Eugenical Sterilization
In The United States
59 Kh3
I
A FtEPORT OF TTTT
Psychopathic Laboratory
■•
he Municipal Court of Chicago
BfeiBG mm
' HHBnff
m
8?ǤE
Harry H. Laughlin
■■'.■'■•■.■■.■■
ra
:.•■,••'
KSMk!
H
&«
;?
HEREDIT\
'FOUNTAIN
TOE
by Ch
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2010 with funding from
Open Knowledge Commons and Harvard Medical School
http://www.archive.org/details/eugenicalsteriliOOIaug
Eugenical Sterilization
in the
United States
By £^>
Harry Hamilton Laughlin, D. Sc.
Assistant Director of the Eugenics Record Office,
Carnegie Institution of Washington,
Cold Spring Harbor, Long Island, New York,
and
Eugenics Associate of the Psychopathic Laboratory
of the Municipal Court of Chicago.
Published by the
Psychopathic Laboratory of the Municipal Court
of Chicago
December, 1922
r
AUG I 1 1^26
2 -2
rj3 <?yoi£
Copyright, 1922,
by the Municipal Court
of Chicago.
£&:/M
FRED KLEIN CO.
PRINTERS Chicago, Illinois
Keep the Life Stream Pure.
Introduction
Dr. Harry H. Laughlin, Eugenics Associate of the Psychopathic Laboratory of the Municipal Court of Chicago, and Eugenics Director of Carnegie Institution of Washington, Cold Springs Harbor, N. Y., has rendered the nation a signal service in the preparation of this work, "Eugenical Sterilization in the United States."
Since the rediscovery of Mendel's Law of Heredity and the recent advances made by the biologists and psychopathologists in respect to the causes of mental and physical defects in the human race, with the conse- quent revelation of the great role played by heredity as a producing cause, the science of eugenics has become of vital importance.
"Eugenics," says Professor Irving Fisher, "stands against the forces which work for racial deterioration, and for improvement and vigor, intelligence and moral fiber of the human race. It represents the high- est form of patriotism and humanitarianism, while at the same time it offers immediate advantages to ourselves and to our children. By eugenic measures, for instance, our burden of taxes can be reduced by decreas- ing the number of degenerates, delinquents and defectives supported in public institutions ; such measures will also increase safeguards against crimes committed against our persons or our property."
America, in particular, needs to protect herself against indiscriminate immigration, criminal degenerates, and race suicide.
The success of democracy depends upon the quality of its individual elements. If in these elements the racial values are high, government will be equal to all the economic, educational, religious and scientific demands of the times. If, on the contrary, there is a constant and progressive racial degeneracy, it is only a question of time when popular self-govern- ment will be impossible, and will be succeeded by chaos, and finally a dictatorship.
Dr. Laughlin is well qualified for the work he has undertaken. For twelve years he has been in immediate charge of the Eugenics Record Office (founded in 1910 by Mrs. E. H. Harriman and since 1918 a part of the Carnegie Institution of Washington), located at Cold Spring Harbor, Long Island, New York. There he is engaged in organizing and con- ducting eugenical investigations. He is, also, Expert Eugenics Agent of the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization of the House of Representatives of Washington, D. C, and recently organized the ex- hibits of the Second International Congress of Eugenics in New York City.
As a product of scientific research the book will have permanent value. The importance and usefulness of the work is not to be gauged by the
[v]
extent of its circulation. Enough copies will be published to reach the leaders of the medical, legal and clerical professions, the press and mem- bers of legislative bodies.
The Municipal Court of Chicago, which has for years made an in- tensive study of crime prevention, punishment and suppression, feels privileged to be able to make another notable contribution in this field.
The courts have special functions to perform in the suppression of crime. The first of these is to enforce the laws impartially and justly. Incidental to this duty much original information comes to the judges of our courts, and it has been the policy of the Municipal Court to make pub- lic such incidental information, as the relationship between degeneracy and crime and their relationship to heredity, through the reports of its Psychopathic Laboratory. In the performance of this duty the Municipal Court of Chicago has pointed out the need of the permanent segregation of incorrigible defectives, which serves three purposes : First, the pro- tection of society from the individual offender ; second, the protection of the individual from himself, and, third, the restriction of propagation of the defective type due to heredity. The alternative to segregation is to continue to do what we have been doing, that is, incarcerate the offender for a time, more or less brief, and then permit him freedom to repeat his offense, and to propagate his kind.
Segregation is necessary, even though sterilization were invoked. Sterilization protects future generations, while segregation safeguards the present as well. The segregation of incorrigible defectives on farm colonies as a measure of crime prevention is urgently needed in the State of Illinois. However, in a number of states, fifteen up to the present time, experiments have been made with sterilization. The two theories of segregation and sterilization are not antagonistic, but both may be invoked.
