The Japanese Journal of American Studies, No. 12 (2001)

The Anti-Prostitution Movement andthe Contest of the Middle-Class Reformers over
Cultural Authority: San Francisco, 1910–1913

Hiroyuki MATSUBARATHE CALL TO ACTION: MAYOR SAYS BARBARY COAST[prostitution] WILL GO. BANNER OF NEW IDEAL LEADING TO
CLEAN CITY.
—San Francisco Examiner, September 22, 19131
The wave of a frantic and reckless so-called moral purity reform movement, which has temporarily destroyed the good work of the Municipal Clinic, is inundating the entire country and foreshadows struggles
similar to the one fought here.
—Dr. Julius Rosenstirn, September 19132
INTRODUCTION
Between 1910 and 1913, there was a vigorous debate over issues related to prostitution in San Francisco. Study of the anti-vice movementshows that the category of “middle-class reformers” was fundamentally
unstable in the Progressive Era. Surprisingly, existing studies assume but
do not fully address the identities and values of middle-class reformers,
which were precarious and contested. The trajectory of the debate in San
Francisco reveals that these reformers had to establish, through cultural
Copyright © 2001 Hiroyuki Matsubara. All rights reserved. This work may be
used, with this notice included, for noncommercial purposes. No copies of thiswork may be distributed, electronically or otherwise, in whole or in part, without
permission from the author.
83

84

HIROYUKI MATSUBARA

politics, their own values and the boundaries of their identities. Furthermore, attention to the gendered politics shows that no one ever managed
to speak with authority for the whole range of “middle-class reformers.”
Reformers did not apply gendered language only to prescribe relations
between men and women. They deﬁned, in terms of gender, the meanings of and the relations among the key concepts of the era, such as
morality, science, and progress. However, the notion of gender did notorganize these values in any simple way. Both ‘manhood’ and ‘womanhood’ could imply either positive or negative values. When a wide rangeof reform-minded men and women gathered with diverse ideas of morality, science, and progress, the instability of anyone’s authority over others became obvious.
In 1913, the San Francisco mayor decided to close the city’s red-light
district. At ﬁrst glance, this case seems to have been just another example of the national trend of anti-prostitution movements. It was theProgressive Era in the United States, during which the issue of prostitution was one of the major concerns of social reformers. Over two hundred of the largest cities closed their red-light districts between 1912 and
1920. Through anti-vice campaigns, scholars argue, middle-class reformers imposed their values upon lower-class people by restraining theurban lives of working-class and immigrant men and women.3
However, this perspective overlooks a historical competition amongreformers, assuming a loose unity of “middle-class reformers.” To understand the course of the anti-prostitution movement in San Francisco,
it is necessary to address the cultural politics of the reformers, especially its gendered aspect. In San Francisco, women’s groups had been vocal
critics of prostitution since the late nineteenth century. When malereformers entered this discursive arena, where womanhood was essential to the basis of moral authority, they had to deal with this genderedlegacy.4 In this context, science could provide an alternative value withwhich to resolve prostitution problems without the aid of a morality
deﬁned in association with women. The city institutionalized an ofﬁcial
medical regulation of the sex industry in 1911. By periodically inspecting prostitutes, male regulationists attempted to prevent the spread ofvenereal diseases. Yet, not all men accepted this policy. The excessive
use of science ran the risk of losing the authority of “morality,” which
no one would voluntarily give up. Opposing men and women criticized
the regulation system as a de facto tolerance of prostitution. However,male abolitionists had to carefully deﬁne the meaning of morality. Sim-THE ANTI-PROSTITUTION MOVEMENT

