Women and Crime in 1855 Sacramento
Contents
Women on Trial: Owners and Residents of Houses of Ill-Fame
Appendix One The Sacramento Union Selected Articles from "The City" Section
Appendix Three Recorder Curtis’ Opinion
Appendix Four The House of Ill-Fame Statute of 1855
Appendix Five The Sunday Statute
Sacramento in 1855 was in the midst of transforming from a frontier society to a "civilized" city. The purpose of this paper is to illustrate that the prosecution of women in 1855 resulted from the transformation of a predominately male population in 1850 to a more equalized male-female ratio by 1860.
The frontier towns of the west in the nineteenth century followed similar patterns of development. The first residents of a frontier town were usually adventurers and prostitutes seeking to make their fortunes. The discovery of gold in California drew adventurers from all over the world seeking to make their fortunes. Prostitutes, like the early adventurers, also came in search of making their fortunes. These early residents did not intend to remain in California and did not concern themselves with social systems. Jacqueline Baker Barnhart in Working Women notes: "The pioneers were far too busy trying to get their fair share of gold to condemn or try to censor other segments of the frontier society and prostitutes received an unusual degree of respect. Nevertheless, the opinion was commonly expressed that there were no ‘honest women’—non-prostitutes—in California. At a time and place where few people concerned themselves with their neighbors’ past or present occupation prostitutes were still seen as not quite proper—‘honest’—‘normal’."1 Thus at the same time that prostitutes received higher degrees of social acceptance they still were viewed as not representative of the "ideal" nineteenth-century woman.
The social attitudes of the nineteenth century contributed to this conflicting attitude. Attitudes toward prostitution went through a series of transformations from the early nineteenth-century to early twentieth-century. Early nineteenth-century attitudes suggested that prostitution was a result of personal choice and responsibility by both parties. Social factors were considered more important by the late nineteenth-century and Progressives in the early twentieth-century were considering prostitution as a complex pattern in social maladjustment that minimized personal responsibility.
Furthermore, Barnhart contends, "[G]old drew adventurers rather than settlers and the demand for services prostitutes could offer was therefore very high. Because few wives accompanied the early pioneers, prostitutes outnumber respectable women for the first two or three years and as a result women of ‘ill-fame’ enjoyed an unusual status of respectability."2 Thus, the absence of wives contributed to the unusually high degree of acceptance afforded prostitutes in frontier towns. Sacramento by 1855 had begun its transformation from a frontier town to a "civilized" city. The population statistics from the 1850 and 1860 United States Census suggest that more "proper" women had arrived in Sacramento and the social acceptance of prostitutes by the mid-1850s was on the wane.3
The population of the City of Sacramento increased from 6,820 in 1850 to 13, 785 in 1860. The County of Sacramento population increased even more dramatically with 9,087 in 1850 to 24,142 in 1860. Women accounted for seven percent of the population in both the city and the county. The population of women in the City of Sacramento was 474 in 1850 and 4,598 in 1860; in the County women increased from 615 in 1850 to 7,383 in 1860. While the total population in the City of Sacramento increased 100 percent by 1860, the number of women increased by an astonishing 900 percent. Even more remarkably, in the County total population increased 250 percent while the percentage of women increased 1200 percent.4
Who were the women who came in increasing numbers to California? Cy Martin, in Whiskey and Wild Women, asserts that in 1850-51 a "Great Whore Invasion" occurred in California. According to Martin, the first women who came in large numbers to California were prostitutes or women who soon became prostitutes.5 The large population imbalance suggests that this was inevitable. The ratio of men to women in the City and County of Sacramento was 13 to 1 in 1850. For both men and women, the bulk of the population was concentrated between the ages of twenty and forty. In mining towns and the supply towns that grew up around them women were rare. Curt Gentry quotes an unnamed Sacramento woman as stating, "Every man thought every woman in that day a beauty. Even I have had men come forty miles over the mountains, just to look at me, and I was never called a handsome woman, in my best days, even by my most ardent admirers."6 Gentry determined that it would take a strong woman to resist this kind of attention and most women were not that strong.7
Although miners may have felt that ordinary women were beautiful, as Gentry’s illustration suggests, by 1855 they were being prosecuted in Sacramento for violations of the law. The Recorder’s Court, presided over by Recorder N. Greene Curtis, saw many women appear for violations of law and unacceptable behavior.8
A sampling of the cases from May through October 1855 demonstrate the criminal activities of women in Sacramento. The Sacramento Union in a lively manner recounted the cases that appeared before the Recorder’s Court. The Union illustrates the changing societal perception of crime and the increasing weight morality played in determining criminal behavior.
The month of May began with a woman appearing before the Recorder’s Court for improper conduct. The Union noted: "Martha English used improper language to a man and his wife, on the street, on Sunday, while they were returning from church. The circumstances of the case have been related by us heretofore, on the occasion of her sharing a room in the Station House with her child and dog. A jury found her guilty, and assessed her punishment at a fine of $5 and costs."9 Obviously the behavior of a woman was expected to conform to proper societal expectations, and violating that behavior was punishable in a court of law, by 1855. On March 16, 1855 the California Legislature enacted a law that prohibited disorderly behavior on Sunday.10
In May, sixteen women were mentioned in connection with the Recorder’s Court in the Union. Of these sixteen, six were accused of crimes. The other ten illustrate that however few their numbers, universal good treatment of women did not occur in Sacramento. The six crimes committed by women in May were for improper language (Martha English, mentioned above), theft, assault and battery, grand larceny, and drunk and disorderly. Of these four were fined, one was dismissed, and in the case of theft the result is unknown. In all 146 cases were tried in the Recorder’s Court in May. Four percent of these cases were for crimes committed by women and seven percent of the crimes were for crimes against women. The statistics suggest that for May, their representation in the Recorder’s Court is in line with their percentage of the population.11
June of 1855 heralded an unusual number of women appearing before the Recorder’s Court. The month began with a woman scandalously violating proper behavior:
Kate Kook, the queen of hearts of the ace of spades, again, for the fortieth time, appeared before the Recorder yesterday morning to answer a charge of being drunk and disorderly. On the afternoon preceding she called in at the Station House, with a bottle of whiskey, to inform the Captain of her intended speedy return, and then went to a saloon on I street—a fashionable saloon—and kicked up a row after her most finished style. She was sent below for five days—but should be drummed without the limits.12
Kate Kook was not a typical example of women in Sacramento, but she is a humorous example that frontier women did not all comply with expected societal behavior.
