body growing in numbers and weight in the state. Is he, admitting as he must do that alcoholism is a great national problem, to talk vaguely of alcohol as a racial poison and throw his influence into the existing temperance movement? Or, shall he on the other hand attempt to study it for himself, with no initial basis? Here in a nutshell is the fundamental division between the two attitudes:

"(i) All use of alcohol will lead pro tanto to defective children. Its abuse is due to opportunity and to defect of moral influ

ence.

"(ii) The abuse of alcohol is one of the stigmata of degeneracy. It is not the cause of degeneracy but its product. As the production of degeneracy-whether in the form of mental defect, epilepsy or insanity-is checked, to that extent the abuse of alcohol will be checked.

"The acceptance of one attitude involves the demand for the cessation of all import, manufacture or sale of alcoholic drinks. The acceptance of the other demands the cessation of parentage on the part of the epileptic, the insane and the mentally defective.

"It is for the Eugenist to consider the evidence for either policy, uninfluenced by rhetoric and by invective, and then to act in accordance with his decision. The two policies are not, in my opinion, compatible for the evidence upon which (ii) is based shows that the practical sequence to the acceptance of (i), i. e., absolute prohibition, would not produce any permanent racial effect."

By Major Leonard Darwin, President of the Eugenics Education Society

(Excerpts made from the "British Journal of Inebriety," October, 1915.)

If the truth is to be discovered and made known concerning any proposed course of action, we must state all the disadvantages, as well as the advantages, which are likely to ensue. We are bound, therefore, to point out any harm which may be expected to result from temperance reform; though we should obviously do so in such a manner as to put no unnecessary impediment in the way of progress. And the reason why we must speak openly on both sides of the argument is that, if we were to be silent concerning any anticipated evil consequences, we could not advocate as part of the reform those precautionary measures which seem to us most likely to ward off the anticipated harm. The fear of telling the whole truth may, in fact, do lasting and irreparable damage. Yet, if we do point out any harmful consequences of temperance reform, we may find ourselves labelled, to our surprise, as the friends of drunkenness. But as progress will, in the long run, be most certainly secured by each person fearlessly stating what he believes to be true, this risk of unmerited misinterpretation must be faced.

THE RACIAL EFFECTS OF ALCOHOLISM

If we look beyond the immediate evils of drink, and if we consider the effects of the alcoholism of today on the generations of the future, we enter a region full of doubts.

*A paper introductory to a discussion before the Society for the Study of Inebriety at its summer meeting, Tuesday, July 13, 1915, held in the rooms of the Medical Society of London, II Chandos Street, Cavendish Square, W.

MAINE.

Taking negative considerations first, it cannot be denied that, however frequently alcoholism in parents is found to be followed by juvenile mortality, imbecility, disease, pauperism, or other signs of unfitness in the children of the drunkard, this sequence of events cannot be quoted as a decisive proof that alcohol is a cause of such troubles; because the alcoholism of the parent and the defects of the children may both be the result of some common factor, such as inherited natural weakness of mind or body. Comparisons between the characteristics of children in the same family born before and after a parent had become alcoholic would go far towards settling this dispute if such investigations could be made in sufficient numbers, which is, however, as yet impossible. At present we are, therefore, driven to form a judgment on the issue by other more general considerations.

That parental alcoholism does harm the offspring has been confirmed by certain experiments on animals, though here again hardly any indication has been given as to the effects on the third and subsequent generations. Those who disbelieve in these racial effects will, moreover, point out that, if alcohol did injuriously affect the racial qualities of succeeding generations, it would be reasonable to suppose that the evil effects would continue to accumulate generation after generation, as long as the cause continued to be operative. But, looking to the English nation between the tenth. and the eighteenth centuries, for example, we see no clear signs of any progressive deterioration during that period, though too much alcohol was doubtless consumed.

What would be said to anyone who, after weighing carefully all these conflicting considerations, gave it as his provisional conclusion that the inborn characters of the generations beyond the second or third will not be injured by existing alcoholism? This is my position, and I wish to know whether I ought to be blamed for an open confession of my faith, or, rather, of my very hesitating conclusions. I do not now wish to defend this view, but I do want to give my reasons for holding that those who are thus persuaded should announce their opinions openly. Why should they not do so? Can anyone who sees a drunken man really wish. that his entirely innocent descendants should suffer for an indefinite number of generations because of his weakness or sin? Merely