85

ply championing morality could be characterized as unscientiﬁc, which
possibly implied femininity, anti-progressiveness, and reactionary beliefs. This series of discussions indicates more than mere disagreement
among reformers. Given this complex web of cultural authority, “middle-class reformers” had to establish their own values to construct andpromote the boundaries of their identities throughout the debates in theanti-vice campaign. By 1913, even with the apparent victory of abolition forces, no one involved in the debates over prostitution had established a stable authority over others.
A primary reason for the scant attention to this contentious trajectoryin San Francisco is the prevailing presupposition about the category of“middle-class reformers.” Leading historians of prostitution, such as
Ruth Rosen, Mark Connelly, and Barbara Hobson, conceive of the antivice movement as a reﬂection of middle-class Progressive reformers’
anxieties that derived from socio-economic changes in early twentiethcentury urban America. This perspective illustrates the intersection ofideologies of gender, class, and ethnic relations.5 Yet, it often assumes
a binary opposition between the active middle-class reformers and thepassive lower-classes who were supposed to be reformed. In essence,
the attack on prostitution is portrayed as the collective response of the
middle-class that was concerned with the dissolution of the existingsocial order. As a result, with the category of “the middle-class reformers” operating as a loose but united entity, it is difﬁcult for these works toaddress contests within the anti-vice movement whose tensions surfaced
in San Francisco. In this view, discussions of prostitution were no morethan channels through which “the middle-class reformers” imposed their“norm” upon “the lower class.” All categories are set before the analysis even begins.6
Not all historians are unaware of differences among the anti-vice crusaders. However, previous scholars overlook the constructed nature of
categories such as men, women, moralists, and doctors, as well as theirvalues such as manhood, womanhood, morality, and science. The discussion in San Francisco was a process, by which multiple reformers
struggled to impose certain positive meanings upon themselves andnegative ones upon others. While some female reformers celebrated
women’s morality, for instance, some men criticized womanhood byintroducing science as a superior value to morality, which implied irrationality. Yet, there were more than one combination of identities andvalues. Men could be feminized. Science could be criticized because of

86

HIROYUKI MATSUBARA

its lack of morality. Women could have scientiﬁc authority. Withoutlooking at these links and confrontations among reformers’ identities andvalues, simply pointing out the diversity of reformers explains little.
Rosen highlights the gap between male and female reformers.7 Allan
Brandt presents a power shifting process from moralists and religious
groups to scientiﬁc and secular ones.8 More broadly, studies of the Progressive Era point out a mixture of motives from radicalism to conservatism.9 What these scholars ﬁnd is a competition among reformers, who
had already established their values. The debates about prostitution again
seem to merely reﬂect already existing oppositions. Their narratives simply repeat the story of a confrontation between ﬁxed positions and failto address the dynamic and unstable nature of the various values andidentities involved. The discussions in San Francisco challenge the assumption that we already know who the reformers were. What we needhere is an examination of the process of competition through which participants deﬁned their own values and relations with others. In the earlytwentieth century, the city was rapidly changing in terms of economy,
politics, and social relations.10 Given such ﬂuid conditions, no one could
take his or her social position for granted. The crucial question was whoshould be in charge of addressing prostitution problems and throughwhat kind of approach. Existing studies locate the anti-vice movement
in a context of Progressivism led by an unexamined category of “reformers.” Yet the case of San Francisco provides a locus to reconsider theformation of “middle-class reformers” themselves. This examination
will suggest one particular angle of approach to the re-conceptualizationof the turn of the century, a critical era of American modernization.
A series of sessions at the Commonwealth Club of California’s monthly meetings illustrates the competing and dialogical aspects of discourses, particularly among male reformers.11 This civic organization of San
Francisco, which was founded in 1903 by San Francisco Chronicle editorial writer Edward F. Adams, had no ofﬁcial status. However, the Club
operated as a public site to discuss the political issues of San Francisco.
The members included a wide range of middle and upper class men;
politicians such as a United States Senator and state governors, judges,
attorneys, businessmen, merchants, doctors, and university professors.12
When the San Francisco Health Board began to consider the medical regulation of prostitution in 1910, the Commonwealth Club also formed a
special committee related to the issue. The Committee had preliminaryTHE ANTI-PROSTITUTION MOVEMENT

87

sessions and presented its reports at the Club’s monthly meetings
between 1911 and 1914. The Committee reports and the discussions at
the Club meetings were included in the Club’s Transactions, which weresent to the Club members every month. The exact readership beyond theClub members is unknown. Yet, the Committee, which was to be reorganized three times by 1914, consisted of inﬂuential ﬁgures on the issues,
including lawyers, doctors, social hygienists, clergymen, businessmen,
and a journalist appointed by the Club Board of Governors. This diverse
membership of the Committee appeared to attract almost all groups to
the Club meetings. Non-Club members who were inﬂuential in thedebates of the prostitution issues, such as Dr. George Eaton, chair of the
Health Board, participated in the meetings. The absence of women’sgroups, which had been active in this ﬁeld, is another interesting featurethat shows the gendered politics of the discussion in 1910s San Francisco.
Remarkably, when the Commonwealth Club discussed women’s suffrage in May 1911, the Club invited women to its meeting. In contrast,
the Commonwealth Club judged that women were irrelevant to the issues
related to prostitution. Also noteworthy is the fact that San Francisco did
not have any vice commission, which played a crucial role in forming
public consensus in anti-prostitution movements in many other cities.
While organized by city ofﬁcials, the vice commissions usually included businessmen, lawyers, clergymen, social workers, doctors, sociologists, and even female reformers. Without such an organization in San
Francisco, the Club Committee and the Club meetings became all themore important as the sites where people in San Francisco met to discuss the course of the anti-prostitution movement.
I

