The types of employment appear to be much more varied than the types of girl. With few exceptions, the girls are characterized as weak, vain and ignorant, fond of pleasure,—not, of course, at the beginning, necessarily vicious pleasure,—easily led,—now by natural emotion, again by cunning design. The explanation of her present plight as given by the girl is almost invariably complicated. No single reason can usually be assigned. Roughly speaking, four kinds of causes are mentioned:
The great difficulties in their family life seem to have been neglect and abuse by parents, sternness and lack of understanding, immorality of different members of the family, and poverty in the home. In connection with marriage, it was usually alleged that the husband persuaded the wife to go into the business: he waspractically a pimp. Sometimes, cruelty or criminality on his part is assigned,—again, incompatibility, failure to provide, or desertion where the wife stated that she had no other recourse, never having learned to support herself. Of personal reasons, there are usually several, no one of which can be regarded as paramount. Sometimes a girl’s lover puts her into the life or deserts her after seduction, leaving her without hope for the future: “I was ruined anyway,” she would say, “and I did not care what became of me.” Again, “I loved the excitement and a good time, easy money and good clothes.” Another one remarks, “I was born bad and actually enjoy the life.” “I was tired of drudgery as a servant,” said another, “I’d rather do this than be kicked around like a dog in a kitchen by some woman who calls herself a lady.” Few girls ever admit that they have been forced into the life as “white slaves.” Some were lonely and wanted company, some were demoralized by the environment of the stage; others fell into bad company, and did not have the moral courage or the opportunity to desist. Generally speaking, of girls and women who are either ignorant, lonely, giddy, sub-normal, loveless, childless, rebellious, weak of will, discouraged of heart, unhappy or poverty-stricken, the prostitutes are those who at critical periods have given way to such an extent that they drift or plunge into immoral lives, professional or otherwise.
The same sort of explanation is given regardless of former occupation: “I was glad to get away from drudgery,” says a former servant, “father drank and I was put out to work too young”; “my folks were poor, father died from drink, mother is a heavy drinker,” says afactory girl; “I had never had anything for myself, father drank heavily,” says a saleswoman. Or, again,—a factory worker, “there is more money and pleasure in being a sport.” A shop-girl, “I wanted nice clothes and a good time”; a stenographer, “I wanted good times, money and clothes.” Seduction, too, is alleged at all levels,—base men taking advantage of natural craving for interest and affection. “I was 17 when I went with my sweetheart,” said a shop-girl; “I never intended to make it a business, I was in love with the first fellow,” declared a former stenographer. The point should also be emphasized that victims of this kind do not succumb merely to man’s impulse; often they are conquered by deliberate design. Undoubtedly responsible for part of the supply is, therefore, the thoughtless, intelligent, independent man, who seeks out a vain, unhappy, emotional girl as his victim. I refer to the employer who takes advantage of his stenographer or telephone girl, taking her to luncheons in private dining-rooms in expensive restaurants in the business districts. In department stores, certain floor-walkers, salesmen, buyers, managers, foremen, and even proprietors are constantly placing temptations before the weak and yielding girls who come under their direction.[177]
How far direct economic pressure is responsible for prostitution, it is difficult to state. A calculation of the wages previously received reveals great discrepancies. Seventeen former domestics averaged $5.55 a week, plus board and lodging; 18 factory workers received from $3to $7.50, 20 received from $8 to $14 a week; 110 shop-girls averaged $8.24 a week. The above salaries range, however, from $3 to $15 weekly, the majority receiving $6, $7, and $8. Eleven receive $10; eleven, $12 apiece; and three, $15 each. Twenty former stenographers earned on the average $11.25 a week; of the eight women who claimed to have been school-teachers, one had earned $80 a month, and one $90. One hundred and thirty-nine girls (12 per cent) declared that they went into the life for economic reasons. Thirty-three put it this way, “I could not support myself”; fifty-five declared that they could not support themselves and their babies, sometimes their parents; forty-five said they were out of work and could not get it; nine were in ill health or had some defect keeping them out of work. Many more cited in explanation of their conduct the deprivations to which they would otherwise have to submit. Their alleged earnings as prostitutes, even if exaggerated, suggest a startling contrast: former servants claim that their receipts from soliciting vary from $26 to $68 per week; thirty former factory workers claim average weekly returns of $24; 40 more profess an average of $76 a week; a group of stenographers (17) average $55 per week.