Two other cases illustrated that domestic problems were sometimes brought before the Recorder. The first case resulted from a broken promise of matrimony.
Miss Margaret Harris alias Mrs. Margaret Sweeney, and Thomas Smith were both sent below for five days for engaging in a fight. Smith, it seems, had contracted to marry Miss Margaret at 10 o’clock on the evening previous. The bride made arrangements for the nuptials, and being naturally excited at the refusal of the swain to perform his part of the ceremonies, for reasons undivulged, "pitched" into him without ceremony. He stated, in defence [sic], that at the time of the assault he was "thryin to cumfit her, but divil a bit wud she hade" him.13
Miss Margaret seems to have no compunction about exacting retribution for the breach of promise. Strangely, the Court held both responsible, while it appears that she began the physical altercation.
A second case demonstrates the attitudes towards domestic violence that may have been prevalent in Sacramento.
It is not unfrequently [sic] that the Recorder is called upon to adjudicate difficulties of a domestic nature that might be reconciled by the mutual forbearance of the parties. In a case presented yesterday, a wife complained that her husband entered her house and assaulted and kicked her several times while she was nursing an infant. The husband on the other hand asserted that the allegations of violence were totally false. Previously to the arraignment of the defendant, the wife presented to the court an apologetic note from the former and stated that she did not wish to prosecute the complaint but desired to be protected from her husband, who had threatened her life on a former occasion. The case was examined and the defendant fined thirty-five dollars. We give the benefit of the suppression of names, trusting that they will acknowledge the propriety of the course recommended by the court and hereafter refrain from bringing their grievances before the public.14
The disdain for airing private grievances is apparent in the text of the Union article. It would seem that for some reason this couple was permitted their privacy. One could infer it may be a reflection of their status. Several other cases of domestic violence appear subsequently and names are not withheld as in this case.
The majority of the cases in June concerned keepers and residents of houses of ill-fame. These cases will be discussed at length in subsequent sections. Of the 220 cases presented before the Recorder in June, seventy-two concerned women as defendants or criminals. Of these seventy-two, sixty were for the previously mentioned cases concerning houses of ill-fame. Therefore, with that exception June had about as many women mentioned as did May. The reason that a large number of women were tried in June, in contrast to May and subsequent months was a sweep by the police in enforcement of a new act recently passed by the California Legislature. This act was a piece of social legislature aimed at suppressing the public activities of prostitutes and will be discussed at length in the next section. With this exception, women were prosecuted or involved in criminal actions in proportion to their representation in the population.15
In July the Recorder’s Court heard 156 cases. Women were involved in ten cases either as the defendant or the victim. This appears to be a drop from the previous two months. One reason for the drop may have been the initial surge of enforcement after the enactment of the Sunday Law and the House of Ill-Fame Law had died down. The charges against women were residing in house of ill-fame (3), assault and battery, use of obscene language to a lady, cruelty to a child, and violation of license ordinance. Of these seven crimes, four were committed by known prostitutes. Thus, regardless of the smaller numbers of women being prosecuted in July, prostitutes appear to be frequent visitors to the Recorder’s Court in this month as was the case in for May and June.16
The Recorder’s Court heard 151 cases in August, with six involving women. Crimes committed by women in this month were assault and battery, residing in a house of ill-fame, and disturbing the peace. The only notable case in September was a case of domestic violence. In the first week of October, a woman was prosecuted for addressing a lady improperly. In addition to violating acceptable modes of conduct, the woman was also under the influence of alcohol.17
Reviewing the cases presented to the Recorder’s Court reveals that prostitutes were not the only women convicted of crimes in 1855 Sacramento. Women were held accountable for their behavior representative to their proportion of the population. Importantly this research has revealed that however few their numbers, it did not preclude criminal activities by women or violence against them. Prostitutes were but one segment of the population of women and criminal behavior appears to encompass the whole population of women. Furthermore, crimes against women, especially domestic violence, appear in the months under discussion in larger numbers than would be expected. Society in general in the 1850s preferred to keep matters of domesticity in the home, and disdained from airing them in public. Nineteenth-century mores and acceptable behavior had begun to gain importance as Sacramento transformed from a frontier town to "civilized" city. However much Sacramentans may have disdained public airing of domestic grievances, and the Union makes that plain in its editorial comments, the police and the courts were often involved.
Sacramento was not unique in its prosecution of women and its transformation from public acceptance of prostitutes to public disdain of "immoral" women. Carol Leonard and Isidor Walliman in "Prostitution and Changing Morality in the Frontier Cattle Towns of Kansas," demonstrate the typical transformation of a frontier town:
In their [frontier towns] early days they were composed largely of single, adventuresome frontier men who saw in the cattle towns an opportunity to make a fast buck. During the cattle driving and shipping months, huge numbers of transient cowboys invaded the towns, along with numerous prostitutes and gamblers. As the economy of the boom towns expanded with the opportunities and prosperity brought by the cattle trade, grangers, merchants, craftsmen, laborers and their families began to settle there and gradually the single frontier men moved westward.18
Sacramento, like the Kansas towns, had begun by 1855, to make the shift from frontier settlement to "civilized" city. In 1854 the first school for children was established in Sacramento.19 Furthermore, churches were increasing in number, in 1850 Sacramento had seven churches by 1860 Sacramento had ten churches.20 The 1860 Census further illustrates the transformation of the population from "immoral" prostitutes to respectable women. The number of women in Sacramento in 1860 was 4,598.21 Of these only 145 were identified by census takers as prostitutes.22 It may be that the houses of ill-fame legislation decreased the numbers of prostitutes willing to admit to their profession. Or perhaps the increasing number of wives and families that had arrived in Sacramento decreased the demand for the services of the prostitute.
