a wider meaning than he intends. But there was "unfairness" in the selection of diseases; "almost without exception these maladies lie very deep in the hereditary tendencies of the race." Well, I suppose death itself may be said to "lie very deep in our hereditary tendencies"; but, except in some such exceedingly broad sense, I certainly question the accuracy of his assertion. In my tables (see Lippincott's, August, 1884) only fifteen different classes of organic diseases were tabulated, and among them were apoplexy, aneurism, diabetes, insanity, paralysis, cancer, diseases of the heart, the brain, the kidneys, and the liver. From these causes only result the deaths of two thirds of the English race over the age of twenty years; and, as a rule, fatality increases with advancing age. Are these maladies "almost without exception "caused by" hereditary tendencies"? When the Archbishop of Canterbury, in the fullness of years, falls dead from apoplexy, is it because "defectives leave enfeebled progeny"? I certainly differ with your learned contributor on this point. There was no unfairness whatever in concentrating attention upon organic diseases, provided it was distinctly admitted—as it was in the same article—that "during later years there has been a diminished mortality in England from the lesser prevalence of zymotic diseases," which nobody in 1884 was pretending to "cure."
One point more. Admitting the justification of vivisection per se, are we compelled to adopt the further evident conclusion of Prof. Hodge that it should be free to proceed to any lengths whatever, as in Continental Europe? Because certain forms of vivisection are justifiable, are all? It is at this point we part company. He is a brave man who can announce in these days a new theological dogma, that "God clearly gives to man every sanction to cause any amount of physical pain which he may find expedient to unravel his laws." Certainly that is a dogma of the highest import; everything is justifiable; its far-reaching consequences touch humanity itself. With that doctrine I thoroughly disagree, upheld though it be by so eminent a teacher as Prof. Hodge. Permit me rather to range myself with one whose work for science entitles him to even greater respect. On the wall of my library hangs a printed statement of views concerning this very subject, from which allow me to quote. "Within certain limitations, we regard vivisection to be so justified by utility as to be legitimate, expedient, and right. Beyond those boundaries it is cruel, monstrous, and wrong. Experimentation . . . we consider justifiable when employed to determine the action of new remedies; for tests of suspected poisons, for the study of new methods of surgical procedure or in the search for the causation of disease. . . . On the other hand, we regard as cruel and wrong the infliction of torment upon animals in the search for physiological facts which have no conceivable relation to the treatment of human diseases; or experiments that seem to be made only for the purpose of gratifying a heartless curiosity. . . . The practice, whether in public or in private, should be restricted by law to certain definite objects, and surrounded by every possible safeguard against license and abuse."
That statement, sir, is signed by Herbert Spencer. With every word of it I agree.
| Albert Leffingwell, M. D. |
| Hamilton Club, Brooklyn, October 15, 1896. |
INTERPRETATIONS OF MALTHUSIANISM.
Editor Popular Science Monthly:
Sir: I have been a reader of your periodical since 1873, and naturally during that time I have occasionally met with statements by some of its contributors that I felt were open to criticism—opinions that I thought a little weak. But never through all those years have I met with such a reckless misrepresentation as is contained in Helen Zimmern's first paper, in the September number, on Enrico Ferri on Homicide. In a sentence, about the middle of page 682, she says, "Infanticide, elevated to a custom and a method in Malthusianism." Such a statement would be unworthy a correspondent of a decent newspaper; but, that any contributor to the Popular Science Monthly should, whatever his personal intolerance of the population question, have the temerity to hazard such a false presentment of the theory (axiom I would call it) laid down by the Rev. Mr. Malthus, and the remedy he suggested, is, to say the least, hardly complimentary to the presumable information or intelligence of its readers.
The difference in the ratio of increase of population and that of subsistence, which Mr. Malthus, rightly or wrongly, submitted as being a fundamental law, and the remedy, wisely or unwisely, he suggested of deferred marriages, are all that can be laid to his charge. Surely these are not sufficient grounds to justify the accusation against him of advocating "infanticide"! It reminds one of the old trick of many of the clergy, associating immorality with atheism.
Certainly, there is now a numerous and rapidly growing class, recognizing the irrevocable nature of the law of population, but, at the same time, the impracticability of Mr. Malthus's remedy, who adopt and recommend preventive means. Yet, how even such can be accused of "infanticide" any more consistently than others who practice abstinence (which is just one method of prevention) it is difficult to perceive.
I feel that this is no occasion for ventilating my own particular views on the population question or Malthusianism; still, I have always been surprised at observing the avoidance of the subject manifested on the part
