed by
an accident a few years later.

We now return to the third born of this family, Justin Kallikak, the
grandfather of our Deborah (Chart IX, section E). He was feeble-minded,
alcoholic, and sexually immoral. He married Eunice Barrah, who belonged to
a family of dull mentality. Her mother and paternal grandfather were
feeble-minded, and the grandfather had a brother that was feeble-minded.
That brother had at least six descendants who were feeble-minded. The
father, also, had a brother feeble-minded who had eleven children,
grandchildren, and great-grandchildren who were feeble-minded. (Not
shown).

The children of Deborah’s grandparents, Justin and Eunice, were as
follows: first, Martha, the mother of our Deborah, whose story has already
been partly told. This woman is supposed to have had three illegitimate
children before Deborah was born. They died in infancy. The next younger
half sister of Deborah was placed out by a charitable organization when
very young. From their records we learn that in five years she had been
tried in thirteen different families and by all found impossible. In one
of these she set the barn on fire. When found by our field worker, she had
grown to be a girl of twenty, pretty, graceful, but of low mentality. She
had already followed the instinct implanted in her by her mother, and was
on the point of giving birth to an illegitimate child. She was sent to a
hospital. The child died, and then the girl was placed permanently in a
home for feeble-minded. An own brother of this girl was placed out in a
private family. When a little under sixteen, his foster mother died and
her husband married again. Thus the boy was turned adrift. Having been
well trained, and being naturally of an agreeable disposition, he easily
found employment. Bad company, however, soon led to his discharge. He has
now drifted into one of our big cities. It requires no prophet to predict
his future.

The last family of half brothers and sisters of Deborah are, at present,
living with the mother and her second husband. The oldest three of these
are distinctly feeble-minded. Between them and the two younger children
there was a stillbirth and a miscarriage. The little ones appear normal
and test normal for their ages, but there is good reason to believe that
they will develop the same defect as they grow older.

Besides the mother of Deborah, Justin and Eunice had ten other children,
of whom six died in infancy. One of the daughters, Margaret, was taken by
a good family when a very small child. When she was about thirteen, she
visited her parents for a few weeks. While her mother was away at work,
her father, who was a drunken brute, committed incest with her. When the
fact became known in her adopted home, she was placed in the almshouse.
The child born there soon died, and she was again received into the family
where she formerly lived. The care with which she was surrounded prevented
her from becoming a vicious woman. Although of dull mentality, she was a
good and cheerful worker. When about thirty-five, she married a
respectable workingman but has had no children by him.

Another daughter, Abigail, feeble-minded, married a feeble-minded man by
whom she had two feeble-minded children, besides a third that died in
infancy. She later married a normal man.

The next child of Justin and Eunice was Beede, who is feeble-minded. He
married a girl who left him before their child was born. He lives at
present with a very low, immoral woman.

The youngest child of Justin and Eunice was a son, Gaston, feeble-minded
and a horse thief; he removed to a distant town where he married. He has
one child; mentality of both mother and child undetermined.

This is the ghastly story of the descendants of Martin Kallikak Sr., from
the nameless feeble-minded girl.

Although Martin himself paid no further attention to the girl nor her
child, society has had to pay the heavy price of all the evil he
engendered.

Martin Sr., on leaving the Revolutionary Army, straightened up and married
a respectable girl of good family, and through that union has come another
line of descendants of radically different character. These now number
four hundred and ninety-six in direct descent. All of them are normal
people. Three men only have been found among them who were somewhat
degenerate, but they were not defective. Two of these were alcoholic, and
the other sexually loose.

All of the legitimate children of Martin Sr. married into the best
families in their state, the descendants of colonial governors, signers of
the Declaration of Independence, soldiers and even the founders of a great
university. Indeed, in this family and its collateral branches, we find
nothing but good representative citizenship. There are doctors, lawyers,
judges, educators, traders, landholders, in short, respectable citizens,
men and women prominent in every phase of social life. They have scattered
over the United States and are prominent in their communities wherever
they have gone. Half a dozen towns in New Jersey are named from the
families into which Martin’s descendants have married. There have been no
feeble-minded among them; no illegitimate children; no immoral women; only
one man was sexually loose. There has been no epilepsy, no criminals, no
keepers of houses of prostitution. Only fifteen children have died in
infancy. There has been one “insane,” a case of religious mania, perhaps
inherited, but not from the Kallikak side. The appetite for strong drink
has been present here and there in this family from the beginning. It was
in Martin Sr., and was cultivated at a time when such practices were
common everywhere. But while the other branch of the family has had
twenty-four victims of habitual drunkenness, this side scores only two.

The charts of these two families follow.




THE CHARTS


THE CHARTS

Chart I shows the line of descent of the Kallikak family from their first
colonial ancestor. It was Martin who divided it into a bad branch on one
hand and a good branch on the other. Each of these branches is traced
through the line of the eldest son down to a person of the present
generation. On the bad side it ends with Deborah Kallikak, an inmate of
the Training School at Vineland, on the good side with the son of a
prominent and wealthy citizen of the same family name, now resident of
another State.

Chart II shows the children of Martin Sr. by his wife and by the nameless
feeble-minded girl, and also the children of Martin Jr.

Then follow Charts III to IX and A to K, giving in detail each of these
two branches, the upper series being the normal family, the descendants of
Martin Kallikak Sr. through his wife: the lower is the bad family, his
descendants through the nameless feeble-minded girl who was not his wife.


EXPLANATION OF SYMBOLS

Individuals are represented by squares and circles, the squares being
males, the circles, females. Black squares and circles (with a white “F”)
mean feeble-minded individuals; N means normal persons.

The clear squares or circles indicate that the mentality of the person is
undetermined.

“d. inf.” means died in infancy.

A horizontal or slightly oblique line connects persons who are mated.
Unless otherwise indicated, they are supposed to have been legally
married.

The symbols dependent from the same horizontal line are for brothers and
sisters.

A vertical line connecting this horizontal line with an individual or with
a line connecting two individuals, indicates the parent or parents of the
fraternity.

Letters placed around the symbol for an individual are as follows:
A--Alcoholic, meaning decidedly intemperate, a drunkard; B--Blind;
C--Criminalistic; D--Deaf; E--Epileptic; I--Insane; Sy--Syphilitic;
Sx--Sexually immoral; T--Tuberculous.

A short vertical line dependent from the horizontal fraternity line
indicates a child whose sex is unknown. An F at the end of the line
indicates that such child was feeble-minded.

N? or F? indicates that the individual has not been definitely determined,
but, considering all the data, it is concluded that on the whole, the
person was probably normal or feeble-minded, as the letter signifies.

A small d. followed by a numeral means died at that age; b. means born,
usually followed by the date.

A single figure below a symbol indicates that the symbol stands for more
than one individual--the number denoted by the figure, _e.g._ a circle
with a “4” below it, indicates that there were four girls in that
fraternity, represented by that one symbol.

The Hand indicates the child that is in the Institution at Vineland, whose
family history is the subject of the chart.

A black horizontal line under a symbol indicates that that individual was
in some public institution at state expense.

The fact that the parents were not married is indicated either by the
expression “unmarried” or by the word “illegitimate,” placed near the
symbol for the child.

[Illustration: CHART I.]

[Illustration: CHART II.

N = Normal. F = Feeble-minded. Sx = Sexually immoral. A = Alcoholic. I =
Insane. Sy = Syphilitic. C = Criminalistic. D = Deaf. d. inf. = died in
infancy. T = Tuberculous. Hand points to child in Vineland Institution.
For further explanation see pp. 33-35.]

[Illustration: CHART A.

CHART B.]

[Illustration: CHART III.]

[Illustration: CHART C.]

[Illustration: CHART IV. Section A.

N = Normal. F = Feeble-minded. Sx = Sexually immoral. A = Alcoholic. I =
Insane. Sy = Syphilitic. C = Criminalistic. D = Deaf. d. inf. = died in
infancy. T = Tuberculous. Hand points to child in Vineland Institution.
For further explanation see pp. 33-35.]

[Illustration: CHART D.]

[Illustration: CHART IV. Section B.]

[Illustration: CHART E.]

[Illustration: CHART V. Section A.

N = Normal. F = Feeble-minded. Sx = Sexually immoral. A = Alcoholic. I =
Insane. Sy = Syphilitic. C = Criminalistic. D = Deaf. d. inf. = died in
infancy. T = Tuberculous. Hand points to child in Vineland Institution.
For further explanation see pp. 33-35.]

[Illustration: CHART F.]

[Illustration: CHART V. Section B.

CHART VI.]

[Illustration: CHART G.]

[Illustration: CHART VII.

N = Normal. F = Feeble-minded. Sx = Sexually immoral. A = Alcoholic. I =
Insane. Sy = Syphilitic. C = Criminalistic. D = Deaf. d. inf. = died in
infancy. T = Tuberculous. Hand points to child in Vineland Institution.
For further explanation see pp. 33-35.]

[Illustration: CHART H.]

[Illustration: CHART VIII.]

[Illustration: CHART I.]

[Illustration: CHART IX. Section A.

N = Normal. F = Feeble-minded. Sx = Sexually immoral. A = Alcoholic. I =
Insane. Sy = Syphilitic. C = Criminalistic. D = Deaf. d. inf. = died in
infancy. T = Tuberculous. Hand points to child in Vineland Institution.
For further explanation see pp. 33-35.]

[Illustration: CHART J.]

[Illustration: CHART IX. Section B.]

[Illustration: CHART K.]

[Illustration: CHART IX. Section C.

N = Normal. F = Feeble-minded. Sx = Sexually immoral. A = Alcoholic. I =
Insane. Sy = Syphilitic. C = Criminalistic. D = Deaf. d. inf. = died in
infancy. T = Tuberculous. Hand points to child in Vineland Institution.
For further explanation see pp. 33-35.]

[Illustration: CHART IX. Section D.]

[Illustration: CHART IX. Section E.

N = Normal. F = Feeble-minded. Sx = Sexually immoral. A = Alcoholic. I =
Insane. Sy = Syphilitic. C = Criminalistic. D = Deaf. d. inf. = died in
infancy. T = Tuberculous. Hand points to child in Vineland Institution.
For further explanation see pp. 33-35.]




CHAPTER III

WHAT IT MEANS


The foregoing charts and text tell a story as instructive as it is
amazing. We have here a family of good English blood of the middle class,
settling upon the original land purchased from the proprietors of the
state in Colonial times, and throughout four generations maintaining a
reputation for honor and respectability of which they are justly proud.
Then a scion of this family, in an unguarded moment, steps aside from the
paths of rectitude and with the help of a feeble-minded girl, starts a
line of mental defectives that is truly appalling. After this mistake, he
returns to the traditions of his family, marries a woman of his own
quality, and through her carries on a line of respectability equal to that
of his ancestors.

We thus have two series from two different mothers but the same father.
These extend for six generations. Both lines live out their lives in
practically the same region and in the same environment, except in so far
as they themselves, because of their different characters, changed that
environment. Indeed, so close are they that in one case, a defective man
on the bad side of the family was found in the employ of a family on the
normal side and, although they are of the same name, neither suspects any
relationship.

We thus have a natural experiment of remarkable value to the sociologist
and the student of heredity. That we are dealing with a problem of true
heredity, no one can doubt, for, although of the descendants of Martin
Kallikak Jr. many married into feeble-minded families and thus brought in
more bad blood, yet Martin Jr. himself married a normal woman, thus
demonstrating that the defect is transmitted through the father, at least
in this generation. Moreover, the Kallikak family traits appear
continually even down to the present generation, and there are many
qualities that are alike in both the good and the bad families, thus
showing the strength and persistence of the ancestral stock.

