Authors: Edwin Black
During the next two years, more states attempted to enact eugenic sterilization laws. Efforts in Virginia to pass House Bill 96, calling for the sterilization of all criminals, imbeciles and idiots in custody when approved by a committee of experts, died in the legislature. But efforts in other states were successful. Nevada targeted habitual criminals. Iowa authorized the operation for “criminals, idiots, feebleminded, imbeciles, drunkards, drug fiends, epileptics,” plus “moral or sexual perverts” in its custody. The Iowa act was tacked onto a prostitution law.
22
New Jersey’s legislation was passed in 1911. Chapter 190 of its statutory code created a special three-man “Board of Examiners of Feebleminded, Epileptics and Other Defectives.” The board would systematically identify when “procreation is inadvisable” for prisoners and children residing in poor houses and other charitable institutions. The law included not only the “feebleminded, epileptic [and] certain criminals” but also a class ambiguously referred to as “other defectives.” New Jersey’s measure added a veneer of due process by requiring a hearing where evidence could be taken, and a formal notice served upon a so-called “patient attorney.” No provision permitted a family-hired or personally selected attorney, but only one appointed by the court. The administrative hearing was held within the institution itself, not in a courtroom under a judge’s gavel. Moreover, the court-designated counsel for the patient was given only five days before the sterilization decision was sealed. Thus the process would be swift, and certainly beyond the grasp of the confused children dwelling within state shelters. New Jersey’s governor, Woodrow Wilson, signed the bill into law on April 21, 1911. The next year, he was elected president of the United States for his personal rights campaign known as the “New Freedoms.” Stressing individual freedoms, Wilson helped create the League of Nations. President Wilson crusaded for human rights for all, including the defenseless, proclaiming to the world the immortal words: “What we seek is the reign of law, based upon the consent of the governed, and sustained by the organized opinion of mankind.”
23
New York was next. In April of 1912, New York amended its Public Health Law with Chapter 445, which virtually duplicated New Jersey’s eugenic legislation. New York law created its own “Board of Examiners for feebleminded, epileptics and other defectives,” comprised of a neurologist, a surgeon and a general physician. Any two of the three examiners could rule whether family history, feeblemindedness, “inherited tendency” or other factors proved that procreation was inadvisable for the patients or prisoners they reviewed. Once again, a so-called “patient attorney” was to be appointed by the court. Vasectomies, salpingectomies (tubal ligations), and full castrations were authorized, at the discretion of the board.
24
Despite the spreading patchwork of state eugenic sterilization laws, by late 1911 and early 1912, the Cold Spring Harbor stalwarts of the American Breeders Association, its Eugenic Record Office and the Carnegie Institution’s Experimental Station remained frustrated. Their joint Committee to Study and Report the Best Practical Means of Cutting off the Defective Germ-plasm of the American Population knew that few Americans had actually undergone involuntary sterilization. True, in the years since 1907, when Indiana legalized such operations, Sharp had vasectomized scores of additional prisoners and even published open appeals to his professional colleagues to join his eugenic crusade. More than two hundred had been forcibly sterilized in California. Connecticut’s Norwich Hospital had performed the operation on fewer than ten, mostly women. But only two eugenic sterilizations had been ordered in Washington state, and both were held in abeyance. An extralegal vasectomy had been performed on one Irish patient in a Boston hospital constituting a juridical test. However, none were authorized in Nevada, Iowa, New Jersey, or New York.
25
Many state officials were clearly reluctant to enforce the laws precisely because the results were radical and irreversible. The legality of the operations and the question of due process had never been satisfactorily answered. The Eugenics Section of the American Breeders Association admitted in a report that the prior legislation had been pushed by “some very small energetic groups of enthusiasts, who have had influence in the legislatures … [but] it was a new and untried proposition. Public sentiment demanding action was absent. Law officers of the state were not anxious to undertake defense of a law the constitutionality of which was questioned. “
26
Moreover, the whole concept of eugenic solutions, such as marriage restriction, forced segregation and involuntary sterilization was still disdained by most Americans. Catholics by and large considered the termination of reproductive capability to be an act against God. “It is evident,” the report continued, “that active hostility and opposition will arise as soon as there is any attempt to carry out the laws in a through-going manner.” The report concluded, “So we must frankly confess that … this movement for race betterment is as yet little more than a hobby of a few groups of people.”
27
The Eugenics Section declared, “It is, therefore, easy to see why little has been actually done. The machinery of administration has to be created…. Much more extensive education of the public will be necessary before the practice of sterilization can be carried out to the extent which will make it a factor of importance.”
28
Clearly, the eugenics movement needed scientific validation, standards to identify exactly who was feebleminded and unfit, and most importantly, society’s acceptance of the need to cut off defective families. Eugenicists in other countries, who had been corresponding together for some years, also felt the need to broaden acceptance of their beliefs. All of them wanted eugenic solutions to be applied on a global basis. Their mission, after all, was to completely reshape humanity, not just one corner of it. Toward this end, the Americans, working closely with their counterparts in Germany and England, scheduled an international conference in London. July of 1912 was selected because it coincided with a visit to London by Stanford University’s Jordan and other eugenic leaders.
29
Galton had died in January of 1911. By that time, his original theories of positive marriage, as well as his ideas on biometric study, had been circumvented by a more radical London group, the Eugenics Education Society. The Eugenics Education Society had adopted American attitudes on negative eugenics. By now, America’s negative eugenics had also been purveyed to like-minded social engineers throughout Europe, especially in Germany and the Scandinavian nations, where theories about Nordic superiority were well received. Hence, this first conference was aptly called the First International Congress on Eugenics, bringing together some several hundred delegates and speakers from across America, Belgium, England, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Spain and Norway.
