Dear Sir, I write in no carping or fault-finding spirit. While I wish with all my heart that this whole awful evil could be wiped from the face of the earth and all men might treat every woman as their own mother or sister, I recognize that this cannot be gained at one jump. Social reformers as well as temperance reformers ought to avoid impracticable extremes. But while we are working for the elevation of the general moral tone of the people, is it not possible for the Government to do more towards the discouraging of the evil than it is doing? Can the Government do nothing towards making it easier for a girl, longing for freedom and purity, to secure it? Can the Government not do something to allow a girl to hide herself from the gaze of voluptuous men rather than be driven by a wretch of a brothel-keeper to sit for hours exposed to the gaze and the foul talk of vile men, for the mere purpose of swelling the brothel-keeper’s income? Is the Government doing all it can do, all it ought to do, towards making it easier for any girl to keep out of a life of shame if she wishes to, and at the same time make it harder for the keepers of these houses of hell to capture and to retain these poor girls? With regard to these two points the authorization of a girl by the Bureau of Prostitution, and the permission for publicly exposing the inmates of a house of prostitution to public gaze, Japan certainly is far behind other civilized nations, and it is these two points that appear most hideous to foreigners. Can not the newspapers of the country, who so powerfully influence public opinion, do more than they are doing at present towards changing the existing state of things?
Thanking you for your kindness in granting me your valuable space, and inclosing my card, I remain,
Yours respectfully,
Adjutor.
March 8th, 1899.
Dear Sir,—In commenting on a contributed article entitled “A Social Question� in a recent issue, the editor states that he has not studied the subject—licensed prostitution—sufficiently thoroughly and dispassionately to record any authoritative opinion about it, but that fact did not deter him from allowing his remarks to convey the idea that he considers the present system the best that can be had under the circumstances.
The writer has made a study of the social evil question and hence begs space for the following comments:
The statement that the community fares better under license than under the alternative system—prohibition,—cannot be supported by facts. On the contrary in Gumma and Wakayama provinces, which prohibit prostitution, venereal diseases are no more prevalent than in places under license—in fact the greatest percentage of venereal cases are to be found in provinces and cities which license the evil. This ought to settle the sanitary side of the question, and the fact that under prohibition hundreds and thousands of powerless girls are freed from the most damning form of moral slavery ought to settle the moral side of the same.
The editor speaks of “efficient control,� conveying the idea that the evil is actually being controlled and localized by license, but such is far from being the case. Take the editor’s own city, T�ky�, for instance. There were in 1897, 6,393 licensed prostitutes and over 2,000 geisha plying their trade according to law, but at the same time there were between 3,000 and 5,000 women who plied their trade secretly, that were not controlled, except the 304 who were arrested for fornication.
The fact, that licence or no licence, the evil will exist to some extent however, certainly does not justify the State in making its existence easy and secure, for surely the proper idea of license is to confine, lessen, and prohibit outside of certain specified places, but a careful investigation will prove that the evil is not confined and that instead of being lessened is actually augmented.