The Project Gutenberg eBook of Prostitution in Europe
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: Prostitution in Europe
Author: Abraham Flexner
Release date: March 24, 2026 [eBook #78293]
Language: English
Original publication: New York: The Century Co, 1914
Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/78293
Credits: Richard Tonsing, deaurider, and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This book was produced from images made available by the HathiTrust Digital Library.)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK PROSTITUTION IN EUROPE ***
Prostitution in Europe
=Publications of the Bureau of Social Hygiene=
Prostitution in Europe
BY
ABRAHAM FLEXNER
INTRODUCTION BY
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, JR.
Chairman of the Bureau of Social Hygiene
[Illustration: Open book emblem with sunburst rays and floral border]
NEW YORK
THE CENTURY CO.
1914
Copyright, 1914, by
THE CENTURY CO.
_Published, January, 1914_
CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
I. PROSTITUTION: DEFINITION AND EXTENT 3
II. THE DEMAND 39
III. THE SUPPLY 61
IV. PROSTITUTION AND THE LAW 103
V. REGULATION AND ORDER—THE STREETS 121
VI. REGULATION AND ORDER—SEGREGATION AND BORDELLS 165
VII. REGULATION AND DISEASE 204
VIII. THE REAL INWARDNESS OF REGULATION 265
IX. ABOLITION AND ORDER 286
X. ABOLITION AND DISEASE 343
XI. THE OUTCOME OF EUROPEAN EXPERIENCE 395
APPENDICES 403
Regulations of Paris
Regulations of Berlin
Regulations of Hamburg
Regulations of Vienna
Danish Law
INDEX 453
INTRODUCTION
In presenting to the public the second volume of the series to be issued
by the Bureau of Social Hygiene, it is appropriate to state briefly the
origin and plans of the Bureau and to indicate the place assigned to the
present study in the scheme which the Bureau has undertaken to develop.
The Bureau of Social Hygiene was created as a result of the work of the
Special Grand Jury which investigated the white slave traffic in New
York City in 1910. It was organized only after a thorough inquiry had
been made, involving conferences with over a hundred leading men and
women in the city as to the relative value of a public commission as
compared with a private organization. The opinion prevailed that a
permanent, unofficial organization, whose efforts would be continuous,
would probably be more lasting and effective; the Bureau of Social
Hygiene was therefore established in the winter of 1911. Its present
members are Miss Katharine Bement Davis, Superintendent of the New York
State Reformatory for Women, at Bedford Hills, New York; Paul M.
Warburg, of the firm of Kuhn, Loeb & Company; Starr J. Murphy, of the
New York Bar; and John D. Rockefeller, Jr.
As was stated in the introduction to the previous volume, spasmodic
efforts to deal with the problem of prostitution have been made from
time to time throughout the course of history. They have failed for
several reasons: First, because, as a rule, there has been too little
accurate information as to the facts of the situation to be dealt with;
again, because they have taken too little account of the teachings of
experience elsewhere; finally, because they have been too explosive, too
discontinuous, to be effective, even if soundly conceived.
The first book of the present series, entitled, “Commercialized
Prostitution in New York City,” was written by Mr. George J. Kneeland,
upon the completion of a careful study of conditions of vice in
Manhattan, carried on under his direction by a corps of trained
investigators. Its aim was simply descriptive; it presented a faithful
picture of contemporaneous conditions in New York.
The present book carries the work a step further. Without raising any
question as to how far European experience is significant for America,
the author describes prostitution in Europe and discusses the various
methods of handling it now employed in the large cities of Great Britain
and the Continent. The subject is a highly controversial one. For this
reason, its investigation was assigned to one who had, on the one hand,
previously given it no critical thought or attention, but whose studies
of education in this country and abroad had demonstrated his competency
to deal with a complicated topic of this nature. Mr. Flexner was
absolutely without prejudice or preconception, just as he was absolutely
unfettered by instructions. He had no previous opinion to sustain; he
was given no thesis to prove or disprove. He was asked to make a
thorough and impartial examination of the subject and to report his
observations and conclusions. He enjoyed the fullest possible facilities
for his inquiries and to them and the writing of this book devoted
almost two years.
It is difficult to summarize the contents of the volume. It touches many
different aspects of the problem,—the nature of modern prostitution, the
factors determining demand, the sources of supply, the various methods
used in its regulation or control, their operation and value, the effect
of abolishing regulation, and the general outcome of European
experience. Though Mr. Flexner has in no way taken America into
consideration, without question the facts he has assembled will be
highly pertinent to any discussion in this country as to the merits of
proposed legislation; for his account makes it clear that widespread
misapprehension prevails as to the policies pursued by European cities,
and their results.
Two volumes are still to appear: an account of European police systems,
by Mr. Raymond B. Fosdick, a member of the staff of the Bureau, and
formerly Commissioner of Accounts of New York City; and a final volume
dealing with prostitution in the United States in which it is hoped that
a program soundly based may be suggested.
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, JR.
New York, Nov. 1, 1913.
PROSTITUTION IN EUROPE
CHAPTER I
PROSTITUTION: DEFINITION AND EXTENT
Scope of investigation.—General uniformity of phenomena.—Prostitution
an urban problem.—Medieval and modern prostitution
differ.—Prostitution defined.—Need of broad conception.—Immorality
distinguished from prostitution.—Prevalence and significance of
immorality.—Prostitution not necessarily a permanent status.—Mortality
of prostitutes.—Number of prostitutes.—Forms taken by
prostitution.—Influence of alcohol.—Homosexuality.—The pimp.—The Paris
prostitute.—The cost of prostitution.
Prostitution will be studied in these pages from the standpoint of the
practical experience of European countries. An effort will be made to
ascertain its forms and extent, the sources from which it is recruited,
the conditions that either cause or conduce to it, the procedure of
different communities in dealing with it and with the conditions
responsible for it, the measures which have been employed by way of
combat or control, and the results which have been thus obtained.
Material will be drawn from extended personal inquiry and observation in
the larger cities of England, Scotland, France, Italy, Belgium,
Switzerland, Holland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Germany,
Austria-Hungary,[1]—from the countries, in a word, that may be grouped
as Western Europe, because they are characterized by a considerable
degree of similarity in all that pertains to social life, national
ideals, and political institutions.
In the countries just specified, neither law nor opinion is strictly
homogeneous: in consequence, the phenomena under consideration respond
to differences of viewpoint or pressure by somewhat altering their
external manifestations. The resulting divergencies are at times only
superficial, at times important enough to affect, perhaps, the volume of
vice itself. None the less at bottom the situation is sufficiently
similar to support the generalized method of treatment which has been
adopted in this book. Distinctions will not be ignored; but on the whole
it will appear that they serve rather to emphasize fundamental
agreement. Recent investigation, indeed, tends to show that such
agreement is of far wider scope than is here assumed; for in
prostitution, if nowhere else, the old adage holds—“There is nothing new
under the sun.” The source-books of both ancient and medieval worlds
disclose an amazing identity with modern times in this melancholy
respect.[2]
Such differences as still persist—in regard to viewpoint, form, or
public policy,—are, at least in the area here dealt with, in a fair way
to disappear. The progress of democratic thought and government,
increasingly easy and unobstructed trading, the advance of industrialism
with the revision of the ethical code following in the wake of practical
sex equality, finally, even deliberate imitation are rapidly developing
decided homogeneity of attitude and effort in reference to many
fundamental human concerns. The student of the particular subject with
which we are occupied is, therefore, nowadays, more and more likely to
be struck by the uniformity of phenomena rather than by local or
national peculiarities, in the course of an inquiry that begins in
Glasgow and concludes in Budapest.
At the outset it is important to observe that throughout Western Europe
prostitution has in the last few centuries undergone essentially the
same evolution. Prostitution is an urban problem, its precise character
largely dependent on the size of the town. Now the medieval town in
Western Europe was small. The really great cities of the middle ages
were all Islamic: Constantinople, Bagdad, and Cairo numbered more than a
million souls apiece, Seville and Cordova were each half as large.
Beside these the main cities of Western Europe were in point of size
insignificant: Paris had a dubious 200,000; Vienna, 50,000; London,
35,000; Cologne, 30,000; Hamburg, 18,000; Dresden, 5,000. Towns without
water communication rarely reached 25,000; many important places did not
exceed 5,000.[3] Size largely determined the character of urban life and
therewith the nature of medieval European prostitution. The inhabitants
of these hardly more than villages were well known to one another; the
family was still an intact organization; the floating population—aside
from organized movements like the crusades, pilgrimages, or armies,—was
not voluminous; at any rate the stranger was known as such. Medieval
prostitution was, in the main, of two varieties, resident or itinerant:
the former more or less commonly living in regular houses of
prostitution—the so-called bordells; the latter, either vagrant or
informally attached like the camp-follower to the temporal or spiritual
armies that swept to and fro across the continent, now waging war, now
fulfilling religious vows. But whether resident or itinerant, the
prostitute was a marked woman in the small medieval community. Even if
her vocation was plied secretly, her true character inevitably and
quickly became notorious; still more so, of course, if carried on
professionally, for then she was visibly to be discriminated by garb,
appearance, abode, and outward manner of living. The distinction between
the vicious and the virtuous woman was thus in the middle ages
uncommonly broad and clear.
Modern conditions contrast strongly with those that I have just
sketched. The cities, themselves huge, are for practical purposes still
further enlarged by the subsidiary communities that hang about their
fringes. Berlin, for example, so late as 1816 a town of 197,000
inhabitants, contained in 1910, 2,071,257; Charlottenburg, to mention
only one of the suburbs practically indistinguishable from it, adds
305,978. London numbers 7,252,963; Liverpool, 760,357; Glasgow, 784,496;
Paris, 2,888,110; Lyons, 523,796; Vienna, 2,031,498; Budapest, 881,600;
Munich, 596,467; Hamburg, 931,035; Dresden, 548,308; Amsterdam, 580,960;
Stockholm, 346,599; Copenhagen, 476,806; Brussels itself, strictly
speaking, a town of only 175,000, is increased to 659,000 by nine
contiguous self-governing suburbs which, for all practical purposes,
merge into it. The mere quantitative difference between the medieval
town and the modern city qualitatively transforms the problem of
prostitution. In these latter-day Babylons, the family is frequently
shattered; thousands of detached, more or less friendless, more or less
irresponsible, girls and boys pour into them to earn a livelihood under
conditions that, so far from forming, actually disintegrate character
and ambition. The situation is still further complicated by the
continuous presence of a huge floating population, in Paris, Berlin, and
London reaching into hundreds of thousands, restlessly surging in and
out, in search of trade, excitement, or amusement. Within the more or
less tightly closed circle, characteristic of a simple community, the
members of which are known to one another, mutual demands in the matter
of conduct uphold the accepted ideal and tradition; family and clan
morality thus sustain the weaker members. Moreover, whatever individuals
may be, they are known to one another as such. But in the modern
Babylons of which I am speaking, one no longer knows one’s nearest
neighbors. Temptation and inducement wax strongest, precisely where
protection and restraint have become feeblest; the conditions favor not
only irresponsibility but concealment. The mere numerical increase and
the absolute impossibility of classifying women and men as virtuous or
vicious on account of sheer ignorance of their life and character thus
profoundly differentiate medieval from modern prostitution. The former
was at once limited and definite; the latter is not only huge but vague.
From a practical point of view, these are facts of unmistakable
importance. While thirty lewd women in a town of 3,000 inhabitants and
5,000 in a town of half a million represent precisely the same
proportion—one percent in both cases—nevertheless the quantitative
increase makes an enormous difference in the feasibility of measures
designed to deal with one aspect or another of the situation. A device
that might conceivably be effective on the smaller scale would probably
break down completely if applied on the larger. Economically,
administratively, hygienically, the problem thus changes its character,
the moment the numbers involved pass beyond a certain point.
An additional difficulty is due to mere size; the prostitute can not be
strictly discriminated in the huge modern city. Wherever professional
prostitution has flourished, so-called clandestine prostitution has
existed. But in the middle ages clandestine prostitutes were
individually so notorious that, even when they avoided the bordell, they
frequently lived in the bordell quarter. In any event, there was no
doubt as to their business and character. In precisely the same way,
there exists to-day in Europe the avowed professional prostitute and the
equally notorious and unmistakable so-called clandestine
prostitute,—both perfectly obvious to the police as well as to the
casual observer. But a highly important distinction must be noted: of
modern prostitution this known contingent, partly outright professional,
partly so-called clandestine,[4] is the smaller and, from many points of
view, the less significant fraction. Neither by garb, appearance, abode,
or apparent manner of living are the majority of women subsisting wholly
or partly on the proceeds of sexual irregularity any longer to be
recognized. The frankly avowed prostitute is only one, and perhaps not
the most important, of the types with which this account must deal; and
this complication originates in the size of the modern city and in the
industrial and other conditions to which city growth is due.
In the endeavor to arrive at an accurate definition of prostitution no
little effort has been expended. Different conceptions are possible
from different points of view. The continental police define
prostitution from the standpoint of registration or inscription: as a
rule they register or, where the system has been discontinued, used to
register, only professional prostitutes,—women, that is, who have no
other means of support than prostitution. From the police point of
view the prostitute is therefore an inscribed woman, or a woman who,
somehow eluding inscription, ought to be inscribed, or one who is at
any rate liable to inscription, on the ground that she earns her
livelihood through sexual promiscuity. Vast numbers, however, escape
through the wide meshes of this net. Many prostitutes are actually
engaged in some sort of remunerative work. The barmaids of the German
“Animierkneipe,”[5] the singers and dancers of low grade Varietés are
prostitutes who obtain their customers by means of their occupations;
yet they are usually exempt from inscription as professional
prostitutes because they are gainfully employed, and being exempt from
inscription they fall outside the police definition of professional
prostitution. The mere fact that partial or even pretended employment
is a protection against police interference leads many prostitutes to
keep up a more or less nominal connection with work. Of 1,177
venereally diseased women, undoubtedly prostitutes, treated in the
municipal hospital of Zurich, only 7.9% owned to being prostitutes;
6.7% more confessed to no employment, but all the others—85.4%—claimed
a vocation of some sort.[6] It is therefore obvious that the police
definition fails to square with the facts. Parent-Duchatelet,
following an official declaration, uses the term prostitution, where
“several mercenary acts of immorality have been legally established,
when the woman involved is publicly notorious, when she has been
caught in the act by other witnesses than her accuser or the police
agent.”[7] From this definition, however, all really clandestine
prostitution is quite omitted; it suffices only for the most obvious
and necessary police purposes. By way of contrast with the narrow
conceptions above given, I shall, for reasons that will shortly
appear, consider prostitution to be characterized by three elements
variously combined: barter, promiscuity, emotional indifference. The
barter need not involve the passing of money, though money is its
usual medium; gifts or pleasures may be the equivalent inducement. Nor
need promiscuity be utterly choiceless; a woman is not the less a
prostitute because she is more or less selective in her associations.
Emotional indifference may be fairly inferred from barter and
promiscuity. In this sense, any person is a prostitute who habitually
or intermittently has sexual relations more or less promiscuously for
money or other mercenary consideration. Neither notoriety, arrest, nor
lack of other occupation is an essential criterion. A woman may be a
prostitute, even though not notorious, even though never arrested,
even though simultaneously otherwise employed in a paid occupation.
The scope of the term is thus greatly, and, as I hope to show,
justifiably, nay necessarily, extended. Barter, emotional indifference,
and more or less promiscuity do not in modern cities characterize the
sex relations of the avowed or professional prostitute alone. They are
equally characteristic marks of the clandestine prostitute, using the
term in its literal meaning to designate the numerous class of
professional prostitutes whose real character is known only to their own
clientele and their close female companions; of the occasional
prostitute,—women who alternately emerge from and relapse into an
irregular life; of the incidental prostitute,—those who carry on more or
less prostitution without interrupting some honorable employment; of
women who practise prostitution under cloak of other occupations; of
women, who ceasing to be kept as mistresses practise prostitution as a
stop-gap until a firmer footing is once more found; of women who reserve
themselves by express arrangement for a small group, none of whom can
alone afford their support; of women, who faithful to one individual at
a time are still taken up by a succession of men paying for favors;
finally of married women, by no means always of the lowest classes, who,
perhaps irreproachable in the eyes of the world, are not above earning
through ignominy the price of luxuries.[8] Here are eight different
categories, falling outside the narrow conception of prostitution, but
nevertheless belonging to prostitution, if prostitution is conceived to
be characterized by barter, emotional indifference, and promiscuity.
For this broad construction there exist the most substantial of grounds.
Why do we object to prostitution at all? Obviously, it is repugnant for
one or more of several reasons: in the first place, because of the
personal demoralization it entails; in the second, because of economic
waste; again, because it is by far the main factor in the spread of
venereal disease; finally, because of its intimate association with
disorder or crime. Unquestionably the full-time notorious prostitutes
who are the especial objects of police care exemplify all the counts in
this indictment; they are themselves demoralized and they spread
demoralization; they cause enormous waste; they inevitably and
invariably spread disease; as a rule they have criminal or
quasi-criminal connections. But there could be no greater mistake than
to suppose that the other categories above specified are free from
objection on these scores. Part-time prostitution, occasional
prostitution, pretentious prostitution,—all the various kinds and grades
above enumerated naturally and inevitably conduce to similar results.
They may be less conspicuous or less offensive, but they are equally
dangerous. If then prostitution is objectionable because of
demoralization, waste, disease, or crime, then it is necessary so to
define it as to include all the varieties to which one or more of the
unfortunate results in questions is attributable. The lowest forms are
most closely connected with crime and disorder, and as the police are
mainly concerned with crime and disorder, they content themselves with a
working conception of prostitution that goes no further. But the general
concern of society must regard as hardly less serious menaces to its
highest welfare the personal demoralization, the economic loss, the
spread of disease equally associated with the less gross forms of the
evil. For these are attended by personal degradation, even though some
individuals, on the whole a considerable number, ultimately react
vigorously enough to recover their self-respect; and they involve
enormous economic waste, increasing rather than diminishing with the
degree of dignity with which the business is surrounded, so that what
externally least resembles commercial prostitution is perhaps from the
economic standpoint most severely to be reprobated as such.
It is, however, in respect to disease that the wide definition can be
most readily and fully justified. Venereal disease is the certain
harvest of any degree of promiscuity in the sex relation. The diminution
of venereal disease is one of the most pressing objects of hygienic
effort; it can be accomplished only by some sort of interference with
prostitution. It would therefore be absurd to define prostitution so
narrowly that many of the regular foci of infection remain outside the
definition and hence beyond the reach of any policy contrived for the
purpose of dealing with them. How numerous the foci are which a narrow
conception would thus ignore will be more fully shown in subsequent
chapters;[9] but enough must be said in this connection to warrant the
extension of the definition beyond the usual police lines. A statistical
study of venereal disease at Mannheim covering nine years (1892–1901)
showed that 63% of the infections were traceable to professional
prostitutes in the narrow police sense of the term, no less than 37%,
however, to the occasional, incidental, and other prostitutes here
explicitly included in the term; among whom girls in active service as
waitresses, servants, and shophands are the most important.[10] A
subsequent investigation of 594 cases disclosed 278 professionals and
316—over 50%—girls serving in one capacity or another (waitress,
seamstress, laundress, actress, etc.) as the sources of infection.[11] A
similar statistic from Hanover proves in the same way that it is from
the standpoint of sanitation absurd to limit prostitution to the
absolutely indiscriminate, professional and notorious activity: of 330
women, to whom infections were traced, 42% (139) were outright
professionals, though only partly inscribed, the remaining 58% being
mainly girls who were simultaneously engaged in paid employments in
shops, taverns, domestic service, theaters, etc.[12] Such conditions
prevail generally on the Continent. The Munich police have lately made a
most careful study of the callings in which 2,574 clandestine
prostitutes well known to them are simultaneously engaged: 721 are
servants, 608 are waitresses, 250 factory workers, 246 seamstresses, 60
are connected with the stage, 52 are laundresses, 40 dressmakers, 28
models, etc. Similar results can be cited from other sources. Of 100
venereal patients at Rouen, only 31 of the infections could be traced to
inscribed prostitutes; 69 cases were attributed to clandestines,
partials, etc.[13] Of 297 traceable infections in Stockholm,
146—practically one-half—were attributed to girls also engaged in
work.[14] The police of Hamburg are at any rate logical, for there girls
employed in bars and fish-shops may be registered as prostitutes; in
certain smaller North German cities prostitution is so commonly
associated with employment as barmaid that the latter is practically
merged with the former. Under conditions in which barmaids, shop girls,
servants, chorus-girls, etc.,[15] are either permanently or
intermittently engaged in prostitution, and when so engaged bring about
precisely the same sort of damage that is wrought by prostitutes who are
nothing else, it is manifestly illogical to use the term so as to
designate the latter class only. The fact that complication with
disorder attaches only to the lower types is assuredly no reason for
restricting the designation of prostitution to them, once we realize
that, on the score of personal demoralization, economic waste, and the
danger of disease, the more sophisticated or subtle forms of
commercialized immorality are equally dangerous and destructive.
Prostitution will therefore in these pages be construed to mean more or
less promiscuity—even transient promiscuity,—of sex relationship for
pay, or its equivalent.
The definition just given is intended to exclude both immorality and
unconventionality in the sex relation, though, for reasons that will
appear, they require incidental discussion in an account of
prostitution. Of these unconventional or irregular sex relationships
there are in Western Europe many varieties, more or less widespread.
Most substantial is the informal union which serves as a substitute for
marriage. In these combinations mutual fidelity is expected, as well as
complete responsibility for such children as may be born. A combination
of this sort is occasionally permanent; occasionally it is converted
into marriage; oftener, perhaps, it binds only during mutual
congeniality, being dissolved when congeniality ceases, or more
frequently when one or the other member has already entered on the
stages preliminary to another combination. In the city such informal
mating of industrial workers of opposite sexes is common;[16] the shop
girl contracts an alliance of this kind with a clerk of her own class,
or not infrequently with a student or professional man, more or less
above her in rank. Of the non-legalized cohabitation of the artisans of
London, Booth remarks that at times “they behave best if not married to
the women with whom they live”;[17] occasionally two parties to previous
but unsuccessful matrimony pair off again without the intervention of
the divorce court, and “as a rule, are faithful to each other.”[18]
Somewhat similar is an informal relationship continued as such until a
child is born—or shortly after—whereupon the neglected rites may be duly
performed. The high percentage of illegitimacy is thus partly accounted
for: In Berlin 20% of the births are outside of wedlock; in all Germany,
almost 10%.[19] The incident is so common among the lower classes,
especially in the rural districts, as hardly to carry any stigma at all.
“Frequent illegitimacy,” writes Adele Schreiber, “may be the expression
of wholesome monogamous conditions, as indeed is often the case in
mountainous countries. Premarital relations are there common, are
characterized by mutual fidelity and, with exceptions of course, look
forward to marriage when a child is born and the parents are able to
establish a home.”[20] These relations must be distinguished from the
episodic connection that is a mere incident in the course of casual
companionship. Mainly in this latter sense, “immoral relations before
marriage among the lower classes are not unusual and are indulgently
regarded,”[21] writes Charles Booth of London. Devon, describing Glasgow
conditions, observes to the same effect that “girls do not seem to
suffer in self-respect nor greatly in the esteem of others, if they
yield themselves to the lad who is their sweetheart for the time. If
decency is observed, morals are taken for granted.”[22] On the Continent
these conditions also exist. “Extra-marital, especially premarital
intercourse is everywhere in the country very frequent,”[23] declares
Moll. Of certain communities in Saxony it has been deliberately asserted
that “no girl over sixteen is still a virgin”; the German peasant is
declared to have no conception of the meaning of chastity.[24] Welander
dealing with 452 prostitutes who could give a clear account of their
first lapse, found that 299 had erred while still living at home or
before leaving the country to take a position in Stockholm.[25]
Episodic laxity unquestionably exposes the girl to dangers that readily
result in prostitution, just as it develops in her comrade the appetite
that leads him to consort with prostitutes. But in itself mere laxity is
not to be confused with prostitution. The instances above given show
indeed how widely immorality varies in ethical quality. An irregular sex
relation may indicate only carelessness of the convention that restricts
sexual congress to the married relation; it may, at the other extreme,
indicate total indifference to the ethical standard that forbids sexual
commerce unaccompanied by high emotional sanction, mutual respect,
complete responsibility for the natural result. The former is a marriage
in all but form; the latter is simple depravity; but neither involves
prostitution. A lapse—one or several—does not imply prostitution; nor is
the paid mistress a prostitute so long as her relations, emotionally
indifferent and mercenary though they be, are free from promiscuity. It
must be remembered, therefore, that irregular sex connection may not
only lack barter or promiscuity, but on the woman’s side at least may
possess high emotional coloring, whether she be mistress, unwedded wife,
or compliant sweetheart.
In the designation of prostitute there is nothing final or
irretrievable. It is indeed one of the peculiar earmarks of modern
prostitution that thousands who flounder for a while eventually escape
from the bog. The tendency is undoubtedly towards complete
disintegration; women who drift into it may drift more and more deeply
into the morass. But the numerically more powerful drift is nevertheless
outwards; while some are overwhelmed, thousands emerge. Having
apparently started on the descent, they somehow arrest their downward
progress and clamber out,—sometimes from the very bottom, more
frequently and more hopefully, before the lower depths have been
reached.[26] Modern prostitution is therefore unprecedentedly
fluctuating in character. Johansson’s admirable studies of the data
contained in the Inspection-bureau of Stockholm “show that the same
woman who one month is in domestic service or at other work will the
next month register with the police and thus enter the ranks of
professional prostitution; the third month she will have her position
again and be freed from the requirement to undergo inspection; thus the
thing shifts for years and years.”[27] During the first three years of
registration a considerable number of the women leave Stockholm, give up
prostitution and become domestic servants or factory hands.[28] This has
been the case since modern urban conditions began: “Let us recollect,”
wrote Parent-Duchatelet, “that for the majority of public women
prostitution is a transitory estate; they quit for the most part after a
year; very few indeed remain until death.”[29] The Munich barmaid who is
sexually more or less indiscriminate inflicts upon society for the time
being the same sort of damage as the notorious prostitute; she herself
deteriorates, she exposes herself to disease, in the spread of which she
is subsequently a factor; she is therefore a prostitute. But once she
rehabilitates herself, her status changes. She is barmaid now,
prostitute no longer. The prostitution of European cities to-day is
characterized by the abundance of cases that oscillate in this way to
and fro across the dividing line. Our definition must be capable of
including these at one moment, even if they have to be omitted at
another.
We are thus enabled to understand what has long figured as a mystery.
What becomes of the ordinary prostitute? For the common notion that her
expectation of life is some five or six years, there is no basis in fact
whatsoever.[30] It is demonstrably untrue even of the avowed
professional or registered continental harlot. Though her resistance is
weakened, an early death need not and as a rule does not ensue. Of 3,517
women inscribed at Paris, Parent-Duchatelet[31] notes that 980—close to
28%—have been on the Paris list longer than seven years; and the Paris
list is neither the beginning nor the end of the careers of most of the
women inscribed. This is obvious from the further fact that of the 3,517
women in question, 1,269 admitted the practice of professional
prostitution during more than five years.[32] Again, the average annual
registration of professionals with the Paris police between 1888 and
1903 was 5,549; the average annual death rate among them was 19.[33]
Johansson has made an elaborate comparison between the mortality of
inscribed prostitutes and that of the corresponding age groups of the
female population of Stockholm; the inscribed women show the higher
rate, but by no means so large as is popularly supposed:[34]
1870–4 75–79 1880–4 85–9 90–4 95–99 1900–3
Percentage of
mortality among
inscribed
prostitutes 17.1 13.6 14.7 10.9 8.4 9.0 7.8
Among corresponding
age groups of
Stockholm’s female
population 12.0 9.1 7.6 6.4 5.7 4.8 4.7
The mortality among the registered prostitutes of Vienna in the years
1879–1882, inclusive, averaged less than of ½ of 1%; at Berlin for
approximately the same period 1¼%;[35] for the years 1904–6, it was only
⅘ of 1%.[36] The mortality among the more cautious women, less exposed
to wind and weather and alcohol, is probably lower still. The loss to
the Paris registered list through death is negligible: of 3,582
inscribed women in 1880, 46 died in the course of the year; of 4,770 a
decade later, 5 died; of 6,222 in 1900, 26 died. The total loss by death
in twenty years was 485.[37] English statistics, though bearing less
directly on the point, establish a similar presumption. Through the
London Venereal Hospital[38] for women, some 400 patients annually pass;
the average number of deaths during each of the last twenty years has
been less than three. If there were 10,000 prostitutes in London—a low
estimate,—there would be an annual death rate of 2,000, provided we
assume a five year lease of life: yet out of 790,000 women between 18
and 35 resident in London, only 3,059 died in 1909. Finally, of the
11,823 women committed to Holloway Jail in 1908, many of them
prostitutes of over five years’ standing, only six died in the course of
the year.[39] The explanation is to be sought in the fluctuating
constitution of the prostitute army already pointed out. Prostitutes
disappear rather than die,—a fact of great practical significance as we
shall discover; only a part—it is uncertain of what size—remain
prostitutes: a small fraction marry, a much larger fraction return to
work; those who stick to the business wind up as the servants of younger
prostitutes, occasionally as brothel-keepers; a few of them are found as
aged hags, offering themselves for a copper coin below the bridges of
Berlin or in the dark corners of Whitechapel.
The considerations just dwelt on make anything approaching an accurate
estimate of the number of prostitutes in a given city entirely
impossible. In the first place, because of the general flux above
described; in the second, because particular causes—the conditions of
trade, the season of the year, the presence or absence of local
festivities, such as the Wakes and Bank Holiday in Great Britain, the
October Fest at Munich, the Carnival at Cologne,[40] finally, the
varying pressure of local authorities, all operate to disturb for better
or worse the general movement above indicated. Only the roughest
approximations can therefore be made by way of obtaining an imperfect
picture; and for the most part, the guesses are not to be trusted too
far, even for that purpose. At Paris, Maxime du Camp assessed the number
at 120,000,—an estimate that has by common consent been rejected as
manifestly absurd; M. Lépine, the able and accomplished ex-Prefect of
Police, inclines to a figure varying from one-half to two-thirds as
large, say 60,000 to 80,000—itself generally viewed as much too high,
even on a liberal interpretation of the terms; MM. Yves Guyot and
Augagneur, distinguished publicists, estimate 30,000;[41] Turot, still
more conservatively, 20,000;[42] Carlier, formerly chief of the
municipal police, cuts even this moderate estimate down: he concedes
only from 14,000 to 17,000. His logic is worth noting, for I shall recur
to a similar method of calculation. He assumes that for every
clandestine prostitute actually arrested for solicitation, intoxication,
etc., “there are at least five or six more who ought to be.” Between
1872 and 1888, the non-registered prostitutes arrested averaged 2,797
annually; according as one employs as multiple five or six, the total
would be 13,985 or 16,782. But the method is not reliable: in the first
place, because in any case the multiple is probably too small; in the
second because the fluctuation in arrests shows clearly that arrests do
not increase “pari passu” with the increase in population, while
clandestine prostitutes increase still faster.[43] There were, for
instance, 1,932 arrests in 1888—the last of the years considered by
Carlier—as against 3,769 in 1872, the first. Moreover, from 1888 to
1903, the average annual arrests numbered 2,762, a slightly smaller
figure than in the former period. Were the method sound, one must
conclude that clandestine prostitution had not increased between
1872[44] and 1903, despite the fact that population rose from 1,851,792
to 2,660,559.
An estimate of 80,000 was once current for London,—an unquestionable
exaggeration. The Home Office reported in 1837 that the total number of
prostitutes known to the police as living in houses of ill-fame, walking
the streets and infesting low neighborhoods was 9,409;[45] twenty years
later a similar return made by Sir Richard Mayne, Commissioner of the
Metropolitan Police, based on detailed reports from the several
districts yielded a total somewhat smaller, 8,600; a decade later the
number similarly reached had fallen to 6,515.[46] An unofficial count
recently made disclosed 8,000. If the figures for 1837 and 1857 are
fairly representative, the later ones are certainly much too low. The
probabilities are, however, that all these estimates include only
notorious and unmistakable prostitutes, excluding the numerous
clandestines and partials who figure in the continental calculations.
Equally uncertain calculations have from time to time been put forth
respecting other great cities. Dufour estimated the clandestine
prostitutes of Berlin at 50,000 in 1896, at a time when just above four
thousand were enrolled, assuming, that is, 12 clandestine for every
registered woman.[47] In three successive years, 1889, 1890, 1891, the
morals police arrested for solicitation and similar offences 3,220,
3,537, and 4,019 women respectively; of these, 640, 735, and 792
respectively were registered by the police on the ground that they were
incorrigible;[48] the rest were warned and released, despite the fact
that with probably few exceptions they were at the moment practising
professional prostitution.[49] It would appear, therefore, that, as the
police register only 1–5 of those they arrest, clandestine prostitution
is at least five times as extensive as professional; on this basis we
must assume 20,000 clandestine prostitutes for the German
capital—probably an underestimate, since, large numbers of clandestines
never being arrested at all, five is too small a multiple to employ.
It is perhaps needless to quote similar estimates for other places,
except by way of driving home the enormous extent of the evil, even if
it can not be definitely appraised. The prostitutes of Vienna have been
rated at 30,000, of Glasgow at 17,000,[50] of Cologne at 7,000, of
Munich at 8,000. The police records of Rome show 5,000 women who have
been in their hands latterly for some offence connected with
prostitution;[51] a Dutch register in process of compilation at police
headquarters, Amsterdam, already contains upwards of 7,000 names; in
that city the police have the names and addresses of 968 women well
known for this avocation;[52] in Rotterdam 1,206.[53] For the German
Empire as a whole, a not unreasonable calculation of 330,000 has been
ventured, side by side with a serious, though mistaken guess of one and
one-half million.[54] But the only safe data refer to the number of
registered women and the number of arrests; and though the former are
confessedly only a small fraction, their sum total is itself not to be
passed over lightly from whatever standpoint the matter is regarded:
Paris with its 6,418 (1903), Berlin with 3,559, Hamburg with 935, Vienna
with 1,689, Budapest with 2,000. If the evil is, on the average, only
five times as extensive as these figures indicate, there is enough to be
alarmed at, without a panic-stricken incursion into the realms of
baseless fancy.
Left to itself or to unhampered exploitation prostitution seeks
everywhere the same sort of outlets; the free professional, the
clandestine, the occasional, the partial, hunt their prey, openly or
furtively, according to circumstances, in the crowded thoroughfares of
retail trade, or loiter in cafés and theater promenades. Having found
their victim, they repair to their own rooms, to hotels, assignation
houses, etc. A large number avoid publicity and obtain their clientele
in the guise of friends through introduction or recommendation or
through the keepers of _rendezvous_-houses, who arrange appointments by
means of photographs and fill orders for patrons desiring a person of
particular type. A small and steadily decreasing number of prostitutes
suffer themselves to be immured in bordells, i. e., houses of
prostitution licensed or authorized by the police in certain towns, e.
g., in Germany, France, Austria-Hungary, Italy, and in Geneva, and
conducted by a proprietor or mistress who collects the entire income,
paying the inmates a stipulated percentage. In places where bordells are
forbidden as well as in places where they exist, a non-licensed and more
or less similar establishment has sprung up,—the brothel, which commonly
represents itself as a boarding-place, where a certain number of
prostitutes have their own rooms, pay the keeper a fixed sum for their
keep and retain whatever else they earn. Into such establishments the
police of Hamburg, Bremen, Dresden, Cologne, having the right to
designate the registered prostitute’s dwelling-place, yet being
forbidden to license bordells, force as many of the women as they can
lay hold of,—a violation of the statute in spirit, as we shall shortly
perceive. In London and Berlin, the brothel takes a looser form, and
amounts usually to nothing more than the casual combination of a few
women who utilize their joint premises for carrying on their business.
It is worth noting, as we pass, though we shall return to the point,
that, whether the police favor the licensed bordell or, by stretching
their authority, force women into barracks or brothels, a segregated
district, into which the prostitutes of a city are confined, exists
nowhere in Europe, and is nowhere supposed to be either desirable or
feasible. A few streets—in Hamburg for example, are tenanted either only
or almost entirely by prostitutes under police pressure; but they do not
form a district, for they are widely separated, and they contain in any
event only a fraction of the total number of local prostitutes,—not even
all the registered women of the city. A single street in Bremen is
inhabited altogether by prostitutes; but it is absurd to speak of
segregation in reference to seventy-five women in a town containing
hundreds of others living at large. Elsewhere, at Paris, Rome, Geneva,
Vienna, Budapest, where the bordells are officially recognized and even
favored,—they are scattered throughout the respective cities, no single
street usually containing more than one or two.
Prostitution tends, further, to associate itself with the sale of
alcohol; in consequence of which loose women congregate in low grade
drinking and amusement-places, and are utilized wherever law and custom
do not interfere, to assist in the sale of drink. I have already called
attention to the low morality of the barmaid in certain portions of the
Continent. In the German cities, outright prostitutes are employed to
push the sale of drink, by drinking with and otherwise entertaining
their already more or less intoxicated patrons; screened corners and a
quick succession of new faces characterize the so-called Animierkneipe
and American bars,[55] which are bitterly denounced as perhaps the most
demoralizing form that prostitution has as yet assumed. Hardly more than
a variation of Animierkneipe is the dance hall, varieté, or cabaret,
where the “artiste” is a prostitute mingling freely with the audience at
the conclusion of her turn and relying largely on alcohol to make her
way quickly with her casual acquaintances. Finally, pretended
employments,—cigar shops, massage-establishments, and employment
agencies illustrate in one place or another at once the timidity and the
stubbornness of the phenomenon; for though prostitution easily takes
fright and abandons any one shape under the frown of unfavorable opinion
or the pressure of the law, it tends to reappear in another guise. We
shall subsequently consider these efforts to control or suppress
particular aspects of the evil, and their consequences.[56]
One more word is required here by way of mere description.
Prostitution in Europe as an organized business is by no means limited
to the intercourse of persons of opposite sexes. A homosexual
prostitution,—prostitution, that is, in which the parties belong to
the same sex,—has developed on a considerable scale. Notorious resorts
for those addicted to homosexuality are to be found not only in Paris
but in smaller towns, like Hamburg. Berlin is, however, probably the
main mart. In prominent thoroughfares, bars exist to which only women
resort as well as bars to which no woman gets access; and at
intervals, large homosexual balls are given, attended only by persons
of a single sex. I witnessed one such affair, at which some 150
couples, all men, appeared. It is estimated that between 1,000 and
2,000 male prostitutes live in Berlin; forty homosexual resorts are
tolerated by the Berlin police; and it is reported that some 30,000
persons of marked homosexual inclination reside in the German capital.
The prostitute is everywhere attended by a complementary phenomenon—the
pimp, who lives upon her earnings, in return for which she is as a rule
treated with brutality.[57] The police estimate that something like 50%
to 90% of the prostitutes of the large European cities support men in
this fashion—not only the street-walkers and scattered prostitutes, but,
not infrequently, bordell inmates, as well.[58] The tie is easy to
describe, difficult to understand. No practical advantage accrues to the
woman, for in Europe the pimp affords her absolutely no protection
against the police; indeed, the reverse is apt to be the case, for the
police, tolerant of an inoffensive prostitute though they be, are
unrelenting in their hostility to the pimp whom they rightly regard as a
criminal, either actual or in the making. The woman may be compromised
by the association; she certainly can not be protected. One is thrown
back for an adequate explanation on the fundamental fact of sex
relation. The woman has no attachment whatsoever with her stream of
casual customers; but the pimp belongs to her. A vestige of affection, a
sense of property lies at the bottom of the connection; her blunted
sense does not revolt from the price she pays for it. This view is
strongly favored by the fact that the woman’s loyalty will endure every
strain that her mate may put upon it,—abuse, deprivation, or what
not,—every strain, except competition. The difficulties of obtaining a
conviction are practically insuperable unless jealousy loosens the
woman’s tongue.[59]
Despite the general similarity to which I have repeatedly adverted,
there is a notion current that prostitution in Paris is subtly different
from that in other great cities, that the women are less mercenary, the
practice less odious or repulsive. Parisian prostitution enjoys indeed
the glamour of a Bohemian background and a more picturesque tradition;
but beyond this I saw no reason to think the notion well grounded. In my
observation, prostitution is even more uniform internally than
externally: it is everywhere purely mercenary, everywhere rapacious,
everywhere perverse, diseased, sordid, vulgar, and almost always filthy.
In her bloom, the Parisian cocotte possesses a bit of Gallic grace and
verbal cleverness that is perhaps denied to English, German, or
Scandinavian women of the same class. But it is soon brushed away by
excess, drink and perversion. The refined courtesan of the books is
practically as rare in Paris as in London and Berlin. Pretentious
prostitution is indeed nowadays international; there is no distinction
in type, origin, or bearing between the women of Monte Carlo, Ostende,
the Ambassadeurs, or the Palais de Dance. At different times the same
individuals may be found in all these resorts. At the lower level, all
is equally sordid everywhere. The grisette of the Bal Tabarin is, like
her English or German sister, a pathetic figure, whose livelier speech
and simulated gaiety does not hide poverty, loneliness, vulgarity, or
the ravages of overwork, irregular hours, disease, and absinthe. A day
at St. Lazare or police headquarters—and thither those who remain
prostitutes eventually come—quickly dispels any illusion one may
entertain on this score: Holloway Jail and the Inspection bureaus of
Hamburg, Vienna, and Stockholm have nothing more degraded or repulsive
to show.
The cost of prostitution, near and remote, direct and indirect, outruns
any calculation that one would dare to formulate. Payment for service
varies from a few copper coins to several hundred marks or francs;
incidental expense for accommodations, amusements, liquor, gratuities,
gifts, may double the immediate outlay. The Berlin street girl of fair
grade demands five or ten marks;[60] with her customer she takes a cab
or taxi, for which he pays; they resort to a hotel or room of which she
has the use and for which he pays perhaps six marks more; she demands
pin-money for herself, the maid or concierge. Money is the sole object
of her effort, the whole burden of her talk. “The Berlin street-walker,”
writes Schneider, “immediately asks the stranger whom she accosts: ‘what
will you give me?’ Once at home with her, the bargaining begins anew,
for, now that she has him, she can raise her demands.”[61] Impossible as
it is to be definite, one fact stands out: the prostitute living at
large is swindled by every one who has dealings with her: her landlord,
by way of recompense for the legal risk he may run,[62] the dressmaker,
milliner, grocer, butcher, etc. The London street-walker pays three
guineas in rental where an honest family pays one. Nor is her outlay
limited to her own necessities, for she must earn enough to satisfy the
rapacity of her pimp, besides. Her business interest and bad taste lead
her to indulge in shoddy and relatively expensive luxuries, soon worn
out or discarded. The price of all this, mere livelihood, extravagance,
and rascality, her patrons pay; from them every sou is obtained.
A clearer picture can be obtained in the case of the bordell, where
business methods prevail.[63] The more elaborate of these establishments
represent large investments. The latest bordell of Budapest required an
initial outlay of 500,000 crowns ($100,000), on which a very liberal
return is expected. Fiaux cites a second-class establishment in Paris
that yields an annual profit of 70,000 fr. and notes that the same
proprietors often run a chain of houses.[64] In these places, a minimum
price for service is usually fixed; entrance fee, tips, and alcohol are
of course “extra.” In Paris, the entrance fee at pretentious
establishments is 20 francs; from that it ranges downward as low as
five. The inevitable bottle of wine at the former also costs 20 francs;
at the latter, whatever can be wheedled or coaxed.[65] Rendezvous
establishments, incurring greater risk, charge correspondingly; 40
francs, if modish; five, if utterly wretched. Those with a carefully
guarded clientele sometimes exact as much as 100 francs! At Stockholm,
the charge varies from a few pennies to twenty-five crowns (about
$7.50).
In the long run, whatever the women earn, they rarely have anything to
show for it. The bordell-keeper plies them hard and then manages to keep
them in her debt. Despite the fact that they may entertain anywhere from
five to fifty guests in twenty-four hours, they do not own the clothes
on their back, when they make up their mind to leave! Schneider
calculates the minimum payment of a girl for bare living in the better
bordells of Hamburg, Leipzig, and Vienna at 300 to 600[66] marks a
month—an underestimate, as he himself subsequently avers. Seventy-five
wretched creatures are harbored in the barracks of Helenenstrasse,
Bremen, independently of each other; several of them figured out for me
the amount they must earn merely to live; from which it appeared that
10,000 marks a year each barely sufficed: the first charge for their
support was therefore 750,000 marks! In the Roman brothels, the girls
must average 10 to 12 men a night, in order to earn the high charges
made for their keep; in the lowest resort of Altona, the wretched inmate
pays 75 marks a week for her mere board and lodging; at Dresden, the
bordell women are charged up with 100 marks a week for the same bare
necessaries. Among the common prostitutes of Stockholm are found women
who claim to earn—and to spend—sums ranging from 3,000 to 12,000 crowns
annually. A careful study was made by Dr. Lindblad of 712 cases;[67] the
number of customers ran from less than one on the average daily to as
high as 20 when business was brisk; assuming 225 working days per
year,[68] the women must have averaged incomes of $1,080 each annually.
Of 569 from whom information could be obtained, 513 save absolutely
nothing, and only seven claimed to have saved a tidy sum.[69]
I have spoken thus far only of the money immediately involved,—the sums
paid to the prostitute for her service, the sums paid out by her for her
keep. But the account is not so simple. We may not overlook the loss
involved in the unproductiveness of this army of women; expenditure on
alcohol, gifts and demoralizing amusements; the long score chargeable to
venereal disease, including the loss in earnings, the outlay for
treatment, both of the immediate victims and those still more
unfortunate on whom, though innocent, some part of the curse and its
cost not infrequently devolves. Upwards of 10,000 individuals are now
annually treated for venereal complaints in the public hospitals of
Berlin alone. These are essential items in the cost of prostitution. Of
the total loss only the roughest guesses can be made; but it is worth
noting that any estimate that endeavors to include all the factors,
direct and indirect, soon reaches into the millions. Losch, for example,
has reckoned the annual cost of prostitution to the German Empire at
something between 300 and 500 million marks.[70] This outlay may be
contrasted with that spent by the Prussian Government on its entire
educational system: its universities, secondary schools, elementary
school system, technical and professional institutions of all kinds
involving a budget in 1909 of a little less than 200,000,000 marks.[71]
Assuredly the economic burden imposed on society by prostitution is
comparable with that due to standing armies, war, or pestilence.
CHAPTER II
THE DEMAND
Prostitution involves two parties.—Extent of demand in Europe.—Theory
of its necessity.—Is physiological impulse irresistible?—Analysis into
various factors.—Demand emanating from woman.—Effect of improvement in
social status.—Changed attitude of medical profession.—Reduction of
demand through education.—Sex education in Europe.—Influence of
demoralizing literature.—Recent improvement.
Prostitution is usually described and discussed from the standpoint of
the women involved alone; but the problem cannot be understood so long
as it is approached solely from that angle. In every act of prostitution
at least two parties, usually, but not always, of opposite sex, are
concerned. Now one, now the other, is either initially or more highly
responsible. Not infrequently, however, these two individuals are so far
from constituting the entire situation that they may be mere puppets in
the hands of others: the man, the victim of shrewdly devised suggestion
or excitement; the woman, the bait cunningly dangled by pimp,
brothel-keeper, or publican. Under such circumstances it is plainly
absurd to speak of prostitution as if it were only or even mainly the
act of the woman; as if women took to prostitution simply because they
were marked out for a vicious life by innate depravity or even forced
into it by economic pressure. Inclination on the one hand, need on the
other, are among the factors that will assist us to understand the
problem; but a fundamental and antecedent condition is the existence of
a market, clamoring for wares of a particular kind and furnishing an
opportunity for the forced sale of such wares as do not themselves
immediately find buyers. Instead, therefore, of explaining prostitution
as if it were caused by certain conditions affecting solely or primarily
the constitution or environment of women, I shall view it from the
standpoint of demand and supply. In utilizing these terms I do not mean
to imply that a certain volume of demand exists, to begin with, and that
this is satisfied and has to be satisfied through the production somehow
of a corresponding supply. We shall find that both demand and supply are
variable factors. The demand can within limits be stimulated or checked;
the supply can be increased or decreased; and the increase of supply can
be so manipulated as to increase demand. Moreover, a given supply can be
made to satisfy a smaller or a larger demand, so that the volume of
prostitution is a matter not only of the number of those engaged, but of
the intensity of their activity. The two partners—the man and the
woman—thus not only interact on each other, but are both played upon by
agencies lying outside themselves. This method will have the advantage
of demonstrating the interlocking relations of the man, the woman, and
the exploiter.
That this procedure is both fair and sound a moment’s consideration will
show. If the prostitution of women had specific causes, in the sense in
which the term cause is used in science, then, wherever such causes are
present, prostitution should result. There are, however, no conditions
of which this can be affirmed. Of the number of women of whom any
particular fact or set of facts is characteristic, only a small portion
ever become prostitutes. For example: prostitutes have often been, as we
shall see, domestic servants. Yet service, even under unfavorable
conditions, cannot be said to cause prostitution, for more servants
escape than succumb. The conditions of service at most indicate whence
part of the supply will be drawn. Moreover, once engaged in
prostitution, the woman does not passively wait to be sought out by
ungratified spontaneous demand; in order to earn her own livelihood or
to satisfy the cupidity of a third party, she proceeds to create or
develop the demand for what she has to sell. At every moment there
exists a circle of habituated consumers, as well as numerous
agencies,—the women and their exploiters, for example,—actively engaged
in increasing the number of consumers and the urgency of their demands.
Demand and supply thus interact upon each other in much the same fashion
as characterizes the interplay of the market in reference to any other
commodity. The application of this conception to the discussion of
prostitution has therefore two obvious advantages: it brings out the
dual nature of the phenomenon and it suggests the commercial side
involved in the production and maintenance of prostitution on the grand
scale.
At the present time, the demand on the part of the continental male
European is practically universal;[72] so true is this, that until quite
recently questioned, it has been taken to be an ultimate and inevitable
physiological fact. Male continence has not been required by either
tradition or opinion. A low regard for women has practically left the
matter one to be regulated by men on such standards as they themselves
approve. Indulgence begins early: Meirowsky’s investigations indicate
that at least 20% of the boys in the highest gymnasium classes are
already habituated;[73] of 106 venereally infected University students,
61% admitted intercourse before reaching the University.[74] In a Vienna
statistic covering 10,057 cases of venereal infection, over one-half
were minors, and 67% under 25 years of age. Prof. Finger, Chief of the
great Vienna clinic, concludes that these figures are actually
representative,—that perhaps one-half of all venereal disease belongs to
the youth of both sexes.[75] Welander found that of 582 Swedish men, 464
admitted intercourse before the end of the 18th year.[76] “In the
country and in the urban proletariat, no one dreams of continence beyond
adolescence,” says Blaschko.[77] “Among the working-classes, city or
country, abstinence is excessively rare, and in the higher classes,
practically insignificant.”[78] Of 90 physicians interrogated by Prof.
Neisser respecting their sexual history, only one denied all intercourse
prior to marriage and he attributed his exemption to an early engagement
alone; twenty-eight, i. e., 32.9%, had indulged themselves while still
in the secondary school.[79] These figures have been confirmed by other
investigators.[80] Beginning thus early after puberty, sexual
intercourse on the male’s part ranges more or less widely prior to
marriage and is none too severely constrained by custom even afterwards.
Its practical universality, with the rare exceptions explicable on
religious or ethical grounds, is substantiated by the wide prevalence of
venereal complaints. “Roughly speaking,” remarked a distinguished
specialist, whose opinion, when quoted by me to his confrères has rarely
been strongly overruled,—“roughly speaking, one may say that most German
men have had gonorrhœa, and about one in five syphilis.”[81]
No wonder that where practice is so general, theory has accommodated
itself so far as to assume that sexual intercourse on the male’s part is
necessary and wholesome. Up to recent times this has been almost
undisputed dogma. The practically universal demand was for centuries
regarded fatalistically as inevitable and incontestable; in the Middle
Ages, a sufficient supply of women was imported by way of entertaining
the delegates to church congresses.[82] A change of attitude and opinion
is, however, undoubtedly taking place. The universality of demand has
been condoned on the assumption that it represented an irresistible
physiological impulse. A good deal of attention has been latterly
expended in the effort to resolve this so-called physiological impulse
into its constituent elements, with the following results. In the first
place, however strong the spontaneous sex impulse may be, it is like any
other impulse—capable of restraint through the cultivation of
inhibitions. Except for the futile precepts of the church, European
society has for centuries been singularly free from any such effort.
Women have been regarded as inferior creatures and have contentedly
accepted the status assigned to them. They have therefore failed to
resent masculine immorality; the self-restraint that might thereby have
been imposed on men—be it much or little—has been generally lacking.
Europe has been a man’s world,—managed by men and largely for men,—for
cynical men, at that,—men inured to the sight of human inequalities,
callous as to the value of lower-class life, and distinctly lacking in
respect for womanhood, especially that of the working-classes. The
military, the aristocracy, the student, are all conceded their fling.
“Dem Studenten ist ja alles erlaubt—To the student everything is
allowed.” Where soldier and scholar freely indulge themselves without
reprobation, it is too much to expect the artisan to refrain.
Not only has there been—up to recently, at least—no social inhibition:
there has been a strong social compulsion. Men swim with the current;
they fall in with accepted habits and customs, in order to escape being
ridiculous, and custom established in this way is practically imposed on
successive generations. Certain forms of venereal experience have been
popularly treated as marks of maturity. Dr. Magnus Möller tells of a
club of military officers existing in Stockholm in the early nineties to
which no one was eligible until he could prove that he had had
syphilis.[83] Quite as flagrantly, boys have been practically coerced
into sowing wild oats. Women, whose influence might have been exerted
restrainingly, have been trained not to pry into the prematrimonial
records of their husbands; fathers fashion their sons, as a rule, after
their own image. Indulgence brought about in this way cannot fairly be
characterized or excused as physiological, even though, once
experienced, it soon gathers intensity enough to operate on its own
account and to play the ominous rôle of suggestion to others.
Finally, we may not overlook the part played by deliberate excitation on
the part of the woman or those in whose interests she works.
Prostitution is not merely a matter between man and woman,—the former
overtaken by a periodic impulse demanding gratification, the latter
supporting herself through the passionless sacrifice of the sexual
function. Over and above this, it is an industry, deliberately
cultivated by third parties for their own profit: and the instinct
readily lends itself to artificial exploitation. A very large
constituent in what has been called the irresistible demand of natural
instinct is nothing but suggestion and stimulation associated with
alcohol,[84] late hours, and sensuous amusements, and deliberately
worked up for the profit of third parties,—pimps, tavern-keepers,
bordell proprietors, etc. Street-walking, with the pimp across the way
ready to ply the lash; the Animierkneipe, in which the earnings of the
prostitute barmaid are wholly dependent upon the extent to which she
overmasters her guest through liquor and otherwise; the bordell, in
which heavy charges and her small proportional share force her to find
an extensive trade,—these are the most obvious examples of supply
deliberately and resourcefully engaged in creating demand. Amid
conditions as they exist in Paris, Berlin, and Vienna, and the smaller
towns like Geneva which aspire to be world cities by being licentious,
growing youth is characterized not by a normal, healthy, and natural
sexual development, but by an over-stimulated and premature sex
activity—a purely artificial excitation of instinct. An artificial
supply of prostitutes is deliberately created; forced upon the market
under appropriate conditions, an artificial demand is worked up to
consume it. Every tolerated focus, through the existence of which third
parties benefit, thus soon becomes a vested interest, actively engaged
in whipping up demand and supply, reacting upon each other. Supply,
everywhere greater than spontaneous demand, is utilized to create a
secondary demand. A striking example of deliberate business organization
along these lines is to be found in Paris where, closely adjoining one
another in the rue Pigal are found a dance hall, a café and an
assignation house said to form a plant under one management.
The sex impulse, however formidable it may be, is thus on close
investigation discovered to be not the single powerful physiological
force which it has been represented to be, resistlessly pushing towards
an instinctive object, but rather a combination of forces of very
different quality as respects both origin and intensity. Taking
prostitution and resort to prostitution as they exist in any great city
to-day, three distinct factors are readily distinguished: sex impulse,
pure and simple; social instigation or compulsion; sheer artificial
excitation. Not improbably, instinct plays a decidedly less important
part than is commonly supposed; much of what has been viewed as
physiological is undoubtedly social. Less than half of Neisser’s cases
attributed their lapse to their own impulse,—and even this impulse is
not necessarily of really spontaneous origin; of the others, 28.8%
blamed comrades for dragging them into trouble; 18.6% acted under
alcoholic excitement. In another set of 129 cases cited, less than half
acted on native impulse; alcohol figures with 23.6%; comrades, with
29.4%.[85] Nor is native impulse itself any longer regarded as a
constant or spasmodically irresistible force; it can be checked,
diverted, modified, or stimulated. It becomes stronger with indulgence;
weaker through continued repression.
For the reasons above given, demand is no longer spoken of as if it were
a constant quantity determined at any given time and place by the
ultimate constitution of human nature and unalterable except by
transformation of the character of the race; just as it is equally
absurd to speak in fatalistic terms of the supply. Not a single factor
in either demand or supply bears this rigid elemental stamp; every
factor is capable of mitigation or aggravation by human decisions,
institutions, habits,—some of them, indeed, more or less readily so.
“Human nature”—so-called—is not the whole of it, in the sense in which
the expression is commonly used. Indeed, human nature itself may be made
better or worse by opinion, inhibition, suggestion, example.
Unquestionably, do what we will, a problem—a vast problem—will remain;
but it is an enormous gain to have learned that a considerable volume of
prostitution and of the demand for prostitution is the product of
conditions that, however difficult the task, are within limits socially
controllable.
One must not, of course, overlook the fact that demand does not simply
take the form of the male seeking or being induced to seek the female.
The seeker is sometimes the woman herself, bent upon her own
gratification. Her own effort may thus succeed in increasing demand. It
is impossible to say with what frequency male irregularity is thus
provoked. Of Meirowsky’s 102 first offenders, 29.4% attributed their
lapse to the seductive influence of comrades, part of whom were girls;
of 28 physicians whose first offence occurred while still at school,
over one-half blamed themselves wholly; three of them threw the initial
blame on girls, all of whom were servants. But the overwhelming majority
of women involved in provocation are open or concealed prostitutes.
The fact just stated throws an interesting light on the possibility of
reducing immorality through the cultivation of social inhibitions. We
learned in the preceding chapter that under the natural conditions that
obtain in the country and in certain sections of the urban
working-classes, girls are sometimes equally responsible partners in
sexual irregularity. Clan morality does not forbid; we may assume,
therefore, that not infrequently the woman indulges her passion
precisely as the man indulges his. But the moment that improved social
or economic position brings her under the range of more exacting ideals,
she checks herself. The first consciousness of the higher requirement
results in decidedly reducing the scope which she allows to her impulse.
It is perhaps true that self-restraint is actually easier for women than
for men;[86] but it is at any rate not achieved without effort. It is
therefore not without significance that the social sanction, as yet but
slightly operative among men, is among women of the higher classes very
generally powerful enough to reverse the animal engine. Unhappy
consequences to health are alleged, and doubtless sometimes occur; but
they are a lesser evil than disgrace, disease or pregnancy and are
endured as such.
The analysis of demand as above outlined has already borne consequences
both theoretical and practical. In the first place, it has accomplished
a striking change in medical opinion as to the necessity of sexual
intercourse and the supposedly unfavorable results of continence. Recent
medical literature abounds in strong and authoritative expressions
utterly at variance with the traditional position. Cases of
irrepressible desire are stamped as pathological, rather than normal; as
relatively rare, rather than usual or even frequent. Continence is, in
general, increasingly regarded as both feasible and wholesome. “I am
convinced that the overwhelming majority of persons are not in the least
injured by continuous continence whether during youth or afterwards,”
writes Moll. “The longer one is continent, the more readily is
continence borne, the less is one annoyed by the sexual impulse.”[87]
Moll insists that, even in cases where neurotic disturbances occur,
these are not comparable to the damage, corporal and moral, which
attends irregular intercourse—and of course it always remains to be
proven that the disturbances in question really result from abstinence.
Pinkus, conceding that occasionally depressing symptoms attend
self-restraint, points out that “the annoyances arising from abstinence
are far from being such serious psychic disturbances as are produced by
the knowledge that one has contracted venereal disease: under which
conditions abstinence must be practised anyway.”[88] “There is not a
shadow of proof to show that continence is damaging to health.—To the
continent, continence becomes progressively easier.”[89] “Whatever
disturbances are attributable to sexual abstinence, they are usually
non-progressive and are for the most part remediable through hygienic
and therapeutic measures. On the other hand, the damages done through
intimacy with prostitutes far overshoot in number and gravity any harm
attributable to continence.”[90] Exceedingly cogent is Touton’s curt
summary: “In short, all the talk about manifestations due to abstinence
is thus far with few exceptions a hodge-podge of superficial
observations and uncritical interpretations.”[91] Again: “Altogether
healthy men, sexually normal, can, without danger of illness, for the
most part get along far into maturity without sexual intercourse, if
they do not purposely excite themselves or if temptation is not pressed
upon them, especially so, if, instead of such stimulation, they resort
to moderate exercises and adequate mental employment. The idler cannot
remain continent.”[92] Johansson urges that through the cultivation of
an inhibitory mechanism, the impulse can be limited, and subordinated to
the welfare of the individual and of society.[93]
There is no livelier topic under discussion in connection with
prostitution than that of the methods to be pursued in order to minimize
demand, in accordance with the modern scientific view that irregular
sexual intercourse is a reducible evil. The fact that “appetite grows by
what it feeds on” pleads strongly for timely action. Instruction, with
special reference to sex-physiology, has therefore been widely and
confidently urged as the means of acquainting childhood and, later,
youth, with the essential facts of sex-physiology, so as to deprive the
facts of morbid interest and to warn the child of the dangers attending
uncleanliness. It will be worth while to give a brief account of what
has taken place in this direction in Europe and to consider what benefit
is likely to be derived from this source.
Despite the prevalent notion to the contrary, the subject of sex
education is as yet very largely in the realm of theory or controversy.
As to this point, a strange misconception obtains. In England, one hears
that great progress has been made in this field in Germany; in Germany
one is referred with equal positiveness to Scandinavia; in Scandinavia
to Finland, whither, however, I did not pursue the will-o’-the wisp. The
facts are these:
No recognition is given to sex-instruction in English schools at
all.[94] The head-masters and house-masters in some of the great public
schools,—notably Eton,—endeavor, however, to gain the confidence of the
boys individually, to put them on their guard and to assist them if in
distress. A series of leaflets has been issued by the church schools for
the guidance of parents, who are urged to open the subject with their
sons at the proper time.[95] In Prussia, which is representative of the
States of the German Empire, sex-instruction of any kind is very rarely
given at the popular schools;[96] in the Gymnasien,—the nine-year
secondary schools opening into the University,—a lecture on the subject
may be given to the last year class[97] by the School Director, a
teacher or a physician;[98] attendance on the part of the students is
optional. The lectures deal with the feasibility of continence, which is
strongly urged, the dangers attending sexual irregularity or
abnormality, and the misuse of alcohol; at times they are printed and
circulated. During the school year 1911, such lectures were given at 76
Gymnasien out of a total of almost 800. Similar talks are given at
institutions for the training of teachers. Occasionally pupils before
leaving school are presented with books dealing with the topic in a
wholesome manner. This represents the sum total of school instruction on
the subject in Prussia; additional lectures, of an occasional character
are provided for parents, artisans, etc., by local branches of the
German Society for the Suppression of Venereal Disease. In Denmark and
Norway, nothing either of a general or a compulsory character exists;
Sweden practically repeats Prussia, offering no instruction in popular
schools, an optional lecture to last year students in the higher
secondary schools, particularly those for girls, in the discretion of
the headmaster or headmistress. Systematic or general instruction has
developed as yet nowhere in Europe. The educational officials of both
Prussia and Sweden distinctly hold that under existing conditions the
problem is one for the home, not the school. France is at the same stage
of development. A memorandum on the subject has been submitted to the
ministry of education, but no official action has been taken.
In view of the paucity of our experience, much of the literature on the
subject strikes the observer as perhaps promising too much from mere
diffusion of knowledge. Undoubtedly it is beyond all question that no
boy or girl ought to be permitted to err through sheer ignorance. But it
does not follow that fuller and clearer knowledge on the part of the
growing boy and girl will itself effectively restrain; not only
knowledge, but knowledge suffused with ethical emotion is requisite.[99]
By prematurely creating images and stimulating curiosity both of which
go further than the immediate communications on the topic, knowledge
alone may either originate or increase the danger. Inhibition is
unquestionably possible and it must be educationally brought about; but
it involves not only a certain amount of intelligence on the child’s
part, but control of impulse through loyalty—instinctive or
deliberate—to precept and example. As the boy matures, the actual
dangers involved in immorality may be so depicted as to exert a
deterrent effect; but the main reliance must continue to be upon the
higher motivation.
The importance of emotional and ethical training suggests the importance
of the home in this connection. Foreign opinion is well-nigh unanimous
in recommending that parents initiate the subject at the psychological
moment,—a moment that is rarely the same for two individuals;
subsequently the school can make its contribution, though there is as
yet no agreement as to the form or the time.[100] Some urge that it be
the natural outgrowth of general biological instruction;[101] some favor
class teaching, others individual instruction; an occasional writer
contends that, while boys should be urged to continence, they should
also be taught the use of preventives since it is well known in advance
that they will not obey![102]
The practical difficulties are, however, very great. The researches of
Moll and others indicate that sexual instinct and curiosity awaken at
different stages in different children; something depends on the
constitution of the individual child, something on the environment.
Moreover, the parents of the children most dangerously exposed are very
often those who are most incapable of managing the situation. A little
later, when the school might intervene, the difficulty due to individual
differences has not disappeared and additional problems have also
arisen. Class instruction disregards individual variations and requires
the greatest tact and skill in presentation; the teachers are as yet
incompetent;[103] physicians lay as a rule too much stress on disease
and on mere knowledge, and are as a rule clumsy and ineffective or
skeptical respecting the ethical side, without which such understanding
of the subject as may be brought about is apt to be of slight value. The
danger that lurks in tabooing or avoiding the subject has been clearly
demonstrated; but there is danger, too, in breaking down reserve. The
more explicit the intellectual aspects of the matter are made, the more
important does it become to insist that the mere communication of the
facts cannot possibly alone attain the end toward which the movement
looks. The girl must develop character enough to resist easy
demoralization; the boy, character enough to subdue rebellious impulse.
Still later, when boys are about to leave the Gymnasium—and therewith
their homes—in order to enter upon the freedom of University life in
strange towns, candid talks to whole classes, laying particular stress
upon the penalties attached to immorality, can be indeed given, as from
time to time they are. But, unless effective training on higher lines
has begun long before, the good to be achieved is of dubious extent:
witness the prevalence of venereal disease among last year Gymnasium and
first year University students, and the rapid, even if passing,
demoralization characteristic of the latter.
The educational situation in reference to sex hygiene may then be
concisely put as follows: little progress has been anywhere made in
actual instruction; decided benefit is to be hoped for only where
increase of knowledge is accompanied by increase of self-control—by
loyalty, conscious and unconscious, to higher ideals of personal
behavior.
I have mentioned above the factors and influences that tend artificially
to develop demand. Whatever makes prostitution prominent, easy,
attractive, seductive, unquestionably operates to increase demand. By
the same token, measures that deprive prostitution of prominence,
facility, attractiveness, seductiveness, reduce demand, or,—what amounts
to the same thing—hinder its artificial increase. In the modern city,
many conditions make, some purposely, some incidentally, for the
stimulus of sex appetite: glitter, luxury, the mad rush for amusement,
the stage, the café, the tavern,—all assist in the early maturity of the
sex function, the exercise of which they also facilitate. With many of
the artifices that have been employed to develop prostitution as a
business conducted for the profit mainly of third parties, I shall deal
in other chapters.[104] But certain of them may properly be considered
in this connection.
A by no means negligible factor in stimulating appetite are erotic
books, prints, etc. Obscene objects of this character are frequently
circulated in secret in schools,—girls’ as well as boys’; occasionally
they are even advertised under more or less deceptive titles. In recent
years active efforts have been made to stamp out this nefarious trade.
An international agreement has been arrived at, according to the terms
of which the police departments of the nations who are parties thereto
cooperate in ferreting out publishers and importers of immoral
publications and in endeavoring to bring them to justice. In
France,[105] Germany,[106] Austria and elsewhere popular societies have
been formed for the purpose of making war on pornography; laws have been
strengthened and ministerial decrees emitted, establishing special
police bureaux to handle offenders.[107] The kinematograph is the most
recent invention open to abuse in this direction; to forestall which,
inspection of films has already been introduced at police headquarters
in Berlin. Many congresses, national and international, held in recent
years, are evidence of a growing determination to stop the artificial
and premature excitation of sex demand through immoral books, pictures,
plays and other representations. The total laxity which once prevailed
has been checked and increasing restraint may be looked for, as public
opinion is educated to require and to sustain it.[108] For even where
laws exist, their enforcement depends on the vigor and sympathy of
police officials and magistrates, who, in the interpretation of the
statute, in some measure take their cue from the newspapers and popular
opinion. In a recent London case, a Bow Street Magistrate convicted a
bookseller for disposing of a book, of which, in imposing punishment, he
stated that nothing “more foul or filthy” had been found in London in a
long time. Subsequently another case, involving the same book, was
brought into court; and in the latter instance, the culprit was
acquitted.[109] In Germany, the laws—long since fairly adequate—were for
years a dead letter; but recent agitation has already had a noticeable
effect. Curiously enough, the most decisive action on the part of the
authorities is feasible only in countries where the liberty of the press
is most firmly established: for only in countries thoroughly free in
spirit will the public deliberately impose limitations on itself without
fear that such restrictions may ultimately be abused to serve other ends
than those originally intended.
Though no quantitative evidence of improving morality can be given, the
various movements above touched on supply proof that opinion is
undergoing a change which must in the end affect conduct. I was indeed
assured that a change is already perceptible to those whose knowledge
spans a sufficiently great period of time. Custom once practically
constrained the French student in the Latin quarter to swim with the
current; now it has become possible to lead a blameless life without
incurring contempt for his idiosyncrasy; an impassioned literature
appealing to the German student has made its appearance.[110] The
woman’s movement will unquestionably destroy the passivity of German
women in respect to masculine irregularities. The task of developing
continence in nations habituated to indulgence is one of inexpressible
difficulty; but it may be fairly said that now for the first time it has
been deliberately faced on the Continent by a small, but earnest band of
men and women bent upon the purification of the sexual life.
CHAPTER III
THE SUPPLY
Relation of demand and supply.—Demand increased by forcing
supply.—Supply derived mainly from lower working-classes.—Occupations
of parents.—Occupations of women themselves.—Is the prostitute a born
degenerate?—Importance of the milieu.—Effect of loosening home
ties.—Broken homes.—Demoralization of minors.—Unmarried
mothers.—Influence of bad example.—Economic pressure.—Low and
irregular wages.—Perilous employments.—Efforts to improve
conditions.—Rescue work.—Volume of supply.—Forced supply.—White
slavery.—Employment agencies.—The pimp, bars, variety theaters,
etc.—Rescue and preventive work.—Supply capable of modification
through laws and social conditions.
The supply, which after a fashion responds to the demand just described,
must be considered from three distinct points of view: its sources, its
volume, its reaction on demand itself. On the face of it, the general
relation of demand and supply appears simple and mechanical: a demand
exists; somehow, thereupon, a supply springs up to meet it. The demand
thus recognized, a moving equilibrium is established. Unquestionably, as
the situation now stands, prostitution to a certain extent illustrates
this purely mechanical conception. There is a demand of such strength
and upon such terms that a supply is forthcoming: in so far as this
particular demand is concerned, outright efforts simply to deny its
satisfaction would for the most part lead to higher bidding or to
circuitous methods of gratification. Demand itself must be affected
before this situation can be essentially or fundamentally altered. There
is also a supply on hand, which will employ a high degree of ingenuity
to bring itself into relation with actual or potential demand. But,
after all, however important, this is only one aspect of the problem.
The modern merchant, in whatever commodity he may deal, is a practical,
if not a trained, psychologist. He knows that appetite not only exists,
but may be both created and developed: that, in the absence of strong
restraint, supply can be worked up to almost any extent; and that there
is no more efficient way to manufacture and to develop demand than to
crowd supply in an attractive form upon the possible buyer’s attention,
when he is most amenable to suggestion of the requisite kind. True of
every article of commerce, be the need for it native or acquired, this
principle is nowhere more valid than in respect of a vice that starts
with a tremendously powerful momentum, and is easily susceptible of
still further stimulation. The volume of the business is, moreover, not
only a question of the number of women engaged in it, but of the
intensity with which the vocation is plied. A thousand women may consort
with a thousand men in the course of a night; or, conditions favoring,
they may entertain five or ten times that number. The definition adopted
in the preceding chapter looked ahead to precisely this fact,—a fact
that will become increasingly important as we proceed. For prostitution
represents not only the periodic coming together of demand and supply;
it represents also the exploitation of artificial, instigated appetite
and overworked supply. The prostitute may indeed satisfy her own or
another’s passion; but there is no passion in the sexual drudgery which
as a rule she performs. So far then from dealing with a simple natural
or mechanical process of satisfaction, demand and supply in this matter
tend to display rather more than the complications and interrelations
characteristic of enterprise in general.
The most striking fact in connection with the source of supply is its
practically total derivation from the lower working-classes, and mainly
the unmarried women of those classes.[111] The victims come in a highly
preponderant ratio from this definitely circumscribed milieu. Half a
century ago, Parent-Duchatelet, studying their social origins, found
that Parisian prostitutes are recruited well nigh exclusively from
artisan families; among 828 fathers, there was a bare sprinkling of
better-conditioned men.[112] These conditions still obtain. Of 11,413
women prisoners incarcerated during several years in Milbank prison,
10,646 were the daughters of working-men, or the equivalent; 544, of
small shopkeepers; 128, of professional men; 82, of small officials; 13,
of gentlemen.[113] Of 565 Stuttgart women, the fathers were, in 172
instances, artisans; in 84 instances, day laborers; in 60 instances,
peasants; in 31 instances, small shopkeepers. Skilled occupations were
barely represented.[114] Of 173 registered women in Munich, 95 of the
fathers were artisans; 46, day laborers; 17, peasants. Of 2,574
so-called clandestines in the same city, the fathers were: artisans,
1,147; laborers, 944; peasants, 248; under-officials, 140.[115] Two
thousand one hundred and three women appeared on the inscription lists
of the Stockholm police between 1885 and 1904: in 179 cases, the fathers
were small landowners and lease-holders; in 42 cases, merchants; in 14
cases, national or municipal officials: the rest were gardeners,
peasants, fishermen, mechanics, publicans, unskilled laborers, etc.[116]
The occupations of the women themselves suggest the same conclusions.
They are the unskilled daughters of the unskilled classes. Out of 1,327
street women of Geneva examined between 1907 and 1911, 503 had been
servants; 236, tailoresses and laundresses; 120, factory workers;[117]
of 173 registered Munich prostitutes (1911), 52 had been barmaids;[118]
29, domestic servants; 29, factory workers; 15, seamstresses; 8 had no
particular employment. Of 2,574 clandestines in the same city, 721 had
been servants; 608, barmaids; 255, factory hands; 60, stage-dancers or
singers; 170, without definite calling.[119] Of 1,200 women enrolled in
Berlin 1909–10, 431 had been servants; 445, factory operatives; 479,
seamstresses and laundresses; 145 were without vocation.[120] One
thousand five hundred women who were sent to the hospital on account of
venereal disease show the same vocations: 431 were servants; 445,
factory hands; 112 without special employment. Of 2,275 inscribed
Viennese women, 44.52% were servants; 20.55%, factory workers; 16%
without calling.[121] Of 427 admitted to a London Reformatory, 275 were
servants, 25 laundry workers; 20, factory hands; 11, dressmakers; 6,
barmaids; 33, without a vocation.[122] Of 675 cases included in another
study, 283 were servants; 114 without occupation; 52, factory girls; 12,
barmaids.[123] Another London list of 168 girls shows 2 described as
“typist and clerk,”—all the others engaged in unskilled domestic,
industrial, or mercantile labor.[124] Among Merrick’s thousands, already
referred to, one-half had been servants; one-tenth each, laundresses,
charwomen, factory hands and seamstresses; another large contingent were
barmaids: a few described themselves as governesses.[125] In the
Stockholm cases, the facts are identical: 996 were servants; 395,
unskilled workers; 266, sewing-girls; 57 were shop girls; 6 connected
with the stage.[126] Almost 7,000 Paris women, inscribed between 1878
and 1887 illustrate the same principle.[127]
Merrick’s data as to the educational opportunities enjoyed are also
generally sustained: less than one-tenth of his cases had had anything
beyond the most rudimentary training;[128] the German prostitutes show
at the most only the compulsory “Volksschule” education. Of the minors
apprehended during the year 1901, only 36% of those over 12 years of age
had completed the popular elementary schools; only one-fifth of 1% had
advanced further.[129] Very few indeed have acquired in any direction a
substantial degree of skill. They belong to the intellectual as well as
to the social proletariat. And this is just as true of the elaborately
dressed denizens of the Palais de Dance as of the unpretending
street-walker of Potsdamer Platz: they are, generally speaking, all of
the same origin and the same capacity.
The foregoing statistics are obviously, however, not fully
representative, derived as they are mainly from the records of the
hospital, the police, the prison, and the rescue home. Professionals of
low grade and failures are perhaps too largely included,—the women of
the street and the brothel; the dull drudges, who are most likely to
fall into the hands of the law; the stupid, who most readily give up in
despair. The vocational designations are also in one respect somewhat
deceptive: the women involved not infrequently describe themselves in
terms not of an habitual vocation or of a position held at the moment,
but of perhaps their last occupation, or some occupation capriciously
selected from the various jobs on which they have been more or less
transiently employed. Low grade help is as a rule thus variable and
casual. For instance: 1,689 women were inscribed by the police of Berlin
in twelve months following March 1900; all declared some sort of
employment; yet only 352 had work at the moment.[130] The returns are
therefore not precisely accurate; yet from the standpoint of our
interest in them, they do more than justice to the quality of the women,
for to the extent of implying preference or capacity for one kind of
work rather than indicating aimless shifting from one to another and
then again to nothing, the impression created is more favorable than the
facts warrant. In any case, the economic competency of the prostitute is
not higher than the statistics indicate and may be lower. Exceptions, of
course, are bound to occur. One finds here and there a stenographer, an
elementary teacher, a former actress;[131] but in most of these cases,
the woman is, socially speaking, of inferior origin and intellectually
not more prepossessing than others of her type. Very rarely indeed a
person of some education, social standing, and personal charm is met
with. A Parisian woman to whom this description is fairly applicable was
asked as to the possibility of finding others like herself. “I am one in
a million,” she proudly—and truthfully—answered.
The particular features of the milieu that involve peril I shall discuss
in a moment. Meanwhile, the fact that prostitution recruits itself from
a single social class is itself fatal to the contention that the
prostitute is necessarily a born degenerate; for if prostitution
involved born degeneracy; and if, vice versa, congenital degeneracy made
straight for prostitution, a single milieu would not furnish practically
the total supply. The definiteness of the type is, of course,
indisputable. Characteristic traits, external and internal, mark the
scarlet woman; she has a distinct gait, smile, leer; she is lazy,
unveracious, pleasure-loving, easily led, fond of liquor, heedless of
the future, and usually devoid of moral sense. Defect undoubtedly
accounts for certain cases, and especially so where a psychopathic
family strain is continuously implicated. Of 21 girls recently admitted
into a newly-established observation home in Berlin, 5 were reported as
mentally below par; of Mrs. Booth’s 150 cases discussed below,[132] 12%
were feeble-minded. In the case of prostitutes committed under the
British Inebriate Acts, the percentage naturally runs much higher: in
1909, out of 219 such immoral women, only 70 are described as of “good”
mental state; 118 were “defective”; 23, “very defective”; 8, “insane”;
_i. e._, almost 70% were below normal. “There is,” writes Dr.
