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, 287as 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 288is 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 289towns, 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 290has 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 291if 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 292make. 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 293or 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 294hotels 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 295near 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 296immoral 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 297profiting 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 298the 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 299or 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 300violently 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 301a 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.

302It 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]

303The 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 304complaint 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 305has 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 306their 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 307decorum 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]

Taken into Custody Discharged Convicted, held to bail, or committed to Reform 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 308of 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 309business 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 310exhausted 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 311joint 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 312houses 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 313“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, 314charging 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 315has 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 316destroyed 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 317mechanism, 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, 3181,411 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 319nearest 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 320of 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 321Continent 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 322more, 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 323of 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 324reprobated, 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 325punishment 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 326increased, 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 327is 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 328in 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 329of 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.

330Have 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 331that 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 3321911. 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 333in 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 334and 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, 335216 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 336more 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 337bully 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 338people,—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 339falls 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 340have 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 341when 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 342the 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.

343