Testimony of Dr. A.S. Priddy from Hearing on Appeal of Order to sterilize Carrie Buck
11/18/1924
Add to Favorites:
Add all page(s) of this document to activity:
Add only page 1 to activity:
Add only page 2 to activity:
Add only page 3 to activity:
Add only page 4 to activity:
Add only page 5 to activity:
Add only page 6 to activity:
Add only page 7 to activity:
Add only page 8 to activity:
Add only page 9 to activity:
Add only page 10 to activity:
This document comes from the case file for Buck v. Bell, concerning the issue of involuntary sterilization. This statement of Evidence from Hearing on Appeal of Order to sterilize Carrie Buck includes testimony from Dr. A.S. Priddy, Superintendent of the State Colony for Epileptics and Feebleminded in Lynchburg, Virginia. His testimony begins at the top of page 94 of this filing.
In his testimony, Dr. Priddy describes how Carrie Buck was a "highly proper case for the benefit of the Sterilization Act" based on her family history, examination, and observation under his care.
At 17 years old, Carrie Buck became pregnant (later reported to have been the result of rape, allegedly by a relative of her foster parents). Shortly after the birth of her child, her foster parents had her committed to the “Virginia Colony for Epileptics and Feeble-Minded” on the grounds of feeble-mindedness, incorrigible behavior and promiscuity. Buck was declared mentally incompetent and her daughter was taken away from her.
Albert S. Priddy, the superintendent of the “Colony for Epileptics and Feeble-Minded,” used Carrie to test the legality of Virginia’s involuntary sterilization law. John H. Bell replaced Priddy after his death in 1925.
On May 2, 1927, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the state’s statute allowing for the sterilization of people who were thought of as “unfit,” including the intellectually disabled. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. delivered the majority opinion of the Court, including: “It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind….Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” (This referenced the fact that Buck’s mother had been committed to a state institution, Buck’s diagnosis, and the assumption in the Court’s opinion that Buck’s children would be “socially inadequate.”)
Bell performed Buck’s sterilization on October 19, 1927. She was the first person involuntarily sterilized under Virginia’s Laws for the sterilization of persons considered “unfit” — an estimated 8,300 Virginians were sterilized under the state law from 1927 to 1972.
In his testimony, Dr. Priddy describes how Carrie Buck was a "highly proper case for the benefit of the Sterilization Act" based on her family history, examination, and observation under his care.
At 17 years old, Carrie Buck became pregnant (later reported to have been the result of rape, allegedly by a relative of her foster parents). Shortly after the birth of her child, her foster parents had her committed to the “Virginia Colony for Epileptics and Feeble-Minded” on the grounds of feeble-mindedness, incorrigible behavior and promiscuity. Buck was declared mentally incompetent and her daughter was taken away from her.
Albert S. Priddy, the superintendent of the “Colony for Epileptics and Feeble-Minded,” used Carrie to test the legality of Virginia’s involuntary sterilization law. John H. Bell replaced Priddy after his death in 1925.
On May 2, 1927, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the state’s statute allowing for the sterilization of people who were thought of as “unfit,” including the intellectually disabled. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. delivered the majority opinion of the Court, including: “It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind….Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” (This referenced the fact that Buck’s mother had been committed to a state institution, Buck’s diagnosis, and the assumption in the Court’s opinion that Buck’s children would be “socially inadequate.”)
Bell performed Buck’s sterilization on October 19, 1927. She was the first person involuntarily sterilized under Virginia’s Laws for the sterilization of persons considered “unfit” — an estimated 8,300 Virginians were sterilized under the state law from 1927 to 1972.
Transcript
94 Carrie Buck vs. Dr. J. H. Bell157*
*Dr. A.S. PRIDDY,
a witness of lawful age, having been first duly sworn, testified as follows:
Direct Examination
BY COL. STRODE:
Q Dr. Priddy, what is your occupation?
A Physician: Superintendent of the State Colony for Epileptics and feebleminded located in this county on the suburbs of the City of Lynchburg.
