THE 
Intermarriage of the Deaf: 
ITS 
MENTAL, 
MORAL AND SOCIAL 
TENDENCIES. 
BY 
HIRAM PH ELF’S ARMS. 
PHILADELTHTirr 
BURK & McFETRIDGE, PRINTERS AND PUBLISHERS, 
i 88;. Copyright, 
1887, 
By Hiram Phelps Arms, 
Philadelphia. NOTE. 
The author’s purpose in issuing advanced sheets (first part) 
of this article is to obtain additional facts to embody in the chapters 
devoted to the consideration of the Physiological and Sociological 
aspects of this question. The chapters here given indicate the line 
of argument the author favors. While positive in his own theory 
on this subject, he is yet open to conviction where it can be demon- 
strated that he is in error. 
Ihe author feels that he can rely upon the generosity of those 
who have given the matter thought, and who may be in a position 
to throw light upon the subject, to render such aid as may be 
practicable. 
Any such service will receive the grateful acknowledgments not 
only of the' writer, but of many unhappy people of silence who 
writhe under the stigma cast upon them by Prof. A. Graham Bell. INTRODUCTORY. 
It is with feelings of deep indignation that I record a protest 
against Professor Bell’s suggestion that legislation be called upon to 
pass a law prohibiting deaf-mutes, who may have deaf relatives, 
from inter-marrying.* I protest against this as an unwarranted 
would-be interference with the affairs of other people, these people 
being as sane and as capable of forming a concept of a proper line 
of action as any other class. The text of Professor Bell’s proposed 
law is given elsewhere. I must do the author justice, however, to 
claim for him the best of motives in this controversy, as he looks 
at it; I only regret that he has not shown more heart in the 
matter. He proposes a policy of interference by relatives and 
friends where the law would prove nugatory—such a policy, of 
course, would be legitimate when one or both of the principals to 
the difficulty are in their minority, but the moment this is passed, 
then such interference would not only be unkind, but useless and 
unseemly. 
Professor Bell states his faith in the system of having deaf-mutes 
attend school in their respective districts, arguing that the cost per 
capita now paid ($223.00) for their education, would be sufficient 
to employ a special teacher, who could take three or four pupils, a 
number large enough to insure a salary of $669, or $892 per year. 
This non-segregational scheme is offered as a means to bring about 
the inter-marriage of deaf-mutes with the hearing; in other words, 
Professor Bell would ask society to do what he as an individual 
certainly would not do (allow a son or daughter of his to marry a 
deaf-mute). The inconsistency is so broad, that it is surprising that it 
should have escaped his notice With the advance of education and a 
larger field to choose from, even the non-congenital deaf-mute will 
* My attention was drawn to Prof. Bell’s theory but a few weeks since, the occasion being a 
report of an interview he gave a Rochester, N. Y. paper. 4 
decline to form a union with a congenital deaf-mute. This devia- 
tion is even now being manifested to a marked degree. Professor 
Bell’s essays tend (and here for once I can agree with him) to 
encourage this movement. The inevitable result will be to force the 
congenital deaf-mute to seek out members of its own class with 
which to contract marriage. This is certainly, from the standpoint 
of those more fortunate, and who wish well of humanity, a sad and 
bitter conclusion to arrive at, but can it be helped ? It could be, 
no doubt, held to a slower growth by forcing them to a union with 
the non-congenitally deaf, and with the hearing, but this would be 
at the cost of the more fortunate class, and as such would be opposed 
to equity. 
The one comforting feature in this movement looking towards the 
isolation of congenital deaf-mutes, is, that an all-wise Creator has 
provided for them to an extent sufficient to enjoy life as fully as 
those who hear and speak. He has endowed them with minds 
capable of receiving instruction, with no limits as to advancement. 
He has given them a language, and hearts to regulate their emotional 
life, with strength of body to labor. He has in a word, constituted 
these people precisely as other people are constituted, differing 
only in manner of communicating thought. It is for the sake of 
these people that I lift my voice against Professor Bell’s proposed 
measures, as tending to degrade them to the level of incapables ! 
It is no pleasant task I have undertaken, in writing these papers, 
for the very people whose own respect I am endeavoring to shield 
from the attacks of Professor Bell and others of his mind, not only 
refuse to encourage my efforts, but flatly condemn them. Still, I 
believe, there are deaf-mutes, whose nobility of character will enable 
them to speak the truth, however bitter it may be, and say with me, 
that it is not only hazardous to marry a person so different from 
them as the hearing and speaking, but that it is the height of selfish- 
ness to encourage such infatuations. 
I know a hearing gentlemen who married a deaf woman, and the 
universal opinion is that his wife is a drag upon him, socially. He 
is generous, she is selfish, is the verdict on every tongue. 
Under the head of Psychologial Aspect I define the emotions. 
Part Second, Physiological Aspect, treats of the laws of heredity; 
the question of deterioration or non-deterioration of intellectual 5 
power in deaf-mutes, and their general health. Part Third, gives 
the Sociological Aspect of the question. Under this head I speak of 
domestic life; the difficulties under which the deaf labor in their 
association with the hearing; the ease with which they live their 
own life. From all of which I make the following deductions:— 
First.—From eighty to ninety-five per cent, of the deaf marry 
the deaf. 
Second.—That of the remaining portion, the majority who marry 
the deaf are led to the connection by selfish motives, presumably 
the acquiring of property. 
Third. —That where this predisposition to the acquisition of 
property has not existed, then other motives have ruled, such as a 
greater or less timidity or effeminacy on the part of the one who 
hears (if it be a man), and age, widowhood, or the blight of divorce 
(if it be a woman). 
Fourth.—That inferiority of birth and station, benevolence and 
infatuation, are clearly defined factors controlling the selection by 
the hearing of deaf-mute partners. 
Fifth.—That where a hearing person and a deaf person (one who 
is more or less dependent upon dactylology as a means of receiving 
and giving communication) have married in equal circumstances of 
birth, station, and intelligence, divorce has in many instances been 
the sequel of such marriages. 
Sixth.—That as a matter of fact, only those deaf people who by 
great success in vocalism and lip reading, can hope for a continua- 
tion of their happy marital relations with hearing partners. But 
even here the element of risks attends such unions; for in propor- 
tion as a person becomes, through success in the acquirement of 
speech and lip reading, his or her other qualities, station, and 
intelligence being taken for granted, in that proportion is he or she 
enabled to mingle in a higher order of society, with the result of a 
desire to select partners from that order. And it is these very 
people who, by their liveliness and social qualities, are liable to 
regret having married deaf persons; it matters not how easily this 
deaf person mingles in hearing society. It is with this class of deaf 
people to whom the question of inter-marriage assumes such a com- 
plex affair. 6 
The only solution that I can offer for a deaf person thus situated 
is, first, that in forming a connection with a hearing person, this 
person’s predominant characteristics should be, passiveness, and a 
manner more or less unassuming; or, second, that he marry a 
person similarly situated as himself. In this latter case, however, 
it is only those couples to whom public opinion has adjudged to be 
well matched in intellect and other qualities, and whose social 
position is beyond question, who can marry and be exempt from 
that unpleasant feeling of self-consciousness of deafness, that only 
needs participating at a large reception to bring out in bold relief. 
If the wife is a woman of intellectual force and tact, and the 
husband a man who can command respect and applause, the combi- 
nation would be such as to effectually counteract this feeling of 
self-consciousness. PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT. 
CHAPTER I. 
BENEVOLENCE. 
“ The justification for the ethical feeling is that it exists. The justifica- 
tion for any code of morality is that it exists.”—Spencer's Data of Ethics. 
I begin this analysis with Benevolence, as being the first and chief 
emotion to spring from the common root of Sympathy. I shall 
demonstrate how Gratitude, the complement to Benevolence, can be 
perverted from its original channel, and I will also point out how 
Benevolence fails of its aim, through inequality of distribution. 
In the marriage of A., who is a deaf-mute, with 8., who is a man 
able to hear and speak, A. will have an excess of gratitude, joined 
to an excess of selfishness, by virtue of her (A.) dependence and 
exaction upon B. for intercourse with the outside world. 8., on the 
other hand, will have an excess of Benevolence [proved by his mar- 
riage with a less perfect person than himself and one who imposes 
upon him the labor of a dual existence, that of sound and that of 
pantomime], and he (B.) would also have an excess of selfishness, 
vide his excess of Benevolence. Paradoxical as this latter statement 
may sound, it'is a truism, nevertheless ; for as Benevolence is simply 
a pleasure with the doer, he is merely doing that which gives him 
pleasure. He would take an equal pleasure in feeding, caressing and 
cherishing a dog. The dog would appreciate this treatment for a 
time, then growing weary of it, become spoilt; and, finally, would 
either run away, or be unceremoniously bounced by the very man 
responsible for its sins ! 
Benevolence is not love, and its reward is not love, but grati- 
tude ; and this is not a pleasant feeling when carried to extremes, 
not even with a brute. 8 
Aristotle, in his Nicomachean Ethics, speaking of Benevolence, 
•says: “But those who are Benevolent [only] do not on this 
account love each other the more, for they only wish well to those to 
whom they are Benevolent; but they do not cooperate with them in 
anything, nor do they endure any molestation for their sake. 