The reader will recall the famous story of the Jukes family published by
Richard L. Dugdale in 1877, a startling array of criminals, paupers, and
diseased persons, more or less related to each other and extending over
seven generations.

Dr. Winship has undertaken to compare this family with the descendants of
Jonathan Edwards, and from this comparison to draw certain conclusions.
It is a striking comparison, but unfortunately not as conclusive as we
need in these days. The two families were utterly independent, of
different ancestral stock, reared in different communities, even in
different States, and under utterly different environment.

The one, starting from a strong, religious, and highly educated ancestor,
has maintained those traits and traditions down to the present day and
with remarkable results; the other, starting without any of these
advantages, and under an entirely different environment, has resulted in
the opposite kind of descendants.

It is not possible to convince the euthenist (who holds that environment
is the sole factor) that, had the children of Jonathan Edwards and the
children of “Old Max” changed places, the results would not have been such
as to show that it was a question of environment and not of heredity. And
he cites to us the fact that many children of highly developed parents
degenerate and become paupers and criminals, while on the other hand, some
children born of lowly and even criminal parents take the opposite course
and become respectable and useful citizens.

In as far as the children of “Old Max” were of normal mentality, it is not
possible to say what might not have become of them, had they had good
training and environment.

Fortunately for the cause of science, the Kallikak family, in the persons
of Martin Kallikak Jr. and his descendants, are not open to this argument.
They were feeble-minded, and no amount of education or good environment
can change a feeble-minded individual into a normal one, any more than it
can change a red-haired stock into a black-haired stock. The striking fact
of the enormous proportion of feeble-minded individuals in the descendants
of Martin Kallikak Jr. and the total absence of such in the descendants of
his half brothers and sisters is conclusive on this point. Clearly it was
not environment that has made that good family. They made their
environment; and their own good blood, with the good blood in the families
into which they married, told.

So far as the Jukes family is concerned, there is nothing that proves the
hereditary character of any of the crime, pauperism, or prostitution that
was found. The most that one can say is that if such a family is allowed
to go on and develop in its own way unmolested, it is pretty certain not
to improve, but rather to propagate its own kind and fill the world with
degenerates of one form or another. The formerly much discussed question
of the hereditary character of crime received no solution from the Jukes
family, but in the light of present-day knowledge of the sciences of
criminology and biology, there is every reason to conclude that criminals
are made and not born. The best material out of which to make criminals,
and perhaps the material from which they are most frequently made, is
feeble-mindedness.

The reader must remember that the type of feeble-mindedness of which we
are speaking is the one to which Deborah belongs, that is, to the high
grade, or moron. All the facts go to show that this type of people makes
up a large percentage of our criminals. We may argue _a priori_ that such
would be the case. Here we have a group who, when children in school,
cannot learn the things that are given them to learn, because through
their mental defect, they are incapable of mastering abstractions. They
never learn to read sufficiently well to make reading pleasurable or of
practical use to them. The same is true of number work. Under our
compulsory school system and our present courses of study, we compel these
children to go to school, and attempt to teach them the three R’s, and
even higher subjects. Thus they worry along through a few grades until
they are fourteen years old and then leave school, not having learned
anything of value or that can help them to make even a meager living in
the world. They are then turned out inevitably dependent upon others. A
few have relatives who take care of them, see that they learn to do
something which perhaps will help in their support, and then these
relatives supplement this with enough to insure them a living.

A great majority, however, having no such interested or capable relatives,
become at once a direct burden upon society. These divide according to
temperament into two groups. Those who are phlegmatic, sluggish, indolent,
simply lie down and would starve to death, if some one did not help them.
When they come to the attention of our charitable organizations, they are
picked up and sent to the almshouse, if they cannot be made to work. The
other type is of the nervous, excitable, irritable kind who try to make a
living, and not being able to do it by a fair day’s work and honest wages,
attempt to succeed through dishonest methods. “Fraud is the force of weak
natures.” These become the criminal type. The kind of criminality into
which they fall seems to depend largely upon their environment. If they
are associated with vicious but intelligent people, they become the dupes
for carrying out any of the hazardous schemes that their more intelligent
associates plan for them. Because of their stupidity, they are very apt to
be caught quickly and sent to the reformatory or prison. If they are
girls, one of the easiest things for them to fall into is a life of
prostitution, because they have natural instincts with no power of control
and no intelligence to understand the wiles and schemes of the white
slaver, the cadet, or the individual seducer. All this, we say, is what is
to be expected. These are the people of good outward appearance, but of
low intelligence, who pass through school without acquiring any
efficiency, then go out into the world and must inevitably fall into some
such life as we have pictured.

Let us now turn to our public institutions. These have not yet been
sufficiently investigated, nor have we adequate statistics to show what
percentage of their inmates is actually feeble-minded. But even casual
observation of our almshouse population shows the majority to be of
decidedly low mentality, while careful tests would undoubtedly increase
this percentage very materially.

In our insane hospitals may also be found a group of people whom the
physicians will tell you are only partially demented. The fact is they
properly belong in an institution for feeble-minded, rather than in one
for the insane, and have gotten into the latter because an unenlightened
public does not recognize the difference between a person who has lost his
mind and one who never had one.

In regard to criminality, we now have enough studies to make us certain
that at least 25 per cent of this class is feeble-minded. One hundred
admissions to the Rahway Reformatory, taken in order of admission, show at
least 26 per cent of them distinctly feeble-minded, with the certainty
that the percentage would be much higher if we included the border-line
cases.

An investigation of one hundred of the Juvenile Court children in the
Detention Home of the City of Newark showed that 67 per cent of them were
distinctly feeble-minded. From this estimate are excluded children who are
yet too young for us to know definitely whether the case is one of
arrested development. This point once determined would unquestionably
swell the percentage of defect.

An examination of fifty-six girls from a Massachusetts reformatory, but
out on probation, showed that fifty-two of them were distinctly
feeble-minded. This was partially a selected group, the basis being their
troublesomeness; they were girls who could not be made to stay in the
homes that were found for them, nor to do reasonable and sensible things
in those homes, which fact, of itself, pointed toward feeble-mindedness.

The foregoing are figures based on actual test examinations as to mental
capacity. If we accept the estimates of the mental condition of the
inmates made by the superintendents of reformatories and penal
institutions, we get sometimes a vastly higher percentage; _e.g._ the
Superintendent of the Elmira Reformatory estimates that at least 40 per
cent of his inmates are mental defectives.

Indeed, it would not be surprising if careful examination of the inmates
of these institutions should show that even 50 per cent of them are
distinctly feeble-minded.

In regard to prostitutes, we have no reliable figures. The groups of
delinquent girls to which we have already referred included among the
numbers several that were already known as prostitutes. A simple
observation of persons who are leading this sort of life will satisfy any
one who is familiar with feeble-mindedness that a large percentage of them
actually are defective mentally. So we have, as is claimed, partly from
statistical studies and partly from careful observation, abundant evidence
of the truth of our claim that criminality is often made out of
feeble-mindedness.

Mr. Winship in his comparison of the Jukes and Edwards families has
strengthened our claim in this respect. In all environments and under all
conditions, he shows the latter family blossoming out into distinguished
citizens, not primarily through anything from without but through the
imperious force within. Since we may conclude that none of the Edwards
family, who are described by Dr. Winship, were feeble-minded, therefore
none of them became criminals or prostitutes. But here again his argument
is inconclusive because he does not tell us of all the descendants.

With equal safety it may be surmised that many of the Jukes family
(perhaps the original stock, indeed) were feeble-minded and therefore
easily lapsed into the kind of lives that they are said to have lived.

In the good branch of the Kallikak family there were no criminals. There
were not many in the other side, but there were some, and, had their
environment been different, no one who is familiar with feeble-minded
persons, their characteristics and tendencies, would doubt that a large
percentage of them might have become criminal. Lombroso’s famous criminal
types, in so far as they were types, may have been types of
feeble-mindedness on which criminality was grafted by the circumstances of
their environment.

Such facts as those revealed by the Kallikak family drive us almost
irresistibly to the conclusion that before we can settle our problems of
criminality and pauperism and all the rest of the social problems that are
taxing our time and money, the first and fundamental step should be to
decide upon the mental capacity of the persons who make up these groups.
We must separate, as sharply as possible, those persons who are
weak-minded, and therefore irresponsible, from intelligent criminals. Both
our method of treatment and our attitude towards crime will be changed
when we discover what part of this delinquency is due to irresponsibility.

If the Jukes family were of normal intelligence, a change of environment
would have worked wonders and would have saved society from the horrible
blot. But if they were feeble-minded, then no amount of good environment
could have made them anything else than feeble-minded. Schools and
colleges were not for them, rather a segregation which would have
prevented them from falling into evil and from procreating their kind, so
avoiding the transmitting of their defects and delinquencies to succeeding
generations.

Thus where the Jukes-Edwards comparison is weak and the argument
inconclusive, the twofold Kallikak family is strong and the argument
convincing.

Environment does indeed receive some support from three cases in our
chart. On Chart II, two children of Martin Jr. and Rhoda were normal,
while all the rest were feeble-minded. It is true that here one parent was
normal, and we have the right to expect some normal children. At the same
time, these were the two children that were adopted into good families and
brought up under good surroundings. They proved to be normal and their
descendants normal. Again, on Chart IX-a, we have one child of two
feeble-minded parents who proves to be normal--the only one among the
children. This child was also taken into a good family and brought up
carefully. Another sister (Chart IX-b) was also taken into a good family
and, while not determined, yet “showed none of the traits that are usually
indicative of feeble-mindedness.” It may be claimed that environment is
responsible for this good result. It is certainly significant that the
only children in these families that were normal, or at least better than
the rest, were brought up in good families.

However, it would seem to be rather dangerous to base any very positive
hope on environment in the light of these charts, taken as a whole. There
are too many other possible explanations of the anomaly, _e.g._ these
cases may have been high-grade morons, who, to the untrained person, would
seem so nearly normal, that at this late day it would be impossible to
find any one who would remember their traits well enough to enable us to
classify them as morons.

We must not forget that, on Chart IX-e, we also have the daughter of
Justin taken into a good family and carefully brought up, but in spite of
all that, she proved to be feeble-minded. The same is probably true of
Deborah’s half brother.

We have claimed that criminality resulting from feeble-mindedness is
mainly a matter of environment, yet it must be acknowledged that there are
wide differences in temperament and that, while this one branch of the
Kallikak family was mentally defective, there was no strong tendency in it
towards that which our laws recognize as criminality. In other families
there is, without doubt, a much greater tendency to crime, so that the
lack of criminals in this particular case, far from detracting from our
argument, really strengthens it. It must be recognized that there is much
more liability of criminals resulting from mental defectiveness in certain
families than in others, probably because of difference in the strength of
some instincts.

This difference in temperament is perhaps nowhere better brought out than
in the grandparents of Deborah. The grandfather belonging to the Kallikak
family had the temperament and characteristics of that family, which,
while they did not lead him into positive criminality of high degree,
nevertheless did make him a bad man of a positive type, a drunkard, a sex
pervert, and all that goes to make up a bad character.

On the other hand, his wife and her family were simply stupid, with none
of the pronounced tendencies to evil that were shown in the Kallikak
family. They were not vicious, nor given over to bad practices of any
sort. But they were inefficient, without power to get on in the world, and
they transmitted these qualities to their descendants.