Q How long have you been officially connected with Virginia State institutions for either the insane, epileptic, or feebleminded?
A Nearly twenty-one years altogether.
Q How long have you been Superintendent of the institution where you now are?
A Fourteen years, six months.
Q How long have you been receiving in that institution under the statute feebleminded persons?
A The first about the fifteenth of May, 1914.
Q In your entire experience in State institutions for the insane, epileptic, and feebleminded, have you been connected with other similar institutions?
A I was assistant physician first, and then superintendent, of the Southwestern State Hospital at Marion for about five years.
158*
Q In your twenty-one years of experience in connection with these institutions, how many patients in such institutions would you say had passed under your observation?
A I should say from four to five thousand.
Q From your petition as Superintendent of your present institution, it appears that one of your patients, Carrie Buck, after a hearing before your Special Board, has been ordered operated upon under the provisions of this act, providing for sterilization, approved March 20, 1924. That act provides that the initial step shall be a petition by you stating the facts of the case and the grounds of your opinion to the best of your knowledge and belief, praying an order to be entered for this sterilization. I wish you would state to the Court why you moved to have this girl sterilized under this act?
A In the first place, I arrive at the conclusion that she was a highly proper case for the benefit of the Sterilization Act, by a study
Carrie Buck vs. Dr. J. H. Bell 95
of her family history; personal examination of Carrie Buck, and subsequent observation since admission to the hospital covering the whole fields of inquiry connected with the feebleminded.
Q You tell us you arrived at that conclusion, but you do not answer my question, which is, what are the considerations that lead you to that conclusion?
A May I refer to my notes? (Witness refers to note-
book.)
159*
*A (Continuing) She was eighteen years old on the second of last July, and according to the natural expectancy, if the purpose of the act chartering this institution are to be observed and
carried out, that is to keep her under custody during her period of child-bearing, she would have some thirty years of strict custody and care, under which she would receive only her board and clothes; would be denied all of the blessings of outdoor life and liberty, and be a burden on the State of Virginia of about $200.00 a year for thirty years; whereas if by the operation of sterilization, with the training she has got, she could go out, get a good home under supervision, earn good wages, and probably marry some man of her own level and do as many whom I have sterilized for disease have done - be good wives - be producers, and lead happy and useful lives in their spheres.
Q Now, your remark about having sterilized some patients for disease leads to this question: is there any law prohibiting the sterilization of those who by diseased condition of their tubes or other parts require it to be done? Is there any law against it?
A None whatever. I have a right to do whatever is best for the
mental and physical advantage of the patient.
160*
*Q As a matter of fact, was that tested out?
A Yes, sir.
Q You were sued in a Richmond court by one of your patients upon whom you had performed this operation?
A Yes, sir.
Q That was before this law was passed?
A Yes, sir.
Q You defended that on the ground that it was necessary for diseased organs?
A Yes, sir, that was my defense.
Q That was the accepted medical practice?
A Yes, sir.
Q Take a woman of full mind, if they want that done, is there any reason why it should not be?
A No, certainly not. It is done by the very best of surgeons.
Q Girls like Carrie Buck are in the custody of the State?
96 Carrie Buck vs. Dr. J. H. Bell
A Yes, sir.
Q And she is legally incompetent to consent?
A No.
Q And unless the State sets up some tribunal to settle that for her, she is deprived of the benefits to be derived from that operation?
A Yes.
Q Now, coming individually to Carrie Buck again;
161*
*what were the indications in her personal history leading you to believe that she was a feebleminded person and the probable potential parent of socially inadequate offspring, likewise afflicted?
A In the first place she has a feebleminded mother, a patient in the Colony under my care, who is of lower mental grade than she.
Q What is her name?
A Emma Buck.
Q She is also a patient in your colony?