With the intention of covering every phase of crime prevention, the Municipal Court of Chicago publishes this work as an important contribu- tion to that cause.
We desire to make acknowledgment to the sculptor, Charles Haag, for the use of his "Fountain of the Ages," to illustrate the significance of heredity and the continuity of the blood stream.
Harry Olson,
Chief Justice.
[vi]
Prefi
ace
This volume is intended primarily for practical use. It is designed to be of particular service to four classes of persons : First, to law-makers who have to decide upon matters of policy to be worked out in legislation regulating eugenical sterilization ; second, to judges of the courts, upon whom, in most of the states having sterilization statutes, devolves the duty of deciding upon the constitutionality of new statutes, and of deter- mining cacogenic individuals and of ordering their sexual sterilization; third, to administrative officers who represent the state in locating, and in eugenically analyzing persons alleged to be cacogenic, and who are re- sponsible for carrying out the orders of the courts ; and fourth, to in- dividual citizens who, in the exercise of their civic rights and duties, desire to take the initiative in reporting for official determination and action, specific cases of obvious family degeneracy.
The work is designed also as an historical record of the several types of activities which characterized the early days of modern eugenical sterilization, and of the later working out, through legislation, litigation, experimental administration and scientific research, of a conservative state policy in reference to eugenical sterilization as an aid in protecting the country's family stocks from deterioration.
The facts here reported have been secured, and the analyses and prin- ciples here given have been worked out during the past ten years. The present study was begun by the author in 1911, as secretary of a committee appointed by the Eugenics Section of the American Breeders' Association "to Study and to Report on the Best Practical Means for Cutting Off the Defective Germ-Plasm in the American Population." Of this committee, Mr. Bleecker Van Wagenen was chairman. He reported a summary of the first year's work to the First International Congress of Eugenics in London in 1912. In February, 1914, under the authorship of the secretary, it issued bulletins 10-a and 10-b of the Eugenics Record Office, entitled respectively, "The Scope of the Committee's Work," and "The Legal, Legislative and Administrative Aspects of Sterilization."
The statistics reported in this work are brought down to January 1, 1921, and the legal records to January 1, 1922. Great care has been taken to insure completeness and accuracy of record and fact throughout the study, and an attempt has been made to cover the whole field of policy, legality and practice.
Thanks are due for hearty co-operation in securing the facts needed for this work, to the superintendents of the custodial institutions in which eugenical sterilizing operations have been performed, to state officials
[vii]
who willingly supplied copies of official records, to judges of the courts of law before whom seven sterilization statutes have been tested, to the attorneys-at-law who have generously given legal advice and opinions, to many physicians who have been consulted in reference to the medical aspect of the problem, to the scientific field investigators of the Eugenics Record Office, to surgeons who have furnished case-records of persons sexually sterilized, and to authors and publishers of the several text-books on anatomy and surgery who have kindly permitted quotations in refer- ence to the technique of given sterilizing operations.
Besides these many persons who have so generously aided the investi- gations, special obligations are due to Dr. Charles B. Davenport, Director of the Eugenics Record Office, for many constructive suggestions and for constant encouragement throughout the investigations, and to Hon. Harry Olson, Chief Justice of the Municipal Court of Chicago, for kindly writing the foreword, for rendering an opinion on the legal aspects of sterilization, which appears as Section 1 of Chapter IX, and for publishing the whole of these studies under the auspices of the Psychopathic Labora- tory of his court.
Harry Hamilton Laughun.
Cold Spring Harbor, Long Island, N. Y., January 1, 1922.
[viii]
Contents
CHAPTER I.
Chronological List of Laws, Amendments, Executive Vetoes, Repeals, Official Legal Opinions, Board Orders and Court Decisions Relating to Eugenical Sterilization
Previous to January 1, 1922.
CHAPTER II. Analysis, by States, of Sterilization Laws Enacted Prior to January 1, 1922.
Page
1. Indiana 6
2. Washington.
a. First Statute 6
b. Second Statute 6
3. California.
a. First statute 6
b. Second statute 7
c. Amendment to second statute 7
d. Sterilization provision in act establishing Pacific Colony 8
4. Connecticut 8
5. Nevada 8
6. Iowa.
a. First statute 8
b. Second statute 9
c. Third statute 9
7. New Jersey 10
8. New York 10
9. North Dakota 10
10. Michigan , ... 11
11. Kansas.
a. First statute '. 11
b. Second statute 12
12. Wisconsin 12
13. Nebraska , 13
1 4. Oregon 13
15. South Dakota 13
CHAPTER III. Texts and Legislative Records of the Eugenical Sterilization Laws.
