Rucker: More "Eugenic LaWvS" 



225 



the objection the Hccnse shall be 

 granted and the objectors will have for 

 their pains the feeling that they tried 

 to do their duty — and also a bill for the 

 court costs. 



PUBLICATION OF BANNS 



In so far as this measure has any 

 bearing on eugenics it is, in the present 

 state of public opinion, premature. 

 The idea of publishing the banns has 

 appealed to many eugenists as desirable 

 in preventing hasty and ill-considered 

 marriages. There is much to be said 

 for it, but such a bill as this is not likely 

 to commend itself to any genetist, as 

 the proper method of procedure, because 

 three unrelated laymen and the judge 

 of a circuit court are not the proper 

 persons to decide on the biological 

 fitness of a proposed marriage. It 

 should and probably will be defeated. 



Oregon already has a law requiring 

 the male applicant for a marriage license 

 to present a health certificate. Two 

 bills on this subject are now before the 

 House; No. 273 would amend the law 

 to make the woman present a similar 

 certificate, while No. 161 would repeal 

 the existing law altogether. The law 

 has probably already done what little 

 service to eugenics it can render, by 

 calling public attention to the desir- 

 ability of health in a marriage mate. 

 At present, public opinion is the only 

 thing that can operate effectively, and 

 it will be no loss to eugenics if the 

 existing Oregon law, which is not a 

 eugenic law, is repealed. 



Nebraska is considering the addition 

 of medical duties to the other functions 

 of the judiciary. House Bill No. 571, 

 now pending, provides that no marriage 

 license may be issued to a person 

 infected with a venereal disease. To 

 enable the county judge to decide this 

 point, he may require both applicants 

 to come before him so that he may 

 question them, either under oath or 

 not; he may also require them to give 

 affidavits. He shall also require the 

 male applicant to present the affidavit 

 of a physician of good standing to the 

 effect that said physician has made a 

 careful and thorough examination of 

 said male applicant and finds him free 



from all symptoms of infectious venereal 

 disease. The physician shall be paid a 

 fee of $5 by the applicant unless he 

 thinks a laboratory test, needed, when 

 he shall insist on such a test being made 

 and shall be entitled to a fee of $25 

 from the applicant. 



Although often hailed as a "eugenic 

 marriage law," this bill of course has 

 nothing to do with eugenics. Since the 

 point is frequently raised, however, it 

 may be worth while to suggest that no 

 test except a laboratory test is of any 

 real value in determining whether or 

 not a man or woman is infected with a 

 venereal disease; and that $25 is a 

 rather high fee for the Wasserman test 

 with Noguchi control, or any other test 

 which is to be a legal prerequisite to 

 marriage and which is to have such a 

 widespread application. The Nebraska 

 bill is not well drawn and should die. 



Wisconsin's experience 



Wisconsin, which stepped to the 

 front of the procession in 1913 by 

 adopting a law, miscalled eugenic, 

 requiring every applicant for a marriage 

 license to present a health certificate, 

 has been having trouble with the 

 enforcement of that law ever since, and 

 House Bill No. 197, introduced at the 

 present session of the legislature, would 

 repeal it. House Bill No. 100, also 

 pending, would abolish the physician's 

 certificate and merely require each 

 applicant to state on honor that he or 

 she is free from "any acquired venereal 

 disease." The framer of this measure 

 will immortalize himself among students 

 of heredity if he can show us any 

 venereal disease that is not acquired. 



Such, in outline, are the so-called 

 "eugenic laws" of the present season, 

 known to us, that are being considered 

 or have been considered by State 

 Legislatures. Not one of them com- 

 mends itself to us. Most of them have 

 nothing to do with eugenics; those that 

 have some connection with eugenics 

 are so inadequate or so carelessly drawn 

 that their passage is undesirable. Their 

 presentation has a certain value, in 

 arousing public sentiment to the need 

 of restricting the production of defec- 

 tives in this country; but their appear- 



