LESSON IX
THE DETERMINATION OF SEX

The second usage of the term, includes and embraces the idea of the voluntary determination or control of the sex of the future child, by means of certain methods or certain systems of treatment, etc. Of recent years, science has been devoting considerable attention to the question of whether or not man may not be able to produce any particular sex at will, by means of certain systems or methods of procedure. Many theories have been evolved, and many plans and methods have been advocated, often with the expenditure of much energy and enthusiasm on the part of the promulgators and their adherents.

In this lesson there will be briefly presented to you the general consensus of modern thought on the subject, with a general outline of the favorite methods and systems advocated by the several schools of thought concerned in the investigation.

Professor Doncaster, the well-known authority on the subject, says: "But little progress has been made in the direction of predicting the sex of any child, and, if possible, even less in artificially influencing the determination of its sex. When the general principles arrived at are borne in mind, it must be confessed that the prospects of our ever attaining this power of control or even of prediction are not very hopeful, but the possibility of it cannot be yet regarded as entirely excluded. The general conclusions arrived at are that sex is determined by a physiological condition of the embryonic cells, that this condition is induced, at least in the absence of disturbing causes, by the presence of a particular sex-chromosome. [A "chromosome" is a portion of the chromatin, or substance characteristic of the nucleus of the cell, this nucleus seemingly controlling the life-processes of the cell.] But there is evidence, which for the present at least cannot be neglected, that certain extraneous conditions acting on the egg or early embryo may perhaps be able to counteract the effect of sex chromosome.

"Quite generally, then, there are two conceivable methods by which the sex might be artificially influenced in any particular case; firstly, if means could be found of ensuring that any particular fertilized ovum received the required chromosomes; and, secondly, by the discovery of methods which always effect the ovum or embryo in such a way as to produce the desired sex. Many suggestions for applying both methods have been made, some of which have attained considerable notoriety, but hitherto none of them has stood the test of practical experience. In the case of the higher animals, especially of the mammals, in which the embryo develops in the maternal uterus until long after the sex is irrevocably decided, it is obviously difficult to apply methods which might influence the sex after fertilization, even if it were certainly known that such methods were ever really effective.

"Apart from the few experiments like those of Hertwig on rearing tadpoles at different temperatures, there have been a very few cases in which there is even a suggestion that the sex of the fertilized egg can be modified by environment, and the belief that this is possible has been entirely abandoned by many of the leading investigators of the subject. It is probable, therefore, that if it will ever be possible to predict or determine artificially the sex of a particular child, the means will have to be sought in some method of influencing the output of germ-cells in such a way that one kind is produced rather than the other. It is in this way that Heape and others interpret the results of their investigations; they find that certain conditions affect the sex-ratio of cells, and they explain the result by assuming that under some circumstances male-determining ova are produced in excess, and under other circumstances, female-determining."

Professor Rumley Dawson holds to the opinion that the male-determining and female-determining ova are discharged alternately from the ovaries. In woman one ovum is usually discharged each month, and it is maintained that on one month the ovum is male-determining, and in the next, female-determining. It is obvious that exceptions must occur, for boy and girl twins are quite common, but if the cases which support the hypothesis are taken by themselves, and the exceptions explained away, it is possible to make out a strong case in favor of this theory. Some authorities hold that the right ovary produces male-determining ova, and the left ovary female-determining, and that the two ovaries discharge an ovum alternately, but an impartial examination of the evidence for this belief shows that it rests on very slender foundations. Experiments on the lower animals have shown that after the complete removal of one ovary the female may produce young of both sexes. Women, also, have produced children of a particular sex after the corresponding ovary has been removed, and it is hardly possible to believe that the removal in all these cases was incomplete. On the whole it must be concluded that the theory is insufficiently supported by the evidence.

Another widely promulgated and vigorously supported theory is that which holds that the sex of the future child may be determined by specific nutrition of the mother before conception, and in some cases after conception. Schenk's theory, advanced about 1900, attracted much attention at the time. He based his method on the observation that a number of women whose children were all girls all excreted sugar in their urine, such as happens in the case of persons affected with diabetes. From this he suspected that the physiological condition which leads to the excretion of sugar was inimical to the development of male-determining ova, and that males could be produced by its prevention. He therefore recommended that those who desire a male child should undergo treatment similar to that prescribed for diabetes for two or three months before conception, and held that a boy would be produced by these methods. Although this method has had considerable vogue, it cannot be held to have been established on a scientific basis.

Doncaster says "The general conclusion with regard to man must therefore be that if sex is determined solely by the spermatozoon there is no hope either of influencing or predicting it in special cases. On the other hand, there is considerable evidence that the ovum has some share in the effect, and if this is so, before any practical results are reached it will be necessary to discover which of two conceivable causes of sex-determination is the true one. It is possible that there are two kinds of ova, as well as two kinds of spermatozoa, and that there is a selective fertilization of such a kind that one kind of spermatozoon only fertilizes one kind of ovum, the second kind of spermatozoon the second kind of ovum. If this should prove to be the case, it is possible that means might be found of influencing or predicting that kind of ovum which is discharged under any set of conditions. Secondly, it is possible that the ova are potentially all alike, but that their physiological condition may under some circumstances be so altered that the sex is determined independently of the spermatozoon. * * * It is hardly possible to avoid the conclusion that the sex of the offspring may be influenced, at least under certain circumstances, by the mother. The search for means of influencing the sex of the offspring through the mother is not of necessity doomed to failure. No results of a really positive kind have been obtained hitherto, and some of the facts point so clearly to sex-determination by the male germ-cell alone in man and other animals that many investigators have concluded that the quest is hopeless; but until an adequate explanation has been given of certain phenomena discovered in the investigation of the subject, it seems more reasonable to maintain an open mind, and to regard the control of sex in man as an achievement not entirely impossible of realization."

Another writer on the subject has said: "Every individual among the higher animals, whether male or female, begins as an impregnated ovum in the mother's body. Any such ovum contains elements of constitution from both of its parents. In the earliest existence of this impregnated ovum, there is a season of sexual indifference, or indecision, in which the embryo is both male and female, having the characteristic rudiments of each sex, only indifferently manifested. In this stage, the embryo is susceptible of being influenced by external conditions to develop more strongly in the one or the other direction and thus become distinctly and permanently male or female. It is evident that this is the season in the development of the individual in which influencing conditions and causes must operate in deciding its sex, although it is possible in some of the lower animals to alter the tendency of sex in the embryo from one sex to the other, even after it has been quite definitely determined. It is well established, in fact, that differences do not come from a difference in the ova themselves; that is, there is not one kind of ova from the female which becomes female, while other ova become male, for it is possible to alter the tendency toward the one sex or the other after the ovum has been fertilized and the embryo has begun its career of development. This possible change in sex tendency in the embryo also proves that sex is not decided by a difference in the spermatozoa; that is some of the sperm cells from the father are not male, while others are female, in their constitution.