A. Laws Enacted Prior to January 1, 1922.
1. Indiana 15
2. Washington.
a. First Statute 15
b. Second Statute 15
[ix]
Eugenicae Sterilization in the United States
3. California. Page
a. First statute 17
b. Second statute 18
c. Amendment to second statute 18
d. Sterilization provision in act establishing Pacific Colony 19
4. Connecticut.
a. First statute 19
b. Sterilization provision of first statute extended to Mansfield State Training School and Hospital 20
5. Nevada 20
6. Iowa.
a. First statute 21
b. Second statute 22
c. Third statute 23
7. New Jersey 23
8. New York.
a. Statute 25
b. Repeal 26
9. North Dakota 26
10. Michigan 28
11. Kansas.
a. First statute 29
b. Second statute 30
12. Wisconsin 31
13. Nebraska 32
14. Oregon 33
15. South Dakota 34
B. Eugenical Sterilization Bills Vetoed.
1. Pennsylvania.
A. Veto of 1905.
a. Text of Bill. 35
b. Veto Message 35
B. Veto of 1921.
a. Text of Bill 37
b. Veto Message 38
C. Notes on the Situation in Pennsylvania 39
2. Oregon.
A. Bill vetoed.
a. Text of Bill 40
b. Veto Message 40
B. Law revoked by referendum.
a. Text of law 41
b. Legislative and referendum record 42
3. Vermont.
a. Text of Bill 44
b. Veto Message 45
4. Nebraska.
a. Text of Bill 46
b. Veto Message 47
Eugenicae Sterilization in the; United States xi
5. Idaho. Page
a. Text of Bill 48
b. Veto Message 50
CHAPTER IV.
Statistical and Descriptive Summary of Eugenical Sterilization in the Several States.
I. Institutional Statistics and Official Reports and Opinions.
1. California 52
2. Connecticut 61
3. Indiana 63
4. Iowa 64
5. Kansas 69
6. Michigan 73
7. Nebraska 74
8. Nevada 79
9. New Jersey 80
10. New York 81
11. North Dakota 87
12. Oregon 88
13. South Dakota 90
14. Washington 91
15. Wisconsin 92
11. Summary.
A. Statistical Summary to January 1, 1921.
a. States and institutions 96
b. Total number of eugenical sterilization operations in all fifteen states . . 96
1. By sex 96
2. By radicalness of operation 96
3. By classes 96
4. By states 96
5. By time 96
B. Descriptive Summary 97
CHAPTER V Analysis of the Eugenical Sterilization Laws by Subject.
1. The Motives of the Sterilization Statutes.
A. The motive of heredity 99
B. Therapeutic motive 100
C. Punitive motive 101
2. Executive Agencies 102
3. Provisions for Making Family History Studies 104
4. Biological Criteria for Determining the Applicabilty of the Law to a Particular Individual 104
5. Court Procedure Provided by the Several Sterilization Statutes 107
6. Legal Counsel for the State and for Persons Nominated for the Operation.... 110
7. Is the Consent of the Patient or Guardian a Necessary Pre-requisite to Legal Eugenical Sterilization? 110
8. Type of Operation and Manner of its Performance Ill
9. Bad Biology in the Eugenical Sterilization Statutes 113
xii Eugenical Sterilization in the United States
Page
10. Mandatory and Optional Elements in the Laws 114
11. Sexual Sterilization of Criminals 117
12. Legal Liability of Executive Agents and Surgeons 124
13. Punishment for Dereliction in Executing the Law 125
14. Punishment for the Illegal Use of Sexual Sterilization 125
15. The Legal Aspect of Sexual Sterilization for Therapeutic Purposes 127
16. The Sexual Sterilization of Inmates of Custodial Institutions Prior to
their Release 128
17. Class Legislation 130
18. What Constitutes Due Process of Law in Eugenical Sterilization? 132
19. Records and Reports Required by Law , 137
20. Costs and Appropriations 139
CHAPTER VI.
Analytical Outline of Litigation Growing Out of the Several Eugenical Sterilization Statutes Previous to January 1, 1922.
Introduction 142
1. Washington 142
2. New Jersey 142
3. Iowa 143
4. Michigan 143
5. New York 144
6. Nevada 145
7. Indiana 145
8. Oregon 146
Summary: The Present Legal Status of Eugenical Sterilization 147
CHAPTER VII. Detailed Review of Litigation Growing Out of the Several Eugenical Sterilization
Statutes. PART I— WASHINGTON.
1. Superior Court 149
2. State Supreme Court.
a. Brief of Appellant 149
b. Brief of Respondent 152
c. Decision of Supreme Court 159
PART II— NEW JERSEY.