The critical period when the first sexual offense of these women was committed appears to belong between the 14th and 21st years of life; the average of 1,106 such girls is 17 years. Twenty-five servants first erred between the 9th and 26th years; their average age was 16; 40 factory workers, first erring between 14 and 22, averaged a little over 17; 110 salesgirls give the same result. Occasionally they declare that they never knew the timewhen they were virtuous. “When I was a kid of 6, I used to kiss sailors and other men for candy and do other things,” said one. Naturally the age is highest in case of the former teachers, of whom one reports her first offense at 21, another at 20; one or two report their fall in their 18th year. The average time which elapsed before the girls finally drifted into professional prostitution was two years,i. e., when they were 19 years of age. The life of the professional prostitute has been estimated at five years, on the ground that she dies, withdraws, or is incapacitated after she has been in the business on the average for that length of time. But a study of more than a thousand prostitutes, all now actively engaged in the business in New York City, does not sustain this view. The majority of these girls, though entering the life before 18, are at 24 still active and aggressive in seeking trade. There is a sudden drop, however, at 25, fluctuating more or less until the age of 30 is reached. Of the 1,097 professional women whose histories were carefully compiled on this point, 15 were exceedingly active at 32, 13 at 34, 11 at 40, 3 at 44, and 3 at 50. The average age of the 1,097 who are at present inmates of vice resorts, solicitors in saloons, and on the streets, is 25 years.
It is curious to note that prostitution is definitely stratified. Women divide themselves into three distinct classes and recognize the subdivisions. To the upper class belong the inmates of $5 and $10 houses. The middle class is formed by girls in one dollar and fifty cent establishments. The street girls are, generally speaking, at the bottom. As in the upper, so in theunderworld, social status changes with prosperity or adversity, though the tendency—by reason of the progressive demoralization of the life—is definitely downwards. Under the influence of age, dissipation and disease, physical deterioration rapidly sets in. Those who are at the top fall into the lower classes, except in the cases in which they become madames, managers or mistresses, or abandon the life. Those in the middle class usually end on the streets.
(b) THE CUSTOMER
The necessary counterpart to the prostitute is her customer: she is the concrete answer to his demand. There are prostitutes at different economic levels, because their customers are derived from all social classes. The careless, unkempt woman at the bottom is adjusted to the requirements of the least exacting; a somewhat better type meets the demands of men of moderate means; the showy woman at the top corresponds to the fastidiousness of the spendthrift.
The customers found in the fifty-cent vice resorts already described are usually longshoremen, truck drivers, street cleaners, coal heavers, soldiers and sailors, recently landed immigrants of low moral standards, and laborers of all kinds. Their treatment of the women is not infrequently brutal,—usually perhaps in consequence of intoxication. To one- and two-dollar houses resort men and boys who earn ten, twenty, twenty-five or more dollars per week. They are proprietors of small business enterprises, clerks, bookkeepers, bartenders, barbers, tailors, waiters, soldiers, sailors, messengers in banks, members of social and political clubs or of benefitorganizations. Saturday and Sunday are the popular nights with men of this type. The owners and madames provide extra “goods” to “take care of the trade” on such occasions. This fact was brought out many times during the investigation as the workers went from one house to the other counting the inmates. A house that early in the week contained only ten or twelve inmates would on Saturday and Sunday have its numbers increased to fifteen and twenty-five. This was especially true in resorts like those on Sixth Avenue.[178]
I have in mind one prominent organization[179]whose members are regular customers in houses of this grade. Many of the rank and file are themselves owners and pimps, who joined the club in order to advertise their houses and women to their associates. Another organization[180]of similar character has a membership of about 500 young men whose ages range from twenty-one to thirty. They are fond of attending boxing contests, wrestling bouts, athletic meets and public dances. After such exhibitions or “affairs” they go in groups of five or ten to the houses, spending long hours in promiscuous orgies. Owners make a specialty of catering to clubs of this character. When they give public balls, “rackets,” “chowder parties,” or other outings, the madames, buying tickets liberally, attend with their best looking inmates or with runners to drum up trade. After the ball or outing is over, groups of men and boys follow them back to their quarters.