"It is incorrect to suppose, as has been held by some theorists, that one testicle give rise to male spermatozoa and the other to female spermatozoa, for both male and female offspring have been produced from the same male parent after one testicle or the other has been removed. The same is true in cases in which either ovary has been removed from the mother; that is, male and female offspring are produced from mothers in whom either ovary has been removed. In like manner, the sex of offspring is shown not to be materially affected by the comparative vigor of the parents; thus, a stronger father than mother does not necessarily produce one sex to the exclusion of the other. These negative decisions are important because they simplify the solution of the problem of sex-determination, by excluding, more or less fully, various causes which have been supposed to operate quite forcibly in deciding the sex of offspring. Some of the more positive agencies that enter into the determination of sex are found (1) in the influence of nutrition upon the embryo during its indifferent stage of sexual development, and (2) in the constitution and general condition of the mother before and during the early stages of pregnancy. These two factors appear to enter more fully than any others in the decision of the sex in offspring, and deserve the greatest consideration. The influence of food in supplying the embryo with nourishment for its development is, perhaps, the most potent of these determining causes."

Investigators along the line of theory indicated in the above last quotation, i. e., the theory of sex determination by means of nourishment of the mother and embryo, have presented a volume of reports which demand respectful consideration. The general report may be said to be the discovery that abundant nourishment during the period of sexual neutrality tends to produce females; while lack of abundant nutrition during such period tends to produce males.

These experiments, of course, have been chiefly performed upon the lower animals. The frog has been a favorite subject of such experiments—the tadpole stage being the one selected, because in that stage there exists a lack of sex, the stage being one of sex neutrality. Professor Yung's celebrated experiments will illustrate this class of experiments. Here were chosen 300 tadpoles, which when left to themselves manifested a ratio of 57 prospective females to 43 prospective males. These were divided into three classes of 100 tadpoles each. Each class was then fed upon one of several kinds of nutritious diet in order to ascertain the change in sex-tendency due to such food. The first set, with an original ratio of femaleness of 54 to 46, were fed abundantly on beef, and the ratio of femaleness was changed to 78 to 22. The second class, with a ratio of femaleness of 61 to 39, were fed on fish (specially nourishing to frogs), and the ratio changed to 81 to 19. The third class, with a ratio of 56 to 44, were fed upon a still more nutritious diet (i. e., that of frogs' flesh), and the ratio was raised to 92 to 8. In short, the experiments showed that the increase of nourishment in diet changed every two out of three male-tendency tadpoles into females. The experiment was held to prove that a rich diet, affording nourishment, during the period of sexual neutrality in the embryo, tended to develop femaleness.

The advocates of this theory also point to the instance of the bees. With the bees, the larva of ordinary worker-bees are fed ordinary food, and do not develop sex; while the larva which is intended to produce the queen-bee is fed specially nutritious "royal food," and consequently develops larger size and full female sex powers. If the queen is killed, or dies, the hive of bees proceeds to produce a new queen by means of feeding a selected larva with the "royal food" and thus developing full femaleness in it. It is said by some authorities that in cases in which some other of the larva accidently receive, through mistake, crumbs of the "royal food," they, too, grow to an extraordinary size, and develop fertility. This fact is held by the advocates of the nutrition theory to go toward establishing the fact that abundant nourishment of the embryo, during the neutral stage, tends to produce femaleness in it. They also claim that caterpillars which are very poorly nourished before entering into the chrysalis stage usually develop into male butterflies, while those highly nourished in the said stage tend to become females. Experiments on sheep have shown that when the ewes are particularly well nourished the offspring will show a large proportion of females.

A writer, favoring the theory in question, says: "In general, it is reasonable to infer that the higher sexual organization which constitutes the female is to be attained in the greatest number of cases by embryos which have superior vital conditions during the formative period. Among human beings, some facts of general observation become significant in the light of the foregoing inferences. After epidemics, after wars, after seasons of privation and distress, the tendency is toward a majority of male births. On the other hand, abundant crops, low prices, peace, contentment and prosperity tend to increase the number of females born. Mothers in prosperous families usually have more girls; mothers in families of distress have more boys. Large, well-fed, fully developed, healthy women, who are of contented and passive disposition, generally become mothers of families abounding in girls; while mothers who are small or spare of flesh, who are poorly fed, restless, unhappy, overworked, exhausted by frequent childbearing, or who are reduced by other causes which waste their vital energies, usually give birth to a greater number of boys. As a general proposition, the facts and inferences tend to establish the truth of the doctrine with women, that, the more favorable the vital conditions of the mother during the period in which the sex of her offspring is being determined, the greater the ratio of females she will bear; the less favorable her vital conditions at such times, the greater will be her tendency to bear males. That many apparent exceptions occur does not disprove the general tendency here maintained. Moreover, it is impossible to know in all cases what were the conditions of the mother's organism at the time in which her child was in its delicate balance between predominant femaleness and maleness; else many cases which seemingly disprove the proposition would be found to be forcible illustrations of its truth. Still further, it is probable that other causes besides those here mentioned act with greater or less effect in determining the sex of offspring."

Based upon this general theory of the relation of nutrition to sex-determination, many methods and systems have been devised by as many authorities, and have been followed and promulgated by as many schools. Without going into the almost endless detail which would be necessitated by a synopsis of these various methods and systems, it may be said that they all consist of plans having for their object the decrease of nutrition of the woman in cases in which male children are desired, and the increase of nutrition in cases in which female children are sought for. This increase or decrease in nutrition is enforced for a reasonable period before the time selected for the conception of the child, and also for a reasonable period after the time of conception. The decrease in nutrition does not consist of "starvation," but rather of a "training diet" similar to that followed by athletics, and from which dietary all rich foods, sweets, etc., are absent. In fact, the average dietary advocated by the "Eat and Grow Thin" writers would seem to be almost identical with that of the "male offspring" theorists.