1. Board of Examiners.
a. Order for Sterilization 164
2. State Supreme Court.
a. Writ of Certiorari 165
b. On Certiorari — Reasons 165
c. Brief of Appellant 166
d. Brief of Defendants 168
e. Brief of Elmore T. Elver, amicus curiae 172
f. Decision of Supreme Court 174
PART III— IOWA. 1. State Board of Parole.
a. Order for Sterilization 179
Eugenicae Sterilization in the: United States xiii
United States District Court. page
a- Temporary Restraining Order 180
b. Bill of Complaint 181
g. Amendment to Bill of Complaint. 183
d. Reports of Attorney-General 184
e. Minutes of Meeting of Board of Parole 185
f. Decision of District Court 186
g. Order for Temporary Injunction 190
United States Supreme Court.
a. Brief of Plaintiffs in Error ' . 191
b. Supplementary Brief 198
c. Decision of Supreme Court of United States 200
PART IV— MICHIGAN.
Probate Court of Lapeer County.
a. Notice by Board of Control to Guardian 203
b. Reply to Notice 204
c. Petition of Superintendent 204
d. Order Denying Petition 205
e. Notice of Appeal 205
Circuit Court of Lapeer County.
a. Order Dismissing Appeal 206
b. Opinion of Circuit Judge 206
State Supreme Court.
a. Petition to Supreme Court 207
b. Order of Supreme Court 208
c Return of Respondent 209
d. Brief of Attorney-General as amicus curiae 209
e. Decision of Supreme Court 213
PART V— NEW YORK
State Board of Examiners.
a. Origin of Test Case 217
Supreme Court, Albany County.
a. Affidavit and Order Appointing Counsel 217
b. Summons and Complaint 219
c. Answer 221
d- Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 221
e. Exceptions of Defendant to Conclusions of Law 222
f. Opinion of Rudd, J 222
g. Judgment of Supreme Court 227
h. Notice of Appeal 228
i. Stipulation for Settlement of Case 228
j. Order Settling Case 229
k. Stipulation Waiving Certification 229
Appellate Division, Supreme Court.
a. Brief for Plaintiff-Respondent 229
b. Decision 234
xiv Eugenicae Sterilization in the United States
4. Court of Appeals. Page
a. Brief on Behalf of Defendants 234
b. Case Pending 241
PART VI— NEVADA.
1. District Court of the Fourth Judicial District of the State of Nevada.
a. Sentence 243
2. United States District Court in and for Nevada.
a. Petition of Plaintiff 245
b. Order to Show Cause and Restraining Order 247
c. Answer 248
d. Stipulation 249
e. Plaintiff's Brief 249
f. Decision of United States District Court. 250
PART VII— INDIANA.
1. Circuit Court of Clark County.
a. Petition of Plaintiff 256
b. Consent of Next Friend 257
c. Demurrer Filed by Defendants 257
d. Demurrer overruled and excepted 257
e. Judgment , 257
f . Notice of Appeal 258
g. Praecipe for Transcript 258
2. State Supreme Court.
a. Appellant's Brief 258
b. Appellee's Brief 264
c. Judgment 269
PART VIII— OREGON.
1. State Board of Eugenics.
a. Record of Investigation 271
b. Findings 271
c Order for Sterilization 272
2. Circuit Court for the County of Marion.
a. Demurrer 272
b. Brief of Defendant in Support of Demurrer 273
c. Points and Authorities (By Smith & Shields, and Allan Bynon, amicus curiae, in support of defendant's demurrer) 279
d. Answering Brief of Plaintiff 283
e. Opinion of Percy R. Kelly and Geo. G. Bingham, Judges 287
f. Decision of the Circuit Court 289
CHAPTER VIII.
Case and Family Histories of Individual Subjects of Litigation Growing Out of the
Several Eugenical Sterilization Laws.
Introduction 291
1. Peter Feilen, moral pervert, Washington 292
2. Alice Smith, epileptic and feeble-minded, New Jersey 292
Eugenicae Sterilization in t.he United States xv
Page
3. Rudolph Davis, felon, Iowa 304
4. Nora Reynolds, feeble-minded, Michigan 305
5. Frank Osborn, feeble-minded, New York 305
G. Pearley C. Mickle, moral pervert, Nevada 311
7. Warren Wallace Smith, moral pervert, Indiana 312
8. Jacob Cline, moral pervert, Oregon 318
CHAPTER IX.
Legal Opinion.