Thus, of the children of this pair, the grandparents of Deborah, the sons
have been active and positive in their lives, the one being a horse thief,
the other a sexual pervert, having the alcoholic tendency of his father,
while the daughters are quieter and more passive. Their dullness, however,
does not amount to imbecility. Deborah’s mother herself was of a high type
of moron, with a certain quality which carried with it an element of
refinement. Her sister was the passive victim of her father’s incestuous
practice and later married a normal man. Another sister was twice married,
the first time through the agency of the good woman who attended to the
legalizing of Deborah’s mother’s alliances, the last time, the man, being
normal, attended to this himself. He was old and only wanted a
housekeeper, and this woman, having been strictly raised in an excellent
family, was famous as a cook, so this arrangement seemed to him best. None
of these sisters ever objected to the marriage ceremony when the matter
was attended to for them, but they never seem to have thought of it as
necessary when living with any man.

The stupid helplessness of Deborah’s mother in regard to her own impulses
is shown by the facts of her life. Her first child had for its father a
farm hand; the father of the second and third (twins) was a common laborer
on the railroad. Deborah’s father was a young fellow, normal indeed, but
loose in his morals, who, along with others, kept company with the mother
while she was out at service. After Deborah’s birth in the almshouse, the
mother had been taken with her child into a good family. Even in this
guarded position, she was sought out by a feeble-minded man of low habits.
Every possible means was employed to separate the pair, but without
effect. Her mistress then insisted that they marry, and herself attended
to all the details. After Deborah’s mother had borne this man two
children, the pair went to live on the farm of an unmarried man possessing
some property, but little intelligence. The husband was an imbecile who
had never provided for his wife. She was still pretty, almost girlish--the
farmer was good-looking, and soon the two were openly living together and
the husband had left. As the facts became known, there was considerable
protest in the neighborhood, but no active steps were taken until two or
three children had been born. Finally, a number of leading citizens,
headed by the good woman before alluded to, took the matter up in earnest.
They found the husband and persuaded him to allow them to get him a
divorce. Then they compelled the farmer to marry the woman. He agreed, on
condition that the children which were not his should be sent away. It was
at this juncture that Deborah was brought to the Training School.

In visiting the mother in her present home and in talking with her over
different phases of her past life, several things are evident; there has
been no malice in her life nor voluntary reaction against social order,
but simply a blind following of impulse which never rose to objective
consciousness. Her life has utterly lacked coördination--there has been no
reasoning from cause to effect, no learning of any lesson. She has never
known shame; in a word, she has never struggled and never suffered. Her
husband is a selfish, sullen, penurious person who gives his wife but
little money, so that she often resorts to selling soap and other things
among her neighbors to have something to spend. At times she works hard in
the field as a farm hand, so that it cannot be wondered at that her house
is neglected and her children unkempt. Her philosophy of life is the
philosophy of the animal. There is no complaining, no irritation at the
inequalities of fate. Sickness, pain, childbirth, death--she accepts them
all with the same equanimity as she accepts the opportunity of putting a
new dress and a gay ribbon on herself and children and going to a Sunday
School picnic. There is no rising to the comprehension of the
possibilities which life offers or of directing circumstances to a
definite, higher end. She has a certain fondness for her children, but is
incapable of real solicitude for them. She speaks of those who were placed
in homes and is glad to see their pictures, and has a sense of their
belonging to her, but it is faint, remote, and in no way bound up with her
life. She is utterly helpless to protect her older daughters, now on the
verge of womanhood, from the dangers that beset them, or to inculcate in
them any ideas which would lead to self-control or to the directing of
their lives in an orderly manner.

The same lack is strikingly shown, if we turn our attention to the
question of alcoholism in this family. We learn from a responsible member
of the good branch of the family that the appetite for alcoholic
stimulants has been strong in the past in this family and that several
members in recent generations have been more or less addicted to its use.
Only two have actually allowed it to get the better of them to the extent
that they became incapacitated. Both were physicians. In the other branch,
however, with the weakened mentality, we find twenty-four victims of this
habit so pronounced that they were public nuisances. We have taken no
account of the much larger number who were also addicted to its use, but
who did not become so bad as to be considered alcoholic in our category.

Thus we see that the normal mentality of the good branch of the family was
able to cope successfully with this intense thirst, while the weakened
mentality on the other side was unable to escape, and many fell victims to
this appalling habit.

It is such facts as these, taken as we find them, not only in this family
but in many of the other families whose records we are soon to publish,
that lead us to the conclusion that drunkenness is, to a certain extent
at least, the result of feeble-mindedness and that one way to reduce
drunkenness is first to determine the mentally defective people, and save
them from the environment which would lead them into this abuse.

Again, eight of the descendants of the degenerate Kallikak branch were
keepers of houses of ill fame, and that in spite of the fact that they
mostly lived in a rural community where such places do not flourish as
they do in large cities.

In short, whereas in the Jukes-Edwards comparison we have no sound basis
for argument, because the families were utterly different and separate, in
the Kallikak family the conclusion seems thoroughly logical. We have, as
it were, a natural experiment with a normal branch with which to compare
our defective side. We have the one ancestor giving us a line of normal
people that shows thoroughly good all the way down the generations, with
the exception of the one man who was sexually loose and the two who gave
way to the appetite for strong drink.

This is our norm, our standard, our demonstration of what the Kallikak
blood is when kept pure, or mingled with blood as good as its own.

Over against this we have the bad side, the blood of the same ancestor
contaminated by that of the nameless feeble-minded girl.

From this comparison the conclusion is inevitable that all this degeneracy
has come as the result of the defective mentality and bad blood having
been brought into the normal family of good blood, first from the nameless
feeble-minded girl and later by additional contaminations from other
sources.

The biologist could hardly plan and carry out a more rigid experiment or
one from which the conclusions would follow more inevitably.




CHAPTER IV

FURTHER FACTS ABOUT THE KALLIKAK FAMILY


Although the foregoing facts, figures, and charts show conclusively the
difference between good heredity and bad and the result of introducing
mental deficiency into the family blood, yet because it is so difficult
actually to appreciate the situation, because facts and figures do not
have flesh and blood reality in them, we give in this chapter a few cases,
graphically written up by our field worker, to show the differences in the
types of people on the two sides of the family. These are only a few of
the many, but are fairly typical of the condition of things that was found
throughout the investigation. On the bad side we have the type of family
which the social worker meets continually and which makes most of our
social problems. A study of it will help to account for the conviction we
have that no amount of work in the slums or removing the slums from our
cities will ever be successful until we take care of those who make the
slums what they are. Unless the two lines of work go on together, either
one is bound to be futile in itself. If all of the slum districts of our
cities were removed to-morrow and model tenements built in their places,
we would still have slums in a week’s time, because we have these mentally
defective people who can never be taught to live otherwise than as they
have been living. Not until we take care of this class and see to it that
their lives are guided by intelligent people, shall we remove these sores
from our social life.

There are Kallikak families all about us. They are multiplying at twice
the rate of the general population, and not until we recognize this fact,
and work on this basis, will we begin to solve these social problems.

The following pictures from life have been prepared by our field worker,
Miss Elizabeth S. Kite, and besides giving an idea of the family, they
will also show something of her method, and enable the reader to judge of
the reliability of the data.

       *       *       *       *       *

On one of the coldest days in winter the field worker visited the street
in a city slum where three sons of Joseph (Chart IX, section D) live. She
had previously tested several of the children of these families in the
public school and found them, in amiability of character and general
mentality, strikingly like our own Deborah, lacking, however, her
vitality. There was no fire in their eyes, but a languid dreamy look,
which was partly due, no doubt, to unwholesome city environment. In one
house she found the family group--six human beings, two cats, and two
dogs--huddled in a small back room around a cook stove, the only fire in
the house. In this room were accumulated all the paraphernalia of living.
A boy of eleven, who had been tested in the school previously, was
standing by the fire with a swollen face. He had been kept home on this
account. In a rocking-chair, a little girl of twelve was holding a
pale-faced, emaciated baby. In the corner two boys were openly exposing
themselves. The mother was making her toilet by the aid of a comb and
basin of water, set on the hearth of the stove; a pot and kettle were on
top. The entrance of the field worker caused no commotion of any kind. The
boy with the swollen face looked up and smiled, the mother smiled and went
on with her toilet, the girl with the baby smiled, the boys in the corner
paid no attention. A chair was finally cleared off and she sat down, while
everybody smiled. She learned that the husband made a dollar a day and
that the girl next older than the child of twelve was married and had a
baby. Another younger girl was at school, the family having been at last
able to provide her with shoes. The girl of twelve should have been at
school, according to the law, but when one saw her face, one realized it
made no difference. She was pretty, with olive complexion and dark,
languid eyes, but there was no mind there. Stagnation was the word written
in large characters over everything. Benumbed by this display of human
degeneracy, the field worker went out into the icy street.

       *       *       *       *       *

A short distance farther on, she came to the home of another brother. The
hideous picture that presented itself as the door opened to her knock was
one never to be forgotten. In the first home, the type was no lower than
moron. One felt that when winter was over and spring had come, the family
would expand into a certain expression of life--but here, no such outlook
was possible, for the woman at the head of this house was an imbecile. In
one arm she held a frightful looking baby, while she had another by the
hand. Vermin were visible all over her. In the room were a few chairs and
a bed, the latter without any washable covering and filthy beyond
description. There was no fire, and both mother and babies were thinly
clad. They did not shiver, however, nor seem to mind. The oldest girl, a
vulgar, repulsive creature of fifteen, came into the room and stood
looking at the stranger. She had somehow managed to live. All the rest of
the children, except the two that the mother was carrying, had died in
infancy.

       *       *       *       *       *

The following is a story of Guss, whose position will be found on Chart
IX, section A.

When young, he married a normal girl who belonged to a decent family, but
had no education. After a few months the mother of our Deborah came to
visit them. She was then a young girl, ready to associate with any man who
would look at her. The two behaved so badly that the wife turned her out.
This was the first knowledge the wife had of the character of her husband.
She lived with him ten years or more. In that time he did not average
three months’ work out of twelve, so she had, practically, to support him
and her ever increasing family. She knew that he was untrue to her, but
there was no way to prove it. At last she seemed to grasp the situation.
She began to believe that there was something wrong with him
mentally,--wrong with the whole family,--so she decided to leave him. She
took her six living children, rented another house and turned him adrift.
He went at once to live with a feeble-minded girl belonging to a low-grade
family of the neighborhood. Soon after this girl’s child was born he left
her, becoming promiscuous in his relations. At one time, he and two of his
cousins spent the best part of two days and nights in a tree to elude the
police, who were searching for them and another man, all of whom had been
accused by a girl then in confinement. When the other man was caught and
made to marry the girl, they came down.

In 1904, this scion of the Kallikak family, Guss, went off with a gypsy
camp and was married to one of the women. For some time he stayed with the
camp, following them into another State. In the neighborhood where they
located, a murder was committed which was fastened upon the gypsies and
finally settled upon him. A great sensation was raised in the papers about
it. He was arrested, but finally cleared of the charge, though not until
he was effectually cured of his love for gypsy life.

In 1907,--and here comes the most infamous part of the story,--a minister
married Guss to his own first cousin, a woman of questionable character.
The witnesses were Guss’s sister and her husband. Every one concerned,
except the minister, knew that around the corner, in a little street, so
near that at certain hours of the day the shadow of the church spire under
which they were standing fell upon it, was a house in which Guss’s lawful
wife was living and working to support his children. The minister, too,
might have known, had he taken the least trouble, and thus have been
spared the ignominy of uniting two such beings with this travesty of the
blessing of heaven. Soon after their union, this couple ceased to live
together--Guss going off with another woman and his wife with another man.