Many persons who have followed the methods and systems based on the nutrition theory above mentioned claim to have been more or less successful in the production of the particular sex desired, but many exceptions to the rule are noted, and some writers on the subject are disposed to regard the reported successes as mere coincidences, and claim that the failures are seldom reported while the successes are widely heralded. The present writer presents the claims of this school to the attention of his readers, but without personally positively endorsing the idea. He is of the opinion that the data obtainable is not as yet sufficient to justify the strong claims made for the theory in some quarters; but, at the same time, he does not hesitate to say that there are many points of interest brought out in the presentation of the theory, and that many thoughtful persons seem to accept the same as reasonably well established and logical.

Another theory which has been heard of frequently of late years is that in which it is held that the ova are expelled in alternating sex, each month. Thus, if a male ovum is expelled in January, the February ovum will be a female one, according to this theory. Under this theory if the date of conception of a child be ascertained, and the sex of the child noted at its birth, it is a simple matter to count forward from the menstrual period following which the child was conceived, and thus determine whether the ovum of any succeeding period is male or female. It should be noted, however, that the periods are regulated by the lunar months, and not the calendar months. The fact that twins of different sexes are sometimes born would seem to disturb this theory—but not more than any other theory of sex-determination voluntarily produced, for that matter. The several schools explain this apparent discrepancy by the familiar saying that "exceptions prove the rule."

Another theory of sex-determination is that which holds that when conception occurs within a few days after the last day of menstruation, the child will be a girl; and that when conception occurs at a later period, the child will be a boy. Methods and systems based upon this theory are also reported as being reasonably successful in producing satisfactory results. But, inasmuch as there appears to be a great difference in individual women in this respect (even according to the claims of this school of sex-determination), it would seem that it would be difficult to proceed with certainty in the matter in most cases. One of the writers advocating this method, says: "Conception within five days after the end of the menstrual period is almost certain to produce a girl child; within five days to ten days, it may be either a boy or a girl; from ten to fifteen days, it is almost sure to be a boy; from eighteen to twenty-five days is the period of probable sterility, in which conception is extremely unlikely to occur."

In conclusion, it may be said that Nature undoubtedly has certain rules of sex-determination which govern in these cases; and that it is possible if not indeed probable that these rules may some day be discovered by man, and turned to account; but that it is very doubtful whether the secret has as yet been solved by the investigators. The writer may be pardoned for suggesting that, in his opinion, if the discovery is ever made it will likely be found to be very simple—so simple that we have probably overlooked it because it was in too plain sight to attract our attention. Nature's methods are usually very simple, when once discovered. She hides her processes from man by making them simple, it would seem.

LESSON X
WHAT BIRTH CONTROL IS, AND IS NOT

The term "control" does not mean "prohibition," or "prevention"; but, on the contrary, means "governing, regulating, or managing influence." Birth Control, in the true meaning of the term, does not mean the prevention or prohibition of the birth of children, but rather the encouragement of the birth of children under the best possible conditions and the discouragement of the birth of children under improper or unfavorable conditions.

Birth Control, in the true meaning of the term, does not mean theories and practices which would tend to reduce the population of the civilized countries of the world, but rather theories and practice which would inevitably result in the production of an adequate ratio of increase in the population of such countries, not only by reason of a normal birth-rate, but also by reason of a diminishing death-rate among infants—by the production of healthier children, accompanied by the raising of the standard of the average child born in such countries.

Birth Control, in the true meaning of the term, therefore, is seen to consist not of the prohibition or prevention of human offspring, but rather of the governing, regulating, and managing of the production of human offspring, under the inspiration of the highest ideals and under the direction of the highest reason, for the purpose of the advancement and welfare of the race and that of the individuals composing the race. Instead of being an anti-social and anti-moral propaganda, Birth Control when rightly understood is perceived to be in accordance with the highest social aims and aspirations, and in accordance with the highest and purest morality of the race.

Much of the opposition toward the general movement of Birth Control which has been manifested by many well-meaning, though misinformed, persons, has arisen by reason of the erroneous conception and understanding of the term itself, and of misleading information concerning the true nature of the best teachings on the subject. This prejudice has been heightened by certain zealous but ill-balanced advocates of the general movement who have overemphasized the incidental feature of the limitation of offspring under certain conditions, and who have appealed to the attention and interest merely of those who wished to escape the responsibilities of parenthood. This has caused much sorrow and distress to the many persons who have the highest ideals and results in view, and who deplore this unbalanced propaganda under the name, and apparently under the cloak of the general movement. Such persons have felt inclined to cry aloud "Good Lord, deliver us from our so-called friends!"

One of the most distressing features of the popular prejudice against Birth Control, arising from a total misconception of the subject, has been the widely spread and popularly accepted notion that Birth Control is practically analogous to abortion—or, at the best, but a more refined and less repulsive and less dangerous form of abortion. In view of the fact that one of the important results sought to be obtained by a scientific knowledge of Birth Control actually is the prevention and avoidance of the crime of abortion which has wrought such terrible havoc among the women of civilized countries, it is most distressing and discouraging to the conscientious and high-minded advocates of Birth Control to have it said and believed that their teachings encourage and justify abortion.

A reference to any standard dictionary or textbook will reveal the fact that "Abortion" means: "the premature expulsion of the human embryo or foetus; miscarriage voluntarily induced or produced," etc. It is seen at a glance that the essence and meaning of abortion consists in the destruction of the human embryo which has resulted from conception. The embryo human child must already exist in its elemental form, before it can be destroyed by abortion. Therefore, if no such embryo form exists, it cannot be destroyed, and therefore there can be no abortion in such a case. And, it may positively be stated, no true advocate of Birth Control can possibly justify, much less advocate, the destruction of the human embryo or foetus, which act constitutes abortion. The difference between true Birth Control teachings and methods, and that of the advocates of abortion, is as great as the difference between the two poles. Instead of the two being identical or similar, they are diametrically opposed one to the other—they are logical "opposites," each the antithesis of the other.

Even in those forms or phases of the Birth Control propaganda in which the use of "contraceptives," or "preventatives" is considered justified in certain cases—and these forms and phases are far from being the most important, as all students of the subject know—even in these exceptional forms and phases of the general subject the idea of abortion is combatted, and never justified or encouraged. A "contraceptive" agency merely tends to prevent or obviate undesirable conception; it never acts to destroy the result of previous and accomplished conception. A "contraceptive" merely prevents the union of the male and female elements of reproduction, and consequently the process from which evolves the foetus or embryo. A leading medical authority has said regarding this distinction: "In inducing abortion, one destroys something already formed—a foetus or an embryo, a fertilized ovum, a potential human being. In prevention, however, one merely prevents chemically or mechanically the spermatozoa from coming in contact with the ovum. There is no greater sin or crime in this than there is in simple abstinence, in refraining from sexual intercourse."