1. Opinion by Honorable Harry Olson, Chief Justice, Municipal Court of Chicago. 322
2. Official Opinion of the Attorney-General of California on the Asexualization
Law 324
3. Opinion of the Attorney-General of Connecticut on the Asexualization Act.... 328
4. Additional Opinion by the Attorney-General of Connecticut 333
5. Opinion by Louis Marshall, Esquire 334
6. Brief by Charles A. Boston, Esquire 336
Summary 336
CHAPTER X.
The Right of the State to Limit Human Reproduction in the Interests of Race
Betterment.
Introduction 338
A. Parallel Cases of the Restriction of Personal Liberty in the Interests of the General Welfare.
1. Compulsory Vaccination 339
2. Quarantine 341
B. Legislative and Judicial Activities Regulating or Limiting Human Repro- duction.
1. Limitation of Marriage 342
a. List of legal limiting causes 343
b. The special case of venereal and other transmissible diseases.
bl. Analysis of laws limiting marriage on account of venereal or other
transmissible diseases 343
b2. Constitutionality of the Wisconsin statute requiring certificate of
health for males before marriage license is issued 344
c. Judicial annulment of marriage in the interest of public health
and racial welfare 345
cl. Wisconsin Supreme Court 345
c2. New York Court (New York County) 345
c3. New Jersey Court of Chancery (concealment of insanity) 346
c4. New Jersey Court of Chancery (concealment of venereal disease).
2. Birth Control 346
a. Review of criminal statutes on Birth Control: Judge J. C. Ruppenthal. . . . 347
b. Conclusions 348
3. Control of Immigration 349
4. Institutional Segregation of Social Inadequates 350
a. Quotation from Dr. Henry M. Hurd 350
b. Conclusion 351
xvi Eugenical Sterilization tn the United States
5. Eugenical Sterilization. Page
a. Cases of Eugenical Sterilization in States having neither authorizing
nor restricting statutes 351
al. Case of M H . . . . of Massachusetts 352
a2. Case of "X" of Illinois 354
b. Legal Situation in England 355
bl. Would it be lawful to sterilize? 355
b2. Who should operate? 356
b3. Penalties for wrongfully operating 356
Conclusion 356
C. Possible New Fields for Eugenical Legislative Activity 356
1. Eugenical Education 356
2. Compulsory Reporting of Cases of Cacogenesis 357
3. Registering Trained Eugenical Investigators 358
Summary 359
CHAPTER XL
Eugenical Diagnosis.
A. Guiding Principles for the Determination of Potential Parenthood of Socially Inadequate Offsoring.
I. General Factors of the Task 362
a. Pedigree-facts 362
b. Knowledge of heredity 363
c. Application of pedigree-facts to the rules of heredity 363
II. Notes' on Practical Eugenical Diagnosis 364
1. Divergence between personal qualities and breeding qualities 364
2. The individual of pure stock 364
3. The individual of mixed stock 364
4. Range of individual breeding qualities 365
5. The complexity of hereditary traits or characters 365
6. Specific rules of inheritance.
a. Recessive traits • 365
b. Dominant traits 365
c. Sex-linked traits 365
d. Other types of inheritance 366
7. Hereditary nature of the co-parent 366
8. Eugenical salvage — the separation of good traits from bad in the same individual 367
9. The factor of environment 367
10. Eugenical standards.
a. The biological standard 368
b. The legal standard 368
11. Types of the socially inadequate 369
12. Common sense and pedigree study 369
Summary 370
B. List of Characters in Man Classified According to Their Method of Inherit- ance.
I. Traits which blend in the Fi offspring 372
Eugenicai, Sterilization in the United States xvii
Page II. Traits showing dominance of one condition and recessivencss of the
allelomorph in the first generation and segregation in subsequent genera- tions of offspring 372
III. Sex-linked traits 376
IV. Probably Mendelian, but dominance imperfect or uncertain 377
V. Clearly hereditary, but rule of inheritance uncertain 377
VI. Associated traits 380
C. Tables Showing Types of Matings and Offspring.
Type a. In case the defect is recessive 381
Type b. In case the, defect is dominant 382
Type c. A sex-linked trait 383
Type d. A trait that blends 384
Type e. A composite trait 385
D. References.
1. Research Institutions 392
2. Societies 392
3. Universities and colleges with active departments of genetics 393
4. Custodial institutions for socially inadequate conducting field studies in eugenics 393
5. Courts which have undertaken scientific eugenical studies 394
6. Journals 394
7. Books 394
CHAPTER XII. The Anatomical and Surgical Aspects of Eugenical Sterilization.
Section A. Anatomy, Description of the Human Male and Female Reproduc- tive Mechanisms and an Explanation of their Functions 397
a. Reproductive mechanism of the human male 398
b. Reproductive mechanism of the human female 402
Section B. Surgery. The Principal Types of Surgical Operations Used in Ef- fecting Sexual Sterilization.