On April 2, 1855 the California State Legislature enacted a law against keeping or residing in a house of ill-fame.23 Prior to this law, in 1854, San Francisco adopted "Ordinance 54, ‘To Suppress Houses of Ill-Fame Within City Limits’ by women of all races"24 which Carol Leigh argues was in order to suppress Chinese houses of ill-fame. California was not unique in adopting this type of ordinance or legislation. "Prior to 1917, . . . [there were] long-standing ordinances against 'keeping a bawdy house,' which the earliest colonists brought with them from England. . . ."25 What made the California Act unique was the public and legal reaction to the passage and enforcement of the Act entitled "To Suppress Houses of Ill-Fame."26
The Union reports,
Robbing the Rookeries.—The police last evening [May 31, 1855] made a descent on the houses of ill-fame throughout the city, at the instance of the District Attorney, acting under the statute passed at the last session of the Legislature. Active operations commenced about half-past eight o’clock, by a simultaneous attack, in detachments, on the American establishments on Second, Third, and Fourth streets, and immediately afterwards extended successively to the Mexican and Chinese houses at various points. Those arrested were respectively, S.J. Folsom, Ida Vanard, Susan Morgan, Mary Morgan, Cynthia Hunt, Louise Caruthers, Rosanna Hughes, Briqueta Soletas, Mary Chere, ----- [Jesus] Kossuth, Margaret Davis, Kate McCormick, Ann Gillispie, Fanny Parker, and forty-eight China women. All the white and Mexican, and a number of the Chinese women were soon afterwards released on bail. Money, watches, and jewelry in profusion were deposited as security for their re-appearance in the morning. All who had not suceeded in effecting their escape in the many stampedes that attended the arrests, were safely lodged in the Station House within two hours of the commencement of the campaign. One of them Cynthia Hunt, threatened to shoot the police through the door; the others did not attempt any resistance. A mass meeting will be held in the Recorder’s Court Room this morning, in consequence.27
The trials of these women commenced immediately on June 1, 1855 in the Recorder’s Court. Elaine Connolly and Dian Self in Capital Women write that "Rosanna Hughes Keenan was the first woman in Sacramento arrested under the new law."28 However, the reports of the Union and court records do not support this contention. Actually, Sarah Jane Folsom was the first woman arrested under the new law. Although transcripts of the County Recorder’s cases are no longer in existence, the Union published the daily activities of the Court. It described the proceedings of June 1, 1855 in an article titled, "Houses of Ill-Fame,"
The courtezans who were arrested on Thursday evening for a violation of the statute relative to houses of ill-fame, passed at the recent session of the Legislature, were arraigned before the Recorder yesterday [June 1, 1855]. The court room was jammed at an early hour by spectators of every class, and so continued till the hour of adjournment, late in the afternoon. All the cases were continued with the exception of Sarah Jane Folsom, a Spanish woman, and twenty-three of the Chinese.29
Therefore, Rosanna Hughes Keenan was not the first woman in Sacramento arrested under the new law. The Union clearly states that Sarah Jane Folsom was the first woman tried and the charges against the Spanish woman and twenty-three Chinese were dismissed.30 The coverage of the arrests and trials of all sixty women were reported in the Union from June 1, 1855 through June 11, 1855.31 The large number of women tried would account for the unusually large coverage afforded this event. It also appears that Recorder Curtis had some reservations applying the law in this instance. On June 11, 1855 the Union published a lengthy article in which Recorder Curtis defended the right of the Court to enforce the newly passed Act. In his decision regarding the Act, Recorder Curtis alluded to public sentiment that was both for and against prostitution. Therefore, in this instance, as expected, public opinion was not firmly cemented either for or against houses of ill-fame.32
Sacramento was not the only town to prosecute prostitutes under this new act. An article in the Shasta Courier proves that other California communities were enforcing the new law:
Shasta Courier, October 1855: ‘Oct 9. People vs. Frank Golden; keeping house of prostitution, found guilty and fined $410 or 40 days imprisonment in county jail. Frank considering $10 per day too good a thing to let slip, chose the latter horn of the dilemma, and is now rusticating on the hill, the distinguished guest of the county. October 10, Louisa Howard chose $250 over 25 days, Matilda Manard $300 over 30 days. (In the same issue on the same page as the above appeared a small box announcement: ‘Trinity House For Sale. The undersigned, being about to leave Shasta, would inform the citizens that her property is for sale cheap for cash. Inquire on the premises. Matilda Miranda.)33
San Francisco had been prosecuting keepers of houses of ill-fame since 1854. Ronald C. Woolsey in "Crime and Punishment: Los Angeles County, 1850-1856" states: "Civic leaders did respond to the problems of vice during the mid-fifties. [In Los Angeles] Prior to 1855 no cases of prostitution or gambling were tried in the local courts. In 1855 two gambling houses and one bordello were prosecuted in the court of sessions. In the following year the court conducted another five trials dealing with illegal gambling."34 Thus, Sacramento was not unique in the prosecution of prostitutes, other cities had begun to prosecute the criminal element of society.