Branthwaite, “almost consistent evidence here of some causative
relationship between mental defect and prostitution; but the evidence is
by no means overwhelming enough to justify more than a general
conclusion that mental defect is one of many causes for its
prevalence.”[133] Bonhöffer, studying 190 prostitutes incarcerated in
prison at Breslau, found that one hundred came from alcoholic families
and that two-thirds of them were mentally defective—hysterical,
epileptic or feeble-minded; his judgment is adverse to the existence of
the “born prostitute,” but in favor of congenital defect as providing
soil favorable to immorality.[134] One hundred and fifty-five Berlin
cases between 12 and 21 years of age, yield an equally striking result;
30% are reported as “intact,” 23%, as feeble; 43%, as psychopathic; 66%
are therefore abnormal.[135] Premature development on the sex side is
also frequently encountered. Among Lindblad’s 800 cases, 52 had had
sexual intercourse before they were 15 years old; 111 more, before they
were sixteen.[136] In these instances there was presumably a lack of
self-control, but not necessarily always a lack of the very possibility
of acquiring it, such as the degeneration argument requires. How far
these statistics are reliable, representative, or significant, it is
impossible to determine. Expert scientific study of large numbers of
women from each of the different strata of prostitution, without as well
as within prisons, reformatories, hospitals and refuges is needed in
order to clear up the question. For though degeneracy and native
depravity may account for the prostitute alone or in connection with
other facts, her conduct and qualities are also otherwise explicable.
The women involved have, as we have learned, undeveloped intelligence to
begin with; riotous sex-indulgence, the loss of shame, alcohol,
irregular hours, disease, combine to bring about speedy and far-reaching
demoralization. Moral idiocy, covetousness, aversion to work, vanity,
inclination to steal, libidinousness, may be acquired as well as native
traits; they may be qualities exaggerated, even if not altogether bred
in the course of the career. “The personality of the prostitute,” Bloch
contends, “is the result rather than the reason of her occupation.”[137]
Branthwaite holds that even the so-called “temperamental prostitute,”
with morbidly violent sexual desire, is apt to be the product of her way
of life: in the majority of his cases he believes the symptom to be a
“characteristic acquired by habit.”[138] Undoubtedly personal or
anthropological factors are usually involved: for if it were a question
of milieu alone, all affected by it would succumb. But the exact extent
to which the anthropological factor is congenital defect or only
imperfect education and protection remains as yet to be settled.
However this may turn out, the peril of the milieu remains. It increases
in geometric ratio with the feebleness of the girl, to whatever cause
that feebleness be due. The reason of this may best be comprehended, if
the question is approached from the opposite end. Let us ask, not why
some women fall, but why others go straight. A certain number,
undoubtedly, because of sheer character; these are the women who lead
righteous lives under all circumstances whatsoever; for they are made of
the hardy fiber that withstands any kind of wear and tear. A proportion,
one has no way of knowing how large, keep straight for the mere lack of
sufficient temptation to do otherwise: “The happy accident of the
absence of opportunity has helped to the rescue of many eminent virgins
at critical moments,” George Meredith caustically remarks.[139] But a
still larger number, though doubtless persuaded of their own ethical
superiority, attribute to positive character what is really due to the
unnoticed pressure of clan opinion, and the imperceptible barriers by
which they are completely surrounded. The certain disapproval of family
and friends, the sure ostracism that attends a serious departure from
the accepted code of behavior consciously or unconsciously act as
powerful deterrents; the esteem we are taught to crave, the warnings,
expostulations, and demands of family and friends constantly on the
lookout, keep the growing child within a well-marked path; established
habit, position, responsibility for others, and ripe reason ultimately
approving the same—these function in many cases as a substitute for
fundamentally hardy character. The superiority in such instances is
trained, not inherent; and not so much narrowly educational as widely
social. The whole organization of certain strata of society supports
those who pass their lives securely within it.
In many cases—we have as yet no way of knowing how many—the girls who
fall differ from those who go straight in lacking precisely these
supports; they are born in a stratum in which no strong supporting
bulwark of opinion and habit has been developed; or the bulwark, such as
it is, has been in one way or another broken down. The strong
characters—and they are immensely more abundant than is usually
supposed—do without it; the weaker too often succumb. Even so, their
collapse is rarely sudden. It is a hopeful fact that decency is often
only gradually and cunningly undermined. The buyer dealing with the
seasoned prostitute may go straight to his object; his purpose must be
veiled in negotiations with the beginner, who is led on by pretty
clothes, amusements, wine and glitter. There is no reason to believe
that, as a rule, promiscuity is congenial to the woman from the start;
it is sometimes increasingly odious. Low as the barrier may be, the
prostitute has rarely once and for all deliberately stepped across it.
Her demoralization is a progressive, not a summary, process. With her,
the sex instinct is, for reasons already given, less apt to be valued at
its real worth, or to be properly safeguarded by deference to exacting
opinion; less apt, too, to be reduced in comparative urgency by the
volume and abundance of other satisfactions. The girl has, however, no
notion in the first place of becoming a prostitute. She begins by giving
away what ultimately she learns to sell.
From the above discussion, it appears that, as far as we now know, it
may be not so much individuals as environments, that are superior.
Danger lies where the environment puts up no high barrier; still more so
when the low barrier, the strong temptation, and the weak resistance,
coincide. How completely the untrained daughters of the proletariat lack
the positive protections and supports by means of which
better-conditioned girls are, even in default of their own strength,
held upright, a somewhat closer study of the facts will soon show.
There is, in the first place, no quicker way of evading the immaterial
forces that assist in maintaining an approved line of conduct than
abrupt transplantation of an immature person into an environment within
which no such forces operate on the individual in question. Accordingly,
a heavy percentage of urban prostitutes are girls who have left home: of
168 girls in a London rescue home, 85 were born abroad; not all the 83
English girls were London born.[140] “The servants in Manchester,” I was
told, “come almost invariably from remote counties; they have been
familiar at home with the men, with whom they walk out.” In a strange
city, without work, or with hard work, they obtain through the too
lightly prized sex function, at least for the moment, what their lot
otherwise lacks. Out of 12,707 women inscribed in Paris, two-thirds were
born outside the department of the Seine.[141] Only 213 out of 781 girls
newly enrolled in Paris in a single year were natives of the city.[142]
Of 1,376 inscribed prostitutes of Stockholm (1890–1904), only 21.1% were
natives of that city; the same proportion were born in other Swedish
cities; 57% were country girls; the rest, foreigners.[143] Many of the
prostitutes of Vienna were born in the poor districts of Galicia and
Poland. The studies of Lindblad and Welander in Stockholm show how
closely immorality has followed detachment from home in hundreds of
instances.[144]
The home barrier is itself often so low as to constitute little or no
obstacle to demoralization,—often indeed, demoralization is of domestic
origin. Sidney and Beatrice Webb, dealing with London destitution,
describe a situation existing in all crowded European cities: “The
herding together, by day and by night, of men and women, of young and
old, of boys and girls, of all degrees of relationship or no
relationship, not only destroys health, but makes, to the ordinary human
being, the particular virtue upon which the integrity of the family
depends, wholly impracticable. Any person who has dwelt among the
denizens of the slums, cannot fail to have brought home to him the
existence of a stratum of society of no inconsiderable magnitude in
which children part with their innocence long before puberty, in which
personal chastity is virtually unknown, and in which ‘to have a baby by
your father’ is laughed at as a comic mishap.”[145] In a close in High
Street, Edinburgh, I visited with the city physician a family consisting
of father, mother, grandmother, daughter of 13, and two younger
children, all of whom slept in a single bed. Professor Blaschko declares
that “what Robert Koch once said of tuberculosis, viz., that it is a
question of living conditions, holds equally of prostitution. Living
conditions are responsible for the fact that children learn all forms of
evil prematurely and forego all natural enjoyments.”[146] Of the
inhabitants in Berlin in 1900, 73.7% lived in dwellings of two rooms or
less; 785,000 lived in single rooms; 561,000 in two rooms; 5,450 in one
unheated room; 7,759 in a kitchen.[147] Too frequently, the home, such
as it is, is broken besides. Not infrequently, necessity drives the
mother herself to become a wage-earner. Something above 2,000,000 German
women are engaged in factories, one-third of whom are married, widowed
or divorced. The children of these families,—boys and girls alike,—lack
the rearing which would be their most important safeguard.
Unfortunately, too, the tide is rising: the married women workers of
Bavaria increased absolutely in number 72% from 1895 to 1907;[148]
throughout Germany a similar rise is taking place.[149] As this increase
involves especially women between 30 and 50 years of age, it is clear
that they are driven into factories in order to support children whose
welfare requires that the mother should stay at home. In other
instances, the home is fractured by death, desertion or immorality: of
565 Stuttgart prostitutes, 64.2% were wholly or partially orphaned;[150]
of 384 London cases, only 24% had both parents alive.[151] In Lindblad’s
cases, 219 out of 772 homes are classified as “bad” or “very bad.”[152]
Ominous is the rôle played by alcohol in dissolving the home and in
undermining the constitution of the children.[153]
The inordinately large contingent of servants is partially accounted for
on these lines; for the servant has given up her own home and does not
always make for herself another in the house she serves. She has come
from the landless country proletariat, where sexual intercourse is
either customary or not forbidden; in the city, exposure and weak
resistance make her a frequent victim. Servants between 16 and 30 years
old form one-fourth of the female population of Berlin; they bear
one-third of the illegitimate children of the population. Of the
registered prostitutes of Berlin in 1900, 60% had traveled this
road.[154] In Paris, of 6,842 clandestine prostitutes arrested and found
ill within the decade 1878–1887, 2,681—i. e., 39.18%—were
domestics.[155] Two hundred and eighty-four of Lindblad’s 800 patients
were servants, 80 more were attendants on little children, 170
charwomen.[156]
If the urban home often leaves its girls defenceless[157] or
demoralized, the daughters of the rural proletariat fare even worse. The
children of the landless peasant are a sheer drain—they have no economic
value to the family. I recall a characteristic instance of a girl of 27,
one of fourteen children belonging to a peasant family, eleven of whom
had died in infancy. She herself had had no rearing whatsoever. Drifting
from pillar to post, she had come to Munich, where at 17 she had a
child; since then, five others, of whom one survives, maintained by her
on her illicit earnings.[158]
It is early demoralization that is most dangerous, and it is precisely
to early demoralization that the bad or broken home most surely leads.
In all great European cities the rapid increase of the prostitution of
minors has been noted. Without domestic protection, the girl seeks her
amusement on the streets and wittingly or unwittingly is led to her
fall. Between 1880 and 1903 the average number of minors annually
arrested for prostitution by the Paris police was 1,370,—the total,
32,885.[159] Nine hundred and seventy-five minors were arrested there
for this offence 1,638 times in 1908,—91 of them under 16; 988 minors
were arrested 1,739 times the next year,—221 under eighteen.[160] In
general it has been estimated that one-half of the minors arrested have
not yet finished their seventeenth year.[161] The Viennese authorities
declare that “clandestine prostitution in its varied forms is made up
for the most part of youthful persons. Clandestine prostitutes,
especially in so far as they are incidentally engaged as waitresses in
“Animierkneipen” and restaurants, singers and dancers, are usually
young, since, among other reasons, youth is a condition _sine qua non_
of employment. While out of 1,000 inscribed prostitutes only 16% were
under 21 years of age, among the same number of non-inscribed arrested
on the streets, over 57% were minors.”[162] In the year 1910, of 1,319
arrests, 823 were minors whose utter isolation is proved by the fact
that efforts to preserve some sort of family guardianship failed in 802
instances.[163] In Cologne, 1,626 arrests were made in 1911,—1,296 of
them minors,—79 under 18 years of age. German authorities hold in
general that the danger period lies between the 12th and the 21st year:
“only a small percentage go wrong after the 21st year.”[164] Among 846
newly inscribed prostitutes in Berlin in 1898, 229 were minors, despite
a settled policy in favor of registering adults only. There is perhaps
no better proof of the extent of demoralization during girlhood: seven
of these were mere children,—15 years old; 21 were 16 years old; and 33,
seventeen years of age.[165] Nor are conditions any better in smaller
towns. Bendig, studying prostitution in Stuttgart from 1894 to 1908,
finds 55% of the women deflowered under seventeen years of age; 70%,
between sixteen and eighteen; 97.3%, between fourteen and
twenty-five.[166] Over one-half were under twenty years of age at the
time of their registration as professional prostitutes by the police.
Through some English Rescue Homes, 745 children between eight and
fifteen years of age passed in the course of three years.[167] The
confidential memorandum dealing with 168 cases already referred to shows
that all but 30 were under twenty-one years of age. So, of 92 girls
admitted to a London Rescue Home, 50 were less than twenty-one years
old. Of 1,882 prostitutes arrested on the streets of Glasgow for
drunkenness or soliciting, seven were between fourteen and sixteen; and
314 between sixteen and twenty-one.[168] Of this type are usually the
white slave cases,—young girls for the most part enticed from poor rural
or urban homes by the promise of employment or marriage in a great city;
as also instances not altogether unknown in which mothers sell their own
children. A brisk demand for the child prostitute constitutes a strong
inducement.[169]
Exposure sometimes originates otherwise. Sometimes the seduced servant
or shop girl, or the pregnant country lass, may lose position or caste,
and, besides, find herself responsible for the maintenance of herself
and her child, law and custom bearing all too lightly on her partner. In
point of character the girl has no longer anything to lose; meanwhile,
need presses. Eighty-three out of the 168 London cases already discussed
were of this type. In Berlin, 1,531 girls were newly inscribed in the
years 1908–9–10; of these, 636—i. e., over 41%, had borne children.[170]
Mrs. Bramwell Booth furnished me a detailed study of 150 cases, out of
which 11% were believed to be attributable to pregnancy following
seduction. Lindblad found that 62 of 800 women—7¾%—insisted that they
had become prostitutes in order to support children: of these 10 were
widowed or divorced; 34 were unmarried, but confessed to a succession of
lovers; 18 were unmarried and with but one child.[171] Children born
under such conditions represent at times the most aggravated form of the
broken home, and not a few of the girls afterwards take to irregular
lives: nevertheless, by no means universally. For, as Adele Schreiber
has forcibly pointed out, illegitimacy is a complicated phenomenon, by
no means universally involving recklessness and irresponsibility.[172]
The premarital intercourse of European boy and girl may result in an
illegitimate birth which is either preliminary to marriage or is
regarded as equivalent thereto. This fact enables us to understand why
the researches of Johansson in Stockholm[173] and Pinkus in Berlin
appear to indicate that illegitimate children contribute somewhat less
than their expected quota to the recruiting of the prostitute army.
While 17.3% of the births in Berlin during certain specified years were
illegitimate, only 13.7% of the inscribed prostitutes in the same period
were of illegitimate origin.[174] Johansson calculated that one would
expect to find 12% to 14% of the enrolled women of Stockholm to be
illegitimates: they make up only 9% to 11% of the entries.[175]
Meanwhile the situation is charged with danger, unless the father meets
his responsibility. Too often this is not the case; and a relationship
that perhaps began in passion deteriorates—the man seeking other women,
the women turning to prostitution.
One more consideration ought to be separately mentioned, because it is
mainly and most fatally operative in the milieu with which we are
dealing,—the influence of evil example. From vicious suggestion
practically no child is free; but the children to whom our attention has
been directed may be so loosely anchored that they are easily carried
away. The ruined girl, glancing back over the path she has come,
overlooks the fundamental facts of environment and disposition and sees
only the older comrade or chance acquaintance, whose easy attainment of
fun, clothes, trinkets, she envies. Of the 800 Stockholm cases to which
I have already frequently referred, 71% attributed their final decision
to advice from tainted sources; 217, from professional prostitutes; 215,
from clandestines; 81, from immoral girls; 4, from their own
mothers.[176]
I need hardly call attention to what the reader will already have
observed, viz., that I have frequently cited the same statistics in
different connections: for the same girl may appear as orphaned, as
servant, as ignorant, as illegitimate, as badly advised. No one
circumstance can be regarded as alone fatal; the complicated skein of
influences and associations cannot be completely disentangled. The facts
that have been adduced,—broken homes, bad homes, exposure,—do not then
act directly as causes, in the sense that the girls involved take to
prostitution “as the sparks fly upward.” Of several sisters, all placed
in precisely the same situation, only one may succumb; personal or
anthropological forces may successfully defend all the others, despite
their apparently identical position. The environment is, however, not
thus freed of responsibility,—it is merely freed of direct, simple or
sole responsibility. It does not cause prostitution; but the huge
proletariat is the reservoir from which victims can be readily drawn.
Nor are single factors characteristic of the proletariat causally
responsible; but the phenomenon attaches itself to a chain of factors
belonging in their totality to this milieu alone. Bad fathers, loose
mothers, alcoholism, poor associations, physical defect, occur
sporadically in every social stratum; but all together combined with
defective education, low economic capacity, absence of oversight and
restraint, rampant desires and meager satisfactions occur only in the
proletariat.
We are in position now to judge the part played by economic pressure.
The preponderance of servants suggests the proper interpretation: for
the servant does not lack food or shelter, and her services are
everywhere in demand. She does not therefore resort to prostitution as
an alternative to starvation. Animated by a natural desire to excuse
their conduct, as most human beings are, the direct pressure of need is
rarely assigned by prostitutes in exculpation of their conduct. Mrs.
Bramwell Booth, than whom there is no more competent or sympathetic
authority, found among 150 successive and unusually varied cases only 2%
who explained their prostitution by inability to earn a livelihood;
Ströhmberg discovered among 462 enrolled women at Dorpat only one who
protested poverty as her justification;[177] Pinkus,[178] studying the
incomes of 1,550 Berlin women before embarking on the life, decides that
1,389 had earned enough for self-support.[179] But it would be obviously
unfair to say of these 1,389 women capable of earning a living that
social-economic conditions had nothing to do with their fall; for
precisely these conditions create a situation capable of being
exploited. Undeveloped moral character, early and careless infringement
of the sex function, drudgery, on the one hand, unsatisfied and
uncontrolled cravings, on the other,—these are all largely
social-economic in their origin and scope. It happens all too often that
girls born perhaps to pull canal boats, and with education and
intelligence hardly above their lot, possess some little fancy, or love
of pleasure, or taste in dress, without the strength of will or ideals
to content themselves with an existence of mere endurance in a world
full of enjoyment. They end by exploiting the sex function in order to
obtain the satisfactions not otherwise accessible, or to escape
difficulties and drudgeries from which they can contrive no other exit.
Prostitution is thus of economic origin and significance in so far as
the region of economic pressure is mainly the region from which the
prostitute comes. Whether or not the family lives in this region is
primarily a question of the father’s income. The region is, however, not
statistically definable: a specified income may keep a given family or a
given individual under dangerous pressure; the same income may release
from pressure another family or another individual. Severest, of course,
where actual poverty exists, all those whose needs, desires and protests
beat vainly against the limits imposed by their resources, live within
the area of economic pressure. But the mere fact of living within the
area, whether in its darkest tract or elsewhere, is not of itself
conclusive. For the prostitute is, in the last resort, to use a
biological phrase, “individually selected” in the manner already
sketched.
The menace of unfavorable economic conditions can be clearly discerned
in certain directions. Prostitution fluctuates with seasonal and casual
labor; in certain employments it is looked upon as a regular source of
incidental income to women workers; in other employments it offers to
girls not living at home the readiest recourse. As bearing on the part
played by casual and seasonal labor, it is important to note that the
proportion of their female help permanently employed by certain London
shops often falls as low as 25% of their maximum help; it rarely rises
above 75%:[180] that is to say, something between one-quarter and
three-quarters of the women employees of the London shops are casual
hands, turned adrift in increasing numbers as the trade barometer falls.
Charles Booth notes in addition to the “more regular members of this
varied group of women, some who take to the life occasionally;
tailoresses or dressmakers who return to their trade in busy times;
girls from low neighborhoods, who eke out a living in this way.”[181]
“It is true,” writes Wilbrandt of the irregularly employed girls in
Germany, “that when out of work, many of them succeed from time to time
in sewing more or less for private customers, or the lodging-house
keepers give them credit (‘give food to the unfortunate also at times’),
but for the majority this is no remedy. Even more than the isolated
factory workers, these girls are fairly forced to prostitution. Where
there is no serious obstacle, hardly one of this type, if isolated, but
is given to occasional prostitution.”[182] The vagrant class in trade
and industry and those dependent upon them are necessarily restless,
improvident and irresponsible.[183]
Practically in the same category are the workers whose wages suffice
only if they live at home, in which case part of their support is borne
by other members of the family; where—as so often happens with those who
come to the city to earn a living,—this is impossible, occasional or
incidental immorality is a perilous temptation. Immorality may thus by
low or irregular wages be almost woven into the very tissue of their
lives. I was told, for example, that in certain English manufacturing
towns, such as Bradford and Sheffield, a sliding-scale is accepted among
some of the girl operatives; when wages rise above a certain point, a
virtuous life is required by public opinion; when they fall below, the
source of supplementary earnings is not scrutinized. The minimum wages
of the sewing-women, factory hands, laundresses throughout Europe do not
support the most meager sort of decent independence.[184] An official
report states that out of 226 inscribed women at Frankfort-on-the-Main,
98 were laundresses and shop-help, earning from 1.50 marks to 1.80 marks
a day,—less, that is, than 50 cents.[185] The same holds true of
superior help—dressmakers, shop-assistants, whose standards are
necessarily higher: “these girls accept wages which would not be enough
to support them if they had not a friend to help them.”[186]
There remain the employments in which only prostitutes engage or in
which the perils are so enormous that a girl who has not fallen, soon
will fall. Irregular earnings are tacitly assumed as the major or sole
consideration in bargaining for a position. The chorus, ballet, or
cabaret girl can usually afford “the stage” because she is already
immoral and the glamor of the footlights increases her earning capacity;
the same conditions of course tend to force into immorality a girl who
has hitherto been honest. A monthly salary of 10 marks ($2.50) is paid
the dancers at the Court Theater in Hanover; the leading lady at
Eisenach draws 15 marks ($3.75) a month for a six months’ season; a
prominent soubrette at Munich states that she received an annual salary
of 3,600 marks, from which the outlay for wardrobe was 1,500 marks; one
reads of salaries of 1,200 marks conjoined with wardrobe expenses of
2,000 marks; incomes of 5,400 marks and expenses of 8,000 marks.[187] If
a decent girl objects to a salary of 20 marks a week ($5.00) on the
ground that it will not supply her necessities—living, wardrobe,
etc.—the Director retorts: “Why should you want any salary? You are a
pretty girl.”[188] The maelstrom thus tends powerfully to suck in those
not previously tainted. The English barmaids and continental
waitresses[189] are not infrequently virtuous women, leading decent
lives; but they are also often selected for the lively manners so
certain to lead, if they have not already led, to extra remuneration,
that only a nominal wage attaches to their posts. The 37,000 waitresses
in Germany are recruited from among the country or urban proletariat,
whose invaded chastity has already been noticed. Their wages are
nominal—or less; one-fourth of them are under 20 years of age.[190] It
is not surprising to find a Berlin insurance fund reporting that
waitresses make up one-half of those of its numbers venereally
afflicted.[191] In England and Wales, of 27,707 barmaids in the Census
of 1901, 18,251 were under 25 years of age.[192] Their wages range from
5 to 15 shillings a week.[193] Mrs. Booth concludes that of the
prostitutes in the West End of London, one-fourth were originally
barmaids and a still higher estimate has been made.[194] In many
establishments, irregularity either precedes employment or is common
enough to be taken into account in determining the conditions of
employment.
Nothing would be gained by going into the foregoing matters more
thoroughly. Enough has been said to show why in the presence of the
demand previously characterized, an ample supply is forthcoming, and why
it is almost totally derived from a single social stratum. It is
derived, of course, with all sorts and degrees of difficulty. Sometimes
demoralization has set in so early, or there has been so little
development of intelligence or character, that the girl is herself from
the start not only willing, but the main instigator; in other cases,
with intelligence too undeveloped and character too unformed to urge her
away from temptation, a vague but profound instinct holds her back until
her dumb resistance has been overcome by other inducements or weakened
by alcohol, pretended affection or interest. Despite this dark picture,
however, most girls in the various stations described do resist like a
stone wall. Of all those marked at any time by a given characteristic,
the number engaged in prostitution is rarely high. The huge total is to
be ascribed to the variety of paths and cross-cuts by which the morass
may be reached.
So much for the source of supply: let us turn for a moment to its
volume. Prostitution is an urban phenomenon; its volume increases even
more rapidly than population. For as the demand seeks particularly
younger women, the older tend to become a drug on the market. It is
therefore inevitable that, while there is a comparative dearth of the
youthful, the total supply should be in excess of the requirements. This
situation, of course, favors the exploiter; for he procures without
difficulty and on easy terms the commodity which he pushes on the
street, in the bar, the dancing hall, the café, and the brothel.
In the case of supply, as in the case of demand, two different problems
present themselves. In so far as individual reasons alone lead a girl of
mature years to prostitution or deliberately to persist in prostitution,
preventive action is both practically and theoretically difficult;
prostitution of this kind is a reply to demand or an invitation thereto,
taken in its simplest, even if not purely physiological form. Very
different is the situation as respects supply arbitrarily developed to
satisfy a specialized or artificial appetite. The girls thus involved
are forced into prostitution; demand in the sense just mentioned has not
been brought to bear upon them. Once violently ruined, however, they
become part of the army requiring that the mass of immorality be
increased so as to sustain them. Of this type are the white slave cases,
and those led into ruin through employment agencies. In both instances,
innocent girls are lured into strange places, deceived with promises
that fail to materialize, and coerced into an immoral life, which holds
them easily enough after their demoralization is completed. How much of
the present supply is of this forced character it is obviously
impossible to say. Stead’s revelations in the _Pall Mall Gazette_ in
1885 and such incidents as the “Process Riehl”[195] at Vienna disclosed
the existence of a large and active trade in innocent girls of tender
years.
We found that there is no reason to regard demand as a fixed quantity.
The same is obviously true of supply. Girls may be forced into
prostitution; they can also be kept out. To some extent, as they are
kept out, demand also shrinks; for the provocation is thereby reduced.
It must be altogether obvious that all social amelioration tends thus to
reduce the supply, by diminishing exposure and strain. Within the scope
of this volume it is impossible even to mention briefly the steps that
have been taken in this direction in different European countries during
recent years. Suffice it to say that every effort in social and economic
reform, education, and sanitation has tended to reduce the number of
prostitutes and to strengthen the resistance of those exposed to danger.
In addition to indirect and slow-working processes of this kind, the
problem has been directly and in some respects effectively grappled
with. Of these efforts, the international movement for suppression of
the White Slave Traffic is the most conspicuous. There is no question
that not many years ago an extensive, though but loosely organized,
traffic in girls was carried on in large European cities. The bordells
were thus recruited with young and attractive inmates. The subject was
first brought to public notice in 1877; but little attention was paid to
it until the _Pall Mall Gazette_ published a complete exposure in 1885.
Shortly thereafter the British Vigilance Society was formed; similar
organizations were then organized in other countries and in 1899 an
international congress was held in London. Annual congresses now meet to
review progress and to suggest legislation; societies are everywhere
engaged in watching at steamboat landings and railroad stations in order
to assist unaccompanied travelers or to locate suspicious couples; and
associations in different countries endeavor by correspondence to run
down offenders and to release their victims.
Successful prosecution is, however, as a rule, surrounded by many
technicalities. In Germany the statute provides that any one who induces
a female to leave the country for the purpose of prostitution by means
of concealment of his object is liable to penal servitude for five
years, to loss of citizenship and a fine of 150 to 6,000 marks.[196] But
as a rule the culprit, if arrested, has made an attempt only, and thus
escapes the severe penalty here imposed. To avoid this pitfall, the
congress of 1910 urged as a model provision the following: “Whoever
procures a female for purposes of prostitution, abducts, carries off, or
leads her into prostitution, even if the steps thereto occur in
different countries, shall be punished, etc.” Several countries have
proceeded on this line, notably Hungary, in a law passed in 1908. The
most advanced legislation is, however, the recent amendment of the
British Criminal Law by a provision empowering a police officer to
arrest a procurer caught with a suspected victim without the delay
involved in procuring a warrant.
This legislation indicates the form to which the White Slave Traffic has
been largely reduced in Europe. Beyond question an innocent girl might
be entrapped, enticed, and immured in a European brothel; but if so, the
instance would be an isolated crime, like a mysterious murder or
robbery. Under existing conditions, there is absolutely no reason to
think that such cases occur frequently, though there are those who would
be quick to take advantage of any relaxation of vigilance on the part of
governments, the police, and the private organizations constantly on the
alert. In the cases to which from time to time attention has been
sensationally called, the women involved are neither innocent nor
deceived. On the other hand, there is evidence to suggest that European
cities and ports are utilized for purposes of transit to South American
ports where the trade still flourishes. A trafficker may entice a girl
from Poland and Galicia on the promise of marriage or work; indeed every
police office in Europe has a list of men thus engaged. The countries
from which women are procured are believed to be mainly Hungary,
Galicia, Poland, and Roumania; the countries to which they are carried,
Brazil, Argentina, South Africa and the Levant.[197] The pair steal
through Vienna and Berlin and appear at the dock in Hamburg, Rotterdam,
London, or some less prominent port just as the boat sails for Rio
Janeiro, Buenos Aires or a South African harbor—too late to procure a
warrant or detailed proof. The new English law above mentioned is
calculated to deal with just this emergency: for it authorizes the
detention and arrest of such couples without warrant, on suspicion, and
throws the burden of proof upon them.[198] The entire White Slave
movement is thus forcible interference with the making of
prostitutes.[199]
While the traffic in young girls has been thus greatly restricted, there
is no question that a trade in already ruined women is still carried on.
Prostitution is, as I have repeatedly insisted, a business,—a business,
too, in which novelty is an important item. Deprived of a supply of
fresh young girls, the bordell-keeper, the proprietor of cabaret, dance
hall or Animierkneipe must at least have variety. The trafficker scours
the market for the most attractive women he can procure and women are
thus kept in circulation through his efforts. He carries on his business
in European cities, in the Levant and in the large cities of South
America.
The employment agency has been similarly employed as a means of forcibly
increasing supply. Girls are sent out as servants into disreputable
places, in the activities of which they have been induced or compelled
to take part; or, they are sent out of the country as dancers or
singers, only to find themselves, on reaching their destination,
consigned to cabarets in which theatrical entertainment is but a cloak
for the exploitation of prostitution. Newspaper advertisements and the
_poste restante_ are deceptively employed for the same purposes. Of the
numbers thus victimized no accurate statement can be given. But
preventive measures are being taken. The London County Council has
undertaken a strict regulation of the employment agency: establishments
must be annually licensed, their records must be kept according to a
specified form, inspectors are free to examine them at will. Agents are
prohibited to arrange for the employment of females abroad unless the
satisfactory nature of the employment has been clearly established; nor
even then shall an agent arrange for the employment abroad of a girl
under sixteen unless with the written consent of her parents or lawful
guardian.[200] The worst of the agencies abandoned the business as soon
as the new regulations went into effect.[201] In Austria, the Employment
Agency is regulated by the trade ordinance; the establishment must be
licensed, those conducting it must be sufficiently educated, and the
business is subject to the inspection of the safety, health and morals
police.[202] A special license must be obtained if international
operations are contemplated. Books must be kept according to a
prescribed form; girls under 18 years of age can in no case be sent out
of the country except with the permission of the Court of Chancery;
precautions are taken to insure good faith in the case of older girls;
the license can be canceled by the government without notice.[203] There
is a marked tendency to limit the business to societies or the commune.
The pimp is connected with the supply of prostitutes in two ways: he
cultivates intimacies with the ultimate purpose of putting his victims
or associates on the street; he then drives them to the utmost, forcing
them to ply their trade with all possible intensity. He is thus an
important factor in increasing the number of prostitutes and the volume
of prostitution. How formidable an element he becomes is evident from
the fact that nowhere less than 50% and in most cities as many as 90% of
the professional prostitutes are declared by the police to support their
lovers. In Paris the proportion is given as 80% to 90%; in London at
90%. Of 93 foreign prostitutes in Zurich 85 were proved to be working
for souteneurs; of 204 at Rotterdam, 130 were known to be supporting
their lovers.[204] In form they vary; now appearing as base hangers-on,
now as paramours, again as husbands. No European city has, however,
successfully coped with the system. During September and October 1891,
350 arrests were made in Paris with only 14 convictions.[205] In London,
the numbers convicted have increased, though they are still almost
negligible: in 1902, there were 132 arrests, with 105 convictions; in
1905, 123 arrests and 95 convictions, in 1909, 201 and 167 respectively,
in 1910, 185 and 151.[206] Glasgow shows 25 successful convictions for
the same offence in 1911.[207] The present Dutch law has been in
operation since June, 1911; up to November 15, 1912, there were 39
arrests and 30 convictions. In Vienna there were 30 convictions in 1912.
Wulffen has carefully compiled the statistics showing the extent to
which panders of all kinds—the pimp, the owner of disorderly houses,
hotels, etc.—have been prosecuted in Germany. Very striking are two
points, viz.: that the number of convictions has risen, as public
opinion has developed, and that the total represents even yet only a
small fraction of the guilty. In the entire Empire, between 1883 and
1887, convictions were obtained in only 5.18% of the cases; in the
period 1898–1902, this figure had risen to 7.37%, an increase of 50%.
Meanwhile local differences are enormous: Berlin convicted 565,—43.92%
of the accused; Cologne, 507,—39.36% of the accused; Hamburg,
193,—15.01% of the accused; Frankfort 26,—2.03% of the accused.[208] The
statutes differ somewhat in principle and detail, but the difficulty
arises partly from varying interest on the part of the authorities,
partly—nay largely, from the inherent reluctance of the woman to
testify. Perhaps this vilest on-hanger of prostitution is the most
difficult to lay hold of.
Of the various forms which prostitution takes the bordell plays a
peculiar part in creating and intensively working supply; but, for
reasons that will appear, the bordell requires special treatment and
will occupy a separate chapter.[209] It would carry us far afield to
describe fully here the other establishments that cater to prostitutes,
directly or indirectly inducing girls to enter the life or furnishing
facilities for the intensive pursuit of the vocation. The Animierkneipe,
the Variety Theater, the café and other establishments largely derive
their profit, direct or indirect, through affording an ever increasing
supply an abundant opportunity to work up a demand, that will overtake
it. Prostitution in these forms doubtless answers in part what I have
loosely termed the physiological craving: that is to say, men bent on
gratifying appetite sometimes betake themselves to the Animierkneipe, in
the absence of which they would betake themselves elsewhere. Beyond all
doubt, however, a fair, perhaps a very large, share of the immorality
connected with these establishments is incited in them.
In London, license to sell liquor was formerly granted to music halls;
no further licenses of this kind are granted, and one by one licenses
formerly granted are being canceled. A few well known establishments,
however, still remain, in which prostitutes loiter about the bar and in
the promenade. Regular dance halls where liquor is sold—as is the case
everywhere on the Continent—do not exist in London, though special
permits for dances in hotels and elsewhere where liquor is sold are
obtainable. A determined effort has however been made in Great Britain
to break up the close connection between prostitution and the sale of
drink. The licensing act forbids an unaccompanied woman to remain in a
café or public house longer than a reasonable time to consume her drink.
In the provincial towns this law is vigorously enforced; saloons which
violate it may be deprived of their license on the charge of harboring
prostitutes. The danger to the proprietor is a real one, for the
government takes advantage of every legitimate pretext for reducing the
number of liquor establishments. In London the law is less consistently
enforced than in the provinces: certain notorious resorts in and about
Leicester Square remind one of the continental café.
On the Continent, however, little has been done to hinder the
exploitation of prostitution in connection with drinking, dancing, and
the theater. “In Paris, cafés, balls and theaters are from this point of
view, not the object of any particular restriction.”[210] In German
cities, these establishments fall under the regulations applicable to
business establishments and, for practical purposes, are not molested as
long as outer decency is preserved,—the term being as a rule rather
broadly interpreted. Public dance halls where liquor is freely dispensed
abound everywhere. A Zurich law sought to improve conditions by
forbidding waiters to work beyond midnight; but the law is evaded by
engaging a second set to work in the early morning hours! Stockholm
closes all public dance halls, cafés, etc., at midnight. The police
could proceed against a vicious establishment only by inducing the
license bureau to revoke the permit, a step very rarely taken. Meanwhile
of the pernicious character of these places in wrecking innocent girls
and facilitating the operations of prostitute and pimp, there is nowhere
any question. “Legitimate trade is not large enough to keep them going,”
remarked the head of the Zurich police. “The women make them pay by
increasing the amount that each customer drinks. They thus win customers
for themselves.” The difficulty in dealing with problems of this sort
arises from several factors—the overlapping of the legitimate and
illegitimate purposes which they serve, the lack of a definite public
opinion, and the dispersion of authority among various detached
departments.
An increasingly active interference with the making and forcing of
supply is represented by rescue and protective work. Religious and
philanthropic societies maintain street workers who endeavor to reclaim
fallen women, and homes in which those in distress are received and
rehabilitated. These institutions are more highly developed in England
than on the Continent; nevertheless attractive and wholesome retreats
have been established in Paris, Berlin, Copenhagen and elsewhere.
Nowhere, however, is the capacity equal to the demand or the
opportunity. Of the outcome of rescue work, the police are naturally
skeptical; but it is a striking fact that those who have been longest
engaged are the most hopeful.
There is, however, no difference of opinion at all as to the superior
importance of prevention. Children immediately exposed to demoralization
must be removed from danger and trained to some useful and profitable
avocation,—for the girl who possesses some form of industrial skill is
least likely to err and most likely to recover herself. The French
government has recently provided for homes answering this purpose, but
the machinery by means of which children are to be got into them is so
clumsy that the legislation has proved ineffective. The recent Prussian
“Fürsorge Gesetz” of 1901 (Law on Guardianship) is much more
satisfactory. The procedure is applicable to children under 18, but
guardianship continues until the age of 21. In less serious cases,
children are placed in families under supervision; if the situation
warrants, they are interned in institutions. In Prussia, about 6,000
children are yearly cared for on these lines, ⅓ of them girls, of whom
about 40% have already gone wrong. For the most part their domestic
environment was bad,—their birth illegitimate, the father alcoholic, the
mother immoral, etc. This law is a fair sample of modern effort on the
part of the state to control the conditions under which imperiled
children are reared.[211] Energy expended at this stage attacks the
problem of supply at its very source.
Our consideration of demand and supply has shown the complicated
character of modern prostitution. The important point to remember, from
the standpoint of practical policy, is this. Supply is to some extent
artificially created and demand is to some extent artificially forced;
whatever may be true of minimum supply and demand, the artificial
processes in question are in greater or less degree socially
controllable or modifiable. This is, of course, not to say that powerful
commercial interests and social habits would not resist interference;
for the abnormalities in question are at once the product and for
thousands the attraction of metropolitan life. The fascination and the
curse of the great city lie thus close together,—perhaps inextricably
so, as is so effectively portrayed in the concluding scene of
Charpentier’s “Louise.” With this local pride to be a great city through
forcing the sensual pace, modern Europe is fairly mad. Berlin and Vienna
are rich and gay; the idle and curious throng thither from all quarters
of the world. Smaller towns like Geneva, smitten with envy, struggle to
imitate the license of those great capitals. In so far, prostitution is
in the broadest sense a social problem,—the problem of rationalizing
human life, and only indirectly to be grappled with.
Precisely therefore as there is nothing absolutely fixed, predetermined,
and inevitable about the strength of demand, so there is nothing
fatalistic about supply. In general, the two move together, one—either
one—provoking the other. In the end, they have to be solved together;
but within limits, effective action attacking one can itself ameliorate
the other. Human nature is indeed weak enough on the sexual side; but
the mass of existing vice is out of all proportion to what would exist
on that account alone; and one way to abridge demand is to abridge
supply, as it is being abridged by white slave legislation, by control
of employment agencies, by care of the unprotected young and by rational
management of the drink and amusement traffic. Moreover, whatever
interferes with intensive exploitation virtually reduces supply. As
forced supply increases demand, so diminished and hampered supply to
some extent checks it.
NOTE.—Since the above was written the Report of the Fifth
International Congress on the White Slave Traffic has appeared. It
contains a complete account of the various movements and efforts above
described. It is published by the National Vigilance Association,
London.
CHAPTER IV
PROSTITUTION AND THE LAW
Apparent acquiescence of European communities.—Indications of
scientific study and action.—Opinion more homogenous than laws.—Is
prostitution in itself a vice or a crime?—Its exploitation a crime.
Despite the evidence to the contrary produced at the close of the
preceding chapter, the notion is prevalent that the conscience of Europe
has been and is, to put it euphemistically, philosophic in its attitude
towards this ancient evil; that on the Continent at least the “oldest of
professions” is simply acquiesced in, on the theory that “what can not
be cured must be endured.” Certain external appearances seem to give
countenance to this view: the prostitute walks the highway apparently
unmolested; she waits in the café and music hall for her prey; in some
cities the licensed bordell furnishes a notorious market for the buying
and selling of sensual gratification. The situation, however, is less
simple than thus appears. Society has never, as a matter of fact, for
any great length of time contentedly accepted prostitution as an
unavoidable evil. Periods of harsh and unintelligent repression have
alternated with periods of comparative but never complete indifference,
consequent upon previous failure. Recently much intelligent effort has
been directed to the comprehension of the evil and of the phenomena
contributing to and contingent upon it. An era of scientific study may
be fairly said to have set in. Wholesale and traditional methods of
attack have been discredited and are being discarded. Frank discussion
of the subject as a social problem is common on the Continent and is
beginning to take place in Great Britain, where it was long tabooed.
I have pointed out that prostitution appears as an almost uniform
phenomenon in different European countries. The same uniformity in the
main characterizes public opinion in reference to it. I mean, not that
every nation is a unit, but that the general trend of opinion is much
the same and that the same shades of opinion exist in all countries. For
the most part, the attitude is indulgent towards the man, severe towards
the woman; on the other hand, the single moral standard has never been
so vigorously advocated in Europe as it is to-day.
While public opinion in regard to prostitution is thus fairly uniform,
laws differ considerably; but this is of less importance than might be
supposed, because the general attitude of the authorities conforms to
sentiment rather than to statute. Laws passed under strong but transient
emotional excitement are simply not enforced, or are enforced so
capriciously that they do not affect the situation. Similarly, laws are
sometimes outlived rather than repealed. In the long run policy is in
this matter determined by dominant opinion. In France, as we shall see,
a very definite policy is pursued, not because it is laid down in the
law, but because it is in harmony with tradition and general sentiment;
in Germany public opinion not only sustains the authorities in ignoring
certain laws, but actually compels them to ignore them; in England,
policy, law and opinion are more nearly in unison. It is important
therefore to ascertain what the general substratum of foreign opinion
is, for unless harmonious therewith laws are a dead letter; judges and
juries will not convict, prosecutors and police will not act
consistently.
We must, in the first place, recur to a point already made. Prostitution
is not a single and simple phenomenon. Certain distinctions must be
made. In one case, prostitution may be the voluntary and unobtrusive act
of two mature individuals presumably in full possession of their senses;
in the next, it may involve the exploitation under duress or otherwise
of women for the benefit of third parties; in the next case, its salient
feature may be offensive provocation by the woman for the purpose of
inducing men to indulge in immorality. From the standpoint of law,
public opinion and police policy these different phases or aspects of
the practice of prostitution present different problems. For the moment
it is only the first of these varieties with which we deal. In reference
to prostitution thus taken in its simplest form as the voluntary and
unobtrusive act of two adults, the practical and fundamental question
which confronts lawmaker and administrator is this: Is the mere act of
prostitution, is prostitution taken by and in itself, a vice or a crime?
In general the line between vice and crime can not be clearly drawn, for
the question is one for the publicist, not one of abstract ethics. It
lies now here, now there, according to circumstances.[212] Crimes are
such acts as are reprobated by unified opinion and as such punishable by
the crude process of the law; vices are repugnant to the cultivated
instincts of society. An act—prostitution, for example, may have all the
disastrous consequences of crime, and yet in a given society not be
reachable as such. Whether it is or not depends partly on public
opinion, partly on the difficulty and the consequences of applying penal
methods.
Whatever be the legal theory, public opinion in Europe to-day regards
the prostitution of mature individuals in the first of the senses above
characterized as in itself a vice, not a crime. We shall shortly hear
that under certain conditions professional prostitution is penalized;
but it will appear on closer examination that the penalty in so far as
it is actually sustained by opinion and enforced by the courts or
otherwise attaches not to prostitution in and for itself, and not to the
prostitute as a person, but only to certain overt acts and to certain
surrounding or attendant conditions. There is indeed a distinct tendency
against the extension of the conception of criminality to the act
itself. In other words, opinion is plainly in favor of viewing
prostitution as a vice, not as a crime, wherever the criminal view is
not forced by conditions extraneous to the person or to the mere act of
immorality.
This can not be for the reason that prostitution is a less serious evil
than was formerly supposed: on the contrary, never before have its
disastrous consequences been so clearly and fully apprehended; nor
because the law is indifferent as to the form which sex relationship
takes, for it expressly declares in favor of the monogamous married
state. An explanation must be sought in an entirely different direction.
I have previously pointed out the fact that prostitution is a conception
necessarily involving two factors, both equally essential. It so far
resembles slavery: if there are slaves, there must be slaveholders; if
slavery is a disgrace, then the slaveholder must bear his full portion
of obloquy. If prostitution is a vice, both parties are vicious; if it
be a crime, both parties are criminals. Now as a matter of history, no
proposition aiming at punishment has ever involved both participants.
The harlot has been branded as an outcast and flung to the wolves: she
alone,—never the man, her equal partner in responsibility. And, indeed,
not even the harlot uniformly. The poor and stupid have been the
victims; the showy courtesan, pursuing roundabout methods, has never
been molested. Something more than justice has thus been violated; the
very objects of punitive policy have been sacrificed. For prostitution
must be punished if at all, because its consequences are bad. Yet so
long as the woman alone suffers, these consequences are not abated. In
defining prostitution we recognized certain criteria as accounting for
society’s objection to its existence—the waste it involves, the disease
it spreads, the demoralization it entails. Punishment of the woman in
any particular case stops none of the these; the man simply wastes his
substance upon others; contracts disease from other women and carries it
elsewhere, even into his own family; corrupts others, in case a previous
associate has been put out of reach by the law. To make prostitution a
crime for the woman alone is therefore at once inequitable and futile.
It is likewise becoming progressively more difficult. As long as
societies were organized on the theory of male superiority, the woman
could perhaps be singled out to bear alone the burden of a dual offence.
But that day is past. Theoretically, the equal ethical responsibility of
both sexes in every relation in life is already recognized; it is
rapidly becoming incorporated in law. With the probable advent of woman
suffrage, it will become operative in fact. The stigma and consequence
of crime must therefore be either removed from the woman or affixed to
the man.
As to the latter, certain difficulties interpose. The professional
prostitute being a social outcast may be periodically punished without
disturbing the usual course of society: no one misses her while she is
serving out her turn—no one, at least, about whom society has any
concern. The man, however, is something more than partner in an immoral
act: he discharges important social and business relations, is as father
or brother responsible for the maintenance of others, has commercial or
industrial duties to meet. He can not be imprisoned without deranging
society. Is the offence of such a nature as to make this advisable or
feasible?
Assuredly, as matters now stand, it is not feasible. It is not feasible
for men; it is not really feasible for the women either; indeed in the
case of many women, the same difficulty arises that I have just pointed
out in the case of men. We have long since learned that the bulk of
women engaged in prostitution are also more or less otherwise employed.
They may be aiding to support their families, by their legitimate as
well as by their illegitimate earnings. Are these women to be plucked
from their employments under conditions not enforced against their male
partners? No society in which prostitution is held to implicate two
parties will tolerate it. Moreover, if the criminal charge is to lie
against the professional prostitute alone, how is the line to be drawn?
The women concerned are, as we learned, professionals one day,
incidentals the next; at some other time they may be leading an immoral
life, yet not that of a prostitute. Finally, in view of the tendency of
women to leave the life, is it wise to coerce them to cling to it by
branding them as criminals? The attempt to view prostitution as in
itself a crime is therefore inexpedient as well as unjust.
“When society declares a certain act punishable” says Johansson, “a
general feeling of equity requires that all actions of similar nature
performed under similar circumstances be likewise declared punishable.
If it appears to be a matter of insuperable difficulty to apply the
punishment to an extent in some way satisfying the demand of the public
for a wide and equal application of the law, it is better to refrain
from any application of punishment at all. There is no reason to fear
that moral indignation and its beneficent effects on individuals will
therefore cease, for it is not the punishment that produces the
indignation.”[213]
There is still another aspect of the problem. Investigation shows that
irregular sex intercourse on the part of the male is practically
universal on the Continent. That some of it is casual and unpaid, the
rest purely mercenary, only aggravates the difficulty; for no one
proposes to treat mere immorality as a crime and in concrete cases it
may be technically impossible to make out whether a specific act is
prostitution or immorality. An act universally indulged in by men may be
universally deplored as a weakness; it cannot be universally punished as
criminal unless all men join in penalizing one another.
Other difficulties also arise to prevent the acceptance of the crime
concept. Prostitution and commerce therewith are indeed deplorable, but
whence, it is asked, does the State derive the right to interfere with
the voluntary exercise of personal liberty by mature individuals, so
long as no one else is disturbed thereby? We touch here the root of the
European view of the matter. The English urge that personal liberty in
this realm can be infringed only to prevent scandal,—that is, only when
something beyond mere prostitution is involved. “A woman may become
mistress or paramour,” said a high police official to me, “she may
indulge in occasional immorality as she pleases,—why not in
prostitution? She is only using her personal freedom.” Still more
plain-spoken was a Dutch authority: “A grown girl may do what she likes
with her own body.” No one hopes successfully to interfere by means of
penal legislation with the occasional immorality of two individuals;
laws aiming to punish fornication and adultery are therefore practically
dead letters, not only because proof is difficult, but because it is
commonly held to be no concern of the State, provided both parties to
the acts are willing. They are vices, therefore, not crimes, as
societies are now constituted. In the same category, contemporary
opinion in Europe is more and more inclined to place prostitution. The
unanimous enunciation of the French Extra-Parliamentary Commission
fairly expresses present day feeling: “The prostitution of women does
not constitute a crime and does not fall under the application of the
penal law.”[214] This dictum, be it noted, applies only to prostitution
in so far as it involves only two adults without annoyance or profit to
others. Nor is it to be understood as implying that society is either
indifferent or helpless. Denied the use of the criminal arm it still
possesses all the paraphernalia of education, hygiene, and social
reform. Our previous discussion of demand and supply will have suggested
that in the end enlightenment is of broader scope perhaps than
punishment,—even though, as we shall discover, the latter has its place.
The foregoing interpretation of the present state of opinion is
confirmed by the fact that, with the qualification to be shortly
mentioned, prostitution is on the whole practically regarded in the same
light by all European nations. The qualification in question has
reference to controlled or inscribed prostitutes—who form a class apart,
are indulged or punished on lines peculiar to themselves and for
reasons, ostensible and actual, that will be fully discussed later.[215]
The point I now wish to emphasize is this: that the general attitude of
the European authorities towards prostitution in its totality is
practically the same, though the laws differ; and it is the same,
because public opinion is so nearly homogeneous.
In England, Italy, Norway, Holland, and Switzerland,[216] there is no
penal enactment against prostitution as such. “Immorality in itself is
not an offence against the law,”[217] declares the Chief Constable of
Glasgow in a memorandum to the Corporation. A woman therefore runs no
risk of prosecution if quietly and inoffensively she receives men in her
room or house for the purpose of paid sexual intercourse.[218] In France
the ancient laws against immorality were swept away by the Code
Napoleon. Since then, an inoffensive prostitute has been absolutely free
to ply her trade without danger of molestation by the police. We shall
later learn that the police have indeed laid hands on several thousand
prostitutes whom they require to comply with certain regulations; but we
shall also see that this is but a negligible portion of the army engaged
in prostitution, that there exist peculiar reasons for singling them out
for attention, that they are not thus distinguished merely because they
are prostitutes, and that even so the police position in reference to
them is becoming increasingly untenable.
A more complicated legal situation in Germany works out in much the same
way. On its face the penal code punishes professional prostitution for
money,[219]—i.e., prostitution is itself a crime. The section reads:
“Any woman shall be punished with imprisonment, who having been placed
under police control on account of professional prostitution, violates
regulations adopted by the police for the protection of health, order
and decency, or any woman, who, not having been placed under such
control, carries on prostitution for pay.”[220] A certain number of
women have been placed under police control; so long as these obey
police regulations affecting “health, order and decency,” their
professional prostitution is free from interference; in so far as they
are concerned, professional prostitution is not a crime. But the great
majority of German prostitutes are not under police control; they are
therefore liable to criminal prosecution as being professional
prostitutes. It is, however, a notorious fact that prosecution simply on
this score is not attempted. In Germany as in France, the inoffensive
prostitute is not molested. Practically, prostitution for money, called
a crime by the law, is treated as a vice by the authorities.[221] Women
are indeed sentenced to prison terms in accordance with provisions
quoted; but on investigation it will be discovered that they are
arrested not for prostitution, but for disorder, though they are
nominally punished as prostitutes.
The statutory provisions respecting the prostitute’s domicile are
similarly interpreted. The law is very explicit: “Whoever habitually or
for profit assists prostitution by countenancing or affording facilities
for it, is to be punished with imprisonment for not less than one month,
and is liable to fine, besides, of from 150 to 6,000 marks, and to loss
of franchise. In case of mitigating circumstances, imprisonment can be
reduced to one day.”[222] Under the terms of this statute, the keeper of
a licensed bordell, the hotel proprietor who lets rooms for purposes of
assignation, the landlord who knows that his lodger is a prostitute, are
all guilty of crime. Nay, it has been held that merely renting a room to
a woman for the purpose is criminal even though criminal use is not
actually made of it; further, that the words “for profit” do not mean
that money must be received; food, drink, sexual gratification may form
the profit. By another section of the same law, the definition of
pandering is still further extended.[223]
A small section of the German people would undoubtedly like to see the
enforcement of these laws attempted; but generally speaking, people
realize that suppression on such lines is unfair and impossible and that
the undertaking would be disastrous to the police. For the laws bear on
the woman and the renter, wholly passing over the man, who is at least
the accomplice and perhaps instigator. As a matter of fact, therefore,
no steps are taken against the keepers of such bordells as are conducted
on lines sanctioned by the police; inoffensively conducted _rendezvous_
hotels are not molested; and women rent rooms freely wherever they
please, without danger to themselves or their landlords, so long as all
external proprieties are observed. That is to say, the law to the
contrary notwithstanding, prostitution is for all practical purposes a
vice, not a crime. Once more, the court calendars show more or less
numerous prosecutions for “pandering,” i. e., for infractions of the
paragraphs in question. Between 1903 and 1907, the prosecutions averaged
343 annually in Cologne; in Frankfort, 373; in Stuttgart, 57.[224] These
figures tell the tale; landlords are punished if attention is drawn to
them by scandal or otherwise; but the letter of the law, requiring
wholesale eviction, is ignored, because—among other reasons—it is
unsupported by public opinion. “Simple experience teaches that the
standpoint cannot be maintained.”[225] “The penal code proposes to
punish any one who rents a home to the prostitute,” writes Blaschko.
“That is an insupportable condition. Excessive severity leads to
arbitrary punishment of a few individuals, while the mass go unpunished.
The prostitute pays a higher rent to offset the landlord’s risk.”[226]
To the same effect writes Schmölder: “According to the law, a prostitute
is not entitled to have a domicile at all;—in practice they do
anyway.”[227]
What has long been a dead letter, the newly projected criminal code
proposes now frankly to omit. If the present draft is adopted the law
will henceforth read: “Whoever habitually or for profit furnishes
facilities for prostitution shall be punished with imprisonment. This
provision is not to be applied to the renting of lodgings unless the
landlord undertakes to get a higher price through permitting
prostitution on the premises.”[228] The new paragraph thus seeks to free
prostitution as such from prosecution by enabling the prostitute to live
wherever a landlord is willing to rent her a room on the same basis as
anyone else; but a landlord who becomes a pander to the extent of
encouraging prostitution for the sake of obtaining high rentals remains
amenable to the law. A subsequent paragraph still further frees the
prostitute as such from punishment; it reads: “A person shall be
punished by arrest or imprisonment, who is a professional prostitute,
provided he or she violates the regulations set up for the protection of
health, order and decency.”[229] That is, the penalties are attached not
to the prostitute as such, but in so far as she oversteps limits imposed
by the police for the maintenance of health and order. Thus the law will
be squared with practice. In one respect also the proposed statute
registers an advance in public opinion, for it substitutes “person” for
“woman” and thus opens the way for a more equal treatment of the sexes.
To the foregoing discussion, the theory and practice of other countries
add very little. A general conviction that prostitution is an evil not
to be tamely endured has led lawmakers from time to time to endeavor to
stamp it out on penal lines; but invariably the considerations
previously adduced have undermined the legislation in question.
Thereupon much ingenuity has been expended in some places in the effort
to gain another foothold. Granted,—say the lawmakers in Hungary and
Denmark—that prostitution in itself cannot be treated as a crime; at any
rate, the prostitute is a vagrant, in that she is without legitimate
means of support. She can therefore be put to hard labor as a public
menace, not because she is a prostitute, but because she is a parasite.
And in this determination,—it is argued—there is no unfairness, since
male tramps and vagrants are similarly disposed of.
This indirect and disingenuous method of treating prostitution as a
crime has had, in practice, precisely the same fate as has befallen more
candid legislation. In the first place, it is dishonest: a vagrant is
homeless; the prostitute is a vagrant, therefore, only if she is without
a domicile. Fairness requires, therefore, that only homeless prostitutes
be taken up as vagrants and for that no special legislation is needed!
The statute will obviously not be invoked against prostitutes generally;
public opinion sustains its application only when there are other
objections than prostitution,—viz., homelessness, intoxication, etc.,
and such offences can be otherwise reached. Moreover, in so far as the
prostitute is in reality aimed at through the subterfuge of vagabondage,
the man-accomplice once more escapes—an intolerable condition, as I have
already shown.[230] It remains then generally true that, despite all
legislation and endeavor to the contrary, prostitution in its elemental
form is regarded as a vice, not a crime.
The situation as respects public opinion alters decidedly, however, the
moment the act involves others beside the two participants. As soon as
order, decency, the contamination of minors, or the interest of an
exploiter is involved, a totally different question arises. A man and a
woman may be permitted unobtrusively to arrange and carry out a
_rendezvous_. So far there appears to be no police method of dealing
with them effectively and impartially. Public sentiment is not ready;
efficient agencies have not been created; fundamental questions of
personal liberty may be raised. But when the streets are used to carry
on negotiations and thereby others are drawn into the maelstrom; when
third parties,—be they pimps, bordell-keepers, venders of liquor and
entertainment, or others,—endeavor to develop prostitution for their own
profit; when disease is communicated, not infrequently to innocent
persons: in all such cases a third party is concerned; and a public that
was more or less indifferent as to what took place between two mature
individuals has become increasingly clear as to its interest and duty.
The measures which were explained in the preceding chapter are required
and justified on this ground. The state prohibits the manufacture of
prostitutes by heavily penalizing the white slave traffic; it attacks
the pimp system on the score of its inhumanity and because it seeks to
widen artificially the scope of the prostitute’s operations; the
bordell, the liquor shop, the low cabaret are in the same category.
Wherever a case can be made out against a third party, the law tends to
become increasingly explicit and severe, for the reason that, even
though prostitution itself be only a vice, its exploitation for the
benefit of others violates every conception of humanity and needlessly
extends the range of demoralization and disease.
The general European attitude may then be summed up as follows. The two
participants in every immoral act are more and more coming to be viewed
as of equal responsibility. Their conduct is as between themselves and
themselves alone, vicious and not criminal. It becomes criminal the
moment it becomes open, involving annoyance to others. In still higher
degree does criminality attach to any third party who profits by
promoting, stimulating, or countenancing the immorality of others. The
differentiation here indicated has by no means been consistently carried
out anywhere in practice or in theory; the laws lack codification, and
authority is more or less dispersed; but opinion is traveling in the
direction indicated, and law and administration are taking their cue
from it.
The change of opinion from the crime concept to the vice concept of
prostitution accompanies and denotes not less, but greater, public
concern on the subject. For it betokens a critical and discriminating
study of the problem,—a reduction of its vast total into constituent
elements, each to be met by its own appropriate procedure. The societies
whose laws indiscriminately denounced all immorality as crime are
conspicuous for the futility of most of the steps which they took in
dealing with it. Results have appeared coincidentally with
discrimination. The scientific attitude has also introduced a mature and
deliberate, though not of course facile, hopefulness. A highly learned
German authority disputes even the necessity of prostitution: “What is
evil in prostitution is not necessary and what is necessary is not
evil.”[231]
The situation as now characterized is, however, retarded and confused by
legislation, police regulations and habits of thought that represent
mere survivals from a standpoint now becoming obsolete. They are
tenaciously held to because, whatever view may be entertained as to
far-reaching policies, prostitution still exists as an evil to be
managed as part of the day’s work. Most conspicuous among the
traditional policies of the Continent is Regulation, to the examination
of which the following chapters will be devoted.
CHAPTER V
REGULATION AND ORDER—THE STREETS
Regulation defined.—General description of the system.—Regulation in
Berlin.—Compulsory and voluntary inscription.—The Sittenpolizei
(Morals Police).—Variations from the Berlin system.—The Paris
system.—Additional variations.—Lack of legal sanction.—Administrative
punishment.—Liberality of regulation in Vienna.—Varying size of the
morals police division.—No approved system of regulation.—All alike
arbitrary in character.—Inscription lists relatively small.—General
tendency downwards.—Objections to regulation from standpoint of
rescue and preventive effort.—Objections to summary police
process.—The inscription of minors.—So-called clandestine
prostitution.—Omissions.—Disappearances.—External order in regulated
cities.—Failure of regulation to affect conditions.—Regulation
inconsistent with strict order on streets.—Arrests for infraction of
rules.
I have thus far endeavored to convey some notion of the complexity and
extent of modern prostitution and to point out the peculiar difficulties
that attend an effort to deal with it on simple lines. I have described
the measures now beginning to be taken to diminish demand, to abridge
supply, and to interfere with efforts to exploit the existing supply.
Endeavor in these various directions looks to gradual amelioration of
the situation now generally existing in large cities. Meanwhile,
prostitution is a phenomenon that must be dealt with by every municipal
government. What are the methods employed in Europe and with what
results?
Generally speaking, two opposite policies are employed: regulation and
abolition. The former endeavors to handle prostitution by inducing it to
submit to certain rules; it urges that as a matter of fact prostitution
exists, is a social pest, and cannot be summarily wiped out; something
will, however, be gained for decency, health, and order, if the
phenomenon can be forced to conform to conditions laid down by the
police authorities. These conditions form the regulations from which the
policy in question derives its name.
The opposing party—the abolitionists—agree as to the mischief due to
prostitution, as to the impossibility of extirpating it, as to the
difficulty of repressing it, as to the unwisdom of allowing it to
flourish rampant. They insist, however, that regulation fails to achieve
its purpose; worse still, as they argue, the moment prostitution is
accepted provided it submits to certain rules, the state is placed in
the position of authorizing, legalizing, or privileging the practice of
vice. While the regulationists claim that the privileges conferred do
not embody the license to do an immoral and illegal thing, but merely
involve common sense acceptance of the inevitable, the abolitionists
retort that, verbal quibbles to the contrary notwithstanding, regulation
is a compact with vice. In the present and succeeding chapters these two
opposing policies will be described and the effort will be made to
decide the issues raised by them.
To describe regulation is by no means an easy or simple task; for the
systems in vogue in different places vary fundamentally and essentially.
They agree in stipulating that prostitutes registered with the police
must heed certain restrictions placed upon their conduct in the interest
of public order and decency, and that they must present themselves at
regular intervals for medical examination in the interest of public
health. They agree, that is, in their avowed objects. There is, however,
no general agreement whatsoever as to what is feasible or necessary in
order to attain the objects in question. The more thoroughly one
examines European practice and theory in the matter, the more one is
perplexed as to precisely what that practice and theory essentially are.
The general term “Regulation” covers up difficulties and inconsistencies
respecting which even the partisans of control are still widely at
variance. This will become clear, if, after describing the rules in
force at one place, I point out the divergencies from these that obtain
elsewhere.
For the sake of simplicity, I shall divide the discussion into two
parts: the first dealing with registration and with regulation in so far
only as they touch the preservation of order and decency; the second,
dealing with regulation in so far as it touches the question of venereal
disease. Berlin shall furnish the basis of our discussion.[232]
The Berlin prostitute almost invariably first comes into contact with
the police in consequence of street soliciting.[233] The plain-clothes
morals police, shortly to be described, are charged with the duty of
watching not only registered women—to see that they respect the
regulations—but also unregistered women whose actions arouse the
suspicion that they are seeking to practise prostitution for money,—the
offence which is alone obnoxious to German law.[234] We are concerned to
trace the course of the latter.
A woman whose behavior is suspicious is, in the first instance, warned
by the officer—not arrested; if warning is unavailing, arrest follows.
Should she prove to the examining officer before whom she is taken that
she has a proper dwelling-place, she is released on undertaking to
appear next day before the morals police; if she is without dwelling or
resources, she is taken there at once. In any case, she has at police
headquarters no contact whatsoever with inscribed women, who may happen
to be under arrest at the same time. Whatever may happen elsewhere,
contamination does not occur there. Henceforth the procedure varies,
according as the girl is under 18 years of age, between 18 and 21, or
over 21. If under 18, she can nowadays in no event be inscribed; she
must be turned over to her natural or legal guardian or to the juvenile
court in order to bring her under proper conditions either in her own
home or in an institution of the required type. If the girl is between
18 and 21, the same preliminary steps are taken; the morals police
communicate with parent or guardian, as previously mentioned; and an
endeavor is made to secure wholesome conditions for her at home, in some
other family or in an institution.[235] If these efforts are
unsuccessful,—and the facilities are so far in arrears of the
requirements that successful placing is possible for only a small
fraction of the cases,—the girl, despite the fact that she is a minor,
may be inscribed, should she be re-arrested for the same offence and
adjudged guilty in court.[236] Women over 21 are at once turned over to
the courts upon arrest and after conviction may be summarily enrolled.
In addition to such enrolment by compulsion, women over 21 are also
enrolled upon their own application.
Up to the moment of inscription, prostitution for money or its
equivalent is an offence punishable by imprisonment and hard labor;
after inscription, the state withdraws its objection. The woman is
permitted or authorized to earn her living by prostitution, provided she
obey the following directions.[237]
She must not loiter offensively in streets and public places, nor
solicit, nor be found in the company of prostitutes or pimps;[238]
except in case of urgent need, she must not walk in the following
streets and places, viz., The Zoological Garden, Unter den Linden,
Friedrichstrasse, Potsdamer Platz, etc.;[239] she is forbidden to linger
in the vicinity of schools, churches or royal buildings, or to attend
the theater, circus, expositions, museums, or concert gardens attached
thereto;[240] she is to have no intercourse of any kind with
minors;[241] she must admit police officers at any time into her
dwelling, day or night, and give information about any person discovered
with her;[242] she must keep police headquarters constantly informed of
her address;[243] she may not reside in the vicinity of schools,
churches, or public buildings and must change her dwelling on peremptory
notice from the police.[244] Any infraction of these regulations is
punishable by imprisonment for not longer than six weeks; but the
condemned woman may also be remanded to the police, on expiration of
this sentence, for a workhouse term imposed by the police of not
exceeding two years, in their discretion.
I have said that inscription at Berlin may be either compulsory or
voluntary; that is, an unregistered woman arrested for practising
prostitution without authorization in the shape of police registration
and thereafter either warned in vain or punished, may be inscribed by
the police, even though she protest against it; thenceforth she is
compelled to comply with the regulations above named as well as those to
be hereafter described in dealing with the sanitary aspect of police
control. This is compulsory inscription. Or, without waiting to be
forcibly inscribed, she may appear and herself request to be inscribed,
whereby she voluntarily undertakes to respect the obligations that
inscription imposes upon her. It is apparently easy to understand why a
police force, believing in the necessity of regulation as a means of
preserving decorum, and in its efficacy as a means of promoting
sanitation, should favor compulsory inscription; but why should a
prostitute herself, without pressure from the police, ever ask to be
subjected to its régime? A complete explanation will gradually emerge as
we proceed with the description and discussion of regulation; but a
partial account must be given at once. I remarked in the foregoing
chapter that prostitution for gain is in itself a crime according to the
letter of the German law; the prostitute is liable to arrest,
punishment, eviction, whenever it can be proved that she earns money
through immorality, whether she have other occupation or not.[245]
Voluntary inscription is an open confession of irregular life as a
business. Instead, however, of leading to her immediate punishment for
admitted violation of the law, confession and inscription operate in
precisely the contrary way; they relieve the woman of molestation
provided she agrees to carry on her illegal business in compliance with
police formulæ. Once inscribed, she is free to seek and to entertain
patrons as long as she does so without scandal. Inscription—voluntary or
compulsory—thus involves her submission to certain conditions, more or
less restrictive and capable of somewhat disturbing her business
operations; but it has the great advantage of relieving the prostitute
of vague dread of police interference in general. How far the conditions
to which she subscribes when registered are enforced we shall learn
later.
The characteristic features of the Berlin regulations are then as
follows: either voluntary or compulsory inscription; arbitrary and
additional police sentence following judicial sentence, in case the
court so orders; interdiction to prostitutes of prominent thoroughfares,
amusement, and other resorts; non-inscription of minors under 18;
possible inscription of minors between 18 and 21; and complete control
of dwelling-places. As the local police are opposed to bordells and
brothels, it follows that the legalized prostitution of Berlin is
scattered through the city.
For the enforcement of the Berlin regulations a specialized police
division, known as the Sittenpolizei or morals police, exists. Its head
is an Inspector; he is assisted by five assistants, called
Commissioners; and he commands a force of 200 patrolmen, who, in plain
clothes, walk the streets in pairs. These men have sole and complete
charge of the vice problem; the uniformed police have no duty or
responsibility in connection with prostitutes or prostitution,
intervening only in case of an emergency—a street brawl, for example,
when there are no morals police in sight. The duty of the morals force
is twofold. First, they observe the inscribed women, in order to prevent
infractions of the regulations. If a medical visit—to be described in a
subsequent chapter[246]—is missed, a morals patrolman searches for and
produces the offender; if a registered woman otherwise notoriously
transgresses her bargain, it is left to the morals policeman to take her
in hand. Secondly, the morals force is charged with the duty of watching
the uninscribed—usually called clandestine—prostitutes. I have already
told how these women are observed, warned, and if they continue to be
objectionable, arrested;—in all these steps, the morals patrolman is the
agent who deals with the prostitute. His judgment and discretion
determine who shall be warned, who shall be arrested, and thus, in the
long run, who shall be forcibly inscribed. I shall shortly explain more
fully the working of the system, but it is important at the outset to
show the reader the nature and extent of the responsibility laid on the
morals police.
Regardless, for the moment, of the manner in which the above mentioned
regulations are executed, or the results thereby attained, it is
interesting to note that in no two German cities is the same system in
vogue. Nor do the differences touch mere matters of detail; they go to
the very root of the whole matter. Berlin has, as we have seen, in
addition to voluntary, also compulsory inscription, with scattered
prostitution; that is to say, a prostitute detected in the practice of
her vocation may be inscribed against her will; thereafter she is forced
to reside in a place approved by the police,—which place will in no
event be a brothel or a bordell. Bremen, proceeding on the basis of the
same statute, has only voluntary inscription, and women who thus offer
themselves for inscription are compelled to occupy quarters in a single
street in houses which, whatever the theory, are practically
bordells;[247] that is, no woman is inscribed except on her own
application and a woman so inscribed may remove her name from the list
at her pleasure; the sole condition being that she live in
Helenenstrasse during inscription, and remove from it to some other part
of the city whenever she cancels her enrolment; of course, cancellation
of her inscription and removal to another part of town do not
necessarily involve any change in her occupation. Therefore a small
number of Bremen prostitutes are inscribed and corralled; the rest—all
non-registered—live as and where they will. Bremen and Berlin are
therefore decidedly dissimilar. Other cities differ from them both and
from each other. Munich, for example, has, like Bremen, only voluntary
inscription, but, unlike Bremen and like Berlin, only scattered
prostitution. Stuttgart adds another variation: for, unlike Bremen,
Munich, and Berlin, the inscribed women live in scattered bordells, and
in them only. Hamburg is again different: for, like Berlin, it has both
compulsory and voluntary inscription, while, contrary to all the above
examples, the inscribed women live partly in bordells on a number of
different streets and partly in approved but scattered lodgings on the
Berlin plan. Nor are the possible combinations even yet exhausted: for
Dresden, Cologne, Frankfort, and other cities have each its own
idiosyncrasies.
Substantially the same variations are found in the other countries and
cities that I visited. For example, in Paris, inscription is, as in
Berlin, both voluntary and compulsory; the inscribed prostitute dwells
in a bordell or not, as she pleases; she may, however, instead of living
in a bordell, leave her name and address with the keeper of an
authorized _rendezvous_ house, to which she regularly repairs or may be
summoned between certain hours; these houses, like the bordells, are
found in many sections of the city; meanwhile no part of the town is
exempt from prostitutes occupying scattered lodgings. Though they are
thickest in certain well-known sections of Montmartre and the left bank
of the Seine, they are also found in the Avenue Victor Hugo and the
fashionable streets radiating from the Arc de Triomphe. In Vienna, once
more, only voluntary inscription prevails: no woman is enrolled against
her will. But if a woman carries on professional prostitution, the
regulations make it her duty to enroll herself voluntarily; if she fails
in this duty, she may suffer seriously! The rules expressly provide that
the police shall handle the non-registered women more severely than the
registered.[248] The woman’s freedom to enroll or not as she pleases is
thus ostensible rather than actual. It is assuredly a bit casuistical to
maintain that the prostitute may inscribe herself or not—only she will
be relentlessly pursued if she fails to exercise her option in the
desired direction. Once registered, however, she may live in a bordell,
or, as all but a mere handful do, privately. At Budapest, the girl is
first turned over to a social worker who pleads with her to desist from
her evil ways. If her efforts prove unavailing, registration follows.
Meanwhile, unregistered prostitution is harried with great severity. The
Stockholm regulations also make it the woman’s duty to register;[249]
but, as the chief of the division is authorized to observe
non-registered women “suspected of immorality,”[250] it is clear that
compulsory enrolment is not impossible.
Divergencies touch other points also: as for example, the circumstances
that lead to arrest; the registration of minors; of married women; of
women with other means of livelihood; the employment of non-judicial
administrative punishment; the cancellation of inscription; etc. Married
women can be forcibly enrolled in Paris and Berlin and, with the
husband’s consent, in Budapest. They are not even at their own request
permitted to enroll in Munich or Vienna. In one place it is argued that
marriage is often a mere form, for the husband is only the woman’s pimp;
if regulation is efficacious, or meant to be efficacious, it cannot
allow itself to be defeated by such a technicality. Elsewhere it is
argued that the institution of marriage is degraded, if a married woman
is expressly authorized by the law to practise prostitution for her
livelihood, and by inscription allowed to gain immunity for an otherwise
intolerable and illegal line of behavior. Again, in the matter of other
employment: the Berlin and Paris rules proceed on the assumption that
many occupations are either cloaks for the practice of professional
prostitution, or do not affect the character of the woman concerned. The
whole intent of inscription can therefore be defeated if the mere fact
that a woman follows some sort of occupation necessarily exempts her
from inscription. Hence women so engaged may be enrolled if they are
professional prostitutes. Indeed, the rules of some cities give these
women a certain leeway in the matter of reporting to the police so that
their other occupation may not be interfered with. The point is that
Paris, Berlin, and other North German towns see no inconsistency between
registration as a professional prostitute and simultaneous employment as
barmaid or otherwise. Bremen, Stuttgart, Munich, and Budapest take a
very different view. They regard any kind of employment as the beginning
or possibility of salvation; as soon as a girl begins to earn something
honestly, there is hope that she may clamber out of the mire; to enroll
her would be to brand her and thus to bar the road to betterment.
Finally, as to punishment: at Paris administrative punishment is
regarded as the very core of regulation. A registered woman has no legal
rights. She is absolutely in the hands of the police inspector, who, on
hearing the morals patrolman’s complaint against her, pronounces
sentence upon her. She may, of course, protest her innocence, but she is
allowed neither attorney to represent nor witnesses to support her. Nor
can the action of the police be reviewed by any regularly constituted
court of justice. The Paris police regard regulation as unworkable
without this summary administrative power. The Prussian police partly
disagree. They prefer that the courts should act in the first instance.
Only after the courts declare the woman guilty of professional
prostitution does she fall to the jurisdiction of the police. Once
there, however, she is absolutely without legal rights. At Hamburg and
Dresden it is likewise argued that prompt action, unhampered by
technicalities, is the only way to deal with such culprits, and
administrative punishment is accordingly still in vogue. The women may
without judicial trial be sent to jail on sentences running from 7 to 14
days, with 6 months more in the workhouse if without home or occupation.
Finally, in the matter of withdrawal from the police lists: Bremen,
Stuttgart, Vienna, and Budapest cancel inscription on request; they
regard every request as the possibility of a return to decency, and
fearful of ever interfering with such a desire, however faint, never
interpose an objection. Hamburg and Berlin, on the contrary, cancel no
inscription until the police are satisfied that the woman is in earnest;
an applicant is therefore secretly watched and on the report of an
ordinary patrolman embodying his interpretation of her comings and
goings, the ability of a prostitute to get a fresh start wholly depends.
Stockholm removes a woman from the list “until further notice” in case
she announces her decision to return to a decent life, proves to the
inspector that she has an honorable occupation or other means of
support, and after three months’ surveillance, is favorably regarded.
In one respect, Vienna differs at least in the letter of the regulations
from all other cities. The reader will have remarked the effort of the
Berlin stipulations to remove the prostitute from human associations.
She is barred from certain streets; she is forbidden certain places of
amusement. These restrictions are not conditioned upon her conduct, but
upon the fact that she is a prostitute, and they form an important part
of the regulations not only of Berlin, but of Paris, Munich, Brussels,
and other cities. We shall have something to say later of the
enforcement of these, as well as other, rules. But, as showing once more
the total failure of any agreement as to the details, the new Vienna
regulation entirely abandons even the attempt to make the prostitute an
outcast in this sense; she is only forbidden to appear in a group of
immoral women or with a pimp. As to the rest, it is expressly declared:
“In respect to her behavior she is liable only to the same rules as to
order and decency that apply to all other persons.”[251]
Divergencies might be still further multiplied. I might point out that
there is no agreement as to what constitutes the sort of prostitution
which must be amenable to regulation, if regulation is successfully to
achieve its purpose in preserving order and health. Germany holds that
regulation need apply to prostitution only in so far as money passes;
and the actual passing of a material consideration must be either
admitted or proved. Austria urges that no headway can be made against
such a technicality; the Vienna police, therefore, after watching and
vainly warning, arrest on suspicion. Berlin acts most rigorously when
the girl is without a definite home;[252] Stuttgart and Bremen enroll
only when the girl has a definite home, and in a bordell[253] at that.
It is clear that the variations mentioned seriously involve the nature,
scope, and applicability of the system. I shall, as I proceed, discuss
them on their merits. But I want for the present simply to call
attention to the fact that, what at long range is called a system, or
the system, of regulation, proves on fuller knowledge to be a very large
number of systems,—a confusion of systems, inconsistent with one another
in viewpoint and diverse in organization, range, operation, and even
purpose. Confusion in structure may be taken to indicate that a
satisfactory technique of regulation remains to be worked out. It
becomes, therefore, important to accompany any discussion of the merits
or demerits of regulation with a bill of particulars specifying the
precise form of regulation in question; for the variations above noted
are not immaterial or accidental. Their number and importance at once
introduce grave suspicion into the mind of the disinterested observer.
Though systems of regulation differ thus in practically every respect,
they are singularly alike in one highly important regard: they have been
generally developed by more or less arbitrary action on the part of the
police and without the deliberate and express sanction of a competent
legislative authority. From this statement, the British Contagious
Disease Act—long since repealed—must be excepted; to the extent that
that legislation introduced regulation into Great Britain, adequate
legislative authority could not be said to be lacking in any respect;
the Belgian system, too, reposing on communal law,[254] is apparently
well authorized; such is also the case in Hungary, where two
statutes—one passed in 1876, the other in 1899,—authorize the police
regulation of prostitution. Elsewhere this is not, and never has been,
the case. But continental tradition accords to the police an extensive
jurisdiction and initiative in regard to matters more or less loosely
left within their province. In dealing with certain matters, the police
are therefore in the habit of taking summary and arbitrary action on the
basis of custom or on the warrant of ancient degrees of dubious
validity. The courts usually decline to interfere, even though, as I
shall show, they do not hesitate to impugn the adequacy of the legal
basis. The police have everywhere become acutely uncomfortable on the
subject. They cling to the powers; but they crave explicit legislative
warrant such as will place their authority beyond suspicion. This
legislative reassurance they have nowhere obtained; neither in France,
nor Germany, nor Austria has the national legislature deliberately and
unambiguously created or even sustained by statutory enactment the
police regulation of prostitution, as now carried on in those three
countries: nay, more, in certain important respects, regulation has been
practised by the police only by subterfuge in more or less plain
disregard of the letter of the statutes.
