看看
8
with the disease among the women in order to show "the great danger of infection which lurks in licensed houses," and it is apparently upon these pages that the fourth conclusion rests, which says (p. 52) "That licensed brothels for foreigners are in themselves sources of infection, and that the evidence before us points to these establishments, rather "than to unlicensed houses as the cause of disease to soldiers and sailors.' This view, however, conflicts with the opinion of two Registrars General, Mr. Smith (Answer 35,) and Mr. Lister (Answer 136.) Stress is also laid upon the small proportion of disease (Report, p. 38) among the women from unlicensed houses who were examined in the years 1870-75, while the opposite result obtained in the preceding year, June 1868 to June 1869 (Appendix, p. 294) viz.: 92 out of 101 or 108, is passed over in silence. This discrepancy would seem to have rendered further investigation desirable.
It does not appear from the report that the Commissioners considered the question how far the boats in the harbour and outdoor prostitution on shore are responsible for the spread of disease, although (p. 7) it is said that "the Government has never been able to bring this kind of "prostitution (among hoatwomen) under the surveillance of the police or the medical authorities," upon which I may observe that it is not apparent why they should not have been summoned for medical examination as common prostitutes, under sections 44-45 of the Ordinance. The condition of the harbour is evident enough from p. 30 of the report, and Dr. Adams' evidence (Answers 1461-1465) as to the amount of disease spread by the washerwomen, who "cut the brothel women out so far as the sailors are concerned," and Dr. Ayres' concurrence (Answer 1442,) coupled with the significant figures (Appendix, p. 294) of 1868-9, which give 15 cases of disease among 16 unlicensed boatwomen examined, (there being so far as I can perceive no other evidence of any examinations of the prostitutes among the boat popu- lation) prevent me from my readily accepting the hypothesis suggested at page 41, that seafaring men become infected in licensed houses, which they can easily find, while they have less opportunity than soldiers for establishing relations with sly prostitutes, and that the ratio of disease among the troops is therefore less than among the sailors. I notice also that the Colonial Surgeon in his report of 1879 upon the Lock Hospital "The trouble is with the women of the boat population, and it is from these says, "that most of the soldiers and sailors contract disease."
pros-
At p. 39 of the report, attention is called to the returns of the Lock Hospital (Appen- dix, p. 292) and to the great number of admissions in proportion to the registered women, as indicating a very serious amount of disease in the licensed houses, and cites the "722 admis- year 1870, when disease seems to have touched its zenith," as showing "sions as against 312 registered women; that is to say, over 200 per cent, had become "affected." If however reference is made to the Colonial Surgeon's report for 1870 (Appendix, p. 281) it will be seen that these 722 admissions result from 16,312 " titutes brought under the provisions of the Ordinance," ie., the number of examinations undergone during the year by the 312 registered women, and 33 women, who were apprehended as unlicensed prostitutes, was 16,312, so that the proportion of cases in which disease was found to exist was about 44 per cent., leaving 15,590 examinations which disclosed no disease. These figures which are not alluded to in the report, are sufficient to show that the inference drawn from the number of registered women and the number of admissions is misleading if taken by itself, and this fourth conclusion, in which you express your entire concurrence, appears to me to be based upon evidence which requires much further corroboration.
**
Under the head of revenue, the report (p. 51) states that the Colony must have derived from the operation of the brothel lawe a profit amounting, on the whole, to about $111,14930, and it refers to certain documents, including a letter from the Colonial Treasurer (printed Appendix, p. 316). On turning to that letter I find that "it has "not included any estimated sum for the work done by the Registrar-General's Department, the cost of which would, of course, be fairly charged against the revenue "derived, if the whole expenses of carrying out the provisions of the Ordinance are to "be calculated. There would also be a small addition for printing." The report, moreover, has made no allowance for the printing or for the expense of the Registrar- General's Department, or for the sums expended from the police Secret Service Fund. And it assumes that the fabric of the Lock Hospital has not only not depreciated in value in the climate of Hong Kong, but that it is even worth all the money expended on A calculation founded on such data temporary repairs, painting, &c. since it was built.
is obviously untrustworthy.