The proprietors of the highest priced houses are verycautious in the conduct of their business. There is no promiscuous intermingling of customers in a common receiving parlor where the men huddle on a bench awaiting their turn, or sit in chairs gaping at each other unashamed. Separate parlors are used for display; privacy is carefully guarded. In order to make doubly sure that their visits will not be known, prominent customers occasionally hire an entire establishment. An instance is cited in which a well-to-do patron remained three days in such a resort. At times, however, men are utterly reckless: they have been known to leave their business cards behind them, or their signatures in books or on presents given to the inmates or the madame. One such individual is the New York agent for a famous automobile concern; another is the manager of a company which manufactures a well-known typewriter; another travels about from city to city selling hats; while still a fourth is connected with a celebrated watch company.
A numerous but pathetic group is that made up of young clerks who, living alone in unattractive quarters, find in professional prostitutes companions in the company of whom a night’s revel offsets the dullness of their lives at other times. There are thousands of these men in New York. No home ties restrain them; no home associations fill their time or thought. Their rooms are fit only to sleep in; close friends they have few or none. You can watch them on the streets any evening. Hour after hour they gaze at the passing throng; at length they fling themselves into the current,—no longer silent and alone.
No small part of the business is the so-called “outof town” trade. It has been conservatively estimated that over 250,000 visitors enter this city every day in the year for business or for pleasure. This great host visit the theaters, parks, seashore resorts, museums; they trade in stores and shops, and some of them, before they return to their homes, become customers in vice resorts. They, too, include all social classes: soldiers and sailors, traveling men and buyers, men in attendance on business, political or fraternal gatherings and conventions, and mere pleasure seekers.
It is impossible to estimate the number of men and boys who become customers in vice resorts in Manhattan during the course of one year. On the basis of data actually on file, it may be assumed that inmates of resorts and women on the street trade with between ten and fifteen men per day. This statement is corroborated by data secured by the Vice Commission in Chicago, where the average was found to be 15 per day for 18 inmates in one house covering a period of 22 months,[181]as well as by data obtained in Syracuse, New York, where the average number of customers entertained by one inmate during a period of 6 months was 12.[182]Taking the lower figures as the basis of calculation, if the 15,000 professional prostitutes of Manhattan entertain ten guests apiece, the customers total at least 150,000 persons every day.
CHAPTER VI
THE BUSINESS OF PROSTITUTION; ITS COST
The present chapter deals mainly with the business of prostitution as conducted in parlor houses and brothels. Our investigators were fortunate in being able to mingle freely with promoters and their assistants during a period of many months, listening to their conversations, consulting with them about business deals, helping them “make up their books” after the day’s business was over, and writing letters for them; they were, in fact, treated as members of the inner circle and thus obtained first-hand information. Copies of leases for property are on our files; records of expenses and receipts in the handwriting of the promoters were secured; conversations carried on between promoters and bearing on their business dealings, have been recorded. It is commonly believed that men who live upon the proceeds of prostitution are untruthful, that no dependence can be put upon their statements. This doubtless holds as to their utterances on the witness stand or before an investigating body. But among themselves they talk about their business dealings with great freedom, and probably with more or less general accuracy. They eat and drink, buy and sell, plan and scheme like other business men; and under such circumstances thefacts and conversations presented herewith were obtained. On the other hand, it must be distinctly stated that our agents were not authorized or permitted to “frame up” cases in order to secure facts. They did not operate houses of prostitution in the effort to obtain direct evidence, although opportunities of this kind frequently presented themselves. They could have leased property for immoral purposes, bought shares in houses of prostitution, or have become active agents in arranging the details essential to the safe and successful conduct of the business. Their instructions forbade anything of the kind: it was their part merely to observe without arousing suspicion on the one hand, and without actual participation on the other.
(1) LEASING PROPERTY
In order to secure houses to be used for immoral purposes, “go-betweens” called “mecklers” are employed. The “meckler” is paid a fee, never less than $30 and sometimes as much as $100. Occasionally he receives a small percentage of the receipts.
A man of this character[183]lives in East 139th Street.[184]During the period of this investigation, he selected a building on Sixth Avenue[185]as suitable for the business of prostitution. Several promoters had previously tried unsuccessfully to secure a lease on this property. Through the pawnbroker who occupies the first floor, the “meckler” in question ultimately succeeded in securing the owner’s[186]consent: the rental was $300 a month,despite the wretched conditions of the premises. He therefore rented the upper floors to three others,[187]who shared with him on a 20 per cent basis. The enterprise was not successful; not long after the “meckler” sold his share[188]for $450. The house closed in March, 1912, because of poor management. Later three other men purchased the lease and re-opened the place.
