A few days ago there appeared in the columns of this paper a news account of the sterilization bill that has been presented in the Legislature. Soon there followed a brief editorial on the bill, in which the Free Press adopted the very safe position known as "sitting on the fence." Now there is talk of bringing the bill up for discussion and it seems very fitting that there be presented some of the reflections that should come to every right thinking person on this matter. The bill as it was explained in the paper calls for the selection of a board to consider the conditions of defective persons brought to their attention, with a view to depriving them of the means of producing offspring. By defectives are meant the feeble‐minded and the criminally inclined, who may be made sterile at the advice of the board either with or without the consent of the subject and guardians.

Now regardless of the fact that the bill has been suggested by our governor and is supported by a few individuals who seem to have allowed their interest in eugenics to darken the light of reason, it is the duty of every citizen to consider first of all what right the state or the government has over the bodies of the citizens. In this regard it is not difficult to show that the State has no right or control over the person of the citizen. As a protector of society the State has the right to hold in prison men who have sinned against society, and may go so far in the exercise of duly constituted authority as to demand the life of the murderer. The right to punish belongs to every one who has the right to rule, but that right merely becomes a sanction for the law, a means of enforcing it, and can in no way be considered as giving the State the right to maim, or injure any part or faculty of any person for mere experimental measures. Almighty God has given us numerous laws and punishes us for breaking these laws, yet He in no way takes away the free use of our faculties in order that we might in time develop a race of super‐men or a race of people free from all imperfections. If the author of our existence gives us the use of our faculties and is unable to exert measures of punishment on the innocent, by what authority does the State, our governor, or a few intellectuals usurp control over our bodies, that they may experiment on them?

But if the State is usurping control the bodies of the citizens to maim and injure them, who can give them the necessary permission? Surely the guardians and friends of the unfortunate have no right to permit operations on those in their care that are not absolutely necessary. They are not the author of the life in their charge; they have no control over it except to preserve and protect it. We look upon the murderer as the greatest of criminals not because his victim's death is the greatest evil that could befell a community but because he has taken into his hands a life over which he had no control, he has intruded not upon the property of man, but of God. Nor has any man the right to give another permission to maim his body in any unnecessary manner. Men of all ages have testified to this fact especially in the statutes that fill our law books. Therefore, it is clear that the State is usurping rights that neither God nor man can give them.

As a second thought on this matter of rights let us consider the gruesome pages of history when tyrants and despots treated the persons of their subjects as mere clods of dirt over which they had full control. There is not one of us who does not hesitate to call this conduct pagan and barbarous. The child who reads of the deeds perpetrated through this misconception of the rights of man shudders at the thought of these monsters, yet we of this age and civilization are met by a few intellectuals who would like to have us give them permission to cut and maim for the sake of experiment. To get a little nearer to our own times let us consider the slaves of the South where a man's body was of no more account than the body of a dog in the eyes of a master. Our fathers recognized the rights that are due to every man, and even at the risk of destroying the union of ours, and at the cost of so much bloodshed, restored the rights to every rational creature in this country. If the rights of man were regarded so highly a few decades ago that they were purchased by the lives of our fathers, is it possible that they have decreased in value so much that we can now sign them away in the interest of scientific experiment? Have our standards of morals changed so much that things are now right which were wrong a few years ago? If then, I repeat, despotism and slavery were wrong, and the pages of history are filled with the deeds expressing the thoughts of our fathers on the matter, how ran we sit back and listen to men who ask us to give them the right to make sterile any poor unfortunates they may consider fit prospects, for the sake of experiment?

For when I say experiment, I mean that that is the only possible reason they can advance for their abominable actions. Their greatest reason for assuming privileges over which they have no control is that it is an experiment in the interest of public health and eugenics. At best the results of this experiment are very doubtful, for until now no way, however scientific it may be, has been found that can successfully thwart nature. We may observe in everything about us, whether animate or inanimate, but especially where there is life, that nature has a definite course to run and will not suffer any obstruction. We have seen examples where such measures as our worthy governor suggested have been performed through necessity with unhappy results in many cases. Disease and a warped or perverted outlook on life have followed only too often. It is true the bill would prevent the feeble‐minded and the criminally insane from raising children that might possibly be a burden to the State, but we should not be deceived into believing that there is enough known of the laws of heredity to prove that the results of this drastic action are warranted. It is by no means an absolute law that the children of feeble‐minded, or defectives, or criminally inclined are themselves defectives. It does happen, it is true, but we know that our institutions for the insane, and our prisons are not filled with persons whose parents were defectives.