Hence it may be metaphorically said, that Benevolence is sluggish 
friendship; yet not that friendship which is founded in utility, nor 
that which is founded in delight; for Benevolence does not subsist 
on account of these things. ******* Benefactors 
love and are fond of those they have benefited, though at present 
they derive no advantage from them, nor are likely to derive any in 
the future. And this, also, happens to be the case with artificers, 
for every artist loves his own work more than he would be beloved 
by it if it should become animated. Similar, therefore, to this is 
that which pertains to benefactors, for he who is benefited is their 
work. Hence, he loves the work with a parental affection, because 
existence also is dear to him. But this is natural, for what the 
agent is in capacity is indicated by the work in energy. At the 
same time, also, to the benefactor that which results from the action 
is beautiful, so that he is delighted with him in whom it is inherent, 
but to him who is benefited nothing is beautiful in the benefactor, 
but if any is it is utility, and this is in a less degree delightful and 
lovely.” Now, taking up the two formulas, A. and 8., with their 
respective concomitants, Gratitude and Benevolence, and then 
assimilating the two, you are surprised in your stupid ignorance that 
the resultant is not the full, perfect, equalized one which you set 
out to fashion, but is instead a mixture of antipathetical emotions 
wrought by that disregard of equality of parts, the whole held 
together, not by natural laws, but by the laws of Sociology. Many 
endure this indifferent or unhappy existence in silence, rather than 
brave the exposure of their mistake; others invoke the decree of 
society to set them free, and many others resort to that savage, 
natural method, assassination; and still others take that cowardly 
and infamous expedient, desertion, to sever the bond that binds 
them! 
This ignoring the laws of psychology in the blind pursuit of a 
physical result has been the cause of much unhappiness in the 
marital affairs of the deaf, as I shall presently show. 9 
In many instances where well-educated deaf women have married 
hearing men, their “venture ” has found a sequel in the records of 
the divorce courts. There is a more or less prominent case to the 
point, which I now recall. A deaf and semi-mute lady, of more than 
ordinary literary powers, pleasant and refined in manners, is com- 
pelled to enter the divorce courts to combat the granting of a separa- 
tion from her husband, a hearing man. This man, presumably, tired 
of his life of silence (I give this as the cause in lieu of any direct and 
proved charges of a different character), is seeking to annul his 
marriage. lam in position to cite a considerable number of such 
cases among people of respectability, and taking the ratio to be 
the same in the knowledge of other persons in different countries, 
we have a statement that speaks with no uncertain voice. On the 
other hand, there are but few instances on record, where a deaf 
■couple who possessed any reputation for refinement and culture, 
have been brought to the extremity of divorce proceedings. It is 
only in cases where such deaf persons are of uncultured minds and 
brutal in manner that divorce and desertion have received their 
recruits. 
I cannot recall a single instance where a deaf couple who married 
in equal circumstances, who based their nuptials on love, and who 
have lived together a number of years, have sought a separation. 
It is only where palpable fraud in the desire to acquire property, and 
an entire absence of true sentiment has entered into the union from 
the moment of its first inception, that there has been a separation. 
These separations have occurred mostly in the space of a year, or a 
few months, and even in a week, which go far to establish the 
facts in the premises. It is a noteworthy fact that these separations 
in the poorer classes of “ honest ” deaf-mute society are of exceed- 
ingly rare occurrence. The cause I hold to be this : equality of the 
emotions and equality of action. 
In concluding this chapter, I insist that the spirit of Benevolence 
is the parent of much indifference and unhappiness in marital life, 
in all conditions of society, whether of the deaf or not. 
I do not wish to be understood as casting a slur upon so noble a 
trait of character as that of Benevolence, far from it! I freely 
accord that no greater sentiment has been planted in the human 
heart than that feeling, to be of use and kindness to others; but 10 
even such a fair and lovely ideal may be made to exceed its limit 
by its continual exercise without reciprocation in kind. What 
was once a pleasant, warm impulse, becomes through excessive 
repetition a mere form of action—a thing given and taken as “ a 
matter of course.” The debtor—the recipient of the benefit—pro- 
vided she or he has not been made selfish in the interim alone writhes 
under the load of accumulated service and kindness, and, not 
being able to return in equal form, feels and carries the memory of 
the debt to the last. PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT. 
CHAPTER 11. 
UTILITY. 
“ * * ** * * * And how they all fall into harmony in a wonderful 
manner in the concensus of mutual support, and enforce ethical law by 
an united authority.”—Spencer's Data of Ethics. 
Close upon Benevolence follows Utility, the basis of Selfishness. 
To acquire something that will be of service to you and for that 
reason only, indicates the selfish emotion to be predominant. 
A tub that will hold water is a useful article, but what deaf 
woman would marry a tub ? An animated ear-trumpet and tele- 
phone combined (metaphorically speaking, a man who can hear 
and speak), is also an excellent and useful article, but what deaf 
woman with an ounce of self-respect would marry an animated ear- 
trumpet ? Does she not look for something besides Utility ? Has 
she any right to ask for Love, Sympathy and Kindness ? Certainly. 
—Does she secure it ? Doubtful. 
Can any one name a single instance, where a hearing man with 
any pretension to self-worth has ever married a deaf girl, and who 
is mute also, for the sake of the girl herself—one who lias neither 
property nor influence ? I fear not! Benevolence has captured 
some of these dowerless deaf-mute girls, but no one pretends that 
their unions were formed on the score of equality. 
Why is it that there are so many deaf-mute girls of wealth and 
social position, leading lives of enforced celibacy ? Simply, that they 
(fortunately) possess the qualification to distinguish the difference 
between the price of an ordinary tin ear-trumpet, and an animated 
one, and observing that the price of the latter is never less than fifty 12 
thousand dollars, they prefer to go without the article rather than 
throw away their money. Sensible girls. Until some young man of 
sterling worth marries a dowerless deaf girl, solely for herself, I shall 
adhere to the foregoing definition of Utility, as applied to the inter- 
marriage of deaf girls and their money, with the rank and file of 
the hearing and their empty pockets ! 
Your practical person, one who is continually expounding utili- 
tarian doctrines, would say, that in the management of a home and 
family, it is necessary that one, at least, of the parties should hear. 
His system would tend to elevate the head of the person and 
relegate the heart to a secondary place. He would have Utility 
(the advantage and use of hearing) occupy the place that should be 
held by affection. He would force the one partner who is deaf, to 
constant effort to live up to an equality with the one who is at no 
disadvantage. He would compel on the part of the one who hears 
a never ceasing unbending to meet the requirements of his deaf 
partner. He would require you to use a language foreign to your 
own ; a language of which you by reason of your hearing cannot feel 
the power, or sympathize in the pathos ! All he desires is that you 
make yourself useful. He says you are a thorough master of this 
other and foreign language, but he fails to observe that the mother 
tongue always commands your preference. That this “ slow ” 
speaking for those who communicate by lip-motion, or signs for 
deaf-mutes, is irksome, can be, and has been, detected in the other- 
wise most devoted husband or wife. 
There are of course disadvantages and petty trials to be met with 
if both parents be deaf, but with that spirit of adaptation and 
balancing to which everything in nature is subservient, more or 
less, these draw-backs are reduced to a minimum. Here we have 
a blind man : observe how he brings all his faculties into play to 
sustain him in his life of darkness ; how quickly he adapts himself to 
his situation ; and see, too, how soon he discovers by that marvelous 
sense of touch to do everything except to see ! He can, even though 
he reside within a labyrinth of streets, point out any direction you 
may wish to go. And so with the deaf. In the loss of the sense of 
sound, the other faculties, sight and touch, are called upon for 
additional effort, till by a happy balancing of account on the part of 
nature, your deaf person is able to keep from being run over. He 13 
learns to feel noises about the house. His sight enables him to 
carry on communications with his hearing fellow-beings. He can 
read articulate language by motion of the lips, and, such is the 
acuteness of his vision, even understand words spoken by a shadow 
of a person’s face thrown on a wall. He can join in any social 
festivities; he has the ability to direct his business affairs; in fact 
he is able to accomplish everything within the compass of a normal 
person’s power, except to hear. 
There are cripples without either arms or limbs, who yet can 
accomplish locomotion, and in their special work, can do their part 
as well as, and in some cases even better than, one whole of body ! 
How kindly nature guides the way through difficulties and misfor- 
tune ! And what think you of a case of such frightful deprivation 
—deaf, dumb and blind ! And yet I have conversed with just such 
a person, incredible as it may seem, on subjects that had appeared 
that very day in the telegraphic reports. 
This man assured me he was happy and resigned to his lot. He 
had many little pleasures to cheer him, even in the dark and lifeless 
solitude that seems inseparable in one circumstanced as he was. That 
he really found existence pleasant in his way, could be judged from 
the absence of hard lines upon his face, and the buoyant expressions 
spelt upon his fingers. His whole demeanor so impressed me with 
the power of nature to alleviate misfortune and, in a measure, balance 
any deficiency, that I involuntarily offered thanks to Him for the 
creation of this law. Bearing this in mind—the knowledge of the 
power of nature to bring about, in a great measure, an equilibrium 
in action, notwithstanding the loss of one and two, and even three 
of the fundamental senses, I would say, let any man who is deaf, who 
wishes to marry one similarly situated, who does not desire to 
substitute Equality and Sympathy for Utility—l say, let him not be 
hindered by difficulties so easily surmounted, but go right on and 
follow the dictates of his heart, only exercising due caution in 
regard to the laws of heredity.* 
How well I remember a bright little episode, the outcome of a 
visit to a young married deaf couple to pay my respects to their first 
born, a tiny, perfect specimen of the genus homo (not the gigantic, 
evil that Prof. A. Graham Bell is petitioning parents, societies, and 
* See Chapter I on Physiological Aspect. even the Government to avert), the exemplification of the highest 
sympathy sent to gladden the hearts of the silent parents ! On 
expressing my concern at the idea of having the baby sleep with its 
mother, with no one to hear its cries, I am met with a cheery little 
laugh from that individual, and the information that the little one’s 
head always rests on her arm, and that the slightest movement, 
therefore, wakes her up at any hour of the night. Still unsatisfied, 
I exclaim : “ But I have even pounded a man, in the effort to awaken 
him, with indifferent success. What then can such slight movements 
on the part of a few months old baby effect! ” “ Oh, ’ ’ here speaks up 
the father: “ God provides for the mother in such emergencies.” 