On June 26th, 1912, two owners[189]of a house of prostitution[190]in West 28th Street, sought to rent a house[191]on West 29th Street. The go-between was instructed to secure a lease on the house for one year if possible, and was told to give the agent to understand for what purpose they wanted the property. If objection was made, he was to tell the agent that in case of dispossession proceedings, the tenant could be evicted and a new lease issued under a different name. This was said to be the usual plan when the police made an arrest or issued an eviction notice. The go-between carried out his instructions literally. The house agents candidly admitted that “the owner knows that the only thing we can let the house for is for a cat-house” (meaning a house of prostitution). They stipulated that the place was not to be conducted as a gambling house or pool room; otherwise they did not care. The rental finally agreed upon was $2,000 a year. It was also agreed to insert in the lease a clause permitting the lessee to sublet the house to some other tenant in case of arrest and subsequent dispossession proceedings. A deposit of$30 was made and a receipt was given in the name of the supposed broker, or “meckler.”
In the renting of premises for purposes of prostitution various devices are employed to protect agent and owner, despite the fact that there is an overwhelming probability that in most cases both possess from the outset guilty knowledge of the facts. In some places, direct responsibility is avoided through renting empty apartments to janitors for a rental ranging from $40 to $50 a month. The janitor furnishes these apartments on the instalment plan and sublets them to prostitutes at the rate of $15 to $18 per week. Then, in addition, he often receives from $3 to $5 per week to “look away,” as he terms it. If the respectable families do not like it, they may move; and many of them do move.
The method of subletting furnished apartments by the janitor, with the consent of the agent (who probably shares in the extra profits) is employed in a tenement building on West 109th Street. In other places, the agents rent apartments by the week, demanding payment in advance. After a day or two, they may inform the occupants that a complaint has been made and that they will have to move. They do not return any of the advanced rental, but proceed to repeat the performance. This has happened in connection with furnished apartments on such streets as West 107th and West 108th.
During the month of February, 1912, a woman investigator visited 122 real estate agents for the alleged purpose of renting an apartment for immoral purposes. In each case the investigator endeavored to convey to theagent the object for which the apartment was ostensibly desired. Of the 122 agents visited, only 17 refused outright to be parties to the transaction. A few of these were indignant, others said they had to be careful, and still others said the owners of the property were exceedingly strict. Sixty-seven agents agreed to rent certain apartments for this purpose and gave the investigator the addresses of 98 separate apartments where she could conduct the proposed business. Many of these addresses proved to be places where the present investigation had already discovered disorderly conditions. The remaining 38 agents were classified as doubtful. Some of them were annoyed because the investigator openly hinted her purpose; they suggested that they did not care, but would not knowingly rent the property in their charge for such a business. Others pretended to ignore the questions of the investigator and gave her 65 separate addresses where apartments could be rented. They were willing to rent apartments of this character, but did not want to appear to do so. A young man in a real estate office on Eighth Avenue stated that they “never ask people for their marriage certificates; they require only that tenants conduct themselves quietly.” One well-known agent[192]betrayed and indeed confessed embarrassment when frankly told the purpose for which it was desired to rent a house. He remarked: “I know what you wanted the house for, but I had much rather you had not told me. If I don’t know it, I don’t know it. Now suppose you people are dispossessed and get on the witness stand and squeal, how would I look?” Ata further conference, the agent refused to agree to a new lease in case of an eviction. “The only trouble,” he said to the stranger, “is that you talked too much. I knew what you wanted the house for, but I very much rather you had not told me. What I don’t know don’t bother me. I tell you what I’ll do. You send somebody else up here in a week or so and I will give you the house and don’t talk too much about it.”
In some of the buildings mentioned in the course of the negotiations here in question, practically every apartment is a vice resort. As many as 16 such resorts were found in one 7-story building. In another, every apartment except one was a vice resort, the one exception being the home of a butcher who supplied meat to the other tenants.
Whatever the lease may indicate to the contrary, property rented for immoral purposes produces extraordinarily large returns. Not infrequently a high rental is thus produced by houses and apartments that are so dilapidated that they cannot be rented at all to decent human beings. Again, there is a tacit understanding that the rental named in the lease is merely a blind. The agent receives an additional sum, which he may pocket or divide with the landlord. The lease of a house[193]of prostitution in West 26th Street places the rental at $100 a month; the keeper[194]pays $150. On October 5th, 1912, three men were negotiating with a real estate agent[195]in West 30th Street, who agreed to rent them two houses[196]in West 38th Street at extortionate rates.On the same day, an Eighth Avenue agent[197]was promised a bonus of $50 per month for a house[198]in West 28th Street. Occasionally the increased charge appears in the lease. When the madame[199]of a West 40th Street establishment undertook to rent this house, she was told by the agent[200]that the rent would be $110 per month, and that he would lease the building to her for one year with a three months’ clause. Then he added, “Now be frank; I will find out anyway. Do you intend to do anything up there?”
