tory measure was introduced in either House. Without exception, every measure dealing with the problem was, on its face, aimed at suppression and abatement.

In the first class of measures, for example, the severity of the penalties was increased against men who profit directly or indirectly off the sacrificing of women to tenderloin exploitation. But it is notorious that similar statutes-with penalties not quite so severe-have been on the books for years. The parasites who prey directly off the women of the underworld, however, have not been seriously interfered with. Every prostitute is a criminal under the law. But instead of enforcing the law, the police have elected to decide when and against whom the law shall be enforced. It is a matter of public discussion that the police permit some women to break the law, and deny that privilege to others.325 One of the immediate outcomes of the system has been corruption which has made the very name "police" a byword. The application of the term "tenderloin" to centers of

325 The San Francisco Examiner, in its issue of April 1, 1913, contained the following news item:

"Kate Eddington, proprietor of a resort in Jackson street, was fined $200 by Police Judge Shortall last week for selling liquor without a license. A charge of conducting a disorderly house was dismissed, but the house was closed by the police.

"The State Senate passed the red-light bill two days later. Now the police, from Chief White and Captain Shea down to patrolmen, are in a quandary, for the woman has applied to them for permission to reopen. She says that she is denied that right, but that another woman has been given such permission. She has visited Chief White, and has been sent to Captain Shea. "The circumstances have placed the police department in a position which they admit in unenviable.

"Captain Shea testified before Police Judge Shortall:

"These places are tolerated.'

"It is a fact,' said Chief White, 'that these women have to get permission of the police department before they can open. It is given or denied by the captain of the district.'

Recently the police began a crusade against houses which sell liquor without a license."

the social evil is said to have originated with a police captain of an eastern city who had been given charge of such a district, and who boasted that in future he would live on tenderloins.326

The futility of attempting practical dealing with the social evil problem, under such conditions, by proceeding against persons, is now generally recognized. Four years ago Iowa tried another course, by providing the legal machinery by which any citizen could proceed against property used for purposes of prostitution or assignation.

The Iowa law declares houses of prostitution and of assignation to be nuisances, and holds to account both the proprietor of the house and the owner of the building. Any citizen, whether personally injured or not, is authorized to bring suit against such proprietor or owner for maintaining a public nuisance. If the nuisance be proven, the personal property is sold as in the case of chattels under execution. From the proceeds of the sale the plaintiff's costs are paid and the balance turned over to the defendant owner. The building in which the nuisance was conducted must be closed for one year for all purposes unless the owner furnish a bond in the value of the property that the nuisance shall be abated.

A measure similar to the Iowa law was introduced

326 An unsophisticated lady, residing near the suburban home of a San Francisco police officer, remarked, in praise of her prosperous neighbor:

"Mr.

is a very successful policeman."

There are many "very successful policemen" whose duties take them into the tenderloin districts.

There are, too, many "very successful" district attorneys, who appear curiously incompetent when called upon to enforce the law against prostitute and pimp.

at the 1911 session of the California Legislature.327 It met with strong opposition, but did not attract much attention from the general public. The 1911 Assembly Public Morals Committee referred the bill back to the Assembly, with the recommendation that it do pass. But on motion of Assemblyman George Fitzgerald of Alameda County, when the measure came up for vote, it was sent to the Assembly Judiciary Committee. The bill was not returned.

Following adjournment of the 1911 session, the Women's Christian Temperance Union, as represented in California, undertook a campaign of education in the interest of such legislation. Their leaflets went into every community of the State. Lectures dealing with the social evil and the forces back of it were given at all the centers of population. Women's social and political organizations were interested. By the time the 1913 Legislature convened, California was awake to the issue. The result was the introduction of the Grant-Bohnett bill.3

328

327 Assembly Bill 1014, 1911 series. For consideration of this measure, see "Story of the California Legislature of 1911," page 173.