A Yes, sir. She has a mental age of about seven years and eleven months, according to tests put up at that institution, and Carrie has by history and mental examination and observation, proven to be feebleminded herself. There are two direct generations of feebleminded, and besides, while I don't know anything about their kinship, under my care and observation I have got about eight Bucks and Harlowes, all coming from the Albemarle stock. I won't vouch for their relationship - I don't suppose they know. I have one from Rockbridge County just committed; four from Charlottesville or Albemarle; one from Richmond; on at the Reformatory, and the other in Goochland County.
Q They all trace back to -
A All trace back to the Albemarle Harlowes and Bucks.
Q I will ask you again, what leads you to believe that
162*
*Carrie Buck, if she had children, would be the parent of defective offspring?
A In the generally accepted theory of the laws of heredity.
Q What is her age, mentally?
A Mentally it is nine years - a middle-grade moron, and the brother of low-grade.
Q Might she be sexually sterilized without detriment to her general health?
A Absolutely she could.
Q Would you think her welfare would be promoted by such sterilization?
A I certainly do.
Q Why? And how?
Carrie Buck vs. Dr. J. H. Bell 97
A Well, every human being craves liberty; she would get that, under supervision. She would not have a feeling of dependence; she would be earning her own livelihood, and would get some pleasure out of life, which would be denied her in having to spend her life in cus-
todial care in an institution.
Q Would you think the public welfare would be promoted by her sterilization?
A Unquestionably. You mean society in its full scope?
Q Yes, sir.
A Well, in the first place, she would cease to be a charge
163*
on society if sterilized; it would remove one potential source of the incalculable number of descendents who would be feebleminded. She would contribute to the raising of the general mental average and standard.
Q Well, taking into consideration the years of experience you have had in dealing with the socially inadequate, and more particularly with the feebleminded, what, in your judgment, would be the general effect, both upon patients and upon society at large, by the operation of
this law?
A It would be a blessing.
Q To whom?
A To both society and to the individuals on whom the operation is performed?
Q Of course these people, being of limited intelligence, lack full judgment of what is best for them, but generally, so far as patients are concerned, do they object to this operation or not?
A They clamor for it.
Q Why?
A Because they know that it means the enjoyment of life and the peaceful pursuance of happiness, as they view it, on the outside of institution walls. Also they have the opportunity of marrying men of their mental levels and making good wives in many cases.
Q Have you had personal observation of that with those you have personally sterilized?
164*
*A From 1916 to about the winter of 1917, for tubal diseases, and a few subsequent to that, we sterilized eighty odd cases. About sixty of them - we got good homes for about sixty
of them. Some returned to their families, and after a period of from six to eight years they have been out of the institution and so far as I know, they have never given the officers of the law any trouble. They have earned their livings, and not one has ever been returned to the institution. Some eight or ten of the cases are known to Mr. White.
98 Carrie Buck vs. Dr. J. H. Bell
Q Comparing them with women of the same type, in the first place, that you have had to retain permanently in the institution, which is the better off, from the standpoint of the patients; those that have been sterilized and released, or those kept in the institution?
A Those who have been sterilized and released are, of course, much better off. Now, the demand for domestics in housework is so great that probably we could get rid of half of our young women of average intelligence, but I have had to abolish it. They go out, and it is so common from them to come back pregnant that I have quit taking the risk. People don't care to take them when there is the constant chance of them becoming mothers.
Q Except for their liability to become pregnant, is there
165*
any other insurmountable obstacle to their being put out inhomes that way?
A No, sir, none whatever.
Q A good deal has been said in the way of cross examination of some of the witnesses as to the likelihood of the encouragement of vice by their liberation; judging particularly by your experience of some eight that have been released under those circumstances, have you observed anything to show that would be demoralizing in a general way?
A I think that is negligible as an objection to sterilization. I have never had any trouble, nor has my attention ever been called to that sort of evil from sterilization, and these women going at large - I mean living out -
Q As a matter of fact, as to those sixty or eighty you have sterilized under those circumstances, have you undertaken to keep up with them?