“Well, I might take a chance,” she said.
“If you do,” he replied, “the rent will be $125 per month.”
On March 9th, 1912, at 11.30P. M., a man was solicited by two colored girls to enter a vice resort in West 40th Street.[201]The agents[202]of this building have offices in West 42nd Street. The building is 5 stories high and four families live on each floor, paying a monthly rental of from $20 to $25. The street walkers, however, pay as much as $40 per month for their rooms. Their neighbors[203]declare that the agent has knowledge of the character of these tenants. A public school is next door, and on the opposite side of the street is a church.
(2) TRADING IN SHARES
A group consisting of 38 men own and operate 28 one-dollar houses of prostitution in a certain section ofManhattan.[204]Among themselves they trade actively in shares. One of them[205]—already referred to as the “King” by reason of the scope of his enterprises and influence—is said to own shares in 10 houses, and his brother and nephew each have a sixth interest in another resort which he gave them as a present. His one-dollar resorts are located on the following streets:—three on Sixth Avenue, two each in West 25th Street and West 24th Street, and one each in West 28th Street,[206]West 31st Street,[207]and West 40th Street.[208]He is also the proprietor of a $5 house located in West 49th Street.[209]In some houses there are three partners who are said also to own shares in other places of the same character; in one instance, two brothers are partners in two houses—one in Sixth Avenue, and one in West 27th Street. Four partners were formerly interested in a business conducted in West 24th Street.
The group of men who operate these 28 houses of prostitution are very careful in disposing of their shares. The purchaser must either be one of their own number or some relative or friend. Sales are made for different reasons, sometimes to effect economies in management. For example, on June 7th, 1912, an owner[210]sold a half interest in a Sixth Avenue resort to a man from the West, for $2,200. Thereupon he bought a one-third interest in another house on Sixth Avenue for $900, being admitted to the firm that he might serve as lighthouseand procurer. A half-partner[211]was taken into another Sixth Avenue house[212]for $1500. The low price was subsequently accounted for by the owner as follows: “Do you suppose if the new partner had not had a good woman, I would have taken him in for that sum? I would have to take a woman in anyway and give her at least 20 per cent of the profits, without getting anything for it except her labor. To start with, I am getting $1,500 and a good woman; I save $25 per week on a procurer, and besides get a partner who is interested in the house and not a total stranger who does not care whether the house does business or not; the place is running straight now.” While these two men were discussing this economical move, the madame[213]of a house in West 40th Street[214]approached, to remark that she had a good house in the 26th police precinct, and wanted to have one of them come with her as a partner, so that she could use his influence in making some very necessary arrangements looking toward the success of the business. In reply to this offer, the person addressed replied: “They (meaning the police authorities) will not stand for a one-dollar house of prostitution on that street and besides I have enough, my hands are full.” Thereupon one of the partners in another resort on Sixth Avenue,[215]remarked that if she wanted to pay him $2,000 for his one-third interest, he would sell it.
“Why do you want to sell?” asked the woman.
“My woman is very sick,” he replied, “and she hasto go to the mountains; also her sister is very sick and I am ‘broke.’”
“How heavy is business?” she asked.
He replied that the house was “working” between $1,000 and $1,200 per week. She regarded $2,000 as too much for a one-third interest, as the hot months were coming on and business would probably be very dull; however, she would give $1,500.
“No,” he answered, “you cannot buy my share for $1,999.”
Buyers are of course wary. They must be convinced that they are getting what they pay for; occasionally, therefore, tentative arrangements are made. A madame is installed until actual experience proves that the property is worth the price asked.