The air, the tone, the complete faith in which this was said, forever 
stilled all doubts I had on the subject, and with awe-inspiring thought 
I again exclaim : How beneficient is Nature ! 
For the second time, I admit that there are periods when the fact 
that both parents are deaf, proves a serious discomfort; but this is only 
temporary, and is not much worse than the trials that others, under 
different conditions, have to endure. I can present as a recompense 
for these trifling disadvantages, a life of equality between husband and 
wife. There is no suspicion of sacrifice, charity, pity, or self-im- 
posed utility with the one partner; and with the other the element of 
envy, petty jealousness, or an uncomfortable spirit of dependence 
has no existence. They are one in sympathy, one in mutual respect; 
no thought of their misfortune ever obtrudes, all is kindly hidden— 
forgotten, through an easily communicable and common language, 
and manners that are simply the reflection of each other. 
It is the testimony of fact that there are thousands of happy homes 
throughout the world, the affluent and the humble, whose founders 
are both deaf. They point with pride to their successful lives, 
and bid you look on their sons now in college, or in business, or at 
any honest toil, the peers of others, and of more fortunate progenitors. 
There certainly seems nothing amiss in such unions, with such results, 
combining as they do, a friendship and love that have for their basis, 
similarity of manners, and equality of service, a condition of life 
that the mere form of marriage could not have accomplished. 
Plus in ami cilia valet similitude mo rum quam affinitas. “Simi- 
larity of manners and congeniality of tastes are stronger motives for 
friendship than mere relationship. ” This certainly does not leave 
room for the invasion of Utilitarian ideas. I have made calls on deaf-mute couples, and I never experienced 
any trouble in having the door-bell answered. I have always found 
that these people’s domestic affairs move on much the same as any 
other class of society. There appeared to be no worry and anxiety on 
the part of the family to make their guest comfortable. Through 
all, no one thought of Utility as part of the regime. PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT. 
CHAPTER 111. 
SYMPATHY. 
“ * * * * An incompliance of manners, small and fre- 
quent distastes, though not discerned by the world, produce the most 
incurable aversions in a married life.”—Plutarch. 
There are many persons who labor, more or less, under the im- 
pression that in degree as they show “pity ” for a person, in that de- 
gree is their kindness measured. They vaguely understand that 
Pity and Sympathy are one and the same emotion, or at least that 
the two spring from a common source. Can anything be more 
absurd? Have these persons ever analyzed the emotion termed 
“Love of Approbation?” Can they not see that this feeling is 
antagonistic to Pity. To be admired by others, above all, to be 
admired by him to whom you have given your life, is to have this 
love of approbation gratified in a high degree. This feeling of 
self-love exists in every human being. “Before there exist in con- 
siderable degrees the sentiments which find satisfaction in the happi- 
ness of others, there exist in considerable degrees the sentiments 
which find satisfaction in the admiration given by others. Even 
animals show themselves gratified by applause after achievement.”* 
To attempt to reduce this emotion to quantitative proportion—to 
measure its limit—is impossible. Who has not failed to note what 
man will not do to win applause ? War, the battle with pestilence, the 
struggles with want and misery in regions of perpetual ice and snow, 
or the stealthy, venomous, ferocious onslaught of danger in the 
jungles of an unknown and sun-scorched land, all these have their 
votaries in the search for applause. 
* Spencer’s Prin. vol. i. p. 64. 17 
The student in his analysis of emotional phenomena, will not fail 
to observe, that in proportion as man has achieved the measure of 
his ambition, with its resultant, applause, just so will he become 
indifferent to this admiration. Praise a great man, he will deign 
no attention ; praise an ordinary man and it will turn his head. It 
is therefore evident, that in degree as a person is incapable of high 
success in intellectual, physical, and social matters, equally, in a like 
degree, will that person desire applause [or] approbation. A woman 
who is at so much disadvantage as to be mute and deaf, will in the 
presence of the company of other men and women, feel dissatisfied 
at the meagre amount of approbation she is able to command in 
comparison with others of her sex, and also in comparison with 
what her hearing and speaking partner obtains. This feeling is 
often very painful, and gives rise to many humiliating and un- 
worthy emotions, one of which is Jealousy. I am not stating a 
hypothetical question, but one founded on fact, as I have observed 
it in the unconscious actions of those laboring under it, added to 
this, that the correctness of the arraignment is substantiated from 
what I have found to exist, for the time being, in my own nature. 
This inability to attract admiration may have a less irritating effect 
if a woman be assured of her husband’s approbation; then she need 
not miss what others decline to give. But it often happens that if 
the husband is a person of consequence and can command attention, 
he would very likely act as others do, fail in meeting his wife’s ex- 
pectations. Some men, however, defiantly claim their wives to be 
as good as and equal to, other women, in the face of the truth to 
the contrary. 
This feeling can best be illustrated in a little episode which now 
comes back to my mind very forcibly; however quaint it is, it in- 
dicates clearly the point I desire to make. Two little girls, one of 
well-to-do parents, the other of humble birth—schoolmates at one 
of our public schools—were quarrelling over the merits of their re- 
spective dolls. The rich girl claimed hers as the prettiest; the poor 
girl as stoutly, and with tears, maintained that she owned the pret- 
tiest one. Now to me, a disinterested observer, the rich girl had 
the prettiest one. I felt no doubt on that point, for, in fact, the 
poor girl’s doll could not attract the least attention from the 
numerous little people around it. All eyes were upon the rich girl’s doll. Now the owner of the ugly doll must have known that she 
was claiming what really did not exist, which gave rise to certain 
disagreeable and correlating emotions, hence her tears. She soon 
dries these, however, for out the crowd there steps another little Miss 
as poor as her friend, with a doll without so much as the features 
left. She quickly and defiantly joins the “minority,” and claims 
everything for her friend; the two then walk away perfectly satis- 
fied with the affair so far as they were concerned. 
Now it is plain that a hearing man of vital force and consequence, 
who takes upon himself to marry a deaf-mute, or a woman afflicted 
with a deformity, must have taken the first step from motives of 
sheer kindness or benevolence of heart. Then when the revulsion 
comes, his pride will prompt him to take the course our little Miss 
and her ugly doll did, and so he exasperates his friends by claiming 
what really did not exist, to speak in a comparative sense. 
A deaf-mute woman will assuredly feel her inferiority in a certain 
sense, in comparison, as I have said, with other wives; and if she 
does not find unmixed approbation in her husband, it will go hard 
with the ideal of married life. 
From the foregoing, it is clear that to pity a person is to give 
mortal offence ; to sympathize with him is to gratify his love of 
approbation; for this latter emotion is co-related to sympathy. 
“* * * * Sympathy is therefore only a readjustment of self 
love.” * 
That this desire for Sympathy is a predominant emotion in the 
marriage of the deaf, is plainly evident from the fact that deaf peo- 
ple of wealth or social position have, as a rule, sought a union with 
those, who, as educators of the deaf, are supposed to possess that 
sympathy they would look for elsewhere in vain. In the abstract 
consideration of the point, nothing, it seems to me, could be more 
absurd. Why should my friend who is not an educator of the deaf, 
but who understands their language, why should he, on that account 
only, be selected as a fit person to marry a deaf woman ? Could he 
not marry a Chinese woman with equal grace if he understood the 
Chinese language ? The most of these deaf people pay roundly to 
secure this sympathy they crave, and it does seem an unjust ruling 
* Alfred Barratt, p. 162, Physical Ethics. London, 1867. 19 
of fate that their “ venture ” turns out to be a mere piece of Benevo- 
lence or, what is just as unfortunate, they come into possession of a 
partner whose character is chiefly made up of equanimity, a non- 
impulsiveness of emotion, a being, in short, who is but half alive. 
Up to this date, only comparatively impecuniotis school teachers 
and a few ordinary people, have married the deaf, I have never 
heard (except in a few instances, where the deaf partner was more or 
less restored to society by proficiency in lip reading and speech) of 
any young man of assured standing in society, stepping outside of 
his sphere to marry a deaf-mute woman. By a strange and suspi- 
cious coincidence, the deaf partners, even those who are only deaf, 
and deaf and partly mute, have in nearly every instance furnished 
the capital, the others furnished the ears and more or less pro- 
ficiency in the deaf-mute language. Where this has not been the 
ruling cause, Benevolence has had a great deal to do with it. It is 
impossible to understand this question in any other light. From 
inquiries put to many young men of social prominence (young men 
of worth whose own efforts are bringing them fame and fortune) as 
to whether they would or could marry a deaf-mute, the invariable 
answer was, that I was proposing an anomaly. Of course they 
would not, and in effect thus added : “ Such things we leave to the 
philanthropist and men who haven’t any chance in other directions.” 
I cannot refrain from indulging in a sneer when I look back upon 
my experience in a family where I had the opportunity of observing 
at breakfast, dinner and supper the actions (more eloquent than 
words) of a gentleman and wife, one of whom (the wife) was deaf. 
Such a parody upon sentiment it is impossible for the uninitiated 
to conceive. These people were refined and cultured—there was 
no doubt on that point—but, oh, what inequality, what abject 
dependence, what selfishness there was in it all ! So far from 
advocating the expediency of such unions, I would earnestly advise 
every deaf-mute woman to remain single all her life, and for every 
deaf-mute man to let his line of descent die with himself. He or 
she would thus escape a thousand petty humiliations, a thousand 
trials of one’s temper and pride. 