328 "The time has come," said the Fresno Republican, in its issue of March 19, 1913, "when prostitution must be outlawed, not in theory merely, but in fact. The tenderloin,' as an institution, must go. All the arguments for the toleration of such a criminal reservation have been exploded. It does not segregate; it does not protect either physically or morally; it does not prevent, but rather increases, clandestine vice elsewhere; it is not a 'necessary evil;' it concentrates a multitude of evils additional to the vice to which it is devoted; it is an almost universal source of police graft and civic corruption, and it furnishes an organized market for the organized procurement of girls to lives of vice. The whole experiment, all over the world, has been tried and found wanting. Every vice commission of recent years which has examined the question has reported unanimously against 'segregation,' though nearly all the members entered the investigation prejudiced in favor of it. No one claims that any governmental act will instantly abolish the oldest crime in the world. But we are at least ready for a radical move forward, and the

Inasmuch as the exploitation of the social evil yields larger returns than any other form of vice exploitation,329 great opposition to the enactment of such a measure developed. Such publications as the San Francisco News Letter published whole page denunciations of the authors of the bill. Chiefs of police-the writer is not prepared to say whether or not they were "successful" chiefs of police-and even mayors of cities forwarded their expressions of grave misgivings of the probable effect of the measure, were it to be enacted.33

330

But-strange to say when, a few days before the close of the first half of the session, the measure was discussed before a joint meeting of the Senate and Assembly Public Morals Committees, but one person appeared to oppose the measure, Tim J. Crowley of San Francisco, an attorney.

first step in that movement is the abolition of all recognition or official toleration of organized commercial prostitution, whether concentrated in a segregated district or scattered in separate establishments. Let what is left of it be individual, and let none be left which can be discovered and stopped. Let

"The right way to attack it, too, is on its business side. the ownership of property devoted to organized vice be made too risky to be profitable. Owners are accessible and responsible, and capable of profiting by deterrent example. Besides, they have no motive or temptation except the financial one, and that is wholly preventable."

329 At the trial of E. E. Schmitz, former Mayor of San Francisco, for extorting money from proprietors of French restaurant assignation houses, it developed that one of these places represented an investment of $400,000. At least, one great San Francisco Trust Company had invested trust funds in one of these places. At a discussion of the redlight problem carried on before the San Francisco Commonwealth Club, it was shown that from one place of prostitution representing an investment of $8,000, the annual gross return to the owners was over $100,000. 330 Said the San Francisco News Letter, in its issue of March 22, 1913: "Senator Grant proposes, if possible, to force his bill upon the people of California regardless of consequences. Thirteen mayors and chiefs of police have sent their views to Sacramento, and Senator Grant refuses to listen to them. They one and all assert that segregation must be maintained in the best interests of the country. And Senator Grant defies them and the interests of the people he pretends to serve."

The hearing was held in the Senate chamber. It was in marked contrast to a similar hearing before the Senate Public Morals Committee, held in that same chamber four years before, when the Walker-Otis AntiRacetrack Gambling bill was under discussion.331 As had been the case at the former session, the Senate chamber was packed to the doors. But the crowd was not, as in 1909, of the tenderloin, nor representative of the tenderloin. There were no spoils-fattened gamblers present to interrupt those who spoke in favor of the measure, as there had been four years before.

The Public Morals Committees which heard the arguments had not been picked to defeat the measure. In the seat which Frank Leavitt had occupied when the anti-gambling measure was under discussion, sat Edwin E. Grant, Senator Wolfe's successor in the Upper House. Senator Grant appeared, as Senators Wolfe and Leavitt had done, as member of the Senate Public Morals Committee. But Senator Grant, as author of the bill, was there to advocate its passage, not to oppose.

Among those who spoke for the bill's passage were Rev. Charles N. Lathrop of San Francisco; Miss Beatrice McCall, probation officer of Alameda County; Mrs. Sarah J. Dorr, president of the Women's Christian Temperance Union; Mrs. George A. Swan, representing the Federation of Women's Clubs, and Christopher Ruess, probation officer of Oakland.

Tim J. Crowley, in speaking against the measure, labored to raise a laugh at the expense of the measure's

331 See "Story of the California Legislature of 1909," page 64.