POLITICS OF INTRODUCING SCIENCE TO THE DEBATES ON
PROSTITUTION: CLUB MEETING ON FEBRUARY 8, 1911

At the end of 1910, the San Francisco Board of Health launched a plan
to inspect prostitutes in its medical facility. The introduction of a concern about venereal diseases had a signiﬁcant impact on the landscapeof the discussion about prostitution. In effect, it was the challenge ofmale doctors on the Health Board to female reformers who had alreadymade efforts to restrain prostitution in the city. As historian Jacqueline
Baker Barnhart shows, women had played central roles in raisingconcern over prostitution since the late-nineteenth century in San
Francisco.13 Late in the ﬁrst decade of the twentieth century the outcry

88

HIROYUKI MATSUBARA

against the “white slave trade” gained publicity. A wide range of media
claimed that many “innocent women” were forced to become prostitutes
by pimps, who were often characterized as “savage immigrants.”14 San
Francisco was notorious for its “yellow slaves”: Chinese and Japanese
prostitutes. Missionary women were especially vocal critics who
attempted to rescue these female prostitutes.15 After Iowa passed an Act
to abolish brothels in 1909, the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union(WCTU) in North California had begun lobbying aimed at the passingof a similar law in the California legislature.16 Women’s Clubs had also
been active. Nonetheless, instead of joining these existing anti-prostitution movements, the Health Board introduced another view of the issue,
approaching it from the perspective of medical science. Opening theMunicipal Clinic of San Francisco on March 3, 1911, the Board presented the Clinic as the city’s path-breaking measure to control prostitution.17 This claim was more than merely adding another aspect to thedebate about the sex industry. This shift of emphasis buried the preceding activities of female reformers.
The Commonwealth Club Committee participated in this genderedpolitics of science. Chaired by physician Dr. John C. Spencer, theCommittee consisted of four medical doctors, two lawyers, and the secretary of the California Social Hygiene Association.18 At the Club’s ﬁrst
meeting on issues related to prostitution on February 8, 1911, a month
before the opening of the Clinic, Dr. William Ophuls opened up theCommittee’s presentation by declaring that “[f]acts are always tedious,
but occasionally we have to listen to them.”19 This statement soundedmodest but actually represented a bold manifesto by the Committee. The
Committee claimed that people had to ﬁrst acknowledge the scientiﬁcfacts of prostitution because they told the truth. In contrast to those who
were concerned with morality, common sense, and sentiment, the Committee tacitly presented its view as objective and scientiﬁc, and, by doingso, claimed an authority over the issue. It is striking that the Committee
hardly mentioned the preceding efforts by women’s groups at all. Like
the Health Board, the Committee framed the prostitution problem interms of the prevention of sex diseases. Arguing that venereal diseases
were transmitted through prostitution, the Committee emphasized theneed to inform the public of the actual situation regarding venereal diseases. By shifting its scope exclusively to venereal diseases, it discursively made it hard to see women’s activities.
In fact, the women’s groups were also concerned with “scientiﬁc”

