The Evening Star MONDAY, JANUARY 25, 1875.

Evening Star, Issue 3720, 25 January 1875, Page 2

The Evening Star MONDAY, JANUARY 25, 1875.

The decision of Mr Bathgate in the cases of the Police against Margaret Griffen, Etty Barnes, and Abigail M‘Donald is 'worthy of careful perusal and consideration. It brings out clearly the immense difficulty of dealing with that vice and those social plague spots to which we have heretofore called attention. With the tendency of Mr Bathgate’s remarks we express the most cordial approbation. Indeed, in this, as in other social matters, Mr Bathgate’s decision meets with the approval of all law-abiding citizens. It, however, puts a difficulty of magnitude before this community. It shows, what cannot be glossed over, that there are women in this city sunk, degraded, base. It points out that these are past improvement, almost past hope of reformation of any kind. What is to be done ? Mr Bathgate decides, and very properly too, that obtaining a livelihood by prostitution is unlawful. When, therefore, three of this class are brought before him, hj« sentences them to imprisonment for having “no visible or lawful means of support.” ■As Mr Bathgate put it, he is bound to convict a person proved to be a prostitute if such is brought before him, and this under the Vagrant Act. It is true that he states it is his inclination “ to administer the law in a humane manner ” : and here comes the difficulty. Overt acts or misconduct would better be proved, says the Magistrate, but these are not necessary, in order to allow of a conviction. Every prostitute is, therefore, a violator of the law, and as such liable to punishment. This being the law, we hold that it is imperative on the law to vindicate itself by punishing offenders against it. The Magistrate has no discretion to say, “ True, the law has been violated, but I’ll forgive you, the violator.” If, therefore, every prostitute is daily, so long as she continues her unlawful calling, infringing the provisions of the Vagrant Statute, then every one should be punished. The police ought not to select those who misconduct themselves in the street alone. This is vesting in the police a power with which they are not clothed by law, nor yet by society. They have no right to select offenders. Let all be brought to justice. A citizen who breaks a petty bye-law is brought up for punishment; why should one who is violating the provisions of a statute escape punishment ? Can it be that to allow one’s chimney to take fire, or to leave one’s horse unattended, is a less offence than having “no visible or lawful means of support?” No one will pretend for a moment that such is the case. What, then, is to be done? “ People,” says Mr Bathgate, “ are not to be made virtuous by Act of Parliament.” True, nor yet made good citizens by bye-laws. Yet if the byelaws are broken, are the breakers to escape ? The question merits a logical decision. It will not do to rest in the discretion of the police or the humanity of a magistrate, however excellent he may be. Here, then, we are face to face with this problem. We (that is, the citizens of Dunedin) are openly allowing the law to be violated. Is this wise ? If the law is not to be upheld, let it be abolished. It is mischievous to allow a law to be inoperative, or worse than inoperative—one that is to be enforced at the discretion of the police. It js true that Mr Bathgate thinks the sU.te of society is such that a total cessation of the evil is impossible ; but in another passage of his judgment be calls upon the Municipal authorities to “pull down the nests,” to indict the owners of these pest houses. But why do this 1 If the law demand that every prostitute lie sent to gaol under the Vagrant Statute, whaft need of hadittkig fhb ‘

owners of houses 1 Here is the dilemma. Twice already have we pointed out how a reform may be effected. There is a third way which we may suggest: As the calling of a prostitute is unlawful, those who visit the unlawful place of resort cannot quarrel if their names are published. Let the police visit nightly all the dens in the City and publish the names of the frequenters. Weve this done, a more effectual stop would be put to prostitution than sending one, two, or three to gaol. At present, as we have twice repeated in former articles, the ban of society is not laid on the frequenters. Let us try what publication of the names will do. If what is termed respectable society still receives these frequenters within its portals, then all we can say is, the name respectable will be a sad misnomer. We trust that the remedy we have pointed out will be tried for at least a time, to see if it will not prevent this growing gigantic and terrible evil.