The severe reprehension which is bestowed in the report on the employment of informers to obtain evidence, and other grave scandals, is well deserved but the Com-
9
missioners in my opinion go too far in their unsparing condemnation of everything y connected with the enforcement of the Ordinance. The detection of unlicensed houses was a duty cast upon the Registrar-General and the officers of his department by the pro- visions of the law, and the obloquy which is cast upon them for their efforts in the discharge of this unpleasant duty appears to me not to be entirely merited. The use of plain clothes (p. 10, 17) seems both proper and natural, considering the services in which the wearers were engaged; and I am not prepared to say that the use of marked money is in itself necessarily reprehensible. The acceptance of money in consideration of a request for sexual intercourse is evidence of the character of the recipient and of the nature of her abode; and if the detective or informer, after giving the money, leaves the house, as appears from the depositions to have been not unfrequently the case, the fact of its acceptance, verified by its discovery in the possession of the alleged recipient, coupled with such other evidence as was forthcoming might be given in proof of the charge, This is quite a separate question from bad faith in the witness, such as is suggested at p. 17, or from the revolting conduct of informers themselves.
፡፡
46
I have read the cases referred to at page 17 of the report, which are selected "in special illustration of that particular class of prosecutions in which the conviction is obviously based upon the taking of money, which is afterwards found by the inspector "upon the woman, and matters have gone no further." and would observe that the receipt of the money is in each case only one of the facts deposed to, and having regard to all the evidence which was given, I think it may be open to some doubt whether it is perfectly clear that the convictions were based on the taking of money.
The practice of breaking into and arresting the inmates of unlicensed houses led to undoubted abuses, although it seems clear that the inspectors acted under a belief that their proceedings were strictly according to law.
In these, as in the other defects of administration, the cause appears to lie in the want of sufficient care in selecting the men actually charged with the working of the Ordinance, and in leaving them too much to themselves when appointed.
There was no lack of funds from which to pay thoroughly respectable and trustworthy men as inspectors, and if they could not be obtained on the spot for the salary offered, the assistance of this office might have been asked for to obtain them from the towns where the Imperial Acts are in force. It is not surprising that considerable laxity resulted from allowing these men to become independent of police discipline, and to be subject only to the Registrar-General, instead of the details of administration being supervised by means of a daily report of occurrences, such as is made in a police force.
I agree with the Commissioners in their remarks (Report, p. 28) upon the seizure of marked money if it is beyond doubt that the money taken was detained from the women after it bad been used in evidence. The inspectors, however, do not appear to have been questioned on the point, and if the allegation is substantiated by other evidence it has escaped my attention.
From page 49 of the Report it appears that during the ten years in which the Ordi- nance of 1867 has been in force, the Commissioners can only find 23 cases in all which seem to have any material bearing on the question of the liberty of the women in licensed houses, and the amelioration of their condition.
In the Appendix however, the following cases which are not mentioned in the Report, nor included in the above 23 cases, will be found to have occurred in the year 1874.
No. 4 (Appendix, page 147), where three women successfully applied for assistance against the keeper wlio had refused to allow them to leave the brothel,
No. 5 (Appendix, page 148), a similar case with one complainant.
No. 19 (Appendix, page 152), where a keeper detained the property of a girl who wished to leave.
A case without number, but which apparently should be No. 37 (Appendix, page 160), where several girls were saved from being sent to San Francisco against their will, No. 38 (page 161) where the property of the same girls was in question, and was apparently recovered for them after it had got into improper hands.
No. 53 (Appendix, page 164), where a woman complained that her grand-daughter who had gone willingly to Singapore had there been sold, on behalf of a Hong Kong creditor, apparently a procuress. In this case nothing could be done by the Registrar- General, beyond binding the woman over; but it instances the working of the Ordinance. Also No. 57 (Appendix, page 165), where a girl of weak intellect was rescued when about to be taken to Singapore without her consent,
These cases and No. 76 of 1871 (Appendix, page 97), and No. 23 of 1873 (Appendix, page 125), neither of which are referred to, and Mr. Whitehead's evidence (Answer 397),
Q 4190.
B
418
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.