THE ANTI-PROSTITUTION MOVEMENT

89

issues. Since the late–nineteenth century, female organizations, such as
the WCTU and the General Federation of Women’s Clubs, had actively maintained medical and health projects. Gaining access to higher education since the late-nineteenth century, a younger generation of women
had begun to remodel women’s reform work with their scientiﬁc knowledge. Although it is unclear how the San Francisco branches of thesegroups acted in practice, women must have been well-informed about
the medical aspects of the prostitution problem through their national
networks.20 Given this context, it is difﬁcult to take the CommonwealthClub Committee’s assertions at face value. The report was a strategic
discursive attempt by this men’s club to establish their scientiﬁc authority by neglecting women’s medical knowledge and by categorizing
women as emotional beings. In other words, a supposedly objective
deﬁnition of science was maintained through this gendered discourse.
Admittedly, the Club Committee report occasionally mentioned women,
but only to state that it was women and children who suffered from what
they termed “sexual plagues.” In the report, the only terrain that opened
for women was that of victimhood. It was not female reformers but the
responsible men in the Commonwealth Club who would save these helpless bodies.
However, the Club Committee’s concern for venereal disease did notlead to the same conclusion as that of the Health Board. Sharing its faith
in medical knowledge, the Committee nonetheless opposed the Health
Board’s plan of medical regulation. The Committee criticized the Clinic
because of its medical ineffectiveness in restraining sexual plagues.
Doctors on the Committee pointed out the practical impossibility of detecting bacteria located in deeper organs and of curing them.21 Evaluating
medical technology and cases in other cities, the Club Committee concluded that the Clinic’s medical inspection system would not work. Itfurther argued that medical regulation of the sex industry was nothing
less than the practical tolerance of prostitution. Instead of the regulation
policy, the Committee recommended sex education for the public, especially in the schools.22
This struggle between medical authorities needs to be understood in
the context of the cultural politics of the male reformers. The Club
Committee’s objection was not a mere expression of medical disagreement with the Health Board. Legitimating the medical regulation of prostitution by proposing the prevention of venereal diseases, the Health
Board and its supporters made a serious challenge not only to female

90

HIROYUKI MATSUBARA

reformers but also to the men who wished to abolish the red-light district. If periodic inspection of prostitutes was the best way to control
venereal diseases, male brothel abolitionists would have only “sentimental” reasons for their movement. Male reformers had to search foran alternative way to legitimate the closure of the sex industry in termsof science. In this context, the Club Committee and the discussion in theClub appeared to function as sites in which these men could evaluate themeaning of medical knowledge and make a counter proposal against theofﬁcials and supporters of the Health Board. The stakes of this debate
between the Club Committee and the supporters of the Municipal Clinic
were extremely high, since each based their authority on their medical
knowledge.
However, no one could decide which view was superior solely on thebasis of medical knowledge. As the different conclusions of physiciansin the Committee and the Health Board showed, debates over medical
knowledge did not reach objective conclusions. The content of medical
truth itself was not given but had to be deﬁned. Faced with this deadlock
between “science” and “science,” remarkably, the Committee members
attempted to authorize their version of “medical truth” by connecting it
to a speciﬁc view of history, outside the arena of genuine science.
What the Club Committee offered was a particular narrative of progress. Pointing to the repeated history of failures to control venereal diseases, the Committee claimed that the defect of the regulation policy wasapparent. Presenting unsuccessful cases in France, Germany, and several other European countries, it stressed that there had never been any sufﬁcient achievement in regulation policies.23 Instead of examining thevalidity of medical technologies and the system used in these cases,
which would have led to another endless discussion over “scientiﬁctruth,” the Committee employed its own version of history in order tolegitimate itself. Concluding the presentations of committee members,
Dr. Spencer, the chair of the Committee, offered a story of progress:
The day has passed when intelligent beings may disdain to consider reasonably and sanely plans tending to diminish venereal diseases. There are large
and ﬂourishing societies in all European countries and in practically every
State in our Union, devoted to the intelligent and reasonable combating of
the ravages of venereal diseases.24“The day” of tolerance and acceptance “has passed,” he declared. In thisevolutionary view of history, he projected regulation policy in a nega-