1. Male.
(1) Phallo-orchidectomy 407
(2) Phallectomy 407
(3) Castration (Orchidectomy) 409
(4) Spermectomy .. 410
(5) Vasectomy 410
(6) Ligation of the vas deferens 411
(7) X-ray treatment 412
2. Female.
(1) Pan-hystero-kolpectomy 414
(2) Hystero-salpingo-oophorectomy 414
(3) Oophorohysterectomy 414
(4) Hysterectomy 414
(5) Salpingo-oophorectomy 415
(6) Oophorectomy (ovariectomy, ovariotomy, castration, spaying) 415
(7) Curetting or cauterizing the intra-uterine tubal openings 417
(8) Salpingectomy 419
(9) Ligation of Fallopian Tubes 421
(10) X-ray treatment 421
xviii Eugenicae Sterilization in the United States
Summary. Page
a. Types of Eugenical Sterilization Available.
1. For the male 422
2. For the female 422
b. Future Methods 422
c. Weighing the Matter of Type of Eugenical Sterilization in Relation to Eugenical Policy 423
Appendix: Continence and Contraception 423
CHAPTER XIII.
The Physiological and Mental Effects of Sexual Sterilization.
Introduction 425
1. The Normal Course of Sexual Functions 425
2. Functions of the Sex-Glands, Other than Reproduction.
a. Male— Testes 425
b. Female — Ovaries , 428
3. Classification of the Case-Histories 429
a. Type of social inadequacy 430
b. Sex 430
c. Age 430
d. Type of operation 431
4. Testimony on the Effects of Sexual Sterilization.
A. Primary Testimony 431
B. Supplementary Testimony 431
a. A. W. Wilmarth, M. D., Superintendent Wisconsin Home for Feeble- minded 431
b. Havelock Ellis, from his book "The Sexual Impulse" 432
c. Robert Reid Rentoul, M. D., from his book "Race Culture or Race Suicide" 433
d. Martin W. Barr, M. D., in his book "Mental Defectives" 433
e. F. C. Cave, M. D., Journal of Psycho-Asthenics 1911 434
5. Summary:
A. Functions of the Sex-Glands 434
B. Effects of Sexual Sterilization.
I. Anatomical and physiological effects by sex, age and type of operation.
(A) Male.
(a) Vasectomy or its functional equivalent.
(1) Before puberty 434
(2) During adolescent and adult life 435
(3) In old age 435
(b) Castration.
(1) Before puberty 435
(2) During adolescent and adult life 435
(3) In old age 435
(B) Female.
(a) Salpingectomy or its functional equivalent.
(1) Before puberty 435
(2) During reproductive period 435
(3) After the climacteric 435
Eugenical Sterilization in the United States xix
(b) Oophorectomy. Page
(1) Before puberty 435
(2) During reproductive period . 435
(3) After the climacteric 435
II. General Summary of Evidence on the Mental and Temperamental
Effects of Sexual Sterilization 436
III. Summary of Evidence on Sexual Sterilization as a Therapeutic Agent... 436
CHAPTER XIV.
The Legal, Biological and Practical Requirements for an Effective Eugenical
Sterilization Law.
Introduction 438
A. Commonly Stated Objections to the Existing Sterilization Laws.
1. In advance of public opinion 438
2. Violation of the Bill of Rights 438
3. Ill-adapted to their implied purposes 439
4. Inadequate executive machinery «. 439
5. Lack of cooperation among sociologists 439
6. Encourages immorality 439
B. Requirements for an Effective Eugenical Sterilization Law.
a. Legal requirements.
1. Class legislation 440
2. Due process of law 441
3. Cruel and unusual punishment 442
4. Bill of attainder , 442
5. Twice in jeopardy of life and limb 442
6. Ex post facto 442
b. Biological and eugenical requirements.
1. Standard for legal parenthood 443
2. The line of demarcation between eugenic and cacogenic 443
3. Insurance against reproduction by cacogenic persons 443
4. Development of eugenic standards 443
5. Suspension of order for eugenical sterilization 443
6. Adequate evidence of cacogenesis 443
c. Practical requirements.
1. Well-trained executive 443
2. Due provision for prompt court procedure 443
3. Ample funds for enforcement 444
4. Due provision for modern surgical work 444
Conclusion 444
CHAPTER XV. Model Eugenical Sterilization Law.