Nationally, other towns were addressing the issue of prostitution as they began to move from frontier societies to "civilized" cities. New Orleans in the 1850s prosecuted and enforced laws against prostitution. Richard Tansey in "Prostitution and Politics in Antebellum New Orleans" argues that "During the 1850s, merchants led two reform drives for abolishing harlotry in their city. . ."35 Austin, Texas in the 1870s began their crusade against prostitution by enacting laws similar to the California Law against keepers of houses of ill-fame.36 Boston in 1855 had a brothel law. The Boston law "contained a section specifically on renting houses of ill-fame, which stated landlords could be penalized if they failed to evict persons known to be operating such a house. . . . [D]efendants—accused keepers—had been convicted on the testimony of police that the house had a known reputation and that women living there were known prostitutes."37 However, all of these laws did not specifically target prostitution. Instead, the laws targeted the owners and residents of houses of ill-fame. It appears that the early concern was to remove the public display of prostitution not to eradicate the practice of prostitution. The first laws that made prostitution a criminal offense were not written until the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.38
Women on Trial: Owners and Residents of Houses of Ill-Fame
As previously mentioned, the first arrests under the new Act "To Suppress Houses of Ill-Fame" were conducted in a mass raid on May 31, 1855. The raid resulted in the arrest of sixty women. The Union reported the results of the cases that appeared before Recorder Curtis. Fourteen of the sixty women arrested were convicted and fined. The fines imposed by the Court ranged from ten dollars to one hundred dollars, the maximum allowed by law. Nine Chinese women were fined ten dollars and costs. Folsom and Hughes were fined one hundred dollars and costs. Cynthia Hunt was fined eighty dollars. Jesus Kossuth and Margaret Davis were assessed fifty dollars and costs. Thirty-six women had their cases discharged.39 The Union comments, "It is to be hoped, however, that the statute will be effectually [sic] enforced until the city shall have been rid of the disgraceful exhibitions that have, for so long a period, rendered certain streets almost impassable to ladies. If this is secured, at least one glaring evil will be eradicated."40 It appears the hopes of the Union were dashed by the low conviction rate.
Transcripts of three trials executed under the 1855 Act exist in Court of Session records held by the Sacramento Archives and Museum Collection Center: The trial and appeal of Rosanna Hughes, Jesus Kossuth, and the June 10, 1856 trial of Amelia Raymond alias Johnson. No other records exist that would confirm or deny the results of the trials published in the Union. Records of the Recorder’s Court were not preserved, except in cases were they overlapped with the Court of Sessions, as in the cases of Hughes, Kossuth, and Raymond.41
Jesus Kossuth was convicted of residing in a house of ill-fame. The evidence against her is stated in the transcript of the trial:
The evidence is that defendant is a single woman living alone in a small house with but two rooms. [N]o other female lived in the house with her. She kept a quiet and orderly house[,]nothing has ever been seen or heard about the house that would indicate that it was a house of Ill Fame. The general reputation of the house is as that it was a house of Ill Fame . . . and the general reputation of the defendant was that of a Bawd.42
The Recorder’s Court held that under the 1855 Act reputation alone was all that was needed to convict a woman of keeping or residing in a house of ill-fame.43
Hughes’ trial and conviction was determined by the statements of witnesses, all policemen, who stated that she resided in the house arrested in, that she was observed in the house practicing lewd behavior and that the general reputation of her house was one of ill-fame. Hughes pled not guilty to all charges and appealed the decision of the Recorder upon her conviction. The appeal was denied on May 10, 1856.44
One month after Hughes’ unsuccessful appeal, Amelia Raymond alias Johnson appeared before the Recorder. Coincidentally, her attorney was N. Greene Curtis, previously Recorder Curtis. She pled not guilty and was convicted and fined one hundred dollars plus court costs. The basis of her conviction was also the general reputation of her residence as that of one of ill-fame.45
Each of these cases illustrate that general reputation of a residence or a person was sufficient for conviction in the Recorder’s Court. It appears that morality and public opinion guided the early courts of California, especially the Recorder’s Court in Sacramento. If a woman earned the reputation of a "bawd" or prostitute she was likely to be convicted if brought to trial in 1855. The general consensus reflected in the Union appears to suggest that by 1855 at least, prostitution was considered a social evil to be eradicated. On July 27, 1855 the Union commented regarding the arrest of three Chinese women for residing in a house of ill-fame: "We hope the attention of the police will be directed to other similar establishments, tenanted by white women, in various parts of the city. Complaints are justly made of the conduct of these, which is becoming daily more and more public and disgusting."46 However much society may have wished eradication it had not occurred, and arguably would never occur. These court cases illustrate that society had moved toward a less open acceptance of behavior that violated societal norms.
Sacramento in 1855 was similar to other frontier towns, such as New Orleans, San Francisco, Boston, Los Angeles and the Kansas towns previously mentioned, that were at the same stage of transition from frontier towns to "civilized" cities. David A Johnson in "Vigilance and the Law: The Moral Authority of Popular Justice in the Far West" confirms this impression of transition stating:
Demographically, California began to change in the middle of the 1850s, particularly in cities such as San Francisco, Sacramento, and Stockton, where families began to recast the dominant male tenor of the state’s first years. From the close of the 1850s to the end of the century, California increasingly reflected—if sometimes in peculiar ways—the economic and social profile of industrializing America.47
Therefore, the experiences of women in Sacramento illustrate the transition of Sacramento from a tolerant frontier town to a "civilized" city conforming to nineteenth-century mores. As the population male-female ratio equalized by 1860, the social activities of women were often publicly condemned if they stepped outside the bounds of "polite" society mores. The prostitute and the unconventional woman was no longer acceptable in this changing society.