The field worker was not able to locate Guss, but she found that a
minister farther up the State had, in 1910, married his late wife to the
man with whom she was living. The couple, however, had gotten wind that
some one was looking for them, so when the field worker arrived, she found
that they had moved on, leaving no address.

The following story shows the continuation of these conditions into the
next generation:--

It was considered desirable to see the illegitimate son of Guss, who had
been born to the feeble-minded girl after Guss had been turned adrift by
his lawful wife. This child had had, when young, a severe attack of
scarlet fever which deprived him of his hearing. He had been admitted into
a home for deaf children, but the mother had taken him out. It was learned
that this girl had married her own cousin and that the pair were living
on the outskirts of a country town, with this deaf boy and four of their
own children.

Arrived at this place, the field worker first sought the school where
these children were supposed to go, hoping to obtain some light on the
question of their mentality and also to learn their school record. She
found that they so seldom attended school that the teacher could give very
little information regarding them. By dint of persistent inquiry, the
family was discovered living in the back shed of a dilapidated country
tenement.

It was a bitter, cold day in February and about eleven in the morning when
the field worker knocked at the door. Used as she was to sights of misery
and degradation, she was hardly prepared for the spectacle within. The
father, a strong, healthy, broad-shouldered man, was sitting helplessly in
a corner. The mother, a pretty woman still, with remnants of ragged
garments drawn about her, sat in a chair, the picture of despondency.
Three children, scantily clad and with shoes that would barely hold
together, stood about with drooping jaws and the unmistakable look of the
feeble-minded. Another child, neither more intelligent nor better clad,
was attempting to wash a few greasy dishes in cold water. The deaf boy
was nowhere to be seen. On being urgently requested, the mother went out
of the room to get him, for he was not yet out of bed. In a few moments
she returned. The boy with her wore an old suit that evidently was made to
do service by night as well as by day. A glance sufficed to establish his
mentality, which was low. The whole family was a living demonstration of
the futility of trying to make desirable citizens from defective stock
through making and enforcing compulsory education laws. Here were children
who seldom went to school because they seldom had shoes, but when they
went, had neither will nor power to learn anything out of books. The
father himself, though strong and vigorous, showed by his face that he had
only a child’s mentality. The mother in her filth and rags was also a
child. In this house of abject poverty, only one sure prospect was ahead,
that it would produce more feeble-minded children with which to clog the
wheels of human progress. The laws of the country will not permit children
ten years old to marry. Why should they permit it when the mentality is
only ten? These and similar questions kept ringing through the field
worker’s mind as she made her way laboriously over the frozen road to the
station.

Early in the course of this investigation, it had been learned that the
father of Deborah’s mother had come, when a young man, to the prosperous
rural community where his daughter was living at the time of our
investigation. The informant could not say whence he had come, but the
name of a person was given who was supposed to know. Many fruitless
attempts to find this person were made before the object was attained.
When at last discovered, she turned out to be an elderly lady of
refinement and culture. Strangely enough, long afterwards it was learned
that she was connected with the good side of the Kallikak family, but was
all unconscious of the relationship which existed between it and the
degenerate branch. She was delighted to go back in memory and recall
impressions made on her mind in youth.

She had been raised in B----, a town at the foot of a mountain chain upon
whose top the grandfather of Deborah’s grandfather, Martin Kallikak Jr.,
had always lived. When she was a little girl, he was a very old man. She
remembered being taken to drive, when a child, and seeing the old hut on
the mountain, where he lived with his strange daughters, “Old Moll,” “Old
Sal,” and Jemima. The dilapidated dwelling, with its windows bulging with
rags, formed a picture she had never forgotten. There were in her mind
floating memories of great scandals connected with these women and their
lonely mountain hut. The father went by the name of the “Old Horror,” and
as she remembered him, he was always unwashed and drunk. At election time,
he never failed to appear in somebody’s cast-off clothing, ready to vote,
for the price of a drink, the donor’s ticket.

This information, coming when it did, seemed amazing and carried with it
the probability of establishing the certainty of defect transmitted
through five generations. But the town in question was remote and the
probability of finding any living person able to give accurate information
seemed so slight that nothing further was done in this direction for many
months.

In the meantime, the families of the fifteen brothers and sisters of
Deborah’s grandfather had been worked out, and the names of several living
relatives back in the mountain ascertained. The time was ripe.

Appealing for a night’s lodging at the home of a retired farmer, the field
worker was fortunate enough to be received. As the hostess was showing her
to a room, she asked tentatively, “You have lived in B---- a long time?”
“About sixty-five years,” was the pleasant reply. “So, then, you know
something of most of the old families?” “There are not many old residents
of B---- with whose history I am not familiar.” Then followed a few
cautious questions in regard to the Kallikak family which drew forth
answers that soon convinced the field worker she was on solid ground and
could advance without wasting time in needless precautions. At this
juncture, the supper bell rang. In the dining room the acquaintance of the
host was made. When the meal was over, the couple turned their united
attention to the problem put before them. “Why,” the host began, when he
comprehended what was wanted, “do you know that is the worst nest you’re
getting into, in the whole country? The mountains back here are full of
these people; I can point out to you where every one of them lives.” Then
he turned to the table and began to sketch a map of the mountain roads
which must be followed next day. In the midst of this he paused, as though
an idea had come to him, then he said hesitatingly, “You see, it’s really
impossible for a stranger like you to find all these people. Some of them
live on obscure back roads that you could hardly get at without a guide.
Now, my time is of no value, and if you will permit me, I will gladly
serve in that capacity myself.” Needless to say, his services were
thankfully accepted, with the result that nearly two hundred persons were
added to Deborah’s family chart.

This proved, however, only the beginning of the study that has been made
of the family in the vicinity of B----. Numerous visits to many homes,
always from the center of the genial couple’s house, have made the field
worker such a well-known figure among these people, that they long ago
forgot what little surprise they may have felt at her first visit. “You’re
one of the family?” was frequently asked her at the beginning. “No, not
really, only as I know so many of your cousins and aunts and uncles, I
thought, since I was in B----, I would like to know you.” This usually
sufficed, but if it did not, the field worker was able so to inundate the
questioner with information about his own relatives, that before she was
through, he had forgotten that anything remained unanswered. The relation
once established, no further explanation was necessary. She was able to go
in and out among them, study their mentality, awake their reminiscences,
until finally the whole story was told.

Besides members of the family, numerous old people were here and there
discovered who were able to add materially to the information otherwise
obtained. One shrewd old farmer who was found tottering in from the field
proved to be of especial service in determining the mental status of
Martin Kallikak Jr. In introducing herself, the field worker had spoken of
her interest in Revolutionary times and of having come to him because she
had been told that he was well informed as to the history of the locality.
“Yes,” he said, with excusable pride, as he led the way to the kitchen
steps descending into the garden, “not much has happened in this place for
the last seventy years in which I have not taken an active part. Do you
see that tree there?” and he pointed to a fine maple that threw its
luxuriant shade over the path that led to the barn. “The day my wife and I
came here sixty years ago, we planted that tree. It was a little sapling
then, and see what it has become!” After much more talk she cautiously put
the question, “Do you remember an old man, Martin Kallikak, who lived on
the mountain edge yonder?” “Do I?” he answered. “Well, I guess! Nobody’d
forget him. Simple,” he went on; “not quite right here,” tapping his head,
“but inoffensive and kind. All the family was that. Old Moll, simple as
she was, would do anything for a neighbor. She finally died--burned to
death in the chimney corner. She had come in drunk and sat down there.
Whether she fell over in a fit or her clothes caught fire, nobody knows.
She was burned to a crisp when they found her. That was the worst of
them, they would drink. Poverty was their best friend in this respect, or
they would have been drunk all the time. Old Martin could never stop as
long as he had a drop. Many’s the time he’s rolled off of Billy Parson’s
porch. Billy always had a barrel of cider handy. He’d just chuckle to see
old Martin drink and drink until finally he’d lose his balance and over
he’d go! But Horser--he was a case! I saw him once after I’d heard he was
going to marry Jemima. I looked him over and said, ‘Well, if you aren’t a
fine-looking specimen to think of marrying anybody!’ and he answered, ‘I
guess you’re right--I aren’t much, but I guess I’ll do fer Jemima.’

“Such scandals as there were when those girls were young!” he continued.
“You see, there was a fast set of young men in B---- in those days,
lawyers, who didn’t care what they did. One of them got paid back, though,
for Jemima wanted to put her child on the town, and they made her tell who
was its father. Then he had to give something for its support, and she
gave it this man’s full name. I saw him one day soon afterward and he was
boiling with rage. All the comfort I gave him was to say, ‘I don’t see but
what you’re getting your just deserts, for if anybody wants to play with
the pot, they must expect to get blackened!’

[Illustration: GREAT-GRANDSON OF “DADDY” KALLIKAK.

This boy is an imbecile of the Mongolian type.]

[Illustration: MALINDA, DAUGHTER OF “JEMIMA.”]

“By the way! Do you know that old Martin had a half brother Frederick--as
fine a man as the country owned--who lived about twenty miles from here?
You see, Martin’s mother was a young girl in Revolutionary times when
Martin’s father was a soldier. Afterwards he went back home and married a
respectable woman.”

“Did you ever see the mother of old Martin?” the field worker asked. “No,
she was dead before my time, but I have heard the folks talk about her.
She lived in the woods not far from here. Dear me!” he went on, “it’s been
so long since I’ve thought of these people that many things I forget, but
it would all come back to me in time.”

Two daughters of Jemima lived in B----. A little study of Chart V,
sections A and B, will place them in their relation to the rest of the
family and give the chief facts of their lives. Little more need be added.
One of them was early put out to service and later married a cobbler to
whom she has borne many children. She is not known to have had any
illegitimate offspring, but if she escaped, her daughter has made up for
her deficiency in this respect. The other sister grew up in the mountain
hut with her mother, and was living there when her grandfather died. Her
husband and most of her children are defective, but there are two by
unknown fathers who are normal. One of these, a girl of considerable
ability, supports herself and mother in a decent way and is respected by
her townspeople. The mother is tall, lean, angular, much resembling
Jemima, except that the latter was even more masculine. Many are the
living inhabitants of B---- to whom the old woman was a well-known figure,
for she often came down into the town bringing berries to sell, her large
feet shod with heavy boots, her skirts short, while her sharp, angular
features were hidden in the depths of a huge sunbonnet. She thus formed a
striking picture that could not easily be forgotten.

A third daughter of Jemima had gone to Brooklyn to live, and the question
kept repeating itself, “What will she be like?” and this all the more
because of the uncertainty of the parentage on the father’s side. Perhaps
he was a normal man. Perhaps this will prove to be a normal woman and so
break the dead monotony of this line of defectives.

In a back tenement, after passing through a narrow alley, the home of this
woman was found. It was about ten o’clock in the morning. After climbing a
dark and narrow stairway, one came to a landing from which a view could be
had of the interior of the apartment. In one room was a frowsled young
woman in tawdry rags, her hair unkempt, her face streaked with black,
while on the floor two dirty, half-naked children were rolling. At the
sight of a stranger, they all came forward. The field worker made her way
as best she could, across heaps of junk that cluttered the room, to a
chair by an open window through which a breath of outside air could be
obtained. On the bureau by the window a hideous diseased cat was curled in
the sunshine. The mother, Jemima’s daughter, was not at home, but the
woman who had presented herself was her daughter, and these were the
grandchildren. The woman’s feeble-mindedness made it possible to ask her
question after question, such as could not have been put to a normal
person. Her answers threw a flood of light upon the general depravity of
life under such conditions. When the mother at last arrived, she proved to
be of a type somewhat different from anything before encountered in this
family. She appeared to be criminalistic, or at least capable of
developing along that line. Unfortunately, the visit could not either be
prolonged or repeated, so that no satisfactory study was made.