There are many, who though deaf, are not so by heredity; who, 
even in the face of that fact, yet experience the greatest trouble to 
convince others that their inter-marriage can result in no harm, 20 
either to themselves or to posterity. In vain they point to 
to sustain their position. It is in vain that they exclaim that they 
would live more happily in the society of one so much like themselves. 
In vain they recount the humiliation it would be to a proud and 
sensitive woman to have a husband, who, by force of his advantage 
of hearing, would exercise complete influence in the home, to the 
exclusion of the deaf parent. They even hint at an isolation of the 
deaf parent from her children, arguing that children would naturally 
associate with the one with whom they could more easily communi- 
cate. That these fears are good and sufficient, and have psycho- 
logical law to sustain them, seems to me to be self-evident; or 
else how account for the inter-marriage of at least ninety per cent, 
of the deaf the world over. The wisest and the most ignorant 
have contracted such marriages. Instinct, apparently, governs the 
question, and no one, I think, can doubt that instinct is a surer guide- 
than any theory ever evolved by the mind of man ! 
It requires no great effort to comprehend that in such unequal 
marriages as I have here outlined, if the husband and wife are of 
strong individual character, this opposition and division will be 
maintained, the resultant being a mere condition of master and 
mistress, with as much companionship, and community of thought 
and action, as is in the life of an Eastern harem. 
There is a class of deaf people, who, deprived of their hearing- 
in early childhood, after they had in the meantime, to some extent, 
acquired speech, and through fortuitious circumstances, or through 
the system practiced in the oral schools for the deaf, have been 
able to retain and improve their voice to such a degree as to enable 
them to hold almost unrestricted intercourse with the hearing 
class, without the use of the pencil and tablet. And there are 
some, too, who, by an almost phenomenal power of sight, are able 
to mingle altogether in hearing society through their ability to read 
words by motion of the lips; they are, in fact, in degree as they are 
proficient, “restored” to the speaking world. I would exempt 
such a qualified person from the necessity of taking a deaf partner. 
I would freely allow him to marry a hearing woman. I would, at 
the same time, express no surprise if this person should desire to 
marry one like himself. I would certainly admit that it was but a 
* See Chapter 11, Physiological Aspect. 21 
’natural thing to do. In ideal marriages there is ever present with 
those capable of real delicacy, a feeling to be of as light a 
burden to others, (notably, those so near as husband and wife) as 
possible. To obstruct such marriages, based as they are upon this 
high sense of equality, is to simply struggle against the dictates of 
nature ! 
I am contending for an ideal life whose softening influence is the 
result of mutual sentiments, equal joys and equal griefs. 
I contend that two deaf people, if their hearts be in the right 
place, can lead in their own way a life as full of blessings, as full 
of interest as the most exacting, moralist could desire. The field 
of literature lies ever open before them, and does it not seem that 
their lives of silence would tempt them to a still closer communion 
with this world of written thought ? 
Everything beautiful in art is open to their comprehension and 
enjoyment, and they need not yield this ability to thus appreciate, 
to any, even those who can hear. And, behold nature ! Her count- 
less beauties, o’er land, o’er sea, are theirs by natural right, and no 
•one can gainsay their power to understand and appropriate, equally, 
these treasures with any, even those who can hear ! 
Over mountains, through vales, midst dreamy meadows, or adown 
rippling brooklets, come silent harmonies; for there is music 
without sound. 
You exclaim, “ But the majority of the deaf as a class have not 
such sympathetic natures—are not so highly endowed as to appreciate 
these things.” “Still,” I answer, “in their own way they can find 
many enjoyments to lighten their pathway through life, and education 
will do the rest.” 
Some irreverent person sarcastically remarks, “Why should the 
deaf inter-marry? If the raison d'etre (sympathy) holds good in 
this instance, would it not be equally as conclusive in the case of 
the inter-marriage of cripples, deformed persons, one-eyed men 
with one-eyed women, and so on ad infinitum, ad nauseam !" It is 
distressing that any notice has to be taken of this exhibition of 
■stupidity. Ought not this person to know that the aesthetic 
emotion [a love for the beautiful and perfect in form] exists in 
every character ? That in proportion as this emotion is present, 
just so in degree will that person abhor deformity, in whatever 
shape it appears; it differs not even if he himself be deformed. 22 
Here let me speak a few words concerning John Kitto, D. D., 
F. S. A., who, as a poor deaf and semi-mute boy, left the 
work-house to eventually become renowned in Biblical literature, 
as a scholar and doctor of divinity. An humble lad, deserted 
by his parents, deaf and almost mute, at a period when the 
education of the deaf was in its infancy, he, notwithstanding 
his frightful situation, rose to a high and noble position among his 
fellows through sheer force of intellect and stoicism. Now, no 
one would suspect such a character of possessing a mawkish 
craving for sympathy, and yet John Kitto did keenly and cruelly 
feel this sentiment. Speaking of his fiancee, a young hearing lady, 
to whom he had been engaged for some time, (she subsequently 
broke her engagement) he says : “ * * * * Ido not know what 
to think about her. That she loves me I have very great reason to 
believe; yet, on this supposition, and knowing that she is not natu- 
rally volatile, I have felt much at a loss to account for a degree of 
inattention to me when at her home, which has very frequently dis- 
tressed my feelings much, very much indeed. The most trivial 
and unimportant circumstance has the power of diverting her atten- 
tion from me, even though I should be speaking of something which 
may seem to me peculiarly interesting ; and I have seen her chatting 
and laughing for a long time occasionally, without seeming to be in 
the least conscious that such a being as John Kitto was present. I 
am very foolish to mind such things, yet I cannot help minding 
them—lovers are very foolish beings. * * * * That she is. 
faultless, I am not obliged by the most ardent affection to believe. 
* * * * If ske j-Jq noj- experience that warmth for me that Ido 
for her, it surely cannot be imputed as a fault; it is my misfortune !'r 
Clearly there was a dearth of sympathy here. Clearly an unequal 
match, in spite of the fact that the great Biblical scholar was, intel- 
lectually and spiritually, a mine of worth ! This young woman does 
not seem to have been a person of any great consequence in the circle 
in which Dr. Kitto moved, and yet by force of a mere “ advantage ” 
in hearing and its attendant emotions, she felt herself too good for 
even noble John Kitto ! Had Kitto met a woman deaf like himself, 
and who possessed the requisite refinement and education, it would 
not be extravagant to say that he would certainly have sought her 
hand in marriage. 23 
As the case stands, however, he married a hearing woman. Of 
the merits of this attachment I need not comment upon, except to 
say that it first grew out of mutual grief for a gentleman friend who 
died on shipboard while all three were en route for home. It ap- 
pears that the lady in question was engaged to be married to the 
demised friend, and being in the depths of sorrow at his loss, and 
seeing that Kitto was sympathetic, contrived to like him, and so 
they were married—a possible working out of the theory “that 
misery loves company.” 
It seems to me that in proportion as a man is cultured and eminent 
in his profession, he is in that proportion sensitive, and so, easily 
irritated by uncongenial surroundings. 
This high sensitiveness exists in animals as well as in man. With 
a fat, old-fashioned dray horse, you can do as you please: pull its 
tail, look into its mouth, and do all manner of mischief with him, 
and he will mind it but little. With a blooded race horse it is 
radically different. It is in some instances a precarious undertaking 
to even attempt to caress the animal, unless you are the owner and 
driver. It certainly would be the extreme of foolhardiness to pull 
his tail. 
Highly endowed men weigh well the meaning of the word, 
Sympathy. I know of eminent blind men, high in the profession of 
music, who have married blind women, while the humble basket- 
maker takes unto himself a wife who can see. 
I know of a deaf gentleman, a graduate of one of England’s 
famous Universities, a graduate of Trinity, and Yale College, who 
married a deaf woman. 
I know of a theological student, deaf and semi-mute, now in one 
of our Universities, who also married a deaf woman. I could go on 
giving many more cases in point, but the limit of this chapter 
prevents. 
Bear this in mind that there is such a law as equality of the emotions 
and that as this law is ignored so will the harvest be ! 
“ * * * * We cannot deny that, a main and principal thing 
that causes marriages to be so unhappy, and make this state of life 
so miserable, is the inequality of them.”* 
♦ Bufford’s Essay on Unequal Marriages, p. xr, London, 1693. 24 
This is my fear for deaf-mutes. These people naturally, of course, 
will from a regard for their amour propre, politely inform me that 
these fears are entirely gratuitous, and that they are in no danger 
so far as they are individually concerned ; but ab actu ad posse valet 
consecutio. “The induction is good, from what has been to what 
may be (a thing that has once happened it is but just to infer that such 
a matter may again occur).” 
Such indeed is the omnipotence of this sense of sympathy that 
I do not hesitate to say, that should it be brought into conflict 
with honor, by itself, honor would be the first to yield. 
Could I close my eyes to that divine injunction, “Love thy 
neighbor as thyself,” and deliberately start forth in life with the 
avowed purpose of taking a hearing man’s deaf-mute wife from 
him, the conditions of birth, education, and station being equal, 
and could I convince this wife that I loved her with that intensity 
which is only possible where the emotions are equal, she would assur- 
edly come to me ! You start! You cry out, impossible ! But it 
is so; you cannot deny it. Every day, every hour, in some part of 
the world this conflict is being enacted. How it dawns upon you 
now, with full force: the far-reaching scope, the power and majesty 
of that law, “ Love thy neighbor as thyself." 