A. Principles Suggested for a Standard State Law 446
B. Full Text for a Model State Law.
Section 1. Short title 446
Section 2. Definitions.
a. Socially inadequate person 446
b. Socially inadequate classes 446
xx Eugenicae Sterilization in the United States
Page
c. Heredity 447
d. Potential parent 447
e. To procreate 447
f. Potential parent of socially inadequate offspring 447
g. Cacogenic person 447
h. Custodial institution 447
i. Inmate 447
j. Eugenical sterilization 447
Section 3. Office of State Eugenicist .' 447
Section 4. Qualifications of State Eugenicist 447
Section 5. Term of office, appointment and responsibility 447
Section 6. Seal 447
Section 7. Duties of State Eugenicist.
a. Field surveys 448
b. Further examinations .» 448
c. Roster custodial institutions 448
d. Case-histories - 448
e. Records, State Eugenicist's Office 448
f. Other duties 448
Section 8. Cooperation by custodial institutions 448
Section 9. Power to administer oaths and make arrests 448
Section 10. Opinion of State Eugenicist 448
Section 11. Appointment of date for hearing 449
Section 12. Notification of parties concerned 449
Section 13. State's legal counsel 449
Section 14. Determination by jury 449
Section 15. Judgment 449
Section 16. Appeals 450
Section 17. Type of eugenical sterilization 450
Section 18. Manner of consummation 450
Section 19. Liability 450
Section 20. Illegal destruction of reproductive functions 450
Section 21. Punishment of responsible head of institution for dereliction 450
Section 22. Supremacy of this act 451
Section 23. When effective 451
C. The Federal Government and Eugenical Sterilization.
a. Principles suggested for a Federal Statute 451
b. Comment 451
CHAPTER XVI. Explanatory Comments on the Model Sterilization Law.
Introduction , 454
Preface 454
Section 1. Short title 454
Section 2. Definitions.
a. Socially inadequate person 455
b. Socially inadequate classes 455
c. Heredity 455
d. Potential parent 455
Eugenical Sterilization in the United States xxi
Page
e. To procreate 455
f. Potential parent of socially inadequate offspring 455
g. A cacogenic person 456
h. Custodial institution 456
i. Inmate 456
j. Eugenical sterilization 456
Section 3. Office of State Eugenicist 456
Section 4. Qualifications of State Eugenicist 457
Section 5. Term of office, appointment and responsibility 457
Section 6. Seal , 457
Section 7, Duties of State Eugenicist 457
Section 8. Cooperation by custodial institutions 458
Section 9. Power to administer oaths and to make arrests 458
Section 10. Opinion of State Eugenicist 458
Section 11. Appointment of date for hearing 458
Section 12. Notification of parties concerned 458
Section 13. The State's legal counsel 459
Section 14. Determination by jury 459
Section 15. Judgment 459
Section 16. Appeals 459
Section 17. Type of eugenical sterilization 459
Section 18. Manner of consummation 459
Section 19. Liability 460
Section 20. Illegal destruction of reproductive functions 460
Section 21. Punishment of responsible head of institution for dereliction 460
Section 22. Supremacy of this act 460
Section 23. When effective 460
Appendix: Appropriations 460
CHAPTER XVII.
Set of Forms Suggested for the Use of the State Eugenicist, the Courts, Private Citizens, and Custodial Institutions in Administering the Model Eugenical
Sterilization Law.
Model Forms.
1. Case Record by State Eugenicist 464
a. Historical record 466
b. Record of investigation by State Eugenicist 467
c. Report to State Eugenicist 467
2. Information or complaint by private citizen to State Eugenicist 467
3. Institutional record of individual inmate prepared for State Eugenicist 468
4. Report of State Eugenicist (a. opinion, b. evidence, and c. petition) 469
5. Action begun by private citizen 470
a. Individual petition to court 470
b. Order of court denying private petition 471
c. Order of court to State Eugenicist to investigate a particular case 471
6. Hearing 472
a. Proclamation appointing time and place for hearing 472
b. Summons of propositus 472
1. Summons to propositus in case such propositus is not an inmate of a
custodial institution and is personally capable of understanding the nature of a summons 472
xxii Eugenical Sterilization in the United States
Page
2. Order to guardian or custodian of propositus in case such propositus is an inmate of a custodial institution or lives under guardianship in
the population at large 473
3. Order for arrest and presentation to court of the person of the pro- positus in case such propositus is neither an inmate of a custodial institution, nor living under guardianship in the population at large
nor is capable of understanding the nature of a summons 474
c. Notification to Attorney-General 474
d. Instruction of Attorney-General to County Attorney , 475
e. Appointment of legal counsel for the propositus 475
f. Notification of State Eugenicist 476
g. Subpoena for witnesses 476
h. Summons for jury 476
7. Judgment and order.
a. Verdict of jury 477
b. Judgment of the court 477
c. Order to State Eugenicist for the eugenical sterilization of a cacogenic person in the population at large 478
d. Order to State Eugenicist for the eugenical sterilization of a cacogenic person who is an inmate of a custodial institution 479
e. Order to responsible head of custodial institution 480
f. Order to State Eugenicist for the temporary suspension of an order
for eugenical sterilization 481
g. Order to a cacogenic person whose eugenical sterilization has been temporarily suspended, to report periodically to the State Eupenicist. . . . 482
h. Order to State Eugenicist for the eugenical sterilization of a cacogenic person, the original order for whose sterilization has been temporarily suspended 483
8. Execution of Order.
a. Contract with surgeon or physician to eugenically sterilize.