What then must we say when we consider the higher and more advanced forms and phases of Birth Control, those phases and forms which may be said to be mental or emotional "contraceptives," rather than physical? Surely these cannot be considered as identical with or similar to abortion. And when we consider those phases and forms of Birth Control which are concerned with Pre-Natal Culture—the culture of the child before its birth—can one, even though he be intensely prejudiced against Birth Control, assert that there is to be found here anything which in any way whatsoever can be considered as relating to the theory or practice of abortion? And what must we say of the still higher phases in which the teachings are concerned with the mental and physical preparation of the parents prior to the conception of the child, to the end that the child may have the best possible physiological and psychological basis for its future well-being? Is not this the very antithesis and opposite of all that concerns abortion or abortive methods?

The trouble about all great movements designed for the benefit of the human race is that at the beginning there is attracted to the movement, by reason of its novelty and "newness," certain elements which seize upon certain incidental features of the general idea, make them their own while excluding or ignoring the more important things, and then exploit these incidental features in a sensational way, thereby attracting public attention and gaining much undesirable notoriety, and as a consequence bringing discredit and disfavor, prejudice and misunderstanding, to the general movement.

Birth Control has passed through this apparently inevitable experience, and has suffered greatly thereby. But the Light is being thrown on the Dark Places, and the more intelligent portion of the public is beginning to realize that there is another side to the shield of Birth Control. And, as a consequence, much of the original prejudice is disappearing, and a new understanding of the subject is arising in the minds of many of the best individuals of the race. It is the purpose of this book to help to dispel the ignorance and misconception concerning this great subject of Birth Control, and to aid in presenting the higher and nobler aspects of the general movement to the attention of those who are concerned with the advance and progress of the race as a whole, and of the individual members thereof.

The student of the subject of Birth Control will fall into grievous error if he begins his consideration of the subject under the impression that the questions concerned therein are new to the world of living things. If the process of Birth Control were something which had suddenly sprung into existence in the consciousness of man, without having an antecedent activity in the history of the race, and of living creatures in general, we might well hesitate to go further in the matter without the most serious and prolonged consideration of the entire principle by the careful thought of the wisest of the race. But while such consideration is advisable, as in the case of any and all important problems presenting themselves for solution and judgment, it is found that those so considering the subject have a sound and firm foundation upon which to base their thought and to test their conclusions.

As many thoughtful students of the subject have pointed out to us, the question of Birth Control has been with the race practically since the beginning of human history; and it has its correspondences in the instinctive actions of the lower forms of life. The chief difference is that we are now seeking to deal with these problems consciously, voluntarily, and deliberately, whereas in the past the race has dealt with them more or less unconsciously, by methods of trial and error, through perpetual experiment which has often proved costly but which has all the more clearly brought out the real course of natural processes.

We cannot hope to solve problems so ancient and so deeply rooted as these by merely the rational methods of yesterday and today. To be of value our rational methods must be the revelation in deliberate consciousness of unconscious methods which go far back into the remote past. Our deliberate methods will not be sound except in so far as they are a continuation of those methods which, in the slow evolution of life, have been found sound and progressive on the plane of instinct. This is particularly true in the case of those among us who desire their own line of conduct in the matter to be so closely in accord with natural law, or the law of creation, that to question it would be impious.

It may be accepted without an extended argument or presentation of evidence that at the outset the prime object of Nature seems to have been that of Reproduction. There is evident, without doubt, an effort on the part of Nature to secure economy of method in the attainment of ever greater perfection in the process of reproduction, but we cannot deny that the primary motive seems to be that of reproduction pure and simple. The tendency toward reproduction is indeed so fundamental in Nature that it is impressed with the greatest emphasis upon every living thing. And, as careful thinkers have told us "the course of evolution seems to have been more of an effort to slow down reproduction than to furnish it with new facilities."

Reproduction appears in the history of life even before sex manifests itself. The lower forms of animal and plant life oftener produce themselves without the aid of sex, and some authorities have argued that the presence of sex differentiation serves rather to check active propagation rather than to increase it. If quantity, without regard to quality or variation, be the object of Nature, then that purpose would have been better served by withholding sex-differentiation than by evolving it. As Professor Coulter, a leading American botanist, has well said: "The impression one gains of sexuality is that it represents reproduction under peculiar difficulties."

To those who find it difficult to assimilate this somewhat startling idea, we now present a brief statement of the infinitely greater facility toward reproduction manifested by living creatures lacking in sex-differentiation as compared with those possessing it. It is seen that bacteria among primitive plants, and protozoa among primitive animals, are patterns of very rapid and prolific reproduction, though sex begins to appear in a rudimentary form in very lowly forms of life. A single infusorian becomes in a week the ancestor of millions, that is to say, of far more individuals than could proceed under the most favorable conditions from a pair of elephants in five centuries; and Huxley has calculated that the progeny of a single parthenogenetic aphis, under favorable circumstances, would in a few months outweigh the whole population of China. It must be noted, however, that this proviso "under favorable circumstances" reveals the weak point of Nature's early method of reproduction by enormously rapid multiplication. Creatures so easily produced are easily destroyed; and Nature, apparently in consequence, wastes no time in imparting to them the qualities needed for a high form of life and living.

And, even after sex differentiation had attained a considerable degree of development, Nature seemed slow to abandon her original plan of rapid multiplication of individuals. Among insects so far advanced as the white ants, the queen lays eggs at the enormous rate of 80,000 a day during her period of active life. Higher in the scale, we find the female herring laying 70,000 eggs at one period of delivery. But in both of these cases we find the manifestation of that apparently invariable rule of Nature, viz., that a high birth-rate is accompanied by a heavy death-rate, whether that high death-rate be caused by natural enemies, wars, or disease.

At a certain stage of the evolutionary process, Nature seems to have awakened to a realization of the fact that it was better, from every point of view, to produce a few superior beings rather than a vast number of inferior ones. Here, at last, Nature discloses a heretofore hidden aim, namely, the production of quality rather than quantity; and once she has started on this new path, she has pursued it with even greater eagerness than that of reproduction pure and simple. And here we pause to note a principle laid down by the students of Evolution, viz., that advancing evolution is accompanied by declining fertility.

