To the eugenist, a thought obtrudes itself at this point. It is the logical, the link between the cause and the effect. Why do we waste so much time arguing and fighting over non-essentials? Why is the world such a big quarreling-pot over nothing? And the eugenist suggests, if it is not possible, that the explanation may be found, in the fact, that the human family, as a race, is below par; that so many of us are incomplete; that it is the product of the combined mental effort of the unworthy element that makes all the trouble? It is scarcely logical to assume, that an individual who has been brought into the world by healthy, worthy parents, and whose ancestry for generations have been clean, honest people; and whose upbringing and education has been adequate to fit him to become a respectable, decent citizen, could, or would be a trouble maker. On the other hand, can we expect, or are we justified in hoping that an individual whose ancestral record is bad, whose environmental conditions are faulty, whose education has been neglected, who is in all probability physically and mentally deficient, will be capable of conforming to the standards of the other individual? From an imperfect whole, may we not naturally expect bad parts? From a diseased body and mind, may we not look for a low standard of thought and action? And may not these conditions account for the greater part of the little, as as the big, troubles that mar the peace and progress of the race? Will not the elimination of the eugenically unworthy rid the world of its heartaches and sorrows? It is not only a suggestive thought, it is an inspiration for the exercise of the supreme intelligence of the statesman, the sociologist, the teacher and the preacher alike. DIFFERENCES OF PRINCIPLE.--There are more serious differences than those of taste, however. There are differences of principle.