THE ANTI-PROSTITUTION MOVEMENT

91

tive light and the strategy of total suppression, with sex education, in apositive light. When the report of the Committee mentioned “the intelligent and reasonable combating of the ravages of venereal diseases,” it
named particular groups of people. The Committee borrowed the authority of Dr. Charles W. Eliot, Dr. Prince Morrow, and prominent membersof the American Society of Sanitary and Moral Prophylaxis (which later
became the American Social Hygiene Association) who led the red-lightabatement movement in the Eastern cities, especially in New York andChicago. The Committee narrated their version of progressive history
by using a set of authorities in sex hygiene to compete with the Health
Board.
II QUESTIONING SCIENCE: DIVERSE MORALISTS AT THE CLUBMEETING ON APRIL 12, 1911
Inevitably, the Club Committee’s report called forth reactions frommultiple directions. In the Club’s second meeting on April 12, doctors
who supported the Municipal Clinic of course stood up to claim backtheir exclusive medical authority from the Committee. Yet, it was “laymen,” the non-doctors of the Commonwealth Club, who were more
active in this meeting. For those who comprehended prostitution in nonmedical terms, such as morality, the Committee’s view was no less thana challenge to their cultural authority. Even if the Committee shared withthem an objection to tolerating prostitution, both the Club Committee
and the Municipal Clinic superimposed medical knowledge over their
non-medical view. Refusing to give up their moral authority to medicine, the existing power elite began to challenge both the Club Committee and the Health Board’s Clinic project.
These multiple fractures reveal that the situation was more than a mere
conﬂict between science and morality. We have already seen in the previous section that this kind of binary framework separating science andmorality was itself under construction. As the Committee’s disagreementwith the Health Board indicated, what was scientiﬁcally “true” was controversial and debatable. Given the precarious status of medical knowledge, downgrading opponents as “non-scientiﬁc” was not the reﬂectionof a stable scientiﬁc knowledge but, on the contrary, a discursive attempt
to establish and highlight its boundaries. By the same token, it is also
misleading to assume an unchanging moralistic perspective. Responding
to the discursive attempts of the Club Committee and the Health Board,

92

HIROYUKI MATSUBARA

some so-called moralists reformulated their positions, even looking forincorporation with the authority of medical knowledge. Among others,
attorney William Denman played a central role in this second Club meeting. He not only criticized the Clinic for its practical tolerance of prostitution but also expressed his dislike of the dominance of doctors on theClub Committee in this “moral” issue of prostitution. However, he deployed his ideas of “morality” in unique ways.25
Denman attempted to demythologize the privileged authority of physicians. The key tactic was to reveal and highlight not only disagreement
among doctors but also the unstable bases of their arguments.26 Expressing doubts regarding basic information and doctors’ opinions, Denman
and another attorney, Charles Wesley Reed, successfully posed questions about the credibility of medical knowledge and ability, just as theywould do in a court room. In the course of their questioning, they foundthat there were not enough hospital beds in the city for patients of venereal diseases. Denman and Reed revealed that doctors knew it was practically impossible to entirely eradicate venereal diseases. Above all, they
made visible the fact that there were many disagreements among doctors on this issue. Their questions cornered the doctors, as in the following exchange:
Mr. Reed: I want to ask one question: Admitting that all the medical gentlemen agree that provisions for the treating of these diseases are inadequate,
would the maintenance of a free hospital . . . reduce the amount of disease?
The question has not been answered.
Mr. Denman: That question is an attack on the whole system of medicine.
(Laughter.)27

Denman not only laughed at medical professionals including Rosenstirn
and Spencer. More importantly, he questioned the legitimacy of medical
knowledge as a position from which to command the issue of prostitution.
However, Denman did not simply replace “science” with conventional
wisdom. His discourse demonstrates the insufﬁciency of any ahistoricalcategory of “morality.” Discussions with other types of “moralists” reveal Denman’s particular version of morality.
Ironically, many participants in the Club meeting applauded Denman’s
critique of the doctors. In the view of Walter Macarthur, the issue musthave been quite straightforward and not in need of any particular medical language. Even if he could not “speak with any pretensions toTHE ANTI-PROSTITUTION MOVEMENT

93

medical authority upon this matter,” his “common sense” was all that heneeded in considering the issue of prostitution. Without any help from a
doctor’s specialized knowledge, it was evident to him that legalizationof the sex industry would be “harmful” “to the morality of San Francisco
and to the State of California.”28 In his view, the project of the Municipal
Clinic was nothing but the tolerance and the institutionalization of vice.
Highlighting “common sense,” these moral-oriented laymen refused tohand over their cultural authority to doctors.
Yet, to Denman, simply rejecting medical knowledge appeared to be
unreasonable. Denman criticized those who wished to remain silent
about sex, venereal diseases, and sex-education. Another Club member,
attorney Henry Monroe, tried seconding Denman’s criticism of doctors.
Proposing a moderate sex education not by professionals but by “thefather[s] of tender little girls,” Monroe was against replacing his moral
authority with someone else’s “science.”29 However, Denman did not
accept Monroe’s tacit acknowledgement of the status quo which to
Denman resembled the silence of prudery. Denman stated:
As I understand it, over 90 per cent of the ovarian operations on respectable
married women in our hospitals is due to venereal diseases communicated tothem by their husbands. . . . I disagree with Mr. Monroe fundamentally. I
think you had better sacriﬁce some of the peach blow of partial ignorance, if
it is necessary, and arm them against the possibility, the probability, of a very
considerable percentage of them having venereal diseases without knowing
it.30

