Memoir: Upon the Formation of a Deaf Variety of the Human Race (1883)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

CHAPTER I I I . DEAP-MUTE OFFSPRING OF DEAF-MUTE MARRIAGES. I n a paper upon " Hereditary Deafness "• (published in 1868), Rev. W . W. Turner, then prin- cipal of the American Asylum, said that " statistics, carefully collated from records kept of deaf- mutes as they have met in conventions at Hartford, show that in 86 families with one parent a congenital deaf-mute, one-tenth of the children were deaf, and in 24 famihes with both parents congenital deaf-mutes, about one-third were born deaf. I n support of this conclusion he presented the following table: TABLE XXIV. Numbei of Number of Namber of Class Parents children children Total families deaf. heanng 1 1 One hearing and 1 congenitally deaf. . 30 1 15 77 92 2 One incidentally and 1 congenitally deal 56 I 6 120 126 3 Both congenitally deaf 24 1 17 40 57 Total 110 38 237 275 Dr. Turner cited in connection with his subject the case of one woman who lived to see great grandchildren, and of these no less than sixteen were deaf-mutes. Regarding intermarriage, he said " I t is a well-known fact that among domestic animals cer- tain unusual variations of form or coloi which sometimes occur among their offspring, may, by a careful selection of others similar and by a continued breeding of like with like, be rendered per- manent, so as to constitute a distinct variety. The same course adopted and pursued in the human race would undoubtedly lead to the same result." He concluded with the remark, " that every consideration of philanthropy as well as the interests of congenitally deaf persons themselves should induce their teachers and friends to urge upon them the impropriety of intermarriage." It 18 reasonable to suppose that, whatever influence Dr. Turner's statements may have exerted upon the marriages of the deaf throughout the country, his conclusions and beliefs must have had considerable weight with the pupils of his own institution, and this may perhaps have been the cause of the decrease in the proportion of intermarriages noted among the pupils of his institution since the date of his paper. (See Table X X I I I . ) In the report of the New York Institution, published in the American Annals of the Deaf and Dumb, July, 1854 (vol. vi, pp. 193 to 241), Dr. Harvey L . Peet gave the following table, showing the number of pupils of the New York Institution married, as compared with the married pupils of other American institutions, and compared with the marriages of the deaf in Europe, no distinc- tion being made between those who were congenitally deaf and those who became deaf from acci- dental causes. • See Pioceediugs National Conference of Princip.ils of Institutions foi the Deaf and Dumb, Washington, D C , 18()8, see, .iLso, Amciic.i II Annals foi tliu De.if .md Dumb, 1308, Vol X I I I , pp 244-246, also .article " Deaf and Dumb " Encyclop.udia Uiit.inuic.i 20 

T H E FORMATION O F A D E A F V A R I E T Y O F T H E HUMAN RAOE 21 Dr. Peet stated that of all the families embiaced in the table about one m twenty have deaf-mute children where both parents are deaf-mutes, and about one m one hundred and thvty-Jive where only one is a deafmv,te; and that the biothers and sisters of a deaf-mute aie about as liable to have deaf mute children as the deaf-mute himself, supposing each to matty into families that have or or each into families that have not shown a predisposition toward deaf dumbness." TABLE XXV. Manied heaiiug Name of institution Married deaf-mutes Males Females Males Females. Pupils of the New York lustitntiou* . .. 19 29 66 77 Pupils of t be Hartford Asylum* 4i 25 104 89 Pupils of the Ohio Asylum . . . 13 4 18 21 Pupils of the Gronningeu Institution (Holland) 28 8 6 6 City of Pans 14 4 15 15 Belgium (census of 18)5) 7 ... 1 1 Ireland (census of 1851) 45 32 5 5 Yorkshire Institution ^England) 1 2 Leipsic Institution (Germauy) 4 1 Prague Institutiou (Bohemia) 6 -.-.. .. 2 " Luxemburfj Institution (Netherlands) 2 ... .. . . Lyons Institution (France) 2 .... Geneva Institntion (Switzerland) 1 .••- .... Kussia Institution (incidental notices) 2 1 Bavaria Institution (incidental notices) 1 Total 188 106 218 217 Deduct the three American institutions 75 58 188 187 Bcmaina for Europe lU 48 30 30 *Some marriages have been deducted from the Hartford list th.it appear also in the New York . list Theio have also been marriages between educated and uiieducatod mutes, oi between deaf- mutes of oni schools and semi-mutes not pupils From this table it appears that at the time of the investigation (1854) marriages of deaf-mutes and especially between two deaf mutes, were far more common m America than in Europe; and that, except among the pupils of the New York Institution, the) e were ttoice as many deaf-mule men with hearing wives, as deaf-mute women with hearing husbands Piincipals of institutions for the deaf and dumb have personal knowledge of their pupils, and may therefore be able to arrive at correct conclusions regarding the results of intermarriage. I t IS extremely diflBcult, if not impossible, for others to arrive at an independent conclusion from the data published in the institution repoits. I t is even impossible to ascertain from these reports the mere number of the deaf oftspiiug recorded as born to the pupils The nature of the difficulty will be understood by an exainxjle. From the 1877 report of the American Asylum we find that— George W. A (born about 1803) "married a deaf-mute" and had 3 deal children. Mary R (born about 1808) "married a deaf-mute" and had 3 deaf children. Jonathan M (born about 1814) "married a deat mute" and had 3 deaf children. Paulina B (born about 1817) "mariied a deaf-mute" and had 3 deaf children. Now the query presents itself, "how many deaf children weie born to these pupils'*" Perhaps Mary E was the wife of George W. A , aud Paulina B xthe wife ot Jonathan M , in which case there are only 6 deaf cliildreu in all. I t is possible, however, that in such cases the males and females were not related in marriage, and upon this supposition there were 12 deaf children. 

22 MEMOIRS O F T H E NATIONAL A C A D E M Y O F SCIENCES. There is generally nothing in the institution reports to guide us to a solution of the problem. I f the names of the husbands and wives of the pupils were recorded it would be possible to arrive at gome conclusion. A s it is, the most we can do is to ascertain the number of deaf children recorded as the offspring of the male pupils and those noted as bom to the female pupils. E v e n though it were possible to arrive at a correct conclusion regarding the total number of deaf offspring recorded m the reports, still we would not be able to ascertain the actual number of deaf children born to the pupils. F o r it is obvious, from the following considerations, that the number recorded is so much less than the number born as to lead to the inference that in a considerable proportion of cases the deaf offspring are not recorded at all until some of the children make their appearance in the institution as pupils. This means that they may not be recorded until 10, 20, or even 25 years after the date of their birth. I may be wrong in such a supposition, but I do not know how otherwise to account for the imperfection of the records: (1) I n the 1877 report of the American Asylum the married male pupils were recorded to have had 36 deaf children born to them and the married female pupils 28. Whereas 57 children of deaf-mute marriages have already been admitted into the institution as pupils (November, 1883*), all of whom were born before the 1877 report was issued. This does not include a number of deaf- mutes who have been admitted into other institutions in New England whose parents were pupils of the American Asylum, nor does it include children too young to be sent from home. (2) I n the 1882 report of the Illinois Institution the married male pupils were recorded to have had 10 deaf children born to them and the married female pupils 8. Whereas 14 children have already been admitted into the Illinois Institution (November, 18831) one or both of whose parents were deaf. (3) A comparison of the tour reports of the American Asylum containing the statistics of the institution shows that only a small proportion of the deaf offspring of the later marriages are recorded in the 1877 report. This will be obvious from the following table: T A B L E XXYL—Congenitally deaf pupils who married deaf-mutes. Recorded number of Number of females Recorded number of Presumed date of mar- Number of males deaf children born deaf children bom riage * married to the males married. to the females Before 1843 . . . 18 4 17 11 Between 1843 and 1857. 42 13 46 5 Between 1857 and 1867. 22 . 30 1 Between 1867 and 1877 38 * 26 - * Deduced from a comparison of tbe foar reports of I ho American Asjiani (See Introdactlon to Table X X I i r ) From this table it appears that 116 congenital deaf-mutes (males and females) have married deaf-mutes since the 1857 report was issued and that only one deaf child resulted from these marnages (!). This is most extraordinary, in view of the results obtained by Dr. Turner, which were based upon the marriages of the pupils of the same institution, and we must conclude that the records of the later marriages are defective so far as the deaf offspring are concerned. A n examination of the tables in the appendix shows that of all the pupils of the Amencan Asylum and Illinois Institution 445 males and 371 females are recorded to have married. I n the 445 families formed by the males there were (according to the reports) 46 deaf children, or 10.3 deaf children for every 100 families; <iii<l m the 371 families formed by the females there were 36 deaf children, or 9.7 in 100 families. 'Reported to the writer by Mi Williams, the proMnt principal of the institution t Reported to the writer by Di Gillett, the jnescnt principal of Illinois Institution 

THE FORMATION O F A D E A F V A R I E T Y OF T H E HUMAN R A C E . 23 If we add together the total number of males and females reported to have married and the total number of deaf children stated to have been born to them, we obtain the following figures: 816 individuals married, aud 82 deaf offspring. We cannot conclude irom this that the records indicate that 82 deaf children were born to the 816 pupils referred to, for many of the male pupils mentioned had undoubtedly married female deaf mutes educated m the same institution with themselves. I n such cases the deaf oftspnng were probably xecorded twice—once under the name of the father and once under the name of the mother. I f we desire to obtain, not the actual number of deaf children recorded to have been born to the pupils, but the proportionate number, we may safely add together the children recorded to have been born to the male and female pupils; for, if 816 families have 82 deaf children, the proportionate number of deaf children (10 for every 100 families) is a mean between the results obtained from the marriages of the males and females considered separately, and is more reliable than either from being based on larger numbers. I n the following tables this plan of addition has been adopted, and it must be remembered that the number of families noted and the number of deaf children born, as deduced from the reports of the American Asylum and Illinois Institution, must not bo taken to indicate the actual number of families formed by the pupils of these institutions, nor the actual number of deaf children born to them. They simply indicate a proportion, which is expressed in the third column by a percentage. If none of the males married females recorded in the same reports, then the figures in the following tables would indicate actual as well as proportionate numbers; but this is not the case. \ T A B L E XXVII.—Proportion of deaf offspring resulting from the marriages of deaf-mutes. [Deduced from the reports of the American Asylum and Illinois Institution ] Number of deaf Percentage (number Married couples Nuitlber of families of dear children to children every 100 families). Both parties deaf-mutes 654 66 10.1 One party a deaf-mute 162 16 9.9 One or both parties deaf-mutes 816 82 10.0 The following tables enable us to compare the above results with those obtained from each institution, considered separately: T A B L E XXVIII.—Proportion of deaf offspring as deduced from repoi ts of Illinois Institution and American Asylum. I L L I N O I S INSTITUTION N umber of deaf Percentage (number Married couples Number of families of deaf children to children every 100 families) Both parties deaf-mutes 152 17 11 2 One party a deaf-mute 22 1 4.5 One or both parties deaf-mutes 174 18 10 3 AMERICAN ASYLUM. 502 4') 9 8 140 15 10 1 One or both parties deaf-mutes. . 642 64 10.0 

24 MEMOIRS O F T H E NATIONAL A C A D E M Y O F SCIENCES. r The percentages obtained indicate, of course, the number of deaf children for every 100 fam- ilies as recorded m the reports, and not the actual number of deaf children for every 100 families (which IS known to be greater). The general results obtained from the two institution reports are remarkably concordant. In the case of the American Asylum, however, it appears that the pupils who married hearing- persons had a larger proportion of deaf children than those who married deaf-mutes (') Such a remarkable result requires explanation. The pupils assumed to have married hearing persons are simply recnjded in the report as "married," but from private correspondence with the present principal ^MI Williams) I find that in most, if not in all, cases so recorded the record is really intended to indicate marriage with a hearing person. Even in the case of the congenitally deaf pupils of the American Asylum it appears that those who married hearing persons had a larger projiortion of deaf oflspring than those who mar- ried deaf-mutes. The following table shows that this result can be deduced not only from the tables m the appendix, buc from the table quoted above from Dr. Turuei's paper on Hereditary Deafness: TABLE XXIX. " fnn^Tr'.U nf i)3r} Kesults flOlD 1877 rCpOlt of can 3 1 " ' * ' " ^ " " " - American Asyluj;. J2 Mairi.ases of the consienit.ilh dcif ,2 —' <D » u ail .a c !5 c S-SS a •-A 3 'A III One parent congenitally deaf and the other a heanng peison . . . 30 15 50 0 57 14 24 6 Both parents deal-mutes (one congen- itally de.ll and the other inciden- tally deal) 56 fa 10 7 (?) (?) (?) Both parents deaf-mutes (both con- genitally deaf) 24 17 70 9 (?) (') (') Both parents deaf-mutes (one oi both congenitally deaf) 80 23 28 7 239 34 14 2 * Class 4 givfs summation of classes 2 and i I have already stated that lu the majority ot the cases that have fallen under my personal observation where a deaf-mute was married to a hearing person that the hearing person belonged to a family containing deaf mutes, and this is significant m the light of the results deduced above, especially when we remember that the late Dr. Harvey L . Peet found that " the brothers and sisters of a deaf mute are about .is liable to Lavedeaf mute children as the deaf-mute himself, suppos- ing each to marry into families that have or each into families that have not shown a predisposition toward deaf dumbness." I f we examine the cases of the pupils who are piesumed to have married hearing persons in the light of this idea, separating the sporadic cases from those who have deaf- mute relations, we obtain the following lesults We find from the tables m the appendix that 162 deaf-mutes were "mamed," presumably, to hearing persons. Of these deaf-mutes 55 are stated to have had deaf-mute relatives, and they are recorded to have had 15 deaf children, or more than 27 deaf children for every 100 families; on the other hand, 107 of these deat mutes weie noted as sporadic cases, and only one deaf child is recorded as the ott»pring of the maniages ' 

T H E FORMATION O F A D E A F V A R I E T Y O F T H EHUMAN RACE, 25 We have here a clear indicntioii that a hereditary tendency towards deafness, as indicated by the possession of deaf relatives, is a most important element in determining the production of deaf off- spring: The following table shows that it may even be a more important element than the mere fact of congenital deafness in one or both of the parents. T A B L E X X X . — B e a f - m u l e offspring of deaf-mute marriages. [Results deduced from the tables in tlic appendix, combining the figures obtaiucd from the reports of the American Asylum and Illinois Institution. ] a g Description of married couples. Bll.^2 J3 q> -' a) g<« > a o o (1) Father known to be a dcaf-iiiufe (summation of all cases where the cause of father's deafness is stated): (a) Father recoideil to be congenitally deaf ' 187 25 13.3 (i) Father recorded to be iion-congcnitally deaf '. 237 18 7.6 (2) Mother known to be a deaf-mute (summation of all cases where the cause of mother's deafuess is st.nted): (n) Mother recorded to be congenifiilly deaf , 173 31 17.9 (6) Mother recorded to be non-congenitally deaf 179 .4 2.9 (3) Father known to be a deaf-mute (suuiniatioii of all such cases); (a) Father kiiow,ii to have deaf-iiiufo relatives 132 23 17.4 (ft) Father recorded as a sporadic case 313 23 7.3 (4) Mother known to be a deaf-mute (summation of all such cases): (o) Mother known to have deaf-mute relatives- 153 25 l(i. 3 lb) Mother recorded as a sporadic case 218 11 5.0 (5) One'parent known to be a deaf-mute (summation of all cases where tbe cause of deafness was stated): (n) Deaf-mute parent recorded to be congenitally deaf 360 56 15.5 (6) Denf-mute iiarent recorded to be non-coiigeuitally deaf 416 22 .5.3 (6) One parent known to he a deaf-mute (.summation of all cases): (a) Deaf-mute parent known to have deaf-mute relatives 285 48 16.8. (/)) Denf-mute p.areut recorded as a sporadic case, 531 34 6.4 (7) One parent recorded to be congenitally di-af (sumnLition of all cases): (n) Congenitally deaf parent known to have deaf-mute relatives 230 41 17.8 (l>) Congenitally deaf parent recorded as a sporadic case 130 15 11.5 (8) One parent recorded to be non-cougonitally deaf (summation of all cases): (o) Non-congenitally deaf parent known to have deaf-mute relatives 53 5 9.4 (6) Non-congenitally deaf parent recorded as a sporadic case 363 17 4.7 (9) Both parents known to be deaf-mutes (summation of all cases): (a) One parent known to have deaf-mute relatives 250 33 14.7 (6) Oue parent recorded as a sporadic case 424 33 7.8 (10) Both parents known to be deaf-uintes and one recorded as congenitally deaf: (a) Congenitally deaf parent known to have deaf-mute relatives 186 27 14.5 (fc) (/'ongenitally deaf jiarent recorded as a sporadic case 112 15 13.4 (11) Both parents known to ba deaf-mutes, and one recorded as non-congonitally deaf: (a) Nou-cougenitally deaf parent known to have deaf-mute relatives 43 4 9.3 (ft) Non-congenitally deaf parent recorded as a sporadic case 288 16 5.5 (12) One pareiit known to be » deaf-mute and the other presumed to be a hear- ing person (summation of all cases): (a) The deaf-mute parent known to have deaf-mute relatives 55 15 27.3 (6) The doaf-mnfe parent recorded as .a sporadic cnse 107 1. O.U (13) One parent recorded to be a congenital deaf-mute, the other presumed to be a bearing person: (a) Congenitally deaf parent known.fo have deaf-mute relatives 44 14 31.8 (6) Congenitally d<'af parent recorded as a sporadic case 18 None. (») (14) One parent recorded to ho a nou-coiigenital deal-mute, the other presumed to be a hearing iiersou: (a) Non-congenital deaf-mute parent known to have deaf-mntc relatives 10 1 10.0 (ft) Non-congeniial deaf-iiiiitu parent recorded as a sporadic case 75 1 1.3 (15) General resiilis (summation of all cases of marriage recorded): Average : 816 82 10.0 "The percentages are given as deduced from the institution reports, The true percentages are probably much greater, \mt proportionalli/ greater. 99 A — B E L L 4 

26 MEMOIRS O F T H E NATIONAL A C A D E M Y O F SCIENCES. (a) The Urge proportion of deaf offspring resulting from marriages where the father was known to have deaf-mute relatives, and from those where the mother was known to have deaf mute relatives, and the comimrativcli small proportion \\here either parent appeared to be fiee from hereditary taint, seem to point to the conclusion that m a large proportion of cases m which the marriages icere productive of deaf offspring both parents had deaf mute relatives (even m the case where one parent teas a hearing person). (b) A similar process of reasoning leads to the conclusion that m a large proportion of marriages ichere deaf of spring resulted both parents woe probably congenitally deaf who e both icete deaf mutes, and one parent congenitally deaf where only one was a deaf-mute. (c) I t is thus highly probable that a large pioporUon of the deaf offspring of deaf mute mar- t lages had parents who tcere both congenitally deaf, and who also both had deaf-mute relatives. (d) Non-congenital deafness, if sporadic, seems little likely to be inherited. (e) Another deduction we may make is th.it more of the deaf offspring whose parents had deaj relatives will marry than of those whose parents were recorded as sporadic cases, for there are more of them; and they will have a greater tendency than the others to transmit their defect to the grandchil- dren. These results are in close accordance with the experience of the venerable principal of the Pennsylvania Institution, as expressed in the following letter. P E N N S Y L V A N I A INSTITUTION ifon D E A F AND D U M B , Philadelphm, November 14, 1S83 A GRAHAJI B E L L , Esq D E A R SIR Continued lU health has prevented an earlier compliance with your request of October 15 The list I now send is full and accuiate, according to the recoids of the institution and my recollection In regard to most of the cases, I know of no place where fullei infouii.ition can be obtained than our books furnish A residence ol more than forty j ears m this institution has afforded nie abundant opportunity for observation in regard to the subject of your research A statement of the conclusious I have arrived at may be of some interest and use to j on In regard to the marriage of deaf mutes with each other, if both the man and the -woman are deaf from birth, there is very great danger—I should say a strong probability—that some of the offspring will