The questions here involved are obviously of highly technical character.
The statement above made would not be greatly strengthened by the
citation of even weighty authorities, who are opposed to regulation on
principle; it would be easy to point out that their interpretation of
the law may unconsciously and even unintentionally have been influenced
by their position in reference to the policy itself. I propose therefore
to quote only jurists who are favorable to regulation, men whose
interest lies in making out the strongest possible case for its legal
warrant. As to Paris, I shall follow M. Lépine, to whom I have
previously referred as an extraordinarily able official.[255] The powers
there exercised by the police in respect to prostitution are derived
from a royal ordinance of 1684 appointing the Salpétrière for the
reception of prostitutes and vaguely prescribing that final sentences in
respect to them may be imposed by the police; by two subsequent
ordinances of 1778 and 1780 forbidding the renting of rooms to
prostitutes; and by a law of the year VIII (1799) authorizing the police
to watch prostitution, to provide for the security of the streets and to
check epidemics and infectious disease. From these general directions to
the minute specifications and exemptions of the Paris regulatory system
is indeed a far call. It is impossible seriously to maintain that they
warrant or were ever intended to warrant the procedure ostensibly
derived from them. The police themselves are so conscious of the
uncertain footing on which their system rests, that they have again and
again sought its validation through express legislation. In the year IV
(1795) of the Republic, the directory vainly asked that the legislative
body define prostitution and “give judicial proceedings a special form”;
subsequent failures to obtain explicit legislative sanction are recorded
in 1798 and in 1810,—the latter being the date of the recasting of the
penal code; legislators were at that time not prepared to forbid
regulation, but they refused to write it explicitly on the statute book.
In 1811, 1816, 1822, 1848, 1877, and 1895 similar efforts met with the
same failure. Reviewing these unavailing endeavors to establish
regulation on a secure legal basis, M. Lépine declared before the
Extra-Parliamentary Commission: “In these conditions the Police Prefect
has had no other resource but to cling to old methods which, even if not
converted into laws, have been tolerated and approved by all
governments.”[256]
The situation is no better in the rest of France. Regulation in the
provincial cities is based on certain paragraphs of a law of April 5,
1884,[257] in reference to which M. Hennequin, of the Ministry of the
Interior, a pronounced regulationist, admits: “Without doubt, the law
does not speak expressly of morals, and prostitution is not referred to
by name in article 97:”[258] that is, the comparatively recent statute,
on which provincial regulation in France rests, does not venture to
mention the policy in defense of which it is now invoked. The Austrian
regulations are likewise a creation of the police, ostensibly pursuant
to a general statutory provision that vaguely leaves the “punishment of
professional prostitutes to the police authority.”[259] But regulation
consists not in _punishing_, but in _condoning_ prostitution, provided
certain police stipulations be complied with. Like its French prototype,
the Austrian system thus lacks statutory basis as well as express
legislative sanction; and precisely as the French defect is admitted by
M. Lépine, regulationist, so the corresponding Austrian flaw is
confessed by Dr. Baumgarten, the capable, humane and cultivated official
who presided over the morals police of Vienna: “The legal basis upon
which the present system of police regulation reposes is throughout
vulnerable.”[260] The law must be so amended, he urges, that the police
are charged, not with _punishing_ prostitution, but with _watching_ and
_controlling_ it, on lines to be devised by themselves. Only if so
amended would the present system rest on an unequivocal legal basis.
Needless to say, no such amendment has yet been carried,[261] and the
regulation system in vogue in Austria stands, because, as in France,
lacking the protection of the _habeas corpus_ writ, the outcast can
obtain no footing in court.
The foundation of regulation in Germany is equally dubious. Paragraph
180 of the Criminal Code makes it a punishable offence to rent a room to
a prostitute. Now the moment the police inscribe a prostitute, they
register her dwelling-place; and they bear with particular severity on
prostitutes who are “without a definite domicile.”[262] Regulation[263]
begins, therefore, by flying in the face of the statute: whether
regulated prostitutes live scattered, as in Berlin, or interned, as the
Hamburg police prefer, regulation in so far as it involves their
inhabiting dwelling-places approved by the police is inconsistent with
the section quoted. Grave doubt exists further as to whether in any
event compulsory inscription is legally defensible. The present Imperial
Chancellor admitted that the law is “illogical and confused;”[264] and
the most recent decision of the Reichsgericht, involving the
interpretation of the statute, concedes that “the competency of the
police in the matter of compulsory inscription is not uncontested.”[265]
A recent ministerial instruction[266] endeavors to break the force of
objection, as far as possible without amendment of the statute, by
insisting that, though the police still retain the power of forcible
registration, it is not to be exercised in Prussia until the woman has
been regularly convicted of professional prostitution. A recent defence
of the adequacy of the legal basis pursues a line of argument itself
calculated to deepen mistrust: “The police are competent to do
whatsoever follows from the general nature of their business; they are
entitled to take such measures as are naturally dictated by their
objects. They are therefore competent to take such measures in reference
to prostitution as contribute to the achievement of police purposes. Now
the regulations governing prostitution aim to protect order and health.
Regulation is therefore a function that follows from the general
competency of the police. That is true in Prussia as in France. The
stipulations of the police regulations have therefore the force of
law.”[267] It will be observed that this author makes no pretense of
higher warrant than that of necessity as judged by a police authority
making its own rules. But perhaps still stronger evidence of the legal
insecurity of the existing systems is furnished by the radical changes
proposed in the draft of a new criminal code. Conceding that
prostitution as such is not to be punishable as a crime, it takes the
position that “it is necessary to watch prostitution” and empowers the
police to issue the necessary regulations, subject to prior enactments
on the part of the state legislatures; but these regulations may not
distinguish between controlled and non-controlled prostitutes,—they must
be applicable to all alike.[268]
The most striking fact in connection with the operation of all systems
of regulation is the small inscription list. There are, it is true,
variations: but the largest list, that of Paris, probably includes
hardly more than one prostitute in eight, from which maximum the lists
in other cities decline rapidly to utter insignificance. The following
table exhibits the size of the inscription lists, the population of the
towns in question, and the ratio between the two.[269]
The facts that stand out are the fractional nature of enrolment at its
very best, and the enormous variations in ratio. I shall point out the
reasons for this and later inquire for the effects.[270]
RATIO OF INSCRIBED WOMEN TO POPULATION
Number of inscribed Ratio of latter to
Population women former
Paris 2,888,110 6,000 (Approx.) 1 to 481
Marseilles[271] 550,619 639 1 to 861
Bordeaux 261,678 410 1 to 638
Lille 217,807 108 1 to 2,016
Nantes 170,535 125 1 to 1,364
Le Havre 136,159 136 1 to 1,001
Toulon 104,582 325 1 to 322
Berlin 2,071,257 3,559 1 to 582
Hamburg 931,035 935 1 to 995
Munich 596,467 173 1 to 3,441
Dresden 548,308 293 1 to 1,871
Cologne[272] 516,527 600 1 to 828
Frankfort 414,576 300 1 to 1,382
Stuttgart 286,218 22 1 to 13,010
Bremen 247,437 75 1 to 3,299
Mannheim 193,902 14 1 to 13,850
Augsburg 102,487 6 1 to 17,081
Munster 90,254 1 1 to 90,254
Vienna 2,031,498 1,689 1 to 1,203
Budapest 880,371 2,000 (Approx.) 1 to 440
Rome 542,123 225 1 to 2,409
Stockholm[273] 346,599 554 1 to 625
Brussels 659,000 182 1 to 3,621
Geneva 154,159 86 1 to 1,793
Different years show a considerable fluctuation in the above totals, but
the general tendency is markedly downward. Paris, for instance,
inscribed 4,519 in the year 1830, when its population was 800,000;[274]
in 1873, the registration was practically the same, 4,603; thenceforth
it declined steadily to 2,816 a decade later; since that time a
progressive rise brings it in 1903 to 6,418;[275] a decline is again in
progress, for 1910 does not exceed 6,000. At Berlin there was a steady
rise from 1886 to 1896: the list stood at 3,006 in the former year,
5,098 in the latter; since which time, despite increased population, the
enrolment declined to 3,115 in 1905;[276] i. e., almost 40%. The last
figures obtainable show a registration of 3,559. In Vienna, 1,780 stood
on the books in 1900, decreasing year by year until only 1,441 remained
in 1910; since the revision of the rules in that year, increased vigor
has brought about an increase to 1,689.[277] Hamburg has receded from
1,266 in 1903 to 935 in 1910.[278] Breslau dropped from 1,856 in 1889 to
1,045 just five years later;[279] Mannheim from 60 in 1890 to 13 in
1902.[280] Stockholm reached practically the same high water mark at
different intervals, showing the inevitable fluctuations with which,
there as everywhere else, inscription has been pursued. In 1903 the
number stood at 936,—the figure which it had also reached over a quarter
of a century before. Thereupon there came a decided drop: 119 women had
been newly enrolled in 1903; 67 were enrolled in 1904. By the year 1912,
the total enrolment—itself considerably larger than the effective
enrolment—had sunk to 554.[281]
In most cities—as the figures above given show—regulation is moribund,
and in many quite dead. As compared with the total volume of
prostitution, the enrolment is at the best unimportant, and at the
worst, altogether negligible. Paris, as I have said, registers perhaps
one in eight. If, as is estimated, there are 30,000 prostitutes in
Vienna,[282] the maximum inscription is barely 5%. As opposed to a
registration of 225 in Rome, the police records show 5,000 women under
observation at one time or another.[283] In the year 1909, 140 women
were inscribed at Munich; during the same year, the police were keeping
track of 2,076 clandestine prostitutes: the enrolment was thus less than
7% of those actually known,—and they were only part of the whole;[284]
in 1911, with 173 women inscribed, 2,574 clandestines were under police
observation, the former about 7% of the latter.[285]
The inexperienced outsider may jump to the conclusion that an active and
efficient police administration could easily enough gather into its net
most—or at least many—of those who now slip through. As a matter of
fact, there has been in some towns no lack of endeavor to accomplish
this very thing; but it does not, and cannot, succeed for reasons that
will be explained. And this quite regardless of the existence of any
strong sentiment adverse to regulation as such.
Nowhere, of course, is forcible inscription possible, unless a clear
case can be made out. The police agents are therefore bound to proceed
with great circumspection. They are indeed instructed that a hundred
omissions are preferable to a single error, or apparent error. The agent
may lay hands on the poor and friendless street-walker without danger of
exciting hostile criticism; but for several reasons the more
sophisticated forms of prostitution he dare not touch. Proof is harder;
the woman has friends; the public resents interference with personal
liberty. Forcible enrolment, therefore, very quickly encounters limits
beyond which it cannot be pushed. The mere size of the force at the
disposal of the police inspectors makes little difference; Berlin has a
relatively large body of agents, Vienna a very small one. Yet the latter
achieves almost as much as the former, because neither can forcibly
detain any but the most obvious and flagrant offenders.
But there is another difficulty, connected with the size of the morals
division. Berlin sets aside 200 men for the service; Paris 240; Vienna
6; Brussels 6; Dresden 18; Frankfort 14; Hamburg 24; Budapest 32; Bremen
3. It is complained at Berlin that 200 are inadequate; clearly then six
cannot suffice for Vienna. Yet to any proposition to increase the force
materially the objection is made that only a small body of men can be
protected against corruption or defilement. The morals police are thus
on the horns of a dilemma; if numerous enough to be aggressive they are
exposed to corruption; if few, they are inadequate. For, be it
remembered, wherever enforced inscription is in vogue, the morals police
have enormous power. It practically lies with them to say whether the
clandestine prostitute walking the streets is to be cited before the
division head for punishment and enrolment; whether the registered woman
is to be permitted with impunity to violate the stipulations above
given, or to be punished for infraction thereof. In general, the perils
to which a large force is exposed have decided the authorities in favor
of a small one; with the result that thorough and consistent action is
impossible.
A somewhat apologetic attitude has resulted from the general failure of
even forcible inscription to make a better showing: one is told that the
police do not desire a large list; that registration is purposely
limited, etc. The concrete evidence in favor of this purpose is the
presence at the larger police establishments of a social worker who
endeavors to dissuade women from the pursuit of a vicious life; but this
explanation is not convincing. Of course, regulation has no interest in
keeping in prostitution women who can be induced to leave it; but in the
case of women who are prostitutes and who cannot be dissuaded to desist,
regulation, if effective, must certainly enroll them. Regulation has no
desire to swell the ranks; but it cannot succeed unless it has a
complete list of those really in the ranks. The police apology is an
indirect admission that under modern conditions prostitution by reason
of its protean nature cannot be catalogued.
From the impossibility of cataloguing prostitution, other disastrous
consequences to which I have already adverted, inevitably flow. Wherever
a certain number of individuals are guilty of an offence, and but an
inconsiderable proportion of the guilty are punished, the favoritism of
the law leads inevitably into blackmail and corruption, by which it is
still further defeated. I shall discuss this aspect of the problem
somewhat more fully later on;[286] but at this point it is important to
note that, despite the unimpeachable character of the police heads, and
the splendid quality of the general force, wherever forcible inscription
is practised, that portion of the police force which comes into contact
with prostitution, viz., the morals police, is widely believed to be
contaminated. Whether with money or favors, the women buy immunity from
inscription; the patrolman, warned by his superiors that it is better to
let a hundred guilty women escape than to make one mistake, easily
conceals corruption beneath the pretense of caution.
Forcible inscription is therefore predestined to failure. But there are
weighty objections to it even in the limited form in which it is still
employed in a few places. For it traverses at right angles the modern
spirit. Our discussion of the nature of prostitution indicated that it
is frequently only a phase through which thousands of women pass; their
individual interest and the interest of society require that every
facility for exit and oblivion should be furnished. Regulation does
precisely the reverse: it brands the scarlet letter upon the woman’s
forehead. The heedless victim of an escapade may be thus converted into
a life-long outcast; society may be saddled with her and the harm she
spreads as a permanent burden, hardly to be got rid of, so long as she
lives. And this power, which once for all deprives her of the aspiration
to improve, is ultimately lodged in the hands of an ordinary patrolman:
_his_ observation, _his_ judgment, _his_ interpretation, _his_ assertion
determine whether or not she is to be pushed across the dividing line
into the abyss: his word against the girl’s. Bad though she may be, her
reluctance to request inscription is the faint voice of her better self,
not yet completely silenced; assuredly it is the function of a society,
whose arrangements are by no means guiltless of her fate, not to
extinguish, but to foster the feeble flicker of endangered personality.
It must not be forgotten that in every city there are at this moment
thousands of women technically liable to inscription who will in their
middle twenties and later emerge from immorality and prostitution;[287]
they can for the most part emerge, precisely because they are not
inscribed; successful inscription would in most cases finally rupture
the tie that will ultimately rescue them. It may be questioned whether a
mature woman ought to be permitted by society even voluntarily to brand
herself a professional prostitute: there is no shadow of doubt that no
modern society can afford to compel her to do so.[288]
The essentially medieval character of forcible inscription, by which
alone, I repeat, any showing at all can be made, is most clearly
illustrated by its connection with summary police power. No system of
inscription can achieve even the fractional success of the Paris and
Berlin systems if it allows the accused girl counsel and witnesses. For
the lists are kept at their present minimal size only because the police
can by summary action build them up as fast as they melt away.[289]
Frightful miscarriages of justice are bound to occur in consequence of
arbitrary action: for example, a woman leaving her wretched home in the
Rue des Cordiers is arrested by a morals policeman, in spite of her
protestations that she is on her way to procure medicine for a sick
child; while she is detained in prison, the child dies in the course of
the night.[290] Following her arbitrary detention, the Paris suspect is
brought before a police bureaucrat, who hears the accusing patrolman,
asks the girl or woman, perhaps terrified and certainly undefended, a
few questions and summarily orders her enrolment, if he so please:
thenceforth she is not only a social, but a legal outcast. She can by no
legal ingenuity be brought before a regularly constituted court; she is
amenable to police authority alone. Should she break, or be accused of
breaking, the stipulations to which she is now compulsorily
subordinated, she must accept the penalties imposed by the bureau chief,
without protest. Utter helplessness is her lot; and that too amid
conditions that conspire to bring about not improvement but further
degradation. For the accessories to Paris regulation, the depot at
police headquarters, the hospital and prison at St. Lazare are sheer
survivals into our day of the barbarous dungeons of the middle ages.
Whoso enters them may be said with truth to leave all hope behind. The
present presiding officer endeavors to impart a more or less humane
spirit to his decisions; but the conditions under which his power is
exercised would overtax the wisdom of Solomon. The task is itself wholly
out of keeping with the modern spirit.
Essentially, the objections to summary police action are equally strong
in Germany. Dr. Lindenau argues that the woman is technically somewhat
protected against police tyranny; but, he adds: “One must none the less
grant that the procedure in question is not well known to them.
Moreover, at best it procures only a police decision reached on the
basis of the police officer’s personal impressions.”
Insuperable difficulties thus confront a vigorous regulatory policy. If
regulation is needed to protect order and health and to prevent scandal,
then it is obviously impossible to leave it optional with the prostitute
whether she will be inscribed or not; force is absolutely necessary to
success. But to force there is at once the objection that it can be
applied to but relatively few cases at all; that it cannot be applied to
these without suspending all legal guarantees, and that, once these are
suspended, the way is open to corruption and oppression that are to a
modern community utterly intolerable.
But we have not yet recounted all the difficulties that beset
regulation. Not even forcible enrolment can greatly swell the lists
unless the inscription of minors is allowed. That the duty of the state
towards defenceless or erring children is custodial would appear to be a
principle on which modern society had already agreed; for a minor, at
any rate, there is always at least a ray of hope. Experience already
touched on shows, further, that though prostitution is commonest in the
teens and early twenties, large numbers of those who give way in these
years recover their self-possession afterwards. Hence, forcible or even
permissible inscription of girls under twenty-one is the very acme of
unwisdom and inhumanity. Yet, without it, a substantial inscription list
is impossible. Had the Paris police refused to enroll minors their list,
already relatively small, would have almost collapsed: between 1888 and
1903, 12,471 women were inscribed at Paris, 38% of whom were minors at
the time.[291] In the year 1901, 635 women over 21 years old and 660
minors were forcibly enrolled,—more minors than adults![292] The same
monstrous practice prevails elsewhere. The Stockholm regulations state
that as a rule girls under 17 are not to be inscribed; yet of 4,651 new
registrations between 1859 and 1904, 1,353 were under twenty years of
age;[293] of 338 women enrolled in 1905, 196 (i. e., 58%) had been
registered during their minority.[294] In Germany minors are inscribed
in Bonn, Danzig, Dessau (“but not under sixteen years of age!”),
Frankfort, where 43 were between sixteen and nineteen years of age,
Mannheim, Rostock, Wiesbaden, etc. In the small Munich enrolment—143 in
1909—there were six minors,—Munich-born.[295] Dufour’s tables show the
age of the youngest inscribed prostitute in the various German cities,
up to 1885: in East Prussia, she was fourteen years old; in the Rhine
province, Schlesien, Posen, West Prussia, Bavaria, fifteen; in eight
others over fifteen and under sixteen.[296] Berlin now refuses
inscription below eighteen and acts cautiously in case of girls between
eighteen and twenty-one; but in 1898—before the adoption of the present
policy—out of 846 newly inscribed women, 229 were minors of whom seven
were fifteen years old, twenty-one sixteen years old. But the evidence
afforded by Vienna is even more telling. The inscribed list there is on
the most favorable interpretation absurdly small: even so, 16% of those
inscribed are minors; meanwhile of non-registered prostitutes arrested
on the streets—prostitutes who, be it noted, must be enrolled if the
system is to be even fairly adequate to its intention—over 57% are
minors.[297] It is thus evident that in this essential matter, the
system is also on the horns of a dilemma: if minors are not enrolled,
the system collapses; if minors are enrolled, society perpetrates an
infamy.
A further weakness inherent in forced inscription has already been
alluded to: it is like pouring water into a sieve. When once the obvious
cases have been gathered, the total can hardly be increased, no matter
how great the pressure. Women disappear on the one hand as fast as they
are registered on the other. In a single month in Berlin sixty dropped
out; at Cologne, though 1,200 are registered in the course of the year,
the active list is hardly half that number. So at Vienna, while 2,600
stand on the books at the close of the year, 1,000 have vanished in the
same period, so that the effective inscription is about 1,600.
Johansson’s careful studies of the 2,442 women enrolled in Stockholm
between 1859 and 1884 show that 23% leave in the first year after
inscription.[298] With a total enrolment of 3,582 at Paris in 1880,
1,757 women disappeared,—46 by death, one by marriage, six to return to
a decent life, the rest simply dropped out, eluding police control in
one way or another. The following table exhibits the status there in
other years selected at random:[299]
Disappeared in
Total Number of the course of the Returned to
Year Inscribed Women Year Died Married Decent Life
1881 3,160 1,524 34 2 27
1884 2,917 985 39 13 6
1887 4,681 2,503 18 8 22
1893 4,793 1,121 9 8 17
1897 5,233 1,599 14 27 43
1900 6,222 823 26 39 57
Finally during the year 1901, 1,574 women were newly enrolled, while
1,880 dropped out; of the latter, 52 died, 34 married, 77 found other
means of subsistence, and 1,717 “disappeared.”[300] A certain point once
reached, the structure topples as fast as it is built up. At Dresden I
was frankly told: “Compulsion is useless; it only increases hiding and
disappearing.” Forcible inscription therefore cannot be operated.
On the other hand, as I have said, if inscription is voluntary, the
whole thing goes to pieces. The size of the enrolment at Bremen,
Stuttgart and Munich, where the girl decides for herself, is absurdly
small. The inducements offered are very substantial, for if a woman
complies with the regulations the police guarantee her the unhampered
prosecution of her business. Yet even so, a vestige of surviving decency
intervenes to keep far the greater number from voluntarily branding
themselves. In Paris, out of 1,574 enrolments in 1901, only 52 were
voluntary; out of 737 in 1908, only 36 were voluntary.[301]
Meanwhile, neither forced inscription, inscription of minors nor
inscription of working girls can build up a list that is at all
commensurate with the magnitude of the evil. The showy women of the
cafés, the boulevards, the variety theaters are absolutely free from
molestation. The Paris police “do not arrest, do not disturb, do not
even watch the well-to-do courtesans who frequent the Bois de Boulogne,
driving a fast pair of horses; who live luxuriously near the Parc
Monceau; who frequent theaters, concerts and balls,—in a word the
aristocracy of the underworld. Nor do they concern themselves with the
elegant women who in the afternoon or evening promenade on the main
thoroughfares. These have friends among the journalists,—so it is said;
they go scot-free, for fear of scandal. A third class is also immune:
the grisettes of the Latin Quarter. The demoiselles of the Boulevard St.
Michel are the faithful friends of the students: they are respected by
the police!”[302] These women are all technically called
“clandestine,”—an absurd misnomer, for their way of living is as
notorious as that of any registered prostitute in the city. A little
shrewdness enables them readily to avoid giving offence. The brunt of
the system falls upon the friendless and the stupid. The truth is that
no effort is made to secure thorough inscription,—partly because it is
foredoomed to failure, partly because it could be too easily balked by
corruption and intrigue, and partly for another reason that will appear
in due course. And this is just as true in other cities as in Paris.
Everywhere the police get hold of the dull and abandoned only. I recall
the indignant rejoinder of a Berlin street-walker, on my asking whether
she was inscribed: “No, indeed, only the stupid are inscribed.”[303]
Let us now address ourselves to ascertaining the results of regulation.
I have stated that in favor of the system two reasons are urged,—first,
that it is necessary to the preservation of order; second, that it
promotes the public health. The two must be separately investigated.
In respect to order on the streets, European cities of approximately the
same size are, with few exceptions, practically alike. I have pointed
out that the street-walker seeks by preference the main channels of
retail trade; there she is found in the late afternoon and evening
hours, noticeable by reason of slow gait, furtive expression, and more
or less striking garb. Her demeanor is usually restrained. If no
response is made to the invitation conveyed in a glance, she passes on;
doubtful or encouraged, she stops at a show-window or turns off into a
café or a side street. Only in the late hours of night, does she become
more aggressively provocative. This description applies to all the great
capitals—London, Paris, Berlin and Vienna; some fluctuation may be
noticed from time to time, according as police pressure relaxes or
increases; but this is also equally true of all alike. In general, it
may be said that external appearances in no one of them differ so
markedly from external appearances in the others as to imply a different
policy in reference to the phenomenon. Public opinion objects to scandal
without requiring complete suppression; to this attitude prostitution
has everywhere accommodated itself. The streets of London, in which, as
we shall see, no particular action is taken in reference to the
prostitute, are not to be distinguished essentially from those of Paris
and Berlin, in both of which minute specifications aim to exclude the
evil from prominent thoroughfares; nor are Paris and Berlin
distinguishable from Vienna, in which no such stipulations are made.
External conditions have everywhere ameliorated; the general police
attitude is everywhere understood and is everywhere much the same: hence
London without regulation, Paris with a fairly large inscription, Berlin
with a moderate one, and Vienna with a small one reach substantially the
same result.
The same general description holds of smaller cities. To this group
belong Hamburg, Cologne, Frankfort, Munich, Rome, Budapest, Copenhagen,
Stockholm, Lyons, Glasgow, Manchester, and Rotterdam. Roughly speaking
these cities vary in population from one-half to three-quarters of a
million inhabitants. On the main thoroughfares of their retail trade, a
certain number of prostitutes stroll during the accustomed hours; in the
intervals of patrolling the streets, the women are to be found in cafés,
coffee-houses, variety theaters, in which they are for the most part as
little aggressive as when on the streets. A glance, a half whispered
invitation and a smile form the usual preliminaries, rarely carried
further, unless an encouraging response is returned. From time to time,
increased pressure on the part of the police results in perceptible
improvement of street conditions; and this happens equally in Liverpool,
without regulation, and in Cologne, with it. I visited the latter city
at a time of distinct police activity. At eleven o’clock at night the
streets on which women used to loiter were practically clear; a solitary
street-walker, very suspicious of strangers, explained that conditions
had become intolerable and “for her part, she was going back to
Frankfort.” In general, however, the stranger walking the streets of
Hamburg, Rotterdam, or Munich would be entirely unable to conclude from
their condition whether regulation was in vogue or not; or, if so,
whether it is thoroughly or perfunctorily carried out, and to which type
the system belongs. Surely, a factor that does not modify the result
cannot be important in bringing it about.
From the preceding it may, I think, be fairly concluded that regulation
as it now exists in European cities has failed to improve order on the
streets. For, though there has been improvement, it has taken place
generally,—in cities that have regulation, in cities without it; in
cities where there is a tolerable inscription list, and in cities where
the inscription list is merely nominal.
On the other hand particular attention must be called to the fact that
regulation itself is an obstacle to thorough cleaning of a city’s
streets; it prevents the authorities from taking vigorous measures in
this direction. The law concedes to the inscribed prostitute the
privilege of living by immorality. In so far as the women live
scattered, they must be permitted to find customers, once the right to
earn a livelihood in this way has been granted; for that purpose they
must be permitted to show themselves in the streets, in cafés and
elsewhere. Street-walking as such is not forbidden and cannot be
forbidden in a regulated city unless the same authority that authorizes
a woman to practise prostitution sets out to starve her. Hence inscribed
prostitutes have the use of the streets excepting only certain
thoroughfares and places that are mentioned in the regulations.
But as a matter of fact not even these excepted places are—or can
be—protected from the inscribed women. Common sense refuses to consider
it a crime to walk on Friedrichstrasse, while patrolling one block below
on Charlottenstrasse is harmless; or that a woman, who is free to
promenade on Dorotheenstrasse must be fined and imprisoned for
promenading on the Linden running parallel thereto. The inscribed woman
who conducts herself without scandal on streets in which she is
tolerated, soon begins unobtrusively to invade those which are
forbidden: and so long as her demeanor is circumspect, no notice is
taken. Indeed the streets from which the licensed prostitute has agreed
to withdraw are not infrequently those where she is most at home; and a
large loophole for police favor and corruption is thus created by the
existence of rules only occasionally and capriciously enforced. But
other consequences follow. What is allowed to the inscribed woman cannot
be forbidden to the uninscribed: it is not in human nature to forbid to
the one what is so freely allowed to the other. The very fact that 6,000
inscribed women are legally entitled to patrol most streets in Paris and
are suffered to patrol the others, makes it impossible for the police to
act vigorously and continuously against six or eight times as many
clandestines who avail themselves of the same privilege. “What effect do
the street restrictions have?” I inquired of a Paris police functionary.
“None,” he replied, “they are a dead letter.” It practically results
that the police do not systematically interfere unless scandal arises;
in which event they would interfere anyhow, whether regulation existed
or not.
In respect to street order, regulation is, therefore, in my judgment, a
hindrance, not a help, for it is at war with its own avowed object.
Regulation is asked for that the women may be kept under control,—else,
it is argued, they will overrun the streets. Once under control, they
must be permitted to walk the streets; and if they, responsible to the
police, are permitted, how can others, not so obligated, be prevented?
Hence a measure designed to clean the streets ends by tying the hands of
the police, so that the streets cannot be vigorously cleaned.
Consequently no regulated city possesses streets as free from scandal as
the streets of Amsterdam, Zurich, and Liverpool,—all non-regulated
cities, in which a consistent and thoroughgoing course of action bearing
on all women alike is feasible.
That regulation, so far from cleaning the streets, is inconsistent with
that effort is not only evidenced by one’s senses; it is further proved
by police reports. If regulation succeeded, the inscribed women would
give the police the least trouble: as a matter of experience, they give
them the most. Paris affords the best proof of this statement. In the
year 1903, 55,641 arrests were made among inscribed women for street
offences. Meanwhile, among the far more numerous non-inscribed only
2,821 arrests were made. In Stockholm, against 413 enrolled women in
1903, 9,908 complaints were noted and 1,273 arrests made; three years
later against 241 women, 7,515 complaints are recorded, 1,246 arrests
made. In the years 1900–1904, 34.7% of the enrolled women received hard
labor sentences.[304] So, also, in Germany: the enrolled prostitutes of
Breslau and the number of them arrested in the course of the same year
were as follows.[305]
1890 1891 1892 1893 1894
Enrolled 1,630 1,209 1,162 1,064 1,045
Arrested 1,336 1,570 1,707 1,768 1,995
I shall recur to these figures for the purpose of showing later the true
inwardness of regulation. Meanwhile it is obvious that it does not
effectually prevent trouble.
Attention should also be called to the ineffectiveness of regulation in
dealing with offences. The women are arrested,—sentenced now to prison
for a few days, now for longer periods or set free at once,—only to
resume the way of life that led to their apprehension. Of the 55,641
arrests made in Paris, above mentioned, 41,719 resulted in immediate
dismissal. I watched the “trial” of a group of them,—several of whom had
been released from prison but a few hours before they were re-arrested;
one of them had spent 28 days out of the last month in St. Lazare;
others had been “sent-up” more times than they could recall. The less
hardened are so leniently dealt with that the restrictions are ignored
on the chance that nothing will come of an offence against them.
The offence on account of which arrests are made is usually disorder in
consequence of drink; occasionally, some more serious breach has been
committed. But with these problems ordinary police and judicial methods
are surely quite competent to deal. As much has been admitted to me by
high officials in both Paris and Berlin. One of the latter indeed has
publicly proposed to drop the order function from the duties of the
morals police and to secure the health function by attaching the work to
the health department; and the new regulations of Vienna to some extent
reflect this attitude.
Indeed, it seems somewhat absurd to hold that the regular police is
competent to cope with thieves, murderers, counterfeiters, and all other
irregular characters, crude and subtle, that are attracted like moths to
the great cities, while they lack the wit or courage to deal with the
crime and disorder in which prostitution is implicated; or that the
ordinary process of law and rules of evidence suffice for the former,
but must be waived in case of the latter! The fact is that the state of
the streets depends on the vigor of the police, the sensitiveness of the
public, the management of the drink and amusement traffic and the
attitude of the courts. An unfavorable judicial decision as to what
constitutes a nuisance may change the entire aspect of things, with or
without regulation. In Copenhagen, for example, after the abolition of
regulation, the courts held that standing about the streets was not
illegal: since which event, the main thoroughfares abound with women.
The Acting Recorder of Liverpool held in 1908 that solicitation to be
punishable under the Vagrant Act of 1854 must include actual indecency;
whereupon the Chief Constable reports that “we are going back somewhat
in keeping the streets clear of this nuisance.”[306]
If the inscription of several thousand women in large capitals is
practically without effect in controlling the streets, it is needless to
discuss the effect of the smaller or only nominal inscription lists of
other cities. The registration of a few hundred women in Frankfort, and
of still more insignificant numbers in Dresden, Munich, Stuttgart,
Brussels, Geneva, Lille can cut absolutely no figure at all; its sole
outcome is to tie the hands of the authorities.
So much for the streets; and in cities where prostitution is scattered,
as in Munich and Berlin, the value of regulation in respect to order
depends altogether on what it achieves in keeping the streets free from
scandal. There are those who say, however, that it is not fair to arrive
at an unfavorable verdict on this basis alone; they urge that the
regulation of scattered prostitution may fail, while the regulation of
interned prostitution may succeed. That opens up the question of
bordells to which the next chapter will be devoted.
CHAPTER VI
REGULATION AND ORDER—BORDELLS AND SEGREGATION
The bordell defined.—Proprietor and inmate.—Licensing of bordells
increasingly rare.—Subterfuge adopted in Germany.—Rules governing
the conduct of bordells.—Number of bordells in Europe.—Insignificant
as compared with the volume of prostitution.—Europe knows nothing of
“segregation.”—Segregation never successful.—Why the bordell is
dying out.—Houses of prostitution dependent on White Slave
Traffic.—Shameless exploitation of inmates.—Effort in Vienna to
prevent exploitation.—The bordell favorable to abnormality.—The
bordell and crime.—The bordell and street conditions.—Does the
bordell reduce other forms of prostitution?—The prostitute’s
domicile.
Strictly speaking, the bordell is a licensed or recognized house of
prostitution, the proprietor of which is entitled to carry on the
business for which the establishment is set up. At Brussels such houses
are licensed on payment of specific fees;[307] at Paris and Vienna they
are merely authorized—tolerated by the police, nominally as long as they
comply with certain stipulations; actually, as a rule, until the
property is demolished or the business becomes unprofitable.[308] The
inmates of the bordell are employees working on a percentage basis. The
proprietor boards and lodges them and requires of them practically any
service—normal or abnormal—that the whim of a patron may demand; in
return they receive—or are credited with—part of the receipts, usually
fifty per cent. Against this sum, theoretically theirs, are usually
charged clothing, perfumery, medicines, and other extras. Their cash
receipts are therefore a diminishing quantity. Exploitation of this
sort, though nowadays generally forbidden by the police regulations, it
is practically impossible to prevent, as we shall subsequently see; in
most instances, the authorities do not even try to prevent it.
To the licensing or toleration of outright houses of prostitution public
opinion in Europe has become increasingly hostile; at the present time,
it is permitted in France, Belgium, Austria-Hungary, and Italy; it is
forbidden in the German Empire, Holland, Switzerland,[309] Denmark,
Norway, Sweden, and Great Britain. In France and Austria, no further
concessions will under any circumstances be granted; whenever, and for
whatever reason, a bordell closes, the institution is by so much nearer
to extinction. The bordell is therefore not co-extensive with regulation
and the area open to it is constantly shrinking. On the other hand, it
is, as a matter of fact, more widespread than official accounts lead one
to suppose. For in many German cities, through the connivance or
compulsion of the police, establishments are found which are bordells in
everything but name. The statutes, indeed, expressly forbid their
existence in language the purport of which is unmistakable: “Whoever
furnishes an opportunity for immorality shall be punished as a
pander.”[310] This provision makes the outright licensing or recognition
of the bordell impossible, since the keeper would be at once liable to
criminal prosecution. In police jargon,[311] therefore, licensed or
authorized houses conducted by proprietors are non-existent in Germany.
They exist nevertheless. I have pointed out that the police dictate the
dwelling-houses of registered prostitutes; they thereby condone the
technical violation of law by the landlords or mistresses of those
dwellings where registered prostitutes are authorized or ordered by them
to live. If then several women are permitted or ordered to “board” at a
particular house, an establishment is set up that is a bordell in all
but name. Technically, the girls are boarders, going through the form of
paying a certain sum for food and lodging, while conducting their
business affairs as they please; as a matter of fact little effort is
made by the mistress or the inmates to keep up the make-believe. In
reference to this matter the police or other authorities vary in candor
and straightforwardness. “We have in Cologne no bordells and no bordell
streets,”[312] says one; a similar declaration was made in Parliament by
the member for Hamburg. But in their less technical moments the police
admit the practical truth; a high police official in Cologne stated to
me that while some of the houses are really boarding-houses, others are
really bordells; a similar admission was made in Frankfort.[313] The
author quoted above as declaring that there are no bordells in Cologne,
subsequently gives a list of streets in which “bordells are found.”[314]
A questionnaire was addressed by Frau Katharina Scheven to the municipal
authorities of 235 German cities in 1904, fourteen of which frankly
admitted, and about 200 denied, the existence of bordells: but of the
latter, twenty admit that there are so-called “bordell streets,” i. e.,
streets in various parts of the city in which bordells are found,
despite the fact that technically there are claimed to be none at
all.[315] Hamburg and Bremen are the most prominent examples of the
subterfuge practised by the police of certain German cities in this
matter. In different sections of the former there are “boarding-places”
to which the registered prostitute is “referred”; nor will she be
permitted to remain in the city unless she “boards” in one or another of
them, provided the police so require. Her “mistress” charges her for
rent and food. Nominally, the girl’s earnings are her own and the
mistress does not command her services.[316] As a matter of fact, the
visitor is greeted on entering by the madame and her girls,—precisely as
in a bordell; the place is notorious as a bordell; liquor is pressed
upon the guest’s attention and all partake,—just as in a bordell. The
girls exercise no freedom in selecting or submitting to their patrons.
They may be supposed to retain their earnings, paying only for what they
get; but in practice they have to use every possible device to conceal
from the mistress the amount received from their patrons—an unnecessary
precaution if the police theory were correct. Finally, the sums
ostensibly belonging to them are wiped out for the most part by “extras”
which they require or are cajoled into purchasing from or through the
so-called “landlady.” Similar establishments exist in Dresden, Cologne,
and Frankfort.[317]
In Bremen, the mistress on the premises is eliminated and the women
maintain a certain measure of independence. The twenty-five houses of
Helenenstrasse are divided into small flats, each of which is occupied
as a housekeeping apartment by a prostitute and her servant. The places
differ from bordells in the absence of a landlady, and of a general
meeting and drinking-room. But meeting, drinking, and indirect
exploitation take place nevertheless. The Bremen establishments differ
little in operation or, as we shall see, in outcome from the
conventional bordell. Despite this very common violation of the spirit
and intent of the law in Germany, it is interesting to observe that the
courts have by no means always protected the police in their
disingenuous procedure. In Heidelberg in the year 1907 three houses of
prostitution were closed, the court holding that the connivance of the
police did not affect the punishable character of the landlord’s
offence.[318]
Regulation applied to bordells or quasi-bordells aims to govern their
location, the number, age and medical inspection of inmates, the sale of
liquor, the money relations of mistress and girls, the maintenance of
order, and the extent to which inmates are privileged to appear on the
streets. We shall, for the present, omit everything pertaining to the
sanitary side, which will be discussed in the next chapter. On other
points, the stipulations are usually of a quite obvious character. The
maximum number of inmates, an accurate roll of whom must be kept, may
not exceed the police allowance; minors may not be employed as servants;
schoolboys are not to be admitted; police officers are to have entrance
at all times. In Vienna, bordell women are not allowed to seek patrons
on the street; the keepers are forbidden to sell liquor or to provide
music.[319] The proprietress in Paris is specifically warned of the
precarious tenure of her privilege, which will be terminated in case of
abuse, scandal, or infraction of the regulations;[320] she is also
pledged to enforce police regulations respecting the hours during which
inmates, being registered women, may patrol the streets, and to give
prompt information to inspectors regarding unusual occurrences.[321]
Inmates are forbidden to solicit at windows;[322] no attempt is made to
regulate the sale of alcohol or to prevent exploitation; nor can an
inmate decline to put herself at the disposal of any customer who
selects her, whatever his condition.[323] At Hamburg the authorities are
theoretically concerned to prohibit exploitation. On the second page of
the health record book, given to every inmate, the following
announcement is printed: “Should the ‘landlady’[324] endeavor to detain
an inmate on the ground of debts or loans, the girl is to make a
complaint to the physician who conducts the medical examination, in case
she cannot report to headquarters.” It is further provided that women
must promptly notify the police of change of residence or of absence
from town, permanent or transient; that they must not live or spend the
night in any house not approved by the police, consort with minors,
appear at doors or windows, or be found anywhere but in their dwellings
from 11 P. M. to 6 A. M. The Vienna stipulations concern themselves
particularly with the prevention of exploitation. Personal inspection on
the part of the district officer quarterly, on the part of the central
authorities semi-annually, is required. The inspection concerns itself
with the physical condition of the bordell, with its business conduct,
and other possible subjects of complaint.[325] The Budapest regulations
aim mainly to obstruct exploitation and to procure a measure of personal
freedom. It is explicitly stated that not less than one-fourth of the
girl’s earnings must belong to her and that the keeper may under no
circumstances involve her in debt for either necessaries or luxuries;
that she must be allowed to walk abroad “independently and alone” during
at least three hours a day, and an extra half day once a week; finally,
no hindrance must be placed in the way of her going to church.[326] The
Brussels regulation—to take one more example—applicable to tolerated
houses provides that no married woman shall be permitted to open such an
establishment without her husband’s consent;[327] that such houses must
not be located in busy streets or in proximity to schools, public
buildings, or “edifices consecrated to worship”;[328] “that there must
be no common hall or room for the sale of liquor;”[329] that an
inventory of the girl’s possessions be made in duplicate on her
entrance, to the end that she may know what she is entitled to on
leaving.[330]
The following table portrays the present European situation in respect
to the existence of bordells or quasi-bordells,—their number, location,
number of inmates in connection with the number of inscribed
prostitutes, and the estimated number of non-inscribed prostitutes; it
includes only those cities which I myself visited.
City No.
inscribed
prostitutes Estimated
No. houses not living total number
of No. of in houses of of
prostitution How located inmates prostitution prostitutes
Paris 47 Scattered 387 6,000 50,000–60,000
Vienna 6 Scattered 50–60 1,630 30,000
Hamburg On 8
scattered
113 streets 780 155
Budapest 13 Scattered 260–300 2,000
Dresden On 32
different
81 streets 293[331] Few
Frankfort 100
10 Scattered (about) 188
Cologne[332] 98 Scattered 194 500 6,000[333]
Geneva 17 Scattered 86 None
Rome Over 5,000
known to
22 Scattered 125 100 police
Brussels Over 3,000
known to
6 Scattered 37 145 police
Stuttgart 10 Scattered 22 None
Bremen 25 One street 75 None [334]
Stockholm On 6
scattered
30 streets[335] 98 228
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Other towns make the same kind of showing:[336]
City Population No. of Bordells No. of inmates
Augsburg 89,770 3 12
Fürth 54,882 4 16
Reichenbach 28,498 2 7
Worms 28,624 2 14–16
A careful study of the data above given discloses a number of important
points. In the first place, omissions are significant. The bordell is
altogether non-existent in certain countries, and has been suppressed in
many large cities, though other towns in the same countries still permit
its existence. In Germany, for example, Berlin and Munich have no
bordells such as are found elsewhere in Germany. But the most striking
fact is the insignificance of the number of bordell inmates as compared
with the number of professional prostitutes. The number is on its face
too small to play any part in the management of the general problem.
Indeed, it is trifling even as compared with the number of inscribed
prostitutes, except in the few towns that actually or practically limit
inscription to bordell inmates.[337] The vast majority of prostitutes
live untouched by police control; the vast majority of the inscribed
prostitutes in Europe live scattered, not in houses of prostitution.
Some 40,000 prostitutes in Paris are wholly free of police control; of
the 6,000 registered women of the city, 5,575 live with police consent
as individuals here, there, and everywhere; the remaining 387 live in
forty bordells situated in almost as many different streets. Of 1,689
women inscribed in Vienna, 1,630 live where they please, the regulations
expressly stating: “In so far as a prostitute possesses a dwelling-place
not shared by other prostitutes, she is not to be restricted in her
choice of a location any more than is absolutely necessary;”[338] the
remainder, something between 50 and 60, occupy six bordells located in
different sections of the city; less than one-third of Stockholm’s
registered prostitutes are quartered in its scattered bordells, and the
registered prostitutes are as everywhere else but a fraction of the
whole number. The limitation of inscription to bordell inmates at
Stuttgart and Bremen is of course a step on the way to complete
abandonment of regulation. Only rarely do even the police put forward a
more favorable interpretation, as, e. g., in Geneva, where, with 86
women interned in bordells, I was gravely assured that not above forty
non-inscribed women strolled the streets. In company with an English
physician, I counted twenty unmistakable women between the acts at the
Kursaal that evening; at midnight, standing at a corner of the Place des
Alpes, we observed forty more in the course of a few minutes.
The table above given disposes once and for all of “segregation.”
Segregation in the sense of an attempt to confine the prostitutes of a
city or even the majority of them to a single locality or even to a few
definite localities is not undertaken in any European city from Budapest
to Glasgow. Waiving all objections and assuming plenary and summary
police power such as exists, it is obviously easier to inscribe them
than to confine them. If, as is the case, they cannot be caught and
inscribed, how are they to be caught and segregated? European cities,
having universally failed in the attempt to inscribe prostitution,
necessarily refrain from any endeavor to segregate any considerable part
of it. Nay, more, no European city succeeds even so far as to confine to
bordells or bordell quarters even the inscribed part of the prostitute
army which has been expressly ordered to stay there. “They do not
succeed in Hamburg, Nürnberg, Altona, Mainz, and Leipzig, in confining
prostitutes to houses or to a row of streets. Even inscribed
prostitution breaks away from the streets and the houses to which it is
directed by the police,”[339]—a police, be it added, with summary power
to have its way.
Segregation is therefore impracticable; more than this, any attempt to
bring it about is also recognized to be inadvisable. In the first place,
the impossibility of thoroughness creates an obvious opportunity for
police corruption; a woman who objects to being segregated may for an
adequate consideration induce the police to overlook her; and as
hundreds are bound to be overlooked anyway, the chances of detecting
fraud are slender. Again, a segregated quarter would give to vice the
greatest possible prominence. Finally, it would expose to moral
contagion those who are already most imperilled and whom every
consideration of interest and decency should impel society to
protect—the children of the poor. For the segregated quarter will
inevitably be located where rents are low and where the neighbors have
least influence. Objection to bordells on the part of those living in
the vicinity is, moreover, becoming increasingly louder: “Urgent
requests on the part of the public for the closing of the houses are
becoming more frequent,” says the head of the morals police of Budapest
in his last report. A few months ago, the police of Frankfort endeavored
to placate neighborhood sentiment by ordering the transfer of certain
scattered bordells to a single street adjoining the railroad. A storm of
public indignation led to the speedy abandonment of the proposal,
although fifteen houses had already been bought on speculation for the
purpose.[340]
To what is said above as to the non-existence of segregation in Europe,
Hamburg and Bremen are sometimes said to be exceptions; not infrequently
they are described as having segregated prostitution. Such is not the
case. In both these cities inscribed prostitution is—as everywhere
else—limited, and decreasing in relative importance. In Hamburg the
bordells forced into existence by the police are found, not in a
segregated quarter, but in at least eight different streets scattered
through the town; and six of the eight streets contain houses in which
prostitutes do not reside and are not permitted to reside. But the case
is less favorable to segregation than even the foregoing statement
represents; for not even all inscribed prostitutes live on the eight
streets in question; and the non-inscribed do in Hamburg what they do
everywhere else,—quarter themselves wherever they can.
Nor is the example of Bremen any more favorable to the feasibility of
segregation. There the entire registered list is indeed confined to one
street,—Helenenstrasse; but the separation of seventy-five women or less
in a seaport town in which hundreds of prostitutes live scattered
through the city is assuredly not “segregation.” Nor was Helenenstrasse
itself a deliberate move towards segregation. A contractor had built up
the street with twenty-six little apartment houses as a speculation in
1878,—the year of a panic in the building trade. Facing ruin, as the
houses could not be rented, he accepted the chance suggestion of a
police official that the rooms be let to prostitutes. The historian of
the incident writes: “Since that time,—more than thirty
years—notwithstanding many efforts, this step has never been repeated.
As every inhabitant knows, only a fraction of the prostitution of Bremen
utilizes this street,—altogether insufficient for the existing volume of
the traffic.”[341] Helenenstrasse is therefore perhaps the strongest
argument in Europe against the feasibility of the policy in support of
which it is mistakenly cited.
In passing, it is interesting and significant to observe that the
impracticability of effective segregation is not new. Medieval
regulation ordered the prostitute into a bordell or forced her to wear a
costume which proclaimed her occupation. The bordells were preferably
located on the periphery of the town in the vicinity of the city gate,
i. e., in what purported to be a segregated district. Now, medieval
prostitution was indeed characteristically a bordell prostitution: a
hamlet of from two to four hundred inhabitants had its bordell; and the
number of licensed bordells kept pace with the increase of population.
We may be sure that, having undertaken to force prostitution into
bordells, and having undertaken to force bordells into a localized
quarter, medieval authority was none too tenderly or cautiously applied;
fear of error did not paralyze the official arm. Yet the policy failed!
The researches of Bloch leave absolutely no doubt on this point.[342]
“Despite the fact that municipal authorities endeavored to confine
prostitution to municipally controlled and administered bordells and
legislated severely against prostitutes living elsewhere, nevertheless
the number of scattered prostitutes was very large,—perhaps larger than
of those living in houses. In contrast with the bordell women, they were
called clandestine,—but this does not mean that there was the least
doubt as to their trade.”[343] At times the clandestines—in the sense
here indicated—lived on the very streets on which bordells were
situated, yet refused to be coerced into them; again, they
lodged—sometimes several together—with a landlady who operated a brothel
which the authorities were unable to change into a controlled bordell. A
policy that failed in the relatively small medieval town, where it
encountered no hostile sentiment and could ride rough-shod over personal
privilege, can hardly be successfully carried out in a modern
metropolis, in the face of strong ethical objection and exaggerated
sensitiveness at any invasion of individual liberty,—not to mention the
complications created by mere quantitative increase.
If the table—to which we now return—is examined from an historic point
of view, it becomes clear that the bordell is rapidly losing ground. The
bordell is at this date illegal in Great Britain, Switzerland (except
Geneva), Holland, Denmark, Norway, and the German Empire, though in many
German towns, as I have pointed out, a subterfuge exists; in almost all
these countries it was once an acknowledged institution. In towns in
which its existence does not violate law, it is rapidly disappearing,
even though in some places the authorities favor its maintenance and
extension. Neither Paris, Vienna, Stuttgart, nor Frankfort will
authorize the opening of a new bordell; they all look forward to a time
in the near future when those still surviving will succumb to adverse
sentiment and decreasing receipts,—the causes of which I shall shortly
explain. Hamburg, where the police still strongly favor the bordell and
utilize all their tremendous power in its favor, has seen the total
number of inmates decrease from 1,050 in 1876 to 780 in 1910,—despite
the doubling of population in the same period; three houses authorized
to contain 12 girls apiece were found to harbor 2, 3, and 6
respectively. Budapest,[344] like Hamburg, prefers the bordell, and once
maintained from 50 to 60 bordells, with 600 to 700 women; only 13, with
250 inmates, survive, despite the encouraging attitude of the
authorities. The most elaborate establishment in the city, authorized to
receive 21 girls, had at the date of my visit only 7. In Brussels there
were 7 bordells, containing 66 women, in 1890; six houses, with 37
inmates, in 1910.[345] But most striking of all are the Paris records:
with 235 bordells, containing 1,450 women in 1841 (population
1,200,000), as recently as 1888 there were 69 tolerated houses, with 772
inmates; in 1903 there remained 47 houses, with 387 inmates:[346]
population had meanwhile increased to 2,800,000. At the last named date,
6,031 inscribed women were living in scattered lodgings. The following
table exhibits the relation between inscribed prostitutes living in
lodgings and those interned in the bordells of Paris:
Year Enrolled Living in bordells Living scattered
1872 4,242 1,126 3,116
1882 2,839 1,116 1,723
1892 5,004 596 4,408
1903 6,418 387 6,031
The rest of France shows the same development in progress: Amiens had 13
houses of prostitution in 1880, none in 1895; Havre 34 in 1875, 9 in
1895; 75 bordells in Lyons in 1840 shrank to 17 in 1895; 125 in
Marseilles in 1873 were reduced to 12 in 1899; 31 in Nantes (1855) to 12
in 1896; 60 at Bordeaux (1869) to 16 in 1906.[347] At Rome, the 22
authorized houses were said at the time of my visit to contain some 125
inmates; none had its full authorized complement: a huge establishment,
with a capacity of 18, had 5 inmates; another, with capacity of 12, had
7; others, authorized to harbor 10 women, contained 4, 5, and 6
respectively.[348]
The causes responsible for the decay of the bordell will explain why the
bordell cannot be re-introduced, even though it were an efficacious
device for the maintenance of public order and decency and for the
diminution of disease,—points that still remain to be discussed. The
bordell prospered as long as its management was uncontrolled; its decay
set in the moment public sentiment required the slightest deference to
the dictates of humanity. For, in the first place, the bordell can be
tenanted only through the exertions of the trafficker. A few hopeless
wretches, whose independent career is over, may of their own accord seek
its food and shelter; but these are precisely the women whom the
management accepts only under pressure of necessity. Young and
attractive inmates are desired,—innocent, or, at least, beginners. Prior
to their suppression in Zurich, 60% of the inmates of its 18 bordells
had not completed their seventeenth year![349] The fact that there are
more bordells in Hamburg than experience elsewhere would lead us to
expect may be due not only to police preference, but to the fact that
inscribed minors are permitted—perhaps even forced—to enter them. Now
these eagerly desired youthful recruits are procurable as a rule only
through traffickers; the bordell therefore prospers only where
trafficking prospers. In the heyday of this infamous business, victims
were brought into the large European cities by every species of fraud
and imposition, only to find themselves imprisoned in bordells until
thoroughly broken to the trade. Thus the houses of Paris were filled
with girls enticed from their homes in the departments of the Somme and
the Rhône, or Paris itself; the bordells of Vienna and Budapest with
victims from Posen and Galicia. The local traffic in young girls, as I
have already explained, has now been largely broken up; the European
police, responding to the quick and vigorous development of humane
interest characteristic of recent years, have taken steps which
practically deprive the bordell of youth,—its most attractive asset.
Girls under 21 are as a rule no longer permitted to become inmates; at
Budapest even the bordell servant must have reached the age of forty.
The mistress whose memory goes back to a less scrupulous era is in no
doubt as to the main causes of the hard times on which her lot has now
fallen: “Something young and fresh is nowadays no longer to be
had,”[350] remarked the candid madame of a Budapest bordell.
An outside proof that the bordell is necessarily associated with
trafficking in girls may not be amiss in this connection. The
trafficker, avoiding the aroused continental police, seeks a remote and
less perilous market. The great European cities, in which he can no
longer carry on with impunity a trade in young or innocent girls, can at
the most be utilized as way stations on the journey to Rio Janeiro or
Buenos Aires; in the latter city, 192 well-known bordells, with 1,022
inmates of different nationalities, are found; 95 of them Russian
establishments with 532 girls, 17 Italian establishments with 92
inmates, 22 French houses with 136 girls.[351] The victims whose obscure
trail is traceable from Galicia through Vienna and Berlin to Hamburg,
Rotterdam, or London, are nowadays discovered in the brothels of a South
American city, instead of in those of Hamburg, Brussels, or Paris.
Meanwhile, though the European bordell can no longer be recruited with
the young, the trafficker’s business has not been completely stamped
out; nor can it be until the last recognized bordell is exterminated.
The reduced scope within which madame and trafficker operate makes it
all the more important to do the best possible under the
circumstances,—to make as attractive a showing as possible and to keep
the women moving: hence, redoubled efforts to fill orders for women of
the various types required by the different establishments and to
conduct a chain of houses so that a certain amount of novelty can be
introduced into the trade. An inspection of police records discloses the
fact that women remain on the average only a few weeks in a given house.
Through the 13 bordells of Teplitz-Schönau, Bohemia, between January 1,
1909 and July 30, 1910, 550 inmates passed: one of the bordells,
operating with two girls, had 65 different inmates during this period of
18 months.[352] In the Zurich bordells, 85% of the inmates changed
within 5 months, 63% within 2 months.[353] In the white slave bureau of
one large European police establishment, I was shown a huge list of
persons suspected or already convicted of trafficking in girls. The
traffic in youth has been hampered; but a traffic in women still
remains—a traffic which, though it will not restore prosperity to the
bordell, is absolutely dependent for its existence on the prolonged life
of the house of prostitution. I have repeatedly quoted with respect the
words of Dr. Baumgarten of Vienna; on this point, his opinion is
absolutely unmistakable: “The bordell is inseparable from the traffic in
girls,” he declared to me. Bloch’s investigations are tersely
summarized: “Without bordells, no white slave traffic.”[354]
A notorious instance of the manner in which alone a bordell can be
successfully conducted is furnished by the so-called “Riehl case”
uncovered in Vienna in 1906. The woman conducted an establishment
containing 20 girls and paid an annual rental of 10,000 kronen ($2,000).
A large number of persons were employed to procure recruits,—old women
and young boys, offering good places in domestic service to young girls
who, having come to Vienna, found difficulty in securing work.
Employment agencies directed to Madame Riehl young and friendless
applicants. Suspicion was never aroused in the victim’s mind, for the
door bore a plate marked “Riehl’s Dressmaking Salon.” The behavior of
the madame varied: now, she made no concealment of the nature of her
business; again, she hired the newcomer as a servant, certain that
before long she would yield to the demoralization of the place. Minors
were registered at police headquarters as of full age, or forged
documents testified to the consent of the parents or guardians. The
girls lived as prisoners, so cowed by the treatment they received and so
utterly demoralized by their way of life that they made no effort to
recover their freedom even if opportunity offered.[355]
The conscience of those authorities who are still willing to tolerate
bordells, provided girls are not involuntarily forced into them, has
revolted on another point, viz., the exploitation of the women by the
keepers. For the bordell is a business. Though theoretically only a
convenient place for the gratification of uncontrollable desire, it is
practically an establishment so conducted as to fill the pockets of the
owners, the inmates being forced to receive the maximum number of guests
that can be obtained, after which they are victimized out of their
earnings on every conceivable pretext.[356]
Recent alterations in the police regulations seek to protect the bordell
women against exploitation; but no amount of menace or oversight
suffices to procure the enforcement of the simplest precautionary
regulations. One of the most disgusting aspects of bordell life is the
forced consumption of alcohol; the customer on entering is plied with
drink, and of course the inmates share; conviviality is procured by
general and continuous indulgence in beer, wine, and champagne. In order
to prevent complete physical disorganization on the part of the women
and to restrict the commerce in volume, the sale or use of liquor is
forbidden in the bordells of Brussels, Altona, Hamburg, Stuttgart,
Bremen, and other cities. But it goes on openly and flagrantly,
nevertheless. An Altona madame candidly admitted to me the reason: “The
business couldn’t be carried on otherwise.”[357] In the bordells of
Stockholm, champagne costing 2½ crowns a bottle is sold to guests for 15
and the “girls are made to aid in the consumption as much as possible,
so as to increase the profits.”[358]
The fact is that if the police wish or are willing to maintain bordells,
they cannot refuse to tolerate some of the conditions on which alone it
is worth while for the keepers to conduct them. In Vienna, Budapest,
Dresden, and elsewhere, minute specifications attempt to regulate the
charges which may be levied on the girls by the keepers. But the girl is
completely exploited nevertheless: for exorbitant prices are charged for
necessities, and extras—forbidden or not—usually swallow the remainder.
In the most wretched establishments of Altona, the minimum charge for
board and lodging is reckoned at 75 marks a week; at Stockholm, a girl
pays 5 crowns a day for board,—and various sums for “extras,”—an
“unreasonable sum,”[359] in Johansson’s judgment. The Dresden police
name 8 to 15 marks a day—the latter sum itself enough to procure
accommodations at a first-rate hotel; the girl is actually charged 15 to
18, and if anything is left to her credit it is absorbed by way of
paying for cosmetics, clothes, shoes, etc. The kind landlady is the
intermediary between girls and merchants in a series of transactions
which somehow always leave the girls penniless and amply reimburse the
landlady for her intervention. Frau Scheven related to me the story of a
young girl for whom she had procured admission to a hospital, where in
the course of her recovery the girl decided to abandon her licentious
life. When her benefactress applied to the bordell for her clothes, she
was informed that there were none; and only threats of calling the
police extorted a few meager rags—the sole asset after months of
service, despite the minute prescriptions of the authorities, aiming to
check the rapacity of the keepers.
At Vienna a more serious effort in this direction is now made. A
periodical survey by the ranking officials of the morals bureau is
required,—the director himself as a rule being one of the party. I
possess transcripts of two reports made on a Vienna bordell. The
inspecting party included the division chief, the head of the medical
service, and one or two others of lower rank. The roll was called and
every inmate accounted for; thereupon the inmates were separately
interviewed, especially with a view to ascertaining whether their
personal freedom had been interfered with or whether they had complaints
to make in respect to exploitation. On the first inspection, the women
unanimously declared and proved, that despite the prospect of this
official review, they had been swindled out of all their earnings, even
including such incidental gratuities as they had received from visitors;
that their food was inedible, and that bed-linen was changed only once a
month. The authorities thereupon threatened the closing of the
establishment unless conditions were at once improved. Revised
regulations became effective before the next inspection, at which time
it appeared that each inmate paid something over five dollars a day for
board and lodging (26 kronen), beyond which their earnings belonged to
them; the earnings of the preceding night ran from $10 (50 kronen) to
$30 (150 kronen) apiece. The food had improved in quality, but the
condition of the linen and towels still left much to be desired. Three
of the inmates were badly bruised. The keeper was again warned that
sanitary conditions must be improved. To hinder the crassest
exploitation and to secure the most elemental cleanliness, the highest
officials,—physicians and jurists of university training—had to make a
personal inspection; even then, 6 brothels, containing from 50 to 60
women, could not be kept entirely acceptable. Were brothels more
numerous in Vienna, it would be absolutely impossible to utilize
officers of high rank and spotless personal and professional character
for this sordid duty; if delegated to others, a source of corruption and
abuse would be created. Hence, though rules against exploitation and in
favor of decency are promulgated, successful efforts to enforce them are
practically nowhere encountered.
Though its heyday is over, the bordell can, however, still be made to
pay, if the authorities are disposed to condone exploitation. At the
bare suggestion that a new bordell street would be created in Frankfort,
15 houses in the proposed street were promptly bought up at extravagant
prices;[360] the houses in Helenenstrasse, Bremen, valued at 327,000
marks, cost their present owner 585,000 marks;[361] a tumbledown
medieval hovel, long utilized as a bordell in Stuttgart, was recently
sold for 60,000 marks to a “dummy” purchaser. Shortly after the
transaction, the police, heeding neighborhood complaints, decreed the
closing of the establishment; whereupon they were bitterly reproached
for summary violation of an implied contract.[362] Paris transactions
are naturally on a far higher scale: 200,000 and 300,000 francs have
changed hands for a single business.[363] Another establishment earned
70,000 francs for its owners in a single year. Like all profitable
enterprise in this generation, efficiency and economy have been still
more highly developed through organization; of 31 immoral resorts
“situated in the zone of the Champs-Élysées, near the Arc, the majority
belong to the same managers.”[364]
Fortunately other causes conspire with the suppression of the white
slave traffic and increased control over the internal management of the
bordell to bring about its decline. Taste has changed. “The public has
lost its appetite for officially designated resorts, with their large
numbers, closed shutters, colored windows, visited nowadays usually by
strangers, provincials, and soldiers; the trade inclines rather to
houses of rendezvous, where greater discretion is practised and where,
with a little imagination, one is conscious of an air of
adventure.”[365] The women, too, are filled with the desire to enjoy
their own freedom. They prefer the reckless abandon of the streets, the
cafés, and the theaters. Under these circumstances, the girls who are
still found in bordells are as a rule the failures and the wrecks, with
too little spirit or attractiveness to make an independent success.
In accounting for the decline of the bordell, I have inevitably touched
on the objections to be urged against its further tolerance. The
European bordell has in the first place declined because its recruitment
through young victims has been largely broken up, and because the most
flagrant forms of exploitation no longer prevail entirely unhindered.
But other equally good reasons for the suppression of the bordell may be
cited. The bordell is a veritable school of abnormality. The Paris
bordells are elaborately equipped for every conceivable form of perverse
indulgence. The inmates compete with one another in forcing upon the
youthful customer the knowledge of unnatural and artificial forms of
sexual gratification.[366] Similar excesses are practised
elsewhere,—indeed wherever the bordell is found. The Swedish women told
Dr. Lindblad that “the girl-house is the main seat of perversity; soon,”
they added, “Stockholm will be as bad as Paris.”[367] The infamous
implements employed are in full view as one enters the apartments in
Helenenstrasse. The degradation of the bordell inmate is total;[368] her
rehabilitation well-nigh impossible. She fares far worse than the
street-walker, who sometimes returns to an orderly manner of life.
Finally, cautious as the keeper may be not to deserve the suspicion of
the police, the bordells, especially those of lower grade, are
everywhere in close touch with certain classes of criminals. Between the
lowest class of criminals and the corresponding class of prostitutes
intimate relations subsist.[369] To the low class resort the lawbreaker
betakes himself; there the outlaw receives sympathy and shelter. It is
occasionally alleged that the reverse is true: that the bordell-keepers
turn the lawbreaker over to the police, assisting the authorities in
discovering criminals. But the Dutch police, who have tried and
discarded the bordell system and who, like other police with the same
experience, would under no conditions countenance its reintroduction,
are of a different mind. “Did the bordell-keepers assist you in the
detection of criminals?” I asked. “Oh, yes,” was the reply, “after they
realized that we already knew.”
So much for the inner side of the bordell; it remains to inquire into
its influence on external order.
It is claimed that the bordell, by providing an ascertainable, if not
well known, resort for immoral women and their customers removes scandal
and suggestion from the public highways. Let us consider the argument in
the light of the table already given. The bordell can at most interfere
with the promenading and soliciting of the women interned in it; it
cannot reduce the prominence of non-inscribed women, or of inscribed
women living at large and expressly authorized by the police to walk all
but a few streets. The existence of 47 bordells, with 387 inmates, in
Paris does not interfere with the promenading of perhaps 50,000
unregistered prostitutes or of 6,000 registered, but scattered,
prostitutes; the existence at Brussels of six brothels, with 37 inmates,
does not restrain 145 other registered prostitutes, resident elsewhere,
nor the several thousand non-registered women who live where they
please. The facts thus show that the pressure on the streets is nowhere
relieved by the herding of a few women—and the herding of more is
impracticable. Between Paris and Berlin there is no difference
observable: the former has bordells, the latter lacks them. The streets
of Hamburg with bordells are no better than those of Rotterdam without
them, and are distinctly inferior to those of Liverpool and Amsterdam,
both without them. Zurich without bordells is externally much more
orderly than Geneva with them. If the bordell played any part in the
maintenance of decent street conditions, cities like Berlin, Munich, and
Zurich—where there are no bordells—would be worse off than Paris,
Hamburg, or Stuttgart; or the former would require some extraordinary
agency not needed where bordells exist; as a matter of fact, the cities
in question are not worse and they neither require nor possess any
unusual machinery.
What can be more clearly decisive on this point than the fact that just
at the time of my visit to Geneva, the chief of the department of
justice and police, in consequence of “frequent complaints, named a
special committee charged with the duty of devising means to put an
end”[370] to the sort of vagabondage we are considering? As a matter of
fact, coincidentally with the gradual extinction of the bordell, general
street conditions have improved throughout Europe; and the few towns
whose streets are strikingly free from prostitutes are without exception
towns in which neither regulation nor the bordell exists. The bordell is
not the controlling factor; police, courts, public opinion decide; and
police, courts, and public opinion are likely to be most vigorously in
favor of clean streets in communities that do not recognize prostitution
as a legitimate livelihood.
But, more: the bordell does not necessarily or usually remove its own
inmates from the streets! The women cannot be caged; current tendency is
in just the reverse direction. The Budapest authorities, for example,
regard with horror the “inhumanity” of the Bremen restrictions. Bordell
women are becoming more and more free to come and go as they please; on
other terms they are increasingly reluctant to enter the bordell at all.
Moreover, when business lags—as indeed it tends to do—they go forth to
find patrons on the streets,—for grist must be provided for the ever
active mill. At Dresden, the courteous official who escorted me through
the bordells, explained that it would be useless to start on our round
of visits before midnight,—for the women would all be “out.” I walked
through several of the 32 streets on which bordells exist in the earlier
hours of the evening; from some houses the inmates were just emerging in
striking costumes, to others women were already returning, accompanied
by the prey picked up on the streets, in the cafés, and elsewhere. The
bordell does not, therefore, reduce street scandal even to the extent of
the number of its inmates.
Meanwhile, though the bordell does not relieve the general
thoroughfares, it tends strongly to local scandal and disorder in its
own quarter. The eight bordell streets of Hamburg lie for the most part
close to busy streets in the heart of the city. Except in the forenoon,
when the women are sleeping off the dissipation of the previous night,
shocking scenes are observed. The pedestrian who in the afternoon
inadvertently stumbles into the Schwiegergasse is greeted from window,
vestibule, and doorstep by a volley of invitations; scantily clad women
solicit his attention from the street door in broad daylight. The dark
narrow passages in Cologne, notorious for brothels, are filled with a
procession of reckless boys and half-intoxicated men on the verge of
surrender to temptation. A beating rain did not empty the bordell
streets of Altona, or drive indoors the lightly clad women who called
out the superior attractions of their competing establishments; at
Bremen, in the summer evening, the interned women forbidden to solicit
on the street, approached all passers-by and endeavored in every
imaginable way to entice them into their barracks,—“just for a glass of
beer,” if nothing else. A recent writer, describing conditions in
Frankfort, remarks that “the presence of the policeman does not hinder
even unmistakable and utterly shameless prostitution of minors in the
Rosengasse and Metzgergasse,”[371]—two of the streets in which bordells
are found. In a few instances only,—Budapest and Rome, for example, I
encountered no street disorder in the vicinity of recognized houses of
prostitution.
From the preceding account, it is clear that the case for regulation on
the side of public order is not strengthened by the bordell. Not
infrequently, however, it is argued that, whatever be the situation in
inland towns, the seaport has reasons of its own for requiring the
existence of bordells; without it, drunken sailors of many nationalities
will throng the highways, insulting women and imperilling children. This
kind of argument is not new; I was told by a high official in Paris that
no woman was safe from insult in the streets of Zurich, now that the
bordells had been suppressed. Both statements are equally without basis.
Rotterdam is well-nigh as important a seaport as Hamburg; its streets
suffer nothing by comparison; the streets of Liverpool are at the moment
the cleanest of all. Once more, the bordell is, to say the best for it,
immaterial.
Nor can it even be claimed for the bordell that it lessens other forms
of prostitution. Side by side with it flourish the “Animierkneipe,”
advertising “weekly change of service,” the cabaret, dance hall, café,
cheap lodging-house, the concealed bordell, the _rendezvous_, the
_maison de passe_,—all engaged, as the bordell is engaged, not in
satisfying normal desire, but in arousing, inflaming, and perverting
lust, while at the same time thrusting upon the victim’s attention
accessible means for its gratification. Rome possesses besides 20-odd
authorized bordells, 235—perhaps more—unauthorized houses of
prostitution, well known to the police. I was escorted by an officer to
houses of both types and observed no difference beyond a somewhat
greater nervousness on the part of the keepers of the latter; Geneva
abounds in irregular lodging-houses and _maisons de passe_, lists of
which have been even furnished by anti-regulationists to the police,
without result; Amsterdam reports that it had more clandestine brothels
during the time when bordells were licensed than are to be found now
that they have been suppressed. At Paris, with bordells—as in London,
without them—every imaginable subterfuge is employed in the effort to
carry on surreptitious prostitution: chambers are advertised, foreign
language lessons announced, art objects, pearls, dressmaking, massage,
bibelots employed as baits for the curious.[372] The bordell does not
really affect this situation at all.
Discovering, however, that bordell prostitution is disappearing, the
police of Paris and Budapest are endeavoring to maintain their grip by
authorizing or permitting _rendezvous_ establishments. At Paris, these
establishments may be opened without police permit and will not be
disturbed as long as they comply with a few simple police orders, e. g.,
admitting only inscribed women or at least women regularly examined by a
physician agreeable to the police.[373] They have increased in number
from 64, with 235 women regularly in attendance, in 1900, to 243, with
770 women attached, in 1908.[374] A somewhat similar policy is pursued
in Budapest, where the police tolerate without interference the “hotel
garni” with 20 to 50 rooms, which admits only inscribed women on showing
their certificates, sells no alcoholic beverages, provides every room
with water, towels, etc., and allows no guest to remain longer than
twelve hours; these hotels are regularly visited and inspected by the
authorities. Similarly, the _maison de passe_ is recognized,—usually an
apartment of five to eight rooms, where towards six in the evening one
finds 5 to 10 girls seated around the dining-room table, sewing or
rouging while waiting for customers to drop in. But these substitutes
for the bordell are as futile as the bordell itself; police recognition
of authorized places of _rendezvous_ does not diminish in any wise the
number of hotels surreptitiously utilized for the same purpose. In
Budapest, despite the vigorous police policy, there are as many
unauthorized hotels engaged in the business as there have ever been; and
Paris is notorious for the abundance of uncontrolled resorts. The
explanation is easy. Neither the girl nor her customer desires to submit
to the stigma and notoriety involved in resorting to an authorized house
of any kind; the same motive that leads them to avoid the bordell leads
them to evade the authorized _rendezvous_. In any event, only controlled
women can resort to a controlled establishment; uncontrolled
establishments continue to command the trade of non-inscribed women,—who
always and everywhere enormously preponderate.
Could the futility and impossibility of regulation be more clearly
exhibited? The police of Paris, Budapest, and Vienna offer the woman
every facility for the easy and unimpeded prosecution of her trade,
provided only she will submit to inscription: bordells, if she pleases;
a private lodging, if she prefers; or, if neither of these is agreeable,
hotels discreetly conducted in accessible localities, where the police
will never trouble her or her customers. In return, the authorities ask
only that she register her name, nominally submit to a few restrictions,
and undergo medical examination at intervals. Yet not even on these
favorable terms can a considerable body of women be induced to submit.
Meanwhile, whatever may be said for the bordell as a possible way of
removing prostitutes from the street, the _rendezvous_ house, now
cultivated to take its place, operates in the directly contrary fashion;
for the couples resorting to it generally meet and strike their bargains
in the streets.
There is perhaps another point of view from which the bordell must be
considered. Whatever opinion one may form as to the ultimate fate of
prostitution in civilized society, unquestionably it must, like certain
other social evils, be reckoned with as a phenomenon to be dealt with as
part of the day’s work. I have pointed out that European opinion is
moving towards the conclusion that, for the present, third party
exploitation, overt and offensive manifestation, are aspects with which
our social and governmental instrumentalities are most likely to cope
effectively. The pimp, the bordell-keeper, the prostitute herself—when
her conduct scandalizes—with these the ordinary resources of a
well-managed municipality are increasingly competent to deal. Clearly,
however, we are thus left with the prostitute herself on our hands,—with
the prostitute, I mean, who is vicious, not criminal, leading her own
life, reprehensible of course, but without unnecessary offence to
others. In reference to this type of woman—the type, in other words,
that survives even a successful war on third parties—the first question
that arises is this: where shall she live? For even the inconspicuous
and well-behaved prostitute is a peril, inasmuch as she is a constant
and inevitable source of moral contagion,—particularly objectionable, of
course, in close contact with children and working girls. The bordell
represents one effort to solve the domicile problem, by isolation, just
as infectious disease is isolated. The analogy to disease fails,
however, for two reasons: first, because isolation is usually resisted
by the prostitute; second, because the prominence that vice obtains
through bordells—be they many or few—far outweighs any good attainable
through the forced isolation of those who can be interned. Other
positive efforts to regulate the domicile of the prostitute have also
been made,—so far, without success. The German law, as I have already
stated, forbids the professional prostitute any lodging at all; but the
law has broken down, first, because the vagrant prostitute is most
objectionable of all; second, because the statute is enforced only in
flagrant cases of abuse; third, because it is in conflict with the
regulation system in common use.
Budapest approaches the problem differently. There bordells house a fair
number; the rest are free to live where they please, provided they give
no offence. Authorized places of _rendezvous_ are provided as above
stated, in the hope that women will thus be induced to transact business
elsewhere than in their homes. In the event, however, that a woman
persists in bringing customers to her apartment, decent tenants are in
position to protect themselves through the following enactment: “Any
tenant has the right to forbid a prostitute to continue to occupy rooms
in the house where he lives, if, before he himself moved in, he was not
told that prostitutes live in the same house; should prostitutes move in
subsequently, the tenant may dislodge them by complaining to the police.
No tenant need endure the presence of prostitutes in the building where
he resides; no tenant can be obligated to remain in a house where
prostitutes live unless he knew the fact when he made his lease. The
landlord is obligated to tell prospective tenants the truth without
being asked. If the landlord on the tenant’s demand does not evict a
prostitute, the tenant may break the lease and demand damages. These
provisions apply also to apartments used for _rendezvous_.”[375]
How far this excellent law has affected the situation it is difficult to
tell. Its enforcement against non-registered women is difficult, to say
the least. Besides, the poor can easily be quieted by favors or
concessions. I was therefore not surprised to see children playing in
the courtyard and on the steps of houses in Budapest to which
prostitutes could be observed to be returning in the company of men;
prominent _rendezvous_ apartments were visited in large buildings
tenanted mainly by families of the working-class. Neither regulation in
general nor the bordell in particular has thus succeeded in solving the
dwelling problem. This has been frankly recognized in the revised Vienna
regulations which abandon all effort to deal with the question;
paragraph 12, previously quoted, enjoining the least possible
interference with the free choice of a dwelling-place on the part of a
prostitute who lives alone.[376]
I have throughout this chapter considered the bordell mainly as a factor
in the program of regulation. It is from the standpoint of order
evidently futile. But from another standpoint it is worse than futile.
The bordell gives to sexual vice its most prominent advertisement. By
working on the curiosity of the young and of strangers—its main patrons,
by the way—it substantially increases demand; by requiring constant
service of its inmates, it virtually increases supply. It is therefore
absolutely at war with sound public policy which aims to reduce
both—certainly to avoid their gratuitous increase. Finally, the bordell
is the most flagrant instance of exploitation for the benefit of third
parties, which modern feeling and legislation are emphatically
determined to prevent. For the keeper’s profit men waste their substance
and are—to what extent the ensuing chapter will tell—infected with
disease; while women are dragged down to the lowest depths of
degradation and excess. The bordell is therefore something more than
futile, something more than inhuman.[377]
CHAPTER VII
REGULATION AND DISEASE
Regulation nowadays concerned chiefly with sanitation.—Variety of
methods employed.—Berlin system.—Equipment and procedure.—Equipment in
Paris, Vienna, Brussels, etc.—Quality of medical inspection in
Berlin,—in Budapest,—in other cities,—in Paris.—Effect of medical
inspection on male indulgence.—Peculiar characteristics of
syphilis,—of gonorrhœa.—Amount of disease detected among inscribed
women.—Clinical methods inaccurate.—Deceptions practised.—Flux in
inspected body.—Failures to report.—Periods of hospital detention
brief.—Minors, usually non-inscribed, most infectious.—Inspection and
disease among clandestines.—System conceded to have accomplished
nothing hitherto.—Its possibilities remain to be proved.—No basis for
favorable expectation.—Insuperable difficulties in the way of
successful medical regulation.—Does isolation of even a small number
of infected women achieve some good?—Amount of disease depends on
amount of irregular intercourse.—The bordell and disease.—Absurdity of
linking disease and crime.—System illogical and inequitable.