The following transactions were actually witnessed by our investigators: On March 3rd, 1912, sale of three one-third interests in a Sixth Avenue resort for $650 apiece; March 11th, 1912, sale of a half interest in another Sixth Avenue resort for $2,200; March 19th, a sale of a one-third interest in a West 40th Street resort for $1,500,—a poor investment, for the house was shortly closed; in July, 1912, a one-third interest in another resort in West 40th Street was purchased for $3,000 by an owner, who transferred his women thither from a place in 28th Street. Occasionally pressure is brought to force a part owner out. On one such transaction, a profit of $500 was made; in another a share was bought for $500,—far below its market value.[216]
Quarrels and disputes between shareholders are of frequent occurrence. Such disputes are deplored among the more intelligent promoters because they fear exposure of one sort or another. A dissatisfied shareholder may “squeal” to the police; or his woman may sit on the steps of a rival’s resort, calling the attention of the police to a particular house. The policy of the business is to keep everybody satisfied and contented. Nevertheless, misunderstandings occur; on April 8th, 1912, two shareholders were engaged in a hot dispute; one of them had been a silent partner who never “came to the front” when extra demands were made on the finances of the firm, but left the other to pay the bills. It was claimed that, as a result of his neglect, the house was closed and an officer was ordered to stay inside. The business was ruined. Finally the officer was removed, whereupon the “silent” partner wished to be recognized as owning a share. As the complainant had borne the brunt of the difficulties with the police, as well as the subsequent losses, he refused; besides, he had taken in two other men as partners. The delinquent partner became very angry and threatened to send his woman to the house and to make all sorts of trouble. The two new partners advised that he receive $150 and be declared “out for good.” But the silent partner was not satisfied when he heard that one of the new partners had sold his share for $1,700. So he demanded $600 more for his share, claiming that he was still a partner, which sum he subsequently received.[217]
The precarious nature of such investments, depending,as it does, for its value on variations in public opinion and municipal policy, can be illustrated from former as well as current history:
During the fall of 1907, the Commissioner of Police, as well as the District Attorney, became very active in closing houses of prostitution in Manhattan. An owner who was put out of business at that time made the following statement, in substance, in the presence of two witnesses:
“At the time I was put out of business by Police Commissioner Bingham in 1907, I left New York with $4,800 and bought a farm in Jersey. After things had cooled down, or in February, 1911, I came back to New York to look the ground over. Finally things looked all right and I bought a one-third interest in a place in West 25th Street for the sum of $1,200. Three days later, “bing,” I get a raid and a cop in front of the door for a whole month. Then the cop was taken away and I opened again for a few days, when, “bing,” another $300 raid with a cop inside. I was tipped off that my partner did not suit, so I bought her interest for $600 while the cop was still inside. I then “doubled up” with a friend. We opened very slowly; I would not let the women solicit at the windows. The weather was very hot. In August I bought my friend out for $1,200 which made me even. From February to April, I paid $100 a month in rent and other expenses and didn’t make a cent until August. Since that time up till now I have saved only $9,000. The house stands me $4,000 after paying rent, the cost of the raids, and the purchase price.”
As already pointed out, any change in the politicalsituation or in the attitude toward the business on the part of the authorities of the city, or a reform movement, reacts immediately upon the value of the shares in vice resorts. Just before the murder of the gambler Rosenthal last summer, the shares in houses of prostitution were very valuable, and it was practically impossible to secure them except at large prices. On June 4th, a part owner in a house in West 25th Street declared: “It is impossible to get something decent unless you pay a prohibitive price. I had to pay $1,700 for a one-third interest in this place and only to-day I paid $1,000 for a year’s lease on three houses in the same street. These buildings have changed hands seven or eight times during the past year and it is rumored that they are going to be torn down.”[218]On June 19th, 1912, the owner of a share in a Sixth Avenue house told a man that the “stocks are awful high.” He offered to sell his one-third share, costing $500 originally, for $2,000.
The Rosenthal murder took place July 15, 1912, and shares in houses of prostitution at once declined. Some of the promoters were very pessimistic over the situation and declared that the houses would be closed and their business ruined. On August 6th, 1912, while discussing the situation, one of them[219]declared that it was all over with them. His partner[220]remonstrated with him, holding that the authorities would not close the houses. To this the former replied:
“Well, I show you how much I think of it—I will sell my interest and get out.”
“It’s a go,” said the other, “I’ve been a gambler all my life; I’ll buy it.” The price paid for this share several months before was $1,700, and the same sum was demanded and refused. After some arguing, the bargain was closed at $1,000 and $100 was paid on account.
Prior to the murder in question, a one-third interest in a Sixth Avenue place was worth $2,000. On August 8th, 1912, the owner offered to sell his interest for $1,000.
“No,” said the prospective buyer, “I will give you $500, and I am taking a gambler’s chance in giving you that much.”[221]
The decline in values has continued since the date of the above conversations. At this moment an interest in certain places can be purchased for the amount of a night’s profit.