A I have kept up with them quite well. Many of them like to come back and show prosperity after they are free. I had a boy, son of a Baptist minister, who was incorrigible - of the imbecile class. He attempted to assault a girl of this community. His father had him steriilzed by the complete method. We had a girl who had been sterilized, and he ran away with the sterilized case, and I have never known a couple to get along better. When she died down at
166*
Kingsport this fall he came back to the hospital and said, "My wife's dead now, you will have to take care of me."
Q In other words, two of the socially inadequate could get long together, but not separately?
A Yes, sir. Mr. Whitehead knows them both.
MR. WHITEHEAD: Yes, put in there that I know them through being a member of the Special Board of Directors.
Carrie Buck vs. Dr. J. H. Bell 99
(COL. STRODE CONTINUES:)
Q Doctor, about how many patients, taking both men and women, are there in your institution whose condition you think would be improved and who might be better dealt with for their own good and for the good of society if you were free under the provisions of this law, after a hearing, to have this operation performed?
A Well, I should think from seventy-five to a hundred women. The men have other anti-social tendencies just as glaring as child-bearing, and we would have to keep them there--they rank below the tramps and hoboes.
Q But you have some seventy-five women there who are suitable for return to society from every standpoint except that they are of child-bearing age and are likely to have illegitimate children?
A Yes.
Q Have you facilities to take care of all patients of this
167*
class that would be committed to your hospital?
A That should be, or would be?
Q That should be?
A No, sire, we cannot take in more than one in five at the very outside.
Q Of course that term "should be" is susceptible of interpretation: are you full to capacity?
A Yes, sir , have a long waiting list. It is impossible to admit them.
Q If you could get seventy-five vacancies by operating, the condition of these people, in this way, would they fill up with other cases?
A Yes, sir, and with other cases needing custodial care may of them could be sterilized and got out and we could take care of others.
Q You have no way, I take it, of knowing how many of those people there are in the State?
A Well, in Virginia, based on the population of two and a half million, there should be from eight to ten thousand.
Q That is merely an estimate?
A Yes, sir, but there has a census been taken in other states--in Massachusetts, for instance--and it runs in ratio of one to two hundred and fifty. Some of those people wouldn't come within the Virginia definition.
168* *Q Many of them don't come within the meaning of the Virginia Statute?
A No, sir, fortunately, or we wouldn't have any hewers of wood or drawers of water.
Carrie Buck vs. Dr. J.H. Bell 100
Q But the statutes of Virginia do provide for the taking of the feebleminded and caring for them?
A Yes, sir.
Q And in theory, they are all in your charge when they are committed to your hospital?
A Yes, sir, subject to my jurisdiction and subject to the law.
Q Doctor, I don't know of anything else, unless you have something that you think I have over-looked.
A I feel that I should state, n a few words, the strong reason for the operation of the sterilization law is that the State contemplates the detention of these women in the institution during their childbearing period of from twenty-five to thirty years, and by sterilization--an
absolutely safe and harmless operation--within three weeks the end that would be attained in twenty-five years would be brought about. They are no worse off when sterilized surgically than when sterilized by nature after being kept locked up twenty-five or thirty years.
Q In other words, when segregated, as you do them, they are by segregation effectually prevented from propagating?
A Yes, sir, and there is another matter to be considered: When you keep those women locked up for twenty-five to thirty years, the door of hope is closed to them. They are unable and
incapable of getting out and earning their living.
Q In other words, you have to train them young, and if you postpone their opportunities for training, they get so they cannot do it?
A Yes, sir, they become helpless and lose confidence in themselves.
Cross Examination
BY MR. WHITEHEAD:
Q Doctor, you say the ratio in Massachusetts of the feebleminded is about one to two hundred and fifty?
A Yes, sir, that is the generally accepted ratio: epileptics, about one to four hundred.
Q But I understand the Virginia statute is stricter than it is in Massachusetts?
A Yes.
Q Doctor, about these grades of feeble-mindedness-there are grades, aren't there?
A Yes, sir--low-grade imbecile, commencing at about four years ;
Carrie Buck vs. Dr. J.H. Bell 101
then the middle grade, at six or seven years; then eight to ten low-grade moron; then twelve, the middle-grade; and so on to fourteen or fifteen years-the high grade.