The preceding chapters have presumably shown that regulation is not
necessary to the maintenance of public order; indeed, even the pretense
that it is needed for that purpose is now in a fair way to be generally
discarded. As I have pointed out, the traveler is rarely aware of
differences in external conditions that suggest different police methods
of restraining or controlling prostitution. Prostitution may be
described as perhaps equally prominent in Berlin and London,—one a
regulated, the other a non-regulated city. Regulation is therefore not a
factor that, from this point of view, needs to be taken into account.
Moreover, as we shall see later, the few cities in which the underworld
is distinctly inconspicuous are without regulation. For the rest, cities
long without regulation and cities that have recently dispensed with it
are at least as quiet as those that still adhere to it; nay more, to
find a really disorderly section one must resort to the bordell quarters
of regulated towns. As far as order goes, therefore, it is impossible to
make out a case favorable to regulation.
As the argument in behalf of regulation on the score of public decency
loses force, the maintenance of the system depends more and more on the
assertion of its sanitary efficacy; and on this aspect increasing
emphasis is laid. A prominent official of the Berlin morals police,
tracing the history of the institution for me, remarked: “The historical
function of the _Sittenpolizei_ was to deal with decency; but under
present conditions the sanitary object has come to the fore. The morals
police could be dispensed with, if only their original business were in
question. They should certainly now be called the health police.” The
recent reconstruction of the Vienna system was undertaken in execution
of just such a program: “Conversion of the morals police control into a
sanitary control, and its extension as far as possible over clandestine
prostitution.”[378] The main effort to save regulation through
readjustment to modern knowledge has thus been made on the sanitary
side. In the present chapter I shall endeavor to describe regulation as
a sanitary policy and to determine what it achieves in that direction.
The diversity previously commented on in connection with regulation
prevails also in respect to its sanitary details. Between the worst and
the best organized systems on the medical side, there is perhaps an even
greater discrepancy than between the worst and the best systems on the
side of police methods. Thus far experience has worked out no accepted
sanitary model. Important variations will be noted in reference to the
method of inspection, its quality, its frequency, the disposition made
of disease when discovered, the payment of physicians, and the extent to
which free choice of physicians is still allowed.[379]
Berlin, where the bureau has been completely reorganized in recent
years, may serve as a point of departure. Women under control are
required to report to police headquarters for examination twice weekly,
if under 24 years of age; once a week, if between 24 and 34 years of
age; and fortnightly, if over 34. In addition, the inscribed or
controlled prostitute is re-examined whenever arrested for any offence,
regardless of the date of her last or her next regular examination.[380]
Clandestine prostitutes may be subjected to compulsory examination at
the discretion of the bureau chief,—the examination being conducted by a
woman physician attached to the division for this purpose.[381] By
special request, an examination by an approved private physician may be
substituted. In either event, the woman is herself at no expense for the
examination.
A staff of eight police physicians and four microscopists are occupied
with medical inspection, of whom four are on duty at one time; the work
goes on daily, except Sunday,[382] from nine to twelve o’clock and from
twelve to three. The examination consists of a clinical inspection and
the use of the speculum. For the detection of gonorrhœa, microscopic
examinations of the secretions are made fortnightly in case of women
under 34; monthly, in case of older women. At any time, however, when
appearances are suspicious, the physician is instructed to ask for a
microscopic examination without waiting for the regular day. Female
assistants are provided for this work; the word of the assistant is
sufficient in case the microscopic preparation is found to be negative;
the physician must by his own observation confirm a positive result. The
medical policy of the police department is directed by a physician who
holds the rank of commissary,—the sole instance in all Europe of expert
medical control of what is admittedly a sanitary matter.[383]
Inscribed women discovered to be infected are confined under duress in a
municipal hospital, on the theory that, being professional prostitutes,
who can maintain themselves only by plying their business, they must be
interned in order that the carrying on of their business may be
temporarily suspended. In very rare cases, however, even when found to
be diseased, they are permitted to retain their freedom provided an
approved physician makes himself responsible for their systematic
treatment, and provided, further, that there is reliable evidence to
show the possession of resources which will enable the women in question
to keep their engagement to refrain from plying their vocation for the
time being. Women are also at times released from the hospital on
condition that they report at intervals for further treatment; should
this understanding be violated, they are once more interned.
Clandestine and occasional prostitutes if found diseased on being
arrested are somewhat differently managed. If without resources, they
are sent to the hospital; but the bureau chief may, in his discretion,
permit them to remain at large on condition that they place themselves
in charge of a competent physician. It is, however, admitted that
pledges, whether given by clandestine or registered women, are not to be
relied on.
At both hospital and police headquarters in Berlin conscientious and
intelligent efforts have been made to provide satisfactory arrangements.
Registered and non-registered women are scrupulously separated at every
stage, on the ground that the latter group may contain young, innocent
or, at least, not yet hardened persons, who should not be further
contaminated by the carelessness of the state. Premises not adapted to
this end have, therefore, been extensively remodeled. The rooms utilized
for the medical examinations at the police headquarters are light and
equipped with a modern examining chair, hot and cold water, and electric
light; the microscopic-room has the necessary equipment for clean and
accurate work.[384] The hospital, though old and small, has been
latterly renovated and its staff reorganized. The present medical chief
of the police division in charge of venereal disease is a specialist of
distinction, who has made important contributions to the literature of
the subject on both medical and sociological sides. The division
possesses an excellent laboratory manned with trained assistants; and it
is properly equipped with microscopes, culture-ovens, animals for
experimental purposes, etc. Patients are examined separately in a clean,
well-lighted room, containing all necessary paraphernalia. Women at
different stages of demoralization,—registered, non-registered, first
offenders,—are scrupulously kept apart; clean and orderly as the women
are in appearance, there is nothing in their demeanor or surroundings to
suggest prison confinement.[385]
In many other towns, two examinations per week for the youngest class of
inscribed prostitutes are also required; but by no means everywhere. In
Paris, for example, women in bordells are examined weekly, those at
large at least fortnightly; in Dresden examinations take place once a
week. In Hamburg, women under “light control” are examined only once a
month, and even for this examination a certificate from a private
physician may be substituted; the same is true in Cologne, where
enrolled women discovered to be diseased are permitted to obtain
treatment privately, provided they keep the police informed of their
progress.[386] At Stockholm most women report twice a week; some thirty
older women, once a week.
Examination and treatment are not always free. Dresden requires every
inscribed woman to contribute to a sick insurance fund, paying four
marks as initiation fee, and two and a half marks weekly dues; she is
thereby entitled to 13 weeks’ hospital care if ill.[387] A sick fund,
out of which the cost of the weekly examination is also paid, is
similarly supported in Hamburg; in Bremen, the women bear the expense of
the medical inspection; Brussels permits examination to take place in
the rooms of the women on payment of five francs monthly; Stockholm
allows a woman to appear for examination privately on payment of a
crown; at Stuttgart, the examination is free at police headquarters,
paid for, if at home; in Geneva, the girls pay two francs for each
examination; in Rome the bordell stands the expense, and also, subject
to the approval of the health authorities, selects the physician. In
Vienna, girls were formerly required to pay one crown if examined at
headquarters, two crowns if examined in their rooms; but since January
1912, a system of free examination has been gradually introduced. It is
universally conceded that abuses creep in wherever the physician derives
his income in whole or in part from the women or the bordells.
Much greater and more significant diversity exists in respect to the
equipment of the examining-rooms at police headquarters and the method
of conducting the examinations. Facilities as good as those of Berlin
exist only in Dresden, Bremen and Budapest. In the last named city,
twenty-two physicians, eight of whom come daily, are employed. Unlike
Vienna, where a physician usually examines the same woman from week to
week, the women are purposely sent to different physicians for
successive examinations,—a policy adopted in order the better to prevent
deceit, bargaining, etc. A bacteriologist is on hand to make microscopic
tests in suspicious cases.
In all other cities the appointments are meager and antiquated,
conducing to mistaken diagnosis, on the part of even honest physicians,
and to fraud, on the part of the women. In Paris, for example, bordell
women are examined in their own quarters, where no facilities for good
work can possibly exist, where imposition is easily practised by the
women, and where the environment is apt to interfere with the
seriousness of the occasion. Examinations so conducted need not be
seriously discussed. Inscribed Parisian prostitutes living at large and
non-inscribed women who are arrested, are examined at police
headquarters, where the equipment consists of two rude chairs, an
ancient sterilizer in which a few specula are boiling, and a glass of
sterilized water in which the spatulæ used in holding down the tongue
are hastily dipped from time to time. Arrested women—whether registered,
clandestines, or mere suspects—are huddled indiscriminately with all
other varieties of female offenders, into a dark and ill-ventilated
“dépôt,” not inaptly called the “human pound.”
In Vienna, as in Paris, the medical examination is still conducted
either at headquarters or at the dwellings of the women, though the
tendency is in the direction of concentrating work at the former. The
Viennese accommodations and facilities are distinctly better than those
of Paris, even though the establishment does not yet boast a microscope.
At Hamburg, girls arrested are clinically examined at headquarters;
inscribed women are examined in the bordells,—a convenient bordell being
selected in each neighborhood,—but beyond a deal table, and the spoon
and speculum which each girl brings, no equipment whatever is provided.
Elsewhere facilities answer the same general description. In Brussels a
plain table is carried into the reception room of the bordell. Rome is
no better; in one establishment, on asking to see the facilities for
medical examination, I was shown a filthy old metal table and a few
dirty basins; in another, a tattered leather chair; in a third, a small
table.
Of hospitals provided for the reception of diseased women, Budapest
possesses perhaps the best that I visited anywhere; the service contains
three hundred beds, excellent laboratories, operating and treatment
rooms of the most modern pattern. Cologne provides a satisfactory,
renovated building, with one hundred and twenty beds, equally divided
between controlled and uncontrolled women. The appointments are modern
in character, attractive in appearance. Hamburg possesses similar
facilities with one hundred and thirteen beds; Frankfort sets apart
eighty beds in an excellent institution; Bremen, forty-four; Stockholm,
sixty in an attractive building situated in a pleasant garden. In most
of these establishments a deliberate effort is nowadays made to efface
the impression of enforced detention. The Stockholm clinic, among
others, has no locked doors or barred windows, in consequence of which
the girls are rarely refractory.[388] Though the subject lies outside
our present inquiry, it should be added in passing that all continental
cities make, in addition to the above mentioned facilities, more or less
liberal provision for other venereal patients.[389]
Conditions are less favorable in Vienna, where there is no special
hospital for diseased prostitutes; they must be distributed between the
three skin clinics of the city. Even so, there is such a scarcity of
beds that they are often kept waiting in prison several days before they
can be placed and then are dismissed too soon. But for really
disgraceful accommodations one must cite Paris. The infected Parisian
prostitute is interned in a medieval prison—St. Lazare—a name, at the
mere sound of which, the most hardened offender blanches with terror. In
this bleak dungeon, young and old, the new offender and the hopeless
hag, mingle freely; they sleep in the same huge dormitory, meet in the
same dark corridors, and get their brief airing in the same narrow
courtyard.[390]
The quality of the examination varies widely. At Berlin, typical of the
four best, clinical inspection is made of the mouth, hands, feet, and
other external surfaces; the genitalia are invariably explored with the
speculum; microscopic examination for gonococci are made fortnightly, or
oftener in suspicious cases. The magnitude of the work may be roughly
indicated as follows: On the basis of 3,500 inscribed women, each
examined twice weekly, 28,000 clinical examinations would be made
monthly,—3,500 by each of the eight physicians. As a matter of fact, the
figures are smaller, since bi-weekly examinations are required only of
women under 24. It would be nearer the truth to estimate that each
physician makes from 1,500 to 2,000 clinical examinations monthly. In
August 1911, each of the four assistants made 2,646 microscopic
examinations for gonococci,—an average of 98 for each working-day.[391]
It is estimated that on the average three minutes are available for the
examination: but as this takes no account of time lost, the actual
duration of the operation is much less.[392] Women sent to the hospital
are discharged only after three successive negative microscopic
findings, followed by an examination at police headquarters confirming
this result.[393]
The Budapest system is modeled on that in use in Berlin. Inscribed
prostitutes are card-indexed at police headquarters, according to the
days of the week on which they are scheduled for examination. Their
cards are removed as they appear; the cards remaining over at the close
of the day form thus a list of those who have failed to keep their
appointment. Every girl carries her own spatula. The examination does
not materially differ from the Berlin pattern, above described, except
that the microscope is utilized only whenever suspicion is aroused,—not
at regular intervals regardless of suspicion.[394] Between 600 and 700
girls are examined daily between the hours of 9 and 2. In the month of
August 1912, 341 specimens were subjected to microscopic examination;
had the 2,200 enrolled girls been subjected on each inspection to
microscopic examination, 17,600 specimens would have been required.[395]
Vienna is the most favorable example of the large group by no member of
which the microscope is employed at all. The women appear stripped for
the examination, which consists of a cursory clinical inspection, always
including the vagina. A wooden spatula—discarded after a single use—is
the only distinctive feature. The examination is very brief,—a matter of
seconds, not minutes.
In the remaining cities, the examination is still less thorough. At
Hamburg, for example, the women convene in a bordell, as many as can be
accommodated crowding into the room in which batches are examined. The
physician takes a hasty look into their mouths in succession, and then
glances at the genitalia, with only occasional use of the speculum. His
hands are not cleansed before he proceeds from one girl to the next.
Only a few seconds are devoted to each case. In Cologne it is frankly
admitted that the medical examination is not “intensive.” In Geneva the
clinical inspection is confined to the mouth and the genitalia. In Rome
the examining physician assured me that “if the woman is sound, he (I)
could tell it at the first glance; he is more circumspect, if the case
is suspicious.”
The Paris examination deserves a paragraph to itself. All day long a
dismal succession of groups of abandoned women file into the
rudely-equipped rooms in which two physicians ply their repellent task
perfunctorily. A line is formed; with open jaws and protruding tongue
they march rapidly past; the doctor uses one spatula for all, wiping it
hastily on a soiled towel from time to time. This finished, the same
group in quick succession ascends two surgical chairs to permit a
cursory vaginal inspection; the physician, stationing himself between
them, loses no time, for one woman is assuming the recumbent position
while he is engaged in the examination of another; he switches back and
forth as rapidly as the women can get up and down,—indulging in
good-humored and sometimes unseemly jocularity as the work proceeds. Of
the two physicians employed on the occasion of one of my visits, one
used a rubber glove, the other a rubber finger,—in both cases the same
for all; though wiped on a towel from time to time, neither was changed
or cleansed. On one occasion I observed one of the physicians examine 25
or 30 girls without changing, washing, or wiping the rubber fingers he
wore; and a number of those examined were adjudged “diseased.” The
speculum was rarely used. In one instance, pressure by the finger on the
urethra discharged an abundant suspicious secretion; the same finger,
unwashed, was used in examining the next case; in another instance, the
same rubber finger was used on the genitalia and about the mouth. The
inspections consumed from 15 to 30 seconds each; “for vaginal
examinations,” so read my notes made on the spot, “it takes less time to
examine one woman than it takes another to mount the examining chair and
offer herself for examination, despite the fact that her clothing has
been adjusted before entering the room.”
The printed accounts give the impression that the medical inspections
are more deliberately carried on. Bettmann, for example, publishes a
table in which it is stated that each examination averages 1½ minutes in
Paris, 5 minutes in Vienna;[396] to the same effect is Blaschko’s
calculation, though he himself says that even so, “the length of time
devoted to the examination is too brief.”[397] I feel sure, however,
that these and other similar estimates were arrived at by dividing the
entire time at the disposal of the physicians by the number of women to
be inspected,—a fallacious method of getting at the facts. The truth can
be learned only by observation registered on the spot. At Paris, and
elsewhere as well, much time is lost in making ready for a task which is
subsequently rushed, so that the nominal period is by no means entirely
devoted to the business in hand.
What is the value of each of the types of medical inspection above
described? The question must be subdivided for answer; we must inquire
as to the general effect of sanitary inspection of women on
participation in irregular sexual indulgence on the part of men; as to
the utility of each of the methods in reference to the women subjected
to them, respectively; as to the effect of police control of inscribed
women on the sanitary habits of the non-inscribed; finally, as to the
incidence of venereal disease, its fluctuations and their relation to
sanitary control of prostitutes.
Continental Europe, as I have pointed out in a previous chapter,
traditionally condones incontinence on the part of the male sex. No
single cause accounts for this phenomenon; but certainly among the most
important factors is not only the existence of a powerful instinct in
man, but also the extent to which its indulgence is facilitated by the
low social status of woman. This attitude was incorporated in, not
originally due to, regulatory systems of dealing with prostitution. The
continental attitude towards prostitution and all the machinery
developed in connection with handling it, both from the police and the
sanitary sides, were undoubtedly not originally the cause, but the
result, of an indulgent attitude towards the male sex, on the one hand,
and a disregard of woman’s dignity, on the other.
Once instituted, however, the system itself became a factor in
perpetuating the conditions out of which it sprang. The existence of
regulation amounts to a concession by the state that a vast volume of
promiscuous intercourse is to be accepted as a fact;[398] that for this
purpose professional prostitution is recognized and, despite verbal
quibbles, authorized. For the prosecution of what is thus treated as an
essential and in a sense legitimate traffic, these women obtain a
privileged position on the streets or in quarters notorious for the use
to which they are put. The prominence thus given to immorality operates
psychologically as an incitement to it. The complacent attitude towards
indulgence implied in the mild effort made by the state to remove or
reduce its dangers indubitably diminishes internal inhibition on the
part of the male. Nothing is more certain in the domain of effort and
ethics than that good conduct is largely the response of the individual
to the expectation of society: men “can because they think they
can.”[399] Social stigma is a most powerful deterrent; social assent a
powerful stimulus. Regulation implies the absence of any expectation of
male self-restraint; it is society’s tacit assent to laxity.[400] Nay
more, it is an invitation to laxity in so far as it deprives dissipation
of one of its terrors, for the existence of medical regulation must be
interpreted as implying a certain degree of efficacy in the attainment
of its object. There can, therefore, be no question that state
regulation of vice increases the volume of irregular intercourse and the
number of those who participate in it. Certain it is that the notion
that male self-control is both possible and wholesome has spread “pari
passu” with the attack on regulation and with the elevation of the
status of woman that invariably accompanies this movement.
The utility of regulation is thus opened to serious question not only on
ethical but on hygienic grounds. For the present, I take no position as
to the hygienic condition of the woman examined; I am looking at the
problem more broadly. Regulation tends to increase miscellaneous sexual
congress. Such congress takes place in the long run with both inscribed
and non-inscribed women. Irregularity craves variety; and infection is
the well-nigh inevitable penalty of sexual promiscuity. To whatever
extent regulation tends to increase irregular commerce by diminishing
individual and social resistance, to that extent it tends to increase
the amount of venereal disease. Therefore, even if regulation should be
found to be more or less effective, its sanitary achievement has to be
offset against the increased amount of congress to which it indubitably
conduces; one has to ask whether more congress with regulation is not
likely to result in more disease than would result from less congress
without any regulation at all.
It is occasionally denied that the mere existence of regulation tends to
develop recklessness on the basis of assumed security. Blaschko, for
example, a distinguished authority, while conceding that here and there
an individual is misled, does not believe that the problem as a whole is
appreciably affected.[401] But Blaschko starts with the assumption that
things have always been as they are and will never be much different. My
own impressions are, however, distinctly opposed to Blaschko’s view: I
have, I think, observed unmistakable evidence that regulation is itself
one of the factors in demoralization, by reason of the prominence it
gives to prostitution, the undermining of the forces that make for good
conduct, and the illusions of safety that it creates. My notes contain
many random conversations which cannot be wholly without representative
significance as to the last named point. I happened, for example, to
call on one of the most eminent of French dermatologists at the time
when he was consulted by a wealthy Mexican gentleman who was passing the
winter in the gay capital. A prompt diagnosis of syphilis was made.
“Impossible!” rejoined the perturbed patient. “I have had nothing to do
with any woman except an inmate of a well known resort of high character
(he named the house and street), who possesses a certificate of good
health. For this security I pay 100 francs.” “You could purchase equal
security much cheaper on the streets,” replied the French savant.
Communications of precisely the same tenor have been made to me by
intelligent men—foreigners as well as Americans—in Paris, Berlin, Rome,
and Stockholm. Schneider, an exceptionally candid witness as to the
well-to-do German youth, declares: “A very large proportion of men who
hunt out official prostitutes live in the belief that sexual intercourse
with inscribed women is, in consequence of medical control, practically
without danger. In my earlier years I myself held to this view, and only
after I had taken pains to study the subject thoroughly, did I perceive
that there was no safety at all. Alas, too late! And the same thing
happens to thousands of others, who are lulled into a false sense of
security and whose moral scruples are also weakened.”[402] If such is
the state of mind among the intelligent, is it not probable that the
uneducated make the same assumption? Experienced physicians can be
quoted in support of this view. “The public is fooled. The laity is led
to believe that it is possible to distinguish diseased from healthy
prostitutes. As all the diseased ones are sent to the hospital,
relations with controlled prostitutes are free from danger. This is the
popular conclusion.”[403] The official rules themselves practically
concede the point. For the police are now at pains to disavow the
natural consequence of their own policy. The Paris regulations state in
bold type that “the card delivered to inscribed women must not be
regarded as an incentive to debauch;” and the public is commonly warned
that the medical examination is not to be interpreted as a guarantee of
safety.
Regulation may therefore be regarded as calculated to increase the
volume of irregular intercourse: what does it accomplish by way of
rendering such intercourse harmless?
Medical control is concerned chiefly with two diseases, syphilis and
gonorrhœa,[404] in reference to both of which its object is not
primarily to heal the woman, but rather to protect her patrons from
infection. It is therefore not essential, from the standpoint of
regulation, that prostitutes who have contracted syphilis should be
interned during the several years during which the disease runs its
regular course; it is only essential that the woman be kept under lock
and key during the infectious stages of that tedious process. And the
same is true, theoretically at least, of gonorrhœa.
The salient points in connection with these diseases are, for our
purposes, these. Both are contracted early in the prostitute’s career.
Syphilis is a protracted affair, but the girl who has run the entire
gamut of a single infection is subsequently immune; she does not herself
freshly contract the disease. She may, of course, at any time, act as a
carrier, receiving the germ from one patron and conveying it to another,
even while herself not becoming actively infected. Having herself,
however, contracted the disease, she is highly infectious during the
primary stage, calculable in weeks, and during the secondary stage,
usually occupying from two to three years, but sometimes lasting from
five to ten. During this time, fresh manifestations, indicative of
danger, appear from time to time; but infection may also be communicated
when no signs of disease are visible. It is very important at the very
outset to get clear notions as to these points. Syphilis is highly
infectious during the entire duration of the primary local lesion. In
the secondary stage, it is highly infectious when florid; probably not
infectious, when really latent;—that is, when the disease is active only
in liver, brain, and other internal organs or tissues. But the
difficulty is that syphilis is often regarded as latent when it is
actually florid,—the signs escaping observation. At any time, infection
may take place not only in sexual intercourse, but also through the
mouth, saliva, and other secretions and contacts.[405] Relapses are also
very common. Of 722 prostitutes with secondary syphilis, 529 relapsed
1,601 times in the first year, 204 relapsed 303 times in the second
year, 90 relapsed 120 times in the third year, 53 relapsed 73 times in
the fourth year.[406] Often the symptoms are almost unnoticeable, at
times escaping the vigilance of a careful observer. The clinical history
of a syphilitic woman is by no means a sufficient assurance that she is
no longer a source of peril to her patrons.
Gonorrhœa is wholly incalculable. No matter how frequent its attacks, no
immunity results. Prostitutes, it is true, appear to contract acute
infections less often as they grow older; but this is probably due, not
to an acquired immunity, but to toughening of the tissues and decreased
exposure to infection through falling off in business. Clinical
appearances as to the presence or cure of the disease are entirely
unreliable. Of the elements on which such judgments rest—the color,
odor, and consistency of the secretions—Güth declares: “No criterion
could be more arbitrary or deceptive, for, on the one hand, the clinical
character of the gonorrhœal excretion varies so often and so suddenly,
that a person who appears suspicious to-day may be free of secretion
to-morrow, and subsequently again show suspicious symptoms. An
apparently innocent manifestation may be infectious; a transparent
vaginal secretion may be infectious; a purulent discharge may be
non-communicable.”[407] Whether even a microscopical examination is
competent to decide the question involved is open to grave doubt.
Unquestionably the microscope can note the decrease in the number of
gonococci; but it is not yet proved that their virulence diminishes in
the same ratio. Moreover, a secretion relatively poor in gonococci may
still transmit infection, even though the secretion is so poor in them
that successive slides fail to indicate their presence.[408] Finally,
gonococci of diminished virulence quickly recover their full virulence
when transferred to a favorable membrane.
What does regulation, as we have described it, accomplish, first, with
those examined, next, with respect to the general situation? It needs
little argument to show that the crude clinical procedures of which
Paris is typical achieve little in the way of isolating infected foci.
In the first place, the examination is so rapidly and carelessly
conducted that, if the truth were known, it might well be found to
communicate more infection than it detects, (as, for example, when a
finger, used to separate actively diseased parts, is applied uncleansed
to the same parts of others). In ascertaining clinical conditions the
commonest precautions are by no means invariably employed. One physician
examined in my presence 30 girls, using the speculum only three or four
times; all were pronounced well; his neighbor, who used the speculum
regularly found a few infected cases, such as the former must have
missed. The examining physicians realize the slipshod nature of their
work. A suspicious secretion having been noted by a bystander in the
case of a woman pronounced “well,” the physician was asked how he knew.
He shrugged his shoulders: “I don’t know; but there’s no way to tell. If
we kept cases like that, we’d keep over half.” Another of the examining
physicians disposed of a similar case in the same way: “We can’t keep
them, we haven’t space, though we aren’t sure that they are well.” Still
another: “Accurate diagnosis is impossible; under these conditions,
gonorrhœa, unless virulent, is ignored; our real effort is to detect
syphilis.” In another case, a woman pronounced “well” was leaving the
chair when, on a bystander’s skeptical remark, the physician reversed
his opinion and sent the unfortunate to St. Lazare. The total number of
women incarcerated at any one time on the score of venereal infection is
negligibly small. On the occasion of my visit to St. Lazare, 170
venereal women were confined there, and I was informed by the chief
clerk that this was a fair average; these are the scapegoats for the
venereal disease in circulation among the prostitutes of the French
capital! Assuredly the temporary withdrawal of 170 infected women from
the thousands with whom Paris teems is utterly without influence in the
long run; more especially as these women are themselves turned adrift
before their infectiousness has passed. Regulation of this type has less
effect in reducing disease than a rainy night or a spurt of police
activity,—both temporarily diminishing the accessibility of supply to
demand and its provocative character.
The medical examination at Geneva, Brussels, and Rome is of the same
general type and works in the same way. The City Physician of Geneva
explained to me that it required only “about an hour or so” to examine
the 86 inscribed women of that city. To my comment “this is pretty quick
work,” he replied, “Yes, but I know them!” I asked how often disease is
found. “Very, very rarely,” he candidly replied. Elsewhere I learned
that as a rule the hospital of Geneva is free of women in so far as this
source of supply is concerned. The conditions under which the
examinations are made in Brussels and Rome preclude anything beyond
primitive work. The provincial health officer at Rome declared that the
official examinations by the police physicians disclosed “very little
disease”; subsequently one of the latter conceded that “the examination
is good enough to detect primary syphilis; it is of little value
otherwise. Of course virulent gonorrhœa would be observed. But it is
absurd to suppose the others safe,—in so far as gonorrhœa is concerned,
no public woman is ever safe.” At Brussels, during the two years
preceding my visit, a total of 26 prostitutes had received hospital
treatment,—inscribed and non-inscribed. The year before—1910—nine
inscribed prostitutes and 27 clandestine were pronounced
“diseased.”[409] “The real harmlessness of the registered prostitute,”
says Dr. Baget, head of the hospital division at Brussels, “consists in
this,—that she is practically non-existent. My clinic at Hospital
St.-Pierre contains four beds for prostitutes, and even these are almost
always empty.”[410]
The above description has dealt with regulation at its worst. In reply,
it may be fairly urged that, though showing how regulation has worked in
the past, it does not prove that better results are either unattainable
or unattained. Let us see, therefore, what happens in Vienna and most
German cities in which a more conscientious type of clinical examination
obtains. In these, at least, the examination is not in itself a direct
factor in spreading infection; for individual spatulæ and individual
specula are commonly used. If not, the instruments employed are as a
rule properly cleansed. The overburdened physicians have, however,
neither time nor facilities to make proper observations. I was present
at Hamburg at the examination of 42 women in a bordell; the whole
process occupied less than 20 minutes. These women are supposed to be
“under strict control”;[411] on another occasion, I witnessed the
examination of 50 women, some under “light control,”[412] others,
clandestine; the speculum was not generally used and the entire
transaction, including the writing of the protocol, occupied less than a
quarter of an hour. All were pronounced well.[413] The medical service
in Cologne suffers—as it suffers in all great cities—on account of the
inadequacy of the staff. “A thorough hygienic examination is impossible.
Syphilis especially in its most infectious forms can be quickly
recognized by an experienced observer; but chronic gonorrhœa can be made
out only after accurate scrutiny: the preparation and study of a
microscopic specimen demands more time than a police surgeon can
give.”[414] In consequence, the number of women who are isolated is
everywhere inconsiderable; at Cologne, on the day of my visit to the
police hospital, 30 registered women were confined for treatment; in the
course of January, 1912, 75 women were found to be suffering with
disease in Hamburg; in February, 67; in April, 53. In Vienna, the total
found diseased during five successive years was as follows:
1906 1907 1908 1909 1910
Soft Chancre 129 97 82 80 70
Gonorrhœa 127 87 107 70 94
Syphilis 224 162 185 206 168
——— ——— ——— ——— ———
Total 480 346 374 356 332
In Berlin, during the vogue of the clinical examination, the average
number of women interned ranged from 260 in 1895–6, to 157 in 1903–
4.[415] In Stockholm, for all causes, 522 enrolled prostitutes were sent
into the hospital 955 times in the year 1904.[416]
It is obvious that among the registered prostitutes of a city there are
at every moment many more diseased women than any of the above figures
indicate. Why are they not detected? The doctors are overburdened with
work, which is of such a nature as to make severe and uniform scrutiny
impossible. Enormous fluctuations therefore occur, fluctuations which
cannot possibly be due to sudden improvement or sudden deterioration in
the condition of the women. For instance, in Vienna, with an enrolment
of 2,569 in 1901, 1,185 women were found to be diseased; of 2,380
enrolled in 1905, 543 were diseased; with 2,329 in 1910, 332 were
diseased. At Stockholm, between 1890 and 1904, the annual number
committed to the hospital ranged from 523 to 1,026.[417] Sixty-seven
girls were sent to the police hospital of Berlin in December, 1907;
under the same system, 349 were sent in May 1911; 230 in December of the
same year. The average daily hospital roll numbered 262 in 1897–8, 184
in 1900–1, and 122 in 1908–9. A change of doctors is invariably followed
by an increase in the amount of disease detected,—surely not in an
increase in the amount of disease existing. Thus in 1903–4, 1,258 cases
of venereal disease were discovered in women, both inscribed and
uninscribed; a new medical staff found 1,845 cases the next year.[418]
The utter baselessness of any confidence placed by the patron on the
fact of medical inspection is thus obvious: inspected women may not only
be diseased at the moment they are sent to the streets and bordells to
do business as sound,—but, as we shall also see, if found diseased, they
are, as a rule, even after treatment, allowed to return to their
avocation while still highly dangerous.
But aside from such variations, the clinical method is utterly
incompetent to detect any considerable portion of infectious
disease.[419] I have already quoted Güth on the difficulty attending a
clinical diagnosis in gonorrhœa; his position can be fully sustained by
both figures and opinions. Güth himself tells of a series of cases, 35%
of which showed clinical symptoms of gonorrhœa; the microscope showed
90%.[420] The figures for three years at Budapest are highly
instructive,—those for 1907 the result of clinical examination, those of
1909 and 1911 the result of clinical assisted by some microscopic work:
Number of enrolled Total cases venereal
Year prostitutes disease Gonorrhœa Syphilis Bubo
1907 1,717 884 328 105 451
1909 1,914 2,775 1,112 897 766
1911 2,097 2,100 839 697 564
Between 1907 and 1909 the number of prostitutes increased 22%; the
amount of ascertained disease increased 137%—gonorrhœa, 156%, syphilis,
25%. So at Berlin, the number of cases detected leaped from 1,258 in
1903–4 to 3,721 in 1911–12, with change of personnel of the medical
staff and the introduction of partial use of the microscope; consider
the amount of misplaced confidence and resultant disease that medical
inspection had previously made itself responsible for! Dr. Möller of
Stockholm gives confirmatory statistics; in 1874, 19 cases of gonorrhœa
were found among 298 prostitutes by clinical methods (6 per cent.); in
1884, 64 among 431 women (15 per cent.); in 1894, 141 among 464 (30 per
cent.); partial use of the microscope in 1904 with 408 registered women
revealed 749 cases, i. e., 174 per cent. in the course of the year.[421]
Baermann at Breslau concludes after long experience that “without the
use of the microscope the question as to whether an exudate from the
urethra or cervix is infectious or harmful cannot be decided.” This
being the result of incomplete use of the microscope, to how much
infection did the privileges conferred by regulation lead in Cologne in
the year 1905, when among 2,048 prostitutes examined in the course of
the year, 148 (i. e., 7.2 per cent.) were pronounced venereally
diseased?[422] Or at Vienna, when, out of 2,116 enrolled women, 87 were
found to be suffering with gonorrhœa and 162 with syphilis in the course
of the year 1907?[423] The following table[424] shows the absurdly
inadequate amount of disease detected by clinical methods in the
prostitutes of those German cities that I visited.[425]
No. inscribed women No. found diseased
City 1903 1905 1907 1903 1905 1907
Berlin[426] 2,231 2,663 2,272 620 576 733
Hamburg 1,266 1,291 920 759 719 791
Munich 248 215 175 165 46 36
Dresden[426] 277 394 281 248 333 426
Cologne 500 500 500 312 212 336
Frankfort a/M [A]449 [A]412 [A]512 341 529 493
Stuttgart 23 16 22 22 18 28
Footnote A:
About.
The women themselves have learnt the trick of defeating the examination.
So crude an examination for gonorrhœa as that with which we are now
dealing can be eluded by thorough irrigation before examination. Güth
specifies various devices by which clinical inspection may be deceived
and declares that there are “in the large cities persons who make a
business of undertaking these manipulations for controlled women.”[427]
The more careful type of clinical examination can also be eluded: “If
one remembers that especially women who are regularly examined are
highly expert in concealing the traces of disease, one realizes that the
medical examination has after all only a relative value,”[428] writes
Professor Zinnser, who calls himself a regulationist. The bacteriologist
of the Budapest police regards these practices as serious obstacles even
to the more refined methods practised in that city. “The visible
symptoms of disease are rendered either invisible or misleading. These
disreputable physicians perform antiluetic cures and treat the urethra
with injections, thus enabling the prostitute to ply her trade.”[429]
The actual scope of regulation is, however, less than its apparent
scope; for an inscription list of 6,000 at Paris or 3,000 at Berlin or
25 at Stuttgart does not mean that the number of prostitutes in question
is in each city under continuous, even if periodic, inspection, so that
there is a more or less stable body of approved women. No system of
inspection can be effective if it is discontinuous; hence a large
subtraction from even the possible efficacy of a limited and imperfect
system must be made on the score of irregularity. Though 6,000 women are
registered at Paris, the number who continue for a considerable period
and who come regularly to inspection is relatively small. In a few
instances, a withered hag reports for examination and one is told that
she has been under observation for 25 years or longer; but far the
greater number are constantly shifting. For example, in 1884, 1,006
women were newly inscribed, 1,089 disappeared from the rolls; in 1886,
1,145 were inscribed, 2,283 dropped out; in 1902, 1,574 and 1,717,
respectively.[430] Some of these are, of course, restored to the list,
but as a rule only to slip away again. Of 629 women newly inscribed in
Breslau during the year 1886, 147 dropped out in the first year, 94 in
the second, 80 in the third.[431] In Vienna, as already shown, the
number of disappearances and the number of enrolments keep close
together. A small body of older women are more or less stationary; the
remainder are in perpetual transit,—and this remainder includes the
younger and more aggressive, whom effective regulation would have to
keep under continuous observation. The same is true at Berlin; additions
and disappearances from the list are as follows:[432]
Year 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906
Newly inscribed 538 590 683 917 1,207
Dropped out 699 696 1,105 1,069 824
Whether even the humane spirit of the new regulations will greatly
affect disappearances remains yet to be proved; in a single month, as
many as 60 have dropped out; in 1911, 218 disappeared.[433]
In Stockholm, Möller found that of 857 controlled women, 286 were
missing after one month; 109 more after two months; 100 more after
three; 76 more after four: at the close of the 15th month, i. e., 5%
were left.[434] A cursory inspection of police records at Bremen showed
me that with few exceptions a woman was rarely on the rolls longer than
a few months. Of Stuttgart’s small roll of 24, 22 had been inscribed
less than a year,—of these, 10 less than a half-year.[435]
In addition, visits are frequently missed, so that those who remain on
the rolls are examined less frequently than the regulations require.
Under the old Berlin system, more than 50% of the visits from 1888 to
1901 were thus omitted; there should have been 208,000 examinations;
94,000 were actually performed.[436] At Stockholm, out of 6,667
examinations ordered from July to December, 1905, 2,242 were missed on
the appointed day.[437] Taking the entire period 1870 to 1912, Johansson
finds that fully 40% of the women who ought to appear at least
fortnightly for medical inspection fail to remain under regular control.
The office records seem to make a more favorable showing only because
they note merely the beginning of an interruption in the woman’s
attendance which may, however, last several weeks.[438]
The tendency to disappear is of course strongest in the case of women
who, knowing themselves diseased, face the prospect of detention.
Between 1885 and 1899, for example, Johansson finds 156 inscribed women
who stayed away from the medical inspection; of these, 92, i. e., just
under 60%, had primary syphilitic sores.[439] In 1904, 31% of the
Stockholm women sent to the hospital missed inspection just before their
commitment. During that year 9% of the women had to be apprehended on
the charge of missing the medical visit; hence, staying away from
medical examination was more than three times as frequent among the sick
as among the general list.[440] It appears, further, that of 845 women
who between 1885 and 1906 contracted syphilis after enrolment the
primary symptoms escaped detection, through interruption of inspection
in 656 cases (77.6%).[441] Inspection is therefore apt to be terminated
by the act of the woman just at the moment when it becomes important.
The women whom the police find to be ill are therefore largely those
who, arrested for infraction of the rules, are subjected to an
unexpected examination; women who are deceived as to their condition;
and those who have bungled in the attempt to hide it or have not yet
learned how to do so. Thus the system is even less effective than the
size of the enrolment and the method of conducting the examination
themselves indicate.
But the system undermines itself at another point: the women, if found
to be diseased, are not detained long enough. Dr. Commenge, head of the
Paris bureau, reported to the Brussels conference that in the two
decades between 1877 and 1897, 15,095 syphilitic prostitutes were
confined in St. Lazare an average of 30 days each.[442] In Vienna,
between 1893 and 1896, cases of gonorrhœa were detained from 18 to 21
days, cases of syphilis from 21 to 27 days.[443] The police
bacteriologist of Budapest states: “One and the same prostitute might
come into the hospital repeatedly for the same infection. We know that
syphilis lasts for years; it is undeniable that, since the hospitals are
crowded and the beds therefore insufficient in number, prostitutes are
obliged to leave before they are cured;” syphilis is there kept “at
least three weeks,” gonorrhœa “at least two.”[444] At Stockholm, 174
women with primary symptoms were detained an average of 48 days each;
140 with secondary symptoms an average of 35 days each.[445] Partially
in consequence of premature dismissal, partially in consequence of
re-infection or recrudescence, women often alternate for years between
freedom and hospital detention. Of 498 Stockholm inscribed prostitutes,
81 escaped the hospital altogether while on the lists. The following
table shows the experience of the others:[446]
No. in hospital
Once 71
Twice 42
Three times 42
Four times 41
Five times 37
6–10 times 98
11–15 times 42
16–20 times 29
21–25 times 7
26–30 times 6
31–50 times 2
In Bremen it is now the practice to detain gonorrhœal patients from
three to six weeks; syphilitics were receiving at the time of my
visit[447] two injections of Salvarsan and were discharged at the end of
a fortnight. Finally, at Berlin the average length of the hospital stay
of venereally diseased prostitutes has tended steadily to decline as the
following figures indicate:[448]
Average
stay of
each
Year prostitute
1895–6 36.4 days
1896–7 32.2 days
1897–8 36.8 days
1898–9 36.4 days
1900–1 39.5 days
1901–2 48.8 days
1902–3 36.7 days
1903–4 41.0 days
1908–9 23.0 days
1909–10 19.91 days
1910–11 19.6 days
1911–12 22.0 days
The sudden drop since 1907 follows the introduction on a considerable
scale of ambulatory treatment, allowed theoretically on condition that
the women refrain from the prosecution of their business,—an obviously
unsafe calculation. It is clear therefore that at all times the period
of detention is too brief; hospital care goes far enough to remove the
obvious evidence of disease,—the evidence that might, if left untouched,
itself deter a more or less cautious patron. Disease being once rendered
latent, or apparently latent,[449] the customer presumes, at his own
sure cost, on the supposed safety of the woman whom medical regulation
has just discharged from the hospital as fit to prosecute her calling.
Even if we take regulation at its word and assume that it is fairly
successful in isolating disease, it still remains true that it arrests
more healthy than diseased prostitutes and thus increases the commerce
of the undetected sick,—professional or clandestine. For the number of
supposedly well prostitutes arrested for trifling violations of the
rules is always larger, indeed much larger, than the number of ill ones.
In Paris, 35,625 such arrests were made in 1897, 32,122 in 1898. The
culprits, most of them well according to police standards, were sent to
prison to serve short sentences, for “racolage” (soliciting). I observed
the handling of a group of such cases: a girl found in the Avenue Wagram
at 1.30 A. M. pronounced “well,” got 4 days in prison; the next had just
four hours previously finished a four-day sentence; re-arrested last
night for loitering and sent back for four days more. The others were of
the same type: all were “well” and all were sent to prison. Blaschko
found the same conditions prevailing in Berlin under the old régime:
13,591 healthy prostitutes were imprisoned for “ridiculous trifles” in
the years 1897–98, while 1,998 diseased prostitutes were under
compulsory treatment:[450] that is, regulation removed seven times as
many healthy prostitutes as diseased. In 1909, 1,122 different
registered women were arrested for violation of rules, 327 different
registered women were detained on the score of illness; in 1910 and 1911
the figures were 1,984 and 434 respectively.[451] In Stockholm, at the
close of 1911, 28 women were in the hospital, 127—supposedly well—in
prison. In Cologne, 438 registered prostitutes were detained on the
score of disease, 1,334 for violation of rules, in 1906; in 1911, 272
for disease, 2,066 for infraction of regulations.[452]
I have thus far dealt with registered prostitution alone: in reference
to it, I believe we are justified in asserting that the numbers treated
have nowhere been relatively large and that the methods of conducting
the examinations and their actual working greatly reduce even the
apparent efficacy of the system. In Stockholm it has been calculated
that three-fourths of the disease current escapes detection.[453] It is
therefore an incontrovertible fact that only a small part of the disease
in existence among inscribed women has been isolated and that these
diseased women have been discharged before they are very much safer: in
consequence of which, men consorting with medically inspected
prostitutes are the victims of misplaced confidence. If, then,
regulation, on account of the general attitude it encourages and on
account of the feeling of security it must logically create, has at all
enlarged the volume of irregular intercourse, it has operated to
increase, not to decrease, the volume of venereal disease.
So much for regulation taken fairly and strictly on its own ground. But
the case against it is greatly strengthened when the remaining factors
of the situation are taken into account. Regulation has always had to be
cautious in the inscription of minors and nowadays tends more and more
to omit them altogether. It is held—and of course rightly—that no
civilized society can permit a minor to brand herself as a professional
prostitute, authorized by the community to earn her livelihood as such.
Now, immoral girls still in their minority are at once the most
attractive and the most dangerous prostitutes; ignorant and reckless,
they are quickly infected and their infection is distributed to a larger
clientele. How many infecting foci escape sanitary control by the
exclusion of minors a few figures will make clear. Out of 4,341 cases of
obviously infectious syphilis in Viennese prostitutes, 44.9 per cent.
were between 15 and 20 years of age, 38.1 per cent. between 21 and
25.[454] The chief physician of the Vienna police in 1908 gave a most
striking proof of the collapse brought about by excepting minors from
regulation,—as he admitted must be the case: in 1900, 329 prostitutes
were newly enrolled, 303 of whom (92.2%) were between 15 and 25 years of
age: in that year, 2,686 cases of venereal disease were detected among
inscribed women. In 1907, 83 prostitutes were newly enrolled, of whom 63
were between 15 and 25 years old: 426 venereal cases were discovered in
that year. “In the same measure as the enrolment of minors declines, the
total amount of disease discovered declines correspondingly.”[455] In
the relatively few instances in which minors are still inscribed at
Berlin, the percentage of active gonorrhœa detected by the microscope is
very high: of 38 controlled girls between 18 and 20 years of age, 29, i.
e., 75% were discovered to have gonorrhœa.[456] Penzig declares that of
prostitutes under 18, fully 50% are venereally infected. Pinkus,
studying 1,357 inscribed prostitutes at Berlin found that at least 624,
i. e., 45.9% had been syphilitically infected before enrolment.[457]
Paris statistics teach the same lesson: of 12,615 unregistered minors
arrested between 1878 and 1887, 56.26% were syphilitic.[458] More recent
statistics sustain this result showing, as is claimed, that active
disease is “ten times as common” among the unregistered minors as among
the older women who are inscribed.[459] In Zurich, 39.7% of the
syphilitics described by Müller and Zürcher were between 12 and 17 years
of age, 42% between 16 and 21 years old; of those over 26 years old,
very few indeed showed active signs of the disease, proving “the
well-known saying, that the prostitute becomes syphilitically infected
at the very outset of her career.”[460] Roget at Brussels verifies this
conclusion; he states that most infections occur between 16 and 22.[461]
At Munich, of 2,686 clandestines arrested and medically examined, 711
were found diseased, and of these, 326, i. e., over 50% were minors.
That is to say, even assuming forcible inscription of adults, over 50%
of the diseased would have been missed as the sufferers were ineligible
to enrolment on account of age. Of 88 such cases, 55 per cent. of those
15 years old were infected, 61 per cent. of those 16 years old, and 67
per cent. of those 17 years old.[462] A Viennese estimate showed that
out of every 1,000 prostitutes arrested for offences, over 57 per cent.
were minors,—practically ineligible to inscription and medical control.
Infection takes place so early that it is believed that in general
“every prostitute who has followed the business a year is
infected.”[463] Regulation is therefore in the position of creating a
certain presumption in favor of the hygienic security of irregular
intercourse; even if it could create a monopoly in favor of inscribed
women, there would be no reason to believe in its efficacy; but as the
appetite that it fosters satisfies itself indiscriminately, the result
is that bad is simply rendered worse.
One arrives at the same conclusion from another angle. I have repeatedly
pointed out that on any rational definition of prostitution the total
army of prostitutes is many times as large as the registered portion.
Most of these women ply their business unhindered. Having had precisely
the same history as the registered women and conducting their affairs
with similar promiscuity, disease is of course equally rife among them.
Yet, as long as they conduct themselves with discretion they are free
from police interference: in towns where compulsory enrolment takes
place (e. g. Berlin and Hamburg, etc.) they must be thrice warned before
they are arrested and compelled to submit to medical examination, with a
chance of compulsory registration; elsewhere, as at Bremen, Munich,
Stuttgart, etc., they are, if arrested for disorder, medically
inspected, but are in no event compelled by forced inscription to submit
to regular examination afterwards. Thus only the disorderly clandestine
or non-inscribed woman is ever anywhere inspected at all. The cautious
street-walker and fashionable and showy women who in Berlin frequent the
Palais de Danse[464] are never inscribed, despite their notorious
character. Women of the latter type are, in fact, nowhere enrolled; yet
they do a large business, dangerous not so much on account of syphilis,
which is with them long since a matter of the past, as on account of
gonorrhœa, from which they are chronic sufferers. How much disease
regulation in one way or another thus permits to go untouched among the
non-inscribed is made clear by the amount of disease detected among the
small part of clandestine or non-registered prostitution that the police
lay hold of. A single clinical examination of each of 12,825
non-inscribed women arrested in Berlin in five successive years (1903–
1907 inclusive) showed 17% venereally diseased;[465] of 1,514 arrested
in 1909 and 1910, 421 were diseased.[466] At Cologne, the percentage is
much higher: 660 non-inscribed women were arrested in 1906, 178 were
infected; 1,626 were arrested in 1911, 304 were infected.[467] At
Vienna, 1,319 such arrests were made in 1910: 222 cases of infection
were discovered among them.[468] It must be emphasized that the police
surgeons get hold of these women, not because they are diseased, but
because they are disorderly. Had they remained sober and quiet,
regulation would have permitted them to continue undisturbed in the work
of spreading infection, precisely as it does not touch the thousands of
others, who, however diseased, are careful to keep the peace. The amount
of disease thus surprised is interesting as a symptom of the vastly
larger amount that wholly eludes observation; and, finally, the disease
thus detected is—like the disease occurring among inscribed women—but a
part of that actually existing among those examined; and, like all the
rest, is readmitted to circulation while still infectious after an
inadequate period of detention. An incident related by Welander may well
close this line of argument. “It is superfluous to mention,” he writes
in his account of venereal disease and prostitution in Sweden, “that the
clandestines are the main sources of infection. Recently there has been
a small epidemic of soft chancre in Stockholm. Daily, male patients thus
afflicted are admitted to the St.-Göran Hospital; but the hospital for
prostitutes, during this entire period, has received only five women
thus infected. This epidemic cannot be attributed to inscribed
women,”[469] and, further, he might have added, inscription did not
locate or isolate the infecting foci.
I have, at the risk of being tedious, discussed the foregoing points in
considerable detail in order that we might be in position to decide
whether—whatever may be held theoretically as to the possibilities of
regulation—it has in the past operated to reduce the amount of venereal
disease. Let it be remembered that, except in three or four cities
shortly to be taken up, regulation throughout Europe has been and is of
the type above described or worse, and that in the three or four cities
in question, improvements are so recent that no effect is as yet
noticeable. Whatever, then, one may hold as a matter of theory, it is
clear that, as a matter of practice, regulation as it has been carried
on during the past century has increased, not decreased, the volume of
venereal disease. No successful experience in the past can anywhere be
quoted in its behalf. Those who believe in its possibilities are loudest
in condemning its actual results. Professor Finger of Vienna, a
regulationist, so-called, and one of the authors of the recent
improvements there, says of the usual system: “As far as the good of
regulation goes, I can speak from experience: the good can’t possibly
amount to much.”[470] Professor Neisser of Breslau, the discoverer of
the gonococcus,—a regulationist, too—declares: “If a radical
reconstruction cannot be brought about, it is better to drop the entire
system. The present system not only does not effect a real sanitary
control of the inscribed women,—it rather operates to increase the
volume of venereal disease.”[471] Professor Zinnser, of Cologne,
likewise a regulationist, opens a discussion with these words. “The
knowledge that the regulation of prostitution as generally conducted
heretofore is obsolete, defective and urgently in need of reform, is not
new.”[472] The Hamburg system, in the form in which I have above
discussed it, is the creation of Dr. Julius Engel-Reimers, whose
authority in Hamburg was, during his lifetime, so great as practically
to render criticism futile. Nevertheless in a volume of lectures on
venereal disease, published in 1908, Dr. Engel-Reimers, at the close of
a career identified with regulation, declares: “Medical control of
prostitutes has very slight influence on the incidence of syphilis and
gonorrhœa among the male population. It is absolutely clear that these
diseases are no less common where regulation exists than in places where
prostitutes enjoy unrestrained freedom to ply their trade.”[473] This is
assuredly candid, as well as startling testimony. As to the point here
touched on, viz., the incidence of venereal disease in the general
population, as far as it can be made out, I shall have something to say
when I discuss conditions in non-regulated countries.[474] For the
present it is enough to note that the authorities above quoted—and the
number can be extended—all call themselves regulationists; but it is
some new form of regulation, not regulation as it exists historically,
that they believe in. Those who defend the system and its results
against the regulationist medical authorities above quoted are in the
main police officials, whose favorable judgment will be accounted for in
the next chapter.[475]
If regulation has, even in the opinion of authorities theoretically
inclined to believe in it, failed in the past, is there any evidence to
support an opinion favorable to it in some revised form in the future?
In certain cities, the medical examination has been reconstructed on
modern lines,—Berlin, Budapest, Bremen and Dresden; the same
modifications and improvements could be generally introduced if money
and intelligence—both procurable—were provided. Would regulation then be
efficacious as a sanitary measure?
Let me call attention at the outset to the peculiar position in which
the system is placed the moment one asks this question. It implies that
regulation is not a policy more or less approved by experience, but an
experiment, the value of which as a possibility has nowhere as yet been
demonstrated. So far as history goes, the verdict is against its
efficacy; so far as the revised system is concerned, not even those
trying it as yet pretend to be able to assert for it any perceptible
measure of success. “I must note at the very outset,” says the candid
police bacteriologist of Budapest as recently as May 29, 1912, “that the
time which has elapsed since the new ordinance has been in force is as
yet entirely too short for us to render a final opinion concerning its
advantages.”[476] “There is no telling whether the new regulations have
accomplished anything,” said one of their authors, Dr. Dumitreanu
Agoston, to me. Regulation in its historic form is thus something worse
than a failure; in its modern form, an experiment, of whose success not
even its authors can give any evidence or venture any prediction!
Is there any substantial reason to believe that the improved system will
successfully cope with the difficulties fatal to the old? The number
that it reaches is less rather than more. Under the clumsy old system,
Berlin enrolled 5,098 women in 1896; under the improved new system,
3,559 in 1912,—a decrease of over 30%, despite the city’s growth; under
the old system, Dresden enrolled 394 in 1905; under the new, 293 in
1912; at Budapest, the numbers are practically unchanged. The increased
leniency and humanity of the new system thus decrease enrolment and tend
to offset any advantage gained by improved medical methods.
Nor does the new system enjoy any advantage over the old in other
important respects. Women continue to miss visits and to disappear: at
Budapest, for example, with an enrolment of 2,000, the monthly
non-attendance in 1912 ran as follows:[477]
March 293
April 353
May 398
June 315
July 414
August 319
Finally, the sick are not detained for longer periods of time: indeed,
ambulatory treatment is more apt to be allowed as the administration of
the system becomes more lenient, and thus additional loopholes are
created.
These are, however, matters of detail on which it is not worth while to
pause longer. The issue turns mainly on the effect of the partial use of
the microscope,—at least once in two weeks at Berlin, on suspicion in
other places. How far-reaching is the improvement thus wrought among the
small number of women affected by it?
In respect to syphilis, the situation is hardly modified at all, except
in so far as the general quality of the personnel has unquestionably
been improved by the introduction of more modern methods and a more
dignified environment. But these factors are not far-reaching. The
inscribed women have either had syphilis before inscription, in which
event no check was placed on them at the time; or they contract it
subsequently, in which case they are interned only until the active
ulceration has been converted to more or less latency, without certain
termination of the infectious character of the disease. The scope of
improved regulation in dealing with inscribed syphilitics is thus
practically as limited as that of the older form; it has no definite or
reliable effect during the dangerous primary and secondary stages and
is, of course, unnecessary in the tertiary stage.
For the reasons just urged, neo-regulation concerns itself mainly with
gonorrhœa. Figures already given[478] show that the moment the use of
the microscope begins, the amount of gonorrhœa detected increases;
indeed, the more slides one prepares in dealing with a group of women at
a single inspection, the higher the percentage of infectious subjects.
Whether gonorrhœa is discovered in a prostitute or not is largely a
question of the microscopist’s patience: “the oftener microscopical
examinations are made, the more girls are found diseased.” Lochte
examined 172 girls once each, when 19.1 per cent. gave positive evidence
of gonococci; on a second trial, twice as many (38.6 per cent.).
Different investigators have discovered that from 50 to 65 per cent. of
inscribed women carry the gonococcus hidden in glands or folds.[479] Ten
successive daily examinations of a former servant gave negative results
for 5 days, positive on the fifth and seventh, negative, sixth, eighth,
ninth, and tenth. Instances are known in which the disease has been
contracted by a patron from a woman in whom the microscope was unable to
demonstrate the gonococcus. The explanation is obvious. When the germs
are less numerous, it is a matter of chance whether the infinitesimal
amount of the secretion examined happens to contain a sample or not; but
infectiousness exists none the less. The microscopist may not encounter
it; the customer may. In order to reduce chances of error, negative
findings on three successive days are required before release; but
Professor Pinkus told me of women released from the hospital on these
terms in the morning who—without intercourse in the meanwhile—gave
positive specimens at the police examination in the afternoon. Besides,
under sexual excitement, the gonococcus that has burrowed more deeply is
all the more apt to be exuded. The explanation is simple: “Gonorrhœa in
the male is almost invariably curable, if the patient submits to
treatment; gonorrhœa in the female is almost never cured at all.”[480]
And again: “Every prostitute, even though not acutely and violently
diseased, is always more or less infectious and not the least confidence
in her freedom from gonorrhœa can be justified.”[481] A chronic
condition supervenes that is always infectious,—and most of all so
during intercourse. Professor Havas of Budapest, long the head of the
hospital service to which diseased prostitutes were sent, a
regulationist at first, and now a strenuous opponent thereof on the
basis of experience, refused to certify released women as “well”; he
struck the word from the woman’s protocol and inserted “improved”; but
in the “improved” condition, the danger of communicating infection is
always present.
All that I have just urged would be true even if the microscope were
constantly used. But, as a matter of fact, even where neo-regulation is
most systematically installed, the labor and the time involved are so
enormous that it has proved impracticable to institute anything beyond
occasional microscopical control.[482] What does the fortnightly
microscopic slide in Berlin prove? That at two moments in the course of
a month, a random shot failed to elicit positive proof of
infectiousness! During two weeks, the utterly incompetent clinical
examination alone threatens the woman’s withdrawal from business; should
she be even palpably infected, she may easily be allowed to continue the
distribution of gonococci during this period. At the close of two weeks,
her chances of detention momentarily increase. Yet, even so, the numbers
at any time interned show the inadequacy of the method to reach and to
isolate any considerable volume of infection. During four
months—December 1910; January February and March 1911—809 cases of
gonorrhœal infection were discovered among the registered prostitutes at
Berlin:[483] that is, on the average, the number of women in circulation
was reduced about 200 per month. On the last day of four successive
years (1908–9–10–11) the total number of interned prostitutes was as
follows: 98, 105, 140, 242.[484] In the other towns where the improved
system is in use, its inadequacy is equally striking. At the time of my
visit to Dresden (June 19, 1912), 9 inscribed and 27 non-inscribed women
were in the venereal hospital ward; at Bremen there is an average of 18
to 20 patients of all kinds. All this is well-nigh negligible even when
compared only with the total inscription; when viewed in connection with
the total amount of prostitution and disease, it is not worth mention.
It is, of course, urged that, be the number removed and temporarily
confined ever so small, infection is at least reduced by that amount.
The argument holds only in case the number removed is large enough to
affect the accessibility of temptation. Ten women in a bordell will, for
example, satisfy all the customers who come; if one is withdrawn—and the
percentage withdrawn by medical inspection is by no means so large—the
remaining nine will dispose of the same volume of trade. The amount of
congress is therefore hardly affected: is the amount of disease reduced?
That depends on the condition of the nine with whom the business is
transacted. Similarly, on the streets: two hundred women are withdrawn
from the streets of Berlin, on which every evening thousands of others
roam. The provocation is not perceptibly influenced. Let us follow what
happens to a prospective customer. A woman—Marie, let us say—to whose
solicitations some man would have succumbed, is in the hospital. Is her
clientele so attached to her that they will abstain until she is
released? If so, undoubtedly, there being less congress, there is less
disease in that interval. But the traffic is not organized in that way.
Marie’s customers are picked up by Gretchen or by some one else. Does
the withdrawal of 250 women reduce disease, if it involves only
redistributing business so that what would have been intercourse with
the interned Marie is transferred to others?
That depends on the condition of the other women. Are they safe? The
vast clandestine army not hygienically supervised is no safer than it
would be if there were no medical regulation; and this army is so large
a proportion of the whole that we may declare at once that the effect of
removing a controlled prostitute is to force her business largely upon
prostitutes who are uncontrolled; and the latter are so numerous and
prominent that the business is kept to the maximum permitted by general
conditions, regardless of the forced isolation of an inconsiderable
number. Those of Marie’s customers who fall to controlled prostitutes
are hardly likely to fare better,—for the controlled prostitute is
suffering with a chronic cervical gonorrhœa which any customer may
contract. When 150 inscribed women are withdrawn from the roll of 3,000,
all having gonorrhœa in some form, when 70 women are withdrawn from the
uninscribed thousands, mostly infected, the good luck of a patron may
save him once or twice with or without regulation, but sooner or later
he will fall a victim.
The amount of disease communicated and contracted is, therefore, in the
long run, dependent not on the existence or the non-existence of medical
inspection, but on the frequency and amount of irregular intercourse.
Professor Havas, in discussing with me the Budapest situation, urged
vehemently that there is but one factor to be reckoned with, viz., the
amount of promiscuous coitus. Whatsoever reduces such coitus, reduces
disease: a rainy night, driving women and men from the streets, an
outburst of police repression, do more to check disease than any system
of regulation; on the other hand, regulation, by making controlled—and
in consequence uncontrolled—prostitution prominent, by weakening the
inhibitions, social, individual and hygienic, increases the amount of
coitus and thereby increases the amount of disease. It is surely not
without significance that Professor Pinkus, head of the hospital for
venereally infected prostitutes, has published a book, called the
“Prevention of Venereal Disease,” in which he emphasizes the
infectiousness of all prostitutes, controlled as well as uncontrolled,
and bids his readers refrain or utilize mechanical preventives for their
protection!
It is therefore not surprising to find how frequently afflicted men in
regulated cities refer their infection to professional prostitutes.
Pinkus, inquiring of 2,512 male patients, traced 1,571 cases (62.54 per
cent.) to prostitutes, of whom 1,350 (52.74 per cent.) were
professionals.[485] Of 661 infections in Stockholm, 297 could be traced
to their sources: 151, or over 50 per cent., were known to come from
inscribed women.[486] Dealing with 102 infected gymnasial students,
Meirowski traced little less than half to registered women.[487]
Does the foregoing condemnation of sanitary control apply to the bordell
inmates as well as to scattered prostitutes? Or does the medically
regulated bordell offer an increasing measure of hygienic protection?
Assuredly not on the score of more thorough medical examination. In so
far as the inspection takes place in the bordell, as is the case in
Paris, Hamburg, Rome, Geneva, and Brussels, the situation is aggravated
rather than improved; for nowhere are there proper facilities, and the
women may all the more readily practise imposition.[488] Disease is
therefore not more likely to be discovered.
On the other hand, it is more likely by far to be widely distributed:
for the bordell prostitute entertains, as we have learned, a stream of
patrons. Schrank estimated that the Vienna women averaged three to ten
visitors daily; but the number is known on occasions to have risen to
thirty or higher.[489] An authentic instance of 57 visitors in one day
is recorded;[490] the city physician of Rome vouched for a case of 60
visitors; the mayor of Bordeaux told the French commission of a woman
who had received 82 clients in a single day.[491] The sale of alcohol in
the bordell markedly increases the range of infection, for it provokes
recklessness and banishes caution. It has been estimated that one-third
of the gonorrhœal infections are incurred while the victim is in
liquor.[492] If then, the woman is herself infected, she has enlarged
facilities for distributing disease; even if not herself infected, she
may be the carrier of disease from one of her patrons to others of the
series. The chief physician of the Vienna police remarked in a public
discussion of this point: “The prostitute is often only the carrier of
an infection. It is nothing new to find a man who has contracted disease
from a woman whom the most careful examination pronounces ‘healthy.’
These things happen with all infectious diseases.”[493]
Statistics favorable to this contention can be submitted; but in view of
the liability of the patient to error[494] in locating the source of his
infection, the argument is perhaps more conclusive than the figures. A
single set of statistics from Bremen that appears to prove the reverse
will be presently accounted for. More significant, however, is the
contrast between the amount of disease discovered in the bordell inmates
of Hamburg and the scattered prostitutes of Berlin:[495]
Number inscribed women
Year 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907
Berlin 3,709 3,287 3,135 3,518 3,692
Hamburg 1,266 1,258 1,291 1,039 920
Number found diseased
Year 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907
Berlin 620 505 576 660 732
Hamburg 759 843 719 721 791
Percentage diseased
Year 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907
Berlin 16.7 15.3 18.3 18.7 19.8
Hamburg 59.9 67.0 55.7 69.3 85.9
When the comparison is made in terms of examinations rather than
individuals, the result is similarly to the disadvantage of the bordell.
Of 1,000 examinations made of bordell inmates in Brussels between 1881
and 1885, 2.71 per cent. showed disease; of the same number of
examinations of scattered women 2.51 per cent.[496] But perhaps the best
statistical proof is derived from Vienna, where substantially the same
methods—if poor, at any rate consistently poor—were applied to both sets
of registered women, the bordell women making regularly the worse
record:[497]
Percentage diseased
Year 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893
Bordell inmates 13 12 15 13.5 13.5 12
Scattered prostitutes 2 3.6 5.3 4.7 6.5 5.8
The bordell is particularly dangerous to youth, whose curiosity it
excites; and recklessness and ignorance characteristic of that period
results in an exceptionally high ratio of infection. Pinkus gives some
statistics collected at Kiel, showing that of 100 boys under 20, 33.75
per cent. had been infected in the bordells of that city; of 100 men
over 20, the bordells were held responsible in only 19.75 per cent.[498]
Hecht, discussing the experience of Prague, points out the “relatively
greater frequency of infection in bordells” and attributes it
confidently to the “greater volume of their business in consequence of
their readier accessibility.”[499]
Against the position above taken, the experience of Bremen has recently
been cited. There the percentage of infection discovered among bordell
women has been steadily reduced by the system of regulation in vogue. In
1900, the 50 inhabitants of Helenenstrasse averaged 1.4 infections each;
in 1905, the seventy-odd women there averaged .73 infections each; in
1910, .38 apiece.[500]
Can it be fairly inferred that a strictly supervised bordell system will
thus greatly diminish danger? As a matter of fact, there is no pretense
that the total amount of venereal disease in Bremen has been perceptibly
influenced by the bordell control. The business of the bordells is
steadily shrinking; the clandestine prostitute—uncontrolled and
unregulated—thrives. Hence, even if effective, the Bremen remedy is
impossible. Seventy women can be drilled to exercise all kinds of
precaution,—but the moment the number is largely increased, supervision
collapses. The smaller number of women here interned can be forced to
provide their guests with mechanical devices—and themselves to utilize
strong antiseptic douches.[501] But it by no means follows that the same
policy could be operated wholesale. The figures are themselves, however,
without the significance attributed to them. In the first place because,
as the oft-infected prostitute suffers from chronic gonorrhœa, she is
always a menace, most of all so during coition (let the examination say
what it will); strong douches simply wash away accessible evidence. In
the second place, because the membership of the little colony is so
constantly changing that the figures do not speak for the condition of a
definite set of women. The following table brings this point out
clearly:
Year Enrolment Jan. 1st Added during year Withdrawn
1902 47 33 28
1903 52 59 41
1904 68 78 72
There was thus a constant entrance and exit, the entire membership being
transformed in a short space of time.[502] Looking through the police
records, I ascertained that one woman had been resident six years, one
or two others one and a half years; all the rest were recent additions.
There is therefore no basis in experience for a verdict favorable to
bordells on the ground that they conduce to a form of medical inspection
that tends to diminish disease. The fact is that, though infection can
be lessened by the use of mechanical devices, the recklessness developed
in bordells consequent on alcoholic indulgence operates to prevent
rather than to encourage precautionary measures. The women never cease
to be dangerous; and as they transact an amount of business impossible
outside, the actual amount of infection is enormously increased.
On the medical side, therefore, regulation is even weaker than on the
side of order. There is a connection between prostitution and disorder,
in such wise that some sort of police control of disorderly or criminal
prostitution might conceivably be a useful way of keeping them in easy
reach. Experience proves that the same object can indeed be otherwise
attained, and without granting enrolled prostitutes privileges which are
themselves damaging to the public and straightway involve the extension
of similar privileges to the uncontrolled. But there is still a grain of
truth at the bottom, namely, that the low grade prostitute tends to
align herself with crime and for that reason may be properly made a
constant object of police surveillance.
It is absurd, however, to infer that machinery devised in the interest
of order is equally applicable to sanitation. On the score of order, the
police are interested in criminal and semi-criminal prostitutes. The
discreet women who ply their vocation inconspicuously and in a
businesslike spirit give no trouble and are therefore never inscribed.
Disease however, is an altogether different matter. From that there is
for the prostitute no exemption whatsoever. She contracts it
irrespective of her outward demeanor; and she communicates it,
regardless of the general decorousness of her behavior. The criminal law
runs against a part of the prostitute army; the bacteriological law
against all. A form of control adequate to the former is therefore
entirely inadequate to the latter.
There is then on the sanitary side no support whatever for the theory of
police regulation. It assumes that those dangerous to order are the ones
most dangerous to health; that crime and disease go together; that if
the police inscribe women inclined to join prostitution and crime, they
will thus get hold of the main sources of infection. But the truth is
far otherwise. The non-criminal prostitute is at least as dangerous to
health as the criminal prostitute. The young, who cannot be inscribed;
the older, more cautious and more showy who take care not to annoy the
police; the occasionals and incidentals, who oscillate between or mingle
prostitution and work;—these are perhaps even more active agents in
spreading disease than the utterly repulsive women whose thieving or
drinking propensities make them the peculiar objects of police care on
the score of order.
There is another objection to identifying disease and crime, as the
association of medical inspection with the police inevitably does. The
infected prostitute has been taught that the consequences of disease
resemble the consequences of crime; they lead to arrest and
condemnation,—even though condemnation means only a hospital ward. This
ward is in some places still a prison; in others, prison associations
cling to it. In consequence, the woman’s first impulse on realizing her
condition is to flee or to hide. She resorts to a quack, she employs
superficial remedies to conceal the ravages and signs of infection; and
she plies her business. Hence a few wretched or foolish girls and women
who are in ignorance of their condition or who have been suddenly
apprehended find themselves pronounced “diseased.” One sees them at St.
Lazare and other less hideous places,—all alike poor and friendless. The
more clever of the inscribed women, if diseased, disappear into remote
lodgings or to other towns; the fear of the prison hospital leads them
to conceal and to scatter infection. Nor is there any hope of breaking
off the association in the woman’s mind so long as a pretended sanitary
function is lodged in police hands.
The women have thus completely penetrated the sanitary insincerity of
regulation. They know that they are not regulated simply because they
are prostitutes,—not even because they are diseased prostitutes. Too
many mere prostitutes are never touched; the diseased prostitute is too
rarely apprehended just on that account. A woman is inscribed because,
being a prostitute, with or without disease, she has incurred,—justly
enough, doubtless, as a rule—the suspicion and displeasure of the
police. The hygienic motive did not and does not start the machinery to
move, and its connection with ordinary police functions, methods and
spirit results in its own discredit and defeat.
A final absurdity remains to be pointed out. What can it avail to
incarcerate for brief periods a few unhappy women, if meanwhile the
manufacture of fresh foci of infection proceeds unhampered? As long as
regulation completely omits men,[503] new sources of infection are
produced far more rapidly than by any known method they can be
eradicated. A vicious circle exists. Men infect the beginners—themselves
at the time out of reach—who in their turn infect other men. I pointed
out in the opening chapter that prostitution is a concept involving two
persons. Logic and justice alike require that both parties be considered
as equal partners in the act; and in no respect is it more completely
impossible to omit either of the two essential factors from the
reckoning than in the matter of disease. Society has chosen to overlook
the man; but nature has righted the balance by impartially distributing
disease and suffering; nor will she permit herself to be outwitted by
any one-sided scheme, even though it be far more extensive and efficient
than regulation has thus far anywhere been.
Regulation, needless on the score of order, is thus seen to be
positively harmful in its bearing on disease. As a system, therefore, it
runs counter to the modern spirit in ethics, in politics, and in
hygiene. Why then should it still exist in places, why should it fight
so stubbornly for survival? To the answering of this question, the last
chapter dealing with the subject will be devoted.
CHAPTER VIII
THE REAL INWARDNESS OF REGULATION
Reasons for partial survival of regulation.—Policy rapidly losing
ground.—Ignorance of its details.—Political and social
conservatism.—Vested interests.—Regulation and police
corruption.—Ulterior motives.—Final objection to regulation.
In the course of the last three chapters I have been at pains to discuss
in detail the continental regulation of vice. I have shown that the term
regulation denotes no uniform system, but that, on the contrary, marked
variations of system exist, explicable in the main, as different
attempts to stop a gap, to prevent further collapse, or to effect a
readjustment somewhat less repugnant to modern feeling. Two reasons
continue to be advanced officially in support of the system: that it is
necessary to the police authorities for the maintenance of order, and
that it contributes to the reduction of venereal disease. The former
contention has been shown to lack substantial basis; the latter is
assuredly in most cases either insincere or mistaken,—insincere, I take
it, in Paris, where the most elementary sanitary precautions are
neglected, where the administration of the hygienic features is so
notoriously bad that one cannot but suspect the entire sanitary object;
mistaken at Vienna, where a conscientious administration continues to
labor at the task with implements and methods already obsolete. I have
shown, further, that, futile at its best, regulation is at its worst
when associated with recognized or tolerated bordells, for the bordell
is itself the scene of disorder and the hotbed of exploitation, excess,
and disease. Of the ethical argument against regulation little has thus
far been made, for it seemed better in the first place to examine the
system on its own chosen ground. Nevertheless, it must be admitted that
the ethical argument has played a part in discrediting a system, which
has suffered alike from its own obvious failure as well as from the
growing disgust of society.
For the reasons just summarized, regulation has lost and is still
rapidly losing ground. As recently as a quarter of a century ago it was
in vogue throughout the Continent of Europe; in the seventies it enjoyed
a brief currency in Great Britain as well. It is decaying in France
where, of 695 communes having over 5,000 inhabitants, it has entirely
disappeared from 250[504] and practically from many others. In Germany,
of 162 cities, 48 have dispensed with it,[505] while it is moribund in
others. In Switzerland it survives only in Geneva; it has been wholly
abandoned in Denmark, Norway and Great Britain. A special commission has
recommended its total abolition in France; and a similar body in Sweden,
far from unanimous at the start, has unanimously come to the same
conclusion. Partisans of regulation sometimes endeavor to explain away
this general movement on the ground that in it ethics and sentimentality
have simply prevailed over science and commonsense. But the facts lie
far otherwise. Religious bodies have indeed taken a prominent part; but
there has been no lack of facts contributed and vouched for by
physicians and scientists of distinction. Among the most prominent
opponents of regulation are publicists, who have observed its futility
from the standpoint of order, and medical specialists who have become
convinced of its uselessness from the standpoint of sanitation.[506]
For its partial survival thus far in France, Germany, and
Austria-Hungary there is no single or simple explanation; several
considerations combine to retard what is unmistakably a general movement
destined to efface the system in all its forms. Let us briefly consider
the factors in question.
Ignorance is partially responsible. The general public is uninformed;
many intelligent people have only the vaguest ideas as to what is taking
place in the name of regulation; even the police have rarely studied the
problem except shortsightedly in relation to their own daily
necessities. In Paris, the principles involved have been indeed the
subject of acrimonious discussion for many years; but I recall the utter
amazement with which a distinguished politician, to whom I had been
referred as one keenly interested in the topic, heard that at that
moment only one hundred and seventy women were interned on the score of
disease. Other similar incidents could be given. The Budapest officials
had studied and adopted the revised Berlin procedure; the Vienna
officials had studied the Budapest and Berlin bureaus on the ground; but
other instances of painstaking examination of the workings and the
effects of regulation even on the part of those charged with its
enforcement were very rare indeed. I learned to my surprise that the
police of one town knew of other systems only what was printed,—an
inadequate basis for judgment, because the official accounts are too
favorable and quite fragmentary, conveying no accurate idea of
conditions and events; the abundant outside literature is so uneven and
so conflicting that the bureaucrat, reading it in his office, and not
knowing what to believe, neglects it almost altogether. Partisans of
retention, reform, and abolition alike fight more or less largely with
lame weapons,—reports, hearsay, and newspaper clippings. The Paris
police, for example, urge that if the morals patrol were abolished,
respectable women would not be free from molestation on the streets; and
a high official cited Zurich as a striking example. Inquiry and
observation on my part at Zurich failed to discover the slightest basis
for the statement. Non-existent statistics are frequently referred to,
to show the dreadful things that have followed in the wake of abolition
in England. Under these conditions the emotional fervor with which the
ethical argument has been pushed has had at times an effect just
opposite to that intended. The police official sees a conflict between
facts and ethics where, had the facts been dispassionately and
comparatively presented, he might remark that religious zeal was merely
sweeping away in righteous indignation the fallen timbers of a structure
condemned by its own results.
The political and social conservatism of Europe doubtless also operates
to stay the reforming hand. Regulation of some kind has existed time out
of mind,—in classical and medieval, as in modern times. Prostitutes have
formed a class apart; and societies which respect class differentiations
readily enough transmit an institution which appears to be founded
simply on the frank acceptance of what has been, is, and will continue
to be. That much more than this is implied in and countenanced by
regulation is a consideration, the force of which is not appreciated
until the critical and inquiring spirit becomes active.
Regulation enjoys, however, more positive and more formidable protection
than would be afforded by either ignorance or tradition. It is
identified with powerful vested interests. Of European office-holders—as
of all others—it is true that “officials rarely resign and never die.”
The officials—lay and medical—and the patrolmen directly and indirectly
connected with the morals bureau form a place-holding interest,
magnifying its own importance, stating its own case in the way that is
most likely to carry conviction and resisting interference with all the
strength of the instinct that struggles for existence. The destruction
of the system would sweep away a more or less numerous official
apparatus: commissaries and inspectors for whom there might be no other
places; examining physicians to whom the official stipend is perhaps an
important item.
Less creditable motives are also alleged. The European police[507] bear,
on the whole, an excellent reputation. As to the capacity, intelligence
and integrity of the officials one hears no question raised. The
administration of the police furnishes a legitimate and honorable
career, comparable in prominence and dignity with that of the army or
the bench. The police president is usually a jurist of university
training who has risen to his post by promotion on the basis of merit.
His appointment has no connection with politics, and he holds office for
life or good behavior. The very patrolmen are selected with scrupulous
care. In Germany no man is appointed unless he has served as an
under-officer during his military service; in England, fresh men are
taken from the country and small towns in order to avoid connections and
associations possibly prejudicial to disinterested service. The rank and
file therefore are trustworthy and respected. Exceptions occur, but it
is nowhere believed that they are frequent or serious.
But this exemplary reputation does not belong to the morals police. Once
more, the head officials are nowhere involved; charges of corruption and
grave impropriety on the part of the patrolmen in the morals service
are, however, all too common. The situation created by regulation is
indeed an impossible one. Prostitution is treated as inevitable; it is
authorized and “regulated” on the ground that men will indulge
themselves. And yet the morals police who are closest to it are expected
to hold aloof! Again, women are exploited by pimps, by liquor-dealers,
by bordell-keepers; yet regulation assumes that the morals police who
are every moment in position to sell favors, exemptions and privileges
will refrain from doing so.[508]
In truth, such oversight as would insure an honest morals police
adequate to the need in point of number cannot possibly be instituted.