As for the court passing laws to operate on the habitual criminal or criminal who is a menace to society, against the wishes of the subject, it seems the most abominable crime of all. To punish a criminal is just, to put his body in prison for years is just, but to deprive a man, of that which enables him to function as a human being is against all reason. It is trespassing on the property that belongs not to the State but to the author of life. Our prison population is not made up of persons who are the descendants of habitual criminals, nor is there any reason to believe that the habitual criminals of today are going to furnish the habitual criminals of tomorrow. The color of a person's skin, the eyes or the hair may be passed on by heredity, but the character of a man is not passed on to his son by any laws of heredity. If that were so the sons of honest men, of eminent statesmen, of Christians would never see the inside of a prison. But alas, how many of our prisoners are the children of honest, upright people! Can anyone imagine a more striking example of the irony of fate than the fact that social conditions of today breed in man a contempt for law, tend to make him an habitual criminal and a menace to society, and then the State that fosters these same conditions proceeds to unsex the product that it has produced.

In reference to the feeble‐minded, there is again the fact that we are being misdirected by a few intellectuals who are more interested in developing a mythical super‐race than in considering the rights and problems of the people of the present day. It is a well‐known fact that the insane who are not fit for society are usually confined and in many instances are the victims of unfortunate circumstances, rather than the result of heredity. Just what constitutes the degree of feeble‐mindedness that we allow the freedom of society is one of the problems that we should be loath to leave to the decision of a board of five or six officials. Because there are in the world a number of good‐meaning individuals of great physical strength, but who could not pass the requirements of the grammar school, does not mean that we must experiment in the methods of eugenics to raise only children who will be intellectual giants. We all know that some of the brightest, intellectual lights in the world have been our biggest criminals, while the dunce and the doddard stick to the "straight and narrow" to the best of their ability.

Again, as the third consideration there are the evils that may come all to easily, brought about by those who wish to make use of the laws eugenics for their own evil pleasures. If we are to leave it to the board to decide whether a person is feeble‐minded enough to be made sterile and still live as a member of society, then I ask you to consider how numerous are the criminals who have evaded justice by convincing a few doctors that insanity drove them to crime and yet the degree of insanity was not enough to separate them from society. Indeed, the present situation is such that one of our leading humorists and philosophers sums up the case in the words that "the criminal who does not plead insanity is crazy." In this day and age when children are considered such a burden, how many will there be who will turn to the law to live a life of legalized lust and fulfillment of passion while perverting the forces of nature. If the consent of a person is given, then how easy it is to persuade five or six persons who are amenable to reason, especially when it is accompanied by financial gain, that they are unfit to raise super‐children and yet are perfectly fit to enjoy all the privileges of society. The consequent evils that can be twisted out of this law, especially since money will accomplish practically everything in this day and age, run beyond our imagination. Suffice it to say that there is not one of us who does not know of at least one case where influence and money would seem to have caused persons to be judged insane and placed in institutions for the same, who were in no way demented. If this has been done in the past, then give rein to your imagination and measure if you can the extent of this abominable practice when it is fully approved and made easier by the law‐makers we have appointed.

It becomes then the duty of every reasonable person who prides himself on being a good citizen to reflect on this matter,‐‐ first, the State has no right to injure or maim the bodies of the citizens except as punitive measures; second, there is no reason to permit the state to adopt these measures except the flimsy excuse of experiment; and third, the evils that would come from this law would far outweigh any benefits that might seem apparent. It is the height of absurdity for men to talk of producing a super‐race or a perfected people of great intellectual, moral, and physical qualities when they themselves disregard all the rights of God and man and talk of perverting the laws of nature in this important matter. Good citizens who have the interest of the state and of humanity at heart should feel it is their duty to see that this bill does not become law.