This new stage of Nature's processes is marked by a constant and invariable manifestation of diminished number of offspring, accompanied by an increased amount of time and care in the creation and breeding of each of the young creatures. Accompanying this, we find that the reproductive life of the creature is shortened, and confined to more or less special periods; these periods beginning much later, and ending much earlier, and even during their continuance tending to operate in cycles of activity. Here, we see, Nature, grown wiser by experience, herself began to exercise her power in the direction of Birth Control—the use of preventive checks on reproduction.

A writer has said along these lines: "As reproduction slackened, evolution was greatly accelerated. A highly important and essential aspect of this greater individuation is a higher survival value. The more complex and better equipped creature can meet and subdue difficulties and dangers to which the more lowly organized creature that came before—produced wholesale in a way which Nature seems to look back on as cheap and nasty—succumbed helplessly without an effort. The idea of economy began to assert itself in the world. It became clear in the course of evolution that it is better to produce really good and highly efficient organisms, at whatever cost, than to be content with cheap production on a wholesale scale. They allowed greater developmental progress to be made, and they lasted better. Even before man began it was proved in the animal world that the death-rate falls as the birth-rate falls."

Let us compare the lowly herring with the highly evolved elephant. The herring multiplies with enormous rapidity and on a vast scale, and it possesses a very small brain, and is almost totally unequipped to grapple with the special difficulties of its life, to which it succumbs on a wholesale scale. A single elephant is carried for about two years in its mother's womb, and is carefully guarded by her for many years after birth; it possesses a large brain, and its muscular system is as remarkable for its delicacy as for its power, and is guided by the most sensitive perceptions. It is fully equipped for all the dangers of life, save for those which have been introduced by the subtle ingenuity of modern man. Though a single pair of elephants produces so few offspring, yet their high cost is justified, for each of them has a reasonable chance of surviving to old age. This contrast, from the point of view of reproduction, of the herring and the elephant, well illustrates the principle of evolution previously referred to. It brings clearly into view the difference between Nature's earlier and her later methods—the ever increasing preference for quality over quantity. Unless we grasp this underlying principle of Nature in its wider aspects we may fail to perceive its operations in the case of man, which latter we may now consider.

It is, of course, impossible to speak positively regarding the birth-rate and death-rate of the pre-historic primitive races of mankind, for there is not data upon which to base such a report. But reasoning upon the basis of conditions existing among the primitive tribes of the present time we are justified in holding that in the early stages of the evolution of the race there was manifested a high birth-rate and a correspondingly high death-rate. Upon the basis of conditions now existing among savage tribes it would appear that primitive man has a higher birth-rate than the average of mankind today, and likewise a higher death-rate. The rapidly increasing number of children born to the tribe was counteracted by deaths among children caused by neglect, poverty, and disease. In some cases the population was prevented from becoming larger than the means of subsistence justified by the practice of infanticide.

As to the condition of the race in the early stages of "modern" civilization, we have modern Russia as a surviving instance of this stage. In modern Russia we find, side by side with the progress in neighboring nations, conditions which a few centuries ago existed all over Europe. Here we have an enormous birth-rate, and a terrible death-rate caused by ignorance, superstition, insanitation, filth, bad food, impure water, plagues, famines, and other accompaniments of overcrowding and misery. We find a mortality among young children which sometimes destroys more than half of the children born before they have attained the age of five years. As high as is the Russian birth-rate, it is a matter of record that at times the death-rate has actually exceeded it. And among the survivors there is found a startlingly large percentage of chronic and incurable diseases, with a large number of cases of blindness and other defects.

Similar results follow in China, where the birth-rate is exceptionally high, and the death-rate correspondingly large; and where there is a large percentage of inferior physical development and pathological defects, the evil conditions which produce death also tending to produce deterioration in the survivors. In both of these countries we have an example of the result of unrestricted reproduction, and unrestricted destruction—as among herrings, so among men. And yet this condition of unrestricted reproduction is the logical goal of certain persons who, inspired by the best possible intentions, in their ignorance and criminal rashness would dare to arrest that fall in the birth-rate which is now beginning to spread its influence in every civilized land.

In Western Europe before the nineteenth century the population increased very slowly. The enormous birth-rate was nearly equalled by the exceedingly heavy death-rate caused by plagues, pestilences, and famine, and by the frequent wars large and small. The mortality among young children was particularly heavy. Writers have pointed out that the old family records show frequently two or three children of the same Christian name, the first child having died and its name given to a successor.

During the last quarter of the eighteenth century, when machinery was introduced and a new industrial era opened, the birth-rate rose rapidly. Factories springing up gave increased support to many, and as children were employed as "hands" in the mills at an early age, the richest family was the one with most children. The population began to increase rapidly. But soon disease, misery, and poverty arose from filth and insanitation, immorality and crime, overcrowding and child-labor, drink and lack of sane courses of conduct.

In time, however, progress set in, and social reformers began the great movement for the betterment of the environment, sanitation, shorter hours of labor, and restriction of child-labor, factory regulation, etc. And when the environment is bettered, the death-rate drops, and the birth-rate accompanies it on its downward progress. As Leroy-Beaulieu says: "The first degree of prosperity in a rude population with few needs tends toward prolificness of reproduction; a later degree of prosperity, accompanied by all the feelings and ideas stimulated by the reduction of such prolificness."

The law of the reduction of reproduction in response to the improvement of environment is a natural law, arising from fixed biological principles. This is because when we improve the environment we improve the individual situated in that environment; and the improvement of the individual has always resulted in a check upon reproduction. We must remember, however, that this change is not the result of conscious or voluntary action; instead it is the result of unconscious activities and instinctive urge. As Sir Shirley Murphy has said: "Birth Control is a natural process, and though in civilized men, endowed with high intelligence, it necessarily works in some measure voluntarily and deliberately, it is probable that it also works, as in the evolution of the lower animals, to some extent automatically."

Science shows us that even among the most primitive micro-organisms; when placed under unfavorable conditions as to food and environment, they tend to pass into a reproductive phase and by sporulation or otherwise begin to produce new individuals rapidly. This, of course, because of the fact that their death-rate is increased, and an increased birth-rate must be manifested in order to maintain a balance. If the environment be improved, the death-rate decreases, and this is followed by a fall in the birth-rate, according to the constant laws of Nature manifesting in such cases.