The task would be difficult enough if all prostitutes were treated
alike; for public opinion and official supervision could then enforce a
consistent policy. But public opinion and official supervision cannot
enforce a policy abounding in exceptions. The moment exceptions occur,
an opportunity for trading, for corruption, for collusion is created;
hence the danger arising from measures applicable to part only of the
offenders. If at the most one prostitute in six or eight or ten is to be
registered, who is to know on what basis the others escape through the
net? Who is to tell whether an officer refrains from making an arrest,
because he lacks proof, or has been bought off with money or favors? It
can occasion no surprise therefore to find it freely asserted that among
the stronger forces working for the retention of regulation must be
reckoned the personal interest of corrupt placemen, and of
liquor-dealers, dance-hall-owners, and bordell-keepers who through
regulation come into possession of a group of women whom they can
exploit. The effort to dislodge regulation in Geneva—the sole Swiss town
in which it survives—has been so far successfully resisted by a
combination of bordell-keepers, liquor-dealers, gamblers and high
livers, who proclaim Geneva as a “smaller Paris,” and urge that the
miniature should be characterized by all the gaiety and frivolity of the
prototype. In Paris it is charged that morals policemen have acted as
“go-betweens” in negotiations between brothel-keepers and street women;
that they have in some instances under threat of arrest forced girls
from the street into houses needing recruits; and that they have been
bribed to overlook infractions of the age-limit. These are not the
irresponsible charges of unknown journalists; they are made on the
authority of some of the ablest publicists in France,—a former prime
minister among them. I have in my possession a copy of a letter written
by a morals policeman to a street prostitute working for him as a pimp!
One hears of similar incidents elsewhere. Shortly before I went to
Berlin,—so I was informed—twelve men had been dismissed from the force
for unworthy conduct. A similar incident again recently took place. The
Berlin morals patrolmen are permitted to utilize registered women as
spies in order to obtain information for their guidance. A girl thus
used turned upon her employers, denouncing them as “pimps.” Of those
accused additional evidence was procured against only three; and of
these one was clearly proved to have received from her 1,000 marks. At
Frankfort I was told of instances in which it was found that police
officers lived in the very houses to which registered prostitutes were
referred. We may conclude, therefore, that the corrupt interest of
unprincipled men inside and outside the force is a factor in the
struggle to retain regulation.
With the difficulties of the police situation in non-regulated
communities I shall deal in subsequent chapters; but it must be remarked
at this juncture that the defects of the morals police above pointed out
arise not only from the existence of this specialized force, but from
the fact that they are called on to execute a self-contradictory policy;
neither superior officers nor the public can know to whom the rules are
applicable and to whom not. But in non-regulated towns, with or without
a morals police system, the same policy is applied to all.
Street-walking is or is not allowed; bordells are or are not tolerated.
The opportunity for corruption disappears, not simply because the morals
police disappear—this is not always the case—but because an equitable
and readily controllable régime is introduced.
There must, of course, be other motives at work to account for the
maintenance of regulation; for the police heads being, as I have urged,
men of honor and intelligence must be regarded as putting up with, while
combatting, the evils just mentioned for the sake of other objects,
which they assume to outweigh the disadvantages involved. Certain
provisions of the rules governing inscribed women give the clue by means
of which the motives in question may be arrived at; and confirmatory
evidence can also be found.
I have frequently called attention to the fact that a woman is not
registered because she is a prostitute, nor even because she is a
diseased prostitute. The women who nightly frequent the cafés, dance
halls and variety shows are among the most notorious prostitutes in
Europe,—thoroughly well known to the police and to the public,—yet no
effort is anywhere made to inscribe them. These women are not overlooked
because their health is miraculously protected; as a matter of fact,
they have run the gamut of disease, are liable to gonorrhœal
re-infection, and are by some specialists regarded as especially
dangerous because they appear to rather better advantage than
street-walkers. The same statements apply to hundreds, in the largest
cities to thousands, of prostitutes, far more humble in aspect who ply
their trade quietly and unostentatiously on the streets. From time to
time a few of them, apprehended for drunkenness or soliciting, are
forcibly inscribed in towns permitting compulsory inscription; but for
the most part, these women do not reach the police rolls and no
systematic effort is anywhere made to place them there. Over a glass of
wine in the cafés of Montmartre or the Latin quarter one readily elicits
the tell-tale facts. The habitués of these resorts know the police and
the police know them. There is not the slightest doubt as to their
status; nightly they appear in their habitat. They are not inscribed,
even though their notoriously promiscuous relations necessarily result
in infection. They are not inscribed because they behave well.
Unaggressive in demeanor, they engage the passer-by in bantering
conversation, disclosing their purpose but rarely pushing it. Their
habits, abode, and associations are known to the police, but known to
involve no open break with order or with conventional notions of
decency. Only when crime or disorder brings them into suspicion or
prominence, do they become objects of police observation, eventually
inscribed and forced to report for medical examination—the device by
means of which they are kept under close surveillance. “The medical
visit is only the excuse made for arbitrary police power.”[509]
The fact then that notorious prostitutes who give no offence by their
actions, associations, or movements easily evade inscription suggests at
once that inscription is not due to prostitution as such, or to
prostitution complicated by disease, but to prostitution in so far as it
is suspected of alliance with criminality or disorder.[510] This
interpretation is sustained by many facts; in the first place, by the
spy system, which has just been exposed in Berlin. The streets abound in
prostitutes to detect whom no spies are needed; yet they are for the
most part overlooked by the police. Spies are utilized to get hold of
prostitutes to whom there is some objection other than their promiscuous
sexual life. Again, everywhere in deciding the question as to whether or
not a woman should be arrested, enormous importance is attached to her
possessing a definite domicile. In Berlin, for example, girls with
“feste Wohnung” (definite domicile) are not apprehended on the streets
unless irrefragable evidence is at hand; girls who on interrogation
prove to be without “feste Wohnung” are taken up promptly. The
distinction is obviously not made on the theory that the former is not a
prostitute, while the latter is,—both are; nor on the theory that the
former is probably infectious, the latter not,—again, both are. The
significant difference is that prostitutes with “feste Wohnung” are apt
to be law-abiding and can in any case be readily laid hold of, while
prostitutes without “feste Wohnung” are apt to be criminal vagabonds of
highly elusive quality.[511] Registration enables the police to pin
these women down and by compelling them to report to headquarters at
brief intervals enables the police to keep in constant touch with a
criminal or semi-criminal element.
There is perhaps another point worth mentioning. The continental police
are constantly concerned lest some possible source of disturbance escape
surveillance. For this reason they keep a close watch on individuals, on
political movements, social agitations, societies, etc. Prostitution is
a potential source of disturbance; the police therefore need to do
something about it, before anything happens. Fortunately, from time to
time experience shows that well-ordered and well-governed communities
may safely be less solicitous about themselves; and cities which have
discarded regulation are surprised to find that the loss of unusual
machinery and the neglect of unusual precautions have been without
baleful consequences.
The above view—that regulation at the present day is retained because it
gives the police an additional arm in dealing with a certain class of
delinquents—is further sustained by certain explicit provisions of the
rules. For the Berlin regulations stipulate: “Registered women must at
once, at any time, day or night, admit to their rooms police officers
who come to make inspection respecting persons found with them.”[512]
Similarly in Hamburg: “Apart from all the regulations affecting
registration of addresses required of all inhabitants, registered
prostitutes must in person report within twenty-four hours every change
of address; further, if they propose to leave the city permanently or
transiently, they must in person announce the fact.[513] Police officers
wishing to view their premises must be admitted without delay.”[514] In
Paris, the rules warn women “not to resist the agents of the
authorities, nor to report falsely their names or addresses.”[515] In
Vienna, “the police may without explanation at any time forbid
prostitutes to occupy a particular house or to room with a particular
madame; the domiciles of prostitutes are to be under constant
surveillance and delegates of the police must be admitted on
request.”[516] Schneider, noting that it “is well known that the police
frequently utilize the lowest grade of prostitutes, who are accustomed
to consort with criminals, as detectives,” and that not seldom
bordell-keepers and bordell inmates are required to act as police spies,
quotes the following from the regulations in vogue at Eger: “Bordell
proprietors are in duty bound to keep close watch on strange customers
and to give the police prompt and quiet notice whenever suspicion is
aroused.”[517] The above regulations apply only to controlled women;
uncontrolled prostitutes are amenable only to the rules applicable to
all other persons. The special provisions above cited are comprehensible
if it is understood that a certain class of prostitutes, themselves of
doubtful character, consort with and conceal criminal and suspicious
characters; and the fact that regulation makes in general no effort to
be more extensive than the class in question lends color to the view
here taken.
There is, however, other evidence to the same effect. M. Lépine the
former Prefect of Paris, has already been quoted as authority for the
statement that it is the controlled women who annoy the police. Unless
these women are enrolled not because they are prostitutes, but because
they are criminals, there would be no reason why arrested prostitutes
should prove to be mainly controlled prostitutes. If prostitutes were
enrolled without regard to criminality or criminal associates, those
arrested would be mainly non-registered women, since the latter are much
the more numerous and at least as prominent. Yet the figures everywhere
tell the opposite story. In Paris, for instance, in 1903, 55,641 arrests
were made among the inscribed women, numbering that year 6,418 women;
among the far greater number of unregistered women, 1,426 were arrested
once, 1,395 more than once,—a total, almost negligible, of 2,821.[518]
The disproportion is less marked at Berlin and the totals smaller, but
the same fact emerges: of controlled women in 1909, 1,122 were arrested;
of clandestines many times as numerous, 636; in 1910, the figures are
1,984 and 878 respectively.[519] The following table shows for a series
of years the number of women arrested by the morals police of Breslau
and the quotas contributed thereto, by inscribed, formerly inscribed,
and non-inscribed women:[520]
Years 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894
Total arrests 1,336 1,570 1,707 1,768 1,995
Inscribed women 1,197 1,386 1,497 1,560 1,621
Formerly inscribed women 12 16 22 14 17
Non-inscribed women 127 168 188 194 357
At Stockholm, those imprisoned are always much more numerous than those
in the hospital, as e. g., 201 in prison, 23 in the hospital in 1870;
162 as against 30 in 1890; 216 as against 74 in 1904.[521] So, of 979
women punished between 1885 and 1889, 198 were sentenced to hard labor
twice, 146 three times, 111 four times, 10 ten times, and 2 thirteen
times.[522] That enrolled prostitution and criminal prostitution fairly
coincide is thus manifest.
It is absurd, as we shall see when we deal with the preservation of
order in non-regulated cities, to argue that either regulation or a
special police is required in order to make these arrests. As a matter
of fact, not a few of the occasions leading to arrests are attributable
to regulation, partly in consequence of the well-nigh inevitable abuse
of the privileges extended to the inscribed prostitute, partly because
of trivial infractions of liberties enjoyed by non-inscribed and denied
to inscribed prostitutes;[523] for just as the inscribed prostitute is
authorized to do certain things without molestation, so she is forbidden
to do others that her non-inscribed sister does without
interference.[524] In any case, as disorder and crime are most rife
among registered women, it would appear that the women are registered on
the ground that they need police oversight and thus get it more
effectually.
In the proceedings of the Paris bureau, incidents occur daily,
explicable on the theory that I have just set forth, and not otherwise.
The police possess, as I have elsewhere explained, summary power; the
girl has no witnesses, no counsel, no appeal. I watched the following
transactions, all suggestive of ulterior motive: a girl released from
St. Lazare forty-eight hours before, was brought before the police
physicians without charge of definite offence, adjudged diseased, and
sent back to prison. Clearly the police wanted her behind the bars, and
regulation enabled them to put her there and keep her there. Another had
left St. Lazare twenty-four hours previously: picked up for disorder,
she was sent back for four days. A third, arrested the previous Friday,
spent Saturday and Sunday in prison; re-arrested Monday, she received a
six days’ sentence. The fourth was arrested at 2 A. M., after being out
of prison one day. The next was asked at my suggestion, “How many terms
have you served at St. Lazare?” Her answer: “I don’t know,—too many to
count.” The prison attendant explained to me that some of these
“repeaters” spend twenty-five nights out of every month there, receiving
a constant succession of short sentences. They are hardened cases, whom
the medical inspection keeps close to the police,—the police, who, by
means of their summary jurisdiction, can put them out of the way
whenever their suspicions are aroused! The fact that clandestines thrice
arrested for “racolage” (soliciting) are compulsorily inscribed bears
witness once more to the fact that registration seeks to get hold of
only the disorderly and criminal.
The criminal arm with which the police are thus furnished is a
plain-clothes division—a secret body moving noiselessly and armed with
summary power. The women and the bordell-owners, where bordells exist,
prosecute their business on the sufferance of this body. I have pointed
out how this situation may lead to corruption of the rank and file. It
is openly and responsibly charged that it has led even the higher
authorities in some places—notably Paris—to employ their irresponsible
power for political or other purposes. It is alleged that prostitutes
and bordell-keepers have been utilized for blackmail and espionage.
Concrete cases are always so involved in detail that the charge is hard
to substantiate; but the high character of the persons who make it
warrants the belief that it is not wholly baseless.[525] Only a few
months ago, the city of Mainz was profoundly agitated by the charge that
the matron attached to the morals bureau had been utilized illegally by
her superiors in this very direction. To one who has taken the time to
understand both the letter and the spirit of continental regulation, the
point is too clear to require extensive argument. Blaschko’s comment is
entirely sound: “Hygiene is not the reason why the police so stubbornly
hold on to regulation. For reasons that have nothing to do with hygiene
the police have a decided interest in keeping under constant observation
precisely this group of professional prostitutes. They are the women who
stand in intimate relation with the criminal world, the friends of
pimps, thieves, and burglars, often enough themselves thieves. Nobody
disputes the right of the police to watch this dangerous class. But
there is no doubt that the criminal point of view which is the real
basis of existing regulation actually gets in the way of efficient
sanitary control.”[526]
I shall show in the chapters dealing with abolition, that, in so far as
concerns legitimate police control of the criminal element on which
Blaschko here touches, there appears to be nothing in the problem that
requires an extraordinary instrument vested with extra-legal powers; in
so far as the final explanation of the tenacity of the police is
espionage, there is no place in any modern society for an agency of this
character. Crime can be kept within bounds without giving certain
criminals the right to practise prostitution; to use the prostitute and
her exploiter as spies and for that purpose to condone or to license
their immorality traverses the modern conception of the function of the
state.
And here we come upon the final and unanswerable objection to any form
of regulation. The modern state—the modern European state—is an
organization charged with the positive duty of securing and promoting
conditions which make for the welfare, happiness, and usefulness of
every member of society. How far it can at any moment travel in the
direction of compelling better conditions is a detail to be determined;
but certain it is that the fundamental basis of modern statesmanship is
violated by the notion that certain members can be sacrificed, body and
soul, in order to win a trivial police advantage! Prostitution exists
and on a large scale. The state is bound to face the fact, bound to
admit its present existence,—its long history in the past, its menace
for the future. But, be the outlook for its extermination or reduction
good or bad, favorable or unfavorable, at the very least the whole
weight of the state’s power and influence, direct and indirect, must be
thrown against it as wasteful, demoralizing, and infamous. If positive
measures are feasible, they must be taken; if social disapproval is even
slightly deterrent, it must be proclaimed with all the authority of
society. “The law must be a teacher” in so far at least as it embodies
an expression of what ought to be. It is absurd to suppose that the
state can take this position—whatever its value—and yet authorize
prostitution on any ground whatsoever,—absurd to preach continence and
to license vice.
True enough, no police officer in Europe admits that regulation licenses
vice. But, whatever the legal theory be, it does, nevertheless! The
prostitute believes that she is practising a trade regulated by society,
that society simply prescribes rules for the conduct of her business.
There is, therefore, no more pathetic incongruity than that which is
presented in the morals bureau of Berlin, Munich and Budapest, where a
social worker is installed for the purpose of dissuasion, while the
police officer waits in the adjoining room ready to authorize the career
from which well-meaning but ineffective pleading has first endeavored to
deter. The permission implied in the existence of regulation is at cross
purposes with the sound attitude implied by the effort to persuade the
girl to renounce her vicious ways. The social effort under these
circumstances is little more than a sop to the popular demand that the
state address itself with all its might to prevention and to salvation
and under no circumstances to authorization.
This then is the final and weightiest objection to regulation: not that
it fails as hygiene, not that it is contemptible as espionage, not that
it is unnecessary as a police measure, but that it obstructs and
confounds the proper attitude of society towards all social evils, of
which prostitution is one. Men can refrain; the state must do nothing to
make indulgence easier. Women must be saved, if possible; rescued, if
preventive measures have come too feebly or too late. These sentences
sum up the simple and entire duty of the state. Society must presume
that the human spark has not been utterly quenched in the wrecked
soul,—a fact that is not without support from experience. As against all
this, inscription entices the girl, offering her a _quid pro quo_ if she
crosses the line. Thus it snaps the last weak thread that ties her to
decent occupation or other associations. In its ultimate effect,
therefore, it is a compact with vice, whatever the language employed. It
may not intend to encourage vice, but by conceding to vice a privileged
position, it discourages all effort to prevent or uproot it.
CHAPTER IX
ABOLITION AND ORDER
Meaning of term “Abolition.”—Immediate effect of abolition.—General
distinction between regulation and abolition.—Abolition not
_laissez-faire_.—Provisions of English law as to street-walking,—as to
brothels.—Legislation in Norway,—in Denmark,—in Holland,—in
Switzerland.—Public opinion an important factor.—Actual conditions as
to street-walking in London.—General improvement.—Actual conditions as
to vice resorts.—Effects of London policy.—Comparison with continental
cities.—Abolition and the police.—Conditions in provincial and
Scottish towns.—Conditions in abolition towns on the Continent.—The
suppression of bordells.—Street-walking in Copenhagen,—in
Christiania,—in Dutch cities.—No loss through abolition.—Prostitution
and vagabondage.—The domicile problem.—Prostitution and crime in
abolitionist communities.—Morals police in abolition communities.
The term abolition is more or less widely misunderstood. Not
infrequently it is supposed to mean “the abolition of prostitution,” and
abolitionists are represented as bent upon summarily abolishing
prostitution through statutory enactment or otherwise. As a matter of
fact, abolition refers only to the abolition of laws and police
ordinances regulating, recognizing, or licensing the practice of
prostitution;[527] and abolitionists are those who oppose all statutory
enactments or police decrees authorizing the inscription or medical
examination of prostitutes, as well as all laws which bear upon only one
of the two parties involved. Still another misconception will be exposed
in the course of the present chapter: opponents of abolition (i. e.,
those favoring regulation) often assume that abolition is identical with
_laissez-faire_; they argue that if the regulatory system is swept away
no apparatus remains by means of which prostitution can be kept in
bounds, and their terrified imaginations at once conjure up pictures of
abolitionist communities overwhelmed by the rising tide of immorality
and disease. Without at all prejudging the case either in favor of or
against abolition, the notion that abolition is a purely negative policy
beginning and ending with the ignoring of prostitution may be
characterized as baseless. Unquestionably, such might be the case. A
community might refuse to recognize prostitution by regulation, and
might, like the ostrich, bury its head in the sand, refusing to admit
the existence of prostitution as a phenomenon requiring the attention of
society. But, to be candid, this is nowhere the case, though one
frequently and commonly hears it said. The abolition of regulation has
nowhere resulted in a _laissez-faire_ policy. Against both the above
errors we need therefore to be warned at the outset. Abolition means
only the abolition of regulation, not the abolition of prostitution;
abolition does not require that prostitution be ignored, overlooked,
tabooed, or treated in a spirit of prudery as non-existent: it is
entirely consistent with thorough inquiry into the whole phenomenon, and
constructive social action aiming to deal with it.
Generally speaking, the immediate effect of abolition is to place the
mere act of prostitution in the same position as any other private vice.
The prostitute as such is like the drunkard as such, or the opium-eater.
A woman, for example, who prostitutes herself for money is in abolition
communities in the eye of the law in precisely the situation of the man
whom she has gratified: if the pair give no offence, the State takes no
cognizance of the act. The intervention of the law is conditioned not on
the act itself, but on certain conditions or results which make it
something more than an affair involving two participants. If decency is
violated, if disorder is created, if neighbors are scandalized, in some
countries if disease is communicated, society considers itself warranted
in interfering, just as it interferes in other circumstances to preserve
or to promote the peace and health of the community. So far, there would
appear to be little difference between what happens in regulated and
what happens in unregulated towns. In Paris, as in London, in Budapest,
as in Copenhagen, the mere act of irregular copulation is not regarded
as a crime, even though money passes; even in Germany, despite the
letter of the German law, which brands all non-registered professional
prostitution as criminal, inoffensive prostitution for money is treated
like ordinary immorality and is not interfered with. On the other hand,
everywhere the authorities act whenever the usual order of the community
is disturbed by prostitutes or prostitution. So far, then, I say,
regulation and non-regulation are alike. There are, however, two
distinct differences. In regulated towns, inscribed prostitutes are
treated differently from non-inscribed prostitutes; in non-regulated or
abolitionist towns, all prostitutes are regarded as alike. In regulated
towns, what is an offence if committed by a non-inscribed woman is not
an offence if done by an inscribed woman. In non-regulated towns
whatsoever constitutes a violation of law on the part of A would
constitute a violation of the law on the part of B. If street-walking is
forbidden to one, it is forbidden to all; it is not allowed to one sort
of prostitute (viz., the registered prostitute) and denied to another
(viz., the unregistered, falsely called clandestine) prostitute. If
disorderly houses are illegal, they are illegal: they are not legally
authorized for one group of women and criminal for another group. From
the standpoint of positive policy, this is a significant difference, for
it favors the formulation of a general policy applicable to the
phenomenon as a whole. Regulation is, as I have pointed out, a policy of
exceptions; and wherever a fractional policy is adhered to, the
exemptions operate as a drag upon a comprehensive program; the
exceptions impede and hamper the conception or the execution of any plan
conceived in reference to the entire problem.
The second distinction relates to the legal forms employed in dealing
with infractions of public order. I have described the methods employed
in regulated towns; by the act of inscription the woman surrenders the
rights and privileges of a human being; she makes herself a legal, as
she is already a social, pariah. The police may use their arbitrary
powers as considerately as they will; their behavior, if humane, comes
to the outcast as a matter of grace, not of right; except through the
pressure of public opinion, the woman has no assurance of humane
treatment,—she has no recourse, no redress, no rights. In abolitionist
countries, offences against order, decency, or health committed by
prostitutes are handled precisely as are the same offences when
committed by other persons. The law operates along established lines for
all offenders alike. If summary procedure is prescribed—i. e., a hearing
before a magistrate without a jury—it is prescribed for all persons
accused of the offences in question. In any event, the accused has every
opportunity and facility to make a defense,—attorneys, witnesses, and
the right of cross-examination. She can be convicted only by regular
processes, based on the explicit law of the land; in England, a writ of
habeas corpus would promptly take her before a court of competent
jurisdiction, if any ground for arbitrary detention could be made out. I
do not say, at this juncture, that the two points just instanced are of
themselves enough to justify abolition. The issue between regulation and
abolition will in this book be decided by the outcome of a comparison
between them in respect to order and disease,—the two aspects of
prostitution with which regulation undertakes to deal. Nevertheless, the
characteristic differences above touched on cannot be overlooked, if the
situation is to be grasped in all its essential bearings.
Though consistent in their indifference to prostitution in itself, the
statutes of abolitionist countries provide more or less amply for the
phenomena that are its prompt and well-nigh inevitable accompaniments:
so prompt and so inevitable indeed, that, for practical purposes,
prostitution itself can almost be said to be dealt with. A woman may
indeed prostitute herself with impunity; but if without reputable
occupation, she may be taken up as a vagabond. She may sell her favors
without for that act incurring the penalties of the law; but she may be
taken up for street-walking, for solicitation, for keeping a
brothel,—for any one, indeed, of the steps by means of which she
procures trade enough to keep breath in her wretched body. Abolition is
therefore not necessarily crippled in the matter of dealing with
nuisances; but the offending woman is prosecuted, not because she is a
prostitute, but because she has made herself obnoxious in practising
prostitution.
Close as the prostitute thus always is to the clutch of the law, the
distinction in principle is broad and clear. The prostitute is an object
of police action in abolition countries only when guilty of offences
against order and decency. Her business can with difficulty be conducted
without such offences. Nevertheless, as long as police interference is
conditioned on the offences in question, no novel or dangerous police
function is created,—such as would be created if the police were asked
to intervene on the ground of immorality. In the latter case, they would
be required to discharge an entirely new duty, distinct in quality from
anything else they do: they would become “_custodes morum_”—guardians of
public morals, instead of guardians of the public peace. To do the
latter they are competent, for breaches of the peace are open, obvious,
concrete,—perceptible by the ordinary senses of sight and hearing. It is
quite different with offences in the forum of morals. These are at times
difficult to detect, and involve subtle or problematic distinctions
which the police are too crude an instrument to make. Hence, as long as
the police deal with the concrete infractions by means of which
prostitution tends to bring itself into the net, they can act
consistently; should their range be extended so as to cover prostitution
as such, a partial policy would result: they could not act, unless guilt
were obvious; and this justified failure would create precisely the
opportunity for corruption and collusion that originates from
regulation. Finally, in so far as disorder leads to police interference
with prostitution, both parties to the act may be apprehended. Were
prostitution as such made a crime, only the woman would be reached. For
all these reasons, abolition legislation has consistently viewed
prostitution as a vice, attaching penalties only to its objectionable
manifestations.
We have seen in a previous chapter how prostitution tends to certain
forms or expressions,—street-walking and brothels, for example; how it
tends to associate itself with certain occupations or activities,—the
stage, the café, the public dance hall, and a few employments, genuine
or otherwise. The present chapter will tell how these various aspects
are dealt with in abolitionist communities and will endeavor to decide
whether regulation possesses any advantage over abolition in respect
thereto.[528]
The English law provides:[529] “Every common prostitute or night-walker
loitering and importuning passengers for the purpose of prostitution in
any street, to the obstruction, annoyance, or danger of the residents or
passengers”[530] may be arrested by a constable[531] without warrant and
on summary[532] conviction be fined 40s. or imprisoned fourteen days. In
the Metropolitan Police District of London a prostitute is liable to the
same penalty, even though actual solicitation is not proved.[533] The
English police have therefore full power and authority to clear the
streets.[534]
The law is equally clear on the subject of disorderly houses or
brothels. A brothel is in England defined as a “place resorted to by
persons of both sexes for the purpose of prostitution”; it need not be a
whole house and may be a single room, but it does not include a house
that is occupied by one woman who is there visited by many men for the
purposes of unlawful intercourse nor a house let out in separate
apartments to prostitutes in which the owner does not live and over
which he has no control.[535] The English definition is thus broad
enough to include not only outright resorts, where prostitutes live and
practise their trade, but _rendezvous_ houses and hotels where rooms are
let for immoral purposes to transient customers without baggage. The
Common Law viewed the brothel as a nuisance, on the same footing as a
gaming-house or any place frequented by noisy and disreputable
characters. It could be proceeded against by indictment, because it
“endangers the public peace by drawing together dissolute and detached
persons.”[536] Any person might initiate prosecution and recover a
reward, if the prosecution were successful. With the passage of the
_Criminal Law Amendment Act_ of 1885, however, more expeditious
procedure was introduced. The Act penalizes “any person who keeps or
manages or acts or assists in the management of a brothel,” permits the
use of premises he controls for the purposes of habitual prostitution or
is a party to such use.[537] Places kept for public dancing, music, and
other forms of entertainment as well as taverns, lodging-houses, etc.,
must be licensed; and, as we shall see, their relations to the practice
of prostitution have been greatly affected by the general change of
policy in this respect.
The statutes governing the provincial and Scottish cities are not the
same in all respects as those applicable to London, but in the upshot
there is little difference. The _Towns Police Clauses Act_ already
referred to is the legal warrant on the basis of which the provincial
authorities proceed. Certain towns, however, operate under special acts,
not materially different in theory or application. The law of Glasgow,
for example, runs as follows: “Every prostitute or street-walker who on
or near any street loiters about or importunes passengers for the
purpose of prostitution shall be liable to a penalty.”[538] In so far,
therefore, as the letter of the law is concerned, it is clear that
abolition in England by no means involves a policy of _laissez-faire_ as
respects the outward manifestations of prostitution. This is perhaps a
sufficient refutation of the commonly made statement that the English
law “ignores prostitution,” “shuts its eyes to it,” “refuses to
recognize its existence,” etc. As to all these points, English law
exactly corresponds with that of many continental nations; it deals, not
with prostitution in itself, but with scandal arising in connection
therewith. Further, the English law differs from that of some
continental nations in refusing to authorize or license prostitution,
but in so doing it occupies precisely the position of certain other
continental nations that maintain the same position.
At the present time, the abolition legislation of Norway and that of
Denmark—largely modeled upon it—are perhaps the most influential of all
statutory enactments dealing with prostitution.[539] In Norway, a severe
penalty is attached to the maintenance of houses of prostitution; the
ordinary provisions of the criminal code enable the police to arrest
women for intoxication, for solicitation, and for other violations of
decency; the prostitute can also be proceeded against on the ground of
vagabondage. Persons who for their own profit aid “in the immoral
intercourse of others or take advantage of such immoral intercourse” are
liable to imprisonment up to two years.[540]
The Danish law of 1906 follows along the Norwegian lines. It repeals the
law of 1866, by which regulation had been instituted, and, as Police
Inspector Schepelern-Larsen acutely remarked, the “prostitute’s
recalcitrancy was rewarded,” for the woman twice punished as a common
prostitute had—as elsewhere—been inscribed and was thereafter privileged
to pursue the course for entering upon which she had twice suffered a
penalty! The new law abolishes this privilege; it denounces the common
prostitute as a vagabond[541] and renders her amenable to the
consequences of vagabondage; any one who solicits or invites immorality
in such wise as to offend against the sense of shame, causes public
scandal, or annoys a neighbor is liable to punishment;[542] bordells are
expressly forbidden, and severe penalties are aimed at those conducting
places of assignation; the police are empowered to prevent keepers of
hotels, cafés, and restaurants from utilizing immoral women as
waitresses.
The Dutch law of 1911 for the prevention of immorality bears with
especial severity on the violation of minors and the promoting of
immorality—the latter intended to suppress bordells,[543] and to prevent
third parties from profiting through the demoralization of others. Local
ordinances in some instances go even further: in Amsterdam, for example,
owners and renters are forbidden to “afford others an opportunity for
immoral acts, either customarily or in the pursuit of gain”; after such
places have been closed or ordered closed “it is prohibited to visit
them.”[544]
Street order is a matter of local determination. At Amsterdam the
ordinance reads: “Women are forbidden to take their stand on the steps
or in the doorways of taverns and beer-houses or other houses accessible
to the public, or being within the houses to attract the attention of
passers-by to themselves by a deliberate act of communication or
exposure.”[545] But a more formidable weapon is put in the hands of the
authorities by the following proviso: “Women are forbidden to stand in
the public streets, in front of or in the vicinity of the places above
specified or on the corners of streets in which such places are situated
or _to walk up and down_ in the vicinity after a police officer has
ordered them to move on.”[546]
It is perhaps unnecessary to enter into the question at greater length
in order to show that abolition does not mean _laissez-faire_; in all
the countries that I visited, abolition of regulation is accompanied by
definite statutory authority to deal adequately with prostitution in so
far as it imperils order and decency. Switzerland,[547] where the
discussion has thus far been left to cantonal regulation,[548] may serve
as a concluding instance. In Zurich, to take a fair representative,
persons who provide opportunity for the immorality of others or derive a
profit therefrom (i. e., bordell-keepers) are liable to heavy fine and
five years of hard labor.[549] For the maintenance of decency in public
thoroughfares, it is provided that “women who in public places offer
themselves for immoral purposes or tempt thereto may be imprisoned up to
eight days.”[550]
Clearly, therefore, it does not follow that the laws are silent or
ineffective merely because prostitution is in itself regarded as a vice,
not as a crime; on the contrary, legislation may in non-regulated
countries be at once more comprehensive and more consistent than in
regulated communities. I have already instituted a comparison between
regulation and abolition in respect to certain points. For the sake of
simplicity, it may be well to continue this method, as we proceed. As
far, then, as the legislation goes, the police authorities of London,
Copenhagen, and Christiania evidently have a simpler, more logical and
more thoroughgoing statutory basis from which to proceed in the
protection of the public and of the prostitute herself than is possessed
by the police of any regulated town or country. For the London or
Copenhagen police can at least go as far as the police of Berlin or
Hamburg and they can act consistently in reference to all prostitutes.
They are empowered to deal with the entire phenomenon in so far as it
endangers public order; at no point are they balked by the exemptions
that regulation makes in favor of women privileged through inscription.
This point, however, must not as yet be regarded as decisive of the
issue. It still remains to be seen how the competing systems work.
For laws do not enforce themselves. They must be converted into a policy
by the attitude of the police, by the interpretations of the courts, by
the demand of public opinion. Let us consider briefly how statutory
provisions are modified by these factors.
Public opinion is unquestionably the most powerful of influences. Be the
letter of the law what it may, actual achievement under it will depend
first and foremost on what general sentiment demands and consistently
supports. As abolition has been brought about in part by agitation on
ethical lines, one would expect a more highly developed public opinion
in abolitionist countries. This undoubtedly exists. The suppression of
the public bordell is without question an achievement due not only to
legislation, but to popular insistence that police and courts enforce
the law. In Germany as in England, the bordell is illegal; but public
opinion in Germany being less highly developed and less articulate, the
law remains in most places a dead letter.
Curiously enough, public opinion in this entire matter is more or less
self-contradictory. On the one hand, orderly streets, free of scandal,
are required; on the other hand, a blunder made or apparently made by
the police is violently resented. The same opinion that demands the
former stands ready to burst into flame in the event of the latter. The
Royal Commission which, in consequence of a supposed blunder,
investigated the London police, declared that “the main difficulty in
enforcing the law (as to solicitation) is caused by the
over-sensitiveness and impatience of the public whenever there seems
ground, however slight, for alleging that there has been a mistake in
arresting a woman on a charge of solicitation. Not only the particular
constable who effected the arrest, but the police as a whole find
themselves suddenly the object of public censure in the press, in
society and even in Parliament. These displays of emotion are curious in
the case of a law-abiding and law-respecting community such as ours
seeing that similar feelings of indignation are rarely aroused in cases
where men are acquitted of crime of the greatest gravity. Every one
must, however, recognize that it is a very terrible misfortune for an
honest woman or girl to be publicly tried on a charge involving an
imputation of peculiarly disgraceful unchastity. Whatever may be the
causes of, or excuses for, these gusts of popular emotion, there can be
no doubt that they tend to some extent to impair the activity of
constables.”[551] We may expect, therefore, to find actual conditions
not so good as the law to the extent that public opinion fails to
require or sustain their enforcement, and to the extent that
hypersensitiveness or hysteria is ready to attack the police where
absolutely overwhelming proof can not be furnished at the moment.
The construction of the law by the courts—itself both a result and a
maker of opinion—is likewise an important factor in deciding what
legislation will achieve. Wherever magistrates disagree as to the
precise intention of the statute, a twilight zone is created, in
consequence of which the scope of the law is indirectly narrowed; for
official policy tends to restrict itself to acts that the courts will be
sure to uphold.[552] Finally, the rules, the policy, even the tradition
of the police department in applying statutes and judicial decisions and
in endeavoring to meet, without outrunning, the demands of public
opinion, tend now to stretch, now to restrict, the law as it stands on
the statute books. For example, the Danish statute punishes any
exhibition or act that disturbs order, offends the sense of shame, etc.
The courts, it is now pointed out, might have deprived the section of
all its force by requiring the production of a witness whose sense of
shame was actually outraged. They have, however,—undoubtedly governed by
public opinion—construed the provision to refer to conduct which would
naturally give such offence,—and the policeman’s evidence is sufficient.
This section has therefore been effective. On the other hand, the courts
have held that it is no offence for prostitutes to gather in small knots
on the streets,—as a result of which the phenomenon has latterly become
more prominent in Copenhagen.
It is our present task to ascertain what actually happens in
abolitionist communities and to compare the results with the conditions
described in previous chapters. The practical outcome of the English
statutes, as interpreted by the courts and as demanded by public
opinion, is reflected in the regulations promulgated for the guidance of
constables by the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. In respect to
brothels, the London constable is instructed to “note in his pocket-book
and report any house apparently used as a brothel.”[553] The constable
takes no further step on his own initiative; arrests are made on
direction of borough or other authorities, after complaint by neighbors
or others interested.[554] Prostitutes on the street are to be dealt
with discreetly—“not to be interfered with unnecessarily.” The names of
women acting like prostitutes are to be reported; women engaged in
soliciting are to be warned before arrest;[555] annoyance of passers-by
is to be prevented.[556] The police act on their own initiative only if
the behavior of the woman is offensive, annoying, or scandalous. The
unobtrusive prostitute is not molested. Keepers of licensed premises, i.
e., liquor establishments, refreshment houses, etc., are to be reported
if they permit prostitutes habitually to resort to their
establishments.[557]
The limitations thus placed on the constable are partly due to the size
of the area covered. I have already had occasion to remark how certain
situations change qualitatively whenever they undergo a radical
quantitative expansion. Centralized supervision of the individual
conduct of sixteen thousand policemen dealing with so delicate a matter
as prostitution is difficult in the highest degree. When does the
conduct of a woman stamp her as a prostitute in such wise that a
magistrate will sustain the constable who apprehends her? When does her
conduct overpass the limits of toleration? Shall the patrolman enter
suspected disorderly houses for the purpose of satisfying himself as to
their character? In small towns, where everything readily becomes
notorious, it is a comparatively simple matter to check up the doings of
the police; where the head is sound and the motives are pure—as is
regularly the case abroad—more or less initiative may be safely
entrusted to a constable who is thus easily supervised. But in London
the magnitude of the task would expose the patrolman to grave danger of
corruption and collusion. He might be corruptly induced to overlook
cautious violations of the law, if it were made his duty to be the
aggressor in taking action; or he might be tempted to levy blackmail,
difficult as that would be under existing circumstances.[558] His
initiative is therefore restricted to concrete and overt instances.
Further steps depend on the action of higher authorities,—a machinery
readily set in motion by protest or complaint. The department thus has
the guarantee of both evidence and supervision, since the parties who
lodge the complaint will see to it that proper steps follow. In a
peculiar degree, therefore, it is true that in London conditions depend
on the state of public opinion.
In consequence of the policy described above in respect to
street-walking, somewhat spotty conditions characterize the metropolis.
Women are distinctly abundant in the streets radiating from and in the
vicinity of Trafalgar Square, Oxford Circus, Regent Circus, and the
various railway stations. As a rule they conduct themselves
unobtrusively, communicating furtively with passers-by, though, after
midnight, they are at times more aggressive. Whenever the police are
sustained by the aroused public opinion of a given locality, improvement
ensues; for the inhabitants of a given neighborhood having protested
become checks on the police assigned to the district; unless action is
taken along the desired lines, suspicion is awakened and protests
accumulate. In this way, the Strand, only a few years ago one of the
scandals of London, has been rendered comparatively innocuous. Besides
the transformation wrought in particular spots, an unmistakable general
improvement is noticeable throughout London. This is a fact familiar to
travelers returning to London after an interval of a few years; it was
practically the unanimous testimony before the Royal Commission. On this
point it is hardly necessary to do more than to quote the words of Mr.
W. A. Coote: “I have known London for the past forty years, and my
memory goes back to quite forty-seven years. I knew the Haymarket and
Piccadilly very well forty-seven years ago and I say that London to-day,
compared with what it was forty years ago, is an open-air cathedral.
Everything has gone for the better.”[559] The laws remain the same, but
popular demand has caused, or enabled, police and courts gradually to
make more of them. The increased activity of the police is evidenced by
the greater frequency of arrests, 2,409 in 1901, 4,206 in 1905. The
courts have more than kept pace. Of the smaller number arrested in 1901,
274 (11.4%) were discharged: of the larger number arrested in 1905, 252
(6.3%) were discharged.[560] The high percentage of convictions
testifies to the discrete manner in which the police discharge their
duties.
How stands it with the brothel or disorderly house?[561] A brothel—it
may be well to repeat—is a house in which prostitutes live, to which
they bring or in which they receive their patrons. It has been held,
however, that no brothel exists where only one woman prostitutes herself
for money. The room to which the street-walker retires with her prey is
not a brothel in the meaning of the law. But wherever two or more women
occupy premises for the purpose of carrying on prostitution, a brothel
exists, no matter what the subterfuge employed,—be the quarters in
question their living-rooms, a pretended manicure or massage
establishment, or what not. Such resorts nowadays lead a stealthy,
uneasy, transient life in many sections of London, including the
suburbs. In the West End a few fashionable brothels are found, located
where they are least likely to be noticed, and transacting their
business with a limited clientele procured through introduction. Much
more frequent, but also much less stable, are the brothels of the
Haymarket region, masking as massage rooms, baths, as schools for the
teaching of foreign languages or elocution, or as rheumatism cures. The
women conducting these places advertise in certain periodicals and even
send “sandwich men” parading through Regent Street and Bond Street.[562]
The inmates are, however, very careful not to attract the attention of
others in the same house or in the neighborhood; hence the places are
open only during usual business hours, though they make appointments
elsewhere for other times.[563] The police are, of course, usually
informed; but in accordance with their policy are content to preserve
decorum until outside agencies move; whereupon the brothel is broken up,
the inmates being either arrested or dispersed. Certain sections of
London have been greatly improved by organization work of this type. For
example, the Central South London Free Church Council has been
beneficially active in South London. In 1909, this organization
prosecuted 68 brothel-keepers; in 1910, 53; in 1911, 32; the reduction
being due not to decreased vigor, but to better conditions.[564] The
activities of the police in this direction are exhibited in the
following table:[565]
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Convicted, held to bail,
or committed to Reform
Taken into Custody Discharged School
Year Males Females Total Males Females Total Males Females Total
1901 145 243 388 11 27 38 134 216 350
1902 142 271 413 16 25 41 126 245 371
1904 292 442 734 30 55 85 260 386 646
1905 269 431 700 29 40 69 240 390 630
1906 264 403 667 24 40 64 239 363 602
1907 187 305 492 14 27 41 173 278 451
1908 154 192 346 13 19 32 132 152 284[566]
1909 184 219 403 17 17 34 160 174 334[567]
1910 110 182 292 9 16 25 90 139 229[568]
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
A certain amount of repressive activity, evoked in the same
fashion—viz., by outside protest or actual disorder—goes on in reference
to assignation hotels, and other resorts apt to be frequented by
prostitutes. The public drinking-house is the object of more severe
measures, in furtherance of the policy of reducing the number of
taverns. A license is in danger of cancellation, whenever prostitutes
are harbored.
English activity in respect to prostitution thus involves the
suppression of brothels and the gradual improvement of street
conditions. Too little is accurately known regarding the dimensions of
the prostitute army to decide how this policy affects the number of
women engaged. There can be no doubt, however, that it diminishes the
attractiveness of the career on the financial side; for the women are
practically forced to pick up their customers on the street under
conditions very unfavorable to the canvass for trade, and in the long
run diminished returns must check the recruiting process, on the
professional side at any rate. If by reason of the furtive and shifting
manner in which the trade must be plied, the volume of business is
slighter, then beyond any doubt the amount of disease disseminated and
the amount of financial waste are both correspondingly diminished.
Our main interest at this moment is, however, comparative. London,
Berlin, Paris, and Vienna are cosmopolitan cities. London does not
regulate prostitution; all the others do. London has no morals police;
all the others have. London watches prostitution through the ordinary
uniformed force acting under strict instructions; the others employ
plain-clothes men with special powers. London possesses no arbitrary
police process; all the others do. Does London suffer in the comparison
in respect to public order and decency? Most assuredly not. The
Haymarket may perhaps be no better than the Boulevards,
Friederichstrasse, or Kärntnerstrasse; it is in any case no worse.
Conditions have improved everywhere; but I suspect there has been more
amelioration in London and that it is likely to travel further than
anywhere on the Continent. The cities differ, of course, in regard to
many important elements,—race, tradition, ideals; and these elements
affect more or less the aspects of social order with which we are
dealing. But in any event the evidence warrants us in concluding that,
taking the actual situation as we find it, the English metropolis shows
no sign that it lacks a police instrument that the others possess. To
prove that such an instrument confers no comparative advantage is, of
course, conclusive against it; but our previous examination strengthens
the case for abolition to the extent that it disclosed substantial
disadvantages on the side of regulation.
I am by no means disposed to imply that London has exhausted the
possibilities of wise action in reference to prostitution,—that its
procedure leaves nothing to be desired. There would, for example, appear
to be no good reason why a prostitute calling herself “Nurse Dora”
should be privileged to advertise herself on billboards circulating up
and down Regent Street and Bond Street.[569] But at this juncture I am
not especially concerned to indicate the defects of any particular
abolition town. The issue is for the moment between regulation and
abolition and we are interested in ascertaining whether, as the matter
now stands, abolition communities necessarily fare worse in respect to
external order than regulation communities, and whether, in general,
abolition promises better or worse results than regulation.
The London method, it is often urged, scatters prostitution, thus
rendering it more difficult to deal with and more dangerous to the
innocent poor. Neither assertion is, as compared with regulation on the
Continent, actually or necessarily true. In so far as prostitution tends
to be associated with crime, dispersion is sound policy; the police of
set purpose break up nests of crime. Evil-doers—prostitutes among
them—are most dangerous in gangs; dispersion strips them of power,
cunning, and daring. There are, however, limits to dispersion, fixed by
rental, character of the neighborhood, etc., in consequence of which
birds of a feather still continue to flock together. Hence the
scattering is continually interrupted by brief fortuitous settlement
here and there, or by longer joint sojournings in buildings out of which
decent people are gradually edged. This happens in London; but,
unfortunately for the contrast set up by regulationists, it happens
everywhere else as well. Prostitution is assuredly no more widely
scattered in London than in any of the other cities compared with it;
maps showing its incidence would abundantly sustain this assertion.
Berlin is in this respect precisely like London; the Berlin prostitute
lives anywhere, well-nigh everywhere, and, besides, frequently possesses
a key to a room in an apartment building close to the scene of her
nightly perambulations. In Paris and Vienna, the amount of bordelled
prostitution being negligible, the numerous non-interned women live
where they please; in Vienna, indeed, as I have pointed out, the police
rules expressly forbid needless interference with their preferences as
to domicile; in Paris, they congregate in the congenial environment of
Montmartre and the Latin Quarter; but they are not excluded from
fashionable thoroughfares such as the Avenue Victor Hugo, or the spokes
of the wheel radiating from the Arc de Triomphe. Abolition does not
suffer by comparison with regulation in this respect.
An interesting light is shed on the relation of street and bordell,
discussed in a previous chapter, by the experience of London. Regent
Street and Piccadilly are still notorious for the number of loose women
frequenting them; but far less so than formerly when “at certain hours
they became so crowded with undesirable persons as to make the use of
the streets irksome to respectable persons.”[570] In this same area over
three hundred disorderly houses have been closed in consequence of legal
proceedings in the division of St. James, covering about three-quarters
of a square mile. The tightening of police control may explain the
improvement in street conditions; but the coincidence of improved
streets and closed brothels shows clearly that suppression of brothels
does not necessarily result in aggravation of street conditions; there
is, as I have previously pointed out, every reason to believe just the
reverse.
A word as to the effect of abolition on the character of the police. I
have emphasized the admirable quality of the continental police, due in
the first place, unless I err, to the secure tenure, the independence,
integrity, and intelligence of the commanding officers; the weak
spot—and that of varying seriousness—is the morals division, which,
capable of proving anywhere a localized infection, has in some instances
become an open sore. That abolition is solely responsible for the
difference I do not affirm; but it is at least noticeable that the
police of the British metropolis have passed practically unscathed
through the most searching criticism,—the strongest witness in behalf of
their general probity, humanity, and helpfulness having been borne by
those who know most of their relations with prostitution. Exceptions
were indeed found; a force approximating 17,000 men could hardly be
entirely lacking in black sheep. For example, the Royal Commission
verified thirteen complaints preferred by superior officers against
constables,—one of consorting with prostitutes, twelve of relations with
brothel-keepers,[571]—all severely dealt with; but, on the whole, they
“had no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the force discharge
their duties (in respect to prostitution) with honesty, discretion, and
efficiency.”[572]
The charge most readily made relates to the corruption of constables by
prostitutes in the street with a view to securing immunity from arrest.
I have shown the practical difficulties in the way of controlling this
matter in regulated towns where certain women have the right to
promenade,—a right which can be corruptly extended to others, and no one
be the wiser; for who but the policeman can judge whether a prostitute
is entitled to the privilege of the streets? In abolition London the
situation is so far different, that any exceptions raise at once a
presumption of wrong-doing or negligence. Hence, whatever the policy
pursued, be it lax or strict, uniformity is necessary. A decade or two
ago, when public opinion was indifferent, aggressive solicitation went
on, not because it was paid for, but because no one objected; nowadays,
certain streets have been cleared and nowhere is solicitation actively
obtrusive, because public opinion is articulate and the police, however
inclined, would not dare to play favorites.[573] Sir Edward Henry,
testifying before the Royal Commission, declared: “No complaint, oral or
written, has been made to me during the three and a half years I have
been Commissioner, charging the police with levying blackmail from women
of the unfortunate class. I am satisfied that if any individual man were
to take money from these women it would come to the knowledge of his
comrades, who would look upon him as an unmitigated blackguard and that
he could not remain in the force for long. I do not say that individual
instances of taking money may not occur, but the whole force know that
any proved misconduct of this sort would be severely dealt with. It is
quite impossible that there should be any systematized blackmailing,
because the variation in the beats is so great and in a street like
Regent Street where, on either side there are parts of ten beats, it
would not be of the slightest use to a woman to bribe the first
constable she came to, because she would only go a few yards before she
came to another beat. Therefore anything like a system of blackmailing
is impracticable and certainly could not exist many days without being
known to the authorities.”[574]
To restate briefly the upshot of the foregoing discussion: as compared
with cosmopolitan continental cities that regulate prostitution, London
has lost nothing and actually gained something through its abolition
policy. No community has as yet envisaged and attacked the entire
problem involved in commercialized prostitution,—no community, I say,
whether regulationist or abolitionist. On the whole, as we shall also
see in the next chapter, abolitionist cities have been the more active
in initiative, but the aggressive conscience of the world has too
recently awakened to have as yet achieved a great deal. As to the two
matters now concerning us—order in the streets and brothels—the lowest
level reached in London nowhere falls as low as in the continental
capitals where regulation is in vogue.
The police of the English metropolis is under the control of the Home
Office of the National Government; in all other towns, the force is
managed by the Watch Committee of the Town Council.[575] The latter are
therefore, perhaps, a bit more sensitive to public opinion and depend
more nearly on the tone of the municipal government. Fortunately in
Great Britain this tone is nowadays high, the membership of the Watch
Committee being scrutinized with especial care. This has not, however,
always been the case. As recently as the nineties the Chairman of the
Watch Committee and head of the licensing board in Liverpool was the
attorney of the brewing interests, and brewers were largely represented
on the committee itself. It was no accident, perhaps, that with these
conditions the town possessed a protected vice district containing
upwards of four hundred houses and that the public houses (saloons)
systematically harbored prostitutes. A vigorous agitation, the machinery
of which is still preserved and in motion, resulted in a complete
rehabilitation of the local government. The liquor interest was excluded
from the Watch Committee and neither in Liverpool nor elsewhere is it
now regarded as fit to be represented thereon; the unholy alliance
between prostitution and liquor has been largely destroyed by the
ruthless cancellation of licenses; in Liverpool the number has already
been reduced from 2,500 to 1,700.[576] A determined and systematic
effort has also been made to restore the streets to decency and to
destroy brothels. For this work, in the provinces and Scotland, as in
London, no special police machinery exists. Prostitution is handled by
the regular force, uniformed or plain-clothes,—by men, that is, who deal
with all other infractions of law. There is no morals division; nor is
any effort made to list or catalogue the prostitute as such. The genial
inspector of the Birmingham police, to whom I am beholden for an inner
view of the police situation there, was conscious of no necessity for
any special machinery. He did not know how many prostitutes there were
in Birmingham,—no police officer had ever tried to find out. He could
not tell, therefore, whether they were more or less numerous. Why should
he? The law-abiding prostitute must be the concern of other agencies.
The law-breakers among them he knew and watched precisely as he knew and
watched law-breakers of other kinds. Walking the streets at midnight, he
pointed out to me women who were thieves and pickpockets,—in whom he was
interested for that reason and not simply because they were prostitutes;
and he showed me their haunts,—precisely as the haunts of law-breakers,
prostitutes and others, were pointed out to me in London. No
extraordinary mechanism,—no mechanism, I mean, not otherwise needed in
dealing with urban crime,—was needed in either place for this purpose;
and no lack of knowledge or power to cope with individuals or with
emergencies was felt or betrayed; nor was the integrity of the force
imperilled by its dealings with prostitution, for that integrity was
safeguarded by the quality of the head officers, by the principles on
which recruits were procured, and by the limitations erected by statute.
In these circumstances, the provincial like the London brothel leads a
stealthy existence. Two or more women occupy a house or flat[577] for a
brief period. The more prosperous occupy small houses on the edge of
town; the word is passed through cab-drivers or from “friend” to
“friend.” In certain sections of Manchester the position of the window
shades and of the front door is a signal to the initiated. In the side
streets leading from Oxford Street, Manchester, many doors are
significantly ajar up to the late hours of the night. Shortly conscious
of being observed, the women fold their tents and steal elsewhere,
repeating the performance. Not infrequently, neighbors complain and the
town authorities apprehend the inmates, subjecting them to fine or
imprisonment. Statistics convey some notion of the vigor of the
policy,—none as to whether the evil decreases or increases. In
Liverpool, for example, there were 162 prosecutions for brothel-keeping
in 1902, with 147 convictions; 196 prosecutions with 116 convictions in
1910; in the nine years from 1902 to 1911, there were altogether 1,720
arrests, 1,411 convictions.[578] In Edinburgh, the number of brothels
known to the police shows a marked diminution,—from 45 in 1901 to 29 in
1911,—not unconnected perhaps with increased severity on the part of the
authorities who arrested nine women of the larger number (45) in 1901,
thirty-five women of the smaller number (29) in 1911.[579]
Street conditions have undergone precisely the same evolution previously
described as generally taking place. Time was—and that within recent
memory—when importuning on the main highways was well-nigh unrestrained.
Nowadays the prostitute walks more or less swiftly by, indicating her
object by a stealthy glance or mumbled word. Hoping for a nibble she
retires into a side street waiting to be approached by her supposed
quarry.[580] If disappointed, she resumes her inoffensive promenading.
The public houses are less and less used for this purpose, because the
publican fears the loss of his license. If an arrangement is perfected,
the pair retire to the woman’s room or to an assignation hotel, though
the latter operate with great caution. Parks, cabs, even railway
compartments are utilized. Not infrequently a journey to a suburb is
urged; in Liverpool, a street-walker suggested “Bootle,” several miles
distant, as the nearest place that was sure of being free from
interruption or molestation.
The policy described keeps the brothel inconspicuous and relatively
infrequent; it renders the streets fairly unobjectionable. Does it
accomplish anything more? The officials are entirely candid on this
point. The Birmingham inspector “does not believe that the amount of
prostitution has been decreased through keeping it ‘on the move’ or
through punishment. It disappears here, to reappear there. Girls are
easily found; but”—and I shall recur to the point—“they tempt less.” A
prominent and experienced member of the Watch Committee expressed
similar views: “The present policy drives women from one cover to
another; it prevents anything like a tropical growth.” In Edinburgh the
actual number of notorious prostitutes appears to have been reduced, for
the police returns, 424 in 1901, had shrunk to 180 in 1911.[581] The
Chief Constable of Liverpool inclines also “to think that the decline of
the figures over nine years corresponds with a reduction in professional
prostitution, but it seems quite possible that the reduction is due to
the professional being ousted by the amateur.”[582]
It seems beyond dispute that prostitution, like any other business
enterprise, suffers when deprived of the advantage of position. What
hinders, reduces. The actual number of customers that can be picked up
by a street-walker compelled to forego all positive advances, or a woman
living in a brothel the location and character of which can only be
allowed to leak out surreptitiously, is bound to be diminished; and the
diminution of customers means the diminution of waste and disease. The
inducement to join the professional ranks is thereby lessened.
It is not pretended that repression and punishment achieve anything with
the hardened offender. The Chief Constable of Glasgow reporting to the
corporation of the city, states: “The imposition of a fine does not
prove a deterrent; any person may pay the fine and the woman continue
her way of life.”[583] The Chief Constable of Liverpool reports as “a
typical, not exceptional” case that of a prostitute fifty years old,
first convicted in 1884 and in 1910 sent to prison on her 156th
conviction.[584] In Edinburgh, coincidently with the reduction in the
number of notorious women, the number of arrests rose from 158 in 1901,
to 773 in 1911,—it reached 1,020 in 1910. Did the increased frequency of
arrests, due to the instructions issued to the police to act without
warning lead to an exodus from the city? Not improbably; but it was
futile for the reform of those who remained, for some of them were
convicted as many as eight or ten times in a single year. During the
first six months of 1911, 331 women under 23 years of age were sent to
Glasgow prison; 220 of these were convicted of importuning; only 72 of
the entire number were first offenders; among the others some had been
previously convicted as many as 34, 50, or even 69 times.[585] Nor are
hard-labor sentences more efficacious on the Continent in deterring
women from continuing a dissolute life. Of those thus punished at
Stockholm, between 1882 and 1884, 96.9% persisted in their evil courses
after the expiration of their prison terms; between 1885 and 1889,
98.3%; between 1890 and 1894, 96.7%; 96.8% in the period 1895–1899;
96.7% in 1900–2. The small remnant did not necessarily do better; they
may have left the city or escaped notice.[586] In regulation, as in
abolition communities, the system of fining and imprisoning offenders—be
they prostitutes or not—is futile, expensive, and demoralizing.
Meanwhile, below the surface, lie the frightful evils out of which
professional prostitution comes. An acrid controversy in Glasgow between
the Inspector of the Parish and the Chief Constable throws a flood of
light on a situation which neither regulation nor abolition touches. The
former cites the volume of existing immorality, the frequent violation
of children, the existence of ice-cream shops which are merely cloaks
for indecency; the latter replies that prostitution is in itself no
crime, that arrests can be made only where habitual prostitutes are
guilty of importuning, that the difficulties of proof in case of immoral
establishments are very serious, and that incidental prostitution and
immorality lie outside the province of the police.[587] Thus even though
regulation is condemned, it is necessary to remember that the serious
problem remains. This must not be overlooked. Our immediate concern is
however, once more, simply as to whether the provincial and Scottish
towns lose anything through not possessing the regulatory apparatus
found in continental towns of the same size. There can be but one
opinion on this point: no single phenomenon can be cited tending to show
that the situation would be bettered by regulation or that it suffers
for the lack of it.
The comparison between regulation and abolition can, however, be most
fairly made on the Continent, where the manner of living, the point of
view, and the social traditions of regulation and abolition communities
are more nearly alike. Moreover, the abolitionist cities that enter into
the comparison have all had regulatory systems,—some of them quite
recently. What have they lost through abolition? How do they bear
comparison with those that still retain regulation?
The subject is by no means a simple one, in part at least because its
discussion has been carried on in a spirit of acrimonious controversy.
Complete and dispassionate accounts of conditions during and after
regulation either in regulated or abolitionist communities have nowhere
been prepared; the only reliable statistics in existence deal merely
with certain phases of the evil, and leave unsettled the question as to
whether other phases have become better or worse, after or in
consequence of abolition. Moreover, all the cities involved have grown
with amazing rapidity; they have become larger, richer, more luxurious,
in some ways more frivolous. They compete with each other and even with
much larger towns in brilliancy and seductiveness. This increased
playfulness is certainly reflected in the increase of some forms of
immorality without involving in any degree the issue between regulation
and abolition.
Continental abolition has usually required two steps. In the first
place, bordells were suppressed; after a brief interval, registration
and medical inspection have been abandoned. Whatever has happened in
consequence of abolition, the mere suppression of the bordell can have
had little immediate or direct effect. The bordell was, as previously
pointed out, moribund anyway; its legal extermination involved hardly a
perceptible shock. At Zurich eighteen houses, containing fifty-seven
women were forcibly closed, at Rotterdam four with twenty women, at
Copenhagen three. On the face of the matter, it may, therefore, be
affirmed that nowhere in Europe has the closing of bordells as the first
step towards abolition involved unfavorable consequences.
This is not to say that the other forms of prostitution—the concealed
brothel, the counterfeit employment,[588] the low drinking-shop, the
dance hall, etc., have been lessened or mitigated by the abolition of
the bordell. Whether any particular surreptitious form of bordell exists
or not is not a question of abolition or regulation, but of the law, the
manner of its enforcement, the condition of public opinion, the attitude
of the courts, and the general feasibility of effective repression. Many
of these forms were briefly characterized in the opening chapter. They
are found everywhere,—in regulated cities, such as Hamburg and Budapest,
where the bordell is officially favored; in Vienna, where, though
officially reprobated, it still continues to exist: in Munich and
Berlin, where it is no longer tolerated; and just as well in abolition
towns,—Copenhagen, Zurich, and Christiania, for example. I have no
desire to understate the facts. Resorts serving the purpose of bordells
are almost universally met with—with or without regular bordells. I have
touched on the English brothels and the Berlin bars. In Amsterdam, one
finds clubs or pretended “pensions,” to which the visitor is conducted
by a cabdriver or directed by an acquaintance or a hotel porter and in
which he is entertained in whatever fashion he prefers. Along the
Binnenrotte in Rotterdam and in the narrow out-of-the-way streets of old
Zurich, cigar shops,[589] whose outfit consists mainly of empty boxes
and bedizened females, unmistakably proclaim their purpose. The
purchaser of one of the few cigars in stock, unless an object of
suspicion, need only lay a coin of moderate size on the counter in
payment; he will soon learn that there is no change in the drawer, but
that there are other ways of squaring the account.[590] If he prove
obdurate, the drawer is somehow discovered to contain the necessary
change; if he seems to be impressionable, his attention will be called
to a photograph and the inner salon will be recommended. In many towns,
too, “American bars” are found, most of them liquor establishments
behind the counters of which prostitutes hand out liquor and encourage
assignations. The proprietors escape punishment because the assignations
are fulfilled elsewhere than on his premises. Filthy establishments more
flagrantly devoted to the same purposes exist in abolition Zurich as in
regulation Bremen.[591]
Would these establishments revert to bordells, if the transformation
were allowed or forced? Perhaps, to a limited extent. But the change
would simply convert a few furtive and ill-patronized resorts into
notorious and well-attended bordells, the rest remaining by preference
what they now are. The net outcome would be bad, not good. Meanwhile
Christiania proves that the forms in question do not result merely from
suppression of the bordell, for the Animierkneipe with female service
does not exist there and counterfeit employments are rare.
The weight of authority—lay and official—unquestionably favors the view
here taken,—that the suppression of the bordell has operated in the
public interest. True enough, a writer discussing the entire evolution
of the problem, claims that the disappearance of the bordell in Zurich
has been accompanied “by an increase of secret ‘hole and corner’
prostitution, beyond the scope of the law,”[592] but no argument or
evidence shows that abolition is in any wise responsible for the fact,
if fact it be. It is assuredly not without significance as militating
towards a directly opposite conclusion that prosecutions for
pandering[593] have in the long run decreased, not increased, although
the suppression of bordells would, if general conditions actually
deteriorated, necessarily lead to an increase in the activity of the
pander. The bordells were closed in 1898: in 1895, 22; in 1896, 19; in
1897, 27 persons were convicted on the charge of pandering. During the
next three years, 30, 33, and 25; during the last five years, 13, 23,
28, 26, and 22 respectively. The learned chief of the Zurich police
declared to me that the bordell system “had earned practically universal
disapprobation. No one would now again urge the introduction of
tolerated houses, not even the unprejudiced and liberally-disposed.
Houses where a madame can hire out girls and acquire profits are not
wanted by any one.” An important official in Christiania urged that
whether regulation is desirable or not, the destruction of the bordell
was an advantage. The Amsterdam police favored their extirpation and
after fifteen years’ experience “are still opposed to them.” The
foregoing judgments are based on police grounds; assuredly the case
against the bordell would be all the stronger, were indirect
considerations also allowed to weigh.
Nowhere does the suppression of the bordell aggravate the domicile
problem, which, as a matter of fact, settles itself in abolition towns,
just as it does in regulation towns. The English, Swiss, Dutch, and
Scandinavian prostitutes seek rooms in sections occupied by the poor,
usually paying a considerably higher rental than is paid by decent folk.
In some cases their character is concealed and their business transacted
elsewhere; in others, when neighbors or fellow-tenants are too poor or
too careless to protest, the women utilize their own lodgings. The
street-walkers of London tend to congregate in apartment houses or
“mansions” from which respectable families are crowded out; in the
provincial towns they occupy small houses. If renting of rooms to
prostitutes is in itself made a crime, the law is broken, as at Berlin,
and of course most regularly in case of the more clever and well-to-do;
or the stupid and wretched are pushed into vagabondage rather than out
of prostitution. Some interesting statistics on this point come from
Zurich where, since 1897, the renting of a domicile to a prostitute
constitutes a punishable offence. As the execution of the law has been
more efficient, the percentage of homeless prostitutes, who sleep in
public lodging-houses or elsewhere, now here, now there, betrays a
tendency to increase. Police statistics, dealing with 361 prostitutes,
in 1904, show 69.8% having a regular domicile, 30.2% without domicile;
in 1908, of 399 women, the proportions were 52.6%, 47.4% respectively;
in 1910, of 601 women, 62.2% and 37.8% respectively.[594] The domicile
problem is indeed soluble only as the general problem of prostitution
itself is solved; it is made neither better nor worse by abolition.
The preceding discussion makes clear that the bordell played but a
slight part in the prostitution-economy of Norway, Denmark, Holland, and
Switzerland at the time of its abolition. The step was of moral rather
than of immediate practical importance. It indicated a change in the
attitude of society, that might in time produce results; but there was
no perceptible result at the moment. How stands the situation in respect
to order in the streets? Was the abolition of control attended by
increased prominence of prostitutes in the public highways of
continental towns or greater difficulty in keeping track of them, where
advisable to do so?
Of the abolition cities that I visited, prostitutes are most prominent
in the chief thoroughfares of Copenhagen, particularly in the vicinity
of the Tivoli, a popular amusement resort in the heart of the town, and
on the street corners and open squares near-by; they loiter alone or in
small groups, making no aggressive effort to attract attention; from
time to time they retreat into the cafés or variety shows abounding in
the vicinity. The main shopping street of Christiania—Karl Johans
Gade—appears to be free of promenading prostitutes by day; at night,
they are in distinct evidence there and in amusement gardens close by;
once more their demeanor is quiet and unobtrusive. In the Hague the
street prostitute is barely noticeable; an occasional woman is
observable in the crowds that night and day push through the busy little
street on which most of the retail shops are found; others can be hunted
down in low cafés. Rotterdam—a city of different type—presents a
slightly different aspect. In the earlier hours of the evening, women
hasten to the skating-rink, dance halls and cafés. When, at midnight,
these resorts close, prostitutes appear for a while on the streets. The
streets of Amsterdam were, at the time of my visit, the cleanest I had
anywhere observed; the ordinance authorizing arrest of the prostitute
for promenading has been enforced with sufficient vigor and discretion
to attain its object. Zurich is not substantially different from other
abolition towns. As late as midnight only occasional and cautious
street-walkers were to be observed; in reply to a question, an inquirer
was informed by one of these that she would shortly leave for Geneva,—a
regulation town,—“there is too little doing here.” Women, of whose
character their appearance leaves no doubt, survey the male passer-by
and retreat into a side street to give him an opportunity to seek an
interview; but unless intoxicated, they quietly await his approach.
The number of police arrests required in order to bring about the
conditions above described does not seem excessively large. In
Christiania, I was officially informed that “arrests for solicitation
were few”; in Amsterdam (population 580,960) 370 arrests were made in
1910, 382, in 1911.[595] The situation in Copenhagen (population
462,161) is portrayed by the following statistics: for soliciting,
offending against “the sense of shame,”[596] and “vagabondage,” 288
arrests were made in 1907, the year succeeding the repeal of regulation;
in 1908, 344; in 1909, 432; in 1910, 414; in 1911, 353. The total, not
large in any case, is due to the inclusion of vagabondage, to the growth
of the city, and to a judicial decision to the effect that prostitutes
congregating in the streets cannot be arrested or dispersed; for out of
these casual gatherings occasional disturbances leading to subsequent
arrests sometimes arise.
Have conditions in the towns above named been affected for the worse by
the sudden and recent change from regulation to abolition? I did not
find a single police officer who answered that question in the
affirmative. The division chief at Copenhagen stated to me: “Regulation
was entirely dispensed with in 1906; in the interval the police have
learned how to procure all the information and to take all the steps for
which at one time a morals police and regulation were supposed to be
necessary.”[597] When the new law abrogating police control was
proposed, objection was made on the ground that, in the absence of
police power to confine prostitutes to specific localities, they would
infest the whole city: “It has not happened; prostitution is more
scattered and thus more readily handled, but it does not invade all
sections. The suppression of summary police punishments has done no
harm; the ordinary courts with their usual processes have proved
adequate to maintain order and decency. Conditions are at least as good
as under the old system; some streets have been entirely freed; the main
streets are no worse; clandestine prostitution has not been aggravated;
indeed up to now nothing has happened to cause us to regret,”—with which
the grateful official “touched wood!”[598] Elsewhere, I was informed
that the former partisans of regulation were “struck dumb.”[599] If
abolition were working badly, one would hear “I told you so” from its
original opponents; there are, as a matter of fact, very few
regulationists any longer in Copenhagen, though certain points to be
shortly discussed are not yet clear. Officials of the same rank in
Christiania stated: “Regulation will never be restored.” The partisans
of regulation have steadily diminished in number and volubility. An
incident reported from Christiania, however, is interesting as showing
that everything that has happened since abolition has not necessarily
happened on account of abolition. In 1899 it was, for example, pointed
out at a medical conference in Christiania that street conditions had
become temporarily worse. The speaker attributed the fact to abolition;
but the argument was presently refuted by the statement that the real
reason for deterioration was the instruction to the police that “they
had no right to interfere with soliciting unless it was done in a
distinctly indecent manner.” Stockholm has not yet abolished regulation,
but the system has decayed so rapidly that bad results ought to be
perceptible, if regulation was really of any consequence whatsoever. I
have already called attention to the sudden drop in the new enrolments,
from 119 in 1903 to 67 in 1904; the number of annual inspections fell
from 20,849 in 1903 to 6,652 in 1911. The institution thus shrank
two-thirds within a few years, “without any resultant disadvantages from
the standpoint of public order; an activity that can be reduced 66⅔%
without a trace of inconvenience can hardly be regarded as necessary for
the public welfare.”[600] In Holland the abolition movement spread from
town to town,—an improbable course, had the absence of regulation done
harm. The Chief of the Hague police assured me that he “cherished no
regret on the score of abolishing regulation or bordells”; the division
chief admitted that, although having been a regulationist during the
regulation period, experience with the alternative system had made him a
strong abolitionist; he would “advise all cities to abolish regulation
and none to introduce it.” No stronger expressions were anywhere used
than by the Amsterdam Chief and his staff; they were outright
abolitionists; they believed regulation inseparable from police
corruption—an opinion echoed elsewhere as well; they found no greater
difficulty in handling the problems—criminal or other—in consequence of
abolition. In either case “incessant vigilance and effort” were
required. It is true that the police officials of France and Germany
give quite different accounts of what is to be observed in abolitionist
communities; but these statements are usually based on prophecies made
during the controversial period. The Swedish commission reports on
hearsay that “the experience of countries which do not have special
suppression of whole-time prostitution as such” is deplorable; but
Professor Johansson notes in reply that “it would have been well to
indicate the countries in question.”[601] Christiania alone is mentioned
by name, and as to that, candor requires them to add that “nothing
really importunate or offensive was observed in the conduct of the
women.”[602]
I have given above the verdicts of the police who have lived under both
systems, an experience entitled to great weight. There is every
indication that the popular verdict coincides. In the Canton of Zurich,
a referendum, proposed in favor of returning to the abandoned system,
was defeated by a vote of 49,806 to 18,016.[603] A newspaper comment on
the result warns the “interests” in favor of regulation that “every
proposition emanating from them is hopeless. If ever a revision of the
present statute is undertaken, the initiative will have to come from
disinterested jurists, physicians, and judges. We hope there will be no
such occasion.”[604]
A comparison of the streets of abolition cities with those of regulation
cities sustains the conclusion to which the preceding statements point.
Christiania is as decent as Stuttgart. As between Zurich and Geneva, the
contrast is all in favor of Zurich, though it is twice as large. Even
the seaport towns constitute no exception. Copenhagen and Rotterdam are
at least as quiet as Bremen and Hamburg; indeed it would be impossible
to find in the abolition sea-ports anything resembling the street scenes
enacted in the bordell quarters of regulated ports. The sailors’ quarter
of Rotterdam—the Schiedamschedyk—is a cosmopolitan affair, with drinking
and dance halls of variegated character. Prostitutes and their customers
come together in them; at times a woman standing in a door-way salutes a
passer-by. But up to the small hours of the night, the streets were free
of scandal.
Reference to the statutes previously described will show the reader that
the police generally enjoy the right to proceed against the prostitute
as a vagabond. This is the abolitionist counterpart of the regulationist
provisions directed against women “without a definite domicile.” The
vagabondage proviso is largely used only in Copenhagen, where there
exists great difference of opinion as to its value. Its prominence in
the Danish law betrays the dread under which the lawmakers worked. It
was feared that simple repeal of regulation might be interpreted to mean
that the law had no objection to a woman’s earning her living by
prostitution;[605] the prostitute was therefore made expressly amenable
to punishment as a vagabond, if proved to be without proper means of
support. Most of the arrests in the statistics before given[606] are due
rather to vagabondage than to solicitation—217 out of 288, 241 out of
344, 251 out of 432, 243 out of 414, 200 out of 353. The provision
operates in this way. The police having noticed a woman walking the
streets (not soliciting) at all hours, presume her to be without
legitimate occupation; she is warned; on a second warning her name and
address are taken and a printed notice is sent, requiring her to obtain
employment and to report the fact. Between 200 and 300 notices of this
kind are annually sent; in 1909, 216 women were once punished, 45 twice,
11 thrice on this charge.[607]
Serious objections are raised to this method of dealing with
prostitution. It is criticized as an indirect method of making
prostitution in itself a crime, and open as such to the objection that
it bears on the woman alone, and on only the stupid woman at that.
Justice would require that vagabondage be similarly treated, be the
vagabond a man or a woman; but this statute undoubtedly involves
discrimination in favor of the male vagabond. A quasi-regulatory system
might undoubtedly be introduced beneath its cover by a reactionary
official. The provision is at any rate a somewhat disingenuous
subterfuge, for, strictly speaking, the vagrant is homeless; but the
prostitute may be treated as a vagabond, despite the fact that she
possesses a home.
From a practical point of view, there is the further objection that the
statute is so easily evaded as to make its application uncertain and
inequitable. The street-walker, attacked as a vagrant without means of
support, claims to be a servant, earning a minimum sum,—say twelve
crowns monthly; she escapes punishment by pointing to the old woman for
whom she works, though the correct relationship is just the reverse, for
the older woman is the servant of the prostitute; or the accused vagrant
becomes a cigar-vender, a “laundress,” a “friseuse,” thus increasing the
number of counterfeit employments. Like regulation, the vagrancy
provision results in harrying the dull unfortunates, while leaving the
more pretentious and the more clever quite unscathed.
Of the other results feared in connection with abolition, none have
materialized to a perceptible extent. It was urged, for example, that
when bordells were dismantled, men would annoy respectable women on the
streets. It is indeed one of the queer features of all police dealings
with prostitution, that, whereas solicitation by a prostitute is an
offence, accosting by men is, unless outrageously flagrant, quite
overlooked. This is generally true in both abolition and in regulation
countries; but curiously enough, the evil is worse in regulated Germany
than anywhere else. In Swiss, Dutch and English towns—all abolition—the
offence is exceptional; in Berlin, many men habitually turn in order to
observe women, and at night do not hesitate to venture a word by way of
experiment. The annoyance of decent women has, therefore, not followed
as a result of abolition and is commonest in certain regulation
countries,—not, however, in my opinion, as a consequence of regulation.
It was feared that under abolition the percentage of pimps or souteneurs
would rise; there is, however, no confirmatory evidence. Even bordell
women frequently support pimps; the low grade prostitute everywhere has
her pimp, regardless of regulation or abolition, and everywhere protects
him loyally, as the few successful prosecutions show. In something over
a year, only 39 men were arrested as pimps in Rotterdam, 30 of whom were
sentenced to hard labor in a tramp-colony for terms running from three
months to three years.[608] The bully is indeed a parasite unaffected by
the existence of either regulation or abolition as such.
The situation as regards houses of assignation is everywhere on the
Continent in such confusion that no definite statement is possible. I
have pointed out the fact that these resorts are unopposed in Paris; are
harried from time to time in Germany, chiefly on the score of furnishing
facilities to clandestine prostitutes; are tolerated in Budapest, on
condition of submitting to certain rules,—with the result that both
regular and irregular resorts exist there. Abolition towns are in theory
hostile to _rendezvous_ houses; but it can not be said that their
prosecution has yet accomplished much more than the enforcement of
greater caution and quiet—no slight gain, to be sure,—in the conduct of
the business. The actual reduction in their number is, as far as one can
judge, nominal.
Regulationist police are honestly afraid that abolition renders it
difficult or impossible to keep track of prostitution. I have pointed
out what seems to me the real inwardness of regulation,—that it
furnishes the police with a method of keeping in touch with criminal and
criminally-inclined prostitutes and their associates. The registered
prostitute is tethered to the police; once or twice a week she is pulled
back; she can not get far away without being noticed; if she does, her
disappearance is soon known and efforts at least are made to trace her.
Abolition is said to do away with all this and to leave the police
helpless.
But the case is not so desperate after all. The continental police have
methods of keeping up with other people,—reputable and criminal alike;
and if the machinery which keeps up with the reputable will not answer
for the prostitute, assuredly the machinery which is with such
difficulty eluded by law-breakers will. For example, life and property
are probably equally secure in Hamburg, Rotterdam, and Birmingham.
Hamburg has a well organized regulatory system; Rotterdam is
abolitionist, but catalogues prostitutes; Birmingham is abolitionist and
ignores the prostitute until she becomes disorderly or criminal,
whereupon, like other disorderly or criminal people, she suffers as
such. “As far as crime is concerned,” a prominent London police official
remarked to me, “crime committed by a prostitute is not different from
other crime; it is handled just as other crime is handled and no
weakness has been felt in consequence of this procedure.” In this, as in
all the other points considered, if abolition has done no harm,
regulation could at best have done little or no good. Nor does it follow
that thoroughgoing abolition is at all inconsistent with just as
complete knowledge of local prostitution as is possessed by
regulationist police, should such information be desired. The English
police, as I have said, take no interest in the matter until the law is
violated,—of course, knowing and observing women given to transgression,
precisely as they know and observe other suspects. Influenced doubtless
by continental tradition, the police of abolition Rotterdam catalogue
women of suspected virtue; they possess a list of 1,465, eight hundred
of whom are professional and avowed prostitutes. The police of abolition
Zurich know 400 persons who rent rooms for prostitution though the
evidence falls short of technical completeness; in Christiania some 500
prostitutes are known to the authorities; the Amsterdam Bureau is
preparing a list for all Holland; after four years of work it contains
some 7,000 names; similar lists of pimps, traffickers, etc., with
photographs where possible, are found there just as in regulationist
Dresden or Vienna. The houses in which the prostitutes of Amsterdam live
have also been studied. At first two, afterwards four, men were assigned
to the task with the result that increasingly complete information has
been procured. In 1908, 292 houses with 548 girls were located; in 1909,
366 houses with 656 girls; in 1910, 510 houses with 854 girls; in 1911,
597 houses with 968 girls.[609] Copenhagen, fearful of a too sudden
plunge into abolition manages through its “warnings” to reach a similar
result; some 300 to 400 women are thus kept under observation,—though,
as happens under regulation, the women do not report as systematically
as the law contemplates, some evading, some leaving, some being in
prison.[610] It is clear, therefore, that abolition is consistent with
as complete knowledge of the local situation as the authorities think it
worth while to procure; in Holland, indeed, there has been more activity
along this line since abolition than previously.
