begin to think that all the world was [ ]lind or partly blind. Now I know the author of that article in the Encyclopedia very well as a very reliable and conservative quiet man. But perhaps he was mistaken. Perhaps we shouldp[sic] place that percentage of all cases of heredity at only nine percent or eight, or seven, or perhaps altogether only five percent of the total number of blind. That would give us roughly 2500 suffering from hereditary blindness. Now how much do these people cost us? It is fair to estimate the minimum cost of each individual, [crossed out], including board and clothes at about $500.00 annually to say nothing of the cost of his education, or his loss to the community as a worker or wager. Now 500 times 2500 is about 1 million and a quarter each year at the lowest estimate that we pay for the support of this group of the blind. Or, if we suppose if each one of them lives on the average about 30 years that gives us a total of at least 37 million that we spend for that group of the blind. Now, who pays all that money? When reduced to the last analyses you and I help to do so. Not only do we support the schools and the asylums, but our pity and kindness, we are ready to do that and more too. And who's[sic] is it? That we are called upon to make these sacrifices? For those ho[sic] are not members of our families, and who have no claims upon us. Then reduced again to the last analysis it is very largely your fault and mine, for, the fact is, that the vast majority of men and women know nothing about eugenics, and most of them never heard of it And here we come back to [crossed out] see the truth of the statement made by Sir James MacKenzie We are so much interested in the study of eugenics itself, that except in rare instances we do not preach it on the high ways and in the by- ways as we xx should.