30
Not a few of the conferees would attend simply to investigate the emerging field of eugenics. But many of the Europeans attended because they harbored their own racial or ethnic biases against their nations’ indigenous, immigrant or defective populations. For example, Jon Alfred Mjeen of Norway was that country’s leading raceologist and eugenicist. He believed that crossing blond-haired Norwegians with native dark-haired Lapps produced a defective mulatto-like breed. Another major delegate was Alfred Ploetz, the spiritual father of Germany’s race hygiene and eugenics movement.
31
Organizers draped the conference with some of the most prestigious names in the world. Major Leonard Darwin, son of Charles Darwin, was appointed president. Britain’s First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill, would represent the king. Churchill was alarmed at Britain’s growing population of “persons … of mental defect” and advocated a eugenic solution. The vice presidents would include David Starr Jordan, Davenport, Ploetz and Alexander Graham Bell. To impress American governors and scientific organizations, the Eugenics Congress leadership wanted the U.S. State Department to send an official American delegate. Missouri’s representative on the all-powerful House Appropriations Committee proffered the request. However, the State Department could not comply because the meeting was nongovernmental; therefore the U.S. government could not participate.
32
Instead, Secretary of State P. C. Knox agreed to write the invitations on official letterhead and mail them to distinguished Americans in the realms of science, higher learning and state government all across the country. The U.S. State Department invitations would be officially extended on behalf of Alfred Mitchell Innes, the British Embassy’s
charge d’affaires
in Washington, who in tum was submitting them on behalf of the Eugenics Education Society in London. Hence the invitations bore the clear imprimatur of the U.S. Secretary of State, yet technically Secretary Knox was merely conveying the invitation. The Knox letter also promised “to be the medium of communication to the Embassy” for any reply.
33
Knox’s official-looking invitations were each virtually alike. “At the request of the British Embassy at this capital, I have the honor to send you herewith an invitation extended to you by the Organizing Committee of the First International Eugenics Congress.” Kansas Governor Walter Stubbs received one. Kentucky Governor James McCreary received one. Maryland Governor Phillip L. Goldsborough received one. Every governor of every state received one. Invitations were also sent to the presidents of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, the American Economic Association at Yale University, the American Philosophical Society, and many other esteemed organizations of science and academic study. Knox also mailed an invitation to every president of every leading medical society, including the American Gynecological Society, the American Neurological Association, the American Pediatric Society and, of course, the American Medical Association. Hundreds of such letters were posted on a single day-June 20, 1912.
34
Because the invitations were distributed just a few weeks before the London congress, few if any of the invitees could actually attend. This fact must have been understood in advance. After all, many received the invitation quite late, often only after their summer travels were complete. Nonetheless, nearly every recipient issued a gracious decline, and a personal note of thanks expressing their regret at missing an important event. All but one, that is. Secretary of War Henry Stimson dashed off a stern rebuff reminding Secretary of State Knox that such official involvement in a private conference was precluded by law. Stimson quoted the law in his reply: “No money … shall be expended … for expenses of attendance of any person at any meeting or convention of members of any society or association” unless authorized by statutory appropriation.
35
The message was clear. Knox had, for all intents and purposes, turned the State Department into a eugenics post office and invitation bureau. From Knox’s point of view, however, he was undoubtedly only too happy to help the eugenics program of the Carnegie Institution. Prior to his service as secretary of state, Knox had been an attorney for the Carnegie Steel Company, and was once called by Carnegie “the best lawyer I have ever had.”
36
Proper or not, eugenics had overnight been packaged into an officially recognized and prestigious science in the eyes of those who counted.
* * *
Some four hundred delegates from America and Europe gathered at the University of London in late July of 1912, where for five days a diverse assemblage of research papers were presented exploring the social science and heredity of man. Two French doctors reviewed Parisian insanity records for the previous half-century. Alcoholism as an inheritable trait was debated. But the proceedings were dominated by the U.S. contingent and their theories of racial eugenics. Galton’s hope of finding the measurable physical qualities of man, an endeavor named biometrics, had become passe. One leading eugenicist reported, “‘Biometry’ … might have never existed so far as the congress was concerned.” Indeed, Galton’s chief disciple, Karl Pearson, declined to even attend the congress.
37
Instead, the racial biology of America’s ERO, and its clarions for sterilization, dominated. The preliminary ABA report from what was dubbed “the American Committee on Sterilization” was heralded as a highlight of the meeting. One prominent British eugenicist, writing in a London newspaper, identified Davenport as an American “to whom all of us in this country are immensely indebted, for the work of his office has far outstripped anything of ours.”
38
One key British eugenicist added that if Galton were still alive and could “read the recent reports of the American Eugenics Record Office, which have added more to our knowledge of human heredity in the last three years than all former work on that subject put together, [he] would quickly seek to set our own work in this country upon the same sure basis. “
39
The medical establishment began to take notice as well, presenting eugenics as a legitimate medical concept. The
Journal of the American Medical Association’s
coverage glowed.
JAMA’s
headline rang out: “The International Eugenics Congress, An Event of Great Importance to the History of Evolution, Has Taken Place.” Its correspondent enthusiastically portrayed the eugenicists’ theory of social Darwinism, spotlighting the destructive quality of charity and stressing the value of disease to the natural order. “The unfit among men,” the
JAMA
correspondent reported from a key congress speech, “were no longer killed by hunger and disease, but were cherished and enabled to reproduce their kind. It was true, they [society] could not but glory in this saving of suffering; but they must not blind themselves to the danger of interfering with Nature’s ways. Cattle breeders bred from the best stocks…. Conscious selection must replace the blind forces of natural selection.”
40