Q Now, of course, if you sterilize an idiot, society could not be benefited by sterilizing an idiot?
A Certainly not. They are not supposed to procreate, theoretically.
Q So that the ones that are contemplated getting out are the high grades?
A Yes.
Q And those are the ones to which you allude sending out?
A Yes.
Q Now, this girl here, as I understand, is sort of a middle-grade?
A Yes, she is middle grade.
Q Isn't it a fact, doctor that by sterilizing them it does tame
them down some?
171*
*A it is not supposed to in any way interfere with their sexual passions, but I don't know--it seems to make them better
Q Doctor JeJarnette seemed to think it did not have any effect at all?
A There are no organs removed, and no internal secretions, but they seem to get on better. I don't know the reason.
Q This operation, I understand, in a girl is just cutting that fallopian tube and tying it back?
A Yes, sir, that is all.
Q None of the ovaries are taken out?
A No, indeed, that is criminal.
Q Now, most of those girls that were sterilized and went out and got married, most of those were diseased?
A Yes, sir
Q They were of the high-grade type?
A Yes, sir.
102 Carrie Buck vs. Dr. J.H. Bell
BY COLONEL STRODE:
Q Doctor, I understood you to say that if this girl could be sterilized the Dobbs home would be open to her?
A I understand they want her back.
Q And the only thing to prevent her having an independent home is her child-bearing capacity?
172*
*A Yes, sir. I don't know that they would be willing to assume the risk as she is now.
Q Now, something was said here about the Wassermann test? A four hundred of our population were tested in 1921, and they ran over 14 percent infected.
Q In other words, fourteen percent of the population of your institution were syphilitic?
A Yes, sir, but now there has evidently been an improvement in the handling of venereal diseases-we don't run over from one-half to one percent, on the Wassermann test now.
Q Taking the conclusion you would draw from your experience and observation, would you say there was likely to be any appreciable increase in the prevalence of venereal disease under the operation of this law?
A I think not. Any man that exposes himself to the risk of a strange woman takes a great risk anyhow.
Re-Cross Examination
BY MR. WHITEHEAD:
Q Doctor, this girl, Carrie Buck, is not diseased in any way?
A Oh, no perfectly healthy, physically.
(Witness stands aside.)
173* Col. Strode at this point reads the deposition of * Dr.
Laughlin.
BY COL. STRODE (Who desires to ask one more question):
Q Doctor, in a deposition which is here given be Doctor H.H. Laughlin, he gives a short analysis of the hereditary nature of Carrie
103 Carrie Buck vs. Dr. J.H. Bell
Buck, which he bases on a recital of facts purporting to have been gotten from you in regard to Carrie Buck. Does Doctor Laughlin correctly cite in that the facts within your knowledge?
A It is a correct statement of true facts.
MR. WHITEHEAD: Moves to strike out of the record the foregoing deposition read by Col. Strode offering the same objection as to the previous evidence.
COL. STRODE: Argues the question to the Court and asks that the judgment of the Special Board of Directors be confirmed
Here ends all of the evidence. I hereby certify that the foregoing record is a true transcript of
my shorthand notes of the proceedings to the best of my knowledge and belief.
T.H. THOMAS, Stenographer
(signed) B.T. GORDON, Judge
This primary source comes from the Records of the Supreme Court of the United States.
National Archives Identifier: 45637229
Full Citation: Statement of Evidence from Hearing on Appeal of Order to sterilize Carrie Buck: Testimony of Dr. A.S. Priddy; 11/18/1924; Buck v. Bell (Case File #31681); Appellate Jurisdiction Case Files, 1792 - 2010; Records of the Supreme Court of the United States, Record Group 267; National Archives Building, Washington, DC. [Online Version, https://docsteach.org/documents/document/testimony-dr-as-priddy-buck-v-bell, May 15, 2024]Rights: Public Domain, Free of Known Copyright Restrictions. Learn more on our privacy and legal page.