In the city, the individual is lost in the very immensity of the crowd
that surrounds him, so that his individual actions, except such as he
himself chooses to reveal or can be made to reveal, are lost to the people
about him; therefore there was little hope of obtaining much side light on
the problem here presented. During the short interview the older woman
showed unmistakable signs of wanting to appear respectable in the midst of
her depravity, something quite characteristic of the high-grade moron type
in the family. She was friendly and distinctly more intelligent than her
daughter, but there was little more will power or ability to cope with the
problems of life. One of her daughters had disappeared off the face of the
earth a few years before--there had been a baby--that was all they knew.
She was working at Coney Island. One day she came home and, when she left
the next morning, it was the last they ever saw of her. A brother of the
girl had also disappeared in much the same way.

The field worker left the tenement with the positive assurance that
environment without strict personal supervision made little difference
when it was a question of the feeble-minded.

[Illustration: GREAT-GRANDCHILDREN OF “OLD SAL.”]

[Illustration: CHILDREN OF GUSS SAUNDERS, WITH THEIR GRANDMOTHER.]

Owing to the courtesy of the County Superintendent and the intelligent
coöperation of the teachers, it was possible to apply the Binet tests to
all the descendants of Martin Kallikak who could be found in the schools.
The request for this had been made in a way to give no clew to the
particular purpose underlying the search. By selecting from every class
one or two bright pupils to take the tests along with the dull ones, all
personal element was eliminated. As children everywhere are found to
delight in the tests, only those who were not called out were
disappointed.

A morning was spent in a schoolhouse situated on the top of a bold, rocky
ledge that went by the picturesque name of Hard Scrabble. It was within a
quarter of a mile of the ruins of Martin Kallikak’s hut, and a number of
his descendants were enrolled among its pupils.

One of the grandsons of “Old Sal” lived on a farm near Cedarhill, several
miles farther up the ridge. This man, Guss Saunders by name, had been
reported to be the father of a large family. Nothing, however, had been
learned of him beyond the facts stated, and therefore the inference was
that he had turned out better than the rest of his brothers. It had been
to determine this matter that the long ride was undertaken.

Arrived at the farm, the question of the mentality of this family was
quickly answered. Desolation and ruin became more apparent at every step.
The front of the large farmhouse was quite deserted, but following a few
tracks the back door was reached. Such an unwonted spectacle as a visitor
attracted instant attention. The door opened, revealing a sight to which,
alas, the field worker was only too accustomed. She gazed aghast at what
appeared to her to be a procession of imbeciles. The tall, emaciated,
staggering man at the head braced himself against a tree, while the rest
stopped and stood with a fixed, stupid stare. Quickly regaining control,
the field worker said pleasantly, “Good afternoon, Mr. Saunders. I hope
you don’t mind my intruding on you this way, but you see I am looking up
the children of the neighborhood, and I was sorry not to find any of yours
in the Cedarhill school to-day.” He at once thought he had to do with a
school inspector, and his answer bears no setting forth in print. It was
an incoherent, disjointed, explosive protest against school laws in
general and fate in particular. It was mixed up with convulsive sobs,
while his bleared, swollen eyes brimmed over with tears. The field worker
began to feel real sympathy for the man, although she knew that he was
drunk and that drunkards are easily moved to tears. “Oh, I am sorry for
you,” she said; “your wife then is dead, is she?” “Yes, she’s dead!” he
answered with a wild gesture, “they took her right out of that room--they
said they’d cure her, if I’d let her go. You can see the doctors in
B----, they know all about it--they’ll tell you what they done--they took
her away, and she never come back--Oh!” Stifling his sobs, he went on,
“And now they say I am to send my children to school--and what can I do?
Look there!” pointing to a lump of humanity, a girl who, at first glance,
had thrown her imbecilic shadow over the whole group, making them all look
imbecilic--“do you see that girl? She’s always fallin’ into fits, and
nobody can’t do nothin’ with her.” Breaking in here, the field worker
said, “But, Mr. Saunders, you ought not to have the burden and the care of
that girl; she could be made so happy and comfortable in a place where
they understand such cases. You ought--” The field worker could get no
farther. His eyes suddenly assumed a wild, desperate look and he burst
out, “No, no! They’ll never get her. They tried it once, but they didn’t
get her. They took my wife away and she never came back--they’ll never get
her!” A few soothing words to allay the storm she had unconsciously
raised, another expression of sympathy, and the field worker drove away,
pondering deeply the meaning of what had been seen and heard.

We have come to the point where we no longer leave babies or little
children to die uncared for in our streets, but who has yet thought of
caring intelligently for the vastly more pathetic child-man or
child-woman, who through matured sex powers, which they do not understand,
fill our land with its overflowing measure of misery and crime? Such
thoughts as these filled the mind of the field worker on the ride home.

Arrived at B----, her first care was to obtain an interview with the
doctor who had attended Guss’s wife when she died. She found him ready to
explain all he could of the family which he had always known and attended.
“The mother,” he said, “was a kind-hearted, simple-minded soul, who tended
as best she could to the needs of her family.” The epileptic girl, he
explained, had always been a great care, and the doctor himself, aided by
several prominent citizens, had taken the trouble to complete all
necessary arrangements for having her admitted to the epileptic colony at
Skillman. The father, however, could never be made to give his consent.
The mother was still quite young when she was carrying her eleventh child.
Some accident happened which threatened her with a miscarriage. The doctor
was summoned. He saw that it was a serious case and sent for two other
physicians in consultation. It was decided that an immediate operation was
necessary, if the woman’s life was to be saved. They succeeded in
persuading Guss to allow her to be removed to the hospital. Their efforts,
however, were unavailing; she died under the operation.

On the outskirts of B---- lived the owner of the Cedarhill farm worked by
Guss Saunders. He proved to be an intelligent man, with an admirably
appointed home. He was keenly alive to the needs of the family, about
which the field worker came to inquire. “The pity about Guss,” he began,
“is that he can never let drink alone. Why, do you know, if I paid that
man wages, he’d use every cent for rum. I ceased giving him money long
ago, for if I had, the town would have had to look after his children. I
give him credit at the store, and they supply him with what he needs.”

       *       *       *       *       *

The foregoing glimpses of the defective branch of the Kallikak family must
suffice, though the field worker’s memory and notebook contain many
similar instances.

       *       *       *       *       *

In turning to describe the other branch of the family, two difficulties
confront the writer.

First, the question of identification. The persons already described are
either gone and have left nothing behind them by which they can be
identified, or, if living, will never recognize themselves in this book.

The opposite is true of the good family. Some of them will recognize
themselves, but the public must not discover them. To insure this, the
writer must refrain from telling the very facts that would give the story
its most interesting touches.

The second difficulty is that a description of the activity of a normal
family of respectability and usefulness is never as interesting as the
bizarre experiences of the abnormal.

Hence the reader will find in the following sketches only such facts as
will show the thoroughly normal and regular family life of the intelligent
citizens of a commonwealth.

In a certain village of New Jersey, lying picturesquely on the crest of a
hill, is a graveyard where Martin Kallikak Sr. and several of his
immediate descendants lie peacefully at rest. He had in his lifetime a
great passion for the accumulation of land and left large farms to most of
his children. These farms lie in the vicinity of the aforesaid village.
Some of them are still in the possession of his descendants, while others
have passed into strangers’ hands. On the hill above this village is a
stucco farmhouse in a fine state of preservation. It belonged to
Amos--lineal descendant of one of the colonial governors of New Jersey and
to Elizabeth, daughter of Martin Kallikak Sr. The farm is, at present, in
the possession of the widow of Elizabeth’s grandson, the latter having
been a minister in New York City. In renting the farm, the family has
always retained a wing of the house, which, although remodeled, still
presents much the same appearance as in the days of Amos and Elizabeth.
There is the same fireplace, the same high-backed chairs, the clock, desk,
and china cupboard. Every summer the family has come back to the old place
to enjoy the country air, the luscious grapes and other fruit planted by
their ancestor.

On another hill, less than two miles distant, lives a granddaughter of the
same Amos and Elizabeth. Her father had been, in his day, one of the
wealthiest and most prominent citizens of the community. In an old desk,
part of his inheritance from his mother, was found a number of valuable
papers belonging to the Kallikak family. One of these is the famous deed
of the original purchase made in 17-- by Casper Kallikak, signed by the
governor of the colony. These papers the daughter guards with great pride.
She is a woman of ability and manages her large farm with admirable skill.
The splendid old homestead, which has been remodeled and fitted up with
all modern conveniences, was built by her mother’s ancestor. Although she
is deeply interested in all family matters, she has been too much
engrossed in business affairs to have given this subject much attention.
A daughter of hers, however, who has inherited the taste, has been able to
make up for her mother’s lack in this respect. The young woman is now
married, and her oldest son bears the united name of his two ancestors,
the colonial governor and Martin Kallikak.

Miriam, the oldest daughter of Martin Sr., married a man who was a
carpenter and a farmer. Although of good family, yet, for some unknown
reason, he was not personally acceptable to Martin or his wife. Miriam
died when only thirty-six years old, and her husband married again. In his
will, Martin makes no mention of his grandchildren by this daughter. They
have been respectable farming people, but have never held the same social
position as the other members of the family.

Martin’s third daughter, Susan, married a man descended from a family
conspicuous in the colonial history of New Jersey and which counts among
its members one of the founders of Princeton University, while a
collateral branch furnished a signer to the Declaration of Independence.
One of Susan’s sons is still living, having attained the advanced age of
ninety-eight. He is a resident of the town that bears his family name and
has always been conspicuous as a loyal and upright citizen. To-day, the
old man has quite lost his mental power but retains his courteous manner
and placid gentlemanly countenance.

In a central region of northern New Jersey, remote from any direct line of
travel, lies a town named for one of the families connected with the
earliest settlement of the colony. This family rose to distinction in many
of its branches, but honors itself chiefly for having produced one of the
most brilliant advocates of the cause of Independence of which New Jersey
can boast. He was descended on his mother’s side from the first president
of Princeton University and took his degree there before he was sixteen
years of age. From this family, Martin Kallikak’s youngest son, Joseph,
chose his wife. It is interesting to note that the descendants of this
pair have shown a marked tendency toward professional careers. One
daughter, however, married a farmer, and most of her descendants have
remained fixed to the soil. Another daughter married a prominent merchant,
and this line, having been fixed in the city, has produced men chiefly
engaged in mercantile pursuits; but the sons, of whom there were five, all
studied medicine, and although only one of these became a practicing
physician, their children have carried on the family tradition in this
line.

On the outskirts of another New Jersey town, in a beautiful old homestead,
inherited from his mother, lives a grandson of Frederick Kallikak, oldest
son of Martin. He is a courteous, scholarly man of the old school. His
home is rendered particularly attractive by the presence of his southern
wife and two charming daughters. In his possession are numerous articles
belonging to his great-grandfather. This gentleman manifested such an
intelligent interest in giving information in regard to his family that it
seemed a question of honor to inform him as to the purpose of the
investigation, laying bare the facts set forth in this book. He proved to
be, perhaps, the one man best qualified in the entire family for entering
into an analysis of its characteristics, and this he did freely, in so far
as it would serve the ends of the investigation.