Just here let me illustrate a phase of utility in conflict with sym- 
pathy—“ He died of a complication of diseases. His worst disease 
was a broken heart.” That is the verdict rendered over the remains 
of a young deaf-mute gentleman who had the misfortune to engage 
himself in marriage to a young woman (also deaf), who, notwithstand- 
ing that she had promised to be loyal and true to him, yet must 
needs cast him off at the command of her parents, who, having 
acquired wealth, knew the value of utility to be against sentiment, 
in their experience, and they would therefore enforce the former with 
all their power. Very well; now note the result. The victim, he who 
had won his love under equal circumstances of sympathy and affection, 
lies cold and lifeless in yonder graveyard, while she, the direct and 
indirect cause, is dallying with a tardy lover, a hearing man, whose 
want of sympathy, or community of thought, is a by-word among all 
who have come in contact with the two. These friends naturally 
feel a sense of irritation (as not being in harmony with their ideal) at 
the spectacle of a man of forty-two, or thereabouts, prolonging, as 25 
lie is doing now, an engagement that has already existed nearly a 
decade. They rightfully conclude, that as this lover has a good 
■business, and as his fiancee is the daughter of a rich man, and as 
■she is a deaf-mute, and needs the sympathy of a husband, there 
seems to be no justification for further delay of the marriage of the two. 
I am merely repeating what a dozen people have told me. I have 
no desire to stir up the matter, other than to illustrate my point for 
the benefit of those who may find themselves in a like position, and 
who may experience uncertainty how to act. 
This want of sympathy and correspondence of manner with those 
who are deaf, on the part of those who hear, is clearly shown in every 
family where one of the members happens to be deaf. Ido not 
remember a single instance in any household where one of the members 
suffered from deafness, that this member does not remember to this 
day the thousand and more neglects, want of sympathy, a forgetful- 
ness of his presence, unintentional of course, but none the less sad ; 
always compelled to take the initiative, to always put the question : 
“What is it, mamma? What is it, papa?” Indeed, I have 
heard of an accusation made in the presence of the family itself 
that one of the brothers had not spoken ten consecutive words to 
his deaf sister in a year ! This is approximately true. It has 
been so to an extent in my own life. Now, I know that my 
position in my mother’s heart is second to none, and I know that I 
can count upon brotherly regard, and that my sister’s love is not 
one whit behind the rest; but note this, that with all my advantage 
of an easy flow of speech and ability to understand words spoken 
on the speaker’s lips, I am yet, to a certain degree, alone in my 
own home ! Unless I take the initiative, I doubt at times whether 
the family would notice that such a being as myself were present. How 
much worse off is a deaf-mute ! For signs and spelling to those with 
whom it is not natural, is a species of labor to be dispensed with as 
much as possible. “It is so much trouble to talk that way,” is an 
expression I have frequently met with. 
I know a family of four grown-up children, two of whom (brother 
and sister) are deaf-mutes. I have visited this family many 
times in the past eight years, and I never failed to note that the 
deaf brother and his deaf sister were inseparable companions. 
If I looked up at the parlor window on entering the house, sure 26 
enough there were the two hearts of silence ! Bright and cheerful 
hearts, too; laughing and talking as if utterly oblivious of the 
fact that they were beings made up of misfortune, and, ac- 
cording to Prof. Bell’s theory, beings who must consider them- 
selves as proscribed in the free exercise of their sentiments; who 
should marry, if marry they must, those who can hear for them, and 
those, too, who, like him, have their own opinions in regard to 
keeping up the standard of the intellectual quality of the nation 1 
In this connection, I would like to ask; Why does not the well- 
meaning Professor give his attention to restricting the intermarriages 
of the denizens of the slums?* In the space of one day, in one city, 
out of an hundred thousand, I can introduce him to more debased and 
malignant forms of the generation of human beings than he can 
discover in the total number of homes of deaf people throughout 
the globe. He has no Divine authority that would excuse his 
petition to law to prohibit the deaf from marrying the deaf. Such 
being the case, the people whom he desires to proscribe feel no 
fears, knowing that an all-wise and beneficient Father has provided 
for them ! 
It is only lately that I have become fully informed of the action that 
Prof. Bell has before taken, and what he is doing now to agitate the 
question. lamat a loss to understand his utter ignorance of, or con- 
tempt for, the laws of the Psychology in its bearing upon the subject. 
Were he to ask for a public debate, on, to speak gently—his hobby—I 
would confront him with a child, and he the child of that peaceable, 
contented, hard-working deaf-mute, erstwhile denominated a gigan- 
tic evil. He claims that he can sympathize with the deaf because 
his mother was thus aflicted. So be it. Now that he acknowledges 
this sentiment, how does he reconcile this with his declaration that 
all deaf people should marry hearing partners? According to this, 
to insure sympathy for the deaf partner, he would presuppose that 
every hearing partner should be the offspring of a deaf relative. A 
condition certainly stupendous in its application—nothing less than 
jumping out of the frying pan into the fire. 
And now I ask, why should I, who have no deaf relatives, why 
should I be proscribed in the free exercise of my rights in this 
matter, all because through this accident of a fever I became deaf? 
* See Chapter 11, Physiological Aspect, and Chapter 111, Sociological Aspect. 27 
I am advised by a friend and follower of Prof. Bell, to marry, if 
I marry at all, a person who has had some association with deaf, 
such for instance, a teacher. 
The professor, remembering his own experience as a teacher, no 
doubt, desires to create a demand for more educators of the deaf, 
so as to provide husbands and wives for these “gigantic evds.” 
This is rather severe on the educators! I see no reason why 
these teachers, as a class, should not be entitled to live as freely 
and as easily as other people. Again, to look at it in another aspect, 
if he would have the “gigantic evil” marry hearing partners 
irrespective of their qualifications as educators and descendants ot 
deaf people, then his claim as to the power of sympathy, as exem- 
plified in his person, must be denied, or else his previous argument 
has no force. 
Now, in concluding this chapter, I wish to give a few points 
for the benefit of those misguided persons who imagine that they 
can secure sympathy by marrying a person who simply understands 
their language, in preference to looking elsewhere for it. I can 
do nothing better than to quote from Sully’s Outlines on Psychology, 
London, 1884. 
First.—The giving of sympathy is largely a matter of exchange. 
The pleasure of receiving sympathy calls forth responsive feeling. 
We cannot long go on feeling for another if he give back no 
emotional equivalent. 
Second.—To feel deeply, readily, and widely with others, implies 
that we have felt much and variously ourselves, and are able to recall 
our feelings easily. 
Third.—lt follows from what has been said respecting the nature 
of the feeling, that warm and close sympathy between two persons 
depends on special circumstances. It is not enough that both are of 
a sympathetic nature; more special conditions are necessary. To 
begin with, there must be a certain similarity of temperament and 
emotional experience.* 
* Italics are mine. PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT. 
CHAPTER IV. 
LOVE AND MARRIAGE 
“ Without a good degree of unity, of feeling, design, and action, 
everything in a family must inevitably go wrong; and coldness and 
gloom, if not distrust and discord, will be guests, where quiet, peace, 
tranquillity, mutual regard, and confidence ought to reign with unbroken 
sway.”—Rev. Jasper Adams, D.D., Elements of Moral Philosophy, iBj]. 
“There are certain noble motives for the choice of a husband or wife, 
which, in themselves, deserve all respect, but yet must be rejected 
as wholly inadmissible, since they can lead only to an unhappy choice. 
I mean the motives of gratitude and charity. If one selects for a wife 
the daughter of his benefactor and teacher, or a female friend, who 
has nursed him in a dangerous sickness—if another selects the helpless 
widow of a friend, or an otherwise esti?nable widow, who finds herself 
in pressing want, and is not in a situation to educate her children— 
{and if one selects a deaf-nmte or a person who is blind, or o?ie who is 
lame or deformed*'), if these selections are made without love, from 
mere magnanimity, all will surely praise such a disposition', but 
duty to self forbids making such a sacrifice. We can, and ought, in 
certain cases, to sacrifice goods and blood for others; we may even 
sacrifice the cotnfort of life, and what promotes our culture, by impo- 
sing upon ourselves certain renunciations; but here is more than 
renunciation ; here we pledge ourselves to a performance whose fulfil- 
ment is out of our power. On this account also, regard for the person 
to whom we would show our gratitude and magnanimity, must deter 
from such a sacrifice. Our intention is to make her happy and the 
* The interpolation is mine. 29 
opposite is the result; the connection formed, of which love should be 
the soul cannot prosper without this, and makes both parties un- 
happy 
“****** This above all: To thine owns elf be true; And 
it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to 
any man.”—Hamlet, Act i, Sc. 3. 
How, by what process of reasoning, did Shakspere evolve so 
graceful, so true a definition of the nobility of reasonable self-love? 
Was it through the inspiration of the Word, wherein it is com- 
manded, “Love thy neighbor as thyself,” or did the “Golden 
Rule” form the basis of his conception? In either case the moral 
points to the same conclusion, that one must be true to himself if 
he would be true to others. Such then is the justification of this 
self-love—as if it needed justification ! 
I fancy those people, some through motives of utility, and some 
through motives of benevolence who marry contrary to their best 
interest—their moral interest—will find little to comfort them in 
their folly by a too close analysis of our motto “ to thine ownself 
be true.” 