The Sacramento Union Selected Articles from "The City" Section
Transcript of The Sacramento Union
Articles Related to the Act to Suppress Houses of Ill-Fame
June 2, 1855 Houses of Ill-Fame—The courtezans who were arrested on Thursday evening for a violation of the statute relative to houses of ill-fame, passed at the recent session of the Legislature, were arraigned before the Recorder yesterday. The court room was jammed at an early hour by spectators of every class, and so continued till the hour of adjournment, late in the afternoon. All the cases were continued, with the exception of those of Sarah Jane Folsom, a Spanish woman, and twenty-three of the Chinese. The proceedings commenced with the trial of the defendant first above mentioned. A jury was demanded and empanneled [sic], witnesses examined and testimony adduced sustaining, to a nauseating degree, the abandoned character of the defendant. The position having been taken by the defence [sic] that it was necessary to prove illicit intercourse to authorise [sic] a conviction, the court ruled it was sufficient to show the lewd character of the defendants in the commission of acts offensive to the moral delicacy of moral persons. The jury were charged that where the acts were so notoriously immoral as to create a nuisance, and prove offensive to decent persons, they could not be tolerated under that law, and that the object of the Legislature was rather to drive the inmates from the public gaze than to utterly suppress the establishments. The jury, after a short absence, returned a verdict of guilty, and recommended the court to impose a fine of $200 and costs. It having just been proven that the Spanish woman had just arrived in the city from the interior, she was discharged. Eight of the twenty-three Chinese were convicted, and the balance discharged. Of the latter, four or five were proven to be married women. In all the cases of conviction, judgment were reserved till this morning. Soon after the convicted Chinese women were returned to the Station House, a general wailing was instituted by them, such as never before was heard within the bounds of their prison. Should each of the white defendants claim a separate trial, as is anticipated, we shall not hear the last of the affair for a week or a fortnight. It is to be hoped, however, that the statute will be effectually [sic] enforced until the city shall have been rid of the disgraceful exhibitions that have, for so long a period, rendered certain streets almost impassable to ladies. If this is secured, at least one glaring evil will be eradicated.
June 4, 1855 Ill-Fame—The trial of the courtezans, recently arrested under the new law, was continued yesterday before the Recorder. Prior to the arraignment of other defendants, judgment was rendered in the cases of those convicted on the day previous. Of these, Mary [Sarah] Jane Folsom was mulcted in a fine of $100 and costs, and nine of the Chinese sentenced to five days imprisonment or a fine of $10 and costs each. Of those tried yesterday seventeen were Chinese, all of whom were discharged in consequence of the inability of the officers to identify them. They were, however, reprimanded by the Court, and advised that they would be visited with severe punishment if they should again appear on the same charge. Upon the disposition of these, Beriquita Soletas was tried and discharged. The only other case called up was that of Ida Vanard, who waived a jury in view of the fate of her predecessor Folsom, and submitted the matter to the court. The question, "Are you acquainted with the reputation of the defendant?" was asked of the witnesses, objected to, the objection was argued an overruled, and the ruling excepted to. The case was taken under advisement till this morning. To guard against a repetition of the difficulty which occurred in the identification of the Chinese and led to their discharge, we would suggest that on future occasions they be "tagged" when arrested, unless some better method can be devised to secure, in that respect, the enforcement of the wholesome law in question.
June 6, 1855 Ill-Fame—Three others of the defendants recently arrested as courtezans, were tried before the Recorder yesterday—Susan and Mary Morgan and Rosanna Hughes. The first mentioned was discharged, it appearing that she had come from the Bay to attend a sick sister, who was dangerously ill. The case of Mary was taken under advisement. The trial of Rosanna Hughes was commenced at twelve o’clock m., and continued till about half-past eight o’clock in the evening, when the jury returned a verdict of guilty. The District Attorney appeared for the prosecution, and L. Sanders, Jr., and W. S. Long for the defence. The ground was thoughly [sic] contested, and every possible legal objection presented to secure an acquittal. Judgement was reserved.
June 6, 1855 Incompetent—In the trial of a defendant before the Recorder yesterday, for keeping a house of ill-fame, it was asked successively of persons summoned as jurors, "Are you a member of a church?"—"Are you a man of family?" The questions being answered in the affirmative, both were challenged peremptorily by the defence.
June 7, 1855 Ill-Fame—The Recorder yesterday rendered judgment in the case of Mary Morgan and Rosanna Hughes, charged with a violation of the statute relative to the houses of ill-fame. The latter was fined $100 and costs--$127. The former was discharged, several respectable witnesses, who had been particularly observant, having testified that they had never seen anything in her conduct "calculated to offend the delicacy of the most fastidious." Anna Gillispie, Kate McCormick, Fanny Parker, and Margaret Davis were tried on the same charge. The case of the last mentioned was taken under advisement. The others were discharged as being non-residents.
June 9, 1855 Houses of Ill-Fame—The efforts recently made to check the reprehensible conduct of the inmates of houses of ill-fame in this city, have proved real in their results and promise much for the future. The convictions have been procured without favor, in the proper direction, and the parties dealt with as circumstances seemed to warrant. The public will be gratified with the information that the efforts so opportunely taken will be resumed as occasion may offer. The authorities are determined that our citizens shall have no cause to complain in this respect hereafter.
June 9, 1855 Recorder’s Court—The Recorder yesterday rendered judgment in the cases of Margaret Davis, Cynthia Hunt and Jesus Cossuth [Kossuth], convicted under the statute for the suppression of houses of ill-fame. The first and last mentioned were fined, each, $50 and costs, and the other $80 and costs.
July 26, 1855 Again—Three Chinese women were arrested yesterday on I street, for residing in a house of ill-fame for purposes of prostitution. They were released this morning, on a deposit of $140.
July 27, 1855 Ill-Fame—Three Chinawomen, charged with living in a house of ill fame for the purposes of prostitution, were convicted before the Recorder yesterday, and fined $20 and costs each. We hope the attention of the police will be directed to other similar establishments, tenanted by white women, in various parts of the city. Complaints are justly made of the conduct of these, which is becoming daily more and more public and disgusting. We had much rather see the law enforced strictly against these in advance, than that the less intelligent and, therefore, the less criminal should be made the first to suffer. The more shining the mark, the more potent the example.