Another descendant of Martin Kallikak Sr., a granddaughter of his youngest
child, Abbie, had been previously informed regarding the same facts. This
lady is a person not only of refinement and culture but is the author of
two scholarly genealogical works. She has, for years, been collecting
material for a similar study of the Kallikak family. This material she
generously submitted to the use of the field worker. In the end she spent
an entire day in the completion and revision of the normal chart
presented in this book. No praise can be too high for such disinterested
self-forgetfulness in the face of an urgent public need. We owe to these
two persons most of the information which has made possible the study of
the normal side of this family.

Of Martin Kallikak Sr., himself, the record of many characteristic traits
has been preserved. As stated in another chapter, his father died when he
was a lad of fifteen. The father, in his will, after enumerating certain
personal bequests to his wife, recommends the selling of the homestead
farm, in order to provide for the education of his children. There is a
quaint document still in existence, in which Martin Kallikak, having
attained his majority, agrees to pay £250 to each of his three “spinster”
sisters, still minors, in return for a quitclaim deed of the homestead
farm. This was a considerable burden for a young man to assume, but it
seems to have given him the impetus which later made him a rich and
prosperous farmer.

He had joined the Revolutionary Army in April, 1776. Two years later he
was wounded in a way to disable him for further service, and he then
returned to the home farm. During the summer of enforced idleness he wooed
and won the heart of a young woman of good Quaker family. Her shrewd old
father, however, refused to give his consent. To his objections, based on
the ground that Martin did not own enough of this world’s goods, the young
man is recorded as saying, “Never mind. I will own more land than ever
thou did, before I die,” which promise he made true. That the paternal
objection was overruled is proven by the registry of marriages, which
gives the date of Martin’s union with the Quakeress as January, 1779.

The old Bible of Casper Kallikak, one of the family heirlooms, is in the
possession of a Reverend Mr. ----, who is descended from Casper through
the line of one of his daughters. This Bible was bought in 1704 and is
still in an excellent state of preservation, for, although time-stained,
the pages are intact and there still may be seen in legible handwriting
the family record penned so long ago. On a flyleaf, is a quaint verse in
which old Casper bequeaths the volume to his eldest son, bidding him, “So
oft as in it he doth looke” remember how his father had “aye been guided
by ye precepts in this booke,” and enjoining him to walk in the same safe
way.




CHAPTER V

WHAT IS TO BE DONE?


No one interested in the progress of civilization can contemplate the
facts presented in the previous chapters without having the question
arise, Why isn’t something done about this? It will be more to the point
if we put the question, Why do _we_ not _do_ something about it? We are
thus face to face with the problem in a practical way and we ask ourselves
the next question, What _can_ we do? For the low-grade idiot, the
loathsome unfortunate that may be seen in our institutions, some have
proposed the lethal chamber. But humanity is steadily tending away from
the possibility of that method, and there is no probability that it will
ever be practiced.

But in view of such conditions as are shown in the defective side of the
Kallikak family, we begin to realize that the idiot is not our greatest
problem. He is indeed loathsome; he is somewhat difficult to take care of;
nevertheless, he lives his life and is done. He does not continue the race
with a line of children like himself. Because of his very low-grade
condition, he never becomes a parent.

It is the moron type that makes for us our great problem. And when we face
the question, “What is to be done with them--with such people as make up a
large proportion of the bad side of the Kallikak family?” we realize that
we have a huge problem.

The career of Martin Kallikak Sr. is a powerful sermon against sowing wild
oats. Martin Kallikak did what unfortunately many a young man like him has
done before and since, and which, still more unfortunately, society has
too often winked at, as being merely a side step in accordance with a
natural instinct, bearing no serious results. It is quite possible that
Martin Kallikak himself never gave any serious thought to his act, or if
he did, it may have been merely to realize that in his youth he had been
indiscreet and had done that for which he was sorry. And being sorry he
may have thought it was atoned for, as he never suffered from it any
serious consequences.

Even the people of his generation, however much they may have known about
the circumstances, could not have begun to realize the evil that had been
done. Undoubtedly, it was only looked upon as a sin because it was a
violation of the moral law. The real sin of peopling the world with a
race of defective degenerates who would probably commit his sin a thousand
times over, was doubtless not perceived or realized. It is only after the
lapse of six generations that we are able to look back, count up and see
the havoc that was wrought by that one thoughtless act.

Now that the facts are known, let the lesson be learned; let the sermons
be preached; let it be impressed upon our young men of good family that
they dare not step aside for even a moment. Let all possible use be made
of these facts, and something will be accomplished.

But even so the real problem will not be solved. Had Martin Kallikak
remained in the paths of virtue, there still remained the nameless
feeble-minded girl, and there were other people, other young men, perhaps
not of as good a family as Martin, perhaps feeble-minded like herself,
capable of the same act and without Martin’s respectability, so that the
race would have come down even worse if possible than it was, because of
having a worse father.

Others will look at the chart and say, “The difficulty began with the
nameless feeble-minded girl; had she been taken care of, all of this
trouble would have been avoided.” This is largely true. Although
feeble-mindedness came into this family from other sources in two
generations at least, yet nevertheless these sources were other
feeble-minded persons. When we conclude that had the nameless girl been
segregated in an institution, this defective family would not have
existed, we of course do not mean that one single act of precaution, in
that case, would have solved the problem, but we mean that all such cases,
male and female, must be taken care of, before their propagation will
cease. The instant we grasp this thought, we realize that we are facing a
problem that presents two great difficulties; in the first place the
difficulty of knowing who are the feeble-minded people; and, secondly, the
difficulty of taking care of them when they are known.

A large proportion of those who are considered feeble-minded in this study
are persons who would not be recognized as such by the untrained observer.
They are not the imbeciles nor idiots who plainly show in their
countenances the extent of their mental defect. They are people whom the
community has tolerated and helped to support, at the same time that it
has deplored their vices and their inefficiency. They are people who have
won the pity rather than the blame of their neighbors, but no one has
seemed to suspect the real cause of their delinquencies, which careful
psychological tests have now determined to be feeble-mindedness.

The second difficulty is that of caring for this large army of people. At
the lowest estimates of the number needing care, we in the United States
are at present caring for approximately one tenth of the estimated number
of our mental defectives. Yet many of our States think that they are now
being over-taxed for the care of these people, so that it is with great
difficulty that legislatures can be induced to appropriate money enough to
care for those already in institutions. It is impossible to entertain the
thought of caring for ten times as many. Some other method must be devised
for dealing with the difficulty.

Before considering any other method, the writer would insist that
segregation and colonization is not by any means as hopeless a plan as it
may seem to those who look only at the immediate increase in the tax rate.
If such colonies were provided in sufficient number to take care of all
the distinctly feeble-minded cases in the community, they would very
largely take the place of our present almshouses and prisons, and they
would greatly decrease the number in our insane hospitals. Such colonies
would save an annual loss in property and life, due to the action of these
irresponsible people, sufficient to nearly, or quite, offset the expense
of the new plant. Besides, if these feeble-minded children were early
selected and carefully trained, they would become more or less
self-supporting in their institutions, so that the expense of their
maintenance would be greatly reduced.

In addition to this, the number would be reduced, in a single generation,
from 300,000 (the estimated number in the United States) to 100,000, at
least,--and probably even lower. (We have found the hereditary factor in
65 per cent of cases; while others place it as high as 80 per cent.)

This is not the place for arguing the question or producing the statistics
to substantiate these statements. Suffice it to say that every institution
in the land has a certain proportion of inmates who not only earn their
own living, but some who could go out into the world and support
themselves, were it not for the terrible danger of procreation,--resulting
in our having not one person merely, but several to be cared for at the
expense of the State. These statements should be carefully considered and
investigated before any one takes the stand that segregation in colonies
and homes is impossible and unwise for the State.

The other method proposed of solving the problem is to take away from
these people the power of procreation. The earlier method proposed was
unsexing, asexualization, as it is sometimes called, or the removing, from
the male and female, the necessary organs for procreation. The operation
in the female is that of ovariectomy and in the male of castration.

There are two great practical difficulties in the way of carrying out this
method on any large scale. The first is the strong opposition to this
practice on the part of the public generally. It is regarded as mutilation
of the human body and as such is opposed vigorously by many people. And
while there is no rational basis for this, nevertheless we have, as
practical reformers, to recognize the fact that the average man acts not
upon reason, but upon sentiment and feeling; and as long as human
sentiment and feeling are opposed to this practice, no amount of reasoning
will avail. It may be shown over and over again that many a woman has had
the operation of ovariectomy performed in order to improve her physical
condition, and that it is just as important to improve the moral condition
as the physical. Nevertheless, the argument does not convince, and there
remains the opposition as stated.

In recent years surgeons have discovered another method which has many
advantages. This is also sometimes incorrectly referred to as
asexualization. It is more properly spoken of as sterilization, the
distinction being that it does not have any effect on the sex qualities of
the man or woman, but does artificially take away the power of procreation
by rendering the person sterile. The operation itself is almost as simple
in males as having a tooth pulled. In females it is not much more serious.
The results are generally permanent and sure. Objection is urged that we
do not know the consequences of this action upon the physical, mental, and
moral nature of the individual. The claim is made that it is good in all
of these. But it must be confessed that we are as yet ignorant of actual
facts. It has been tried in many cases; no bad results have been reported,
while many good results have been claimed.

A more serious objection to this last method comes from a consideration of
the social consequences. What will be the effect upon the community in the
spread of debauchery and disease through having within it a group of
people who are thus free to gratify their instincts without fear of
consequences in the form of children? The indications are that here also
the evil consequences are more imaginary than real, since the
feeble-minded seldom exercise restraint in any case.

Probably the most serious difficulty to be overcome before the practice of
sterilization in any form could come into general use would be the
determining of what persons were proper subjects to be operated upon.[3]

    [3] At present eight states have laws authorizing some form of
    asexualization or sterilization. But in all these cases the practice
    is carefully restricted to a few inmates of various specified
    institutions.

This difficulty arises from the fact that we are still ignorant of the
exact laws of inheritance. Just how mental characteristics are transmitted
from parent to child is not yet definitely known. It therefore becomes a
serious matter to decide beforehand that such and such a person who has
mental defect would certainly transmit the same defect to his offspring
and that consequently he ought not to be allowed to have offspring.


THE MENDELIAN LAW

In 1866 an Austrian monk by the name of Gregor Mendel discovered and
published a law of inheritance in certain plants, which, after lying
practically unknown for nearly forty years, was rediscovered in 1900 and
since then has been tested with regard to a great many plants and animals.

Mendel found that there were certain peculiarities in plants which he
termed “unit characters” that were transmitted from parent to offspring
in a definite way. His classical work was on the propagation of the
ordinary garden pea, in which case he found that a quality like tallness,
as contrasted with dwarfness, was transmitted as follows:--

If tall and dwarf peas were crossed, he found in the first generation
nothing but tall peas. But if these peas were allowed to grow and
fertilize themselves, in the next generation he got tall and dwarf peas in
the ratio of three to one. The dwarf peas in this case bred true, _i.e._
when they were planted by themselves and self-fertilized there was never
anything but dwarf peas, no matter how many generations were tested. On
the other hand, the tall peas were divisible by experiment into two
groups; first, those that always bred true, viz. always tall peas; and
secondly, another group that bred tall and dwarf in the same ratio of
three to one; and from these the same cycle was repeated. Mendel called
the character, which did _not_ appear in the first generation (dwarfness),
“recessive”; the other (tallness) he called “dominant.” The recessive
factor is now generally considered to be due to the absence of something
which, if present, would give the dominant factor. According to this view,
dwarfness is simply the absence of tallness.