be born deaf I know a family, however, where the mother is one of three congenitally dciif children and the father one of five, and the seven children they have had are all without defect In the list sent you all the parents, except lu two cases, were born deaf In one of these two cases the father could hear, in the other the mothei is a semi-mnte Where both parents became deaf adventitiously, there seems to be no more probability of the offspring being born deaf than there is where both parents liejvr Where only one of tie parents is congenitallj deaf, the children almost always beai Any further information I can give will be furnished wiUinglj Yours, respectfully, JOSHUA F O S T E R My attempts to deduce from the records of the marriages of the deaf the influences that cause the production of deaf offspring have met with only partial success. Valuable indications have been obtained, but precise aud accurate results are unattainable, on account of imperfect data. I t occurred to me some time ago that a different method might lead to an exhaustive exam- ination of the subject. I t is known that few of the deaf and dumb married before the establish- ment of educational institutions in this country, and nearly 78 per cent, of all the marriages re- corded in the reports of the American Asylum (the oldest institution in the country), seem to have been contracted since the year 1843. The probabilities are, therefore, that the vast majority ot the deaf offspring born are still living, and from them may be obtained an accurate account of their ancestry. I t also appeared probable that the majority of these deaf-mutes would at some period 

T H E FORMATION OF A D E A F V A R I E T Y O F T H E HUMAN R A C E . 27 of their lives, make their appearance in institutions for the deaf and dumb, and from the institution records might be obtained their names and addresses. Such considerations as the above led me to send to all the institutions m the country a circular letter of inquiry requesting the uames and addresses of all the pupils who had been admitted who had deaf-mnte parents, and returns have been received from a number of institutions.* A starting point has thus been gained for a new investigation of the subject. The cases re turned are sufficient in number to throw some light upon the prop6rtion of deaf offspring born to deaf-mutes as compared with the proportion bom to the community at large. The total number of deaf-mutes in the country, according to the recent census, is 33,878, which gives us a proportion of one deaf mute for every 1,500 of the population. If, then, the proportion of deaf mutes, origi- nating among the deaf mutes themselves, were no greater than in the community at large, they should constitute only 1 m 1,500 of the deaf-mute population. I n other words, we should not have more than 23 deaf-mutes in the United States who are themselves the children of deaf mutes. The returns received from the institutions, however, show that no less than 215 such children have already been admitted as pupils into 35 of tlie 58 institutions of the country (23 institutions not re- plying to my queries). Pupils are rarely admitted before they are 10 Or 12 years of age and many do not reach the institution until they are much older. Heuce it is evident that this number does not at all express the total number of such cases in the United States. Even if we suppose that no more than 230 such cases are to be found in the country, the proportion is ten times greater than in the community at large, or 1 in 150. But when we consider that nearly all of these children were bom deaf, whereas nearly half of the deaf mutes of the country (45.9 per cent.) became deaf from accidental causes, we realize that the liabdity to the production of congenital deaf-mutes is more nearly twenty times that of the population at large than ten times. It is evident that whatever may be the actual number of deaf-mutes in the country who have one or both parents deaf, the true number is much greater than that assumed above. From which it follows that the liability to the production of deaf offspring is also greater. While, then, we cannot at present arrive at any per. centage, it is certain that the proportion of deaf-mute offspring born to deaf-mutes is many times greater than the proportion born to the people at large. * See Tables S, T, U, and W of the Appendix My best thanks are due to the principals and snperintendenis for their assistance in this investigation I.