For the sake of completeness, it is perhaps worth while to insert
another word before closing, as to the bearing of abolition on other
forms of prostitution than those I have considered at some length,—the
dance hall, the café, and similar establishments that furnish the
prostitute an advantageous opening. Neither regulation nor abolition as
such involves any particular policy in reference to these resorts. On
the Continent little has been done to insure their decent conduct or to
interrupt their connection with the exploitation of vice. In Great
Britain, the liquor and amusement traffic have been more effectually
supervised and beyond question with good results, as far as the matter
has yet gone. But effective management of the difficulties here touched
on takes us far beyond the immediate subject of our present inquiry. For
vicious liquor and amusement resorts are not bad because prostitutes
fasten upon them; prostitutes fasten upon them because they are bad.
They are problems, therefore, to be dealt with quite irrespective of
prostitution, though prostitution is indeed deprived of a foothold and
an incentive when they are thus dealt with.
That abolition favors police honesty is the unanimous testimony of
officials who have experimented with both systems. I was informed at
Zurich that the bordell system associated with regulation had resulted
in corruption that “for so small a town had reached enormous
proportions.” An official report of the year 1892 declared that proof of
punishable pandering was rarely possible because “before the
investigation ordered could be accomplished, the accused had received
notice of their peril through some secret channel or other.”[611] Again,
in Copenhagen, I learned that, as elsewhere, at the time when police and
prostitute were closely related, corruption prevailed; a certain
inspector even owned an interest in a house of prostitution and
committed suicide on exposure. The Dutch police are outspoken to similar
purpose. As I pointed out in dealing with Germany, general corruption is
nowhere alleged and the integrity of the head officials is never
impugned; but it is believed that, wherever the partial regulatory
policy is in operation, that is, wherever one rule is applied to some
women, another to others, a condition is created favorable to more or
less demoralization.
It is, however, obvious that, while abolition at once places all
prostitutes on the same footing before the law, it does not necessarily
follow that a morals police is superfluous. The morals police is
imperilled if it is in a position to award favors; under abolition, this
peril disappears. Now that this particular force is no longer exposed to
any peculiar danger, is it not worth retaining in the interest of
specialization? European experience does not warrant an affirmative
answer. Regulation Rome deals with its problems without morals police.
Certain towns of abolition Holland tend to create a morals division to
observe prostitution; a few men are detailed for the purpose at the
Hague; two inspectors, one social worker and twelve patrolmen at
Rotterdam.[612] Copenhagen retains a morals police. The English cities
are, of course, without any such division. It would appear that the
scope of a morals police in abolition cities is at best narrow. Certain
it is that no European city relies on the existence of the morals police
to maintain the integrity of the main body of the force. That integrity
is undoubted, but it is due, as I have already pointed out, first and
foremost to the character and tenure of the upper officials, to the way
in which patrolmen are chosen and trained, and to the sort of relation
that exists between the police department and the other government
departments.
CHAPTER X
ABOLITION AND DISEASE
Abolition not necessarily _laissez-faire_.—Norwegian handling of
disease problem.—Danish plan.—Italian plan.—Voluntary and compulsory
provisions compared.—Denunciation of alleged sources of
infection.—Attendance at free dispensaries.—Attitude of
prostitutes,—of medical practitioners.—Notification of venereal
disease.—Hospital provisions for treatment in Great Britain,—on the
Continent.—Statistics unreliable and imperfect.—Census of venereal
disease in Prussia,—in Sweden,—Venereal disease in European
armies.—Regulation without effect in England.—Decline in amount of
disease after its abolition.—Prussian army statistics.—Statistics from
Christiania,—from Copenhagen,—from Zurich.—Fluctuations in venereal
infection.—Reduction in amount of disease.—Abolition more favorable to
such effort than regulation.
In the preceding chapter I remarked that though abolition may be
accompanied by a _laissez-faire_ policy, this is not necessarily the
case. The situation in respect to venereal disease best illustrates this
statement. We shall see that the public in England is well-nigh entirely
indifferent on the subject; almost total _laissez-faire_ prevails there.
Abolition Scandinavia has, on the other hand, displayed great vigor and
originality in grappling with the problem of disease. Abolition
includes, therefore, the countries least active and most active in this
respect,—both extremes.
The Norwegians were in this matter first in the field with a scheme, the
essential points of which can be most clearly stated by means of a
contrast with regulation. Regulation endeavors to protect the public
health by safeguarding through police agencies the health of registered
prostitutes,—these prostitutes being periodically examined by police
surgeons and forcibly treated when found diseased; the distinctive
features of sanitary regulation are, therefore, its limitation to
professional inscribed prostitutes, its management by the police, and
the prison-like nature of the cure. In contradistinction to this
procedure, the unsatisfactory nature and outcome of which we have
discussed, the Scandinavian experiment, generally speaking, aims to
reach all those suffering with venereal disease, men and women alike;
and it seeks to accomplish this end by transferring the function from
the police to the health department, by the provision of free treatment,
and by endeavoring to enlist the patient’s aid in ascertaining the
source of infection, and in the isolation and cure of disease.
Separation from the police is intended to allay the patient’s dread of
becoming involved with the criminal authority, and, as nearly as may be,
to establish the feeling that venereal disease is after all a disease
and not a crime,—an evil that, aside from all else, requires
consideration on its own account The voluntary nature of submission to
treatment is intended still further to deepen the impression that the
entire matter is left to the patient’s intelligence and
self-interest—precisely as though he were otherwise afflicted; free
treatment is designed to strengthen the inducement and to dispose of the
competition of quacks.
The Norwegian law under which this system has been organized dates from
1860; by its terms local health boards with very extensive powers in
reference to epidemic and contagious diseases were organized; and these
boards were left free to determine what precautions should be taken and
to require reports.
In order to assist the health—not the police—authorities in controlling
the diseases in question, all physicians are required to report
daily—usually without names[613]—their venereal patients, to furnish the
patient with a copy of the laws relating to the communication of
venereal disease[614] and to require the patient to sign a statement
acknowledging the fact that he (or she) has been thus explicitly
warned.[615] The physician also endeavors to ascertain the source of the
infection and the person inculpated is reported to the Health Office.
This latter individual on calling by invitation[616] is informed of the
nature of the charge—the name of the accuser being withheld—and is
invited to submit to examination at a hospital or by a municipal
physician. No compulsion is applied; the advantages of knowing the truth
and the offer of free and skilful treatment in complete privacy form the
entire inducement. If disease is thus proved to exist, treatment can be
compelled, to the extent of forcibly confining the infected person in a
hospital. But reliable persons receive ambulatory treatment at the hands
of municipal physicians,—men, at the office of the physician, women at
the Board of Health office where a woman physician is on duty. The
police are invoked only if an individual having been “denounced”
neglects or refuses to comply with the summons of the Health Department.
Persons who, having knowledge of their infectious condition, communicate
disease, are punished with imprisonment for not exceeding three years.
The Danish law dealing with the subject represents a gradual evolution
greatly hastened in its final stages by the Norwegian example.[617] The
proffer of free treatment dates back to 1788; a law of 1874 sought to
impose an obligation to take advantage of this opportunity; in the law
of March 30, 1906, fifteen of the eighteen paragraphs which compose the
statute deal with the problem of venereal infection.[618] The main
provisions are the following:[619] It is made a punishable offence to
communicate venereal infection even as between husband and wife; any
person who in ignorance of his or her condition infects another is
liable for the medical charges and damages; venereally infected persons
may, regardless of their ability to pay, receive free treatment from the
municipality; they are in duty bound to submit to such free treatment if
they are themselves unable to employ a physician; if the manner of
living of the patient is such as to endanger others, or if the patient
does not observe directions, or is a pauper in receipt of aid, he or she
may be forcibly interned,—_the decision to rest with the police
officials_[620]; patients can be required to continue under medical
observation even after the conclusion of their regular treatment; every
physician is obligated to hand venereal patients a printed warning
against marriage and against sexual intercourse, and to explain the
legal liabilities incurred through violation of this injunction; every
physician must report the instances in which such action has been taken
by him[621]; patients are free to indicate the supposed source of their
infection, though not obliged to do so, and the physician may in his
discretion report such alleged source to the police, who may or may not
take action thereon; a child, suffering with syphilis may not be nursed
by any one other than its own mother; nor may a syphilitic wet nurse
continue the practice of her vocation. A woman arrested for any offence
connected with prostitution or on the charge of infecting another may
with her consent be medically examined through the police; in case of
refusal to submit, the courts shall have the power to order the same;
compulsory examination must be carried out by paid municipal physicians
of the same sex as the accused; these same physicians are obligated to
examine all applicants and to treat all venereal patients without either
demanding or accepting a fee; in Copenhagen municipal clinics must be
maintained by the department of health in different parts of the city;
the patient can be required to return for treatment at appointed times
and if sent to the hospital may be compelled to remain until discharged
by the physician. Should the patient fail to obey instructions, the case
must be reported by the attending physician to the City physician, who
is authorized to take action.[622]
The municipal clinics, maintained for the purposes above stated, seven
in number, are prominently announced on every advertising obelisk. As
indicating the direct way in which the subject is handled, I reproduce
on page 350 the bulletin.[623]
At Rome, side by side with the ineffective municipal regulatory system
previously described, the royal government of Italy has, by a law
approved August 1, 1907, instituted a dispensary system, in many
respects closely following the Danish type. The measure provides for
“gratuitous public prophylaxis of gonorrhœa, soft chancre, and
syphilis.”[624] The dispensaries are to be organized by the communes
acting in coöperation with the ministry of the Interior, or in default
of such arrangement, by the Interior department itself; the expense is
to be borne by the commune assisted by governmental aid; physicians
shall be appointed by the government; “they shall treat without any
distinction all sufferers from venereal diseases who apply to the
dispensaries. The cure is gratuitous for all alike.”[625] Provision is
further made for hospital facilities. Supplementary sections endeavor to
bring professional prostitutes within the scope of the act.
AT THE FOLLOWING PLACES AND FROM THE FOLLOWING PHYSICIANS, ALL PERSONS SUFFERING
FROM VENEREAL DISEASE, REGARDLESS OF ABILITY TO PAY, HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEMAND FREE
TREATMENT WITHIN THE HOURS INDICATED:
────────┬────────┬────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
PLACE │NAME OF │ CONSULTATIONS FOR MEN
│ PHYSI- │
│ CIAN │
────────┼────────┼──────────┬─────────┬──────────┬──────────┬───────────┬─────────
│ │ MON. │ TUES. │ WED. │ THUR. │ FRI. │ SAT.
────────┼────────┼────┬─────┼───┬─────┼────┬─────┼────┬─────┼─────┬─────┼───┬─────
│ │Day │Even.│Day│Even.│Day │Even.│Day │Even.│ Day │Even.│Day│Even.
────────┼────────┼────┼─────┼───┼─────┼────┼─────┼────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼───┼─────
Rudolph │ Ravn │12½–│ │ │ │12½–│ │12½–│ 6–7 │ │ │ │
Berghs │ │ 1½ │ │ │ │ 1½ │ │ 1½ │ │ │ │ │
Hospital│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
„ │Jersild │9½– │ │ │ 6–7 │9½– │ │9½– │ │ │ │ │
│ │10½ │ │ │ │10½ │ │ 1½ │ │ │ │ │
Isted │Meincke │3–4 │ 6–7 │3–4│ │ │ │3–4 │ │ │ 6–7 │3–4│
Street │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
30 │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Griffen-│ Einar │2–3 │ │ │ │2–3 │ │2–3 │ │ │ 6–7 │ │
feldt │Petersen│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Street 8│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
„ │H. Levy │ │ 6–7 │10–│ │10– │ │ │ │10–11│ │ │
│ │ │ │11 │ │ 11 │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Osterbro│ H. │ │ │9½–│ │ │ 6–7 │9½– │ │ │ │9½–│
Street │Sorensen│ │ │10½│ │ │ │10½ │ │ │ │10¼│
56 D │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
„ │ C. E. │3–4 │ │ │ │3–4 │ │ │ 6–7 │ 3–4 │ │ │ 7–8
│ Jensen │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Torve │ H. │ │ │8½–│ │ │ │ │ 6–7 │8½–9½│ │ │
Street │Bonnesen│ │ │9½ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
12 │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
„ │ P. │ │ 6–7 │3–4│ │ │ │3–4 │ │ │ │3–4│
│Haslund │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
St. │ Gold- │ │ │11–│ │ │ │11– │ │ │ │11–│
Kongens │schmidt │ │ │12 │ │ │ │ 12 │ │ │ │12 │
Street │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
46 │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
════════╪════════╪════╧═════╧═══╧═════╧════╧═════╧════╧═════╧═════╧═════╧═══╧═════
PLACE │NAME OF │ CONSULTATIONS FOR WOMEN
│ PHYSI- │
│ CIAN │
────────┼────────┼──────────┬─────────┬──────────┬──────────┬───────────┬─────────
│ │ MON. │ TUES. │ WED. │ THUR. │ FRI. │ SAT.
────────┼────────┼────┬─────┼───┬─────┼────┬─────┼────┬─────┼─────┬─────┼───┬─────
│ │Day │Even.│Day│Even.│Day │Even.│Day │Even.│ Day │Even.│Day│Even.
────────┼────────┼────┼─────┼───┼─────┼────┼─────┼────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼───┼─────
Rudolph │ Ravn │ │ │9½–│ │ │ 6–7 │10– │ │ │ 6–7 │ │
Berghs │ │ │ │10½│ │ │ │ 11 │ │ │ │ │
Hospital│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
„ │Jersild │ │ 6–7 │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 6–7
Isted │ Miss │10– │ │10–│ │ │ │ │ │ 2–3 │ │ │
Street │ Ham- │ 11 │ │11 │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
30 │ burger │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Griffen-│ Einar │ │ │ │ 6–7 │ │ │ │ │12½– │ │ │
feldt │Petersen│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 1½ │ │ │
Street 8│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
„ │H. Levy │ │ │ │ │ │ 6–7 │ │ │ │ │10–│
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │11 │
Osterbro│ H. │ │ │ │ │9½– │ │ │ │ │ 6–7 │ │
Street │Sorensen│ │ │ │ │10½ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
56 D │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
„ │ C. E. │ │ │ │ 6–7 │ │ │ │ │ │ │3–4│
│ Jensen │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Torve │ H. │ │ │ │ 6–7 │8½– │ │ │ │ │ │8½–│
Street │Bonnesen│ │ │ │ │ 9½ │ │ │ │ │ │9½ │
12 │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
„ │ P. │3–4 │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 6–7 │ │
│Haslund │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
St. │ Gold- │ │ │ │ 6–7 │ │ │ │ │11–12│ │ │
Kongens │schmidt │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Street │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
46 │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Venders │Miss N. │ │ 6–7 │10–│ │10– │ │10– │ 6–7 │10–11│ │ │
Street 8│Nielsen │ │ │11 │ │ 11 │ │ 11 │ │ │ │ │
────────┴────────┴────┴─────┴───┴─────┴────┴─────┴────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴───┴─────
Health Board of Copenhagen, April 1, 1912.
Between the Italian and the Scandinavian legislation above summarized
there is, however, an important distinction. The Italian scheme is
wholly and unconditionally voluntary and hygienic; it lacks altogether
compulsory features, addressing itself unreservedly to health, without
regard to either order or morals. A ministerial circular, interpreting
its scope and purpose declares: “Any construction of the law aiming to
ascertain the presence of disease is unlawful and in opposition to its
purport, because the police spirit leads to the concealment of disease
and avoidance of cure. Compulsory action is offensive to the liberty and
dignity of human personality. The prophylaxis of venereal disease is to
be kept entirely distinct from the protection of morals and the measures
of the police. The two services differ in object,—the one having a
hygienic end, the other aiming to protect public order. Confusion is
dangerous and constitutes an abuse.”[626]
As contrasted with this thoroughgoing acceptance of the voluntary point
of view, the Danish policy retains certain vestiges of police
complicity. It includes, for example, the right of compulsory
examination in case of women arrested for offences indicative of
professional prostitution[627]; it continues to relate the police to
venereal disease, through the compulsory proviso above cited and through
the provisions encouraging the disclosure of the supposed source of the
infection.[628]
As to the wisdom of the above mentioned provisions grave doubt exists.
They are unquestionably in conflict with the spirit animating the
statute as a whole. Dr. Santoliquido, the author and administrator of
the unqualified Italian scheme, is strongly of the opinion that the
slightest taint of police complicity or the slightest suggestion of
publicity seriously impedes the utilization of the facilities
offered.[629] The Danish lawmakers were evidently afraid to be
thoroughgoing. On the one hand they were entirely clear that regulation
failed, not only because it reached no men and relatively few women, but
because the association of disease with crime tended to drive disease
into hiding. They saw that, to entice it out, to ensure more general,
more skillful, more thorough treatment, the interest and the
intelligence of the patients had to be appealed to; they must be taught
to be cured for their own sakes and that of others; and in order that
every obstacle thereto might be removed, treatment offered in a
scientific spirit must be made free and accessible. They feared,
however, to leave the matter at this point; they felt that some
provision had to be made for backsliders; and to keep these under
treatment, even against their own inclination, the intervention of the
police was made possible. Undoubtedly the individuals immediately
concerned may thus gain,—for they may be helped. But the danger is that
unfortunate indirect effects may more than outweigh the direct favorable
effects. The vestige of the police spirit may hinder the very
transformation in the attitude of those afflicted that the legislation
hoped to bring about. Thus incidental compulsion may tend to tear down
what the law as a whole endeavors to build up.[630]
As opposed then to the Italian policy of leaving the matter wholly to
individuals and endeavoring to educate them to take advantage of
abundant facilities, the Danish plan leaves the matter to individuals,
if the individual is willing to act intelligently; but it endeavors to
coerce the rest. There is, however, some doubt as to whether the second
part of the Danish arrangement does not tend to defeat the first. Even
under police regulation we observed that most was achieved where force
was most completely dissembled; and, wherever, as at Paris, police
regulation and voluntary hospital facilities are both provided, the
latter are far more effective than the former. Moreover, the remnant of
police compulsion is always in danger of relapsing into regulation,
applicable mainly, perhaps altogether, to women,—a policy to which we
have discovered insurmountable objections.
From the standpoint of the theory of the law, then,—that abundant
facilities for treatment coupled with an unqualified appeal to the
intelligence and self-interest of the patient is likely to reach, on the
whole, the largest number of the afflicted—grave question may also be
raised regarding denunciation of the source of a particular venereal
infection. On its face, the transaction appears reasonable enough: a
sufferer, after interrogation by his physician or of his own motion, may
report his belief that he was contaminated by this woman or that.[631]
The information communicated by the doctor to the police is held in
strict confidence, and the person involved may be requested to call at
police headquarters; where, being informed of the nature of the
accusation, it is suggested that he (or she) consult a physician,—a
municipal physician or a physician of the individual’s own choosing;
should he (or she) be reported as ill, treatment may be compelled, if
the individual declines otherwise to submit.[632]
On its face, I say, this looks like a not unreasonable method of
attacking infection at its source in the case of persons who lack the
conscience or the intelligence to act of their own accord; for clearly
the foci thus reached might, if left alone, have continued, ignorantly
or malevolently, to breed further contamination. Denunciation aims to
bring these concealed sources to light; offers them treatment, if they
are intelligent enough to take advantage of such opportunity; and adds
the state’s right and power to compel a proper course of action, if, for
any reason whatsoever, they are differently minded.
As a matter of fact, the thing is by no means so simple. In the first
place, with the best intention, the patient may be mistaken as to the
source of his or her infection. Prostitution is promiscuous on both
sides. The women notoriously consort in quick succession with many men;
men often consort with different women. The periods of incubation are
more or less indefinite and variable, so that a mere reckoning back to a
particular act of intercourse is not conclusive. In one set of cases,
carefully studied from this standpoint,[633] over half of those
questioned were unable to throw any light on the subject.
The very difficulty in question opens the way to error and abuse.
Despite the confidential fashion in which the subject is handled, the
humiliation involved in a mistaken or false accusation is no trifle. The
same principle holds here as in respect to arrest for alleged
solicitations—a single error is worse than a hundred omissions. It is a
totally different thing from a mistaken allegation that some other
infectious disease exists in a given house or person,—diphtheria, for
example, or scarlet fever. The manner in which venereal disease is
usually contracted, the implications attending its presence, set it off
in a class by itself, and open the door to abuses for which other
contagious diseases give no opportunity. A procedure that might,
therefore, be safely employed in reference to scarlet fever, if feasible
or necessary, may be totally inapplicable to syphilis.
The experience of Copenhagen has quite fully justified these doubts.
Denunciation is an invitation to blackmail; it can be and has been
employed by men simply to rid themselves of women of whom they have
tired; for, while in theory equally applicable to both sexes, under
existing conditions women have most to fear from it. For this reason,
physicians do not regularly report to the police the alleged sources of
infection; nor do the police always act even on such denunciations as
reach them. But despite the caution with which the police act, it
happens not infrequently that denounced women prove on examination to be
free of infection. Women wishing to be revenged upon former “friends” or
lovers do not hesitate to employ the same device; and not infrequently
with a similar result. The following table shows the results of the
examinations made at the instance of the Copenhagen police during a
series of years:[634]
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
No. No. No. persons reported No. of
No. Men Women for not continuing these
Year Examined Men Women ill ill treatment reached
„ „ „ „ „ „ Men Women „
1907 410 22 388 21 172 154 37 68
1908 609 61 548 54 195 218 60 89
1909 739 36 703 28 226 238 95 112
1910 822 25 797 14 155 336 130 141
1911 780 40 740 24 160 364 117 133
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
The figures above given by no means represent all the accusations filed
with the police. They are those only that the department felt justified
in following up. As the police cannot permit themselves to be made an
indiscriminate instrument of private oppression or vengeance, they use
their own discretion as to whether they will act on a given
“denunciation.” Necessarily therefore their action is so uncertain as to
be quite ineffective; with anything less than the most complete
integrity it might readily be something worse than uncertain. The
officials are therefore in serious doubt as to whether denunciation is
workable even under the comparatively simple conditions of the Norwegian
and Danish capitals; of a commission of nine persons recently appointed
to consider the question in Copenhagen, five members favored repeal;
four favored retention, not on the ground of its general value, but as a
means of reaching utterly reckless or insane individuals who go so far
as to boast of their success in disseminating disease.[635]
But perhaps a more serious objection to denunciation from the purely
sanitary standpoint lies here;—that it continues the hurtful association
of venereal disease with the police. It works in this respect like the
reporting of patients who break off treatment without authorization. A
certain number can, of course, be laid hold of. Of 1,749 cases recorded
in the table given, 543 were compelled or induced to resume treatment.
This is, of course, so much to the good; but suppose it impedes the
wider acceptance and operation of the voluntary principle, on which, in
the long run, the success of the dispensary system depends? The large
number of disappearances above noted suggests the repellent outcome of
this traditional association, which must be completely uprooted, if
persons ill of venereal disease are to seek treatment as readily as
those ill of measles or mumps.[636]
The final columns of the table given on page 356 deserve comment on
another score. During five years, 1,749 persons discontinued treatment
for venereal disease before they were dismissed by their physicians: of
them, 1,310 were men, 439 were women. It would appear, therefore, that
men may be less intelligent and conscientious than women in the pursuit
of regular and voluntary treatment. Either sex may, of course, be the
means of indefinitely spreading infection,—women by infecting a series
of men, men by infecting a series of women. If compulsory medical
examination and treatment (i. e. regulation) are therefore to be applied
to only one sex, they ought, in the light of the Copenhagen figures, to
be applied to men rather than to women,—for of the two sexes,
compulsion, if desirable, would be best applied to the sex that makes
the less use of voluntary opportunity.
The problematical points above discussed do not, however, touch the
heart of the subject. At bottom, the issue between regulation and
abolition turns upon this question: are the ravages of venereal disease
more likely to be mitigated by the medical examination and compulsory
treatment of registered prostitutes, assuming such examination and
treatment to be as intelligent as they can be made, or by the provision
of free, abundant and confidential opportunities for all sufferers,
assuming that the dispensaries are as well conducted as they can
possibly be? In behalf of patient and thorough experimentation along the
latter line, the failure of regulation is of course the first and
perhaps most powerful argument. The Italian sanitarians lean largely on
another,—that compulsion can in no event be defended, since it involves
an infraction of personal liberty. In my judgment, it is a pity to raise
a metaphysical issue of this kind. Could it be once proved that
compulsion succeeds, society would probably not permit itself to be
balked by abstract principles of personal liberty; a not dissimilar
argument by anti-vaccinationists has been peremptorily overruled by most
civilized states. No individual’s liberty can be made to include the
privilege of spreading contagion, if a demonstrated method of checking
the process is known. In this volume, I have throughout endeavored to
meet regulation on its own ground. A verdict unfavorable to regulation
has been found in the first instance, not because it violates personal
liberty, but because it fails; because it is at least useless in respect
to order, and worse than useless in respect to venereal disease. In the
same way, the voluntary system is recommended, not because it is
consonant with modern theories of individuality, but because it may
prove the most effective way of throwing light upon the dark corners in
which disease huddles and multiplies.
Experience affords as yet no conclusive proof of the superiority of the
voluntary system. Its introduction is too recent and too limited to have
as yet affected the general situation. Moreover, the system can not be
judged until communities have been educated to take advantage of it,
or—what comes to the same thing—until it becomes evident that it is
impossible to educate the afflicted to take advantage of it. Time is a
most important factor in this matter. The ancient police association
must altogether die out; even the feeling of personal humiliation about
contamination must be taught to subordinate itself to a realization of
the duty of submitting to competent treatment. It is not surprising to
find that the women formerly registered in Copenhagen used their freedom
in the first instance to stay away; the more intelligent consulted
private physicians, but the others simply ignored their condition. This
experience does not prove either the wisdom or necessity of regulation;
it proves only the baneful effect of associating hygiene with the police
and the necessity of patience until the former association is dissolved
and an entirely new association created.
How far results may be claimed for the voluntary system, I shall
consider in a moment. But certainly the way the system operates creates
a presumption thus far in its favor. Notwithstanding the partial
retention of the police connection, the dispensaries of Copenhagen are
already treating more women than formerly were reached by regulation; in
the year 1910, of all cases reported to the Health Office, 40% had taken
advantage of the dispensaries. The following tables exhibit the
attendance of new patients at the free dispensaries during the years
1910 and 1911:[637]
Reported
for failure
Sent into to keep up
Year Men Women Children Hospital Treatment
1910 3,991 1,090 78 750 238
1911 3,748 1,165 72 644 277
Moreover, the attitude of the prostitutes themselves is perceptibly
changing. I mentioned above that at the outset they refused to attend
the dispensaries. I was, however, reliably informed that this is no
longer the case to anything like the same extent. Women who formerly
endeavored to “evade the whole thing” describe themselves now as only
“too glad to come.” M. Augagneur submitted to the French
Extra-Parliamentary Commission a comparative table strongly confirmatory
of the Danish experience. The record in question runs from 1876 to 1903;
it shows the number of women—registered and non-registered prostitutes
respectively—who were treated for venereal disease at the Hospice de
l’Antiquaille: in 1876, 835 registered prostitutes, 281 non-registered.
Thereafter, the former steadily declined with the inevitable
disintegration of the regulatory system; the latter tended to rise. In
the final year (1903) the registered prostitutes compulsorily treated
numbered only 180; the clandestines voluntarily treated had increased to
327,—i. e., the number receiving voluntary treatment was almost twice as
large as the number receiving compulsory treatment, despite the
continuance of the police association.[638]
The attitude of the medical profession is an interesting indication of
the way in which the new law has worked. At the outset, nine-tenths of
the Copenhagen doctors were regulationists; even those favorable to
abolition were fearful of sudden abolition. Nowadays the medical
professions of both Christiania and Copenhagen are described as
practically unanimous against regulation. Dr. Hoff in his vigorous
pamphlet above quoted declares that the Danish law may indeed be
modified as to details; but its main outlines are secure. And this,
despite the fact that the free dispensary has practically effaced the
specialists in venereal diseases,—an incidental result philosophically
accepted by those whom it has affected.[639]
A word as to one other peculiarity of the Scandinavian laws,—viz. the
notification of venereal disease. In Christiania, physicians are
required to report daily to the Health Department, without names, new
patients suffering with any venereal disease.[640] The Danish law is
similar; while other contagious diseases are notifiable with names,
venereal diseases are notified without names as a rule. The policeman on
the beat collects the notices as he makes his rounds. A circular, dated
July 1, 1912, institutes a similar form of notification in Sweden. It is
stated that all cases of contagious sexual disease must be reported by
the attending physician in franked envelops to the “official physician
of the province or the board of health, with the name of the disease,
the age and sex of the patient, but without name and address.”
Notification answers in general a statistical purpose; but in Denmark, a
patient who interrupts treatment may be reported by name and find
himself forced to continue treatment or to fly. It is impossible to
discover that notification itself has had any bad effects whatsoever. It
appears rather to have assisted in making the sufferer realize his
danger to others,—precisely as the notification of other diseases has
resulted in increased conscientiousness. The fear one observes among
English abolitionists, that notification may prove an indirect method of
reinstating regulation of one sex is baseless, in so far as Denmark and
Norway are concerned.
Of the other abolition countries,—Great Britain, Switzerland and
Holland, none has as yet taken the disease problem seriously.
_Laissez-faire_—an unreasoning, prejudiced _laissez-faire_, at
that—still prevails.
In England, the public authorities concerned with the prevention and
treatment of disease have thus far made “no organized effort to diminish
the prevalence of venereal disease,” nor would the desirability of their
interesting themselves in the matter “be accepted as indisputable.”[641]
The hospital provisions for venereal diseases are utterly inadequate.
Indoor accommodation in the large voluntary hospitals of London there is
practically none,—and this even in teaching hospitals. It is held that
“it is unreasonable to expect subscribers to spend their money on
rescuing persons from the consequences of their sins.”[642] The
Inspector for the Local Government Board reports that “no beds or wards
were reserved for infective venereal cases in any of 30 general
hospitals visited in London and the provinces. In one of the London
hospitals, a rule precluded the treatment of unmarried women suffering
from venereal disease, though no such rule existed with regard to
unmarried men.”[643] A more liberal policy characterizes the out-patient
departments, though their organization and equipment are both defective.
The poor law infirmaries and workhouses are apt to be better equipped;
and it is interesting to note in passing that the administrators of
these institutions when asked for their “opinion regarding the
advisability of endowing the guardians with the powers of compulsory
detention (of those seeking treatment for venereal complaints) were
practically unanimous in declaring that it would deter patients from
coming.” A few special hospitals called lock-hospitals (the name is
etymologically obscure, but has nothing to do with “lock-up”) are also
devoted to the care of venereal patients. Of these, recent writers
state: The lock-hospitals are pathetically meager, containing “in London
136 beds for females, 27 for males; elsewhere about 70, making perhaps
250 in the United Kingdom.”[644] Out-patient services are also found in
connection with the lock-hospital. English conditions in this respect
therefore deserve the severe language of Sidney and Beatrice Webb: “The
man or woman suffering from gonorrhœa or syphilis, even if the innocent
victim of another’s guilt, is refused admission to the voluntary
hospital; deterred, and as often as possible, hustled out of the
workhouse; and wholly unprovided for by the local health
authority.”[645] Moreover, the method of conducting the only available
resort—the lock-hospital—is more or less repellent. The patient is made
to feel that his cure ought also to be a penance. The head nurse opens
and reads all letters sent or received, a measure that marks off the
venereal from any other patient. The sanitary spirit is as yet quite
undeveloped: “I don’t believe in making it safe”—remarked the secretary
of a lock-hospital to me, just as we entered the children’s ward, where
thirty to forty innocent victims were under his care, the moral and
medical aspects of the problem as yet hindering each other in his mind!
The abolition cities on the Continent are in respect to hospital
facilities much better off, for dermatological clinics, including beds
for venereal diseases, form part of the general hospitals in large
cities.
I have now briefly described conditions as to the laws and hospital
provisions relating to venereal disease in various abolition countries.
The issue between abolition and regulation ought in theory to be
determinable by an inspection of statistical results, contrasting the
results in regulation and abolition countries respectively. Is this the
case?
There are many reasons why a summary method of settling the question by
results is inapplicable. In the first place, available data are neither
sufficiently reliable nor sufficiently complete.[646] Recent
improvements in diagnostic art show the existence of venereal disease
where mere clinical examination—up to recently the sole reliance of the
physician—is incapable of discerning it; in some cases, the same
improvements now result in a negative diagnosis where superficial
appearance might formerly have led to a positive opinion. Hence one
serious defect of even conscientiously compiled figures. But there is
another serious source of error. Such general statistics as exist are in
an extraordinary degree fractional and unscientific. Only in certain
small sections of Scandinavia has a more or less accurate system of
reporting been in vogue for even a relatively short period. Elsewhere
our inferences must be based on hospital and insurance reports or rough
personal estimates. In these conditions, so narrow a question as the
issue between regulation and abolition does not lend itself to
statistical determination.[647]
Statistics and opinion, however, both concur in an indirect contribution
to the problem. Venereal disease is shown by both to be so widely
prevalent in regulated cities that one marvels whether the situation
could really be any worse under even the most radical _laissez-faire_
abolition. It is a truism that physicians eager to equip themselves as
specialists in venereal disease resort to the crowded clinics of Paris,
Vienna, and Berlin, all regulated towns, because there disease is found
in greatest abundance and richest variety,—a strange comment on the
alleged efficacy of regulation! On the basis of all available sources of
information, Blaschko calculates that of the clerks and merchants in
Berlin between 18 and 28 years of age, 45% have had syphilis, 120% have
had gonorrhœa; 77% have had syphilis, 200% have had gonorrhœa in
Breslau.[648] Similar inquiry among students shows according to the same
investigator, that “in the course of his four years at the University,
every student is venereally infected at least once,—a statement that no
one familiar with the facts will be inclined to question.”[649] Pinkus
declares that in Germany one man in every five has had syphilis,[650]
and that gonorrhœa averages more than one attack per man.[651]
An attempt was made by the Prussian Government to take a census of the
amount of venereal disease among men in the Kingdom on April 30, 1900.
It developed—as far as the returns showed—that in general on that day 28
men out of every 10,000 were infected; in Berlin, however, the average
was 142 per 10,000; in cities of over 100,000 inhabitants, 100 per
10,000; in the cities of over 30,000 inhabitants, 58 per 10,000; in
cities under 30,000 inhabitants, 45 per 10,000. The results may be
represented thus:
[Illustration: FIGURE I.—Venereal disease among males in the population
of Prussia, April 30, 1900.]
The inference to be drawn from Figure I is obvious: the amount of
venereal disease is in direct relation to the size of the town. The
figures given cannot accurately represent the actual totals; but they
may nevertheless give a fairly reliable indication of relative
conditions. The steady decrease with the size of the city appears to
suggest the main, perhaps the sole important concrete factor, viz., the
size of the city; a factor upon which we shall stumble again in another
connection.
A similar inquiry was also made in Sweden, with a view to determining
how many persons were under treatment for infectious venereal disease
January 31, 1905. A questionnaire was sent to 1,264 physicians, of whom
1,181 replied.[652] The Swedish and Prussian figures are set side by
side in the following table:[653]
SWEDEN (JAN 31, 1905)
Syph. Soft chancre Gon.
Stockholm (pop. 317,964) 23. 1.2 31.2
Göteborg (pop. 138,030) 15.6 1.4 18.9
Malmö (pop. 70,797) 14.4 3.1 28.6
Norrköping (pop. 44,378) 11.3 0.3 16.8
Whole Kingdom 3.6 0.3 5.4
PRUSSIA (APR. 30, 1900)
Berlin 23.6 5.8 53.2
Seventeen cities of more than 100,000 inhab. 17.8 3.5 32.6
Forty-two cities 30–100,000 10.8 1.9 19.6
Whole Kingdom 5.1 1.1 9.9
A more definite impression is obtainable regarding the incidence of
venereal disease in European armies: do the curves thus arrived at throw
any light on the issue between regulation and abolition? The subjoined
graph (Fig. II) embodies the official statistics of the war offices of
Europe from 1881 to 1905.
[Illustration: FIGURE II.—Venereal disease in European armies.]
At first sight, the graph might be interpreted as a conclusive argument
in behalf of regulation. But careful consideration entirely changes its
significance. In the first place, the earlier or more unfavorable
English statistics are stated to be altogether unreliable. It is indeed
on the face of the matter impossible to credit anything like the
precipitous decline depicted. Moreover, the implied comparison is itself
unfair. A continental army includes the youth of the entire nation,—all
those between certain ages,—city and country boys alike; the good
elements dilute the showing that would be made by the bad. The English
army, on the other hand, is a volunteer force, largely recruited from
among the adventurous and the derelict,—precisely those among whom an
inordinately large proportion of venereal disease would naturally occur.
The continental curves may represent the condition of the total male
population of the ages in question; the English curve speaks for only a
single section and the two cannot be directly compared. Moreover, the
very magnitude of the discrepancy is fatal to its explanation by
regulation. The marked variations between the armies of regulated
countries,—Italy, Austria, and Prussia, indicate clearly the existence
of other factors. Finally, there is observable a general movement
downwards coinciding with the breakup of regulation on the Continent. If
regulation exerts a perceptible effect, its narrowing scope ought to be
attended by a gradual rise in the curves, instead of the reverse.
To whatever the general differences in the curves be due, there is
nothing in them to suggest that regulation plays any rôle whatsoever.
Closer consideration of separate curves will establish this proposition
beyond dispute. The English Contagious Diseases Acts, under which
medical inspection of prostitutes was instituted, were repealed in
1886,[654] the very year in which the graph records the highest
incidence of venereal disease in the army. Repeal was followed, not by a
rise, but by a fall that, except for the interlude created by the Boer
War, has continued almost uninterruptedly from that day to this.
Regulation was at its height in England from 1870 to 1882. In the former
year, of 38,408 recruits inspected, 15.78 per thousand were rejected on
the score of syphilis; the number of recruits increased during the
period in question to 45,423, of whom in the last year of effective
regulation 10.72 per thousand were rejected for the same reason. Is this
improvement attributable to regulation? Clearly not; for the rate of
rejection has declined since abolition more rapidly than at any other
time: in 1886, 77,991 were examined and 8.18 rejected per thousand; in
1897, 59,986 were examined and 3.47 rejected per thousand.[655]
The annual admission of enlisted men to hospitals for venereal diseases
tells the same story. In 1886—the year of the repeal, this reached the
startling total of 267.1 to the thousand; by 1900, the figure had fallen
to 93.2; it rose to 125 in 1903, and fell thereafter steadily to 66 in
1909.[656]
The curve (page 374)[657] shows admissions, per thousand of strength,
for syphilis (primary and secondary) in the army at home and in India
for the years 1880–1908.
[Illustration: FIGURE III.—Admissions per 1,000 for syphilis, British
army, 1880–1908.]
Finally, a comparison made between regulated and non-regulated military
stations before and during regulation and after abolition exhibits
capricious variations indicating clearly the negative outcome of
regulation: (See Fig. IV, p. 376.)
Col. Melville’s analysis is as follows: “The most obvious fact is the
parallelism of the curves. Though the curve for unprotected stations is
on the whole higher, they follow the same general trend. They both fall
at first, and from 1875, they both rise steadily. Regulation did not
keep disease down between 1876 and 1882; its increase in unprotected
stations was proportionately somewhat less than in the protected. The
marked increase in the protected stations after relaxation of the rules
in 1882 only continues the rise originating six years previously. Total
repeal in 1886 is followed by a very marked fall in both curves, which,
however, had begun in 1883 in the unprotected, and in 1884 in the
protected, stations.”[658]
Statistics of
the British
Army.
Admission to
Hospital for
Venereal
Disease. Ratio
per 1,000 of
Strength.
Year Home Army
1882 246.0
1883 260.0
1884 270.7
1885 275.7
1886 267.1
1887 252.9
1888 224.5
1889 212.1
1890 212.4
1891 197.4
1892 201.2
1893 194.6
1894 182.4
1895 173.5
1896 158.3
1897 139.7
1898 132.7
1899 122.4
1900 93.2
1901 105.4
1902 122.7
1903 125.0
1904 107.6
1905 90.5
1906 82.0
1907 71.9
1908 68.4
1909 66.0
[Illustration: FIGURE IV.—Comparison of 14 protected with 14 unprotected
stations in respect to admissions with primary venereal sores.]
German army statistics, intensively studied, yield a similarly negative
result as to benefits of regulation in respect to the incidence of
venereal disease. Recurring to Figure II (p. 370) we observe that the
extent of infection decreased continuously from 1881 (as in all other
armies except the Italian, where irregularities are considerable) up to
1900, despite the fact that, as has been shown, methods of medical
examination were so crude that they probably caused more disease than
they isolated. The Dutch curve has also consistently dropped,—most of
all so, since abolition.[659] In Stockholm, the statistics exhibit the
same decline, coincidentally with the gradual weakening of
regulation.[660]
Closer inspection of the Prussian statistics brings to light the one
significant factor that we have already remarked in a previous
correction, viz., the size of the community involved. It appears that
during a series of years the percentage of venereally infected recruits
is practically constant at 7.7%, despite the ups and downs of regulation
meanwhile; but infection in different army corps shows wide
discrepancies, varying from four per cent. in the XI, XIII, and XIV army
corps to 20.7 per cent. in the III, which is stationed in and about
Berlin. The same relation holds as to recruits. In the years 1903–5,
41.3 of the Berlin recruits were venereally infected; 30 per cent. of
the recruits from Hamburg and Altona,—yet these are the most effectively
regulated towns in the German Empire. I do not mean to imply that the
amount of infection is to be accounted for by the existence of
regulation, but rather that it is clear that regulation does not lessen
it. The really important factor is the size of the town. For throughout
the period just mentioned (1903–5) the extent of infection among
recruits dwindled with the size of the places from which they were
drawn; regulation had nothing whatever to do with it. Berlin, as I have
said, showed an infection of 41.3 per cent.; towns of more than 100,000
inhabitants 15.8 per cent.; towns between 50,000 and 100,000, 10.2 per
cent.; those between 25,000 and 50,000, 8 per cent.; smaller towns and
the country districts, 4.4 per cent. The size of the garrison has a
similar effect. A small garrison (less than 400) shows venereal
infection of 11.9 per cent. in 1905–6; a garrison between 1,000 and
3,000, 16.9 per cent.; a garrison between 5,000 and 10,000, 19.8 per
cent.; garrisons of over 10,000, 26.6 per cent. Regulation can have had
no influence whatever on these figures; and this is all the more certain
in view of the fact, that though regulation has tended to disintegrate
in the last two decades, the percentage of infection, everywhere a
matter of the size of the place or the garrison, has in this period,
everywhere in absolute amount markedly decreased: in the smallest
garrisons, from 33.2 per cent. in 1885 to 11.9 per cent. in 1905; in the
largest, from 36.8 per cent. in the former year to 26.6 in the
latter.[661]
Evidence more direct, though of limited range in point of time, is
contributed by various towns that have adopted the abolition policy. Of
these, Christiania is by far the most satisfactory. It has the longest
record and the most satisfactory statistics; for venereal diseases have
been notifiable since 1876, though the form of notification has
undergone some modification. If diagnostic means have not been too
defective in the past, a stretch of something like 20 years is
represented by the abolition experience of the Norwegian capital, which
has increased in population during the period in question from something
below 80,000 to almost a quarter of a million.
The official table (see p. 380) gives the local situation from 1876 to
1911, inclusive.[662]
════╤═══════════════╤═══════════════╤═══════════════╤═══════════════
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ Acquired │ Congenital
Year│ Gonorrhea │ Soft Chancre │ Syphilis │ Syphilis
────┼────┬─────┬────┼────┬─────┬────┼────┬─────┬────┼────┬─────┬────
„ │ Men│Women│Both│ Men│Women│Both│ Men│Women│Both│ Men│Women│Both
────┼────┼─────┼────┼────┴─────┴────┴────┴─────┴────┼────┼─────┼────
1876│ │ │ 593│ 419 │ │ │
1877│ │ │ 909│ │ │ 134│ │ │ 297│ │ │ 33
1878│ │ │1040│ │ │ 166│ │ │ 311│ │ │ 31
1879│ 951│ 176│1127│ 200│ 114│ 314│ 211│ 154│ 365│ 21│ 15│ 36
1880│1208│ 219│1427│ 265│ 99│ 364│ 268│ 156│ 424│ 21│ 22│ 43
────┼────┼─────┼────┼────┼─────┼────┼────┼─────┼────┼────┼─────┼────
1881│1277│ 199│1468│ 353│ 78│ 431│ 302│ 151│ 453│ 33│ 39│ 72
1882│1140│ 146│1286│ 580│ 127│ 707│ 308│ 188│ 496│ 21│ 23│ 44
1883│1100│ 186│1286│ 257│ 49│ 306│ 175│ 111│ 286│ 21│ 15│ 36
1884│1118│ 142│1260│ 208│ 57│ 265│ 172│ 126│ 298│ 17│ 22│ 39
1885│ 997│ 186│1183│ 175│ 32│ 207│ 148│ 123│ 271│ 33│ 29│ 62
────┼────┼─────┼────┼────┼─────┼────┼────┼─────┼────┼────┼─────┼────
1886│1095│ 99│1194│ 292│ 65│ 357│ 163│ 101│ 264│ 25│ 14│ 39
1887│ 829│ 106│ 935│ 306│ 37│ 343│ 175│ 97│ 272│ 21│ 23│ 44
1888│ 509│ 66│ 575│ 71│ 16│ 87│ 103│ 109│ 212│ 18│ 14│ 32
1889│ 585│ 85│ 670│ 73│ 8│ 81│ 187│ 107│ 294│ 10│ 22│ 32
1890│ 679│ 60│ 739│ 213│ 25│ 238│ 330│ 178│ 508│ 16│ 13│ 29
────┼────┼─────┼────┼────┼─────┼────┼────┼─────┼────┼────┼─────┼────
1891│ 759│ 42│ 801│ 180│ 15│ 195│ 303│ 170│ 473│ 10│ 10│ 20
1892│ 935│ 90│1025│ 192│ 13│ 205│ 355│ 208│ 563│ 9│ 18│ 27
1893│1069│ 97│1166│ 260│ 23│ 283│ 278│ 229│ 507│ 12│ 15│ 27
1894│1283│ 121│1404│ 281│ 29│ 310│ 353│ 193│ 546│ 25│ 17│ 42
1895│1482│ 126│1608│ 387│ 34│ 421│ 518│ 206│ 724│ 26│ 14│ 40
────┼────┼─────┼────┼────┼─────┼────┼────┼─────┼────┼────┼─────┼────
1896│1471│ 149│1620│ 393│ 49│ 442│ 498│ 235│ 733│ 32│ 28│ 60
1897│2031│ 173│2204│ 447│ 46│ 493│ 450│ 233│ 683│ 25│ 25│ 50
1898│2125│ 207│2332│ 433│ 51│ 484│ 565│ 259│ 824│ 25│ 27│ 52
1899│1966│ 191│2156│ 491│ 44│ 535│ 543│ 221│ 764│ 35│ 34│ 69
1900│1871│ 170│2041│ 507│ 43│ 550│ 457│ 195│ 652│ 28│ 26│ 54
────┼────┼─────┼────┼────┼─────┼────┼────┼─────┼────┼────┼─────┼────
1901│1684│ 174│1858│ 292│ 32│ 324│ 432│ 208│ 640│ 23│ 17│ 40
1902│1576│ 159│1735│ 418│ 37│ 455│ 368│ 196│ 546│ 20│ 28│ 48
1903│1570│ 183│1753│ 401│ 39│ 440│ 431│ 183│ 614│ 24│ 20│ 44
1904│1392│ 139│1531│ 347│ 20│ 367│ 355│ 154│ 509│ 26│ 34│ 60
1905│1384│ 139│1523│ 278│ 16│ 294│ 340│ 128│ 468│ 24│ 26│ 50
────┼────┼─────┼────┼────┼─────┼────┼────┼─────┼────┼────┼─────┼────
1906│1108│ 132│1240│ 169│ 14│ 183│ 802│ 129│ 431│ 19│ 16│ 35
1907│ 903│ 112│1015│ 133│ 10│ 143│ 251│ 123│ 374│ 10│ 25│ 35
1908│1055│ 107│1162│ 198│ 21│ 219│ 278│ 134│ 412│ 24│ 26│ 50
1909│1149│ 101│1250│ 172│ 19│ 191│ 315│ 142│ 457│ 31│ 27│ 58
1910│1261│ 98│1359│ 206│ 14│ 220│ 332│ 141│ 473│ 27│ 13│ 40
────┼────┼─────┼────┼────┼─────┼────┼────┼─────┼────┼────┼─────┼────
1911│1373│ 94│1467│ 327│ 27│ 354│ 356│ 163│ 519│ 19│ 17│ 36
────┴────┴─────┴────┴────┴─────┴────┴────┴─────┴────┴────┴─────┴────
════╤═════╤══════════╤══════════╤══════════
│ │ │ │ Reported
│ │ │ │ cases of
│ │ │ Reported │ syphilis
│ │ │ total as │ as
│ │ │percentage│percentage
│ │ │ of │ of
Year│Total│Population│population│population
────┼─────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────
„ │ „ │ „ │ „ │ „
────┼─────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────
1876│ 1012│ 79 022│ 1.28│ 0.53
1877│ 1373│ 106 781│ 1.28│ 0.31
1878│ 1548│ 112 977│ 1.37│ 0.30
1879│ 1842│ 116 801│ 1.58│ 0.34
1880│ 2258│ 119 407│ 1.39│ 0.39
────┼─────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────
1881│ 2424│ 122 036│ 1.99│ 0.43
1882│ 2533│ 122 424│ 2.07│ 0.44
1883│ 1924│ 124 155│ 1.55│ 0.26
1884│ 1862│ 128 300│ 1.45│ 0.27
1885│ 1723│ 130 790│ 1.32│ 0.25
────┼─────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────
1886│ 1854│ 134 036│ 1.39│ 0.23
1887│ 1594│ 135 615│ 1.18│ 0.23
1888│ 906│ 138 319│ 0.66│ 0.18
1889│ 1077│ 143 347│ 0.75│ 0.23
1890│ 1514│ 151 130│ 1.00│ 0.26
────┼─────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────
1891│ 1489│ 156 535│ 0.95│ 0.31
1892│ 1820│ 161 151│ 1.13│ 0.37
1893│ 1983│ 167 588│ 1.18│ 0.32
1894│ 2302│ 174 717│ 1.32│ 0.34
1895│ 2793│ 182 856│ 1.52│ 0.42
────┼─────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────
1896│ 2855│ 192 554│ 1.48│ 0.41
1897│ 3430│ 203 337│ 1.69│ 0.36
1898│ 3692│ 221 255│ 1.67│ 0.40
1899│ 3525│ 226 423│ 1.56│ 0.37
1900│ 3297│ 228 929│ 1.44│ 0.31
────┼─────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────
1901│ 2862│ 224 909│ 1.27│ 0.30
1902│ 2802│ 225 709│ 1.24│ 0.27
1903│ 2851│ 223 649│ 1.27│ 0.29
1904│ 2467│ 222 373│ 1.11│ 0.26
1905│ 2335│ 226 774│ 1.03│ 0.23
────┼─────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────
1906│ 1889│ 229 324│ 0.82│ 0.21
1907│ 1567│ 231 687│ 0.68│ 0.18
1908│ 1843│ 235 674│ 0.78│ 0.20
1909│ 1956│ 239 511│ 0.82│ 0.22
1910│ 2092│ 244 038│ 0.86│ 0.21
────┼─────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────
1911│ 2376│ 247 488│ 0.96│ 0.22
────┴─────┴──────────┴──────────┴──────────
In the period covered by these statistics, the population of Christiania
has trebled; we might, therefore, expect a marked rise in the presence
of venereal disease. As a matter of fact, the incidence of syphilis was
never again so high as in the first year; with certain fluctuations, it
fell, despite the marked increase in population, from .53 per cent. in
1876 to .22 per cent. in 1911. The decline in all three diseases taken
together, though not quite so striking, is sufficiently noteworthy in
the face of general conditions that might account for a rise: 1.28 per
cent. in 1876, .96 per cent. in 1911. Abolition took place in 1887.
During some of the following years a rise is observable, explicable in
several ways: (1) It was the purpose of the law to induce disease,
hitherto hidden, to come out into the open. The breaking of the police
association, the prominence given to the free dispensary, ought to have
brought out cases that under the old order were handled secretly and
thus escaped reporting; a rise in the number recorded might mean not
more fresh cases, but merely more cases under proper treatment. (2)
Coincidently with the introduction of the new law, these diseases had to
be reported daily, instead of monthly, and greater accuracy in this
respect might account for a rise indicating not more disease, but more
complete statistics.
The experience of Copenhagen is unfortunately too brief to be of
commanding importance; a proper system of notification was introduced
for the first time in July 1912. Available statistics, obviously very
incomplete, make the following showing:[663]
Soft Acquired Congenital
Years Gonorrhœa Chancre Syphilis Syphilis Syphilis Total
1907 5,684 728 1,869 39 63 8,383
1908 6,320 1,164 2,349 63 61 9,957
1909 6,029 1,034 2,108 57 52 9,280
1910 6,076 848 2,330 39 85 9,378
1911 6,500 692 2,543 66 87 9,888
During five years there has been on the face of the figures a rise of 18
per cent. in the total number of cases reported. Does this indicate
wider contamination as a result of abolition? Let us consider. During
the same period the population increased from 426,540 to 462,161, (i. e.
8 per cent.), so that to some extent at least the apparent increase is
relative, not absolute. Moreover, the entire tendency, here as in
Christiania, has been to lay hold of as many infected persons as
possible; in other words, unless more cases were brought to light for
some years to come, the dispensary policy would be a failure. Indeed, in
the early years, the dispensary physicians were paid per patient, in
order to enlist their active coöperation in ferreting out foci of
infection.
Graphic representation shows that abolition has done no harm, even
though the most unfavorable interpretation be placed upon the figures.
The rapid decline immediately prior to repeal would appear to indicate
that abolition took place when Copenhagen was, in respect to venereal
disease, in the trough of the wave. Free dispensaries brought some
hidden cases to light; hence, a brief rise,—a reaction from which is
already in progress, partly explicable, perhaps, by the extinction of
some active foci through treatment.
The curves (pp. 383, 384, 385) show the course of venereal diseases in
Copenhagen on the basis of the Reports of the Health Department.[664]
[Illustration: FIGURE V.—Course of syphilis at Copenhagen.]
[Illustration: FIGURE VI.—Course of gonorrhœa at Copenhagen.]
[Illustration: FIGURE VII.—Course of soft chancre at Copenhagen.]
In relation to population, the following table shows the incidence of
venereal disease per 10,000 inhabitants since 1867. Needless to repeat,
only the statistics of more recent years are of any genuine
consequence:[665]
────────────────────────────────────
Year Gonorrhœa Soft chancre Syphilis
1867 128 50 49
1868 144 73 56
1869 152 92 58
1870 158 59 47
1871 148 49 42
1872 160 72 45
1873 147 71 39
1874 159 69 40
1875 162 42 33
1876 178 53 32
1877 186 46 32
1878 196 37 32
1879 194 38 41
1880 190 40 40
1881 200 54 40
1882 222 60 42
1883 226 51 45
1884 207 61 49
1885 212 51 66
1886 202 55 73
1887 183 32 59
1888 174 24 41
1889 148 31 31
1890 140 28 30
1891 129 25 31
1892 129 24 28
1893 135 20 32
1894 122 20 36
1895 118 13 40
1896 124 16 39
1897 128 22 42
1898 133 22 48
1899 125 19 48
1900 129 17 50
1901 137 24 57
1902 127 14 46
1903 125 11 43
1904 115 11 39
1905 114 11 32
1906 112 18 33
1907 129 17 45
1908 142 26 56
1909 134 23 49
1910 132 18 53
1911 140 15 58
────────────────────────────────────
Dr. Rudolf Krefting, of Christiania, has plotted out two highly
interesting curves by way of depicting and comparing the course of
events in Copenhagen and Christiania in respect to syphilis.[666] (See
Fig. VIII, p. 387.)
[Illustration: FIGURE VIII.—Copenhagen and Christiania compared in
respect to syphilis.]
Despite considerable variations, the dotted line shows, as we have
already observed, that there was relatively to population less syphilis
in Christiania in 1910 than in 1890; that, though the amount of disease
treated in abolition Christiania was in the years immediately succeeding
repeal greater than the amount reported in Copenhagen, conditions
rapidly improved, so that the situation is now well in hand. The maximum
was reached almost twenty years ago (1895). The Copenhagen curve
continues to rise until 1901, when it falls unaccountably, rises on
repeal of regulation and shows a declining tendency as the new system
gets to working more smoothly. In any event, Copenhagen with control and
with an imperfect system of notification actually shows almost
uninterruptedly more syphilis than Christiania without control and with
a much more thorough system of notification.[667] That abolition alone
is to be credited with the decline or with the difference between the
two cities cannot be maintained; for similar declines—less credible,
perhaps, inasmuch as the data are less reliable—are observable under
regulation also. A very marked instance I have just noted, viz., the
decline in reported cases of syphilis at Copenhagen between 1901 and
1905,—while regulation was still in vogue. That abolition with the
dispensary system treats more disease than regulation is beyond all
question; that it treats enough more to affect sensibly the disease
curves one may believe, but may not yet hold to be scientifically
demonstrated. But this is not essential, for unless the evidence is
clearly in its favor, regulation falls to the ground. As to this, there
is no question whatsoever. The medical profession, the health
authorities, the police of both Christiania and Copenhagen are well-nigh
unanimous in their conviction on the basis of experience and statistics
that abolition has done no harm; and if abolition has done no harm,
assuredly regulation can have done no good.[668]
A single bit of evidence may also be gleaned from the experience of
Zurich. The records of the Policlinic (out-patient department or
dispensary) and the cantonal hospital are available since 1894. Bordells
were forbidden in 1897. The population of the city was at that time
140,000; by 1911, it had risen to 195,600. Yet the total number of cases
treated at the dispensary fell from 483 in the former year to 392 in the
latter. The number of venereal patients admitted to the cantonal
hospital, 114 in 1897, has now risen to 251, but the ratio to population
has decreased. These facts are indicated on Figures IX and X.
[Illustration: FIGURE IX.—Venereal diseases, Zurich Policlinic.]
Let us now bring together the results of the two chapters in which we
have discussed this problem. In the first place, let me remind the
reader of the absurdity of supposing that regulation means that the
authorities are alive to the problem of venereal disease and that
abolition means that they close their eyes to it. Regulation means
simply that the police deal with a very small portion of venereal
disease; on the Continent, at least, abolition means that the health
authorities are energetically attempting to reach more and more of it.
[Illustration: FIGURE X.—Venereal diseases, Canton hospital, Zurich.]
In the second place, we must emphasize the fact that venereal disease is
inevitably attendant upon sexual promiscuity. Venereal disease is an
evil in itself and deserves to be combated with all the resources and
facilities known to science and to sanitation; but so long as
prostitution exists, venereal disease will remain serious and
widespread; we have discovered absolutely no reason—statistical or
other—to believe that regulation at all reduces its ravages; there is,
however, good reason to believe that the bordell and the medical
examination contribute to its aggravation by increasing miscellaneous
commerce and by decreasing resistance. On the other hand, there is no
ground—statistical or other—for believing that abolition increases
disease; there is excellent reason for believing that abolition, plus a
deliberately planned and organized dispensary system, has already proved
a mitigating factor and is capable of much greater usefulness than has
yet been anywhere realized.
This summary still leaves on our hands the problem of understanding the
fluctuations of venereal infection. But in this respect, venereal
disease is one with other infections and contagions. All alike are
subject to unaccountable ups and downs. We know as yet practically
nothing of the factors which determine the rise and fall of infectious
disease curves, or the outbreak and the subsidence of epidemics. Apart
from any prophylactic measures yet known to science, such scourges as
syphilis and gonorrhœa wax and wane. Throughout the world, there is some
evidence to suggest that aside from temporary disturbances due to
war,[669] they have been for a decade or two in the declining stage;
whether this is temporary or permanent we have absolutely no means of
telling; experience suggests the former, but time alone will tell.
I would not, however, convey the notion that all fluctuations are
mysterious and spontaneous and that therefore nothing can be
accomplished by intelligent action. The army curves are an argument
against any such fatalistic view. With increased keenness of military
competition, every factor conducive to efficiency has to be reckoned
with; the outcome of war would, it is felt, depend not only on
battleship tonnage and the paper strength of the army, but on the health
of the crew and of the enlisted men; their physical vigor is at least as
important as smokeless powder and a powerful rifle. Almost
simultaneously, therefore, the war authorities of Europe have undertaken
to compete with the tavern and the wanton. Games are cultivated, places
of recreation provided, the spirit of emulation has been aroused; and
instruction is given,—the enlisted man is taught that continence is
possible and wholesome; he is urged, if he has indulged himself, to
employ prophylactic measures;[670] in the highly probable event of their
failure, he is to have prompt recourse to the surgeon. A successful
effort to bring about more sparing use of alcohol has perhaps done more
than anything else to make these devices and suggestions fruitful.
The indisputable improvement that intelligent endeavor has thus effected
in all European armies is a strong argument in behalf of applying a
similar policy to the general population. I have said that venereal
disease is an evil in itself,—a serious drain on the efficiency of the
body politic. That nation which first succeeds in reducing it will have
scored heavily on its competitors. The German Society for combating
venereal disease[671] is the most vigorous organ in Europe engaged in
the cultivation and dissemination of this point of view. Waiving
consideration of other aspects of the problem of prostitution, for the
time being, it urges that the same methods be employed in the contest
with venereal disease that are invoked against other scourges: medical
research for the means of prevention, isolation and cure; enlightenment
of all those afflicted or liable to affliction in order that the willing
intelligence of the patient may cooperate with the rational intent of
the community. Thus tuberculosis, measles, small-pox, cholera and other
pests have been attacked with some measure of success. Venereal disease
offers indeed peculiar difficulties, but they are difficulties that only
strengthen the argument for intelligence and resource broadly utilized.
If this be true, the situation described does not call for regulation,
tending, as it does, to concentrate its fire upon a few foci, and to
cover up other sources of infection so that they fester in darkness, but
rather for the more liberal and enlightened policy, which, if not
identical with abolition, follows naturally in its wake.
CHAPTER XI
THE OUTCOME OF EUROPEAN EXPERIENCE
If the preceding pages may be assumed to have exhibited the present
condition of prostitution in Europe, the reader need not be long
detained for the purpose of summarizing the main inferences to be drawn
from them. It must be clear that prostitution is far more widespread
than superficial appearances indicate; that its roots strike deep,
socially and individually; that police regulation has proved
unnecessary, in so far as the keeping of order is concerned, and
positively harmful in its bearing on the problem of venereal disease.
Further elaboration of these points would involve needless iteration.
But we may well ask whether European experience suggests any broader
reflections with which this study may appropriately be brought to a
close.
Whatever one may hold as to ultimate dealings with the subject, it is
clear that prostitution is at any rate a modifiable phenomenon. For
example, no matter what conditions exist at this very moment, they are
capable of aggravation. If bordells are established and allowed a free
hand in procuring inmates and business, if a community ceases to be
concerned as to the condition of the streets, as to the conduct of the
liquor and amusement traffic; there is no doubt that under these
circumstances the number of prostitutes and the volume of business
transacted by them would at once increase, and in consequence, also the
amount of waste and disease traceable thereto.
The converse of the proposition is equally true. If prostitution and its
evils can by social arrangements be increased, they can also by social
arrangements be lessened. If unhampered exploitation and prominence make
matters worse, then interference with exploitation and prominence makes
matters better. I am not suggesting that such interference has unlimited
possibilities. Making every allowance, however, I believe that the
student of prostitution in Europe is warranted in declaring that, with
the suppression of bordells and of the white slave traffic, and the
maintenance of improved external order, a substantial amount of good has
been accomplished, even if new problems have simultaneously developed in
consequence of the growth of cities and the accumulation of wealth;
further, it may safely be maintained that these efforts have not yet
reached their limit.
What are we fairly justified in expecting from directly repressive
action on the part of the community? Prostitution is, as I endeavored to
show in the chapters on demand and supply, a phenomenon arising out of
the complicated interaction of personal factors and social conditions.
Looked at from this point of view, the attempt to stamp it out
completely by summary, even though persistent, action, cannot be
hopefully regarded. The instrument which a municipality must use to that
end is the police. Now the police is an instrument which, serving, as it
does, many useful purposes, must be preserved as nearly intact as may
be. We have seen that contact with prostitution threatens its integrity
and efficiency. On the police, therefore, no more can be laid than it is
capable of bearing. Just what this load is must be separately determined
for every community and, in large cities, for different parts of the
same community. Where the general level of administration and discipline
is high, more can be safely demanded than in communities in which the
level is lower; where public sentiment is active and definite, the
burden may be further increased; where local organizations observe,
complain and follow up, the danger of a police breakdown is still
further diminished.
It is evident, however, that, even amidst favorable general conditions,
the very nature of the instrument employed involves, under the
complicated conditions of modern life, limitations against which one
soon runs. Police repression can be directed mainly against professional
prostitution and its exploiters. Unquestionably it has a valuable
function to discharge in removing stimulation and reducing suggestion,
as also in minimizing opportunities for demoralization. But in so far as
the prostitute herself is personally concerned, repression becomes
operative only after the woman has been wrecked. It penalizes an
accomplished fact. Powerless to crush this fact out of existence,
powerless for the most part to transform the fact, sheer repression
might still hope to deter the beginner by its forbidding prospect; but
unfortunately, the beginner is less affected by the penalties awaiting
her, because she never believes, at the start, that she is destined to
end in the mire. If, therefore, prostitutes are manufactured by
unschooled human nature and imperfect social institutions, they cannot
in the mass be stamped out by brute force; they must be prevented rather
than suppressed,—prevented, too, on both sides, in the sense that the
sources of supply must be closed and the demand diverted into other
channels.
Moreover, repression, in order to realize its full possibilities,
requires an abundance of institutional facilities such as now nowhere
exist. I have repeatedly adverted to the utter futility of the fines and
short term sentences hitherto generally imposed. Repression, successful
up to the limits of its inherent possibilities, must involve the
endeavor to wean the professional prostitute from one way of living and
to equip her for another. Reformatories, labor-colonies, hospitals and
similar institutions have, therefore, to be made adequate to the load
which an aggressive policy places upon them. At this moment no city
sustains even what it now requires.
It is a further limitation of the repressive policy, as ordinarily
conceived, that it operates almost altogether upon the woman. We are
reminded of the dual nature of prostitution. It involves two partners.
Imagine every brothel closed, every street-walker incarcerated. To the
extent that stimulation and suggestion have by these measures been
reduced, demand has suffered a check. But a strong demand still remains,
unaffected by repressive measures directed merely against dissolute
women. Certain stimuli have been removed; otherwise appetite is left
where it was. Its gratification is impeded,—made more difficult and more
expensive. But these are not insuperable obstacles in the presence of
that volume of supply which, if inoffensive, is hardly reached by
repressive police measures. Indeed, part of what was offensive is
changed in form rather than entirely driven from the market.
Repression encounters difficulty at still another point. Prostitution is
all too frequently a parasitic phenomenon that attaches itself to other
phenomena, sometimes innocuous, sometimes necessary, sometimes part and
parcel of national life or social tradition. Street-walking and the
bordell are not thus intertwined with other activities; they represent
prostitution in its barest, simplest, most undisguised form, and as such
may be, with comparative ease, successfully attacked by police methods.
But when prostitution insinuates itself into the ordinary life of the
community, subtly, inoffensively, imperceptibly taking advantage of the
forms in which business is transacted, social life carried on, or
recreation enjoyed,—then the difficulties in the way of effective action
are more serious. The cruder forms of prostitution are easily
reached;—easily, I say, because, even though the task has been nowhere
achieved, there is, in the nature of the case, no reason why a
well-governed community should fail to achieve it; but the subtler forms
present problems so different in kind that in dealing with them agencies
and influences of a totally different character must be employed.
I do not mean that repression will have accomplished little. On the
contrary, important good is achieved at the moment and still more in the
long run. But prostitution as a formidable problem will still remain.
Repression is, on the whole, what physicians call symptomatic treatment;
it may achieve something more than alleviate the ravages, but it does
not cure the disease. It does not necessarily decrease the thing in the
same ratio in which it alters appearances.
What would conceivably happen in a city like London if the police,
spurred and controlled by an active popular impulse, accomplished all
that could be humanly expected? Street-walking of a provocative
character would disappear; the advertised brothel would cease to exist;
the public house (saloon) would strictly enforce the law against the
harboring of prostitutes; the obvious forms of spurious employment would
be dispersed,—rendered more circumspect and much less readily
accessible; prostitutes would disappear from the lobby and promenade of
the variety theaters, etc. The pimp, the exploiter, the third-party
interest would be severely checked and, with that, the tropical growth
due to them. We may also assume that a vigorous and adequate hygienic
policy would lessen the volume of disease, and effect quicker and
completer cures. In a word, prostitution as an offensive and aggressive
activity would be more or less done for; and the loss through disease
would be minimized.
What would be gained? The inducement to enter the life or to persist in
it would be lessened; the total volume of business and the volume
transacted by any one woman would be decreased; the financial waste
would be less; the amount of disease disseminated would be less; the
demoralization of the woman would often be less complete, less
overwhelming, less irretrievable: surely, very important gains.
Well drawn, well codified, well executed laws could accomplish this. Any
civilized society utilizing the resources and instrumentalities that
every such society has within its reach, can, if really so minded,
ultimately reduce prostitution and its ravages so far by direct action.
It is well worth doing; it is, humanly speaking, a possible undertaking,
even though, I repeat, nowhere as yet by any means accomplished. Let us
not, however, deceive ourselves into thinking that such a direct frontal
attack absolves us from effort in other and different directions.
Further achievement depends upon alterations in the constitution of
society and its component parts. In so far as prostitution is the
outcome of ignorance, laws and police are powerless; only knowledge will
aid. In so far as prostitution is the outcome of mental or moral defect,
laws and police are powerless; only the intelligent guardianship of the
state will avail. In so far as prostitution is the outcome of natural
impulses denied a legitimate expression, only a rationalized social life
will really forestall it. In so far as prostitution is due to alcohol,
to illegitimacy, to broken homes, to bad homes, to low wages, to
wretched industrial conditions—to any or all of the particular phenomena
respecting which the modern conscience is becoming sensitive,—only a
transformation wrought by education, religion, science, sanitation,
enlightened and far-reaching statesmanship can effect a cure. Our
attitude towards prostitution, in so far as these factors are concerned,
cannot embody itself in a special remedial or repressive policy, for in
this sense it must be dealt with as part of the larger social problems
with which it is inextricably entangled. Civilization has stripped for a
life-and-death wrestle with tuberculosis, alcohol and other plagues. It
is on the verge of a similar struggle with the crasser forms of
commercialized vice. Sooner or later, it must fling down the gauntlet to
the whole horrible thing. This will be the real contest,—a contest that
will tax the courage, the self-denial, the faith, the resources of
humanity to their uttermost.
Appendices
APPENDIX I
PARIS REGULATIONS[672]
_Duties and Prohibitions Imposed on Public Prostitutes._
Public prostitutes are required to report at the Health Dispensary for
medical examination at least once a fortnight at dates that will be
fixed for each case.
They are ordered to show their sanitary cards whenever requested to do
so by police officers or agents.
They may not walk about in public streets before the street lanterns
have been lighted, nor, in any season of the year, before seven o’clock
in the evening; nor may they remain in the streets after midnight.
There must be nothing about their deportment or their attire that
attracts attention in an offensive manner.
They are expressly forbidden to speak to minors or to men accompanied by
women or children, or to entice anyone in a loud voice or with
persistence.
They are forbidden to loiter in the streets, to gather in groups, to
walk about in groups, to pass the same points too frequently, as they go
up and down, and to have their “pimps” walk with them or behind them.
They are not permitted to be in the vicinity of churches (Catholic or
Protestant), schools and lycées, covered arcades, boulevards, the
Champs-Élysées, the railway stations and their approaches, and the
public parks.
They are not permitted to live in houses in which there are
boarding-schools or day-schools.
They are likewise not permitted to share their lodgings with a lover or
with another prostitute.
They must never solicit from their windows.
Any woman violating the above instructions, or resisting officers of
public authority, or giving wrong information as to her address or name,
incurs the risk of certain penalties, the severity of which is in
accordance with the seriousness of the offence.
IMPORTANT NOTICE.—The card issued to prostitutes at the time of their
enrolment is not to be regarded as an authorization, and must in no way
be taken as an encouragement to vice, or as an obstacle to decent
employment.
The card enables the administration to determine whether the public
prostitutes—in their own interest as well as in the interest of the
public health—are reporting regularly for the medical examinations which
are provided for them as long as they continue practising prostitution.
A woman may at any time be stricken from the list and have her card
recalled, if it be shown that she no longer draws her means of
subsistence from prostitution.
Furthermore, the necessary confirmation of the above fact will be sought
with reserve and discretion.
INSTRUCTIONS GOVERNING THE VARIOUS OPERATIONS OF THE MORALS SERVICE.
I
CLANDESTINE PROSTITUTION
§ 1. _Searches and scrutinies carried on in private houses in
furnished-room houses, and in cafés and saloons._
The inspectors of the active morals service, when informed that a
certain private house or furnished-room house is being secretly used as
a resort for prostitution, will immediately report such information to
their Officier de paix, who will draw up a statement for the Chief of
Municipal Police.
The Chief of Municipal Police will cause exact and precise data to be
gathered, which will be reported to the Préfet de Police by the Chief of
the 1st Division, who, if that be desirable, will advise the Préfet to
issue a search-warrant.
This warrant, issued in accordance with article 10 of the Law of July
22, 1791, and having effect at any hour of the day or night, in cases of
public notoriety, shall then be transmitted to the Chief of Municipal
Police, together with a note giving the necessary directions to assist
in carrying it out.
The inspectors ordered to the search will report to the Commissaire of
police of the quarter, to advise him of their mission, so that he may be
in readiness to furnish aid when aid shall be required.
The authorization to live in furnished rooms, granted to prostitutes
who, by reason of their age or their infirmities, cannot secure places
in brothels, and cannot afford to live in quarters of their own, has no
other purpose than to enable them to find a home. Such authorization
does not exempt them from the consequences of the offence of practising
prostitution in the furnished rooms inhabited by them.
It would be proper, therefore, to arrest women, if, in the course of
search made in execution of such a warrant, they should be found in the
company of men enticed by them, which fact would furthermore constitute
a charge against the keeper of the house, being an infraction on his
part of article 5 of the Ordinance of November 6, 1778. But such arrests
should not be made if the women are found with men with whom they
regularly share those lodgings, being the concubines of such men, a fact
which it would be easy to establish by referring to the list on the
police register.
As for cafés, saloons, or other places where liquor is sold, and in
which clandestine prostitution is encouraged, the Commissaires of police
may enter such places, without a warrant, up to the closing hour, or
even later, if such establishment should remain open in violation of the
police ordinances.
They may go through public meeting places, if necessary, in order to
ascertain infractions of article 14 of the Ordinance of November 8,
1780.
Inspectors who, in the course of their watches, may observe conditions
constituting violations of the above nature, will inform the Commissaire
of police of the quarter.[673]
§ 2. _Girls not under supervision._
Inspectors must proceed with the greatest caution in the cases of girls
not under supervision, whom they may meet in the public streets, and
must not arrest them except after a surveillance resulting in the
observation of a number of distinct acts of soliciting.
In a public place commonly known to be a resort for prostitution, it is
proper to arrest a girl not under supervision, when there is evidence of
the actual act, or an admission on the part of the girl or of the man
found with her, that the girl has solicited him to the act of
debauchery.
Whatever may be the circumstances under which they have been arrested,
girls not under supervision must, in accordance with the procedure
outlined in the circular of March 24, 1837, be transferred as promptly
as possible to the Bureau of the Commissaire of police of the quarter in
which the arrest has taken place, and they must there be interrogated
without delay.
Inspectors will always adopt an attitude towards such women, that will
be in accordance with the dignity of the administration, except when
legally confirming insults or assaults made on them by such women. They
will absolutely refrain from in any way encouraging the women to solicit
them.
When handing over a girl not under supervision, to the discretion of a
Commissaire of police, inspectors will place in the hands of such
official, unless he is in receipt of a complete declaration from them, a
detailed report of the acts of which the girl is accused.
After having handed over a girl not under supervision, to the discretion
of a Commissaire of police, or after having aided a Commissaire of
police, while executing a warrant, in a public place, in making the
arrest of a girl not under supervision, inspectors will at once
ascertain whether such girl is really domiciled at the address given by
her, and whether she is known by the persons whose servant or employee
she states she has been.
They will carefully gather information as to her behavior and means of
subsistence, and will report all facts thus obtained, in a special
report to the Chief of Municipal Police, who will transmit the report to
the Chief of the 1st Division.
Inspectors should never lose sight of the fact that the object of
searches and scrutinies executed in pursuance of a warrant is to get at
women or girls who are engaged in public prostitution, and not at those
whose sole offence is an act of private debauchery, which, reprehensible
though it may be, should not expose the woman committing such acts to
the consequences that should be borne only by real prostitutes.
For instance, the mere fact that a woman is found in a furnished-room
house, or in a public place, in the very act of debauchery, is not
sufficient evidence to show that the woman is guilty of prostitution, if
she has regular relations of this nature with the man found with her,
and if no act of soliciting to paid debauchery is set forth. It is
expressly recommended, that when women are found sleeping alone, even in
places that have a bad reputation, no steps be taken to arrest them,
unless the circumstances are such as to convince the Commissaire of
police that such women have been engaged in an act of prostitution. The
Commissaires of police will carefully, and without delay, investigate
the circumstances causing the arrest of girls not under supervision;
after having heard the arrested person, they will decide whether the
arrest is to hold good. Should they consider it desirable to take
immediate steps to ascertain certain facts, they may have a telegram
sent for that purpose to the Chief of Municipal Police, by the Officier
de paix of the arrondissement.
They will draw up a procès-verbal of the interrogation through which
they have put the persons arrested. They are expressly forbidden to make
use of printed blanks in conducting this interrogation.
II
TOLERATED PROSTITUTION.
§ 1. _Brothels._
Inspectors must keep tolerated brothels under daily surveillance, in
order that they may be certain that no infractions of public order and
decency take place there, and that the women keeping such houses comply
rigorously with the special requirements made of them, as well as with
the general regulations for public order, notably with those concerning
the apparel and the number of girls permitted to go out, and the hours
of leaving and returning.
As far as departures and returns are concerned, which take place by
stealth after the closing hour, such acts do not constitute a punishable
infraction except in so far as they may be the cause of noises of a
nature to disturb the public peace.
Inspectors will hand in without delay, in the form of a special report,
an account of any serious or extraordinary occurrence taking place in
such houses, and will repeatedly warn the mistresses of such houses that
the latter must immediately report any such event to the Commissaire of
police of their quarter, unless they have an opportunity, within the
proper hours, to notify the administrative Bureau of the Officier de
paix assigned to the morals service.
Inspectors will strictly enforce the prohibition, issued to mistresses
of houses, forbidding them to grant admission to students of the lycées,
or of civil and military schools, when in uniform, or to any young men
under eighteen years of age, and will report any infractions of this
rule.
§ 2. _Enrolled Women._
Inspectors will see to it that all the provisions of the decree of
September 1, 1842 are carried out.
They will require individual prostitutes, not connected with brothels,
when met with in inspections of furnished-room houses or other places,
or in the course of the inspectors’ street duty, to show their cards, in
order that the inspectors may know whether the prostitutes are prompt in
reporting for medical examination, and in order that those who have
missed examinations, a list of whom is given out twice a month by the
administrative bureau, may be traced and called to account. When a girl
makes a statement in explanation of her not having the card, which the
inspector has reason to believe is untrue, he may accompany her to her
home.
Inspectors who are ordered to bring an enrolled woman to the
administrative office, and who do not find such woman at her home, will
do no more than report that fact. They will leave no word as to the
object of their call, in order that the woman wanted may not be tempted
to conceal her whereabouts.
§ 3. _Disappearances of girls._
The search for girls who have disappeared must be carried on with the
greatest possible discretion.
In the cases of girls who have returned to their families, or who have
taken up honest work, or who appear to be no longer deriving their means
of livelihood from public prostitution, inspectors will merely report
the present circumstances of the girls, in a special report.
Of the girls who have disappeared, only such are to be brought to the
administrative Bureau, as have been found in brothels, or in the homes
of other prostitutes, or in furnished-room houses or private houses,
when none of the circumstances given above as exempting them from arrest
under this head, is applicable to them.
III
TRANSFER OF ARRESTED WOMEN TO THE PRÉFECTURE.
Prostitutes arrested by inspectors in Paris or in the suburbs, who
cannot immediately be taken to the Préfecture de Police, will be kept at
the station-houses, from which they will be sent to the Dépôt.