This law has been found to hold true for many unit characters in many
plants and animals. Since study in human heredity has been taken up, it
has been a natural question, Does this same law apply to human beings? It
has been found that it does apply in the case of many qualities, like
color of hair, albinism, brachydactylism, and other peculiarities.
Investigation has of late been extended to mental conditions. Rosanoff has
shown pretty clearly that the law applies in the case of insanity, while
Davenport and Weeks have shown evidence that it applies in cases of
epilepsy.

Our own studies lead us to believe that it also applies in the case of
feeble-mindedness, but this will be taken up in a later work to which we
have already referred. We do not know that feeble-mindedness is a “unit
character.” Indeed, there are many reasons for thinking that it cannot be.
But assuming for the sake of simplifying our illustration that it is a
“unit character,” then we have something like the following conditions.

If two feeble-minded people marry, then we have the same unit character in
both, and all of the offspring will be feeble-minded; and if these
offspring select feeble-minded mates, then the same thing will continue.
But what will happen if a feeble-minded person takes a normal mate? If
feeble-mindedness is recessive (due to the absence of something that
would make for normality), we would expect in the first generation from
such a union all normal children, and if these children marry persons like
themselves, _i.e._ the offspring of one normal and one defective parent,
then the offspring would be normal and defective in the ratio of three to
one. Of the normal children, one third would breed true and we would have
a normal line of descent.

Without following the illustration further, we see already that it is
questionable whether we ought to say that the original feeble-minded
individual should have been sterilized because he was feeble-minded. We
see that in the first generation all of his children were normal and in
the next generation one fourth of them were normal and bred true. We
should not forget, however, that one fourth of his grandchildren would be
feeble-minded and that two other fourths had the power of begetting
feeble-minded children. We must not forget, either, that these are
averages, and that for the full carrying out of these figures there must
be a large enough number of offspring to give the law of averages room to
have full play. In other words, any marriage which, according to the
Mendelian principle, would give normals and defectives in the ratio of
three to one might result in only one child. That child might happen to
be one of the feeble-minded ones, and so there is propagated nothing but
the feeble-minded type. It is equally true that it might be the normal
child, with a consequent normal line of descendants; or still again, it
might be one of the intermediate ones that are capable of reproducing
again the ratio of three normal to one defective, so that the chance is
only one in four of such offspring starting a normal line.

Let us now turn to the facts as we have them in the Kallikak family. The
only offspring from Martin Kallikak Sr. and the nameless feeble-minded
girl was a son who proved to be feeble-minded. He married a normal woman
and had five feeble-minded children and two normal ones. This is in
accordance with Mendelian expectation; that is to say, there should have
been part normal and part defective, half and half, if there had been
children enough to give the law of averages a chance to assert itself. The
question, then, comes right there. Should Martin Jr. have been sterilized?
We would thus have saved five feeble-minded individuals and their horrible
progeny, but we would also have deprived society of two normal
individuals; and, as the results show, these two normals married normal
people and became the first of a series of generations of normal people.

Taking this family as a whole, we have the following figures:--

There were 41 matings where both parents were feeble-minded. They had 222
feeble-minded children, with two others that were considered normal. These
two are apparent exceptions to the law that two feeble-minded parents do
not have anything but feeble-minded children. We may account for these two
exceptions in one of several ways. Either there is a mistake in calling
them normal, or a mistake in calling the parents feeble-minded; or else
there was illegitimacy somewhere and these two children did not have the
same father as the others of the family. Or we may turn to the Mendelian
law and we discover that according to that law there might be in rare
instances such a combination of circumstances that a normal child might be
born from two parents that function as feeble-minded. For practical
purposes it is, of course, pretty clear that it is safe to assume that two
feeble-minded parents will never have anything but feeble-minded children.

Again, we find that there were eight cases where the father was
feeble-minded and the mother normal, and there were ten normal children
and ten defective.

There were twelve cases where the father was normal and the mother
feeble-minded, with seven feeble-minded children and ten normal. Both of
these are in accordance with Mendelian expectations.

We further find that in the cases where one parent was feeble-minded and
the other undetermined, the children were nearly all feeble-minded, from
which we might infer that the probabilities are great that the unknown
parent was also feeble-minded.

We shall not go further into this matter in the present paper, but leave
the detailed study of this family from the Mendelian standpoint for
further consideration, when we take up the large amount of data which we
have on three hundred other families. Enough is here given to show the
possibility that the Mendelian law applies to human heredity. If it does,
then the necessity follows of our understanding the exact mental condition
of the ancestors of any person upon whom we may propose to practice
sterilization.

From all of this the one caution follows. At best, sterilization is not
likely to be a final solution of this problem. We may, and indeed I
believe must, use it as a help, as something that will contribute toward
the solution, until we can get segregation thoroughly established. But in
using it, we must realize that the first necessity is the careful study of
the whole subject, to the end that we may know more both about the laws
of inheritance and the ultimate effect of the operation.


CONCLUSION AND RÉSUMÉ

The Kallikak family presents a natural experiment in heredity. A young man
of good family becomes through two different women the ancestor of two
lines of descendants,--the one characterized by thoroughly good,
respectable, normal citizenship, with almost no exceptions; the other
being equally characterized by mental defect in every generation. This
defect was transmitted through the father in the first generation. In
later generations, more defect was brought in from other families through
marriage. In the last generation it was transmitted through the mother, so
that we have here all combinations of transmission, which again proves the
truly hereditary character of the defect.

We find on the good side of the family prominent people in all walks of
life and nearly all of the 496 descendants owners of land or proprietors.
On the bad side we find paupers, criminals, prostitutes, drunkards, and
examples of all forms of social pest with which modern society is
burdened.

From this we conclude that feeble-mindedness is largely responsible for
these social sores.

Feeble-mindedness is hereditary and transmitted as surely as any other
character. We cannot successfully cope with these conditions until we
recognize feeble-mindedness and its hereditary nature, recognize it early,
and take care of it.

In considering the question of care, segregation through colonization
seems in the present state of our knowledge to be the ideal and perfectly
satisfactory method. Sterilization may be accepted as a makeshift, as a
help to solve this problem because the conditions have become so
intolerable. But this must at present be regarded only as a makeshift and
temporary, for before it can be extensively practiced, a great deal must
be learned about the effects of the operation and about the laws of human
inheritance.




INDEX


    Abigail, 28.

    Albert, 24.

    Alcoholism, 18, 26.
      of the good side, 29, 30.
      in the bad family, 67.
      children, 25.
      Guss Saunders, a victim, 93.
      in the two branches compared, 67.

    Almshouse, 28.

    Almshouses reduced if feeble-minded were cared for, 105.

    Asexualization, 107.


    B----, the town mentioned, 79.

    Barrah, Eunice, 26.

    Beede, 29.

    Bible of Casper Kallikak, 100.

    Binet tests in the public schools, 71.
      used with the Kallikak family, 88, 89.


    Charts, heredity, 33-49.

    Children of Althea Haight, 23.

    Colonies for feeble-minded, 105.

    Colonization, not hopeless, 105.

    Cordelia, 25.

    Cousins marry, 26.

    Crime, tendency to, different in different families, 62.

    Criminals, 18.
      made, not born, 54.

    Criminology and feeble-mindedness, 54, 60.


    Deborah, admitted to the Training School, 1.
      as she is to-day, 7.
      her ability in numbers, 9-11.
      brought to the Training School, 65.
      her cousin in the Training School, 21.
      her half brother, 27, 62.
      her half brothers and sisters, 28.
      her half sister, 27.
      her mother, Martha, characterized, 65.
      her mother, Martha, further history, 64.
      her Institution records, 2-6.
      her Santa Claus letters, 8.

    Declaration of Independence, signed by relatives of this family, 30.

    Deed from the governor of the colony to the Kallikak family, 95.

    Degenerates, 29.

    Delirium tremens, 25.

    Detention home of the Juvenile Court, number of feeble-minded children
      found, 57.

    Died in infancy, 18.

    Dugdale, Richard L., work of, 51.


    Edwards, Jonathan, 51.

    Edwards family, 59, 60.

    Elmira Reformatory, number of feeble-minded, 58.

    Elopement, 26.

    Environment, 61.
      and criminology, 59.
      determines criminality, 55.
      effect of, shown, 22.
      same for both branches, 50.

    Epileptics, 18.
      “Old Moll,” 22.

    Euthenist, claims, 52.

    Explanation of charts, 33-35.


    Feeble-minded, number in the entire group, 19.
      number in public institutions, 56.
      number in the United States being cared for, 106.
      the dupes of others, 55.
      reduction in the number of through segregation, 105.

    Feeble-mindedness, how determined, 14.
      difficulty of recognizing, 104.
      difficulty of caring for the, 105.
      is hereditary, 117.

    Field workers, their training and methods, 13, 82.

    Frederick, 17.
      half brother to Martin, 85.


    Gaston, 29.

    Good family, the, 29.
      character of descendants, 30.
      defective children brought up in, 61.

    Governor of New Jersey, colonial, relation to Kallikak family, 95.

    Gregory, 25.

    Guss, 24, 74.

    Gypsy camp, 75.


    Haight, Althea, 20-23.

    Haight, Eva, 26.

    Hard Scrabble, 89.

    Harriet, 25.

    Heredity charts, 33-49.

    Heredity in Jukes family, 54.

    Home for feeble-minded, Deborah’s sister placed in, 27.

    Horse thief, 29.

    Horser, 21.
      his marriage to Jemima, 84.


    Ill fame, kept house of, 19, 68.

    Illegitimate: child, 27.
      children of Martha, 27.
      number in bad family, 18.

    Incendiarism, 27.

    Incest, 28.

    Insane hospitals, number of feeble-minded in, 56.
      reduced if feeble-minded were cared for, 105.

    Institutions and feeble-mindedness, 56.


    James, son of Martin Jr., 21.

    Jemima, 21.
      marries Horser, 84.

    Jones, Amy, 22.

    Joseph, 26.
      three sons of, 71, 75.

    Jukes family, 51, 60.
      heredity question, 53.
      study, incomplete, 52.

    Justin Kallikak, daughter of, 62.

    Justin, son of Millard, 24.

    Juvenile Courts, feeble-minded children found, 57.


    Kallikak, “Daddy,” 20.

    Kallikak family, further facts about, 70.
      bad matings in, 114.
      stories of the good branch of the, 93-100.
      and Mendelian inheritance, 113.

    Kallikak, Justin, 26.

    Kallikak, Martin, Sr., 17, 29.
      a sermon, 102.
      joins the militia, 18.
      his sin, 102.
      wife of, 29.

    Kallikak, Martin, Jr., 17, 51, 61.
      his family compared with the Jukes-Edwards, 53.
      his half brother, Frederick, 85.
      should he have been sterilized? 113.

    Kallikak, Millard, 19, 23.
      second wife of, 26.

    Key to charts, 33-35.

    Killed in accident, 26.

    Kite, Elizabeth S., 71.


    Lavinia, 24.

    Lombroso, 59.


    Margaret, 28.

    Martha, mother of Deborah, 27.
      character of her children, 64.

    Massachusetts Reformatory, feeble-minded girls in, 57.

    Matings in the Kallikak family, 114.

    Mendelian expectation, 24.

    Mendelian Law, the, 109.