How often I have seen that well worn adage “ Love (?) is blind ” 
exemplified in the doings of men and women of to-day, and how 
often turning to the records of days long passed by, to observe this 
same confusion existing then as now ! A seemingly pretty saying is 
that “If I love her, I care not if she be deaf, stupid, or blind, or 
mute, lame, or disfigured—-if I love her she shall be mine ! ” What 
sheer, arrant nonsense ! What pure unadulterated weakness ! What 
lamentable lack of duty to one’s self! What reckless disregard of 
the affinities ! With a wave of the hand you deny the existence of 
emotions that are as present and fore-ordained as the air we breathe; 
you deny a system of philosophy that dates from the creation ; you 
scoff at even the whisperings of your own conscience ; you would 
render unintelligible or null that divine injunction “Love thy 
neighbor as thyself.” In a word, you would supplant wisdom with 
a species of insanity; you would unite inequality with equality; you 
would exchange mutual esteem and rational love for an insane 
desire for self renunciation, or for an equally insane state, that of 
infatuation ! 
* From the German of De Wette, Practical Ethics. 30 
It is with profound sorrow that I record the following perversion 
of the ideal of human life, to which, however, we must extend, at 
least to one side, the commiseration due to a mind for the time 
being diseased. 
An heiress, a lady of refinement, the idol of a pleasant home, with 
numerous and ever-willing friends; in short, a person possessing 
everything conducive to her happiness, through an insane freak (I 
propose to call things by their right names) of the mind, declares 
that she cares not if her father’s coachman is a negro, that he is 
unlettered, or that he is ugly, coarse, and a menial, she cares not 
for these things, if she do but love him, he shall be hers, and forth- 
with she elopes with the anomaly ! Don’t tell me that this is love ! 
Don’t tell me that this love lasts a lifetime, that the scourge of fire, 
the elements of war, pestilence, and poverty cannot separate them, 
and don’t tell me that death cannot part them; don’t, I beseech 
you, endeavor to becloud my mind with such assertions, for this 
love (?) accomplishes none of these ends ! A week, a day, serves 
to awaken the victim to her awful calamity, and she returns to the 
home she has outraged, forever lost to the esteem of the world—her 
name passed from mouth to mouth, from the house of God to the 
lowest brothel! Was she true to herself? The answer would fain 
anticipate the question—No ! a thousand times, No ! And the 
Anomaly, what of him? That monstrosity of selfishness, what of 
him? He, who knowing his boundless inequality, yet through a 
demoniac selfish desire, must need take even advantage of a mind 
diseased, what of him ? The scorn of his fellows, the terror of his 
class, an outlaw that even the laws of society are unable to protect 
from swift retribution at the hands of those he has wronged ! 
From many a page of life’s history, soiled by just such perversion 
of the emotions, I select another case fully as sad as the one just 
narrated. 
Not far hence, there dwells a well-to-do family, whose name is 
honored wherever known. They have a daughter, a person of 
some literary note, a fine musician, charming in manner, and 
somewhat of a beauty. This woman (or rather girl, for she is only 
seventeen), like her unfortunate sister, falls desperately in love 
with—what?—a ruffian, a thief, one whose life from boyhood has 
been a succession of crime, who, when he was not in jail, lived a miserable existence in a hut; a giant in strength, his person always 
in rags, filthy, and of repulsive countenance, this being exercised 
the power to tempt a fair and lovely girl to live with him, in spite 
of the fact that no minister would unite them in marriage. When 
at last discovered, and while both were in prison, this fiend in 
human form must even mock a mother’s prayer for her (to speak 
kindly) crazed daughter. As if the mother’s agony, there in jail, 
on bended knee, was not enough, this daughter must force the 
bitter draught to the uttermost, by exclaiming that she would surely 
kill herself if separated from the man, or rather monster, she loved! 
Was this poor infatuated girl true to herself? Did she truly love? 
It is hardly necessary to answer,—No. 
It is just this spirit of infatuation, a yielding to a sudden and 
unaccountable impulse, that by its very unreasonableness seems to 
appeal for co-operation on the part of the victim, that is the cause 
of so many unhappy marriages. Of course, Ido not wish it under- 
stood that I condemn a man of sense, in possession of all his faculties, 
as doing a crazy act in marrying a deaf-mute, or a blind woman ; 
but I do contend that the spirit is one in kind, only differing in 
degree. Happily, such cases are rare. It can be proved that such 
unequal unions as that of a well-educated and successful hearing 
man marrying a deaf-mute can be counted upon the fingers of a 
hand; whereas there are plenty of instances that can be noted 
where utility in the desire to acquire property has brought about a 
marriage. The deaf partner, of course, furnished the property. 
From inquiries put to several deaf gentlemen who married deaf 
girls without a dowry, in every instance I am informed that no 
trouble was experienced in obtaining the consent of the girl’s 
parents to the union. On the other hand, I can cite a number of 
instances where rich parents, who had a deaf daughter, have 
uniformly opposed their daughter’s inclination to marry one like 
herself, they rightfully concluding that their wealth and position 
will bring the girl a husband who can hear. And it is thus they 
write Utility as their criterion of the moral virtues ! 
One thing that strikes me as rather odd, that these parents who 
so vehemently oppose their deaf daughter’s marriage with a man 
similarily situated as herself, seem to be totally oblivious to the fact 
that, if they force their daughter to wed a hearing man, this man’s 32 
relatives will just as stoutly oppose the entrance into their family of 
a deaf person. And here is another point. The daughter will perhaps 
think herself ignored by the relatives of her (hearing) husband, 
and her relatives may imagine themselves slighted by him ; so, as 
a matter of fact, there will be no lack of abundant occasion for 
chagrin and suspicion. The only remedy for this state of affairs is 
that the deaf partner should bring a certificate of riches. But 
what a parody upon the ideal of love this would be ! The man 
sacrifices himself upon the altar of mammon ; the woman sacrifices 
herself to please her parents! “* * * * Where marriage exists 
in its first rudeness, and woman is nothing but a piece of merchan- 
dise which is sold, as in the East, it is the parents who close the 
business, and the bridegroom sees the bride for the first time on the 
wedding-day.”* 
I am not trying to make out a deaf-mute woman to be such an 
undesirable person for a wife. I only argue that it seems out of 
place for a hearing man to deliberately abstain from making a 
choice from the hearing portion of his circle of acquaintance and 
marry a deaf-mute, with whom he cannot by any possibility hope 
to assimilate with until many years have passed. I look at the 
question much in the light that I would if it were suggested that I 
marry a blind woman. lam thoroughly secure in my belief that I 
will never be so untrue to myself as to take such a step. This may 
sound selfish, but it is not. I know some blind women. I can 
sympathize with them. lam at all times willing to be of any 
service in my power, and would fain lighten much of the load they 
bear; but as to giving them myself, that is another thing; I 
could not do it. Ido not stop to consider that this blind woman 
may be a person of high nobleness of character, or that she is well 
educated and refined, and also, for aught I know, quite independent 
of any offer of marriage from me, I don’t stop to consider these 
things; I only see that this blind person is in a large degree a 
helpless person and therefore to be looked upon in the light of 
magnanimity and benevolence rather than the light of equality. 
I am not exempt, however, from a possible infatuation that may 
lead me to take such a person for my wife; but as long as I am 
in my present state of mind, I am not likely to commit any such 
* De Wette’s Practical Ethics. 33 
folly. And so I say of the hearing, if they are in a rational frame 
of mind, and have ambition for social success, they are not likely 
to burden themselves with a deaf-mute wife, or a deaf-mute husband. 
It takes a freak of the mind and heart, or dollars and cents, to 
bring about such marriages. 
There seems to me no greater fallacy than that which would exact 
of a man, as the true ideal of a moral life, the renunciation of self 
to please a benefactor, or to round out his own personal theory of 
benevolence. Benevolence per se, could not have been foreseen 
and enjoined by Divine commandment, because, the creation, as 
first conceived, was to be a Paradise where want and misery were to 
be unknown. Benevolence, therefore, is a human institution—the 
antidote for human frailty. 
If this practice of benevolence, pure and simple, which means 
self-renunciation for the good of others, were to be the criterion, 
and we will say, only criterion of a noble life, then the field for the 
exercise of this virtue must be enlarged. We must have more blind 
men and women to be the husbands and wives of those who see. 
Lame, halt, deformed, and unfortunate people must be more plentiful 
to satisfy the demand for partners and helpmeets (?) for the sound 
of limb, the pride and glory of the well formed, and the eminently 
bright and successful people. Sweet voices of women, the majestic 
eloquence of men must be bestowed upon deaf-mutes. Intellect 
must consort with Ignorance. Wealth and social position must 
walk in fraternal spirit with poverty. Ambition is to be annihilated. 
The whole world is to be turned into a vast benevolent institution. 
Every perfect man and every perfect woman, is to practice complete 
renunciation of what is to their best happiness. Are the incapables 
and unfortunates expected to renunciate? Not at all, not even 
renounce a noble and complete sacrifice made for them. Benevo- 
lence and magnanimity are to be all on one side, the side of the 
capable; on the other side, outrageous selfishness is to reign supreme. 
The vast sum of happiness of one-half of the world is to be given 
to the more or less incapable other half. The benevolent enthusiast 
will shut his eyes to the void left by the extraction of this happiness 
and triumphantly exclaim, that at last the true equilibrium of the 
ideal moral life has been solved ! 
No one denies that the world is old, no one denies that it has 
reached the age to know what is right and what is wrong, and no 34 
one can deny that the vast movement of human life, as regards the 
emotions of the heart in the question of natural selection, is regu- 
lated by an inflexible psychological law, a law too stupendous to 
have been the invention of any one human mind, or even a million 
human minds; no one denies these things except our benevolent 
friend, who is now kindly admonished to take note, that this search 
for individual happiness, this bettering of one’s own condition has 
been for ages, and is to-day, the sum of the world’s happiness, a 
happiness that brings with it, not the blush of a selfish nature in its 
shame, but a prayer of thankfulness to an all-wise Creator. 