The same law is seen to be manifested in the case of Man. Improve his environment, and his death-rate drops, which is accompanied by a falling birth-rate. Here, once more we see the application of the scientific axiom "Improve the environment and reproduction is checked." As Leroy-Beaulieu has said: "The tendency of civilization is to reduce the birth-rate." And as Professor Benjamin Moore has said: "Decreased reproduction is the simple biological reply to good economic conditions." And as Havelock Ellis has said: "Those who desire a higher birth-rate are desiring, whether they know it or not, the increase of poverty, ignorance, and wretchedness."

Among men, Birth Control has now evolved from the unconscious and instinctive phase, and is now unfolding and manifesting on the plane of conscious and voluntary activity. The influence of deliberate intention and conscious design is now one of the important factors in the process. Here at this point we reach a totally new aspect of reproduction. In the past stages of evolution the original impetus toward reproduction has been checked and directed by Nature, working along instinctive and unconscious lines; and the result has been an extreme diminution of the number of off-spring; a prolongation of the time devoted to the breeding and care of each new member of the family, in harmony with its greatly prolonged life; a spacing out of the intervals between the offspring; and, as a result, a vastly greater development of each individual, and an ever better equipment for the task of living. All this was slowly attained automatically, without any conscious volition on the part of the individuals, even when they were human beings, who were the agents.

Now, however, we are confronted with a change which we may regard as, in some respects, the most momentous sudden advance in the whole history of reproduction, namely, the process of reproductive progress now become conscious and deliberately volitional. Birth control, no longer automatic, is now being directed by human mind and will precisely to the attainment of ends which Nature has been struggling after for millions of years; and, being consciously and deliberately directed, it is now enabled to avoid many of the pitfalls into which the unconscious method fell.

Havelock Ellis says: "The control and limitation of reproductive activity by conscious and volitional effort is an attempt by open-eyed intelligence and foresight to attain those ends which Nature through untold generations has been painfully yet tirelessly struggling for. The deliberate co-operation of Man in the natural task of Birth Control represents an identification of the human will with what we may, if we choose, regard as the divinely appointed law of the world. We can well believe that the great pioneers, who, a century ago, acted in the spirit of this faith may have echoed the thought of Kepler when, on discovering his great planetary law, he exclaimed in rapture: 'O God! I think Thy thoughts after Thee!'"

The following brief general history of the modern Birth Control movement is quoted from Havelock Ellis, and will be of interest to students of the subject: "The pioneers of modern Birth Control were English. Among them Malthus occupies the first place. That distinguished man, in his great and influential work, 'The Principles of Population,' in 1798, emphasized the immense importance of foresight and self-control in procreation, and the profound significance of birth limitation for human welfare. Malthus, however, relied on ascetic self-restraint, a method which could only appeal to the few; he had nothing to say for the regulation of conception in intercourse. That was suggested twenty years later, very cautiously by James Mill, the father of John Stuart Mill, in the 'Encyclopaedia Britannica.' Four years afterwards, Mill's friend, the Radical reformer, Francis Place, advocated this method more clearly. Finally, in 1831, Robert Dale Owen, the son of the great Robert Owen, published his 'Moral Physiology,' in which he set forth the ways of preventing conception; while a little later the Drysdale brothers, ardent and unwearying philanthropists, devoted their energies to a propaganda which has been spreading ever since and has now conquered the whole civilized world.

"It was not, however, in England but in France, so often at the head of an advance in civilization, that Birth Control first firmly became established, and that the extravagantly high birth rate of earlier times began to fall; this happened in the first half of the nineteenth century, whether or not it was mainly due to voluntary control. In England the movement came later, and the steady decline in the English birth-rate, which is still proceeding, began in 1877. In the previous year there had been a famous prosecution of Bradlaugh and Mrs. Besant for disseminating pamphlets describing the methods of preventing conception; the charge was described by the Lord Chief Justice, who tried the case, as one of the most ill-advised and injudicious ever made in a court of justice. But it served an undesigned end by giving enormous publicity to the subject and advertising the methods it sought to suppress. There can be no doubt, however, that even apart from this trial the movement would have proceeded on the same lines. The times were ripe, the great industrial expansion had passed its first feverish phase, social conditions were improving, education was spreading. The inevitable character of the movement is indicated by the fact that at the very same time it began to be manifested all over Europe, indeed in every civilized country of the world.

"At the present time the birth-rate (as well as usually the death-rate) is falling in every country of the world sufficiently civilized to possess statistics of its own vital movement. The fall varies in rapidity. It has been considerable in the more progressive countries; it has lingered in the more backward countries. If we examine the latest statistics for Europe, we find that every country, without exception, with a progressive and educated population, and a fairly high state of social well-being, presents a birth-rate below 30 per 1,000. We also find that every country in Europe in which the mass of the people are primitive, ignorant, or in a socially unsatisfactory condition (even although the governing classes may be progressive or ambitious) shows a birth-rate of above 30 per 1,000. France, Great Britain, Belgium, Holland, the Scandinavian countries, and Switzerland are in the first group. Russia, Austro-Hungary, Italy, Spain, and the Balkan countries are in the second group. The German Empire was formerly in the second group, but now comes within the first group, and has carried on the movement so energetically that the birth-rate of Berlin is already below that of London, and that at the present rate of decline the birth-rate of the German Empire will before long sink to that of France. Outside Europe, in the United States just as much as in Australia and New Zealand, the same progressive movement is proceeding with equal activity."

The same authority sums up the present attitude of the advocates of scientific and rational Birth Control, as follows: "The wide survey of the question of birth limitation has settled the question of the desirability of the adoption of preventing conception, and finally settled those who would waste out time with their fears that it is not right to control conception. We know now on whose side are the laws of God and Nature. We realize that in exercising control over the entrance gate of life we are not fully performing, consciously and deliberately, a great human duty, but carrying on rationally a beneficial process which has, more blindly and wastefully, been carried on since the beginning of the world. There are still a few persons ignorant enough or foolish enough to fight against the advance of civilization in this matter; we can well afford to leave them severely alone, knowing that in a few years all of them will have passed away. It is not our business to defend the control of birth, but simply discuss how we may most wisely exercise that control."

LESSON XI
THE FETICH OF THE BIRTH-RATE

The first stage of this evolution of popular opinion may be said to have been begun about 1850, and to have ended about 1880. In this stage the ideal of a large and rapidly increasing birth-rate became a popular fetich before which all men and women were supposed to fall down and render worship. In this period public opinion manifested great satisfaction and joy in the evidences of a high and rapidly increasing birth-rate. It was held that this increasing birth-rate tended toward the success and glory of the particular nation, and incidentally to the race as a whole. The idea of Quantity was elevated to the throne of public favor, and the question of Quality was ignored or overlooked.