    Mendelism, applied to human inheritance, 111.

    Mental capacity, necessity of determining, 60.

    Minister who married Guss, 75.

    Miscarriage, 28.

    Mongolian type, 20.

    Morons, 62, 54.

    Murder, Guss accused, 75.

    Mute, 25.


    Nameless feeble-minded girl, 29.
      relation to the problem, 103.

    Nathan, 20.

    Newark, number of feeble-minded children in Juvenile Court, 57.

    Normal people, in good branch of the family, 29.

    Normal woman in bad family, daughter of Sylvia, 22.


    “Old Horror,” 19, 80.

    “Old Max,” 52.

    “Old Moll,” 21, 79.
      described, 83.
      her death, 83.

    “Old Sal,” 21, 79.


    Paula, 25.

    Pauperism and feeble-mindedness, 60.

    Placing out, 27.

    Prince, 25.

    Prisons reduced if feeble-minded were cared for, 105.

    Probation, girls on, 57.

    Prominent man, sister of, married Millard Kallikak, 26.

    Prostitutes, 18.
      number of feeble-minded, 58.

    Prostitution and feeble-mindedness, 56.

    Public institutions and feeble-mindedness, 56.


    Quakeress, married Martin Kallikak, 99.


    Rahway Reformatory, number of feeble-minded in, 57.

    Refinement, an element of, seen in Deborah’s mother, 63.

    Reformatories, number of feeble-minded in, 57.

    Resident, an old, of B----, 81.


    Sanders, 25.

    Saunders, Guss, grandson of “Old Sal” visited, 89-91.

    School work for defectives, 54.

    Segregation and colonization not hopeless, 105.

    Sexually immoral, number in bad family, 18.
      on the good side, 29.
      children, 25.

    Sheep, flock of, stolen, 20.

    Slums, largely caused by defectives, 70.

    Sterilization, 107.
      as a solution of the problem, 115.

    Still birth, 28.

    Stupidity, compared with criminalistic tendency, 63.

    Sylvia, 22.

    Symbols, explanation of, 33-35.

    Syphilitic, 26.
      woman, 25.


    Temperament, differences of, in the Kallikak family, 63.
      relation to feeble-mindedness and criminology, 55.

    Thomas, 25.

    Training School at Vineland, 21.
      Deborah brought to, 65.

    Traits of the family, reappearance of, 51.


    Undetermined, definition, 19.


    Vasectomy, 108.


    Warren, 24.

    Winship, Dr., 51, 59.


    Zabeth, Rhoda, 19, 61.

Printed in the United States of America.




                         BY C. A. HERTER, M.D.,

   Professor of Pharmacology and Therapeutics in Columbia University;
           Consulting Physician to the City Hospital, New York

         The Common Bacterial Infections of the Digestive Tract

                _And the Intoxications arising from Them_

                     _Cloth, 8vo, 360 pages, $1.50_      _by mail, $1.63_

“The methods of investigating the digestive tract outlined in this volume
will prove valuable to the practitioner who would determine the presence
of abnormal bacterial processes before the onset of the clinical signs of
incurable or highly refractory states of intoxication--and this is the
all-sufficient _raison d’être_ for the book. Considerable stress has been
laid by the author on methods developed in his laboratory, in the belief
that their painstaking application will furnish practitioners with
reliable indications as to the progress of many cases of infection of the
digestive tract.”--_Merck’s Archives._

“A very scholarly volume, primarily intended for physicians and students,
yet, because of its grave importance and because the subject it treats of
is of vital interest to all intelligent readers, we are quite certain the
book will be appreciated and read in a far wider circle than its title,
which is rather ‘professional sounding,’ might warrant. We call the
reader’s attention especially to the last chapter in the book, in which
there is expounded much valuable material of common interest.”--_Times._

            On Infantilism from Chronic Intestinal Infection

                 _Cloth, 12mo, 240 pages, 90 cents_      _by mail, $1.02_

“Dr. Herter’s book is bound to have the effect of broadening our
conception of the subject of infectious diseases of the intestine, and
deserves a wide reading.”--_George C. Whipple._

       *       *       *       *       *

                     Introduction to General Science

                        BY PERCY E. ROWELL, B.SC.

                                              _Cloth 12mo 302 pages $.75_

The increasing demand for a thorough, comprehensible, and practical
textbook on the subject is met by Rowell’s “Introduction to General
Science,” the distinctive features of which are:

1. The book gives a broad, adequate view of the general field of science.
The elements of physics and chemistry receive particular emphasis, but
biology, physiography, and several phases of applied science are duly
considered.

2. Despite the necessity for treating various sciences, the book is
remarkable for its continuity of thought. The interrelation of scientific
facts is constantly and clearly pointed out.

3. The treatment is clear-cut, brisk, and thorough, the material well
chosen and up to date, while the general workmanship of the book renders
it attractive and serviceable.

4. There are over 90 laboratory exercises in the book, a number of them
entirely new, and all of them illustrative of the text.

5. Reference reading is encouraged, and lists of carefully selected
standard reference books are suggested. Those teachers, however, who do
not care to take up detailed work of this sort may give a satisfactory
course by using in connection with the book United States Government
bulletins alone, to which definite reference is made in the lists of
reference readings throughout the book.

                                TEACHERS

call the book “thorough,” “practical,” “comprehensive,” “clear,”
“satisfactory,” “a great aid to the science teacher.”

Mr. N. P. Lawson of Taunton, Washington, writes:

“I have examined Rowell’s ‘Introduction to General Science’ quite
carefully. It wears. The more I use it the better I like it. There is room
left for the teacher. He doesn’t have to crowd himself in. This book can
hardly fail to inoculate any one with the bulletin habit, in which I am a
firm believer. In its encouragement of wide reading and first-hand
acquaintance with books through the excellent references given, this
compact little volume is an education in itself. If I were with your
company I should wish to push this book. I believe in it.”

       *       *       *       *       *

                          The Laws of Heredity

                   BY G. ARCHDALL REID, M.B., F.R.S.E.

                   With a Diagrammatic Representation

                         BY HERBERT HALL TURNER,

                 Savilian Professor of Astronomy, Oxford

                _Cloth, 8vo, xi + 548 pages, $5.50_      _by mail, $5.04_

The question of heredity is one of vital concern to every living being,
and any light thrown on the subject by scientific investigations and
experiments is of momentous interest to the human race. It is therefore of
the utmost importance that every one should have some knowledge of the
theories advanced by those who believe in the immutability of the laws of
heredity, and also how far these have been proven modifiable by
environment and education.

The present volume is a discussion of the entire subject, covering a much
wider area than the author’s “The Principles of Heredity,” and presenting
the facts and arguments in a scholarly and yet clear and non-technical
manner; the aim being to make it comprehensible to the general reader, as
well as to the scientific investigator.

       *       *       *       *       *

                    The First Principles of Heredity

                              BY S. HERBERT

            M.D. (Vienna), M.R.C.S. (Eng.), L.R.C.P. (Lond.)

                   _Cloth, 8vo, illustrated, $1.75_      _by mail, $1.87_

This book is the only one of its scope in the English language. It gives a
popularly written yet scientific account of all that the average educated
reader may desire to know about “Heredity and Kindred Subjects,” without
assuming any knowledge of the subject on the reader’s part.

       *       *       *       *       *

                      Heredity and Social Progress

                    BY SIMON N. PATTEN, PH.D., LL.D.

       Professor of Political Economy, University of Pennsylvania.

             Author of “The New Basis of Civilization,” etc.

                                                     _Cloth, 12mo, $1.25_

“With keen philosophic insight Professor Patten, in this book, probes to
the roots of biology and plants there the foundations of economics and
other social sciences. It is a bold deduction, wrought out with perfect
logic, and shows one common principle active in every advance from the
lowest unicellular organism to the highest social institution.”--_Annals
American Academy._

“It is a book rich in suggestion and presents the subject in a clear and
sometimes rather startling manner.”--_Ohio Farmer._

       *       *       *       *       *

            Conduct and its Disorders Biologically Considered

   By CHARLES ARTHUR MERCIER, M.D., F.R.C.P., F.R.C.S., Physician for
   Mental Diseases to Charing Cross Hospital; Author of “A Textbook of
               Insanity,” “Criminal Responsibility,” etc.

      _Cloth, 8vo, xxiii + 377 pages, index, $3.23_      _by mail, $3.42_

Although Dr. Mercier’s work on _Conduct and its Disorders_ will be of
special service to students of mental disease, the subject is one of such
wide interest that other readers, less interested perhaps in its
scientific aspects, will find the work full of suggestive information. The
author points out that although conduct is what we are all engaged in,
from birth to death, and though many departments of conduct are described
in many books, there is not in existence, curiously enough, any
comprehensive study of conduct as a whole--any general view of the field
of human activity. It is this gap that Dr. Mercier has set himself to fill
by the present work. The principle on which his exhaustive investigation
has been made is the biological principle. He has estimated the various
modes and phases of human activity in the light of their value in securing
the survival of man in the struggle for existence.

       *       *       *       *       *

                                Mendelism

   By R. C. PUNNETT, Fellow of Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge;
          Professor of Biology in the University of Cambridge.

             _New edition revised and enlarged. Cloth, 12mo, illustrated,
             $1.25_      _by mail, $1.38_

“By far the best popular account of Mendelism yet published … a model of
popular scientific writing, recalling Huxley at his best.… Another master
of popular scientific writing has well characterized Punnett’s book as ‘an
unsurpassed exposition by an expert investigator.’”--_The Dial._

“A substantial contribution from one of the most active laboratories of
genetics, presented in a readable and attractive form.”--_The Nation._

“As an exposition of Mendelism it is comprehensive, authoritative and
clear, and alone in its field.”--_Chicago Evening Post._

“The book sets forth the theory of Mendelism with exceptional clearness
making it especially valuable for the practical gardener or breeder and
the general reader, while it may be used as a textbook in biological
courses.”--_Springfield Republican._

       *       *       *       *       *

                            Confessio Medici

                                                     _Cloth, 12mo, $1.25_

“A number of exquisite and philosophical essays on the medical art in its
broadest aspects, apparently pervaded by a realization of what the science
of medicine might be and how far it falls short of its ideals.… These
essays are delightful to read. They are wise and shrewd, instinct with a
knowledge of human nature, with benevolence and with a humility that
recognizes its own shortcomings rather than its own
attainments.”--_Argonaut._

“The book abounds in amiable prejudices stated with candour and argued
with ingenuity. It is written in many moods, sentimental, practical,
reflective, and pugnacious, and in a style that is brisk, sententious,
always readable.”--_The Bookman._

       *       *       *       *       *

                         The Conquest of Nerves

                         BY J. W. COURTNEY. M.D.

                         _Cloth, gilt top, 12mo, viii + 209 pages, index,
                          $1.25_      _by mail, $1.33_

“After reading many half-baked books on psychotherapy and New Thought, it
is refreshing to come upon ‘The Conquest of Nerves,’ by a man who knows
his subject and speaks with authority backed by common sense, thinking
clearly through a hazy theme and shedding truth with entertaining
pungency.”--_Boston Traveler._

“The book is simple, earnest, and practical.”--_Christian Register._

“That nerves can be conquered and how they may be is the subject of the
doctor’s most unusual and interesting volume, which should find a royal
welcome from the many sufferers for whom it was written.”--_Hartford
Sunday Post._

       *       *       *       *       *

                          THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
            Publishers      64-66 Fifth Avenue      New York





End of Project Gutenberg's The Kallikak Family, by Henry Herbert Goddard

*** 