prohibited.  In at least sixteen states the prohibition is extended to include first cousins.  In New Hampshire such marriages are void and the children are illegitimate.  Other states in which first-cousin marriage is forbidden are Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Kansas, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana.  Since both Oklahoma and Indian Territory had similar laws, the present State of Oklahoma should probably be added to this list.  In all of these states marriages within the prohibited degrees are incestuous or void or both, except in Ohio, where no express declaration is made in the statute.  In Ohio, Indiana, Nevada and Washington the law is made to read:  “and not nearer of kin than second cousins,” therefore including “1-1/2 cousins” within the prohibited degrees.  In many states the marriage of step relatives is forbidden, as also marriage with a mother-in-law or father-in-law.  Of the territories, Arizona, Alaska, and Porto Rico forbid the marriage of first cousins, but in Porto Rico the court may waive the impediment.

These laws probably have some effect in reducing the number of consanguineous marriages in these states, but the sentiment back of the law is more responsible for the decrease in the number of such unions than the law itself.  For in the nature of things enforcement would be very difficult, and apparently little real effort is made in that direction.  In Ohio, and probably elsewhere, the question as to consanguinity is not directly put to the applicants for a marriage license.  The applicants are required to answer the usual questions in regard to age, parentage, residence, etc., and are then required to swear that their previous statements have been correct and that neither of them is “epileptic, imbecile or insane,” that they are “not nearer of kin than second cousins, and not at the time under the influence of any intoxicating liquor or narcotic drug.”  Undoubtedly violations of the consanguinity clause are very frequent, and it is likewise easily evaded by going to another state where the laws are more liberal.  One effect of the law is to provide a painless method of severing the marriage bond.  A correspondent, who is a District Court Judge in Kansas, in reporting a case of first cousin marriage, adds that he “divorced them on the ground of consanguinity.”

In the absence of direct investigation by the Census Bureau, or other public records of consanguineous marriages, perhaps the most promising field for research is in the genealogical records of American families.  Several thousand volumes of such material have been published within the last half-century, and a large number of these are very carefully and scientifically prepared.  The material gathered from such sources is very accurate in regard to the number of births, youthful deathrate etc., but mental or physical defects are rarely mentioned.  The greatest objection to the utilization of this material, however, is the amount of labor necessary in order to glean the desired facts from the mass of irrelevant data.  For example, in order to find one case of first cousin marriage it is necessary on an average, to examine the records of nearly two hundred other marriages.