Denman’s harsh reaction indicates the competition over the meaning of“morality.” Given the reality of venereal diseases, he realized it was crucial to reformulate the content of “morality.” Accordingly, he called forproper sex education in schools.
Denman’s view, however, did not imply his subordination to theauthority of the doctors who also recommended sex education. According to him, it was medical knowledge that should be subject to morality. In the following exchange with a Committee member, Denman madeanother discursive attempt to deﬁne and defend his position:
Dr. Ophuls: The compulsory medical treatment of lewd women or prostitutes
be regarded as a failure. [sic]Mr. Denman: I want to ﬁnd out what the word “failure” means. Mr.
Wollenberg [a Committee member] read a paper in which a large number ofauthorities said that there were no statistics on which any judgment could be

HIROYUKI MATSUBARA

94

based. If that be the case, our conclusions here must be a priori; it must comefrom reasoning; not from facts but from theory.31

By making it obvious that medical authority did not always have objective evidence, Denman pointed out that there was nothing more than abasic principle on which to judge the policy related to prostitution.
Medical knowledge should serve morality, which was “a priori.” Thiswas Denman’s attempt to re-establish the cultural authority of morality
by afﬁliating science.
Denman’s effort did not immediately control the course of the discussion. Louder voices still echoed Macarthur’s belief that the sex industry was simply harmful for morality. The majority of these moralists
were totally frustrated with repeated scientiﬁc debates between the Club
Committee and the supporters of the Health Board. A Club member,
Rolla Watt, stated that “it seems to me that the methods of the doctors
are simply putting a very high premium upon these cribs [brothels] bygiving certiﬁcates of health, a license to carry on this trafﬁc.”32 Medical
knowledge seemed irrelevant to him when discussing moral issues of
prostitution. However, this simple distinction between science and morality was no longer effective enough in proving the superiority of morality. Many blamed this kind of simple belief in morality for its bluntneglect of scientiﬁc knowledge. They further argued that the moralists
did not look at the realities of prostitution and the reasonable efforts of
the Clinic.33 Dr. Eaton, chair of the Health Board, received applause
when he said that “[w]e are not recognizing prostitution, Mr. Macarthur.
We are recognizing the disease that prostitutes harbor; and it is my intention as president of the Board of Health to eradicate the disease.”34
Moralists were not convinced. But they did not have effective ways toovercome these criticisms. That was why they would re-formulate theirstrategy in the new Club Committee in 1913.
III

CHANGING LANDSCAPE, 1911–1913: RETURN OF FEMALEREFORMERS

Between 1911 and 1913, women’s re-entry into the anti-vice movement signiﬁcantly changed the general landscape of debates over prostitution in San Francisco, but in two opposite directions. On the one hand,
women’s involvement pushed San Francisco toward the abolishment of
the red-light district. On the other hand, it unintentionally resulted inencouraging the supporters of the Municipal Clinic. In this contradicto-

THE ANTI-PROSTITUTION MOVEMENT

95

ry situation, the Commonwealth Club’s meeting in 1913 became a placeof ever more heated discussion of the matter.
Immediately upon gaining suffrage in 1911, women’s groups such as
the WCTU, the California Federation of Women’s Club, and the YWCA
resumed their request to the California legislature to abolish prostitution.
The ﬁrst attempt to pass the Red-Light Abatement Bill had already failed
in 1911.35 In the following years, however, women with voting rights
pressed Assemblymen and Senators of California to pass the Act ﬁnally in March 1913. The coming of the Panama Paciﬁc International Exposition in 1915 was another boost. Perceived as a sign of earthquakedamaged San Francisco’s revival, it became imperative to hold the event
successfully. Brothel abolitionists such as women’s groups, religious
groups, and the American Social Hygiene Association took advantageof this timing. Pressed by these circles, which were capable of mobilizing
massive numbers of people, new mayor James Rolph ﬁnally decided towithdraw from the Clinic in 1913. Withdrawal of police participation in
the Clinic system on May 20 meant the practical end of the regulation
policy. In making prostitutes visit the Clinic periodically, and in ﬁnding
uncertiﬁcated women, the police were an indispensable part of the system. Losing its support from the police department, the Municipal Clinic
eventually closed its doors in September 1913.36 After the Red-Light
Abatement Bill was enacted on December 19, 1914, the local police, in
cooperation with the anti-vice crusaders, pushed many brothels in San
Francisco out of business by the end of World War I.37
What is remarkable is that this women’s involvement, which ﬁnally
led to the closure of the Clinic and brothels, did not necessarily undermine support for the medical regulation of prostitution. Rather, the more
women became vocal in the movement, the more male regulationists
could criticize abolitionists for their moralistic tone, which implied
irrationality. Dr. Julius Rosenstirn, a leading doctor of the Clinic, was arelentless critic of such “good, oh so good” people who “indulge inspeeches deploring the depraved morality.”38 Contrasting it with thiskind of “emotional” display, he represented the Clinic as a medical institution facing the reality of venereal diseases. Certainly he was aware that
his opponents disagreed with him on the basis of their own scientiﬁcknowledge. Yet, by particularly highlighting the “emotional” aspects of
the abolitionists, and by making invisible medical questions about theClinic’s capabilities, he maneuvered himself into a position from which
he would appear to monopolize the authority of science.