August 15, 1855 Ill-Fame—The only case before the Recorder yesterday was that of Senorita Gonzales, charged with keeping a house of ill fame on Fifth street between J and K streets, in the midst of respectable families. One of the witnesses testified that the house was one of public resort at all hours—from dark till 3 or 4 o’clock in the morning—and that he had heard loud, vulgar and obscene language wherein. The case was continued till Friday morning on account of the absence of a material witness for defence.
Recorder Curtis’ Opinion
Transcription of The Sacramento Union June 11, 1855
Houses of Ill-Fame
Opinion delivered by Recorder Curtis in the cases recently brought before him under the statute for the suppression of houses of ill-fame.
The statute under which this proceeding is based would seem to contemplate the entire expulsion of persons of ill-fame or lewd and lascivious behavior from the community. But when it is reflected that such a result would be difficult, and that any attempt to enforce such a law would be almost abortive, and in view of the rule of law which requires the court to so construe the law as to give effect and validity to any act of the Legislature, it would seem that the manifest intention of the Legislature was to drive them from the public gaze, and thus relieve from their contaminating influences. And although much might be urged and many sound reasons adduced why they should be entirely driven from the community, we fell disposed to give that construction to the law which would most effectually [sic] carry out the objects contemplated by the Legislature.
It is to be regretted that these evils exist, and it therefore devolves upon the judicial tribunals of the country to so decide under the law as to relieve the community as much as possible from the effects of those evils.
If by the enforcement of this law according to the above construction, persons of lascivious deportment can be driven from the public eye, another result equally important and desirable will be accomplished, which is the dispersing of congregated lewd persons, and thus the inducements to the gratification of such passions would be removed. This would produce a gradual—although it might be for a time imperceptible—improvement in the public morals, and such persons would soon cease to find favor in community , save from the most degraded, and as a necessary consequence, they, suffering under the pressure of conscience and stimulated by the improved tone of morals with which they would find themselves surrounded, and unsupported by public favor, would be drawn to industrial pursuits, and vicious habits would gradually give way to their improved condition, and if not a thorough, still a very great reformation would be at once observable. Satisfied with the correctness of this view of the law, and fully believing in its efficiency for the purposes designed, we pass to the next view of the case.
In the first trial of these cases, it was held by this Court, without having had time to consult the authorities or to investigate the question, that proof of the general reputation of the house for good or ill-fame was admissable as a fact, which, taken in connection with other facts, should go to the jury, and the jury from the aggregate to draw the reasonable and natural inference which followed from the facts. It was also held that the reputation of the inmates of the house and those who frequented it were facts for the consideration of the jury.
Since that time, upon a full investigation of all the authorities, it is manifest that the Court was correct in the positions taken on that trial, both upon principle and authority.
In the case of McDowell vs. the State, Dudley Superior Court Records, it was held by the Court that under an indictment for keeping a house of ill-fame, proof of specific acts of lewdness was not necessary, but the general reputation of the house and those who frequented it were admissable.
Similar decisions were made in Tennessee, Missouri and Connecticut. Peak vs. the State, 10 Humphrey, 99; Clementine vs. the State, 14 mo. 112; Cantrell vs. the State, 17 Conn., 471. It is contended by counsel for the defence that before a conviction can be had, it is necessary to prove that the house kept by (or resided in by) the defendant, in a nuisance in the neighborhood. To this proposition there are several answers, which readily show the point is not well taken.
IN the case of Peak vs. the State, 10 Humphrey’s reports, before cited, which was an indictment for "open and notorious lewdness" under the statute of Tennessee the Supreme Court held that the charge may be sustained by circumstantial evidence. Now, had it been necessary that such conduct should amount to a nuisance in fact, such testimony would be inadmissable, for it would be fully and entirely in the power of the prosecutor were it a de facto nuisance, to prove it by positive testimony, and in fact, such would be the only testimony competent to establish it. Again, to place this construction upon the law would be to charge the law makers with a palpable inconsistency, for two reasons. In the first place, there was already a statute defining nuisances and prescribing penalties, and in the second place, if such were the intention of the Legislature, why entitle the law "an act for the suppression of houses of ill-fame," instead of the more apt and meaning words in other statutes, "an act for the abatement of nuisances."
But there is a third reason, conclusive of this point, which is this: The act under which this preceding is had provides for punishing those who keep or reside in a house of ill-fame. That is the crime; that is the evil which the Legislature evidently designed to eradicate, and it would, therefore, have been unnecessary to have added any other provision under the law. It is the duty of the Court to administer the law as the Legislature made it, not as the law making power. This Court should ascertain what the law is, and then follow and obey.
But that the question may be fully understood, let it be conceded that the object of the law was, that the acts should amount to a nuisance. What follows?
Mr. Russel, in his commentaries on crimes, Vol. 1, page 302, says: "It appears to be an established principle that whatever openly outrages decency and is injurious to public morals, is a misdemeanor."
What could more appropriately define this offence? Is not the very existence of a house, the reputation of which is notoriously bad as a house of ill-fame, in a civilized community, an open outrage upon decency? Is it not injurious to public morals? An affirmative is the only answer that can be given.
Roscoe, in his work on criminal evidence, lays it down that "the keeping of a bawdy house is a common nuisance, both on account of its corrupting morals and of its endangering public peace by drawing together dissolute persons," and he cites 1 Hawk., p.6, s. 74 and 75; Bacon’s Abr., title Nuisances; Roscoe, Crim. Ev., 796. This doctrine was held in Tennessee; Massachusetts and Connecticut. See Brooks vs. the State, 2 Yerger, 482; Darling vs. Hubbell, 9 Conn., 350; Commonwealth vs. Hanington, 3 Pickering, 26.