IV
(On Sodomy, here omitted.)
V
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE.
Before any other action is taken, the Interrogating Commissaire, Head of
the Morals Bureau, should examine all documents relating to the arrest
of girls not under supervision, in order to determine in what cases
there is good reason for postponing the physical examination.
The interrogation of girls not under supervision is conducted by the
Interrogating Commissaire himself; he reads to the girl the declaration
made by her, and has her sign the procès-verbal of the interrogation; if
necessary, he interrogates the officers.
Whenever it may be necessary to enroll a girl not under supervision, who
is of age and who refuses to submit to the sanitary and administrative
requirements, or, whenever it may be necessary to enroll a girl who _is
not of age_, the case will be decided by a commission consisting of the
Préfet or his representative, the Chief of the 1st Division, and the
Interrogating Commissaire, instead of, as heretofore, ending with a
written statement of the facts. This commission will interrogate the
woman arrested as well as the officers.
It is important to bear in mind that prostitutes, at the time they are
enrolled, receive a printed notice informing them that on their
application their names may be removed from the surveillance lists, when
some verification has been made of the fact that they have ceased
practising prostitution. This verification should be made with
discretion and reserve.
In the matter of disciplinary punishments imposed on enrolled women, the
procedure will continue to be as heretofore, that is, punishments will
be assigned by the Préfet, on the motion of the Interrogating
Commissaire, approved by the Head of the 1st Division. However, in any
case of appeal by an enrolled woman from the punishment imposed upon
her, such appeal shall be referred immediately to a commission
consisting of the Préfet de Police, or his representative, and two
Commissaires of Police of the City of Paris, chosen by rotation from the
list of such officials.
Decisions of this commission will be made after hearing the arrested
person as well as the officers, if that be necessary.
When the commission is not presided over by the Préfet in person, its
decisions must be ratified by him.
To make certain the permanence of the service, the sub-Chief of the 3rd
section of the 2nd bureau will bear the title of _supplementary_
Interrogating Commissaire, but his services will not be called on except
when the titular interrogating commissaire is prevented from being
present.
VI
MEDICAL SERVICE.
Although no cases have as yet arisen in which it has been necessary to
use force in making the physical examination, the medical service is
recommended to refrain from taking such steps in any case in which they
may meet with resistance.
Such an occurrence should at once be brought to the attention of the
Préfet.
APPENDIX II
BERLIN REGULATIONS[674]
In the Police District of Berlin, a person of female sex who has been
assigned, because of her practising immorality as a trade, to the
surveillance of the Health Police, is subject to the following
restrictions:
1. She must submit to medical examination as to her condition of health,
in accordance with directions given her.
2. She must appear promptly, at the time set for her, for medical
examination, and furthermore, as soon as she observes any indication of
illness in her genitals, or in her inguinal glands, she must report at
once to the Chief of the Morals Police and state her trouble.
3. Medical examinations ordered by the morals police, to take place in
her own home, must be permitted without resistance.
4. When found afflicted with a venereal or skin disease, or with any
contagious disease, she is obliged to submit to being committed to such
hospital as may be designated by the authorities and to comply with the
requirements of the treatment until she is cured. Furthermore she must
punctually discharge the duties imposed upon her by the morals police in
any home treatment ordered by that body, or in any treatment
supplementary to hospital care.
If found infested with vermin, she must submit to the treatment as
officially outlined.
In the hospital she must comply with the orders of physicians and
officials, as well as with the rules of the house; in case an absence
has been allowed, she must report promptly on the expiration of the term
granted.
5. She is not permitted to lounge about, in an offensive manner, in the
streets or squares of the city, to entice men to lechery by addressing
them, or to appear in the company of a person known by her to be under
the surveillance of the morals police, or known to her as a pimp.
She is not permitted to stand or sit in doorways or entrance-gates.
She must comply absolutely with the instructions of the criminal
officers who display the proper badges, which instructions are given for
the maintenance of public order and public decency. This does not touch
upon the rights of uniformed officers of supervision.
6. Except for very urgent reasons, she must not enter the following
streets or places:
Lustgarten, Tiergarten, including Königsplatz, Friedrichshain,
Humboldthain, Victoriapark, Unter den Linden, Friedrichstrasse,
Belle-Alliance-Platz, Wilhelmstrasse, Potsdamerstrasse, Bülowstrasse
from Zietenstrasse to Yorckstrasse, Linkstrasse, Lützowstrasse,
Potsdamerplatz, etc.
7. She is not permitted to loiter in the vicinity of churches, schools,
higher institutions of learning, buildings of the Royal Government or
other public buildings, especially military barracks. She must not visit
theaters, circuses, or exhibitions, or the concert gardens connected
with them, the Zoological Gardens, the Museums, the railway stations
(unless it be to purchase a ticket for railway passage), or, finally,
any places that may be named in later orders of the police authorities.
8. In public meeting places she must not attract undue attention to
herself.
9. She may not enter into any manner of relation with male or female
persons under 21 years of age, and, particularly, must not engage such
persons as servants.
10. She must guard carefully against permitting the fact of her living
in a certain house from becoming the occasion of any offence or
disturbance, either in the house itself or in the immediate vicinity.
Failing to prevent such offence, and having once been warned without
effect, she must leave the house within the time indicated by the morals
police when issuing the order of removal to her.
11. At any hour of the day or night, she must grant immediate admission
to the police officer who calls in order to inspect her dwelling, or
procure such admission for him, and give as much information as she may
possess concerning persons found in her rooms.
12. If she is found in any resort known to the police as a place where
prostitutes congregate, and if complaints have been made concerning
irregularities at that place, she may be ordered by the morals police to
refrain from entering such place.
13. She must not appear at the windows of her own dwelling, or of any
other dwelling, in any manner that may give offence.
14. When asked, she must truthfully give the address of her home. She
must personally report every change of address, at the registry of the
morals police, not later than the next prescribed medical examination.
In written petitions to the morals police, her present address must
always be given in full.
15. She must not have her abode in the vicinity of churches, schools, or
higher institutions of learning, buildings of the Royal Government, or
other public buildings, especially military barracks, nor must she have
her abode on the streets and squares to which access is denied her in
Paragraph 6 of these regulations. As soon as her occupation of such
dwelling as may be prohibited by this paragraph (15) is discovered, it
is her duty to give up such dwelling, on the order of the morals police,
within the period indicated by that authority.
16. She is not permitted to grant a lodging to her pimp in her own
dwelling.
17. She must keep her control-book, and the identification card issued
to her at dismissal, in intact condition, until they are handed over to
the proper person; she must not leave either the identification card or
the control-book in the keeping of other prostitutes or of any other
persons not having any right to receive such documents.
18. When in the offices of the morals police, she must conduct herself
quietly and decently, and comply absolutely with the instructions of the
supervising staff and the physicians.
19. In accordance with § 361 sec. 6 and § 362 of the Penal Code for the
German Empire, infractions of these rules are punished by imprisonment
for not more than 6 weeks; the sentence may also provide that the
condemned, after paying this penalty, is to be handed over to the State
Police Department (Landespolizeibehörde), which body will have the
discretion of committing the discharged prisoner to a workhouse, or a
protectory, or house of correction, or other asylum, or of assigning her
to labor of public utility, for a period not exceeding 2 years.
When proof is furnished of an honorable moral deportment and of the
exercise of a respectable calling, as well as in cases of marriage,
surveillance by the morals police will be discontinued on application.
All persons of female sex who are under the surveillance of the Berlin
Morals Police, are subject to the above regulations, even though they
may actually reside in one of the following districts:
Treptow, Reinickendorf, Tegel, Weissensee, Pankow, Tempelhof, Britz,
Friedenau, Schmargendorf.
Persons of female sex living in Charlottenburg, Schöneberg, Wilmersdorf,
Rixdorf, Lichtenberg, Friedrichsberg, Stralau, or Boxhagen-Rummelsburg,
but subject to the morals police, not of those localities, but of
Berlin, are likewise required to observe these regulations. They must
particularly report at the Berlin Morals Police Office, on the days and
at the hours set for them, until such time as they may be assigned to
surveillance by the morals police of their own community, and made
subject to medical examinations in such community.
These regulations go into effect on February 1, 1912.
(A printed circular as to the nature of various venereal diseases, and
the precautions to be observed, is also given to every inscribed woman.)
APPENDIX III
HAMBURG REGULATIONS. (_a_)[675]
I
PRECAUTIONS AGAINST INFECTION WITH VENEREAL DISEASE.
(Directions to inscribed women; omitted here.)
II
INFORMATION AS TO THE MANNER OF FILING CERTAIN COMPLAINTS AND AS TO
HOUSES OF REFUGE.
Should a keeper of furnished rooms attempt to prevent the departure of a
controlled girl, or retain possession of her effects, or make any claim
for payments of whatever nature (such as repayment of money advanced, or
for articles of clothing furnished by him), the girl, if not in a
position to file complaint at the office of the morals police, should,
on the occasion of her next medical examination, apply to the officers
of the morals police, so that an investigation may be made.
The officers are also ready to give the girls information concerning
Houses of Refuge where they may obtain shelter pending their return to a
decent mode of life.
III
POLICE REGULATIONS FOR WOMEN UNDER STRINGENT SUPERVISION OF THE MORALS
POLICE.
§ 1. After being assigned to stringent police supervision, women so
assigned will submit at once to examination by the head Police Physician
or his representative, and, thereafter, to regular examination, twice a
week, by the Medical Inspector appointed by the Police Department, at
the place ordered by the Police Department, and at the time set by the
Police Department. If, in the judgment of the Police Department,
additional examinations are also necessary, the women will submit to
them also, and will report promptly at the time and place indicated for
that purpose.
§ 2. They must immediately report to the Police Department any symptoms
of disease which they may have observed on their persons. Such immediate
report may be omitted only when the regular examination of the medical
inspector is to take place later in the day on which the symptom has
been observed.
§ 3. At all examinations they must present themselves in clean clothing
and in a condition of sobriety and bodily cleanliness.
§ 4. They must unhesitatingly comply with the instructions of the
medical examiners.
§ 5. If the physician orders hospital treatment, they are obliged to
submit to being transferred to such hospital as may be appointed by the
authorities. There they must remain until the physician orders their
discharge. During their detention at the hospital they must comply with
the instructions of the physicians and officers of the institution, as
well as the directions of the nursing staff, conduct themselves in an
orderly and modest manner and observe the rules of order. It is
forbidden to bring flowers, books, foodstuffs, beverages, or tobacco, to
the hospital, without the permission of the physician, or to receive or
utilize such articles at the hospital without such permission. It is
strictly forbidden to make use of any apparatus, instrument, bandage,
chemical, or medicament, on one’s own authority. Temporary absence from
the hospital is only permitted with the approval of medical and police
authority.
§ 6. Within 24 hours they must personally report any engagement of, or
change of residence, at the office of the morals police (City Hall, 3d
Story, Room 129), between the hours of 9 A. M. and 2 P. M., in addition
to discharging any formalities as to reports of residence that may be
required of all the members of the population. When about to leave
Hamburg, permanently or temporarily, they must likewise personally
report their departure at the same office, before 11 A. M. Within 24
hours after returning to Hamburg, they must personally report that fact
at the office of the morals police.
§ 7. They must immediately grant admission to the police officer who
calls in order to inspect their dwellings.
§ 8. They must comply at once and without fail with all instructions of
the police issued to them for the preservation of peace and order, as
well as for the administrative purposes of the morals police, without
thereby forfeiting their right to lodge a subsequent protest.
§ 9. They must likewise comply with any commands or prohibitions of the
police, other than those enumerated in these regulations, but issued in
the interests of the administration of the morals police.
§ 10. They are not permitted:
1. To live or spend the night in any houses other than those approved
of by the morals police for the use of such women, to consort
with men in other than the approved houses, or to wander about
homeless, as vagrants,
2. To have minors in their homes, take in other persons as boarders,
or keep female servants under 25 years of age,
3. To grant access to their dwellings, not to mention the granting of
sexual intercourse, to persons who are minors,
4. To appear visibly at the window or front door of the house they
live in or of any other house, or to attempt to attract men by
tapping, knocking, calling, or in any other manner,
5. To accost men in the street or in other places accessible to the
general public, to entice them, either by means of beckoning or
of other gestures, or to molest them in any manner,
6. To appear in public in any manner that may offend decency, or to
appear in striking apparel,
7. To spend the hours between 11 P. M. and 6 A. M. in any other place
than in their homes,
8. To frequent the following streets and places: Alter Jungfernstieg,
Neuer Jungfernstieg, Alsterdamm, Neuerwall, Alterwall,
Reesendamm, Rathausmarkt, Burstah, Adolphsplatz, Grosse,
Johannisstrasse, Mönckebergstrasse, Steindamm, Reeperbahn,
Spielbudenplatz, Dammthorstrasse, Harvestehuderweg, An der
schönen Aussicht, Schwanenwik, An der Alster, and the
Wallanlagen,
9. To visit the following institutions, theaters, and grounds, or
the parts thereof indicated: Stadttheater, Thaliatheater,
Deutsches Schauspielhaus, Hansatheater, the box seats and
orchestra stalls of the Carl Schultze Theater and of the
Hamburger Operettentheater, seats on the first level of the
Neues Operettentheater, the Museums, the Zoological and
Botanical Gardens, the Velodrom, any seats or stands at the
Races except second balcony or standing room, boxes, balcony
and stalls at the circuses, functions under the auspices of
the Allgemeiner Alster Club, particularly regattas, public
music halls and public dance halls (except those at No. 25
Neustädterstrasse and No. 10 Mohlenhofstrasse),
10. To enter any saloons, restaurants, cafés, concert halls and music
halls in the City of Hamburg or in the following suburbs, united
with the City by the Law of June 22, 1894: St. Pauli,
Eimsbüttel, Roterbaum, etc.,
11. To ride in open carriages,
12. To make use of any apartments in the bath-houses of this city,
other than those reserved for the use of individual bathers, and
especially, to make use of the swimming-pools of such
establishments,
13. To employ, or permit others to practise for them, any device or
process calculated to deceive the medical inspectors,
14. To support a pimp or visit the dwellings of such, or to receive
pimps in their own homes.
§ 11. Any woman under supervision, who offers reasonable assurance that
she has completely abandoned vice as a livelihood, and is engaged in the
pursuit of a legitimate calling, may be provisionally liberated, either
wholly or in part, from the necessity of observing the regulations of
the morals police, and, in case her conduct within a certain period, the
length of which is to be designated for each special case, offers no
reason to suppose that she will continue her practice of the vicious
trade, the surveillance to which she is subject will be finally
discontinued.
§ 12. In accordance with § 361 sec. 6 and § 362 of the Penal Code,
infractions of these regulations are punished by imprisonment for not
more than 6 weeks and commission to the State Police Department
(Landespolizeibehörde), for detention in a workhouse for not more than 2
years.
HAMBURG REGULATIONS. (_b_)
POLICE REGULATIONS FOR WOMEN UNDER LIMITED SUPERVISION OF THE MORALS
POLICE.
§ 1. After being assigned to limited police supervision, women so
assigned will submit at once to examination by the head Police Physician
or his representative, and then to the regular medical examinations that
will be set by the Police Department.
§ 2. They must immediately report to the Police Department any symptom
of disease which they may have observed on their persons. Such immediate
report may be omitted only when the regular examination by the medical
inspector is to take place later in the day on which the symptom has
been observed.
§ 3. At all examinations they must present themselves in clean clothing
and in a condition of sobriety and bodily cleanliness.
§ 4. They must unhesitatingly comply with the instructions of the
medical examiners.
§ 5. If the physician orders hospital treatment, they are obliged to
submit to being transferred to such hospital as may be appointed by the
authorities. There they must remain until the physician orders their
discharge. During their detention at the hospital they must comply with
the instructions of the physicians and officers of the institution, as
well as with the directions of the nursing staff, conduct themselves in
an orderly and modest manner and observe the rules of order. It is
forbidden to bring flowers, books, foodstuffs, beverages, or tobacco, to
the hospital, without the permission of the physician, or to receive or
utilize such articles at the hospital, without such permission. It is
strictly forbidden to make use of any apparatus, instrument, bandage,
chemical, or medicament, on one’s own authority. Temporary absence from
the hospital is only permitted with the approval of medical and police
authority.
§ 6. Within 24 hours they must personally report any engagement of or
change of residence at the office of the morals police (City Hall, 3d
Story, Room 128), between the hours of 9 A. M. and 8 P. M., in addition
to discharging any formalities as to reports of residence that may be
required of all the members of the population. When about to leave
Hamburg, permanently or temporarily, they must likewise personally
report their departure at the same office, before 11 A. M. Within 24
hours after returning to Hamburg they must personally report that fact
at the office of the morals police.
§ 7. They must immediately grant admission to the police officer who
calls in order to inspect their dwellings.
§ 8. They must comply at once and without fail with all instructions of
the police issued to them for the preservation of peace and order, as
well as for the administrative purposes of the morals police, without
thereby forfeiting their right to lodge a subsequent protest.
§ 9. They must likewise comply with any commands or prohibitions of the
police, other than those enumerated in these regulations, but issued in
the interests of the administration of the morals police.
§ 10. They are not permitted:
1. To live in a house which the police authorities have declared to
be unsuitable for them, to spend the night with men or consort
with men in any other house than their own dwelling, or to
wander about homeless, as vagrants,
2. To take in another person as a boarder, to have any minor children
(their own or those of others) in their rooms, or to keep a
female servant who is under 25 years of age,
3. To grant access to their dwellings, not to mention the granting of
sexual intercourse, to persons who are minors,
4. To appear visibly at the window or front door of the house they
live in or of any other house, or to attempt to attract men by
tapping, knocking, calling, or in any other manner,
5. To accost men in the streets or in other places accessible to the
general public, to entice them, either by means of beckoning or
of other gestures, or to molest them in any manner,
6. To appear in public in any manner that may offend decency, or to
appear in striking apparel,
7. To spend the hours between 11 P. M. and 6 A. M. in any other place
than in their homes,
8. To frequent the following streets and places: Alter Jungfernstieg,
Neuer Jungfernstieg, Alsterdamm, etc.,
9. To visit the following theaters, institutions, and grounds, or the
parts thereof indicated: Stadttheater, Thaliatheater, Deutsches
Schauspielhaus, Hansatheater, the box seats and orchestra stalls
of the Carl Schultze Theater, seats on the first level of the
Neues Operettentheater, the Museums, the Zoological and
Botanical Gardens, the Velodrom, any seats or stands at the
Races except second balcony and standing room, boxes, balcony
and stalls at the Circuses, functions under the auspices of the
Allgemeiner Alster Club, particularly regattas, public concert
halls and public dance halls (except the Elbhalle and those at
No. 25 Neustädterstrasse and No. 10 Mohlenhofstrasse),
10. To enter any saloons, restaurants, cafés, concert halls, and music
halls in the City of Hamburg or in the following suburbs, united
with the City by the Law of June 22, 1894: St. Pauli,
Eimsbüttel, etc.,
11. To ride in open carriages,
12. To make use of any apartments in the bath-houses of this city,
other than those reserved for the use of individual bathers, and
especially, to make use of the swimming-pools of such
establishments,
13. To employ, or permit others to practise for them, any device or
process calculated to deceive the medical inspectors,
14. To support a pimp or visit the dwellings of such, or to receive
pimps in their own homes.
§ 11. Any woman under limited supervision, who offers reasonable
assurance that she has completely abandoned vice as a livelihood, and is
engaged in the pursuit of a legitimate calling, may be released from the
supervision to which she is subjected.
§ 12. In accordance with § 361 sec. 6 and § 362 of the Penal Code,
infractions of these regulations are punished by imprisonment for not
more than 6 weeks and commission to the State Police Department
(Landespolizeibehörde), for detention in a workhouse for not more than 2
years.
APPENDIX IV
VIENNA REGULATIONS.[676]
The following police regulations for the supervision of prostitution are
issued in accordance with § 22 of the Ordinance of the Imperial
Government of Lower Austria, dated February 9, 1851, L. G. u. Reg. Bl.
No. 39,[677] on the Jurisdiction of Police Departments; and with
reference to § 5 of the Law of May 24, 1885, R. G. Bl. No. 89.[678]
I. THE SUPERVISING AUTHORITY.
§ 1. The supervision of female persons who make a business of selling
their bodies for vicious purposes, is incumbent on the District Police
Commissariats[679] and on the Division for Morals Police Affairs of the
Department of Police.
II. ASSIGNMENT TO SUPERVISION.
§ 2. In accordance with the provisions of this edict, assignments to
supervision may be made either by the Department of Police or by the
Police Commissariats. But no such assignments may be made without the
previous declaration, on the part of the prostitutes, that they wish to
be put under supervision.
§ 3. Women must not be assigned to supervision if they are:
(a) girls under 18 years of age,
(b) virgins,
(c) pregnant,
(d) married and not legally divorced,
(e) afflicted with contagious diseases.
Prostitutes with venereal diseases must be committed to hospital
treatment before their assignment to supervision.
§ 4. Women about to be assigned to supervision must prove their
identity, and, particularly, their legal domicile, by presenting the
proper documents. If necessary, a delay may be granted within which such
papers are to be procured. This delay does not postpone the assignment
to supervision.
They must be thoroughly interrogated on their circumstances and on the
reasons which have caused them to enter prostitution. In this
interrogation, which is to be conducted with due consideration for the
peculiarities of each case, particular effort must be made to determine
whether the women are aware of the significance of their step.
Finally, they are to be subjected to an official medical examination.
§ 5. Minors may be assigned to supervision only by the Department of
Police, and by that Department only when complete moral indifference,
without any hope of betterment, has been unmistakably ascertained.
In all cases in which there is even the remotest possibility of
improvement, the assignment to supervision is to be postponed until such
time when the attempts at reform may be regarded as finally ineffective.
But every opportunity must always be offered to the legally constituted
guardians of minors, to use the influence for good imposed on them by
their position as guardians. With this object in view, such legal
guardians are to be invited to the office, but every precaution must be
taken to guard their reputations. If they reside outside of Vienna, the
necessary negotiations should, under ordinary circumstances, be carried
on directly with them, and not through the intermediation of the police
authorities of their homes.
In order that the minor may be enabled, if possible, to return to a
decent mode of life, constant communication must be maintained, in every
case, with the Surrogate’s Office, and, wherever it is feasible, with
the charitable organizations active at the time.
§ 6. No kind of certification of assignment to supervision is to be
given to the prostitute; yet, she is to be subjected to verbal
instruction on the essential contents of the police regulations.
§ 7. In the case of every prostitute, her possible previous sentences
and venereal diseases are to be ascertained, either from the records of
the Vienna offices, or through correspondence with the authorities in
such localities as may previously have assigned her to supervision.
§ 8. Prostitutes of foreign domicile whose coming to Vienna was merely
for the purpose of being assigned to supervision here, are to be
deported from the city, in application of the Law of July 27, 1871, R.
G. Bl. No. 88.
III. DWELLINGS OF PROSTITUTES.
(a) _Prostitutes who practise prostitution in their own homes._
§ 9. Such prostitutes as practise prostitution as a trade in their own
homes are obliged, in their choice of abode, to obtain the approval of
the proper Police Commissariat. In granting this approval it must be
borne in mind that such dwellings must be as distant as possible from
the main lines of traffic, and not in the vicinity of schools, churches,
or other public buildings, and not in any other places where their
presence might give offence.
§ 10. Such prostitutes are not permitted to live with persons in whose
households there are minors under the age of 18.
§ 11. Not more than three prostitutes who are under supervision may live
with the same mistress of furnished rooms.
Such lodgings as may exist when this edict goes into effect, which do
not fulfill the above requirements, are either to be gradually ordered
vacated by prostitutes, at such opportunities as may offer, or the
number of prostitutes is to be reduced to the prescribed limit.
§ 12. In the choice of their dwellings, as much liberty as is feasible
is to be allowed such prostitutes as have homes of their own which they
do not share with other prostitutes.
§ 13. There is to be no relation between the prostitutes and the
mistress of their rooms other than that of tenant and landlady. No other
influence must be exerted by the landlady over the prostitutes;
particularly, the landlady must have no share or percentage in the
proceeds of the vicious trade, nor must she hinder the prostitutes from
moving out of the house, nor must she serve alcoholic beverages to the
prostitutes or their customers.
Prostitutes are not permitted to live with landladies who violate the
above regulation, provided that the nature of the offence has been
explained to the offender, without effect.
§ 14. The Police Department is furthermore privileged at any time to
forbid a prostitute to live in a certain house, or with a certain
landlady, without assigning a reason for such prohibition.
§ 15. Dwellings of prostitutes must be kept under constant thorough
surveillance. Admission to such dwellings must be granted at any time to
the officials sent for the purpose of inspection of the dwellings.
(b) _Prostitutes living in brothels._
§ 16. The establishment of brothels, that is, of lodgings in which
prostitution is practised as a business, and in which the mistress of
the house figures as the entrepreneur or manager of the business, is to
be prohibited.
Brothels already in existence are to be inspected regularly, without the
previous knowledge of the inmates, both by the Commissariats and by the
Police Department, by the former at least once every three months, and
by the latter at least once every half-year. The inspections will be
conducted by an officer of the reporting staff and an official
physician.
The inspection is to include a scrutiny of all the rooms, an examination
of the list which the mistress is required to keep (giving the name,
personal data, day of admission, and day of departure, of each
prostitute), a medical examination of the prostitutes to determine the
existence of any physical abuses or maltreatments, and an inquiry into
the manner in which all the remaining orders issued for the management
of the brothel have been complied with.
At these inspections, furthermore, prostitutes must have an opportunity
to make any complaints of whatsoever nature, without pressure from
anyone, and it must be determined whether any difficulties are being put
in the way of their leaving the house.
§ 17. The Commission of the Police Department may, as a result of the
inspection, adopt such measures as appear to it to be for the best
interests of the public, from the standpoint of hygiene or from that of
the Morals Police Service.
Should the Commissariat consider such measures desirable, it must apply
for the approval of the Police Department, simultaneously submitting the
record of the inspection to the Department.
§ 18. The employment in brothels of servants who are minors is not to be
permitted.
§ 19. The Police Department may at any time order the closing of a
brothel; particularly, when there have been infractions of the
provisions of §§ 17 and 18, or even of § 13, the provisions of which are
intended to be applied to brothels also.
(c) _Prostitutes who practise prostitution outside of their homes._
§ 20. Prostitutes who practise prostitution outside of their homes are
not as a rule limited to any locality in the choice of their dwellings.
But even they may be forbidden to live in a certain house, when definite
acts of theirs have been the occasion of complaints that have been shown
to be well-founded.
IV. NATURE OF THE SUPERVISION.
§ 21. A prostitute subject to supervision is required to report twice a
week, at times set for her, for official medical examination.
§ 22. A prostitute found, when being officially examined, to be
afflicted with a venereal disease, is required to report for treatment
not later than 6 P. M. on the same day, at the hospital to which she is
referred by the Commissariat of the district in which she lives, under
pain of compulsory transfer, should she neglect so to report. For this
purpose, she must apply to the Commissariat of her district, for a
certificate of commitment.
§ 23. A prostitute received at the hospital must remain there until her
discharge is ordered by the physician treating her, and while there,
must comply with all instructions.
§ 24. A prostitute discharged from the hospital must comply with the
requirements of any additional outside treatment or observation of her
condition, by presenting herself for examination at such intervals as
may be set by the Sick Division.
In order that diagnosis, hospital treatment, and instructions for
supplementary outside treatment may be entered on the sick card, the
latter should be enclosed with the certificate of commitment that is
sent to the office of the hospital when a prostitute is committed to
such hospital. This card remains at the hospital until the prostitute is
discharged or until the conclusion of any supplementary outside
treatment or observation that may be ordered. The Police Department must
be reminded that the card is still at the hospital, by means of a note
to that effect, written on the sheet that carries the notification of
dismissal to the Police Department.
Should the necessity of a new commitment of the prostitute to the
hospital arise between the time of discharge and the termination of the
outside treatment, effort should be made to have her committed to the
hospital that is still in possession of her sick card, or to induce the
former hospital to send the card to the hospital in which the prostitute
has been received.
§ 25. A prostitute under supervision must give notice within 24 hours of
every change of address, to the Commissariat of her former district as
well as to that of her new district.
The control-sheet is at once to be sent to the proper (new) Commissariat
through the Police Department.
§ 26. For reasons connected with the administration of the morals
police, a prostitute under supervision is not permitted to stroll
through the streets in the company of other prostitutes or of pimps, or
to grant shelter to pimps in her home.
In other respects the prostitute is, in principle, to be bound only to
comply with those general regulations for public morality and decency
that are applicable to all persons.
§ 27. In the interests of public order and public decency, and on
application of the Police Commissariat, orders may be issued for the
purpose of abating a nuisance due to the behavior of prostitutes
inhabiting a certain house or street in large numbers.
But the scope of these orders must not exceed what is absolutely
required by the actual local conditions.
V. OFFICIAL MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF PROSTITUTES.
§ 28. The official medical examination must include all portions of the
body, and involve, if necessary, a use of all the scientific apparatus
which has been developed by the progress of medical knowledge, and which
is at the disposal of the official physician. The use of the metroscope
is particularly recommended.
In addition to making the examination, the physician should also, in
each case, inform the women of its purpose, as well as of the nature of
the first indications of contagious diseases, and of the danger involved
in such diseases, and of the means of preventing infection by observing
the proper hygienic precautions.
§ 29. If the official physician finds the prostitute to be infected with
a venereal disease, he must without delay send a medical certificate to
that effect to the Police Commissariat having jurisdiction in this case.
He must warn the prostitute as to the obligations imposed upon her by §§
22 and 23, and order her to stop having sexual intercourse,
simultaneously calling her attention to § 5, item 3, of the Law of May
24, 1885, R. G. Bl. No. 89.
§ 30. The physician must enter the name of any prostitute whom he
commits to the hospital in the list of inspections which he is required
to keep.
The final hospital diagnosis, which is transmitted to the Police
Commissariat after the dismissal of the prostitute from the hospital,
must be sent to the physician for entry on his inspection list.
§ 31. Prostitutes who fail to appear for official medical examination,
even though such failure occur only once, must immediately be reported
to the Police Commissariat, which, unless adequate reasons for the
omission are advanced, will at once cause the arraignment of such
prostitutes. Such arraignment does not preclude the instituting of penal
proceedings against the prostitutes.
Likewise, those prostitutes that do not appear at their official medical
examination at the time set, are to be reported to the Police
Commissariat in order that penal proceedings may be instituted.
VI. DEPARTURE FROM SUPERVISION.
§ 32. A prostitute desiring to retire from supervision must make
personal declaration of such desire to the Commissariat and undergo an
official medical examination. If she is found, at this examination, to
be afflicted with a venereal disease, she is to be committed to a
hospital and her declaration of departure is not to be noted until she
has been dismissed from the hospital.
§ 33. A prostitute under supervision who evades supervision without a
previous notification of her desire to be dropped from the list, is to
be prosecuted at once, unless she is in a position to show that she has
led a decent life since ceasing to comply with the supervision.
§ 34. The Police Department must at once be notified of names dropped
from supervision; the women’s control-sheets must accompany such
notification.
§ 35. Any further surveillance that may be necessary after dropping a
prostitute from the lists, must be conducted in accordance with the
principles governing the supervision of prostitutes not under control.
VII. SURVEILLANCE OF PROSTITUTES NOT UNDER SUPERVISION.
§ 36. It is incumbent on the Police Commissariats, as well as directly
on the Office for Morals Police Affairs, to determine what persons are
carrying on prostitution in a commercial manner, without having declared
their entrance under supervision.
§ 37. The Imperial Safety Guard, as well as such Imperial Police agents
as are not specifically entrusted with surveillance over prostitution,
may take steps against women practising prostitution, only when the
facts have been established beyond any possibility of doubt, or when
there are special reasons for interference, as, for example, § 516 of
the Penal Code, § 1 of the Law of May 24, 1885, R. G. Bl. No. 89, or §
11 of the Imperial Ordinance of April 20, 1854, R. G. Bl. No. 96.
§ 38. Only such police officers as are specifically entrusted with the
surveillance over prostitution may accost or detain persons merely on
suspicion of their practising immorality as a trade, and then only after
having repeatedly, in the course of observations held on a number of
different days, gathered material of a nature to justify such action.
Other police officers, when merely suspecting the practice of commercial
prostitution, will limit themselves to a report of their observations.
§ 39. Special attention is to be paid to the lower class of saloons.
Every legal means must be used in prosecuting the owners of such places
as may arouse suspicion by the employment therein of female persons for
other tasks than those connected with the sale of liquor. In cases that
are clear, the Labor Department must be informed of the facts. Owners of
such places must be denied all concessions within the gift of the
police, such as the license to keep open after the regular closing hour,
or to provide musical entertainment. If they already hold such
concessions, the latter are to be canceled.
§ 40. Persons practising prostitution commercially under the cloak of
some regular calling are to be kept under the necessary surveillance.
§ 41. Investigation must be made of all complaints against persons
suspected of procuring, or of practising prostitution commercially, as
well as of all questionable advertisements in the daily press.
§ 42. In each case the investigation must be made with due regard for
the reputation of the person suspected, and with a discretion that
should be all the greater when the foundation for a penal case is weak.
VIII. TREATMENT OF COMPLAINTS.
§ 43. Complaints made as to any offensive conduct on the part of
prostitutes in the streets or in certain houses must be carefully
investigated, and measures must be taken for the abatement of such
nuisances.
IX. PENALTIES.
(a) _For prostitutes under supervision._
§ 44. The punishment of prostitutes under supervision, for violations of
the Police Ordinances governing the surveillance over prostitution, is
imposed by the Police Commissariats in accordance with § 5, item 2, of
the Law of May 24, 1885, R. G. Bl. No. 89, and with Ministerial
Ordinance of September 30, 1857, R. G. Bl. No. 198.
The penalty is detention for a period of from 6 hours to 8 days,
depending on a very specific examination of the various circumstances
constituting the offence.
§ 45. In the case of insignificant irregularities, particularly in the
case of a first offence, prosecution may be omitted after the prostitute
has been properly reprimanded.
§ 46. Legal proceedings in accordance with § 5, item 2, of the Law of
May 24, 1885, R. G. Bl. No. 89, must not be instituted except when the
offence provided for in that section is committed by a prostitute who
has been punished several times by the police for a similar offence, in
other words, when it is evident, both that the case is one of persistent
disregard of police regulations, and that the severity of the penalty
imposed by the police is not commensurate with the seriousness of the
case. Under these circumstances the imposing of detention for more than
eight days, or even commitment to a workhouse or house of correction, is
permissible.
Whenever complaints are to be filed with the courts, the exact nature of
the offence must be stated, and reasons must be advanced for asking the
aid of the courts.
(b) _For prostitutes not under supervision._
§ 47. Cases against prostitutes not under supervision may be tried
either by the Police Commissariats or by the Police Department directly.
In connection with every trial, a résumé of the decisions made in each
case must be drawn up.
§ 48. No punishment should be imposed on women accused for the first
time of, or arrested for the first time for, commercial prostitution,
especially when they are still young, even though the facts be beyond
doubt, unless such punishment may be required, as a repressive measure,
by the manifest depravity of the case.
In all cases in which it may seem not unreasonable to assume that the
woman accused has been led into prostitution by circumstances of a
temporary and accidental nature only, and that consequently her return
to a respectable mode of life might be rendered more difficult by the
stigma of a police penalty, no other action must be taken than the
applying of such of the charitable provisions of § 5, as are applicable
to the particular case.
Such charitable provisions must also be carried out, in the case of a
prostitute not under supervision, when she is a minor, against whom a
penal action has been instituted.
§ 49. No woman accused of the practice of commercial prostitution may be
subjected to the official medical examination until the offence is
finally proved.
§ 50. A prostitute found to be afflicted with a venereal disease at the
official medical examination, must immediately be taken to the hospital.
As a preliminary she must be informed of the rules provided for
prostitutes under supervision, in §§ 23 and 24, which rules, under these
circumstances, are applicable also to prostitutes not under supervision.
Punishments for infractions of these obligations are to be imposed in
accordance with § 5, item 2, of the Law of May 24, 1885, R. G. Bl. No.
89, and in accordance with Ministerial Ordinance of September 30, 1857,
R. G. Bl. No. 198.
§ 51. Penalties imposed by the police on persons convicted of the
practice of commercial prostitution, must conform to § 5, section 1, or,
in the case of persons previously punished for similar offences, to § 5,
item 1, of the Law of May 24, 1885, R. G. Bl. No. 89, and to the
Ministerial Ordinance of September 30, 1857, R. G. Bl. No. 198.
The provisions of § 46 or of § 44 determine whether proceedings are to
be instituted, in accordance with § 5, item 1, of the above law, and
also, what is to be the severity of the punishment; yet, in assigning a
penalty, the principle must be borne in mind that a prostitute not under
supervision is to be treated with greater severity than one who is under
supervision.
§ 52. When the police impose a penalty on a prostitute not under
supervision, the facts of the case, and, particularly, the amenability
of the accused, must be so formulated as to leave no misunderstanding in
the mind of the latter, as to the offence imputed to her.
X. JURISDICTION.
(a) _Jurisdiction of the Police Department._
§ 53. The following business is within the jurisdiction of the Office
for Morals Police Affairs:
1. The functions conferred on this office in its capacity as
headquarters for the surveillance of the white slave traffic, in
accordance with the edict of the Department of Police, dated August 12,
1905.
2. All records of general nature concerning prostitutes under
supervision, concerning the houses mentioned in §§ 9 and 16, and the
mistresses of such houses, concerning prostitutes not under supervision,
concerning pimps, and concerning procuring.
3. The instituting of proceedings to determine whether minors, or
prostitutes who ply their trade outside of their homes, are to be placed
under supervision.
4. Orders to evacuate streets or houses inhabited by prostitutes.
5. Management of such prostitutes not under supervision as may be traced
by the officers assigned to the office.
6. Complete control over such trials as may, by reason of their
importance, be assigned to the office by the President.
7. Keeping on file the complaints lodged with the Police Department, as
well as with the Police Commissariats, as to the behavior of the
prostitutes.
8. Supervision of the Commissariats with the object of maintaining a
uniform application of the prostitution regulations.
9. Inspection of the punishment and fine books kept by the
Commissariats.
10. Examination of the appeals made against the judgments of the
Commissariats.
11. Consultations at regular intervals with the officials assigned to
report on prostitution.
12. Collecting of material having reference to the regulation of
prostitution, and advancing of proposals thereon.
(b) _Jurisdiction of the Police Commissariats._
§ 54. The application of the prostitution regulations, in all matters in
which § 53 does not stipulate the exclusive jurisdiction of the Police
Department, is incumbent on the Police Commissariats.
The Commissariats must keep records on the following matters:
1. Prostitutes, in their district, under supervision.
2. Dwellings of prostitutes under supervision, who practise prostitution
in such dwellings.
3. Mistresses or keepers of such dwellings.
Furthermore, the Police Commissariats must transmit the following
material to the Police Department:
(a) Weekly reports of changes occurring in their own districts, in the
number of prostitutes,
(b) Complaints as to the behavior of the prostitutes,
(c) Accusations of procuring,
(d) The documents provided for in § 47,
(e) After disposing of the cases, the reports of failure to appear for
medical examination,
(f) The punishment-books (every month),
(g) The records taken in the inspections of brothels.
Finally, the Commissariats must report any changes in the number of
houses mentioned in §§ 9 and 16, as well as in the mistresses of such
houses, and they must also report all cases of failure to assign a
prostitute to supervision in spite of the fact that the necessary
preliminary condition provided in § 2 has been realized.
APPENDIX V
DANISH LAW FOR RESISTING PUBLIC IMMORALITY AND VENEREAL INFECTION,
CONFIRMED BY HIS MAJESTY KING FREDERICK VIII ON MARCH 30, 1906.
§ 1. Police supervision of commercial immorality is hereby abolished.
Police action against persons practising such trade is legitimate when
it accords with the conditions, and proceeds in the manner, provided in
the legislation on vagrancy (Lovgivningen om Løsgængeri). Yet, the order
mentioned in the Law of March 3, 1860, § 2, must not be given unless
warning has been previously issued.
§ 2. Anyone who incites or entices to immorality, in such manner, or who
displays an immoral mode of life, to such a degree, as to offend the
sense of decency, or to become a public nuisance, or to disturb those
living in the vicinity, shall be punished by imprisonment, or, under
aggravating circumstances, or for a repetition of the offence, by
commitment to the penitentiary. If there are extenuating circumstances,
the punishment may be commuted to a fine.
The same punishment is provided for any woman who practises immorality
as a trade, provided that a male person, or a minor over two years of
age, lives in the same dwelling with her, or that she receives visits
for immoral purposes from male persons under eighteen years of age.
Any person not previously warned or punished for one of the above
offences, may, instead of being punished, be simply warned, by the
Police Department; but no warning may be issued if the accused demands
sentence by law.
§ 3. The keeping of brothels is prohibited. Anyone violating this
prohibition is punished by imprisonment in a house of correction or at
hard labor, or by imprisonment on common prison diet. The same
punishment is imposed on anyone guilty of procuring. Such persons as
may, with the object of pecuniary profit, grant admission to their
dwellings, to persons of different sex, in order that vicious practices
may there take place, or such as let rooms, not for the purpose of
prolonged habitation, but in order to provide an opportunity for immoral
practices, or such as admit to their houses female persons under the age
of eighteen, who are seeking gain by immoral practices, shall be
punished by detention in prison or at hard labor. In the case of a
repeated offence, the punishment may be increased to commission to a
penitentiary for a period not exceeding two years.
It is forbidden to offer for sale, or to send out circulars concerning,
or to exhibit a signboard concerning, any device calculated to prevent
the consequences of cohabitation, to the general public, or to
individuals not personally known to the seller, or to persons not
distinctly specified. Violation of this prohibition is treated and
punished in accordance with the rules governing violations of police
regulations.
§ 4. The same punishment as that provided in § 181 of the General Civil
Penal Code, shall be imposed on any person who, under the circumstances
described in the paragraph cited, has carnal intercourse with the person
to whom he or she is married, provided, that the latter has thereby
contracted an infection, and makes a charge to that effect within one
year after acquiring knowledge as to the contraction of the disease.
Anyone guilty of the offence described in § 181 of the General Civil
Penal Code, or of the offence described above, must, when the other
person, without having previously been informed of the danger of
infection, becomes infected, not only indemnify the infected person for
the expenses involved in the curative treatment, but must also pay
damages to cover the sufferings and losses due to the disease.
§ 5. Persons afflicted with venereal diseases have the right, regardless
of whether they are able or not able to defray the expenses of their
cure, to demand treatment of such diseases at the public expense.
Likewise, such persons are obliged to submit to such public treatment
unless they can show that they have already engaged proper medical
attention. If such persons are not situated in surroundings of a nature
to furnish reasonable assurance that the disease will not be transmitted
to other persons, unless such patients are removed, or, if the patients
do not comply with orders given to prevent the infection of others, they
may be committed to a hospital for treatment. When such steps become
necessary, the district judges (in Copenhagen, the Director of Police)
shall, with the approval of the Minister of Justices, issue the
appropriate orders, and compliance with the obligation thus imposed may
be forced by fines, imposed by the authorities cited, and, when such
fines are of no avail, by arraignment by the police.
Those permanently in receipt of poor relief, who are found to be
afflicted with venereal diseases, are to be committed to a hospital for
treatment.
§ 6. Whenever, in the course of the treatment of a disease, or at the
termination of such treatment, it is considered necessary, in view of
the danger of infection, to keep the patient under constant supervision,
he must be ordered by the physician, to present himself to the latter at
certain fixed times, or, in lieu of such action, to furnish documentary
evidence that another authorized physician has undertaken to treat him.
Blanks to be used in issuing such orders may be obtained from the proper
City or District Physician.
If the patient violates this order, or if the physician does not desire
to treat him any longer, and if, on request to furnish evidence that his
treatment has been undertaken by another physician, he neglects to do
so, notification of this fact must be sent to the proper Public or
Examining Physician, who will then order such patient to report at the
Consultation Office, in accordance with the provisions of § 13 below.
§ 7. It is incumbent on every physician who examines or treats a patient
for a venereal disease, to call the attention of the latter to the
contagious character of the disease, and to the legal consequences of
infecting other persons, or exposing them to infection, with the
disease, and, particularly, to warn the patient against contracting
marriage, while the danger of infection is still present. Blanks for
issuing these admonitions may be obtained from the proper City or
District Physician.
§ 8. In his weekly reports to the proper City or District Physician,
every physician must distinctly state that he has carried out the
provisions of the above paragraph, as well as indicate the number of
persons to whom he has issued the orders described in § 6.
Violation of the provisions of §§ 6 and 7, and of the first section of
this paragraph, shall be punished by fines not exceeding 200 kroner. Any
one in these circumstances, who gives a wrong name, business, or
address, to the physician treating him, shall be punished in accordance
with § 155 of the Penal Code.
§ 9. An infant afflicted with syphilis may not be given to be nursed, to
any woman except the mother of the child. Nor may any nurse who knows or
thinks she is infected with this disease, accept the child of any other
woman to nurse. Violations of these prohibitions shall be punished by
imposing the penalty provided in § 181 of the General Civil Penal Code,
which also provides that any one convicted of such offence, shall, if
the disease be transmitted, not only be obliged to indemnify the person
so infected, for the costs of treatment, but shall also have to pay
damages for sufferings and losses due to the disease. The same liability
for damages shall be incumbent on such person as hands over a child whom
he knows or has reason to know to be infected with a venereal disease,
to the care of other persons, or who puts out such child to nurse,
without having previously informed the foster-parents, or the nurse, of
the fact that the child is afflicted, or suspected of being afflicted,
with syphilis, and of the danger of infection involved in relations of
this nature with such child. To put out such child to nurse is forbidden
under any circumstances that would expose other children to infection;
violation of this prohibition is punished by applying the provisions of
item 2 of the first section of this paragraph.
These provisions are applicable also to such public authorities as put
out children to nurse, or assign them to the care of foster-parents.
A child is considered to be suspicious, from the standpoint of syphilis,
even though no indications of the disease have put in their appearance,
in case either of the parents has contracted syphilis within the past
seven years, and three months have not yet elapsed since the birth of
the child.
§ 10. Any one accused of one of the offences provided for in § 1, § 2, §
4, or § 9, item 2, or in § 181 of the General Civil Penal Code, may, by
his express consent, be subjected, under the auspices of the police, to
a medical examination. In case of a refusal to be examined, the court
may deliver a verdict, provided the accusation be considered
well-founded, ordering the examination to be made without the consent of
the accused.
§ 11. The medical examinations provided in § 10 will be held at the
place indicated by the police, by the proper City or District Physician,
or by a special Examining Physician appointed for the purpose.
Compulsory examinations must be conducted, unless this right is
expressly waived by the person to be examined, by a physician of the
same sex as the latter, provided such can be found in the town itself or
within such distance from it as to cause no considerable delay, and
provided such physician is willing to conduct examinations of this
nature.—Physicians discharging such duties shall either receive an
annual salary, to be fixed by the local administration and approved by
the Minister of Justice, or, if no such salary shall have been so fixed
and approved, they shall be paid for each examination, as follows: For
examinations of individuals to be conducted at the same place and time,
4 kroner for the examination of the first such individual, and 1 krone
for each individual examined immediately thereafter; in addition they
may be reimbursed for any outlay made for their transportation. In
towns, such payments are to be made from the town treasury; in the
country, from the provincial appropriations fund; and on the Island of
Bornholm, from the provincial fund available for both town and country.
For drawing up a certificate to indicate whether or not the person
examined has been found to be afflicted with a venereal disease, no
special payment shall be made to the physician.
§ 12. Likewise, but at times other than those set for the above
examinations, Public or Examining Physicians shall examine, and, if it
be necessary and feasible, without commitment to a hospital, shall treat
any person who applies to them or is referred to them because of
venereal infection. No payment may be required or accepted from the
patient for such services. Payment shall be made out of the public funds
in accordance with the rules followed heretofore.
In Copenhagen there must always be on hand a sufficient number of
examining physicians, who are assigned to a daily schedule of attendance
at offices in various parts of the city, at times set by the Health
Board.
§ 13. Whenever the Public or Examining Physician considers it necessary,
in view of the danger of contagion, to order patients to report to him
at times to be definitely set by the physician, the latter shall so
order, making use of the blanks officially provided for the purpose.
Compliance with this order may be forced by the imposing of fines, by
the District Judge (in Copenhagen, by the Director of Police), with the
approval of the Minister of Justice, and, should this fail to produce
the desired effect, by arraignment by the police.
§ 14. Those committed to a hospital for treatment of venereal diseases
at the public expense, shall not leave the hospital until they are
discharged by the hospital physician. Violation of this provision is
punished by imprisonment on common prison diet for not more than twenty
days, or by ordinary imprisonment for not more than one month.
§ 15. The police may prohibit hotel-keepers, inn-keepers, and
saloon-keepers from granting shelter, in their establishments, to female
persons who have been sentenced for violating § 2 of this law, or from
employing such female persons to entertain or serve the guests in such
establishments.
Violations of this prohibition shall be punished by fines not exceeding
100 kroner, imprisonment on common prison diet for not more than two
months, or imprisonment at hard labor for not more than three months. If
the offender has not been previously sentenced or warned for the same
offence, a warning by the Police Department may take the place of a
sentence. But no warning shall be issued if the accused demands sentence
by law.
§ 16. In administering the provisions of this law for imprisonment or
penitentiary commitment, the rules set by Chapter II of the General
Civil Penal Code, as well as by the Provisional Law of April 1, 1905,
shall be followed. Trials for violations treated in § 2, § 6, section 2,
§ 7, § 8, section 1, § 9, § 14, and § 15, shall be conducted as regular
public police trials, but behind closed doors. Fines imposed as a result
of these public trials, are added to the police fund; in Copenhagen, to
the city treasury.
§ 17. By the term “venereal diseases,” as used in this law, are meant
the diseases known to medical science as _syphilis_, _gonorrhœa_, and
_ulcus venereum_.
§ 18. This law goes into effect six months after it has been printed in
the Law Journal; but the enrolment of immoral women, which has been
carried on heretofore in accordance with the Law of April 10, 1874,
shall cease at once. Simultaneously §§ 180 and 182 of the Penal Code,
and the Law of April 10, 1874, on Measures to Resist the Spread of
Venereal Infection, the Law of March 1, 1895, on Changes and Additions
in the above Law, the Law of April 11, 1901, on Additions to the two
preceding laws, and the Laws of February 11, 1863, § 8, final item, and
of February 4, 1874, § 2, section c, together with all rules,
regulations, and orders based thereon, are hereby abolished, as such
rules, regulations, and orders can no longer be enforced on the basis of
the laws in operation before the going into effect of the Law of April
10, 1874.
INDEX
Abolition defined, 286–287.
Amsterdam, 297, 339.
Animierkneipe, 10, 30, 46, 94.
Armies, venereal disease in, 370–379, 393, 394.
Arrests, 161–163, 278–281, 334.
Augagneur V., 361, 379.
Barmaids, 88.
Baumgarten, A., 65, 78, 140, 154, 170, 185.
Berlin, regulation in, 123–129;
street conditions in, 157–158;
sanitary control in, 206–209, 214–215;
compared with Paris and London, 309;
regulations, text of, 415–419.
Birmingham, 316–317.
Blaschko, A., 42, 43, 74, 115, 143, 217, 221, 239, 282, 366, 393.
Bloch, I., 4, 5, 49, 120, 179, 205.
Booth, Mrs. B., 83, 88.
Booth, C., 17, 18, 85.
Bordells, definition, 166;
prevalence of, 166–167;
number and size, 172–174;
decay of, 180, 182;
effect on street conditions, 192–196;
effect on other forms of vice, 196–198;
in relation to disease, 256–261;
suppression of, in abolition towns, 323–324.
Bremen, regulation in, 129–136;
bordells in, 169.
Brothels, 292–295.
Brussels, sanitary control in, 227.
Budapest, regulation in, 131–136;
street conditions in, 157–158;
bordells in, 187;
rendezvous houses in, 200.
Christiania, 324, 328, 329, 331, 379–381, 386–388.
Continence among males, 41–43;
wholesomeness of, 50–51.
Coote, W. A., 304, 314.
Copenhagen, 324, 328, 339, 379–388.
Danish law, 296, 346–347;
text in full, 445–452.
Degeneracy and prostitution, 67–70.
Denmark, venereal disease in: see Copenhagen.
Denunciation, 353–358.
Dispensary system, 360–361.
Disappearances, 154–155, 234–235, 249–250.
Dresden, regulation in, 133–136.
Dufour, P., 143.
Dutch Law, 296.
Economic pressure, 83–87.
Edinburgh, 318.
Employment agencies, 94–95.
England, venereal disease in, 363–365; 371–377.
Engel-Reimers, J., 247.
Fiaux, L., 23, 25, 35, 77, 111, 139, 143, 144, 155, 181, 186, 190.
Finger, E., 42, 78, 154, 246.
Fosdick, R. B., 269.
Geneva, sanitary control in, 227.
German Empire, venereal disease in, 378–379.
Glasgow, 320–321.
Gonorrhœa, 224, 231–233, 244–245, 250–252.
The Hague, 328, 332.
Hamburg, regulation in, 133–136;
bordells in, 168;
sanitary control in, 215, 228;
text of regulations, 420–428.
Henry, Sir E., 313–314.
Hirschfeld, M., 46.
Hoff, E. M., 330, 353, 382, 389.
Homosexuality, 31–32.
Hospital treatment, 236–238.
Illegitimacy, 81.
Immorality distinguished from prostitution, 16–19.
Italy, abolition legislation in, 349–353.
Johannson, J. E., 20, 37, 51, 202, 219, 235, 236, 279, 332.
Kneeland, G. J., 231.
Krefting, R., 386, 388.
Lépine, Louis, 24, 138–139, 140, 155, 170, 190, 278.
Liquor and prostitution, 45, 98–99.
Liverpool, 315–319.
London, laws, 292, etc.;
street and brothel conditions, 302–308;
compared with continental cities, 309;
police conditions in, 312–314.
Lyons, 158.
Maison de passe, 196.
Manchester, 158, 317, 318.
McNeil, A., 231.
Melville, C. H., 364, 373, 375, 377, 379.
Minors, 77–79, 152–154, 241–243.
Moll, A., 12, 50, 82, 192.
Morals police, 147, 270–273, 281–282, 341–342.
Munich, regulation in, 130, 132;
street conditions in, 158–159.
Neisser, A., 241, 246.
Notification of disease, 362–363.
Norway, venereal disease in: see Christiania.
Norwegian law, 295, 343–345.
Parent-Duchatelet, A.-J.-B., 10, 21, 22, 70, 73.
Paris, regulation in, 130–136;
street conditions in, 157–158;
bordells in, 170, 190;
sanitary control in, 211, 226;
Hospital St. Lazare, 213;
medical examination, 216–218;
compared with London, 309;
text of regulations, 405, 414.
Pimps, 32–33, 95–97, 336.
Pinkus, F., 81, 83, 230, 234, 238, 244, 251, 257.
Police, 397, 399.
Prostitutes, mortality of, 21–24;
number of, 24–28;
number of inscribed, 40–46;
supply of, 63–88.
Prostitution, cost of, 34–38;
complexity of, 39–41, 105–106;
definition of, 9–15;
fluctuations in, 19–21;
forms of, 28–31;
involves two parties, 39, 107–109;
legal attitude towards, 106, 111–117, 136–142, 288–292;
medieval, 5, 6;
modern, 6–8.
Prussia, venereal disease in, 368–371, 377–379.
Rescue work, 100.
Regulation, defined, 121–122;
decay of, 266–267.
Regulation in various cities: see under names of cities.
Rendezvous houses, 96–98, 200–202.
Riehl process, 90, 185.
Rome, sanitary control in, 227.
Rotterdam, 328, 333.
Santoliquido, R., 352.
Scheven, K., 168, 173, 266.
Schjerning, O. v., 379.
Schmölder, R., 116, 138, 235.
Schneider, C. K., 22, 186.
Schreiber, Adele, 18, 63, 77, 80, 170, 177.
Seduction, 80.
Segregation, 175–179.
Servants and prostitution, 76–77.
Sex education, 52–58.
Souteneur, see Pimp.
Stockholm, regulation in, 134.
Stuttgart, regulation in, 130–136;
street conditions in, 58–59.
Supply, sources of, 61–65.
Sweden, venereal disease in, 369.
Syphilis, 223, 250;
amount discovered, 228–230;
length of treatment, 238.
Venereal disease statistics, 366.
(For various countries, see under countries, cities, armies.)
Vienna, regulation in, 132–136;
street conditions in, 157–158;
bordells in, 171, 188–189;
text of regulations, 429–444.
Vigilance societies, 91.
Webb, Sidney and Beatrice, 365.
White, D., 364.
White Slave traffic, 92–94;
dependent on bordells, 182–185.
Wolzendorff, K., 142.
Zurich, 324, 333;
venereal disease in, 389–391.
-----
Footnote 1:
The following cities were visited: London, Liverpool, Birmingham,
Manchester, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Paris, Lyons, Rome, Brussels, Berlin,
Hamburg, Dresden, Frankfort-on-Main, Cologne, Hamm, Stuttgart, Munich,
The Hague, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Copenhagen, Stockholm, Christiania,
Geneva, Zurich, Vienna, Budapest.
Footnote 2:
This has been conclusively established by the researches of Dr. Iwan
Bloch in his great work “_Die Prostitution_,” (Berlin, 1912), one
volume of which has already appeared. Dr. Bloch has courteously placed
the proof sheets of the second volume at my disposal.
Footnote 3:
The evidence and authorities are exhaustively given by Bloch, _loc.
cit._, Vol. I, pp. 685, etc. Constantinople became Islamic in 1453.
Footnote 4:
It looks like a contradiction in terms to speak of known clandestine
prostitution. Current usage on the Continent construes “professional
prostitute” to mean a woman who has been registered by the police; any
prostitute who is not registered is therefore called clandestine. Many
of these so-called clandestines are just as notorious as the
registered professionals. The clandestine class therefore nowadays
contains known, but unregistered women, as well as unknown or not
reliably known prostitutes. It is this last named contingent that was
insignificant in medieval, and has become so numerous in modern towns.
Footnote 5:
The Animierkneipe is a low grade drinking-resort in which the barmaid
drinks with her customer, often in a screened nook or corner, if he
can be induced to occupy one.
Footnote 6:
Müller: _Zur Kenntnis der Prostitution in Zürich_. (Zurich, 1911), pp.
11 and 44. Abundant additional illustrations will appear in subsequent
chapters, e. g. Chap. III, V, VII, etc.
Footnote 7:
A.-J.-B. Parent-Duchatelet: _De la Prostitution dans la Ville de
Paris_. (2 volumes, Paris, 1857) Vol. I, p. 25.
Footnote 8:
Adrien Mithouard in _Rapports au nom de la 2^e Commission sur la
Prostitution_, etc. (Conseil Municipal de Paris, 1904) p. 110. A.
Moll: _Handbuch der Sexualwissenschaften_ (Leipzig, 1912) p. 354,
describes the same type as known in Germany: “To clandestine
prostitution are to be reckoned also girls and women of better
families who sell themselves in the salons of the pander.” So also S.
Leonhard: “Girls and women who live in comparative luxury, who have a
calling and a good social position are often prostitutes.” _Die
Prostitution_ (Munich, 1912) p. 23; also p. 20.
Footnote 9:
Particularly Chapter VII. It is obvious that there is wide room for
error in tracing the source of an infection, but allowance may be made
for this without affecting the argument here made.
Footnote 10:
H. Loeb: _Statistiches über Geschlechtskrankheiten in Mannheim.
Zeitschrift für Bekämpfung der Geschlechtskrankheiten_ (Leipzig). Band
II, pp. 93 etc. Loeb admits a few persons whom my definition would
exclude,—viz., mistresses, etc., who ought to be excluded so long as
they are attached to one individual. This valuable publication will be
referred to henceforth as _Zeitschrift_.
Footnote 11:
Lion & Loeb, _Zeitschrift_ VII, p. 295.
Footnote 12:
F. Bloch: _Die nicht-gewerbsmässige Prostitution_. _Zeitschrift_, Band
X, p. 70. Bloch’s patients come from all social classes. In
_Zeitschrift_ XII, pp. 314 etc., Oppenheim and Neugebauer deal with
the infection of laborers alone.
Footnote 13:
Georges Hébart: _Où se prennent les malades vénériennes?_ Thèse de
Paris, 1906, pp. 31–34.
Footnote 14:
_Zeitschrift_, V., p. 286.
Footnote 15:
See, for example, Müller, _loc. cit_., pp. 11–13.
Footnote 16:
Paul Kampffmeyer: _Die Prostitution als soziale Klassenerscheinung_.
(Berlin, 1905) p. 26.
Footnote 17:
Charles Booth: _Life and Labor in London_ (final volume, London, 1903)
p. 41.
Footnote 18:
Ibid. p. 42.
Footnote 19:
_Statistisches Jahrbuch für das Deutsche Reich_—quoted by J. Marcuse:
_Die Beschränkung der Geburtenzahl_ (Munich, 1913) p. 22.
Footnote 20:
Adele Schreiber: _Mutterschaft_ (Munich, 1912) p. 260.
Footnote 21:
_Loc. cit._, p. 44.
Footnote 22:
James Devon: _The Criminal and the Community_ (London and New York,
1912) p. 158.
Footnote 23:
Moll: _loc. cit._, p. 371. Also: Kampffmeyer: _loc. cit._, p. 20.
Footnote 24:
Wohlrabe: _Schäden und Gefahren der sexuellen Unsittlichkeit_
(Leipzig, 1908) pp. 8–10. Fuller accounts have been published by
Wittenberg and Hückstädt: _Die geschlechtlich-sittlichen Verhältnisse
der evangelischen Landbewohner im Deutschen Reich_ (Leipzig, 1895).
These authors are all clergymen and may take too unfavorable a view.
Footnote 25:
_Zeitschrift_, Vol. XI, p. 410. An opinion differing somewhat from
that in the text is held by J. Kyrle, _Zeitschrift_ VIII, p. 352.
Footnote 26:
This will appear clearly in the statistics given in Chap. V.
Footnote 27:
_I Reglementeringsfragen_ (Upsala, 1911) p. 63.
Footnote 28:
_Ibid._, p. 49. Carefully compiled tables covering the years, 1870–
1904, are given in Prof. Johansson’s report prepared for the Swedish
Commission appointed to study the regulation of prostitution. This
report is published in four volumes in the Swedish language
(Stockholm, 1910). I shall refer to it as Report Swedish Commission.
Prof. Johansson’s researches are contained in Vol. III. For the tables
here referred to, see pp. 19–20. In 1900–4, 31.7% of the registered
prostitutes were dropped from the police rolls and of these 73.4%
engaged in some decent occupation. As this volume goes to press, a new
book by Prof. Johansson appears: _Reglementeringen I Stockholm_
(Stockholm, 1913). Table 6, p. 62, shows that of all women enrolled
between 1859 and 1884, 36.6% left the life (sent home, obtained decent
employment, married, etc.). If this is so often the case with the
lowest type, whose emergence has been made difficult, it must be far
oftener true of the clandestine not branded by the law. “Everything
points to the likelihood that, if in their prostitution period they
have succeeded in escaping enrolment, their return to a normal mode of
life is much facilitated.” _Ibid._, p. 43.
Footnote 29:
_Loc. cit._, Vol. I, p. 584.
Footnote 30:
Parent-Duchatelet reports (_loc. cit._, p. 582) two contrary opinions
as current in his day: Some physicians hold that the prostitute has a
constitution of iron (“santé de fer”), others that she dies before
thirty. Neither view is sound. Parent-Duchatelet himself is able to
trace the subsequent career of 1,680 women out of 5,081 who were
stricken from the Paris list during a period of 10 years. They
returned to various occupations; probably many of those whom he could
not follow up did likewise (_Ibid._, pp. 584–5).
Footnote 31:
Quoted by C. K. Schneider: _Die Prostituierte und die Gesellschaft_
(Leipzig, 1908) p. 187.
Footnote 32:
_Loc. cit._, Vol I, p. 95.
Footnote 33:
_Rapports_, _Conseil municipal_, _loc. cit._, p. 31.
Footnote 34:
_Report_, _Swedish Commission_, Vol III, pp. 105–6.
Footnote 35:
J. Schrank, _Die Prostitution in Wien_, two volumes (Wien, 1886), Vol.
II, pp. 220–2.
Footnote 36:
Schneider, _loc. cit._, p. 39.
Footnote 37:
Fiaux, _La Police des Moeurs_ (3 vols. Paris, 1907, 1910) Vol. III, p.
658. M. Fiaux is the most voluminous and indefatigable of European
writers on the subject and his works are inexhaustible mines of
information and argument.
Footnote 38:
The Lock-Hospital; the term “Lock” has no connection with “lock-up.”
Its meaning is obscure.
Footnote 39:
Maurice Gregory, _The European Movement for Abolition_. (Tokyo, Japan,
1912), pp. 44–47.
Footnote 40:
At the proper time subsequently, these occasions are always followed
by a perceptible rise in the illegitimacy curve.
Footnote 41:
Louis Fiaux: _La Police des Moeurs_, Vol. I, p. 160.
Footnote 42:
These estimates deal with clandestine prostitution alone, meaning
thereby, as I have already pointed out, unofficial prostitution, some
of it notorious, some concealed. Official or registered prostitution
is too small to be a factor in calculations of this kind.
Footnote 43:
F. Schiller in _Zeitschrift_ II, p. 312.
Footnote 44:
Disturbed local conditions might be assigned as the explanation of
this figure; but it is practically repeated in 1880, when the arrests
reached 3,544.
Footnote 45:
Gregory, _loc. cit._, p. 46.
Footnote 46:
William Acton, _Prostitution_ (London, 1870) p. 4. Acton quotes also
(p. 3) a police estimate of 6,371, for 1839.
Footnote 47:
P. Pollitz: _Die Psychologie des Verbrechers_. (Leipzig, 1909) p. 85.
Footnote 48:
The figures are official; they may be found in various sources, _e.
g._, A. Grotjahn, _Soziale Pathologie_ (Berlin, 1912) p. 153.
Footnote 49:
Studies of this point have been made in Paris by O. Commenge: _La
Prostitution clandestine à Paris_ (Paris, 1904) Chap. II.
Footnote 50:
_Memorandum on a Social Evil in Glasgow_, published by authority of
the Parish Council, October, 1911, p. 43. The Chief Constable in a
report to the Magistrates Committee, November 20, 1911, holds this
estimate to be a gross exaggeration.
Footnote 51:
Personally communicated by Police Brigadier.
Footnote 52:
Personally communicated by officials.
Footnote 53:
Th. M. Roest Van Limburgh: _In den Strijd tegen de Ontucht_.
(Rotterdam, 1910) p. 17.
Footnote 54:
The last named figures are quoted by Moll, _loc. cit._, p. 371. For a
discussion as to the probable number of prostitutes in Hamburg, see
_Zeitschrift_ IV, p. 183.
Footnote 55:
These bars often advertise “new service weekly.” A statistical return
on the waitresses of Berlin shows that 57.2% remained in one place
three months or less. Of 1,108 cases examined, 732 had more than six
places in one year, 200 more than ten, and 63 more than 20! Henning,
_Denkschrift über das Kellnerinnen-Wesen_ (Berlin, no date) pp. 13,
14. See also: A. Meher, _Die geheime und öffentliche Prostitution in
Stuttgart_, etc. (Paderborn, 1912) p. 133, etc. See also: _Das
Animierkneipenwesen in Frankfurt a. M._ _Zeitschrift_ VIII, p. 59;
also, same volume, pp. 70 and 75.
Footnote 56:
See Chapter XI—_The Outcome of European Experience_.
Footnote 57:
The pimp is called “bully” in England, “souteneur,” “Louis” or
“Alphonse” in France; “Zuhälter” in Germany.
Footnote 58:
The pimp is said to be less common in Scandinavia than elsewhere: See
Hjalmar von Sydow, _Om Soutenörväsendet_ in _Report, Swedish
Commission_, Vol. IV, p. 12.
Footnote 59:
See pp. 96–7.
Footnote 60:
$1.25 to $2.50.
Footnote 61:
Schneider: _loc. cit._, p. 32.
Footnote 62:
For a shabby room in Berlin, the author of the “_Diary of a Lost One_”
(Berlin, 1905) p. 137, paid 180 marks a month.
Footnote 63:
The subject is more fully discussed in Chapter VI.
Footnote 64:
_Loc. cit._, p. 220. A well-known Berlin resort is capitalized at
1,000,000 marks and has recently declared a dividend of 20%.
(_Berliner Tageblatt_, May 2, 1912.)
Footnote 65:
Fiaux, _loc. cit._, I, pp. 215–6, 220–221.
Footnote 66:
$75 to $150.
Footnote 67:
_Report, Swedish Commission_, Vol. III, p. 50.
Footnote 68:
Prof. Johansson calculated that a woman averages one-fourth of a year
in hospital, prison, etc.
Footnote 69:
_Ibid._, p. 54.
Footnote 70:
Quoted by Kampffmeyer, _loc. cit._, p. 34.
Footnote 71:
_Statistisches Jahrbuch_ (Berlin, 1910) pp. 242–3.
Footnote 72:
From this statement England is purposely excluded for two reasons: (1)
accurate data covering different social classes are not obtainable;
(2) family and religious life are so differently organized that there
is a very strong presumption that correct living is in certain strata
of society distinctly more probable than on the Continent.
Organizations like the White Cross Societies and The Alliance of Honor
testify to the existence of sound sentiment and promote sound
practice. But as to the extent to which continence prevails I have
been unable to form a conception.
Footnote 73:
_Zeitschrift_ XI, p. 47.
Footnote 74:
_Zeitschrift_ XI, p. 5.
Footnote 75:
_Zeitschrift_ IX, pp. 66–68. See also pp. 37–65.
Footnote 76:
_Zeitschrift_ IX, p. 411.
Footnote 77:
_Zeitschrift_ XIII, p. 154.
Footnote 78:
Blaschko, in _Zeitschrift_ XIII, p. 104.
Footnote 79:
_Zeitschrift_ XII, p. 34.
Footnote 80:
See Blaschko, _Zeitschrift_ XIII, pp. 154–5.
Footnote 81:
“The incidence of gonorrhea is estimated at over 100%; i. e., on the
average, every man has had it. This does not mean that actually every
man has had gonorrhea, for if one person has had it six times, that
would absolve several others.” F. Pinkus: _Die Verhütung der
Geschlechtskrankheiten_ (Freiburg, 1912) p. 21.
Footnote 82:
Bloch, _loc. cit._, Vol. I, pp. 710–712 gives details and authorities.
Footnote 83:
_Zeitschrift_ VIII, p. 4.
Footnote 84:
The rôle of alcohol is described by O. Rosenthal: _Alkoholismus und
Prostitution_ (with bibliography) (Berlin, 1905). See also M.
Hirschfeld: _Die Gurgel von Berlin_ (Berlin, no date) pp. 43, etc.
Footnote 85:
_Zeitschrift_ XI, pp. 6 and 60.
Footnote 86:
See Iwan Bloch: _Das Sexualleben unserer Zeit_ (Berlin, 1909) p. 91.
Footnote 87:
Moll, _loc. cit._, p. 887. See also pp. 945, etc.
Footnote 88:
Felix Pinkus, _loc. cit._, p. 177.
Footnote 89:
M. von Gruber, _Die Prostitution_ (Wien, 1905) p. 40, etc.
Footnote 90:
_Zeitschrift_ XIII, p. 46; see also III, p. 255.
Footnote 91:
Touton, quoting Troemner’s report at the Dresden Conference, 1911,
_Zeitschrift_ XII, p. 412. See also X, p. 211; for the opposite point
of view, see _Zeitschrift_ XIII, pp. 82, etc., 92, etc.; also, Max
Marcuse, _Das Liebesleben des deutschen Studenten_ (_Sexual-Probleme_
Nov. 1908); also, _Zeitschrift_ XI, pp. 81 and 129.
Footnote 92:
_Zeitschrift_ XIII, p. 70.
Footnote 93:
_Report, Swedish Commission_, Vol. III, _loc. cit._, p. 214.
Footnote 94:
“In this grave matter, so timid and divided is public opinion, that I
have to be practically silent, ‘letting I dare not, wait upon I
would.’” John Russell, in “_Can the School Prepare for Parenthood?_”
(Eugenics Education Society, 1909) p. 4.
Footnote 95:
“_Papers for Boys_,” with a preface by the Archbishop of Canterbury
(To be had through the Editor, the Headmaster of Dover College, Dover,
for 6d.).
Footnote 96:
Frankfort-on-the-Oder is one of the few places.
Footnote 97:
The so-called “Abiturienten,” who are about to enter the University.
Whatever these addresses accomplish, the amount of venereal disease
found among Gymnasium students would show that the efforts are too
late.
Footnote 98:
It has been objected to physicians that they over-emphasize
prophylaxis.
Footnote 99:
Among the German writers who have emphasized this point are F. W.
Foerster, _Sexualethik und Sexualpädagogik_ (Munich, 1910), and Julian
Marcuse, _Grundzüge einer sexuellen Pädagogik_ (Munich, 1908). The
latter says with great vigor: “It were a disastrous blunder to suppose
that intellectual enlightenment in reference to matters of sex is
alone capable of preventing error and damage; the natural impulse is
far too forceful to be mastered by mere knowledge of these things.
Nay, helpful knowledge must be accompanied by training of the
feelings, discipline of the will, things of infinitely greater
importance than sheer enlightenment, both of which are foundations for
sexual instruction that must be provided for.” p. 38.
Footnote 100:
“In my judgment, the friends of sexual enlightenment have not yet
succeeded in devising a satisfactory way of approaching children.” P.
Groebel, _Sexualpädagogik_ (Hamburg, 1909) p. 1. As an example of what
is proposed for German schools, see Konrad Hoeller: _Die Sexualfrage
und die Schule_ (Leipzig, 1907) pp. 45, etc.
Footnote 101:
Expressly forbidden in Prussia.
Footnote 102:
“I regard it as best to mention the safety devices in school, because
I cannot hope that my injunctions to continence will be heeded by all
my pupils.” Groebel, _loc. cit._, p. 15.
Footnote 103:
A textbook for use in training teachers to give sex-instruction
has recently appeared in Swedish: Julia Kinberg och Alma
Sundquist—_Handledning i Sexuell Undervisning och Uppfostran_
(Stockholm, 1910).
Footnote 104:
E. g., pimp, pp. 95, etc.; bordells, chap. VI; alcohol, pp. 98, etc.
Footnote 105:
_Fédération francaise des Sociétés antipornographiques._
Footnote 106:
_Volksbund zur Bekämpfung des Schmutzes in Wort und Bild._
Footnote 107:
In Austria, July 31, 1912; in Bavaria, March 6, 1906, supplemented
June 3, 1912; in Prussia, December 28, 1911.
Footnote 108:
The literature on the subject in German is already very extensive. As
containing data of all kinds, I may specify the following: Bohn,
_Materialien zur Bekämpfung der unsittlichen Literatur—ein
kulturgeschichtliches Denkmal für die deutsche Presse_, (Berlin,
1905). _Berichte der ausserdeutschen und deutschen Berichterstatten_,
(Congress held at Cologne, 1904) (Berlin, 1905). E. Schultze, _Die
Schundliteratur_ (Halle, 1911). A monthly periodical dealing with the
problem in all its aspects is issued in Berlin; it is called _Die
Hochwacht_, is edited by Professor Karl Brunner and published by the
Ulrich Meyer Verlagsbuchhandlung. Summaries of all legislation bearing
on the topic are found in: _Bekämpfung der Schundliteratur—Flugschrift
der Zentralstelle für Volkswohlfahrt_ (Berlin, 1911). Roeren, _Die
Gesetzgebung gegen die unsittliche Literatur in den verschiedenen
Ländern_ (Berlin, 1905.) A Blue book on the subject has also been
issued by the English government. It is called: _Report from the Joint
Select Committee on Lotteries and Indecent Advertisements_ (London,
1908).
Footnote 109:
Some explanation is found in the fact that the statute does not define
indecency.
Footnote 110:
For example: Hans Wegener, _Wir jungen Männer_ (Dusseldorf, 1906).
Footnote 111:
Adele Schreiber has calculated that 57% of German women between 20 and
30 years old are unmarried. _Loc. cit._, p. 459.
Footnote 112:
_Loc. cit._, Vol. I, pp. 67–68.
Footnote 113:
G. P. Merrick, _Work Among the Fallen_ (London, 1890) pp. 23–24.
Footnote 114:
_Zeitschrift_ XII, pp. 18, 19. Similar results appear in statistics
given by Meher: _Die geheime und öffentliche Prostitution in
Stuttgart, Karlsruhe und München_ (Paderborn, 1912) pp. 221–222.
Footnote 115:
Statistics kindly contributed by the Chief of the Sittenpolizei.
Footnote 116:
_Report, Swedish Commission_, Vol. III, _loc. cit._, p. 77.
Footnote 117:
Manuscript communication, based on private investigation.
Footnote 118:
Kellnerinnen.
Footnote 119:
For these figures, I am indebted to the courtesy of the Chief of the
Sittenabteilung.
Footnote 120:
F. Pinkus, in _Archiv für Dermatologie u. Syphilis_ CVII 1–3, p. 147.
Footnote 121:
Baumgarten in _Zeitschrift_ IX, p. 135.
Footnote 122:
Figures courteously communicated by the Secretary of the institution.
Footnote 123:
_Ditto._
Footnote 124:
_Ditto._
Footnote 125:
Merrick: _loc. cit._, pp. 25–26.
Footnote 126:
_Report, Swedish Commission_, Vol. III, _loc. cit._, p. 75. Dr.
Lindblad, studying 800 hospital cases, reaches the same conclusion.
_Ibid._, p. 12.
Footnote 127:
Analyzed by Commenge, _loc. cit._, p. 336.
Footnote 128:
Merrick, _loc. cit._, pp. 49–50.
Footnote 129:
Schiller in _Zeitschrift_ II, p. 304.
Footnote 130:
Statistics quoted by Grotjahn, _loc. cit._, p. 153.
Footnote 131:
Some confidential London statistics name a few music teachers, school
teachers, trained nurses, etc. But the percentage is very small.
Footnote 132:
Page 80.
Footnote 133:
Report of the Inspector under the Inebriate Acts, 1879 to 1900, for
year 1909 (London, 1911) p. 24.
Footnote 134:
Quoted by P. Pollitz, _Die Psychologie des Verbrechers_ (Leipzig,
1909) p. 89. It must be observed that just as Branthwaite’s high
percentage is due to complication with inebriacy, so Bonhöffer’s must
be regarded as complicated by criminality. A similar investigation
dealing with the tramps and beggars of Breslau has been made by
Bonhöffer; see “_Ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis des grosstädtischen Bettel-
und Vagabondentums_.” (Berlin, 1900.)
Footnote 135:
Helene F. Stelzner, _Gibt es geborene Prostituierte?_ (Dresden, 1911)
p. 9.
Footnote 136:
_Report, Swedish Commission_, Vol. III, p. 10.
Footnote 137:
“_Die Prostitution_,” Vol. I, p. 331. Parent-Duchatelet describes the
type excellently: _loc. cit._, Chapter II.
Footnote 138:
_Report_, 1909, _loc. cit._, p. 24.
Footnote 139:
Letters (2 Vols., New York, 1912) Vol. II, p. 532.
Footnote 140:
Private communication.
Footnote 141:
Parent-Duchatelet: _loc. cit._, I, p. 44. Of 6,842 clandestines,
two-thirds were born outside the department of the Seine. Commenge,
_loc. cit._, p. 304.
Footnote 142:
M. Talmeyr, _Das Ende einer Gesellschaft_ (Berlin, no date) p. 256.
Footnote 143:
_Report, Swedish Commission_, Vol. III, p. 74.
Footnote 144:
_Report, Swedish Commission_, Vol. III, p. 28.
Footnote 145:
_The Prevention of Destitution_ (London, 1912) p. 306 (slightly
abridged).
Footnote 146:
_Mitteilungen der deutschen Gesellschaft zur Bekämpfung der
Geschlechtskrankheiten_ (Leipzig, 1912) X, 6, p. 129.
Footnote 147:
Münsterberg, _Prostitution und Staat_ (Leipzig, 1911) p. 13. The
subject is discussed at length, with bibliography, in _Zeitschrift_ I,
pp. 134–162; and III, p. 165.
