Eugenics is the science of improving the stock; of making the offspring as nearly perfect as possible. It has been practiced in the breeding of animals for a long time. Every farmer knows the value of having the best cattle he can obtain, and having them, of mating his cows with thoroughbred bulls. Yet people still shudder at the thought of applying its principles to the human race. Its formulator, Francis Galton, defined it as “the science which deals with all influences that improve the inborn qualities of a race.” He further explained this idea and expanded it, saying that the aim of eugenics is to check the birthrate of the Unfit instead of allowing them to come into being, though doomed in large numbers to perish prematurely. The second object is the improvement of the race by furthering productivity of the Fit, by early marriages and healthful rearing of their children. There is much to be said for and gainst the wholesale acceptance of this theory. In essence, it imperils the personal selection for marriage; and comes very close to being an officious attempt to interfere with human freedom. Yet, it is gaining ground in the world’s legislation. To the individual, it may seem to impose unnecessary hardships and restrictions; but that is not its aim. Extreme advocates of eugenics say flatly that “we should rather bring the propagation of the race to the level of the stud-farm, than that it should go on in the old haphazard way which surely leads to catastrophe.” While we do not want science for domestic animals and chance for men, the average thinking person will reject this stringent proposal. But some middle course lies open. Legislation prohibiting certain matings would be obnoxious, but certain laws making health attractive would meet with approval. There are extreme cases when laws should act, not to prohibit mating, but child-bearing. If the state should believe that certain persons were absolutely unfit for parenting children, it is possible, by a simple operation, to insure them against this, without detriment to the health of either sex. There are times when this is highly desirable. Switzerland, in ten years, largely abolished a certain type of feeble-mindedness by this method. If science believes that such traits as feeble-mindedness, insanity, epilepsy, dipsomania and syphilis are inheritable in such proportions that prohibition of offspring should be required, such a law should be resorted to.