Apparently there would be no objection to that from those who could truly swear to it. If so, the license would be granted as usual. But, if any applicant for a marriage licence, can not, or will not sign and swear to some such statement, then the objection to do so indicates that such an application also suspects that he or she has a tendency to transmit blindness. Moreover, no matter how wealthy both of the parties to the proposed marriage may be at that time, it is at least possible that some time the future parents may become impoverished, and the blind child or children may become a public charge. Now it is also a well-established custom for a state or county to protect by insurance itself, against loss by fire, by accident, by dishonesty of its employees, or otherwise. Then why not against the support of blind children? In the same way there should be a law which would compel the applicants for a marriage licence, to give a bond, satisfactory to the county official that any blind child born to them should not become a public charge. The amount of that bond should probably be about one thousand dollars. It is true that some of those blind children cost the county in which they are born five or ten thousand dollars or more. But no one can fortel[sic] that cost, and in order to avoid the appearance of trying to penalize a person who is himself innocent of intentional harm, it would be better to make that bond a moderate one. Therefore in accordance with the suggestion of Sir James MacKenzie which he used in his introduction, and which I also used in introducing this short paper, I hope that this gathering of those who are interested in genetics in approving the action of legislators may become interested in the subject. [crossed out] therefore, at the present time, I shall venture to offer [crossed out] the following