offspring, and 10 per cent were
prostitutes. Criminal tendencies were clearly shown in
24 members of the family, while alcoholism was still more
common. The proportion of feeble-minded was 48 per cent. It was
estimated that the Hill Folk have in the last sixty years cost
the State of Massachusetts, in charitable relief, care of
feeble-minded, epileptic, and insane, conviction and punishment
for crime, prostitution pauperism, etc., at least $500,000.[3]

[3] Danielson and Davenport: _The Hill Folk_. Eugenics Record Office,
Memoir No. 1. 1912. 56 pp.

The Nam family and the Jukes give equally dark pictures as
regards criminality, licentiousness, and alcoholism, and
although feeble-mindedness was not as fully investigated in
these families as in the Kallikaks and the Hill Folk, the
evidence is strong that it was a leading trait. The 784 Nams who
were traced included 187 alcoholics, 232 women and 199 men known
to be licentious, and 40 who became prisoners. It is estimated
that the Nams have already cost the State nearly $1,500,000.[4]

[4] Estabrook and Davenport: _The Nam Family_. Eugenics Record Office
Memoir No. 2. (1912). 85 pp.

Of 540 Jukes, practically one fifth were born out of wedlock, 37
were known to be syphilitic, 53 had been in the poorhouse, 76
had been sentenced to prison, and of 229 women of marriageable
age 128 were prostitutes. The economic damage inflicted upon the
State of New York by the Jukes in seventy-five years was
estimated at more than $1,300,000, to say nothing of diseases
and other evil influences which they helped to spread.[5]

[5] R. L. Dugdale: _The Jukes_. (Fourth edition, 1910.) 120 pp. G. P.
Putnam's Sons.

But why do the feeble-minded tend so strongly to become delinquent? The
answer may be stated in simple terms. Morality depends upon two things:
(a) the ability to foresee and to weigh the possible consequences for
self and others of different kinds of behavior; and (b) upon the
willingness and capacity to exercise self-restraint. That there are many
intelligent criminals is due to the fact that (a) may exist without
(b). On the other hand, (b) presupposes (a). In other words, not
all criminals are feeble-minded, but all feeble-minded are at least
potential criminals. That every feeble-minded woman is a potential
prostitute would hardly be disputed by any one. Moral jud