1. A cacogenic person in the population at large 484
2. A cacogenic person who is an inmate of a custodial institution 485
b. Report of surgeon or physician to State Eugenicist 486
c. Return of State Eugenicist to court in case of the eugenical sterilization
of a cacogenic person in the population at large 487
d. Return of State Eugenicist to court in case of the eugenical sterilization
of a cacogenic person who is an inmate of a custodial institution 488
e. Semiannual return of State Eugenicist to the court in case an original order for eugenical sterilization has been temporarily suspended 489
9. Institutional data kept by State Eugenicist.
a. Roster of custodial institutions 490
b. Monthly institutional report to State Eugenicist of accessions and losses 492
10. Record of an individual case of sterilization.
a. Case record of eugenical sterilization 493
11. Appropriations.
a. Working draft of appropriations section to be inserted in the proper place in the state's appropriation bills, according to the legislative practice of the particular state , 494
List of Illustrations
Page
Figure 1. Schematic Representation of Genital Tract in the Male 398
Figure 2. The Testis and its Coverings 399
Figure 3. The Structure of the Spermatic Cord 400
Figure 4. A Sectional View of the Testis 401
Figure 5. The Development of a Human Spermatozoon 402
Figure 6. Schematic Representation of the Genital Tract in the Female 403
Figure 7. The Ovary, Fallopian Tube and Uterus in Place 403
Figure 8. A Diagrammatic Section of the Human Ovary 404
Figure 9. A Mature Human Ovum 405
Figure 10. The Operation of Castration 409
Figure 11. The Operation of Vasectomy 410
Figure 12. The Abdominal Incision used in Salpingectomy and Oophorectomy 415
Figure 13. The Operation of Oophorectomy (Kelly-Noble).. 416
Figure 14. The Operation of Salpingectomy (Warbasse) 419
Figure 15. The Operation of Salpingectomy (Margaret H. Smyth) 420
Pedigree Charts — Chapter 8
Pedigree Chart of Alice Smith 304A
Pedigree Chart of Warren Wallace Smith 320A
Pedigree Chart of the H . . . . Family of Massachusetts 353
XXlll
CHAPTER I.
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST
OF LAWS, AMENDMENTS, EXECUTIVE VETOES, REPEALS, OFFICIAL
LEGAL OPINIONS, BOARD ORDERS, AND COURT DECISIONS
RELATING TO EUGENICAL STERILIZATION PREVIOUS
TO JANUARY 1, 1922.
J
|
Date. |
State and Action. |
Specific Nature of Official Action. |
|
|
1. |
March 30, 1905... |
Pennsylvania. Veto. . . . |
Bill vetoed. (See p. 35.) |
|
2. |
March 9, 1907 |
Chapter 215. (See p. 15.) |
|
|
3. |
February 22, 1909. |
Bill vetoed. (See p. 40.) |
|
|
4. |
March 22, 1909... |
Washington. Statute... |
Chapter 249, Sec. 35 Criminal Code. (See P. 15.) |
|
5. |
April 26, 1909 |
California. Statute .... |
Chapter 720. (See p. 17.) |
|
6. |
August 12, 1909. . . |
Connecticut. Statute . . |
Chapter 209. (See p. 19.) |
|
7. |
March, 2, 1910.... |
California. Opinion . . . |
Attorney General of the State rendered an opinion defending the constitutional- ity of the Act of April 26, 1909. (See p. 322.) |
|
8. |
March 17, 1911... |
Nevada. Statute |
Section 28 Crimes and Punishments Act. (See p. 21.) |
|
9. |
April 10, 1911 |
Chapter 129. (See p. 21.) |
|
|
10. |
April 21, 1911 |
New Jersey. Statute.. |
Chapter 190. (See p. 23.) |
|
11. |
September 30, 1911 |
Washington. Order . . . |
Superior Court of King County, as an additional punishment, ordered sterili- zation by vasectomy of Peter Feilen. (See p. 149.) |
|
12. |
April 16, 1912 |
New York. Statute . . . |
Chapter 445. (See p. 25.) |
|
13. |
|