This period was one of an unusual expansion of industry, and the rising birth-rate was regarded as a token that the world was destined to be exploited and eventually governed by the people of those nations who were able to demonstrate the greatest efficiency in industrial pursuits, and who at the same time were wise enough to increase their respective populations by an increasing birth-rate. The populace were excited by the idea of the dominance and prosperity of their own countrymen, while the leaders of industry were delighted with the idea of an increasing supply of laborers which would tend to keep down the rate of wages which otherwise would have reached proportions which would have interfered with competition with other countries. At the same time, the militarists were secretly delighted by the signs of an increasing supply of military material with which to build up gigantic armies.

A writer on the state of public opinion on this subject during this period has well said: "It seemed to the more exuberant spirits that a vast British Empire, or a mighty Pan-German, might be expected to cover the whole world. France, with its low and falling birth-rate, was looked down at with a contempt as a decadent country inhabited with a degenerate population. No attempt to analyze the birth-rate, to ascertain what are really the biological, social, and economic accompaniments of a high birth-rate, made any impression on the popular mind. They were drowned in a general shout of exultation."

But this period of uncritical optimism was followed by a natural reaction. The pendulum stopped in its course, and soon began to swing in the opposite direction. Here, about 1880, the second stage may be said to have begun. Public opinion began to manifest a subtle change, and this mental attitude was accompanied by a physical manifestation in the form of a decreasing birth-rate. The rate of births began to fall rapidly, and has continued to fall steadily since that time.

The writer above quoted from says of this second period: "In France the birth-rate fell slowly, in Italy more rapidly, and in England and Prussia still more rapidly. As, however, the fall began earliest in France, the birth-rate was lower there than in the other countries named. For the same reason it was lower in England than in Prussia, although England stands in this respect at almost exactly the same distance from Prussia today (1917) as thirty years ago, the fall having occurred at the same rate in both countries. It is quite possible that in the future it may become more rapid in Prussia than in England, for the birth-rate of Berlin is lower than the birth-rate of London, and urbanization is proceeding at a more rapid rate in Germany than in England."

It is not difficult to arrive at the psychological reason underlying this great change in public opinion, as manifested in this second stage. In the first place, the wonderful era of world-expansion was arrested, by natural causes well understood by students of sociology. The ambitious dreams of world-empires were rudely interrupted. Moreover, public opinion was being affected by a quiet education along the lines of sociology and economics.

The working classes began to perceive, on the one hand, the tendency of overpopulation to hold down, or even decrease, the scale of wages. The evils of over-production, and of under-consumption were dimly perceived. And, on the other hand, the capitalists began to perceive that another factor was at work—one which they had failed to include in their optimistic calculations. Instead of the cheaper wage rate which they had expected by reason of the over-abundance of human material, they found that the growth of popular education in the democratic countries had caused the working classes to demand greater comforts of life, and to oppose the cheapening of human labor. And at the same time, the masses began to revolt against the idea of raising children to become "cannon fodder" for ambitious autocratic rulers. The masses began to protest against selling their labor and their lives so cheaply.

These changed viewpoints of the working classes began to result in attempts on their part to form associations to resist the tendency on the part of capitalists to force down the scale of wages to fit the increased population. Trade unions flourished and became powerful, and the same impulse carried many into the ranks of socialism, and still beyond into the fold of anarchism and syndicalism. And, here note this significant fact, with these new perceptions and these new movements among the masses, the birth-rate began to fall rapidly.

The writer above quoted from says of this period: "The pessimists were faced by horrors on both sides. On the one hand, they saw that the ever-increasing rate of human production which seemed to them the essential condition of national, social, even moral progress, had not only stopped but was steadily diminishing. On the other hand, they saw that, even so far as it was maintained, it involved, under modern conditions, nothing but social commotion and economic disturbance. There are still many pessimists of this class alive among us even today, alike in England and Germany, but a new generation is growing up, and this question is now entering another phase."

It would seem that the race is now well started in the third period, phase, or stage of this conception of the birth-rate. Even the Great War is not likely to seriously interrupt its ultimate progress, though conditions in all civilized countries will unquestionably be disturbed by the unusual conditions now prevailing and caused by the great conflict. The spirit of this third stage seems to be that the Truth is to be found between the two extremes, viz.: (1) the extreme of passive optimism of the first stage; and (2) the extreme of passive pessimism of the second stage. It realizes that there is excellent ground for hope in better things; but it equally realizes that hope alone is vain, and will accomplish nothing unless it is accompanied with and directed by a clear intellectual vision manifested in individual and social action based on that clear intellectual vision.

The writer above quoted from says of this developing period: "It is today beginning to be seen that the old notion of progress by means of reckless multiplication is vain. It can only be effected at a ruinous cost of death, disease, poverty, and misery. We see this in the past history of Western Europe, as we still see it in the history of Russia. Any progress effected along that line—if 'progress' it can be called—is now barred, for it is utterly opposed to those democratic conceptions which are ever gaining greater influence among us. Moreover, we are now better able to analyze demographic phenomena, and are no longer satisfied with any crude statements regarding the birth-rate. We realize that they need interpretation. They have to be considered in relation to the sex-constitution and the age-constitution of the population, and above all, they must be viewed in relation to the infant mortality rate.

"The bad aspect of the French birth-rate is not so much its lowness as that it is accompanied by a high infantile mortality. The fact that the German birth-rate is higher than the English ceases to be a matter of satisfaction when it is realized that German infantile mortality is vastly greater than English. A high birth-rate is no sign of a high civilization. But we are beginning to feel that a high infantile death-rate is a sign of a very inferior civilization. A low birth-rate with a low infant death-rate not only produces the same increase in population as a high birth-rate with a high death-rate, which always accompanies it (for there are no examples of a high birth-rate with a low death-rate), but it produces it in a way which is far more worthy of our admiration in this matter than the way of Russia and China where opposite conditions prevail."

The evolutionary process which all students of sociology clearly perceive to have been underway in the matter of the attitude of public opinion toward the birth-rate, and which is now underway with increased impetus, is perceived to be a natural process. It is a natural process which has been underway from the beginning of the living world. For a long time it operated and manifested along unconscious and instinctive lines of activity, but now it has emerged into the light of human consciousness and manifests along the lines of conscious, voluntary, and deliberate human action.