“ * * * * These considerations might make such a man 
aware that his interest in true happiness for himself and his 
interest in it for others, are not two interests but one interest, of 
which the object is not a succession of pleasures but a fulfilment of 
itself, a bettering of itself, a realization of its capabilities on the 
part of the human soul.”* 
The question now arises, what can, what should a deaf-mute do, 
who desires to enter the marriage state ? The avenue to a con- 
nection with those who hear, being subjected to risks attendant 
upon the element of sacrifice and benevolence entering into the 
union, must forbid too much reliance for happiness in this direction ; 
in fact, as far as my observation has taught me, I would earnestly 
contend against any and all such unequal unions. The subject, 
mind, being a deaf-mute, one who can neither speak or read the 
lips. This narrows the choice for deaf-mutes to seek wives among 
their own class. And this is just what Prof. Bell and other 
objectors so earnestly contend against-—I would fain take sides with 
them, but I am convinced that so long as hearing people like to 
make use of their natural powers of speech and hearing, they are 
not likely to follow Prof. Bell’s advice, and marry a deaf-mute, the 
very person who would appreciate least the many and pleasant 
surprises the human voice, such as they possess, is capable of. Now 
why not let deaf-mutes marry deaf-mutes ? As to offspring being 
deaf and mute like their parents, “what of that?” The parents 
never having known sound or speech, can never feel that sadness for 
a deaf child that a hearing person, or one like myself who though 
deaf, has known what sound is, feels; at least not to such a great 
* Thomas Hill Green, M. A., LL.D., Prolegomena to Ethics, Oxford 1883, p. 419. 35 
•extent. Being themselves happy, well educated, finding in the great 
world around them plenty of occupations to engage their minds and 
hearts, one may well ask, “What matters it” if they are deaf and 
mute. The orbit they may move in may have less grandeur in 
its sweep than that of those who hear and who are in the same 
social scale. But does this imply that the orbit of a deaf-mute must 
always define a lesser space? Assuredly not! If a young man, deaf 
from earliest childhood, and who depended upon his eyes in lieu of 
hearing, for communication with his hearing fellows, if this young 
man, could as he did,* at a great English University, stand 
sixth in a class of one hundred hearing men, others can do like- 
wise. It is not a question of the loss of hearing and speech, it is 
a question of brains and eyesight. Admitting thus that a deaf- 
mute can be educated, and admitting that he is not helpless, for 
witness, that even against discouragements, he manages to get work 
and succeeds at it. Admitting that in his sphere he is doing that 
which his hands find ready for him to do, and who does it to the 
satisfaction of the person who pays for it. Granting all these 
things, is it exactly fair to assume to dictate, or even suggest, what 
he should do in matters that concern strictly himself. Who tries 
to say what the vicious, drunken, weak, and lost inhabitants 
of the slums should do in this question of marriage ! No one. 
These people, so long as they are out of jail, or out of the jurisdic- 
tion of the insane asylum, are fully justified in following the bent of 
their affections, and have the same right to enjoy life, lowly as it is, 
as have the brightest and most virtuous. Therefore, I say let these 
people marry if they want to. To lessen the evil effects, society must 
educate them to a realization of their position, and point the way 
to higher labor, and it will follow that their moral tone will advance 
in equal ratio. 
And so with deaf-muteism. Give these people all the schooling 
that can be afforded; by this means you lessen the defect. If a 
deaf-mute can form a concept of the meaning of the word Philo- 
sophy, and wishing to convey his analysis of the word to a third 
party, and does so with the aid of his hand, what is the difference 
between his conception and that of the man who hears, who gives 
his analysis with his tongue ? There is absolutely no difference 
* Rev. Henry Winter Syle. 36 
between the two in regard to the understanding of the word; the 
conception is exactly the same, but the mode of communication 
only is different; one speaks with that part of himself situate in the 
hand ; the other, that part situate in the mouth—a mere physical 
difference that does not impair the influences of either individual. 
The grand principle underlying this question is—Are deaf-mutes 
capable of work? are they peaceable, that is, not vicious and 
destructive as pertain to those suffering diseases of the mind ? The 
answer is, Yes. These people can labor, and are harmless. Now, 
then, if by the hand of God a number of these people are born 
deaf, not only of deaf parents, but of hearing ones as well, why not 
let them move in their orbit in the even tenor of their way? I 
care not how humble the mode of life, so that the main idea exists 
—that is, happiness and content. In five minutes’ ride in the 
metropolis, I can take you from the abode of dazzling splendor and 
intellect, to a quaint little corner, where lives a family whose 
environment is the antipodes of that we have just left, and yet this 
family can hardly find room for the many enjoyments within its 
reach. 
Considering all these circumstances, ought we to assume to 
dictate what class of woman a deaf-mute may desire to give that 
sacred, and eminently personal, name of wife ? If he chooses a 
deaf-mute woman, that is Society’s own fault, for Society does not 
propose marriage to deaf-mutes. Apparently, it prefers to make 
such proposals to those who can hear, and Society is perfectly 
willing to pay the extra cost in special schools,* and in other 
directions, as the result of this refusal to intermarry with such 
defective people, to the alternative of living a cramped life with a 
person that it can only require the best years of one’s existence to 
learn to assimilate with. 
Consulting Professor Bell’s statistics,f I find that in 35 institutions 
for the deaf, 215 children born of deaf-mute parents, are returned 
as being in attendance. The remaining 21 institutions refused to 
give any information. It will be fair, however, in view of the fact 
that the larger schools have furnished statistics, to allow for the 
21 schools the same proportion as given for the 35 institutes that 
* See Chapter 11, Sociological Aspect. 
f Memoir to the Academy of Science, A. G. Bell, 1883, page 27. 37 
responded, which will be a total of 138, or a grand total of 353 
pupils, who, according to Professor Bell, are an unnecessary burden 
upon society in the way of special and more expensive schools for 
their education. 
The cost per capita for the education of these 353 deaf-mutes is 
$223.28 per year; from this deduct the cost per capita (in round 
numbers, $12.00*) for the education of public school children, 
leaves $211.28 as the excess over the cost of educating the hearing 
children. To meet this extra cost, a tax of a fraction of less than 
half of one cent a year will be required of, say fifteen million tax 
payers, an insignificant amount, when it is considered that its pay- 
ment absolves the payee from all obligation to marry a deaf-mute, 
with its attendant liability to deaf offspring (it is an ascertained fact 
that deaf children do result from such unions, even though the 
hearing partner may not have deaf-mute relatives). This payment 
also gives the payee the power to consistently refuse to allow a 
hearing son or daughter to marry a deaf-mute. This tax of less 
than half of one cent a year is therefore the premium on a policy of 
insurance that protects society (that part that hears) from incurring 
a loss of $211.28]' per annum for educational expenses of a possible 
deaf child. And when it is remembered that this item of cost may 
be multiplied by two or even more times, and that in addition to 
this, society is put to the extra labor and inconvenience of deaf-mute 
partners, it must be admitted that the tax [or] premium is reason- 
able, and no one is surprised that society cheerfully pays it. 
Indeed, a young hearing gentleman has been heard to remark, that 
he would be willing to pay the premium in advance for fifty years 
(25 cents) to assist in isolating this defect and relegate the loss to 
those who are mainly responsible for it. Another hearing gentleman, 
and he is a prominent educator of the deaf, one who might be sup- 
posed to entertain liberal opinions on this question of the inter- 
marriage of the deaf with the hearing, says: “I would pay this 
premium if it were a hundred dollars, and pay it in advance too.” 
And I who am deaf, and who take sides with deaf-mutes, I have to 
admit that he would be doing what was proper, eminently so. 
* Report of the Commissioners of Education, 1883-84. 
f In all cases where the parents are able to pay, this cost has to be paid by them. No one with even half the experience I have had with the hear- 
ing world, can help smiling at the assertions by deaf-mutes every- 
where, that they are good enough for partners for the hearing. The 
fact that hearing people don’t seek them out, and the more weighty 
fact that at least ninety or perhaps ninety-nine per cent, of their 
number marry the deaf, has no force with them—they claim every- 
thing in the face of stupendous odds to the contrary. Meanwhile, 
every hearing person I ask, seems to show more than ordinary 
willingness to pay all sorts of premiums if it is demanded, to be 
free from obligation, moral or otherwise, to take to themselves 
deaf-mute partners. 
As before stated, the cost per capita for the education of deaf- 
mutes is one-half of one cent a year, based on a population of 
fifteen million tax payers. It is argued that this premium would 
rapidly advance with the increase in the number of deaf-mutes as 
the result of permitting them to intermarry. This would be true, 
but, as soon as the deaf-mute community becomes large enough, 
then the system of day schools in use for the hearing could be 
adopted to meet their wants, with the result of reducing the cost of 
their education to the same scale as that for the hearing. 
I shall speak more at length on this point in another chapter. 
Prof. Bell advocates a policy of interference:—“ Among repres- 
sive measures should perhaps be included the influence of friends to 
prevent undesirable intermarriages.”f And still worse, in the same 
paper he suggests the passage of a law—“ * * * * Legislation 
forbidding the intermarriage of persons belonging to families con- 
taining more than one deaf-mute would be more practicable.” 