(3) BUSINESS DETAILS, ETC.
It is impossible to give even an approximate estimate of the receipts from the business of prostitution in Manhattan during a stated period. We could not secure access to the books of the owners, even if they kept accounts, which none do in a systematic way. But bits of direct evidence, absolutely accurate and reliable, in the shape of records for a day, a week, or month were obtained here and there; we can also report what owners and inmates say regarding their incomes. Whatever allowances are made for overstatements and misstatements, intentional or accidental, the total is sufficiently staggering.
The most eloquent and significant exhibits obtainedwere the cards on which the night’s business of the inmate is punched. These casual bits of information are in no wise exceptional. One shrinks from multiplying them by the number of women engaged, and the number of days in the year.
Lillie, inmate in a vice resort in Sixth Avenue[222]showed the investigator a white card in which were punched 7 holes, each representing one customer or service at $1 apiece, or $7. It was the record of her earnings during a period of six hours ending at oneA. M.on March 14th, 1912. Of the $7, Lillie received $3.50 as her share, from which amount $1.50 was deducted by the madame to pay her board for the day.
The account of 6 inmates in a West 58th Street resort showed that on Sunday, April 21st, Alma had earned $7; Pauline, $15; Pansy, $14; Rose, $17; Bella, $16; and Ruth, $15: a total of $86, or an average of $14 per day for each inmate. The price in this house ranged from $2 to $5, according to the customer. The receipts of 3 inmates for another day in April were, Rose, $49; Alma, $16; and Ruth, $30: a total of $95, or an average for the day of $31 per inmate. The receipts on May 3rd, 1912, were as follows: Rose, $28; Bella, $21; Alma, $13; Pansy, $4: a total of $66, or an average of over $16 per day per inmate. For the week April 22-28 inclusive the receipts from 4 to 6 inmates were as follows:
This gives a total of $325 or an average of about $46 per day.
Sixteen white cards were obtained from a dollar house in West 28th Street showing the earnings per inmate on July 9th, 1912. “Babie” is credited with $27; Buster, $30; a girl whose name is not readable, $27; Charlotte, $23; Dolly, $20; Dorothy, $11; Minnie, $15; Eva, $16; one whose name is not given, $15; another, name not given, $14; another, $10; others whose names are omitted, $14, $14, $9, $8, $11 respectively. The total is $264 or an average of about $16 per inmate for the day. The madame when paying the inmates the one-half due them for their day’s work always deducted the sum of $1.50 for board.
In the figures above given, there is no element of doubt whatsoever: they are taken from the actual records of the day’s business,—the cards in the possession of every inmate. Whether they can be regarded as fairly representative is another question, which it would be futile to discuss. We possess, however, certain totals, the precise reliability of which the reader must judge for himself. It has been stated that our investigators succeeded in establishing themselves on an intimate footing with those most prominently concerned in the commercial exploitation of prostitution. They took part in conferences, and could discuss business and its prospects without suspicion. From time to time these agentsfound themselves in position to canvass freely the question of returns, past, present and future. The approximate estimates of the value of the various properties prior to the Rosenthal murder; and the main items of expense incurred in their conduct were set down as thus obtained. In regard to the general credibility of the figures it is to be remembered that these men are decidedly communicative among themselves and that any exaggerated departure from probability would have drawn forth expressions of skepticism or disbelief; on the other hand, it is not pretended that the figures are more than roughly significant of the scope and profits of a fluctuating trade; they are given for what they are worth.
TABLE SHOWING APPROXIMATE MONTHLY RECEIPTS FROM INMATES, MONTHLY EXPENSES,NUMBER OF INMATES, NUMBER OF MADAMES, ETC., IN 30 ONE-DOLLAR HOUSES.
Similar data were also procured—and in substantially the same manner—for eight five-dollar houses.[226]
TABLE SHOWING APPROXIMATE MONTHLY RECEIPTS OF HOUSES FROM INMATES, MONTHLYEXPENSES, NUMBER INMATES, NUMBER MADAMES, ETC., IN 8 FIVE-DOLLAR HOUSES.
Ten disorderly tenements were studied in the same way, with the following results:[227]
TABLE SHOWING APPROXIMATE MONTHLY RECEIPTS FROM INMATES, MONTHLY EXPENSES,NUMBER INMATES AND NUMBER MAIDS IN 10 DISORDERLY APARTMENTS.