Footnote 148:
Rosa Kempf, _Die Industriearbeiterin als Mutter_, in Adele Schreiber’s
_Mutterschaft_ (Munich, 1912) pp. 230–243.
Footnote 149:
Marcuse, _Beschränkung der Geburtenzahl_, pp. 57–58. The proportional
increase looks less startling; the figures were 34.8% of the entire
female population in 1882, 38.3% in 1907. For further details, see:
Helene Simon, _Der Anteil der Frau an der deutschen Industrie nach den
Ergebnissen der Berufszählung von 1907_ (Jena, 1907) also: Robert and
Lisbeth Wilbrandt, _Die deutsche Frau im Beruf_. Part IV of “_Handbuch
der Frauenbewegung_” (Berlin, 1902).
Footnote 150:
_Zeitschrift_ XII, p. 19.
Footnote 151:
The details are:
124 had lost both parents
147 had lost one parent
20 did not know if parents were living or dead
93 had both parents alive
———
384
_Report, London Female Preventive and Reformatory Institution 1910–
11._ Merrick, _loc. cit._, p. 31 gives additional statistics to the
same effect. See also: Othmar Spann,—_Untersuchungen über die
uneheliche Bevölkerung in Frankfort—a. M._ (Dresden, 1905).
Footnote 152:
_Report, Swedish Commission_, Vol. III, _loc. cit._, p. 30.
Footnote 153:
Branthwaite, _Report_, 1909, p. 24.
Footnote 154:
Wilbrandt, _loc. cit._, pp. 147, 148.
Footnote 155:
Commenge, _loc. cit._, p. 337.
Footnote 156:
_Report, Swedish Commission_, Vol. III, _loc. cit._, p. 12.
Footnote 157:
It is of course impossible to give an exhaustive account in the text.
The living-in system in vogue in English shops affords another example
of the demoralizing outcome of the broken or unnatural home. See
_Report of the Truck Committee_ (London, 1900) Vol. I, pp. 70, 71.
Footnote 158:
See also Adele Schreiber, _loc. cit._, pp. 243–256.
Footnote 159:
Fiaux, _loc. cit._, Vol. III, p. 608. See also his _L’Intégrité
intersexuelle des peuples et les Gouvernements_ (Paris, 1910) p. 206.
Footnote 160:
_Rapport de M. Georges Honnorat_, Chef de la Première Division de la
Préfecture de Police, presented to the VIII Congrès national du
Patronage, 1910 (pp. 6, 7).
Footnote 161:
Eugène Prévost, _De la Prostitution des Enfants_. (Paris, 1909) p.
215.
Footnote 162:
E. Finger und A. Baumgarten, _Referat über die Regelung der
Prostitution in Oesterreich_ (Wien, 1909) p. 88 (abridged).
Footnote 163:
Personal communication from officials.
Footnote 164:
Stelzner, _loc. cit._, p. 8; also Pollitz, _loc. cit._, p. 89.
Footnote 165:
Schiller, _Zeitschrift_ II, p. 309.
Footnote 166:
_Zeitschrift_ XII, pp. 19, 22.
Footnote 167:
T. G. Cree, _The Need of Rescue Work Among Children_. (London, Church
Penitentiary Association) p. 3; Merrick’s data on the same subject are
given, _loc. cit._, p. 34.
Footnote 168:
_Report of the Chief Constable_ for the year ending December 31, 1909.
An even more unfavorable account is contained in the _Memorandum on a
Social Evil in Glasgow_ previously referred to. The Chief Constable in
reply holds that the memorandum exaggerates.
Footnote 169:
Moll, _loc. cit._, pp. 383–4.
Footnote 170:
Moll, _loc. cit._, p. 390.
Footnote 171:
_Report, Swedish Commission_, Vol. III, _loc. cit._, p. 24.
Footnote 172:
Adele Schreiber, _loc. cit._, pp. 257, 501, etc.
Footnote 173:
_Report, Swedish Commission_, Vol. III, _loc. cit._, p. 79.
Footnote 174:
Pinkus, _Archiv._ _loc. cit._, p. 415.
Footnote 175:
_Report, Swedish Commission_, Vol. III, p. 79.
Footnote 176:
_Report, Swedish Commission_, Vol. III, _loc. cit._, p. 81. See also
Moll, _loc. cit._, pp. 393–4.
Footnote 177:
_Loc. cit._, p. 81.
Footnote 178:
_Archiv._ _loc. cit._, p. 149.
Footnote 179:
Lindblad studies his Swedish cases from this point of view; _Report,
Swedish Commission_, Vol. III, _loc. cit._, pp. 41, etc.
Footnote 180:
Statement made to me by Miss Maud Bondfield.
Footnote 181:
_Loc. cit._, p. 127.
Footnote 182:
_Loc. cit._, p. 123, with note (2). To the same effect, Hans Ostwald,
_Das Berliner Dirnentum_, 8 Abteilung—_Gelegenheitsdirnen_,—among whom
he reckons “a great mass of women and girls” more or less occupied as
singers, dancers, waitresses, shophands, models, maids, laundresses,
nurses, etc.
Footnote 183:
Cadbury, Matheson, & Shann: _Women’s Work and Wages_ (London, 1909)
pp. 246, 247.
Footnote 184:
The literature on this topic is abundant. I give by way of
illustration a few references to Munich, where the conditions have
been well investigated: Dr. Rosa Kempf, _Das Leben der jungen
Fabrikmädchen_ (Leipzig, 1911). Dr. Elizabeth Hell, _Jugendliche
Schneiderinnen und Näherinnen in München_ (Berlin, 1911). Meher, _loc.
cit._, pp. 110–148. Also, _Handbuch der Frauenbewegung_, already
mentioned, passim.
Footnote 185:
P. Hirsch, _Verbrechen und Prostitution_ (Berlin, 1907), pp. 101–102.
Footnote 186:
C. E. Collett, _Educated Working Women_ (London, 1902) p. 51. As to
conditions in Paris, see _Revue d’Economie Politique_, Aug. 1911.
Footnote 187:
_The German Stage and its Members_, by Dr. Charlotte Engel-Reimers
(Leipzig, 1911).
Footnote 188:
Wilbrandt, _loc. cit._, p. 355. The whole section is most valuable.
Footnote 189:
Meher, _loc. cit._, pp. 133, etc. Also: Wilbrandt, _loc. cit._, pp.
272, etc., and the _Denkschrift_ previously cited.
Footnote 190:
_Denkschrift_, p. 12.
Footnote 191:
_Ibid._, p. 12.
Footnote 192:
_Women as Barmaids_ (London, 1905), p. 8.
Footnote 193:
_Ibid._, p. 4.
Footnote 194:
_Ibid._, p. 33.
Footnote 195:
See p. 185.
Footnote 196:
_Reichsgesetzbuch_, sec. 236, 237: _Auswanderergesetz_, sec. 48.
Footnote 197:
E. Wulffen, _Der Sexualverbrecher_ (Berlin, 1910) p. 700.
Footnote 198:
_Criminal Law Amendment Act 1912._ Section 1 provides: A constable may
take into custody without a warrant any person whom he shall have good
cause to suspect of having committed or of attempting to commit, any
offence against section two of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885
(which relates to procuration and attempted procuration). Section No.
3. Any male person convicted may, in addition to imprisonment, be
sentenced to be once privately whipped, and the number of strokes and
the instrument shall be specified by the court. Section No. 7 deals
with the “bully.”
Footnote 199:
The most recent discussion of conditions in Germany is by
Polizeirat Dr. Robert Heindl in No. 298, _Berliner Tageblatt_. Dr.
Heindl proves the following points: (1) White Slave Traffic in
innocent German girls into foreign lands is of the utmost rarity.
(2) It is even questionable whether German ports are utilized for
purposes of transit. (3) No single case of genuine White Slavery
has been discovered in Saxony in the last ten years. The General
Secretary of the German Evangelical League for the Promotion of
Decency endorses these statements. Pastor Bohn, in _Zeitschrift
des deutsch-evangelischen Vereins_, etc., July 15, 1913, p. 49.
Footnote 200:
_London County Council: Public Control Department; General Powers Act
1910._ Part V.
Footnote 201:
Up to Oct. 1911, 1,033 applications for license had been made, 1,000
had been granted, 8 refused, 23 withdrawn, 2 adjourned. Report of
Public Control Committee.
Footnote 202:
Gesetz, Feb. 5, 1907: _Gewerbsmässige Dienst und Stellenvermittlung_.
Sec. 21a.
Footnote 203:
_Verordnung des Handelsministers_, May 7, 1908.
Footnote 204:
Limburg, _loc. cit._, p. 17.
Footnote 205:
Commenge, _loc. cit._, p. 90.
Footnote 206:
_Reports of the Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis._
Footnote 207:
_Criminal Returns, City of Glasgow Police, 1911._
Footnote 208:
Wulffen, _loc. cit._, p. 282. See also _Zeitschrift_ XII, pp. 6, 7,
for statistics of many German cities.
Footnote 209:
Chapter VI.
Footnote 210:
Statement of Prefect of Police. On the other hand the following
provision is found in the police regulations touching clandestine
prostitution: “Police commissaries may freely enter cabarets or cafés
where clandestine prostitutes are notoriously harbored, up to the hour
of closing or later if the resorts are open contrary to police
ordinance.” Annexes au rapport général de la commission
extraparlementaire (Melun, 1908), p. 3. This document in two volumes
(Procès-Verbaux and Annexes) will be referred to as Report, French
Commission.
Footnote 211:
The English Statute bearing on the subject is the Children Act of
1908.
Footnote 212:
An interesting example of just such shifting is afforded by the opium
traffic. The smoking of opium in China had long been looked upon as at
most a harmful vice; according to E. A. Ross (_The Changing Chinese_,
p. 140) it has at length become possible to treat it as a crime and
vigorous action looking to the suppression of opium smoking is said to
be in successful operation. Public opinion had, however, first to
undergo a complete transformation.
Footnote 213:
_Reglementeringsfragan_, _loc. cit._, p. 51.
Footnote 214:
Fiaux, _loc. cit._, II, p. 873.
Footnote 215:
See Chapters V, VI, VII, VIII.
Footnote 216:
The situation in the Swiss Cantons is fully dealt with by Theodor
Weiss: _Die Prostitutionsfrage in der Schweiz und das schweizerische
Gesetzbuch_ (Bern, 1906).
Footnote 217:
Under date, Nov. 20, 1911.
Footnote 218:
The subject is more fully discussed in Chap. IX.
Footnote 219:
It will be noted that two things are punishable: Prostitution for
money; violation of regulations by enrolled women.
Footnote 220:
_Strafgesetzbuch für das Deutsche Reich_: 361, 6.
Footnote 221:
This subject will be much more fully discussed in the ensuing
chapters. An additional word may be here added for the sake of
clearness. The police can at any moment arrest a prostitute as a
criminal; but, as a matter of fact, they do not do so unless she is
guilty of something besides prostitution. If, for example, a woman
restricts her operations inconspicuously to her own room, she is no
less a prostitute amenable to the letter of the law; but the
authorities would not interfere. If, on the other hand, she made a
nuisance of herself; arrest would follow. Robbery is in Germany a
crime and is treated as such no matter how it takes place;
prostitution is a crime if additional circumstances make it worth
while to treat it as such. That is to say, in itself it is practically
not a crime, but a vice.
Footnote 222:
_Ibid._, Sections 180–1.
Footnote 223:
_Ibid._, Sec. 181.
Footnote 224:
_Zeitschrift_, XII, p. 6, where statistics for other German cities are
also given.
Footnote 225:
Wulffen, _loc. cit._, p. 682.
Footnote 226:
Blaschko, Art. _Prostitution_, in _Handwörterbuch der
Staatswissenschaften_ (Jena, 1910) p. 1239.
Footnote 227:
R. Schmölder, _Die Prostituierten und das Strafrecht_ (Munich, 1911),
p. 19.
Footnote 228:
_Vorentwurf zu einem deutschen Strafgesetzbuch_ (Berlin, 1909) Section
251.
Footnote 229:
_Ibid._, Section 305, 4.
Footnote 230:
The subject is more fully treated in Chapter IX, p. 334.
Footnote 231:
Bloch, _Die Prostitution_, Vol. I, _loc. cit._, p. 3. It is
interesting and suggestive to encounter the same attitude in the
writings of a police commissioner. Limburg (_loc. cit._, p. 16),
protesting against the view that prostitution is a permanent
necessity, writes: “Whoever undertakes to fight vice, either by
individual labor or, where the authorities are concerned, by legal or
other measures, is by no means entering upon a hopeless cause and,
with judicious choice of weapons, has some chances of success.”
Footnote 232:
The Berlin regulations are translated into English and printed in full
on pp. 415–419.
Footnote 233:
The attention of the police is occasionally called by letters, usually
anonymous, to women accused of professional prostitution. In these
instances the police proceed with great caution, investigating fully
all the persons involved before taking any action whatsoever.
“Experience teaches that totally erroneous misconceptions of what
constitutes the offence in question usually characterize charges made
by private individuals, or that the charges spring from revenge, envy,
or gossip.” Inspector Penzig, head of _Sittenabteilung_, Berlin.
Footnote 234:
“_Gewerbsunzucht_” (professional prostitution) involves
“geschlechtliche Hingabe gegen Entgelt” (sexual intercourse for pay).
Footnote 235:
The procedure is based on the Prussian law respecting the care of
minors, of July 2, 1900, already mentioned, p. 100.
Footnote 236:
In conformity with _ministerial decree_, December 11, 1907.
Footnote 237:
It will be understood that the stipulations bearing on health are
reserved for a subsequent chapter.
Footnote 238:
_Polizeiliche Vorschriften_ (Berlin) Section 4.
Footnote 239:
Sixty-three streets and places are enumerated, Section 6.
Footnote 240:
_Ibid._ Section 7.
Footnote 241:
_Ibid._ Section 9.
Footnote 242:
_Ibid._ Section 11.
Footnote 243:
Registration of addresses is so generally required that this provision
is not offensive to the European sense; but the prostitute is
compelled to notify a change of address more promptly than other
persons.
Footnote 244:
_Ibid._ Section 15.
Footnote 245:
It is sometimes stated that according to the German law, professional
prostitution is not punishable if the woman is registered by the
police. It is therefore argued by many jurists that technically it is
not prostitution that is punishable, but non-registration. The offence
is not, so it is said, that the woman is a prostitute, but that she is
an unregistered prostitute. I have purposely avoided verbal
technicalities of this kind in order to bring the reader face to face
with the real issue.
Footnote 246:
See pp. 235–6.
Footnote 247:
See below, pp. 177–8.
Footnote 248:
Regulations, Section 51; see p. 441.
Footnote 249:
_Regulations of Stockholm_, Section 3.
Footnote 250:
_Ibid._, Section 10, h.
Footnote 251:
_Das neue Wiener Prostitutionsrealement_, June 1, 1911. Section 26. An
English translation of the Vienna regulations is given pp. 429–444.
Footnote 252:
“_Feste Wohnung_:” the significance of this is explained below, p.
275.
Footnote 253:
Or its equivalent: see below, p. 178.
Footnote 254:
Of date, March 30, 1836.
Footnote 255:
_Rapport de M. Lépine sur la règlementation, etc._, in _Annexes;
Report, French Commission_. The extract is abridged, so as to raise no
question at this point except as to the legal basis of regulation. For
a discussion of the topic by a German jurist opposed to regulation,
see Schmölder—_Die Bestrafung und polizeiliche Behandlung der
gewerbsmässigen Unzucht_ (Düsseldorf, 1892) p. 11, etc.
Footnote 256:
_Report, French Commission_, Annexes p. 5.
Footnote 257:
Section 91, “The mayor has charge of the municipal police;” Section
94, “he has the right to make arrests, to ordain local measures in
respect to objects confided to his vigilance and authority;” Section
97, “it is his duty, above all, to assure order, security, and the
public health.”
Footnote 258:
_Annexes_, _loc. cit._, p. 36. For a severe criticism of M.
Hennequin’s stretching of the law, see Fiaux, _Police de Moeurs_, Vol.
I, pp. 41, etc.
Footnote 259:
_Oesterreichisches Strafgesetzbuch_ Section 509, and _Gesetz_, May 24,
1885.
Footnote 260:
_Zeitschrift_ IX, p. 217.
Footnote 261:
_Ibid._, pp. 156–160. Dr. Baumgarten urges the substituting of the
word “Ueberwachung” (watching over) for “Bestrafung” (punishment) in
the statute.
Footnote 262:
_Ohne feste Wohnung._
Footnote 263:
It is, of course, also true that Section 361, 6 conflicts with Section
180.
Footnote 264:
_A Speech_ in Prussian House of Representatives, February 21, 1907.
Footnote 265:
See a review of the Court’s judgment in _Mitteilungen der deutschen
Gesellschaft zur Bekämpfung der Geschlechtskrankheiten_ X, pp. 49–51.
Footnote 266:
Dated December 11, 1907. It will be observed that this safeguard
applies only to Prussia, and there only to women who have not
previously been inscribed.
Footnote 267:
Dr. Jur. Kurt Wolzendorff, _Polizei und Prostitution_ (Tübingen, 1911)
pp. 57–59, abridged. Schmölder’s writings, already cited, argue
strongly against the sufficiency of the statutory basis relied on by
Wolzendorff. Blaschko points out that the other states of the Empire
have less legal warrant for regulation than Prussia (Art. on
_Prostitution_, _loc. cit._, p. 1236).
Footnote 268:
Vorentwurf, _loc. cit._ _Begründung_, pp. 850–853. High authorities
question even then whether the proposed changes are sufficiently
explicit to put the systems of regulation beyond all question.
Lindenau suggests a definite declaration, but there is no likelihood
of its adoption (_Die strafrechtliche Bekämpfung der Gewerbsunzucht_,
in Prof. von Liszt’s _Festschrift_).
I am informed by a member of the Swedish Commission that regulation in
Stockholm is based on a set of instructions issued by the Grand
Governor, but never signed by him, as is regularly the custom. The
official in question is described as having been unwilling to affix
his signature to such a document; the police overlook the technical
defect.
Footnote 269:
For table showing numbers inscribed in German cities, as compared with
population, see A. Blaschko, _Hygiene der Prostitution_ (Jena, 1901)
p. 55. Since this date, the disproportion has been aggravated, rather
than mended. Valuable statistical tables showing date of installation
of sanitary control, number of inscribed women, their ages, etc., are
given by Dufour: _Geschichte der Prostitution_ (translated from the
French, Berlin, 5th Edition, no date) Vol. III, part 2, pp. 38–49.
Footnote 270:
The disproportion is practically greater than the ratios show; for the
populations given take no account of suburbs or transients; adding the
former alone, Berlin had an estimated population of 3,400,000 in 1910.
The populations given are taken from the _Statesman’s Year-Book 1913_;
the number of inscribed women as given does not always represent the
same year as the population, but the difference is negligible.
Footnote 271:
For the French statistics I am indebted to M. Victor Augagneur, Député
du Rhône, and to Dr. Louis Fiaux.
Footnote 272:
Accuracy is more difficult in dealing with Cologne than elsewhere,
because a fresh list is compiled annually and no names are removed in
the course of the year though many women disappear. A list that at the
close of the year contains 1,500 names probably amounts at no time to
more than 600, of whom about one-half regularly report to the police.
This statement is based on personal information, confirmed by Zinnser,
_Zeitschrift_ V, p. 202.
Footnote 273:
Enrolment for year 1912.
Footnote 274:
Moll, _loc. cit._, p. 371.
Footnote 275:
_Rapport, Conseil Munic. loc. cit._, p. 29. These and other statistics
may be found in Fiaux, _Police des Moeurs_, III, pp. 907, etc.; R.
Degante, _La Lutte contre la Prostitution_ (Paris, 1909) p. 109;
Talmeyr, _loc. cit._, pp. 246–7.
Footnote 276:
P. Hirsch, _Verbrechen und Prostitution_ (Berlin, 1907) p. 11.
Footnote 277:
For these and all other Austrian statistics I am indebted to Dr. Anton
Baumgarten.
Footnote 278:
Official figures obtained through American Consulate.
Footnote 279:
_Zeitschrift_ I, p. 197.
Footnote 280:
_Ibid._, II, p. 96.
Footnote 281:
Johansson, _loc. cit._, p. 14.
Footnote 282:
_Zeitschrift_ IX, p. 217.
Footnote 283:
From official data exhibited to me at headquarters.
Footnote 284:
P. Bruns, _Geheime Prostitution_ (Dresden, 1911) p. 6.
Footnote 285:
Officially communicated.
Footnote 286:
In Chapters VII and X.
Footnote 287:
See Chap. I, pp. 21, etc.
Footnote 288:
It is true that registered women sometimes return to a decent life.
But registration enormously increases the difficulty and lessens the
probability of her doing so.
Footnote 289:
How disappearance affects the problem is explained below.
Footnote 290:
Meunier, _Annexes_, pp. 271–2; also _Ibid._, _passim_. See also
_Rapport de Dr. Lucas_, _Ibid._
Footnote 291:
_Annexes, Report, French Com._, p 388. See also Fiaux, _Police des
Moeurs_ I, pp. 196, etc.; ditto _L’Intégrité intersexuelle des peuples
et les Gouvernments_ (Paris, 1910) pp. 205, etc.; _Rapports, Conseil
Munic._ _loc. cit._, pp. 31, etc. Commenge, _loc. cit._, pp. 599, etc.
Footnote 292:
Fiaux, _Police des Moeurs_ I, p. 38; III, p. 609. See also Eugène
Prévost, _De la Prostitution des Enfants_.
Footnote 293:
_Report, Swedish Commission_ III, p. 63.
Footnote 294:
Welander in _Zeitschrift_ XI, p. 395.
Footnote 295:
Meher, _loc. cit._, p. 215.
Footnote 296:
_Loc. cit._, pp. 41–49.
Footnote 297:
Finger and Baumgarten, _Die Regelung der Prostitution in Oesterreich_
(Reprinted) from the _Wiener Medizinische Wochenschrift_ No’s. 35
etc., 1909.
Footnote 298:
_Loc. cit._, p. 10.
Footnote 299:
Fiaux, _Police des Moeurs_ III, p. 658.
Footnote 300:
Lépine, in _Report, French Com., Annexes_ p. 25.
Footnote 301:
Fiaux, _Police des Moeurs_ III, p. 663.
Footnote 302:
Meunier in _Annexes, Report French Com._ p. 313.
Footnote 303:
“Nur die Dummen werden inscribiert.”
Footnote 304:
_Report, Swedish Com._ III, pp. 54 and 59.
Footnote 305:
_Zeitschrift_ I, p. 298.
Footnote 306:
_Report_ on the Police Establishment and State of Crime. (Liverpool,
1910) p. 63.
Footnote 307:
The following schedule is in operation (_Règlement_ Sections 35, 36):
Houses of 1st Class
1 to 5 girls 100 francs monthly
6 to 10 girls 150 francs monthly
Houses of 2nd Class
1 to 5 girls 50 francs monthly
6 to 10 girls 75 francs monthly
Houses of the 3rd Class
1 to 5 girls 25 francs monthly
6 to 10 girls 37 francs monthly
The fees are payable to the “receveur communal.”
Footnote 308:
In rare cases a bordell has been suppressed on account of criminal or
too scandalous occurrences.
Footnote 309:
Excepting only the city of Geneva.
Footnote 310:
_Imperial Penal Code_, Section 180.
Footnote 311:
“In polizeitechnischem Sinne.”
Footnote 312:
_Zeitschrift_ V, p. 209.
Footnote 313:
“Es giebt doch Bordelle.” The distinction, if existent, is between
“Kasernierung” and “Bordellierung” (the enforced boarding-house and
the bordell).
Footnote 314:
_Ibid._, p. 212. “Es bestehen Bordelle in,” etc.
Footnote 315:
_Denkschrift über die Verthältnisse in Bezug auf das Bordellwesen_ by
Katharina Scheven: Dresden, 1904 (Tables).
Footnote 316:
“Ich kümmere mich nicht weiter,” said one to me.
Footnote 317:
It will be noted that Berlin is not in this list; the law is there
observed in both letter and spirit.
Footnote 318:
Adele Schreiber in _Die Kritische Tribüne_ I, p. 114.
Footnote 319:
Baumgarten in _Zeitschrift_ IX, p. 174.
Footnote 320:
Lépine in _Annexes_, _loc. cit._, p. 20. For a much more exhaustive
account, however, see, in the same volume, the _Report_ of M. Meunier,
pp. 289–467, especially pp. 418–430.
Footnote 321:
Préfecture de Police, _Service des Moeurs, Règlement_ II (Maisons de
Tolérance), p. 6.
Footnote 322:
_Obligations et Défenses imposées aux filles publiques._
Footnote 323:
Meunier quotes the Prefect of Police as follows: “In a house of
ill-fame a woman is unable to refuse any man who presents himself.”
_Loc. cit._, p. 420.
Footnote 324:
“Zimmervermieterin.” This word keeps up the fiction that the
establishment is a boarding-house, not a bordell.
Footnote 325:
Regulations, Section 16.
Footnote 326:
A German translation of the Budapest regulations is given in
_Zeitschrift_ XII, pp. 437, etc. For the provisions above cited, see
pp. 439, 440.
Footnote 327:
_Règlement sur la Prostitution_ (1904), Section 19.
Footnote 328:
_Ibid._ Section 21.
Footnote 329:
_Ibid._ Section 25.
Footnote 330:
_Ibid._ Section 33.
Footnote 331:
A few live scattered, namely, those on probation.
Footnote 332:
_Mitteilungen der Deutschen Gesellschaft, etc._, VII. p. 2.
Footnote 333:
Polizeikommissar Rump, _Ibid._, p. 3.
Footnote 334:
Several years ago the police began to compile statistics which soon
reached 1,000, “und die lange nicht alle,” the Inspector remarked.
Footnote 335:
In 1904, of these thirty houses the number on each of these streets
were as follows: 3, 4, 4, 7, 11, 1.
Footnote 336:
The figures are taken from Frau Scheven’s _Denkschrift_.
Footnote 337:
_E. g._, Hamburg, Bremen, and Stuttgart.
Footnote 338:
_Règlement_, Section 12. She must only avoid the vicinity of schools,
public buildings, and churches.
Footnote 339:
Kampffmeyer, in _Zeitschrift_ III, 215. The article is an exhaustive
study of the living conditions of prostitution in Germany and
completely sustains the position taken in the text,—that the most
arbitrary police procedure is incapable of segregating prostitution,
if segregation is construed as in the text.
Footnote 340:
An account of the public meeting, which I was fortunate enough to
attend, is given in _Die Kritische Tribüne_, I, 10, in two articles:
Adele Schreiber. “_Zur Prostitutions—und Kasernierungsfrage_;”
Henrietta Fürth, “_Bordellstrasse?_” The same situation has just
arisen in Hamburg. The progress of the city makes it necessary to raze
certain of the houses mentioned in the text. There is vigorous
opposition to the proposal to allow the proprietors to locate
themselves elsewhere.
Footnote 341:
_Mitteilungen der deutschen Gesellschaft, etc._, VII, I, p. 7.
Footnote 342:
_Die Prostitution_, Vol. I, pp. 731–791.
Footnote 343:
_Ibid._, p. 780.
Footnote 344:
This was also formerly true of Vienna, where the regulations of 1900
favored bordells, but failed to increase their number.
Footnote 345:
Other Belgian towns show the same conditions: Antwerp had 29 houses in
1882, 3 in 1885; Liège 33 in 1881, 20 in 1895; Charleroi 10 in 1872, 3
in 1895.
Footnote 346:
Fiaux, _Police des Moeurs_, I, p. 211. Also Vol. II, pp. 907–8; Vol.
III, p. 664.
Footnote 347:
Felix Regnault, _L’Evolution de la Prostitution_ (Paris, 1907) p. 142.
Footnote 348:
Von Düring (_Zeitschrift_ IV, p. 113) quotes Ströhmberg as stating
that the same evolution is in progress at St. Petersburg, where 206
bordells in 1879 decreased to 65 in 1888. Similarly, Baumgarten
(_Zeitschrift_ IX, pp 174–5) states that Prague, which had in 1903, 48
bordells with 220 inmates, has (1908) 26, with 100 inmates.
Footnote 349:
_Die Prostitutionsfrage in der Schweiz_ (Zurich, 1913) p. 10.
Footnote 350:
“Etwas junges und frisches ist überhaupt nicht zu kriegen.”
Footnote 351:
For these figures I am indebted to official courtesy.
Footnote 352:
Meher, _loc. cit._, p. 150.
Footnote 353:
_Prostitutionsfrage in der Schweiz_, p. 11.
Footnote 354:
“_Ohne Bordelle, kein Mädchenhandel_.” Bloch, _Sexualleben_, p. 377.
Footnote 355:
Schneider, _loc. cit._, pp. 171–2.
Footnote 356:
See p. 257. For a detailed account of the exploitation of inmates in
Paris, see Fiaux, _Les Maisons de Tolérance_ (Third Edition, Paris,
1896) Chapter VII.
Footnote 357:
“Ohne Trinken ging es nicht.”
Footnote 358:
Linblad in _Report, Swedish Commission_, Vol. III, p. 65.
Footnote 359:
_Report, Swedish Commission_, Vol. III, p. 176.
Footnote 360:
_Kritische Tribüne_, _loc. cit._, p. 114.
Footnote 361:
Schneider, _loc. cit._, p. 168.
Footnote 362:
“The renter of these buildings charges the inscribed prostitute 8 to
10 marks a day for a room so that the owner gets from each inmate
something like 4,000 marks a year.” Bendig in _Zeitschrift_ XII, pp.
11, 12. (Abridged.)
Footnote 363:
_Annexes_, _loc. cit._, pp. 424–5. See also Fiaux, _Police des
Moeurs_, I, 213–217.
Footnote 364:
Fiaux, _Ibid._, p. 220.
Footnote 365:
Lépine in _Annexes_, _loc. cit._, p. 21.
Footnote 366:
See Fiaux _Maisons de Tolérance_, Chapter X, etc.
Footnote 367:
_Report, Swedish Commission_, III, p. 66.
Footnote 368:
See Meunier’s detailed account in _Annexes_, _loc. cit._, pp. 420,
etc.
Footnote 369:
See Moll, _loc. cit._, p. 366: Ostwald, _Schlupfwinkel der
Prostitution_ in _Das Berliner Dirnentum_, Vol. II.
Footnote 370:
_Tribune de Genève_, March 30, 1912. See also A. Guillot, _La Lutte
contre l’Exploitation et la Règlementation du Vice à Genève_ (Geneva,
1899) pp. 138–9.
Footnote 371:
_Mitteilungen, etc._, X, 5 p. 96.
Footnote 372:
See, for example, _Annexes_, _loc. cit._, pp. 433–435.
Footnote 373:
A detailed account of the terms is given by M. Lépine in _Annexes_,
_loc. cit._ pp. 22–24. M. Paul Meunier (_Ibid._, 428–430) discusses
these houses and gives particulars concerning a raid on one of them in
which he himself took part.
Footnote 374:
Fiaux, _Police des Moeurs_, III, p. 664.
Footnote 375:
_Dwelling and Rent Statute_, Section 6.
Footnote 376:
The only exhaustive statistical study of the living problem that I
found is that made by Johansson for the Swedish Commission (_Report_,
Vol III, pp. 175, etc.) and this deals only with the registered women,
relatively few in number. Johansson divides the 400 inscribed women of
Stockholm into 5 groups as follows:
I Living in lodgings where they receive customers 16
II Living in girl-houses 98
III Living in families and utilizing hotels 232
IV Living in suburbs and utilizing hotels 23
V Vagrants 31
Of course a girl does not permanently belong to any one group, but may
vary from time to time. Group III is most important. At the close of
1904, the police had listed 34 hotels with 405 rooms, utilized by
these women. He states that the hotel is conducted “like a factory,”
the women being practically in the employ of the proprietors. That is,
the enrolled women are operated for third-party profit; less than 4%
of them work for themselves.
Footnote 377:
It is often said that this opinion is held only by sentimentalists and
religious persons. As a matter of fact, it is the conclusion of police
officers all over the Continent, many of whom are still administering
the system. Prominent among these is Baumgarten of Vienna, for whose
views see _Zeitschrift_ IX, pp. 183–4. The literature attacking the
bordell in a strictly scientific spirit is enormous. See Bloch,
_Sexualleben_. Index, “_Bordelle_.” For a view favorable to the
bordell, see G. Roscher, _Gross-Stadtpolizei_ (Hamburg, 1912) pp. 257–
8. Dr. Roscher is the able and accomplished head of the Hamburg
police.
Footnote 378:
Finger and Baumgarten, _Referat_, p. 82. It must be noted, however,
that this health function is lodged with the police, not the health
authorities,—a fact which will be explained in the next chapter.
Footnote 379:
In respect to the last two items, a tendency towards a uniform policy
is discernible.
Footnote 380:
Inscribed women are examined by men physicians.
Footnote 381:
That is, non-inscribed prostitutes. As previously pointed out,
“clandestine” prostitutes may be just as notorious as inscribed ones.
Footnote 382:
Inscribed prostitutes who also hold positions or who are on probation
looking to release from the rolls may by special arrangement come on
Sunday for examination.
Footnote 383:
The present incumbent is Dr. Med. Georg Güth, Kriminalkommissar und
medizinisch-technischer Dezernent in der Verwaltung der Berliner
Sittenpolizei.
Footnote 384:
Güth, _loc. cit._, p. 13, gives details of equipment.
Footnote 385:
The preceding account is based on personal inspection and interviews,
on the leaflet issued by the bureau, entitled “_Dienstanweisung für
die bei der Sittenpolizei beschäftigten Aerzte_,” and on Penzig’s
“_Die Bekämpfung der Gewerbsunzucht durch die Sittenpolizei_,”
previously referred to.
Footnote 386:
This was the practice at Budapest also, until the regulations were
reformed in 1908.
Footnote 387:
Schneider, _loc. cit._, p. 21, gives additional instances.
Footnote 388:
This point will be referred to again in Chapter X.
Footnote 389:
An exhaustive study of Swedish conditions in regard to hospital
accommodations for venereal patients was made by Johansson and is
printed in Vol. III of the _Report of the Swedish Com._ For Germany,
see A. Guttstadt, _Krankhenhaus-Lexikon für das Deutsche Reich_
(Berlin, 1900), passim.
Footnote 390:
See Eugène Pottet, _Histoire de Saint-Lazare_ (1122–1912), Paris,
1912.
Footnote 391:
Güth in _Zeitschrift_ XIV, p. 11.
Footnote 392:
Güth, _loc. cit._, p. 10.
Footnote 393:
Non-registered prostitutes, if arrested, are also liable to medical
examination; the microscope is utilized in suspicious cases. The
police procedure is described by Inspector Penzig (_loc. cit._) as
follows: “After the usual questions have been asked of the accused
woman, the Inspector decides whether a medical examination shall take
place. The woman assistant (social worker) also expresses her opinion
on this point. If decided on, the examination is made by a woman
physician. As a rule the women make no objection.”
Footnote 394:
So also at Bremen; at Stockholm a microscopic slide is made at each
examination.
Footnote 395:
The Dresden procedure is not essentially different from that of Berlin
and Budapest.
Footnote 396:
Bettmann, _Die ärztliche Ueberwachung der Prostitution_, (Jena, 1905),
p. 50.
Footnote 397:
_Hygiene der Prost._, pp. 83, etc.
Footnote 398:
It is perhaps hardly necessary for me to state that I do not mean to
imply that if the State made no such concession, prostitution would
either vanish or at once be greatly diminished; the point is that the
attitude involved in regulation interferes with a vigorous or a
general struggle in the direction of self-restraint.
Footnote 399:
Vergil, _Aeneid_, Book V, line 231, Conington’s version of “Possunt,
quia posse videntur.”
Footnote 400:
“Still more objectionable must be considered the fact that society
helps in this way to maintain the belief among many persons that
prostitution is a necessity.” Johansson, _loc. cit._, p. 130.
Footnote 401:
_Hygiene der Prostitution_, p. 88. In view of the fact that within a
few pages I have twice ventured to differ with Prof. Blaschko, it is
perhaps proper for me to state that he is one of the foremost and one
of the soundest of European authorities on the entire subject.
Footnote 402:
_Loc. cit._, p. 107 (slightly abridged).
Footnote 403:
_Zeitschrift_ VIII, p. 399.
Footnote 404:
I have paid little attention to soft chancre because it is of so much
less consequence than the two diseases on which the argument turns.
Footnote 405:
M. v. Gruber, _loc. cit._, p. 6.
Footnote 406:
_Ibid._, p. 26.
Footnote 407:
Güth, _loc. cit._, p. 3.
Footnote 408:
In the preceding account I have followed Blaschko, “_Hygiene der
Prostitution_, etc.,” pp. 1–19; Pinkus, “_Die Verhütung der
Geschlechtskrankheiten_” and Güth, _loc. cit._
Footnote 409:
_Rapport Annuel, Ville de Bruxelles, Année, 1910_, p. 65. In 1898—at a
time when 172 women were enrolled—7 patients were sent to the hospital
in the course of the year (_Compte Rendu des Séances, II^e Conférence
Internationale_, Bruxelles, 1903, pp. 185–6).
Footnote 410:
_Zeitschrift_ VIII, p. 291.
Footnote 411:
“Strenge Kontrolle.”
Footnote 412:
“Leichte Kontrolle.”
Footnote 413:
The hands of the physician were uncovered and were not washed until
all the examinations were completed.
Footnote 414:
Zinnser in _Zeitschrift_ V, pp. 204–5 (abridged).
Footnote 415:
Communicated by Prof. Pinkus.
Footnote 416:
Johansson, _loc. cit._, p. 36.
Footnote 417:
Johansson, _loc. cit._, p. 36.
Footnote 418:
Figures given by Professor Pinkus.
Footnote 419:
Though this book deals only with prostitution in Europe, I venture for
the purpose of conclusively establishing the uselessness of the
clinical method to refer to the researches of Dr. Archibald McNeil of
New York City. Of 647 girls examined, 20.56% had clinical
manifestations of disease; of 466 of these same girls, microscopic and
other tests showed 89.3% to be venereally infected. See Kneeland,
“_Commercialized Prostitution in New York City_ (New York, 1913), pp.
188–190.”
Footnote 420:
_Loc. cit._, p. 4.
Footnote 421:
_Zeitschrift_ VI, pp. 232 etc.
Footnote 422:
_Zeitschrift_ V, p. 205.
Footnote 423:
_Zeitschrift_ IX, p. 172.
Footnote 424:
_Zeitschrift_ XIII, p. 6.
Footnote 425:
Bremen not included.
Footnote 426:
This refers to a date preceding the reform of system to be next
discussed.
Footnote 427:
_Loc. cit._, p. 3.
Footnote 428:
_Zeitschrift_ V, p. 205.
Footnote 429:
Translation from police journal “_Public Safety_,” May 29, 1912.
Footnote 430:
_Report, French Com., Annexes_, p. 259.
Footnote 431:
See Bettmann, _loc. cit._, pp. 177–180 for additional illustrations.
Also _Zeitschrift_ I, p. 298.
Footnote 432:
Pinkus, _loc. cit._, p. 71; of course some withdrawals are due to
death, change of occupation, etc. See also _Zeitschrift_ VIII, p. 59.
Footnote 433:
Personal communication.
Footnote 434:
_Zeitschrift_ VI, p. 275. Also Johansson, _Report, Swedish
Commission_, Vol. III, p. 47.
Footnote 435:
Meher, _loc. cit._, p. 157.
Footnote 436:
Schmölder, _Unsere heutige Prostitution_ (Munich, 1911) p. 22.
Footnote 437:
Johansson, _Report, Swedish Commission_, Vol. III, p. 43.
Footnote 438:
_Reglementeringen_ in Stockholm, pp. 78–9.
Footnote 439:
Johansson, _Report, Swedish Commission_ Vol. III, p. 168.
Footnote 440:
_Reglementeringen_ in Stockholm, p. 41.
Footnote 441:
_Ibid._, p. 43.
Footnote 442:
Quoted by Schmölder, _loc. cit._, p. 17.
Footnote 443:
Gruber, _loc. cit._, p. 28.
Footnote 444:
“_Public Safety_.” May 29, 1912, etc.
Footnote 445:
Johansson, _loc. cit._, p. 155.
Footnote 446:
_Ibid._, p. 124; _ditto_, p. 37.
Footnote 447:
June, 1912.
Footnote 448:
For these valuable statistics I am again indebted to the courtesy of
Professor Pinkus.
Footnote 449:
If gonorrhœa, it is not the less dangerous on that account; in case of
syphilis, as I have previously remarked, if actually latent it is not
infectious; if just supposedly latent, as is apt to be the case, the
danger is extreme.
Footnote 450:
_Loc. cit._, p. 89.
Footnote 451:
Police report, 1911, p. 72.
Footnote 452:
Personal communications by officials.
Footnote 453:
_Report, Swedish Commission_, Vol III, p. 132.
Footnote 454:
Neisser in _Zeitschrift_ I, p. 255.
Footnote 455:
_Zeitschrift_ IX, p. 194. The fact is striking even though in my
judgment certain factors affecting the result have been overlooked.
Footnote 456:
Privately communicated by official physician.
Footnote 457:
_Loc. cit._, p. 50.
Footnote 458:
Commenge, p. 235. These arrests are made on the score of disorder, not
of suspected disease. Minors who behave go on with impunity. This is
made clear below.
Footnote 459:
_Zeitschrift_ VIII, p. 301.
Footnote 460:
_Zeitschrift_ XIV, pp. 234–5.
Footnote 461:
_Zeitschrift_ X, p. 108.
Footnote 462:
_Münchener medizinische Wochenschrift_, January 7, 1913, pp. 12, 13.
Footnote 463:
_Zeitschrift_ VIII, pp. 399–400.
Footnote 464:
It is said that managers of enterprises of this character require the
habituées to employ private physicians to keep them advised as to
their condition.
Footnote 465:
Pinkus, _loc. cit._, p. 71.
Footnote 466:
Police Report, _loc. cit._, p. 72.
Footnote 467:
Personally communicated by officials.
Footnote 468:
For the statistics of arrests of inscribed women and the results of
their medical examination in German cities, see _Zeitschrift_ XII, p.
7. Also, Pinkus, _loc. cit._, pp. 72, 73; _Zeitschrift_ X, p. 108;
_ibid._, XIV, pp. 236–7. For Stockholm, _Report, Swedish Commission_,
Vol. III, p. 30.
Footnote 469:
_Zeitschrift_ XI, p. 417.
Footnote 470:
_Zeitschrift_ IX, p. 230. It is to be remarked that all those quoted
above are avowed regulationists and all are men of international
eminence.
Footnote 471:
_Zeitschrift_ I, p. 198.
Footnote 472:
_Zeitschrift_ VIII, p. 413.
Footnote 473:
Julius Engel-Reimers: _Die Geschlechtskrankheiten_ (Hamburg, 1908), p.
83.
Footnote 474:
See Chap. X.
Footnote 475:
A prominent lay official of the Berlin police, Dr. Lindenau, candidly
admits: “A usable set of statistics as to the effect of sanitary
regulations is not to be had.” (From “_Die strafrechtliche Bekämpfung
der Gewerbsunzucht_.”)
Footnote 476:
_Loc. cit._, p. 2.
Footnote 477:
Personally communicated by officials.
Footnote 478:
Pages 231–2.
Footnote 479:
Möller, “_Ist eine Gonorrhöekontrolle möglich?_” _Zeitschrift_ VI, p.
233.
Footnote 480:
Pinkus _loc. cit._, p. 86. Some physicians hold that the latter part
of this statement is perhaps too sweeping, but all are agreed that
gonorrhœa in the female is infinitely more stubborn than in the male
and that gonorrhœa in prostitutes is practically never cured.
Footnote 481:
_Ibid._, p. 91.
Footnote 482:
Güth admits this, _loc. cit._, p. 11. See also _Zeitschrift_ II, p.
106.
Footnote 483:
Privately communicated at headquarters.
Footnote 484:
Personally communicated by officials.
Footnote 485:
_Loc. cit._, p. 89.
Footnote 486:
_Zeitschrift_ V, p. 286.
Footnote 487:
_Zeitschrift_ XI, p. 6. See also articles by Loeb referred to under
Chapter I.
Footnote 488:
This would appear the more charitable explanation of the fact that 429
inmates of Paris bordells showed one case of syphilis in 1902; 312
showed none in 1903. Turot, _loc. cit._, p. 70. In the Roman brothels,
“not oftener than once in three or four months is a girl discovered
who is diseased and forced to withdraw from the house!” In one
establishment it was declared that no girl had been disbarred for
years on account of disease: an instance was however recalled—“four
years ago.”
Footnote 489:
Schrank, _loc. cit._, Vol. II, p. 209.
Footnote 490:
_Zeitschrift_ I, p. 375.
Footnote 491:
_Report, French Commission_, p. 110.
Footnote 492:
Pinkus, _loc. cit._, p. 108, with notes. In Möller’s cases at
Stockholm, 67.7% of the infected men admitted intoxication.
_Zeitschrift_ V., p. 301.
Footnote 493:
_Zeitschrift_ IX, p. 103.
Footnote 494:
This is well discussed by Oppenheim and Neugebauer in _Zeitschrift_
XII, pp 306–7. One-half of the men interrogated were unable to give
definite answers. _Ditto_, p. 314.
Footnote 495:
_Zeitschrift_ XII, pp. 6–7.
Footnote 496:
_Ditto._ It is, of course, clear that these figures are vitiated by
the poor quality of the examinations; but undoubtedly, whatever her
own condition, the bordell prostitute can contaminate more men, if she
is herself diseased—as our argument proves her to be—and, in any
event, she is so situated as to act as a passive carrier more largely.
Footnote 497:
Referat, _loc. cit._, p. 104.
Footnote 498:
_Loc. cit._, p. 69.
Footnote 499:
_Zeitschrift_ VIII, p. 399.
Footnote 500:
The system is fully described by Weidanz in _Zeitschrift_ XIV, pp. 88,
etc. It is to be observed that nothing is said as to the amount of
disease contracted by men.
Footnote 501:
It is stated that 22,000 sublimate of mercury pastilles were used by
them last year.
Footnote 502:
_Zeitschrift_ IV, p. 81.
Footnote 503:
The absurdity of ignoring the male factor in any endeavor to lessen
disease is clearly shown by the following incident: In Christiania, in
1910, among those applying for free treatment of venereal disease,
were 21 women who named their husbands as the source of infection, 6
men who named their wives.
Footnote 504:
_Report, French Commission, Annexes_, p. 54.
Footnote 505:
Scheven, _loc. cit._, p. 11.
Footnote 506:
Lack of space makes a fuller historical account impossible in this
volume. The reader will find the details in “_The Social Evil: a
Report_” (New York, 1912) pp. 163–196.
Footnote 507:
This topic will be exhaustively considered in Mr. Raymond B. Fosdick’s
forthcoming volume _The European Police_ in this same series. I touch
it briefly here for the reason that appears in the text.
Footnote 508:
Lindenau grants this by implication. He argues for a change of law on
the ground that thus “an end will be put to the reproach that
controlled prostitutes are exposed to the caprice of subaltern police
officers on account of the details of the rules.” _Loc. cit._, p. 27.
Footnote 509:
“La visite est la seule excuse de ce règlement de police arbitraire.”
Reuss: “_La Prostitution au point de vue de l’hygiène et de
l’administration_.” Paris, 1889, p. 788. Quoted by Schmölder in
“_Staat und Prostitution_.” (Berlin, 1900), p. 13.
Footnote 510:
There is also an element of luck that ought to be taken into account.
Some girls fall into the hands of the morals police because they
happen to be caught doing things which others have done and continue
to do with impunity.
Footnote 511:
Vagabondage is elsewhere also the prime factor in registration. A
prominent Belgian publicist said to me in reference to Brussels: “Only
the women who are poor suffer from the law.” See also Chapter IX for
the _Danish law on Vagabondage_.
Footnote 512:
Rule 11.
Footnote 513:
Rule 6.
Footnote 514:
Rule 7.
Footnote 515:
_Obligations et Défenses imposées aux filles publiques._
Footnote 516:
Rules 14, 15.
Footnote 517:
_Loc. cit._, pp. 23, 180.
Footnote 518:
Turot, _loc. cit._, pp. 33, 35. See also Commenge, _loc. cit._, Ch.
II.
Footnote 519:
_Police Report_, _loc. cit._, p. 72. I cannot make out whether
rearrests are included in these figures,—probably not.
Footnote 520:
_Zeitschrift_ I, p. 298.
Footnote 521:
Johansson in _Report, Swedish Commission_, Vol. III, p. 11.
Footnote 522:
_Ibid._, p. 123.
Footnote 523:
For example, the following table shows number of breaches of rules on
the part of the few hundred inscribed prostitutes of Stockholm:
1903 1904 1905 1906
9,908 8,191 7,159 7,515
Footnote 524:
This is the situation above adverted to as leading to corruption and
injustice.
Footnote 525:
This appears to be especially true of Paris, where I was assured of
the fact by many persons prominent in public life,—senators, former
Cabinet Ministers, economists and physicians. My notes show their
names, which are in not a few cases honorably known the world over. I
regret that I do not feel warranted in giving them here.
Footnote 526:
_Loc. cit._, p. 83.
Footnote 527:
Strictly speaking, no community can be an abolition community unless
it has previously had regulation; but in this chapter—and indeed
generally—the term abolition is also applied to cities that, without
ever having had regulation, are opposed to the adoption of that or any
similar policy; and persons are called abolitionists if they are
opposed to the things implied by regulation.
Footnote 528:
Following the division made in discussing regulation, I shall in this
chapter deal with order only; disease is remanded to the succeeding
chapter.
Footnote 529:
A very convenient manual of English Law dealing with all phases of the
subject is available: W. A. Bewes, “_A Manual of Vigilance Law_” (2nd
Edition by W. F. Crails), London, 1905. The law dealing with
solicitation is summarized and luminously discussed in the Report of
the Royal Commission upon the duties of the Metropolitan Police, Vol
I, p. 323 (London, 1908). This report will be referred to in this
chapter as _Report, Roy. Com._
Footnote 530:
_Towns Police Clauses Act, 1847_, Section 28. The Vagrancy Act of 1824
may also be invoked against a “prostitute wandering in the public
street or in any place of public resort and behaving in a riotous or
indecent manner.” c. 83, Section 3.
Footnote 531:
_I. e._, patrolman or policeman.
Footnote 532:
Summary conviction does not mean that the woman is without witnesses
or attorney.
Footnote 533:
By 2 and 3 Victoria c. 47, subs. 11.
Footnote 534:
There are no statutory provisions expressly relating to the annoyance
of women by men in the streets. The Royal Commission was however of
opinion that insults of this kind could be dealt with under the
_Metropolitan Police Act_, 1839, Section 54, 13. See _Report_, pp. 33,
118–120.
Footnote 535:
Manual, p. 8, where cases are cited.
Footnote 536:
Russell on _Crimes_ (6th Edition) Vol. I, p. 740.
Footnote 537:
_Crim. Law Amend. Act_, 1885, c. 49, Section 13.
Footnote 538:
_Report Roy. Com._, _loc. cit._, p. 124.
Footnote 539:
This is especially true in respect to the communication of venereal
contagion; but consideration of this portion of the Scandinavian
statutes is postponed to the next chapter.
Footnote 540:
All Norwegian laws bearing on this subject have been brought together
in a special pamphlet issued by the Norwegian Law Journal (_Norsk
Lovtidende_). A useful compilation, unfortunately no longer up to date
is: A. Faerden, _Exposé des dispositions pénales concernant les délits
contre les moeurs dans divers pays_. (Christiania, 1891.)
Footnote 541:
Section 1. I utilize a German translation of the Danish law; it is
called, _Gesetz zur Bekämpfung der öffentlichen Unsittlichkeit und der
venerischen Ansteckung_ (Berlin, 1907).
Footnote 542:
_Ibid._, Section 2.
Footnote 543:
_Staatsblad van het Koninkrijk der Nederlander._ No. 130, Section 250
bis. The sections of the penal code are supplemented by local
ordinances.
Footnote 544:
_Algemeene Politie Verordening_ Sections 201, 202.
Footnote 545:
_Ibid._, Section 205a.
Footnote 546:
_Ibid._, Section 205 bis.
Footnote 547:
The Swiss laws are brought together in Weiss’s book already cited.
Footnote 548:
This explains the continued existence of regulation in Geneva, where
the French influence is still strong. A new Federal Criminal Code is,
however, now in preparation. I am informed by jurists of high standing
that the new law will surely contain provisions which will forbid
cantonal regulation by means of a general Federal enactment.
Footnote 549:
_Strafgesetzbuch für den Kanton Zürich_, Sections 119, 120, 121.
Footnote 550:
_Strafgesetzbuch für den Kanton Zürich_, Section 128.
Footnote 551:
_Report, Roy. Com._, p. 125 (somewhat abridged).
Footnote 552:
The importance of this factor from a practical point of view is made
clear by the following considerations: “Solicitation _per se_ is not
an offence.” (_Report, Roy. Com._, p. 119). “In a prosecution under
the Metropolitan Police Act there must be evidence sufficient to
satisfy the magistrate that the woman is a prostitute. Next, there
must be evidence as to the actions of the woman showing that she was
loitering in a thoroughfare or public place for the purpose of
prostitution or solicitation; and, lastly, there must be evidence that
her action was to the annoyance of the inhabitants or passengers.”
_Ibid._, p. 49.
Footnote 553:
_Duty Hints, Metropolitan Police_, p. 11.
Footnote 554:
As a rule, the police observe a suspected disorderly house on the
request of the borough authorities, to whom results are communicated;
the aforesaid authorities act by warrant or otherwise. Social and
other organizations occasionally instigate prosecutions.
Footnote 555:
“Prostitutes cannot legally be taken into custody simply because they
_are_ prostitutes; to justify their apprehension they must commit some
distinct act which is an offence against the law.” _Report Roy. Com._,
p. 49 (quoting White Book of the Department, pp. 338–9).
Footnote 556:
_Duty Hints_, pp. 48, 57.
Footnote 557:
_Duty Hints_, pp. 35, 54.
Footnote 558:
Testimony of _Sir Edward Henry_, _Report, Roy. Com._
Footnote 559:
_Report, Roy. Com._, p. 93.
Footnote 560:
_Ibid._, Return 7, XII, XIII.
Footnote 561:
The term “bordell,” properly meaning a licensed, recognized, or
tolerated house of prostitution, is not employed at all in Great
Britain.
Footnote 562:
These brothels not infrequently occupy the upper floors of buildings
in Regent Street and Bond Street, the floors below being occupied by
fashionable shops.
Footnote 563:
The following are all brothel advertisements clipped from a popular
one-penny weekly:
Skilful Treatment for Muscular Ailments given daily. Hours 12:30 till
7.—Shepherd, Edgeware Road, Marble Arch, W. (entrance in Little Queen
Street). Assistant wanted at once.
* * * * *
Care of hands and nails.—Miss ——, Court Chambers, Marylebone Rd., 2nd
Floor (entrance in Seymour Place). Assisted by specialist from Paris.
Hours 12 to 7. Three languages spoken. Assistant wanted.
* * * * *
Electrical treatment for all muscular ailments.—Apply Nurse, —— Warren
Street, Tottenham Court Road (adjoining Warren Street Tube), 1st
floor. Hours, 12 till 8.
* * * * *
Newly opened Establishment.—Miss ——, Nail Specialist, —— Shaftesbury
Avenue, Piccadilly Circus, W.
* * * * *
Specific Treatment for Rheumatism by Madame ——, —— Manchester Street,
Manchester Square, W.
* * * * *
A Trained Nurse Has Special Oils for Muscular Ailments.—Apply ——
Allsop Place, Flat D (entrance floor) next Madame Tussaud’s, Baker
Street Sta.
* * * * *
French lady would receive a few paying guests in her well-appointed
and newly-decorated house.—Apply Madame ——, Hugh St., Victoria (Two
Minutes from Station). Side entrance. Assistant wanted.
* * * * *
Sciatica and Rheumatism.
Skilfully treated by nurse. Also care of the feet. —— Glass-house
Street, Regent Street; one minute Piccadilly Circus. Hours, 12 to 7.
Saturday, 12 to 6.
* * * * *
French lessons and conversation
Given by
Madame ——, 1 Oxford Street, W.
Hours 1 to 9.
* * * * *
In a single number of this sheet there are 44 unmistakable
advertisements of this kind. A few weeks later, the above
advertisements had mostly disappeared, new ones taking their place.
Footnote 564:
Report, July 31, 1911.
Footnote 565:
Compiled from the _Reports of the Commissioner of Police_. Acton,
_loc. cit._, pp. 4, 6, give police returns for 1841, 1857 and 1868.
Footnote 566:
In 29 cases charges were proved and order made without conviction.
Footnote 567:
In 34 cases charges were proved and order made without conviction.
Footnote 568:
In 37 cases charges were proved and order made without conviction.
Footnote 569:
These women conduct brothels in the sense that there are several
“nurses” or “assistants” on the premises during business hours; if the
customer is not pleased, photographs of available girls are shown and
almost any desired type is promised on appointment.
Footnote 570:
_Report, Royal Commission_, p. 124.
Footnote 571:
_Report, Royal Commission_, p. 100.
Footnote 572:
_Ibid._, p. 101.
Footnote 573:
Whether the police even now make full use of their power to clear the
streets is a matter on which opinions differ. Certain witnesses before
the Royal Commission indulged in criticism (_Report_, p. 81). The
Commission ultimately came to a conclusion on the whole favorable to
the police. In my own opinion, it is impossible to reach a single and
simple verdict. London is better or worse according to the requirement
of more or less localized public opinion, the general tendency being
towards improvement.
Footnote 574:
_Ibid._, p. 129, slightly abridged. Sir Edward Henry’s evidence is
fully sustained by that of Mr. Coote, p. 83.
Footnote 575:
The National Government is, however, not wholly without power even
over provincial police forces. Mr. Fosdick will give details in the
book previously referred to.
Footnote 576:
In Glasgow the number of licensed premises has steadily declined from
1,819 in 1892 to 1,565 in 1911. _City of Glasgow Police, Criminal
Returns_, 1911, p. 56. In Birmingham, the reduction has been relative,
not absolute; there were 2,163 licensed establishments in 1881, ratio
to population 1:188; 2,368 in 1911, ratio to population 1:354.
(_Report of Police Establishment_ 1911, p. 18.)
Footnote 577:
In Birmingham and Manchester there are no “flats” in the London sense.
Footnote 578:
_Report of Police Establishment_ 1910, p. 66 (Liverpool, 1911).
Similar information is contained in the corresponding reports of other
cities.
Footnote 579:
For Edinburgh statistics I am indebted to the courtesy of the chief
constable, R. Ross, Esq. It will be noted that in 1911 the number of
women arrested exceeds the number of known brothels. This is accounted
for by the fact that the brothels contain several women each.
Footnote 580:
In the provincial cities as in London, women are more prominent in the
Arcades than in the streets, as Arcades are private property.
Footnote 581:
Communicated by Chief Constable.
Footnote 582:
_Report_, 1910, p. 67 (slightly abridged).
Footnote 583:
_Criminal Returns_, 1911, p. 6.
Footnote 584:
_Report_, _loc. cit._, p. 45.
Footnote 585:
_The Shield_, Nov.-Dec., 1911, p. 78.
Footnote 586:
_Reglementeringen i Stockholm_, pp. 91–92.
Footnote 587:
The documents in the case are: _Memorandum on a Social Evil in
Glasgow_, published by authority of the Parish Council, October, 1911;
_Social Evil in Glasgow, Report by the Chief Constable_.
Footnote 588:
I refer by this description to spurious cigar shops, manicure
establishments, etc.
Footnote 589:
This particular form of humbug is impossible in Austria-Hungary where
the sale of tobacco is an imperial monopoly.
Footnote 590:
There are between fifty and sixty of these shops in Zurich. At times a
servant is saleswoman; the prostitute herself lolls in the rear room.
Footnote 591:
It is no uncommon error for regulationists to suppose that these
abominations occur only or mainly in abolition towns. Such a mistake
appears to be implied in the account of Zurich by Müller and Zürcher,
_Zeitschrift_, XIV, p. 205.
Footnote 592:
Weiss, _loc. cit._, p. 125.
Footnote 593:
The word pandering is here used in a very broad sense, as a
translation of “Kuppelei” which includes all forms of promoting
prostitution.
Footnote 594:
Müller and Zürcher, in _Zeitschrift_, XIV, p. 198.
Footnote 595:
Personally communicated by police head.
Footnote 596:
I. e., Violation of Section 2 of the laws of 1906.
Footnote 597:
The number of women enrolled had been as high as 700.
Footnote 598:
For a detailed discussion of this point see a paper by E. M. Hoff,
“_On the Effects of the Law of March 30, 1906_” (Copenhagen, 1909).
Dr. Hoff, quoting an unfavorable utterance by Judge Cold respecting
“the armies of loose women in the Vesterbro quarter,” remarks: “If we
should go out to the Vesterbro in the expectation of unpleasant
experience in the way of public morals, we should be disappointed.
Vesterbro makes the impression of not having changed essentially since
the passage of the law. There is certainly no offence to be feared by
anyone walking through the streets; of course loose women whose manner
is not characterized by great reserve may be noted, but the same was
true formerly and had been true for years. In general, conditions can
fairly be described as quiet.” (p. 2, somewhat condensed.) I visited
the quarter at different hours, day and night, and fully concur in Dr.
Hoff’s contention that prostitution is not more conspicuous than in
similar neighborhoods elsewhere in Europe.
Footnote 599:
Völlig stumm.
Footnote 600:
_Reglementeringen i Stockholm_, pp. 132–3.
Footnote 601:
_Loc. cit._, p. 46.
Footnote 602:
_Ibid._, p. 47.
Footnote 603:
Weiss, _loc. cit._, p. 121.
Footnote 604:
Weiss, _loc. cit._, p. 123.
Footnote 605:
Regulation, of course, expressly recognized her right to do this, if
she were registered.
Footnote 606:
Page 329.
Footnote 607:
The penalty is the workhouse for 12 days, 18 days, etc., up to 90
days.
Footnote 608:
Communicated by police authorities.
Footnote 609:
The police heads are careful to affirm that these figures indicate not
an increase of prostitution, but increased knowledge of its
whereabouts.
Footnote 610:
For the facts comprised in the foregoing account, I am indebted to the
courtesy of many officials in Holland, Denmark, and Norway.
Footnote 611:
Quoted in _Die Prostitutionsfrage in der Schweiz_, _loc. cit._, p. 37.
Footnote 612:
This force also has certain other duties.
Footnote 613:
Names are given when the physician feels that the patient is likely to
spread infection, or when the patient is sent into a hospital.
Footnote 614:
A copy of the following slip is given to the patient:
Attention is called to the following sections of the Penal Code:
Sec. 155. Whoever, with knowledge or conjecture that he is suffering
from a contagious sex disease, infects or exposes to infection another
person, by means of sexual intercourse or immoral contact, shall be
punished with imprisonment for not more than three years.
The same punishment is provided for those who connive at enabling any
person who is known or suspected to be afflicted with a contagious sex
disease, to infect in the above manner or expose to infection, another
person.
If the person infected, or exposed to infection, be married to the
guilty person, public prosecution shall take place only on application
by the injured party.
Sec. 358. Imprisonment for six months or less is the punishment for
anyone who, without calling attention to the danger of infection,
1. Causes a child to be nursed, knowing or suspecting the child to be
afflicted with contagious syphilitic disease, or engages anyone to
nurse such child, or
2. Knowing or suspecting that he (or she) is suffering from contagious
syphilitic disease, enters the household of another as servant, or
remains in such service, or receives a strange child to nurse it, or
aids in bringing about such conditions.
The same punishment is provided for those who engage or, having
engaged, retain, any person known or suspected to suffer from
contagious syphilitic disease, as nurse for a child, or who aids in
bringing about such engagement or retention in service.
Footnote 615:
I herewith acknowledge, that Dr. —— has called my attention to the
following points:
1. That I am suffering from _Syphilis_.
2. That my disease is contagious for at least .. years.
3. That I am punishable, if I in any way expose others to infection.
Copies of Penal Code, Sections 155 and 358 received.
Date.
Signature.
Footnote 616:
The invitation is as follows:
Christiania Health Board,
Second Health Inspector.
You are respectfully requested to report at the office at No. 55 Akers
Street, third floor, ............... as it is desired to talk to you.
Christiania, the .......... 19..
Footnote 617:
Hoff, _loc. cit._, p. 5.
Footnote 618:
For the text of the statute, translated into English, see Appendix.
Footnote 619:
It should be mentioned that in Germany too a start has been made in
this direction.
Section 223 of the German Penal Code can be invoked against any
person “injuring the health of another;” the penalty is imprisonment
up to three years or fine up to 1,000 marks. There is considerable
agitation in favor of provisions explicitly aimed at venereal
disease. See, e. g., M. Homburger, _Die strafrechtliche Bedeutung
der Geschlechtskrankheiten_, _Zeitschrift_ XI, pp. 28, 63, and 205.
Footnote 620:
This is an important variation from the Norwegian prototype and
indicates the compromise spirit that here and there appears in the
Danish law.
Footnote 621:
The law does not require that the name of the patient be reported, but
it must be correctly given to the physician.
Footnote 622:
Slips containing instructions as to the nature of the disease, the
patient’s proper conduct while under treatment and the penalties to
which misconduct may lead are also, as in Norway, handed to him or
her.
Footnote 623:
Its dimensions are 17″ × 26″.
Footnote 624:
_Sanitary Laws_, revised text, Section III, Articles 136–156.
Footnote 625:
_Ibid._, Article 144.
Footnote 626:
Ministry of the Interior, Direction-General of Public Health.
Telegraphic Circular to the Prefects of the Kingdom: “_The Prophylaxis
of Venereal Diseases_.” (Abridged.)
Footnote 627:
If the woman objects, examination can be made only if ordered by the
court. As a matter of fact, objection is rare, as the courts would not
hesitate to grant the necessary authority.
Footnote 628:
This provision was in a somewhat different form included in the
_Regulatory Statute of 1866_, where it was provided that a registered
prostitute could be punished if she knowingly communicated infection;
but punishments were rare, since the girl could always shield herself
behind the fact that the police surgeons had pronounced her well—an
interesting illustration of the way in which the medical examination
may defeat its own object.
Footnote 629:
His views are stated in his _Report to the Tenth International
Congress of Hygiene and Demography_, held at Paris, 1900.
Footnote 630:
Dr. Hoff points out (_loc. cit._, p. 8) that similar police assistance
may also be procured by the health authorities in dealing with other
contagious or infectious maladies. Practically, however, it would seem
that the cases are not entirely analogous, since one of the main
difficulties in getting control of venereal disease lies in the police
association with the subject which has to be effaced. Moreover, the
repugnance to publicity, and the sense of shame attending venereal
infection are also factors to be reckoned with.
Footnote 631:
I take the case of an infected man; the same process applies to an
infected woman who is free to denounce the man responsible for her
condition.
Footnote 632:
The action of the police is based on Section 181 of the Penal Code
reading as follows:
Sec. 181. When anyone knowing or suspecting himself to be infected
with venereal contagion, has intercourse with another person,
punishment by imprisonment shall be imposed, or, under aggravating
circumstances, detention at hard labor in the House of Correction.
Footnote 633:
Oppenheim and Neugebauer (_Zeitschrift_ XII, p. 314) give the results
of an endeavor to locate the sources of 2,472 infections; 1,365 of
those afflicted were unable or refused to give any helpful
information. Some patients desire to screen their partners; some are
plainly unreliable; others have offended so frequently that their
answers are mere guesses. See _Ibid._, p. 306.
Footnote 634:
Compiled from _Police Reports_. Slight discrepancies in the totals are
due to the occasional appearance of the same person more than once.
Footnote 635:
A case was reported of a man who kept a list of those he supposed
himself to have infected.
Footnote 636:
A counter advantage ought also to be mentioned. The fear of a possible
denunciation probably induces some who find themselves diseased to
submit to treatment. And a counter disadvantage: women are much more
often denounced than men,—a survival of the unfairness of regulation.
Footnote 637:
These figures may be found in the Health Reports of Copenhagen. For
the form in which they appear above I am indebted to the courtesy of
Inspector Schepelern-Larsen.
Footnote 638:
Annexes, _loc. cit._, p. 263.
Footnote 639:
Some of these were partly compensated by being made dispensary
physicians.
Footnote 640:
Originally the physicians made a monthly report.
Footnote 641:
R. W. Johnstone, _Report on Venereal Diseases_ (Local Government
Board, London, 1913) p. 1.
Footnote 642:
_Ibid._, p. 20.
Footnote 643:
_Ditto_ (all slightly abridged).
Footnote 644:
White and Melville, _Venereal Disease, its Present and Future_. Paper
read at Annual Congress of Royal Institute of Public Health, held at
Dublin, August, 1911, p. 15.
Footnote 645:
_The Prevention of Destitution_ (London, 1912) p. 33. See also notes,
pp. 43, 44.
Footnote 646:
Such data as exist can be found in various treatises on venereal
disease; e. g., in Blaschko, _Hygiene der Prostitution_. Summarized
statements are given by White and Melville, _loc. cit._, etc.
Footnote 647:
Blaschko’s summary of the defects of the statistical procedure is well
worth reproducing. Three methods have been employed:
(1) Comparison of amount of disease found among inscribed
prostitutes with that found among non-inscribed prostitutes.
The latter is higher, but that is due less to lack of medical
control than to the lower age.
(2) Inquiry as to source of infection. Not significant since we know
nothing of the ratio of the two groups (registered and
non-registered) to the number of their customers respectively.
(3) a. Comparison of the incidence of venereal disease in places
with and without regulation.
b. Comparison before and after abolition.
c. Comparison of places where regulation has been strict with
places where it has fluctuated. These ignore other factors
that greatly influence the phenomenon in question. (Art.
_Die Prostitution_, pp. 1243–44, abridged).
Footnote 648:
_Hygiene der Prostitution_, _loc. cit._, p. 31. If the incidence of
gonorrhœa is placed at 200%, the average is two attacks.
Footnote 649:
_Ibid._, p. 32.
Footnote 650:
_Verhütung der Geschlechtskrankheiten_, p. 7.
Footnote 651:
_Ibid._, p. 21.
Footnote 652:
To the Prussian blank it is stated only 63.45% of the physicians
applied to responded. _Report, Swedish Com._, Vol. III, p. 1.
Footnote 653:
_Ibid._, pp. 15–10.
Footnote 654:
The laws were suspended in 1884.
Footnote 655:
The complete statistics taken from the _Army Medical Reports_ are as
follows:
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Total number of
Report for the Recruits
Year Inspected Recruits rejected For Syphilis
„ „ Number Per 1,000
SLIGHT REGULATION
1866 20,410 338 16.56
1867 26,646 440 16.51
1868 23,543 303 12.88
1869 17,749 291 16.40
REGULATION AT ITS HEIGHT
1870 38,408 606 15.78
1871 36,212 593 16.38
1872 28,390 445 15.67
1873 24,895 411 16.51
1874 30,557 481 15.74
1875 25,878 327 12.63
1876 41,809 634 15.16
1877 43,803 680 15.52
1878 43,867 665 15.16
1879 42,668 573 13.43
1880 46,108 538 11.67
1881 47,444 593 12.50
1882 45,423 487 10.72
REGULATION SUSPENDED
1883 59,436 583 9.81
1884 66,882 707 10.57
1885 72,249 706 9.77
ABOLITION
1886 74,991 613 8.18
1887 60,976 494 8.10
1888 49,172 382 7.77
1889 53,904 358 6.64
1890 55,367 351 6.34
1891 61,322 300 4.9
1892 68,761 318 4.62
1893 64,110 314 4.90
1894 61,985 315 5.09
1895 55,698 194 3.48
1896 54,574 202 3.71
1897 59,986 208 3.47
1898 66,502 258 3.88
1899 68,087 182 2.67
1900 84,402 188 2.22
1901 76,750 177 2.31
1902 87,609 238 2.72
1903 69,533 211 3.03
1904 70,346 178 2.53
1905 66,703 156 2.34
1906 62,371 170 2.73
1907 59,393 107 1.80
1908 61,278 113 1.84
1909 50,208 89 1.77
1910 45,671 71 1.55
1911 48,178 89 1.85
From the foregoing table one must not infer that syphilis in the
general population of Great Britain is rapidly decreasing, for it is
impossible to say whether the recruits are fairly representative. See
Johnstone, _loc. cit._, p. 8.
Footnote 656:
Complete figures are as follows: See page 375.
Footnote 657:
For this drawing and the next I am indebted to Col. Melville.
Footnote 658:
From C. H. Melville, “_The History and Epidemiology of Syphilis in the
more Important Armies_,” in _A System of Syphilis_ by D’Arcy Power and
J. K. Murphy (London, 1910) Vol. VI, pp. 96–98 (abridged).
Footnote 659:
This is not included in Figure I. It is shown, however, on
“Kurventafel A” along with all other foreign and American armies and
navies in Josef Urbach’s _Die Geschlechtskrankheiten und ihre
Verhütung im k. und k. Heere_, etc. (Wien und Leipzig, 1912) p. 13.
Footnote 660:
_Reglementeringen i Stockholm_, pp. 130–2.
Footnote 661:
The main authority consulted in the above discussion is: Otto von
Schjerning, _Sanitätsstatistische Betrachtungen über Volk und Heer_
(Berlin, 1910) pp. 59–67. A general discussion of conditions in
European Armies is given by Col. Melville, _loc. cit._, pp. 58–72.
Urbach’s book, above referred to, gives the most recent and complete
account of the Austrian-Hungarian army and navy with frequent
references to other nations. None of these authorities are
particularly interested in the question of regulation versus
abolition, so that the facts are stated by them without reference to
their bearing on this controversy. M. Augagneur (_loc. cit._)
discusses army statistics with close reference to our topic.
Footnote 662:
Dr. Yngvar Ustvedt, Sundhetsinspector, _Beretning om de veneriske
sygdomme i Kristiania_, 1911 (1912) pp. 6, 7.
Footnote 663:
They are taken from the report mentioned in the next note.
Footnote 664:
_Aarsberetning angaaende Sundhedstilstandet i København_ for 1910.
(Copenhagen, 1911) p. 36. The figures for 1911 above given were
contributed by Stadslæge Dr. E. M. Hoff.
Footnote 665:
_Ibid._, p. 37.
Footnote 666:
From “Om luesoverfrelse,” (_Tidsskrift for den Norske laegeforening._
Nr. 5 of 6, 1912).
Footnote 667:
The above comparison is partly based on Dr. Krefting’s dissertation
above cited, and on a manuscript essay in French, unpublished as yet
at the time of my visit to Christiania, which Dr. Krefting courteously
placed at my disposal.
Footnote 668:
I have throughout this volume refrained from attaching much importance
to mere opinions as to the results of experience with either of the
policies in question. It is indeed amazing to observe what definite
convictions are based on brief or one-sided experience or on hearsay
evidence, and this is true of abolitionists and regulationists alike.
Though opinion is thus of little weight, a change of opinion forced by
the failure of prophesied ill results to materialize may be not
without significance; and of such change there is abundant evidence in
both Christiania and Copenhagen. In the former, as late as 1898, a
discussion in the Norwegian Medical Society (reported in _Prostitution
i Kristiania_, 1899) showed the existence of regulationists in the
medical profession. Their views were vigorously combated by City
Physician Bentzen and others who proved that regulated Norwegian towns
were liable to precisely the same fluctuations that followed abolition
at Christiania (pp. 36–38). By the time of my visit (fourteen years
later) the voice of the regulationists—so I was everywhere assured—had
practically become silent—a change of attitude hardly open to
misconstruction. In Copenhagen the issue is more recent and more
controversial; but the trend of opinion appears to be in the same
direction. I was assured that it would be practically impossible to
find a physician who desired a return to the old system; Professor
Ehlers, a distinguished specialist, declared, “There is absolutely no
professional sentiment any longer in favor of regulation; the
situation is probably better and most certainly no worse”; another
physician stated: “Nothing has been lost, even if it is not yet easy
to prove what has been gained”; Dr. Hoff, the Health Officer, assured
me that regulation sentiment had entirely died out among the medical
profession. But the best proof is after all the steady encroachment of
abolition: Copenhagen would not have imitated Christiania had
abolition aggravated conditions there; now Stockholm is about to
follow suit: does not this indicate a growing and spreading disbelief
in the efficacy of regulation and a growing confidence in the
advantages of abolition?
Footnote 669:
E. g., the Boer War, which undoubtedly accounts for the rise in the
English army curve 1900–1903. See Figure II, p. 370.
Footnote 670:
In Germany, slot-machines were at one time set up in barracks and on
board warships from which for a small coin protective remedies could
be procured, but popular objection has forced their removal on the
ground that their presence suggested debauch and deceived soldiers and
sailors. But the remedies are still easily procurable; of their value,
there is grave doubt. See Melville, _loc. cit._, pp. 91–95; von
Schjerning, _loc. cit._, pp. 66, 67.
Footnote 671:
The Society was founded by Dr. Blaschko, and publishes the valuable
journal which I have freely cited.
Footnote 672:
Translation of the most recent Règlement dated October, 1878.
Footnote 673:
The Cour de Cassation has rendered several decisions (June 30, 1838;
July 14, 1838; March 30, 1839) to the effect that the procès-verbaux
and reports of the inspectors of police are not in themselves
sufficient, in the absence of additional proof, to establish the fact
that the infractions have occurred. The same is true of a
procès-verbal drawn up by a Commissaire of police, from the report of
an inspector of police, unless the former has verified the facts
himself.
But these legal decisions do not deprive police officers of the right
to ascertain infractions; however, their reports must be confirmed
either by the admission of the delinquents that the facts are as
stated, or by such methods as the tribunal may consider it proper to
order.
Footnote 674:
Translation of the most recent regulations, dated Dec. 7, 1911.
Footnote 675:
Translation of most recent regulations, dated September 1, 1909.
Footnote 676:
Translation of most recent regulations, dated June 1, 1911.
Footnote 677:
_Landes-Gesetz und Regierungs-Blatt_, No. 39.
Footnote 678:
_Reichs-Gesetz-Blatt_, No. 89.
Footnote 679:
_Bezirks-Polizeikommissariaten._
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES
Page Changed from Changed to
10 because gainfully employed, and because they are gainfully
being exempt from employed, and being exempt from
38 Statistiches Jahrbuch (Berlin, Statistisches Jahrbuch (Berlin,
1910) pp. 242–3 1910) pp. 242–3
207 und medizinizch-technischer und medizinisch-technischer
Dezernent in der Verwaltung Dezernent in der Verwaltung
277 Obligations et Défences inposées Obligations et Défenses imposées
aux filles publiques. aux filles publiques.
● Fixed typos; non-standard spelling and dialect retained.
● Renumbered footnotes and moved them all to the end of the final
chapter.
● Enclosed italics font in _underscores_.
● Enclosed blackletter font in =equals=.
● The caret (^) is used to indicate superscript, whether applied to a
single character (as in 2^d) or to an entire expression (as in
1^{st}).
● Images without captions use HTML alt text.
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK PROSTITUTION IN EUROPE ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United
States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part
of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™
concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following
the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use
of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation
of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project
Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may
do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected
by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark
license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG™ LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg electronic work and you do not agree to be bound
by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person
or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection
of Project Gutenberg electronic works. Nearly all the individual
works in the collection are in the public domain in the United
States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the
United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
that you will support the Project Gutenberg mission of promoting
free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg
works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the
Project Gutenberg name associated with the work. You can easily
comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg License when
you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
other Project Gutenberg work. The Foundation makes no
representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other
immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg License must appear
prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg work (any work
on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed,
performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg™ License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws
of the country where you are located before using this eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg electronic work is
derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in
the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply
either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or
obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg
trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg License for all works
posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the
beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access
to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg work in a format
other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official
version posted on the official Project Gutenberg website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg electronic works
provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg works calculated using the method
you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed
to the owner of the Project Gutenberg trademark, but he has
agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid
within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are
legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty
payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in
Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue
all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™
works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of
any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than
are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing
from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project
Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may
contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate
or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right
of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium
with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you
with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in
lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If
the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing
without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement
violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the
agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or
limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or
unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in
accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the
production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of
the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this
or any Project Gutenberg work, (b) alteration, modification, or
additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg work, and (c) any
Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg
Project Gutenberg is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see
Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by
U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 41 Watchung Plaza #516,
Montclair NJ 07042, USA, +1 (862) 621-9288. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread
public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state
visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