What rank treason against a rational class of people such a law 
would be, if passed! He (Professor Bell) might as well assume 
that a useful animal, say a horse, has no right to live its life in its 
own way, because it is dumb, and should therefore be relegated to 
celibacy, and finally to extinction—a policy as heroic and astound- 
ing as that of the ancient Greeks, who thought that by destroying 
the weak, blind, and other unfortunate people, they would thus 
insure a race of giants and heroes. Their system fell, as will also 
Professor Bell’s, for it is universally believed that every human 
f A. Graham Bell, Memoir to the Academy of Science, p. 46, Nov. 13, 1883. 39 
being has a soul, no matter how humble or imperfect the dwelling- 
place. A soul has its affections and ideals, and it seems wisest to 
me to refrain from interfering in its free line of action. The only 
restraint I advocate is where the person is insane, or where his 
action comes in conflict with Divine law. 
To me there is something very grateful in Mr. Bishop’s quaint 
story in an humble key of Jerry and Clarinda.* It abounds with 
touches of kindly sympathy and lively regard for his deaf-mute hero 
and heroine, for Jerry and Clarinda are deaf-mutes. Mr. Bishop 
acknowledges that occult sympathy, that unity of feeling that exists 
between the deaf. In the meeting between Jerry and Clarinda, 
Uncle Shackley is made to observe: “ Clarinda is my brother’s 
child; he left her to us when he died, and she’s the pride of our 
house.” “It’s a great treat to them dummies,” he added, “to see 
some o’ their own sort once in awhile. I’d go half a day’s journey 
out o’ my way, any time, to give the girl a treat like this.” 
Why can’t we all look upon the question of love and marriage of 
deaf-mutes in just such a broad and beneficent way as this, and not 
endeavor to force utility and the mere question of breed as the prime 
virtues. I boldly advocate that if a hearing man cannot agree on 
this point, he can at least let these people alone in all such matters 
as concerns their affections. To devise a system of education, to 
enlighten the hearing as to the inherent ability of the deaf 
to do a good deal of the work that is now denied in part to them, 
and many other improvements, will be measures that will deserve 
all praise. Let these people alone in the affairs of the heart. 
Professor Bell expresses the opinion that the system of segregation 
mostly in use by the schools for the deaf, is the cause for much of 
this antipathy of the two classes to intermingle, to make sexual 
selection one from the other. He cites that in the earlier history 
of the deaf and dumb,f “ before they were educated, comparatively 
few of them married, and intermarriage (if it existed at all) was so 
rare as to be practically unknown.” Professor Bell, we fear, fails 
to observe that in those earlier days in deaf-mute history the deaf 
and dumb were not allowed to marry at all, and so far from having 
freedom of choice in their affection (as they now enjoy), they were 
• Harper’s Magazine, May, 1887. 
■)• Memoir to the National Academy of Sciences, 1883, p. 41. 40 
even deprived of their own personal freedom. Some were con- 
signed to the lock-up, some to the work-house, nearly all led an 
aimless and hopeless life. Such people don’t marry. There is 
nothing remarkable therefore in Mr. Bell’s assertion, that the 
uneducated deaf very rarely married, and as to intermarriage, 
hardly at all. 
This theory and objection to segregation* does not, it seems to 
me, have the weight that Professor Bell attaches to it. So far as 
my own experience goes, his non-segregation theory certainly has 
not offered any solution to the difficulty. 
I entered a private boarding school at ten years of age, and my 
fellow-pupils were all hearing boys. I remained in this school until 
between twelve and thirteen years of age. Now, although I could 
hear at that time if spoken to loudly, and close to the ear, and 
although I retained the full use of my voice and could talk as 
readily as the rest, yet, I can recall distinctly now that I was very 
much alone among all those hearing boys. 
To have had a deaf-mute or a person simply deaf, would not, in 
my estimate, have improved matters, for in this case there would 
have been two, instead of one, very much alone. Now, on reflect- 
ing, that of a necessity, these two, who were deaf, would certainly 
associate together by sheer force of community of feeling, the 
resultant would be the sum total of two different minds with their 
given quantity of ideas. It ought to be evident to Professor Bell, 
that a mind brought into contact with several hundred minds, as is 
now done in the would-be proscribed segregational institutes for the 
education of the deaf, would, and is bound to receive more infor- 
mation than that mind which receives the impression and reflection 
of only one mind. Of course, if boys, hearing boys, were as a rule, 
benevolent, kind, and considerate, willing to forego a game of 
cricket or base-ball, or any sport or exercises in which his deaf friend 
or fellow-pupil is incapacitated to take part for the sake of keeping 
this friend company, then the whole aspect of the case would be 
altered. But boys, as boys, are not so constituted. It takes years, 
and many disappointments and sorrows, to teach a man or woman 
how to be always considerate and willing to forego their own 
pleasure, to bring their action down to the pace of those who are 
* See Chapter 11, Sociological Aspect. ■slower. Boys and girls are not made of such stuff. There is nothing 
a live, progressive, growing, war-whooping lad detests so much as a 
“ slow coach,” his definition for those who are slow of intellect, 
slow of motion, and slow of comprehension. No, these boys are 
boys, with but little or no time to devote to the theory and practice 
of ethics. To be self-denying is opposed to that sense of growth as 
seems to be the immediate condition of a boy’s mind. They some- 
times show it, this feeling for others, but it is so rare, as to command 
the epithet, “impulse.” Life to boys is progression. It is all 
Excelsior with them, individually and collectively. You can compre- 
hend now that I was very much alone in the fast moving school-life 
around me. In the case of a boy, mute as well as deaf, the loneli- 
ness, or isolation, would be still more accentuated, to such an extent, 
indeed, as to seem to me the veriest folly to say, that he would 
receive benefit from his association. 
Lord Derby lays great stress on the need of separate treatment 
for the blind*; his remarks on the subject can, with equal force, be 
made to apply to the conditions that should govern the education 
of the deaf. He says; “When they (the blind) mix with seeing 
persons, they are exposed, especially as children, to various influences 
which are not to their advantage. * * * They are the ‘ poor 
blind.’ Little or nothing is expected of them ; they have a claim 
on every body’s services, and need give none in return. On the 
other hand, when blind children are brought together into a common 
school, they learn first to help one another, and then to help them- 
selves. In their own families it is almost impossible for them to do 
this. The contrast between their condition and that of people who 
have their eyesight is so striking that it seems cruel to expect them 
to do things for themselves. The consequence is that unless a 
child’s character is exceptionally vigorous, the most impressionable 
years of life pass away without anything being done to make him 
independent of others. His only idea of making a livelihood will 
be by appealing to that feeling of compassion which he has looked 
to all his early life. Now, quite apart from the fact that when this 
appeal has to be made to strangers it will meet with a very inter- 
mittent and imperfect response, children who grow up in this state 
of dependence remain ignorant of many sources of happiness which 
* From the London Spectator of recent date. 42 
are really within their reach. What gives the blind enjoyment is 
not what is done for them, but what they can be taught to do for 
themselves.” 
Leaving school at the early age of thirteen, my life henceforth was 
to be a succession of disappointments and chagrin in my contact 
with the hearing world. In this time, however, I contrived to 
educate myself by practice and success in lip-reading, to mingle 
quite freely in hearing society; this was due to sheer force of pride 
and sensitiveness in regard to my deafness. 
I have met in personal intercourse, Justices of the Supreme Court, 
Senators, and Representatives in the National and State govern- 
ments, Army and Navy officers; I have dined in the home of 
wealth and culture ; I have partaken of the hospitality of the humble 
iron-worker; I have met representative men in every profession ; 
the blind, the deaf and mute, and the crippled, have all come in for 
a share of my personal interest; in short, I am a graduate of a 
cosmopolitan school, such as any great city offers. lam therefore 
certainly not a victim of segregational methods, and yet, I am far 
more sensitive, as my friends and acquaintances say, on this ques- 
tion of marrying a hearing woman, than young men whose lives 
have been from childhood spent in Institutes for the Deaf and 
Dumb. A parallel case to mine is that of Rev. Henry W. Syle, whose 
chief education was received in the schools and universities for the 
hearing. He acknowledges this sensitiveness, and emphasizes it by 
marrying a deaf woman. 
I was twenty-three before I ever met a deaf person, and at that 
age did not know even the rudiments of the deaf-mute language, 
not even the manual alphabet, a convenience that even my hearing 
friends possessed, and who found fault with me for not having a like 
qualification. So much for the objection to segregation. 
I cannot agree with Professor Bell that this is the root of the 
evil; rather say that the real evil is that the person is deaf and mute, 
and therefore unable to appreciate the voice of the hearing. This 
latter class will, in spite of all theories, go on and marry people 
who can appreciate what natural powers they may have. Fancy, 
if you can, a sweet-voiced nightingale consorting with a bird that 
was deaf—an anomaly it would be incapable of. In the past seven 
or eight years I have learned the inmost life of the deaf and mute ; 43 
and now, in view of all that I have seen, in view of the many happy 
and successful homes, looking at yon gray-haired deaf-mute and his 
silent, equal, and loving companion, his wife; in view of what I 
have heard of opposite results, where one of the contracting 
parties was a hearing person ; in view of all these facts, I must 
protest against any interference, in any form, with the affairs of a 
people able to judge and act for themselves; I must protest against 
such a prohibitory law as Professor Bell has outlined, as I would the 
darkest infamy ! 
And now, in conclusion, I desire to express a hope that Professor 
Bell will withdraw his suggestion of a “policy of interference” 
and certain prohibitory measures, the text of which has already been 
stated, and allow people, such as do not come within the jurisdic- 
tion of the authorities for the insane, or those suffering from con- 
tagious disease, and all those, in fact, whose presence does not 
conflict with public safety, to have freedom of choice in this ques- 
tion of the affections.