We have deliberately refrained from attempting to make even an approximate calculation on the basis of the foregoing tables of the profits annually derived from commercialized prostitution in New York City. But a moment’s reflection will suggest the enormous sums involved. If, for example, the table dealing with thirty parlor houses,i. e., less than one-half of those investigated, even roughly represents the monthly volume of business, over $2,000,000 a year are paid to their inmates, one-half of which is at once paid over to the houses; the running expenses of the houses are about one-quarter of a million; but the profits are not reduced by this sum, for the payments of the inmates for board and lodging are supposed to be equal to the expense of conducting the establishment. Moreover, the estimates above given entirely omit certain very important indirect sources of revenue,—for large profits are derived from the sale of liquor, tobacco, lewd pictures, booklets, verse and other reading matter.Finally, patrons often tip lavishly, leaving “gift” or “luck” money, and in innumerable other ways add to the revenue of the resorts. The total expenditure incurred and the net profit to the exploiters, therefore, run high up into the millions annually.[228]
A partial confirmation of the scale of the estimates above given is furnished by the following incident:
During the evening of May 3, 1912, one of the owners of a house of prostitution in West 25th Street was trying to sell a one-third interest in his one-dollar resort. He had written on a sheet of brown wrapping paper the receipts and expenses for one month in connection with the business in this house. This document is in our possession. The items which interest us in this connection are receipts for four weeks and two days, or 30 days in all: First week’s receipts, $1,735; second week, $1,612; third week, $1,463; fourth week, $1,401; two days, $243; making a total of $6,454 for the thirty days, or an average of about $215 per day. The average number of inmates in this house is 15. In that case, each inmate earned $15, that is, received 15 men each day.
The income of the street walker is probably subjected to greater fluctuations than that of the house or flat inmate, weather and other conditions greatly affecting her earnings. It is therefore impossible to gain any conception of the volume of money that changes hands in consequence of street business. Samples are, however, available; the account book which was secured from a young prostitute, neither very aggressive nor veryattractive, who solicits on East 14th Street and receives usually one dollar for her services, runs as follows:
a total of $53.
The items for the next seven days are as follows:
a total of $57.
The following six days’ receipts were as follows:
a total of $34.
The following seven days’ receipts are:
$41 in all.
There were only five more days accounted for, when the girl ceased to keep any record of her receipts:
the total of these five days being $26.
Thus in 32 days, this poorly dressed, rather ignorant and unsophisticated street walker, earned $211, an average of between $6 and $7 per day.
Practically all the figures in the above concern profits derived from the sale of the bodies of women. In addition, the exploiters—owners and madames mainly—derive further gain (by no means inconsiderable in amount) from such items as the sale to their women, at exorbitant prices, of clothing and other feminine requirements. Huge as these immediate profits of exploitation are, they are enormously increased by the vast sums made from the sale of intoxicating drinks, which business has been shown to be so closely allied with prostitution, and by abnormal rentals received for the use of all kinds of property for purposes of prostitution. Even then, the stupendous although unknown figure involved in the maintenance of this army of upwards of 15,000 women in New York City fails to indicate what prostitution costssociety. For perhaps the greatest cost of all is yet to be mentioned, namely, disease. Wherever prostitution exists, there venereal disease flourishes,—maiming, incapacitating the participants surely, and not infrequently innocent ones in close association with them.
Reliable and complete statistics as to the prevalence of venereal disease, its consequences immediate and remote, are not to be had. In the absence of compulsory reporting, it is impossible to estimate the number of cases under treatment by physicians; in addition to these, large numbers endeavor to conceal the truth by foolishly resorting to quacks, advertised nostrums, etc. Figures obtainable from hospitals represent, therefore, only a fraction, probably an inconsiderable fraction, of those afflicted; as far as they go, a careful study elicits the following facts:
During the year 1911, 522,722 cases of all kinds were treated in 17 dispensaries in New York City; 15,781, or 3.01 percent of these cases, were venereally affected. The hospitals of the city possess few beds for the reception of venereal patients; nevertheless, 5,380 persons—6.33 per cent of all cases treated in 13 different hospitals—were venereally affected, about two-thirds male, one-third female. These infections occur at any time from the first to the seventieth year,—the period of greatest frequency being between 16 and 30 years of age: between 16 and 20, 796 were males and 369 females; between 21 and 25, 1,182 and 454, respectively; between 26 and 30, 692 and 268.