96

HIROYUKI MATSUBARAThe narrative of the “most advanced knowledge” was an important
discursive strategy in the struggle to legitimate the scientiﬁc authority of
the Clinic. Gradually losing City Hall’s support, scientiﬁc knowledge
was the last means by which the supporters could maintain the Clinic.
From 1912 to 1913, Dr. Julius Rosenstirn actively tried to emphasize theClinic’s scientiﬁc authority. After Dr. George Eaton stepped down fromthe Health Board, Rosenstirn played a leading role in the Municipal
Clinic project. It is not an accident that he made a presentation on theClinic at the International Congress on Hygiene and Demography which
was held in Washington D.C. in September 1912. This was a part of
Rosenstirn’s campaign to get support and legitimacy for the Municipal
Clinic. In the presentation, he meticulously showed the details of theClinic, such as its examination procedure, its method of record management, and even the architectural organization of its building. Rosenstirn
stressed the scientiﬁc organization of the Municipal Clinic as well as its
objectivity, which supposedly left no room for any kind of political intervention or corruption.39 It is unknown how his presentation was received
at this conference of social hygienists. Yet, in later papers, Rosenstirn
proudly mentioned favorable responses from other public ofﬁcials andprofessionals:
The Clinic has received many inquiries from all over the United States. . . .
The Board of Health of many places, including that of the great City of New
York, honored us by requesting the details of our system, a complete set ofour cards and forms, for study and imitative adoption. Even to the UnitedStates Government ofﬁcials in Puerto Rico, this system appealed and they
requested complete and detailed information.40

Publishing two articles and two pamphlets in 1913, he located his knowledge at the cutting edge of the development of medical science. This was
Rosenstirn’s strategic move to legitimate the Clinic’s project. As the discussion with the Commonwealth Club in 1911 demonstrated, medical
discussion did not always reach a conclusion. Crucial instead was an
authority beyond the claims of science. While the Club Committee mentioned the works of the American Social Hygiene Association, Rosenstirn countered by providing his own narrative of progress. Referring to
Sigmund Freud, Havelock Ellis, and some inﬂuential ﬁgures on the East
Coast, Rosenstirn described the Clinic as an institution the “most thorough and modern in a scientiﬁc sense.”41
As a result, by 1913, the cultural credibility of male reformers who