In its present state of evolutionary progress human thought along these lines has found expression in what is generally known as "Birth Control." The process which has been working slowly through the ages, attaining every new forward step with waste and pain, is henceforth destined to be carried out voluntarily, in the light of human reason, foresight, and self-restraint. The rise of Birth Control may be said to correspond with the rise of social and sanitary science in the first half of the nineteenth century, and to be indeed an essential part of that movement.

The new doctrine of Birth Control is now firmly established in all the most progressive and enlightened countries of Europe, notably in France and England; in Germany, where formerly the birth-rate was very high, Birth Control has developed with extraordinary rapidity during the present century. In Holland its principles and practice are freely taught by physicians and nurses to the mothers of the people, with the result that there is in Holland no longer any necessity for unwanted babies, and this small country possesses the proud privilege of the lowest death-rate in Europe.

In the free and enlightened Democratic communities on the other side of the globe, in Australia and New Zealand, the same principles and practice are generally accepted, with the same beneficent results. On the other hand, in the more backward and ignorant countries of Europe, Birth Control is still little known, and death and disease flourish. This is the case in those eight European countries which come at the bottom of the list of the Birth Control scale, and in which the birth-rate is the highest and the death-rate the heaviest—the two rates maintaining such a constant correspondence as to lead to the inevitable conclusion that they are associated as cause and effect.

But even in the more progressive countries Birth Control has not been established without a struggle, which has frequently ended in a hypocritical compromise, its principles being publicly ignored or denied and its practice privately accepted. For, at the great and vitally important point in human progress which Birth-Control represents, we see really the conflict of two moralities. The morality of the ancient world is here confronted by the morality of the new world.

The old morality, knowing nothing of science and the process of Nature as worked out in the evolution of life, contented itself with assuming as a basis the early chapters of Genesis in which the children of Noah are represented as entering an empty earth which it is their business to populate diligently. So it came about that for this morality, still innocent of eugenics, recklessness was almost a virtue. Children were held to be given by God; if they died or were afflicted by congenital disease, it was the dispensation of God, and, whatever imprudence the parents might commit, the pathetic faith still ruled that "God will provide."

But in the new morality it is realized that in these matters Divine action can only be made manifest in human action, that is to say through the operation of our own enlightened reason and resolved will. Prudence, foresight, self-restraint—virtues which old morality looked down upon with benevolent contempt—assume a position of first importance. In the eyes of the new morality the ideal woman is no longer the meek drudge condemned to endless and often ineffectual child-bearing, but the free and instructed woman, able to look before and after, trained in a sense of responsibility alike to herself and to the race, and determined to have no children but the best.

Such were the two moralities which came into conflict during the nineteenth century. They are irreconcilable and each firmly rooted, one in ancient religion and tradition, the other in progressive science and reason. Nothing was possible in such a clash of opposing ideas but a feeble and confused compromise such as we find still prevailing in various countries of Old Europe. This is not a satisfactory solution, however inevitable, and is especially unsatisfactory by the consequent obscurantism which placed difficulties in the way of spreading a knowledge of the methods of Birth Control among the masses of the population. For the result has been that while the more enlightened and educated have exercised a control over the size of their families, the poorer and more ignorant—those who should have been offered every facility and encouragement to follow in the same path—have been left, through a conspiracy of silence, to carry on helplessly the bad customs of their forefathers. This social neglect has had the result that the superior family stocks have been tampered by the recklessness of the inferior stocks.

In America, we find the two moralities in active conflict today. Until recently America has meekly accepted at the hand of Old Europe the traditional prescription. On the surface, the ancient morality had been complacently, almost unquestionably, accepted in America, even to the extent of tacitly permitting the existence of a vast extension of abortion, under the surface of society— a criminal practice which ever flourishes where Birth Control is neglected.

But today, a new movement is perceptible in America. It would seem that, almost in a flash, America has awakened to the true significance of the issue. With that direct vision of hers, that swift practicality of action, and above all, that sense of the democratic nature of all social progress, we see her resolutely beginning to face this great problem. In her vigorous tongue she is demanding "What is all this secrecy about, anyway? Let us turn on the Light!" And the best authorities agree that America's answer to the demand will be of the greatest importance, and of immense significance to the whole world.

In concluding this portion of our discussion, I ask my readers to consider the following quotations from writers who have touched upon the question of the stimulation of the birth-rate by the State, for the purpose of military policy. These quotations speak for themselves, and need but little comment.

The first authority, a German, whose name has escaped me for the moment, laments the falling birth-rate in his country, and urges his own nation to stimulate it by offering bounties; he says: "Woe to us if we follow the example of the wicked and degenerate people of other nations. Our nation needs men. We have to populate the earth, and to carry the blessings of our Kultur all over the world. In executing that high mission we cannot have too much human material in defending ourselves against the aggression of other nations who are jealous of us and our achievements and progress. Let us promote parentage by law; let us repress by law every influence which may encourage a falling birth-rate; otherwise there is nothing left us but speedy national disaster, complete and irremediable."

Havelock Ellis, an Englishman, says: "In Germany for years past it has been difficult to take up a serious periodical without finding some anxiously statistical article about the falling birth-rate, and some wild recommendations for its arrest. For it is the militaristic German who of all Europeans is most worried by this fall; indeed Germans often even refuse to recognize it. Thus today we find Professor Gruber declaring that if the population of the German Empire continues to grow at the rate of the first five years of the present century, it will have reached 250,000,000 at the end of the century. By such a vast increase in population, the Professor complacently concludes, 'Germany will be rendered invulnerable.' But Gruber's estimate is entirely fallacious. German births have fallen, roughly speaking, about 1 per 1,000 of the population, every year since the beginning of the century, and it would be equally reasonable to estimate that if they continue to fall at the present rate (which we cannot, of course, anticipate) births will altogether have ceased in Germany before the end of the century. The German birth-rate reached its climax forty years ago (1871-1880) with 40.7 per 1,000; in 1906 it was 34 per 1,000; in 1909 it was 31 per 1,000; in 1912 it was 28 per 1,000; in an almost measurable period of time, in all probability before the end of the century, it will have reached the same low level as that of France, when there will be but little difference between the 'invulnerability' of France and of Germany, a consummation which, for the world's sake, is far more devoutly to be wished than that anticipated by Gruber."