It is manifest from these authorities that such acts are nuisance de facto, without any other circumstance being necessary to make them such. Chief Justice Ewing, of Kentucky in the case of Smith vs. the Commonwealth, B. Monroe, vol. 6, page 21, in an elaborate opinion on this subject, holds this language: "A house in which such practices are encouraged and indulged, though no cursing and swearing or noise is made whereby the neighbors are actually disturbed, is a public annoyance, and may be properly termed a public nuisance." A continuation of the opinion is unnecessary, for it is palpable to the legal mind that even though no actual lewdness is discovered, yet the very tendency to debauch public morals makes it a nuisance. Then, if it is necessary to prove it a nuisance, proof of its existence establishes the fact. The question of fact then arises—is the house resorted to for the purposes of prostitution or lewdness? The proof shows it a house of notorious ill-fame; several females of reputed bad character reside there; all classes of men are seen frequenting the house from eight until after twelve o’clock at night, and the females are seen in the doors and windows, walking upon the side-walks, and promenading the floor with different men. These men who frequent there are not shown to be friends, relatives or acquaintances of these women. Does not the fact that they fail to make this explanation speak against them? These females are single and live in a house of notoriously bad repute, and yet make no attempt to explain their being there. Why are they at such at house? Have they an honest calling there? If they have, why did they not prove it? These are all facts for the consideration of the Court or a jury, and the conclusion is inevitable, that she who keeps the house does it as the mistress of a bawdy house, and she who resides there does so for the purpose of prostitution, for all inferences drawn from proven facts are to be consonant with human nature and reason.
It may be proper here to add a few remarks upon the propriety and efficacy of this law. It is hoped that it may never be said of this Court that it has recognized the doctrine of "necessary evils" or that it has been swayed by public opinion in the administration of the law. It has been urged, and doubtless sincerely, by some that the law is ill-timed and of no avail, for that the evil cannot be suppressed or the law enforced. As well might we say because the criminal laws have not succeeded in totally preventing crime, we will no longer enforce such laws. While this law remains upon the statute books, and it become the duty of this Court to enforce it, it will do so regardless of the opinion of those who deem the evil necessary.
The House of Ill-Fame Statute of 1855
Chapter LXVII
AN ACT
To suppress houses of Ill-Fame.
[Approved April 2, 1855.]
The People of the State of California represented in Senate and
Assembly, do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. Every person who shall keep a house of Ill-Fame in this State, resorted to for the purposes of prostitution or lewdness, or who shall reside in such a house for the purposes aforesaid, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof shall be punished by imprisonment in a common jail for a term not exceeding six months, or by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars, or by both such fine and imprisonment, at the discretion of the Court.
SEC. 2. Whenever the lessee of any house shall be convicted of the offense of keeping such house of ill-fame as aforesaid, the lease or contract for letting such house shall at the option of the lessor become void; and such lessor shall thereupon have the like remedy to recover the possession of such house, as provided against a tenant holding over after the termination of his lease.
SEC. 3. Every Justice of the Peace may, on the complaint of any citizen of the county, require sureties of the peace and good behavior from any person who shall be guilty of keeping or maintaining houses reputed to be houses of bawdry and ill-fame; and every person being so ordered to find sureties of peace and good behavior, who shall neglect or refuse to comply with such order, may by said justice be committed to the common jail in the county where the offense was committed, for a term not to exceeding thirty days; and the bond required as aforesaid shall be filed with the County Clerk of the County where the offense was committed, and from said order the accused shall have the right to appeal to the next County Court in the county within which the offense was committed.
SEC. 4. When any person prosecuted under the next preceding section of this Act, shall be required to procure sureties of the peace and good behavior, such person shall pay the costs of prosecution, and on failure to do so, shall be imprisoned in the County Jail, at the discretion of the Court having cognizance thereof, until such costs should be paid and satisfied.
SEC. 5. This act shall take effect and be in force from and after its passage.
The Sunday Statute
Chapter XLVI
AN ACT
To Prohibit Barbarous and Noisy Amusements on the Christian Sabbath
[Approved March 16, 1855]
The People of the State of California, represented in Senate and
Assembly, do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. All barbarous and noisy amusements on the Sabbath are hereby prohibited.
SEC. 2. Any person who shall get up, or aid in getting up, or opening of any bull, bear, cock, or prize fight, horse race, circus, theatre, bowling alley, gambling house, room or saloon, or any place of barbarous or noisy amusements on the Sabbath, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not less than fifty nor more than five hundred dollars.
SEC. 3. Any person who shall purchase any ticket, or pay any admission fee to any of the places of amusement named in the second section of this Act, for the purpose of attending the same on the Sabbath, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not less than ten nor more than fifty dollars.
SEC. 4. Justices of the Peace shall have jurisdiction in all cases arising under the provisions of this Act.
SEC. 5. This Act shall take effect on and after the first day of June, one thousand eight hundred and fifty-five.
3.Barnhart
8.Recorder Curtis was elected to office on April 2, 1855.
9.The Sacramento Union, 1 May 1855.
10.See Appendix Five for the full text of the Legislative Act.Go To Appendix 5.
11. Ibid., 1-25 May 1855.; For the full text of the articles concerning women, please see Appendix 1.Go To Appendix One.
16.Ibid., 3-31 July 1855; 2 August 1855.
17.Ibid., 7-15 August 1855;, 14 September 1855; 6 October 1855.
26.Sixth Session of the Legislature, 76.
29.Union, 2 June 1855.; For the full text of the article, see Appendix Two.Go To Appendix Two.
30.See the articles on June 2 and 4th in Appendix Two.Go To Appendix Two.
32.Union 1-11 June 1855.; For the full text of Recorder Curtis’ opinion see Appendix Three. Go to Appendix Three.
33.Gentry, 48-49.
42.Suit 609, Jesus Kossuth, 1. 43.See Appendix Two for the opinion rendered by Recorder Curtis. See Appendix Four for the full text of the 1855 Act.Go To Appendix Four. 45.Suit 724, Amelia Raymond alias Johnson.
