But, granted a force of the highest degree of efficiency, it is evident that the problem of coping with clandestine prostitution in New York would be exceptionally difficult. The freedom with which women and girls of good character frequent public places unattended, or pass through the streets alone in the evening, is not paralleled in any European city. In Paris, Lecour could arrest a young woman who waited for her husband at the door of a shop, "because no decent woman lingered upon the sidewalk." Imagine a New York agent of police acting upon such inferences! It is needless to dwell upon this fact, since any one can understand that American habits of life make it possible for a discreet prostitute to exercise her vocation much longer without rousing the suspicion of a limited force of police agents than she could possibly do in Paris or Berlin.

A second consideration is the greater difficulty that an American morals police would find in acting upon its suspicions. On the Continent of Europe a person generally lives more or less under the eyes of the police. Birth certificates, passports, employment cards, and the like are in fairly general use, so that it is not difficult for the police to have an insight into the antecedents and means of livelihood of the resident population. It is easy to see how such data would be of the utmost importance in segregating that part of the population which will bear watching. The antecedents of any person

who may immigrate into a city are likewise easily determined. But in New York the police would have no help from such data. A secret service, however ubiquitous, could acquaint itself with the life of only a fraction of the population of New York.

Again, it makes much difference whether the vicious element in the population is very migratory in its habits or not. It takes time before the conduct of a new arrival draws suspicion. Still more time elapses before the suspicion is sufficiently strong to justify police action. The person observed may be ready to remove to another city, or to another part of the same city, before anything can be done to fix her status.

The prostitute is notorious everywhere for her migratory habits. Self-interest may, however, compel her to remain in the same city when her whims would lead her to migrate. A city which is preeminently the centre of the life of a whole country will naturally be the place to which prostitutes will flock, and whence they may usually depart only with loss in earning power. Paris and Berlin occupy such positions. New York, on the other hand, is only one, although the greatest one, of a number of great American cities. As a centre of professional vice, it would be scarcely more attractive than Philadelphia or Chicago, or even a number of lesser cities. What is more, the far greater incomes of American prostitutes make it

easier for them to move from place to place than it is for European prostitutes.

In view of these considerations, it is evident that the problem of combating clandestine prostitution in New York is far more difficult than in European cities. One fact is, however, to be set against these, and that is that the occasional prostitute, who merely ekes out an insufficient wage by vicious earnings, is probably less common in New York than in Berlin, and perhaps than in Paris. And this is the most difficult to cope with of all forms of clandestine prostitution.

It remains to consider whether it would be possible to retain as efficient a control over prostitutes once registered as it is in European cities. This also seems doubtful. It is well known that prostitutes are more or less refractory, according to the characteristics of the people from whom they spring. The American impatience of authority would certainly make itself manifest in the spirit with which these women would obey regulations. The Parisian authorities find great difficulty in following up the prostitutes who withdraw themselves from control by changing their habitations. In view of American notions of inviolability of domicile, it is hard to see why it would not be very easy for a prostitute to drop out of sight altogether by merely moving from one part of the city to another. Moreover, if diseased, she would be exceedingly likely to prefer a few

months' sojourn in another city to a period of confinement in a lock-hospital. And while the amount of disease originating in New York might be diminished, the amount of disease in the country as a whole would remain practically the same. Under such conditions, it is evident that no permanent advance in the combating of venereal disease could be made, since a momentary relaxation of reglementation would mean a restoration of the conditions prevailing before its introduction.

In almost every respect, then, New York presents a more difficult problem with respect to reglementation than Paris or Berlin. If reglementation does only a "little good" in the latter cities, it would necessarily do less good in New York.

CHAPTER XI

MORAL REGULATION OF VICE

It is customary to speak as though there were but three possible ways of dealing with prostitution, absolute laissez faire, absolute prohibition of vice, and reglementation.

It is very cogently argued that laissez faire is an inadmissible policy. Not only does venereal disease extend its ravages unchecked, but every sort of moral iniquity thrives wherever vice is a law unto itself. With equal cogency it is argued that no human legislator can make vicious men or women virtuous, or preserve so close a surveillance over them as to prevent the exercise of their evil propensities. Thus, by a process of exclusion, reglementation is arrived at as the only rational policy for government to pursue.

It is difficult to understand how such naïve reasoning can still be entertained by thinking men. Regulative and repressive systems differ in emphasis, rather than in essence. The first aim of the reglementist is to check disease; he recognises, however, the gravity of vice in itself, and