On the other hand, there can be very little doubt that any general adoption of sterilization would, in actual practice, lead to the non-segregation of a large number of defectives who should be under care and thus to an increase of the foul evils mentioned." Having thus stated the arguments against sterilization the Committee must now present the other side of the question. In the first place, it is evident that, as far as the United States is concerned, the extension of sterilization of the mentally defective has received a grave set-back by reason of the declaration of the Supreme Court of the United States that the laws in certain States permitting sterilization are unconstitutional. This ruling, of course, does not apply to New Zealand. Further, opponents of sterilization ask to be shown its good results; but obviously the results cannot emerge in one generation or in a comparatively short space of time, but only in the ultimate lessening of the proportion of mental defectives in the community by diminishing the hereditary supply. There is no doubt also that much confusion exists in the minds of the public as to the meaning of sterilization and desexualization or castration. The process of sterilization, as has been shown, involves only a simple and safe operation and has the sole effect of preventing reproduction. Sterilization, therefore, should not be loaded with the objections which apply to the far-reaching effects of castration. The former, unlike the latter, is not prone to produce harmful effects upon the mind or morals of the sterilized individual. The assertion that "sterilization at the present time is not a practical proposition" is difficult to understand. It is certainly practicable, and is as likely to be favoured as opposed by public opinion, especially that section of the public that understands the difference between simple sterilization and desexualization. As regards the suggestion that sterilization may lead to new foci of venereal disease, it must be borne in mind that the unsterilized feeble-minded are already prone to sexual promiscuity, and there is no evidence that sterilization would increase this tendency. The opponents of sterilization offer as an alternative only permanent segregation to prevent the transmission of mental defect. It is evident, however, that the cost of the segregation of all mental defectives capable of reproducing other mental defectives would be exceedingly heavy. The Committee advocates powers of segregation and of sterilization, these powers to be placed in the hands of the Eugenic Board, under proper safeguards and the right of appeal.