Published Primary Sources Acts: Amendatory of the Codes, Passed at the Twentieth Session of the Legislature, 1873-74, Began on Monday, the First Day of December, Eighteen Hundred and Seventy-Three, and Ended on Monday, the Thirtieth Day of March, Eighteen Hundred and Seventy-Four. Sacramento, CA: G. H. Springer, State Printer, 1874. D. S. Cutter and Company. Sacramento City Directory for the Year A. D. 1860: Being a Complete General and Business Directory of the Entire City. Sacramento, CA: H. S. Crocker and Company, Steam Printers and Stationers, 1859. National Archive Microfilm Publications. Population Schedules of the 8th Census of the United States 1860, Roll 63 California Volume 5 (1-614) Sacramento County. Washington, D.C.: The National Archive and Record Service General Services Administration, 1967. Sanger, William W. The History of Prostitution: Its Extent, Causes, and Effects Throughout the World. (Being an Official Report to the Board of Alms-House Governors of the City of New York.) New York: Harper & Brothers, 1859. Reprint, The History of Prostitution. American Women: Images and Realities. New York: Arno Press, 1972. The Statutes of California, Passed at The Sixth Session of the Legislature, Begun On The First Day of January, One Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty-Five, and Ended on the Seventh Day of May, One Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty-Five, at the City of Sacramento. Sacramento, CA: B. B. Redding, State Printer, 1855. The Statutes of California, Passed at the Sixteenth Session of the Legislature, 1865-6, Began on the Fourth Day of December, Eighteen Hundred and Sixty-Five and Ended on Monday, the Second Day of April, Eighteen Hundred and Sixty-Six. Sacramento, CA: O. M. Clayes, State Printer, 1866. United States Census Office. The Seventh Census of the United States, 1850: Embracing a Statistical View of Each of the States and Territories. . . J. D. B. Debow, Superintendent of the United States Census. Washington, D. C.: R. Armstrong, 1853. United States Census Office. Statistics of the United States in 1860; Eighth Census, Under the Direction of the Secretary of the Interior. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1866. Unpublished Primary Sources City Assessment Rolls and Map Books, 1850-1955. Sacramento Archives and Museum Collection Center.[SAMCC] Sacramento, CA. County Recorder Marriage Certificate Index Volume A. SAMCC. Sacramento, CA. County Recorder Marriage Register and Index 1850-56. SAMCC. Sacramento, CA. Criminal Court Cases. Court of Sessions. Suit 608. Rosanna Hughes. SAMCC. Sacramento, CA. Criminal Court Cases. Court of Sessions. Suit 609. Jesus Kossuth. SAMCC. Sacramento, CA. Criminal Court Cases. Court of Sessions. Suits 637, 638, 642. Ida Vanard. SAMCC. Sacramento, CA. Criminal Court Cases. Court of Sessions. Suit 724. Amelia Raymond. SAMCC. Sacramento, CA. Criminal Court Cases. Court of Sessions. Suit 1471. Shingle House. SAMCC. Sacramento, CA. District Court Cases Criminal. Suit 63. Sarah Hopkins. SAMCC. Sacramento, CA. The Sacramento Union. 1 May-6 October 1855. Published Secondary Sources Addams, Jane. A New Conscience and an Ancient Evil. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1912. Butler, Anne M. Daughters of Joy, Sisters of Mercy: Prostitutes in the American West 1865-90. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1985. Connolly, Elaine and Dian Self. Capital Women: An Interpretative History of Women in Sacramento, 1850-1920. Sacramento, CA: The Capital Women’s History Project, 1995. Davis, Nanette J. Prostitution: An International Handbook on Trends, Problems and Policies. Westport, CN: Greenwood Press, 1993. Gentry, Curt. The Madams of San Francisco: A Highly Irreverent History of the City by the Golden Gate. Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1964 Goldman, Marion S. Gold Diggers and Silver Miners: Prostitution and Social Life on the Comstock Lode. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1981. Hobson, Barbara Meil. Uneasy Virtue: The Politics of Prostitution and the American Reform Tradition. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1987. Martin, Cy. Whisky and Wild Women: An Amusing Account of the Saloons and Bawds of the Old West. New York: Hart Publishing Company, Inc., 1974. Monkonnen, Eric H., ed. Crime and Justice in American History Volume 4 The Frontier. Westport, CN: Meckler, 1991. ________. Crime and Justice in American History Volume 8 Prostitution, Drugs, Gambling, and Organized Crime Part 2. New York: K. G. Saur, 1992. ________. Crime and Justice in American History Volume 10 Reform. New York: K. G. Saur, 1992. Roberts, Nickie. Whores in History: Prostitution in Western Society. London: HarperCollins, 1992. Scott, George Ryley. A History of Prostitution From Antiquity to the Present Day. London: T. Werner Laurie Limited, 1936. Reprint, New York: AMS Press, Inc., 1976. Woolston, Howard B. Prostitution in the United States: Prior to the Entrance of the United States into the World War. No City: The Century Company, 1921. Reprint, Publication 29: Patterson Smith Reprint Series In Criminology, Law Enforcement, and Social Problems. Montclair, NJ: Patterson Smith, 1969. Unpublished Secondary Sources Abrams, David. "Those Enterprising Ladies of Second Street, Old Sacramento: A Study in Biographical Archeology, The Objects and Public Records Left Behind From a Tinstore, Households, and Two Houses of Ill-Repute, 1849-1885. Barnhart, Jacqueline Baker. "Working Women: Prostitution in San Francisco from the Gold Rush to 1900." Ph.D. diss., University of California Santa Cruz, 1976. Leigh, Carol. "A Brief History of Government Policies Toward Prostitution in San Francisco" in "San Francisco Task Force Report on Prostitution Final Report 1996." INTERNET Available from http://www.bayswan.org/sfhist.html Retrieved October 29, 1997.
© 1997 [email protected]
LinkExchange Member
Free Home Pages at GeoCities
Get your own Free Home Page