“5. That he did not know in what manner ‘the brand of depravity and infamy’ could be impressed on the trade of prostitution, except by directing a particular costume, differing from the clothing of respectable women.”
In continuation of this report, the commissary states his opinion “that it would be dangerous to public order to keep the common houses in narrow limits, as it would bring together all the idle people, which might lead to a disturbance; that a special costume for the women would be of no use at home, and out of doors it would only give occasion for a public scandal without effecting the purpose of their reform; that, lastly, he objects to the toleration of private prostitutes, as there is no good result from their registration except their health, and the general regulation in that and other matters is much better secured in the brothels.”
Among the official correspondence on this matter we find another document worthy of notice. It is a report by a sub-inspector to the superior police authorities, dated January 16, 1810.
“There are forty-four such houses of prostitution, and, compared with the population of Berlin, 180,000, that is not many. They are divided into three classes, and, together with the prostitutes living on their own account, are controlled in conformity with the regulations of February 2d, 1792. In compliance with such rules, they pay the taxes to the healing fund.
“Past negligent mismanagement has unfortunately permitted several brothels in much-frequented streets. Their removal to more retired places I find highly desirable. It is urgent that no more private women of the town should be tolerated, but rather that they should, if they can not return to good conduct, be sent into the brothel-houses, or, where they are not natives of Berlin, be sent out of the city forthwith, or otherwise be sent to the House of Industry. These women, living alone, are very perilous to morality and health, inasmuch as they can not be so perfectly controlled as in the brothels in modesty of deportment, cleanliness, and retirement; also because they are able to withhold themselves from medical inspection, and to carry on their trade when they know themselves to be suffering from venereal diseases. The lists of the prostitutes under treatment at the Charité demonstrate this. The opinion that this living alone favors a return to virtue is not supported by experience; were it even so, the disadvantages enumerated are more important than so rare and problematical a benefit.
“The question, ‘whether the toleration of brothels in large cities, and their regulation by the police, so that infected females should not be permitted therein, is advisable, in order to counteract the seduction of respectable females?’ can not be categorically answered in the affirmative. Still, in Berlin, it seems that brothels, if not a necessary evil, can not be momentarily abolished, but such steps must be devised as will gradually remove the evil, and make the disgrace generally noticeable. To this end, the above propositions, touching private prostitutes and removal of brothels from public streets, will be carried into effect. Express limitations of the brothels to two or three streets would give occasion to gatherings on holidays that might lead to riots and other excesses.
“A special external designation of prostitutes would only lead to uproar, without causing the women to feel the odium of their calling more than at present.”
The remainder of this report is unimportant. In October, 1810, a public order was made for effectuating its recommendations.
After this event the king became impressed with an idea of the impolicy and impropriety of the “toleration” system, and a lengthy correspondence ensued between the various departments and state officials on the subject; the royal rescripts enunciating the oft-repeated opinions on the subject in general, objecting to the details of the police management, or directing reports on some particular incident of the system; the police authorities, fortified by experience as opposed to theory, adhering to the toleration practice, and demanding increased powers to restrain private prostitution, and compel all such persons to enter the public houses. The matter was brought to a close in 1814 by an order from the crown for a total closing of the tolerated brothels. The police president, Lecoq, thought it advisable to communicate with the authorities of the town of Breslau before he complied with this order, requesting some information as to the state of public morals there, it being stated that there was not a single brothel or registered prostitute to be found within its limits.
The reply from the Breslau officials was in the affirmative as to the fact. As to the results, they had consulted with the state physician and the hospital physician, and their opinion was that closing the brothels and withdrawal of toleration had not been advantageous, as, in spite of the police vigilance, illicit prostitution had increased since, and procuresses carried on their arts more extensively, their operations being altogether secret, and under no police control; that the venereal disease had not decreased; that nothing counteracted it so effectually as the medical inspection of known brothels; and that its secret spread had been so great as to extend its ravages, through the instrumentality of female servants, into respectable families; that the hospital returns proved but little, because the cases were suffered to run on or were privately cured, but these returns were given as follows: