Prostitution in Europe Part 6

[Comics, Coins, Stamps, Collectables & Gaming]

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 ***