Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 11.djvu/297

 NOTES AND ABSTRACTS 281

a certain number of human heads by killing members of foreign tribes. Among the Arabs of Upper Egypt the man must undergo an ordeal of whipping by the relations of his bride, and if he wishes to be considered worth having, he must receive the chastisement, which is sometimes exceedingly severe, with an expres- sion of enjoyment. [Laughter.] I do not say that these methods are to be recommended, but the idea underlying them is certainly worthy of imitation. Indeed, we find in Germany and Austria, in the nineteenth century, laws for- bidding persons in actual receipt of poor-law relief to contract marriages, and in many cases the legislators went farther still and prohibited all marriages until the contracting parties could prove that they possessed the means of supporting a family. Why could not some such laws become universal, and why could not the restrictions in marriage be extended also to persons who, in all probability, would become parents of diseased and feeble offspring? I say, "in all probability," because I do not consider certainty to be required. We cannot wait till biology has said its last word about the laws of heredity. We do not allow lunatics to walk freely about, even though there be merely a suspicion that they may be dangerous. I think that the doctor ought to have a voice in every marriage which is contracted. It is argued, of course, that to interfere here would be to intrude upon the individual's right of freedom. But men are not generally allowed to do mischief simply in order to gratify their own appetites. It will be argued that they will do mischief even though the law prevent them. Well, this holds true of every law, but we do not maintain that laws are useless because there are persons who break them. There will always in this world be offspring of diseased and degenerated parents, but the law may certainly in a very considerable degree restrict their number by preventing such persons from marrying. I think that moral education also might help to promote the object of eugenics. It seems that the prevalent opinion, that almost anybody is good enough to marry, is chiefly due to the fact that in this case the cause and effect, marriage and the feebleness of the offspring, are so distant from each other that the nearsighted eye does not distinctly perceive the connection between them. Hence no censure is passed on him who marries from want of foresight, or want of self-restraint, and by so doing is productive of offspring doomed to misery. But this can never be right. Indeed, there is hardly any other point in which the moral consciousness of civilized men still stands in greater need of intellectual training than in its judgments on cases which display want of care or foresight. Much progress has in this respect been made in the course of evolution, and it would be absurd to believe that we have yet reached the end of this process. It would be absurd to believe that men would forever leave to individual caprice the performance of the most important and, in its consequences, the most far-reaching function which has fallen to the lot of mankind.

DR. DRYSDALE said he would like to ask the chairman if he was aware that some of the restrictions he had referred to were actually in force in England. In some of the great English banks, for instance, clerks are not allowed to marry until their salary has reached a certain level. But for his part he thought the principle unsound. Would it not be better to say to these young men that they might marry, but that they must restrict the number of their children ?

WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS

FROM PROFESSOR B. ALTAMIRA B : The subjects of Mr. Gallon's communica- tions are very interesting, and there should be some very valuable information forthcoming on the forms of marriage (endogamy, exogamy, etc.) to be unearthed from the actual juridical manners and customs of Spain. It is a great source of regret to me that pressure of other duties prevents me at present from making any contribution to the subject.

FROM DR. HAVELOCK ELLIS : The significance of Mr. Gallon's paper lies less in what is said than in what is implied. The title, " Restrictions in Marriage," bristles with questions. We need to know precisely what is meant by " marriage."

5 Professor of the history of law in the University of Oviedo.