this committee has
been at work ever since, under auspices of the Eugenics Record Office,
making a particular study of legal sterilization. It points out[90] that
a sterilization law, to be of the greatest possible value, must:

(1) Consider sterilization as a eugenic measure, not as a punitive or
even therapeutic one.

(2) Provide due process of law, before any operation is carried out.

(3) Provide adequate and competent executive agents.

(4) Designate only proper classes of persons as subject to the law.

(5) Provide for the nomination of individuals for sterilization, by
suitable procedure.

(6) Make an adequate investigation of each case, the family history
being the most important part, and one which is often neglected at
present.

(7) Have express and adequate criteria for determining upon
sterilization.

(8) Designate the type of operation authorized.

(9) Make each distinct step mandatory and fix definitely the
responsibility for it.

(10) Make adequate appropriation for carrying out the measure.

Tested by such standards, there is not a sterilization law in existence
in the United States at the time this is written that is wholly
commendable; and those introduced in various states during the last few
years, but not passed, show few signs of improvement. It is evident that
the commendable zeal has not had adequate guidance, in the drafting of
sterilization legislation. The committee above referred to has drawn up
a model law, and states which wish to adopt a program of legislative
sterilization should pass a measure embodying at least the principles of
this model law. But, as we have pointed out, wholesale sterilization is
an unsatisfactory substitute for segregation. There are cases where it
is advisable, in states too poor or niggardly to care adequately for
their defectives and delinquents, but eugenists should favor segregation
as the main policy, with sterilization for the special cases as
previously indicated.

There is another way in which attempts have recently been made to
restrict the reproduction of anti-social persons: by putting
restrictions on marriage. This form of campaign, although usually
calling itself eugenic, has been due far less to eugenists than to sex
hygienists who have chosen to sail under a borrowed flag. Every eugenist
must wish them success in their efforts to promote sex hygiene, but it
is a matter of regret that they can not place their efforts in the
proper lig