Syphilis that affects the nervous system as in tabes and paresis is an incurable syphilis, and there is no means whereby any physician, no matter how skilful he may be, can tell whether or not a given patient has such an infection. The physician, then, who tells a syphilitic that he or she is cured and lets such a person marry is responsible for all the evils that result from his rashness. Once a syphilitic, not necessarily always a syphilitic; but once a syphilitic, _possibly_ and probably always a syphilitic, and that no matter what the treatment or the lack of clinical symptoms. Damaged goods of this kind are to be looked upon as damaged goods forever. Any man or woman, then, who has ever had a clear case of syphilis (and the diagnosis is easy, as a rule) is likely to be for the remainder of life a source of syphilitic infection. There is even question of late of spirochete-carriers, as there are typhoid-carriers and diphtheria-carriers, who may infect others while not suffering themselves. If one who has been a syphilitic marries without informing the other party to the contract of the condition, the injustice is, without doubt, very grave. I should call such concealment a mortal sin, and a condition exposing the sacrament to sacrilege. Suppose the second party is informed of the old infection and is then foolish enough to risk the marriage. No one but an experienced physician has any notion of the indescribable horror that may come of taking this risk, and no one has the right to expose his own body to infection by syphilis for the advantage of marriage. There is no approach to a juridic equilibrium between these two conditions. If in such a marriage children are begotten and infected, (1) embryos will die without baptism; (2) later possible children will be born who will die of congenital syphilis; (3) possible children who will escape syphilis; (4) children who may have to pass through tabes or paresis to death, after begetting other degenerates. A syphilitic embryo which dies without baptism is better than no child at all. It will live in a state of natural happiness after abortion. A baptized child which has congenital syphilis is immeasurably better off than a sound child that lacks baptism. Eugenics as a prudent investigation of conditions before marriage is a good thing; eugenics as the drivel of agitators, who cannot tell the difference between a gentleman and a corn-fed hog, is quite another thing. The marriage, therefore, of a person who has been syphilitic to one who knows or does not know of this condition gets its mortality chiefly from the damage to one of the contracting parties which is imminent. It is difficult to estimate the morality of the act as it refers to the children infected congenitally, and to society.