THE ANTI-PROSTITUTION MOVEMENT

97

wished to crush the sex industry was in trouble. To be sure, San Francisco
ﬁnally determined to abolish prostitution. Yet, the more women empowered the anti-vice campaign, the more Dr. Rosenstirn claimed the scientiﬁc authority of the Clinic in comparison with the “frantic and reckless”
moral purity movement.42 Rosenstirn’s claim not only downgraded
women but also feminized brothel abolitionist men. The men had to handle the Clinic’s assertion of medical authority. However, careless use of
medical knowledge would possibly embarrass moral-oriented men as
well as women, whose presence was essential to maintain the brothel
abolition movement. Since they did not wish to turn over their scientific authority, morality, or initiative to women’s groups, they were in adilemma.
IV A FAILED ATTEMPT IN INCORPORATING SCIENCE UNDERMORALITY: THE CLUB MEETING ON JUNE 11, 1913
The Commonwealth Club held its third meeting on prostitution on
June 11, 1913 within this contentious context. The Club Committee presented its second report. Unlike in 1911, the members of the Committee
must have known that the Municipal Clinic, a symbol of the regulation
system of prostitution, would soon be closed. Nonetheless, the Committee members must also have realized that there was as yet noconsensus. The meeting was another site in which the Committee maneuvered in order to claim its own authority over others by reformulating
the meanings of “science” and “morality.”
The Committee’s radical shift in membership indicates that the Club
hoped to place more emphasis on the moral issue. The use of medical
language was deemed excessive. Pointing out that “further consideration of this question should be had from other points of view than thoseof the medical professions,” the Club replaced doctors on the Red Plague
Committee with non-medical persons.43 Non-medical laymen had been
frustrated with the previous meetings in 1911, in which medical knowledge had tended to dominate the discussion, and they wished to change
the course of the debate. With the exception of C. M. Wollenberg, whobecame the new chairperson, all the other original members stepped
down from the Committee. Instead, the Committee was restructured into
two sub-committees, one on Sex Hygiene and the other on the Municipal
Clinic. The latter, which played a central role in the meeting of 1913,
consisted of two judges, a minister, a businessman, an engineer of the

98

HIROYUKI MATSUBARA

Northwest Paciﬁc Railroad, and Wollenberg, who was a secretary of the
San Francisco branch of the American Social Hygiene Association,
which promoted the abatement of brothels in the East Coast.44 Walter
Macarthur, who had vocally asserted the value of morality in a meetingin 1911, also became a Committee member.
However, the Committee’s report in 1913 could not be a simple
expression of the moral cause. The Committee had to compete with theclaims of the Clinic supporters’ medical knowledge. Strikingly, theClinic’s medical claims had penetrated even into the thinking of the more
morally-oriented new Committee members. The report admitted thatsome members were “ready to come out in favor of” the Clinic in the
beginning.45 Given the growing inﬂuence of medical discourses that this
implies, the simple rejection of science would not have been effective.
It was imperative to restore the value of morality while incorporating
scientiﬁc knowledge. Meanwhile, the Committee needed to ﬁgure out
its relationship with women’s activities. In 1911, the women’s groups
had focused on the suffrage issue. Now they were fully ready to commit
to prostitution problems. Yet, though indispensable, cooperation withwomen carried the risk for the Committee of being categorized as partof a “hysterical” non-scientiﬁc movement. As in 1911, the Committee
included no women and the Club also invited no women to the meeting.
Men wanted morality, but they did not want to feminize themselves.
The Committee’s key strategy was to reformulate the relations between “science” and “morality.” While emphasizing morality, the Committee did not exclude physicians from its camp. As it had done in 1911,
the new Committee examined the Clinic’s medical capability. The report
also questioned the medical efﬁcacy of the Clinic’s methods. By employing medical authority, including the former chairman John C. Spencer,
the 1913 report attempted to show that the Clinic was incapable of preventing the spread of venereal diseases. In addition to its detailed medical
arguments, the Committee further questioned whether it was practically possible to maintain the authority of medicine as a ﬁeld distinct fromthe sphere of morality. The medical regulation of prostitution needed
cooperation with the police department in order to make prostitutes register. But the report argued that the involvement of the police would bea source of corruption. Although the Clinic was not directly responsible
for the accompanying problems, the Committee claimed that the Clinic
was still morally responsible.

THE ANTI-PROSTITUTION MOVEMENT

99

More importantly, the report challenged one basic presupposition of
the Municipal Clinic and the regulation policy. The report criticized Rosenstirn and his supporters for assuming “the indeﬁnite continuance of
prostitution.” The report made the accusation that the medical theory of
the Clinic only sought to lessen the number of cases, on the basis of thisahistorical assumption. In other words, while claiming the authority of“science,” Rosenstirn did maintain a conventional mentality, that is, theacceptance of the vice.46 By arguing in this way, the new Committee presented a nuanced narrative of progress. On the one hand, the Committee
members portrayed Rosenstirn’s medical authority as anti-progressive.
On the other hand, instead of fully rejecting the usefulness of medical
knowledge, they incorporated science into their progressive morality.
The new Club Committee referred to the works of major ﬁgures in theAmerican Social Hygiene Association. Distinguishing themselves froman older “morality” that unwittingly accepted the continuation of prostitution, they endeavored to present their version of morality as progress.
However, the new Committee could not maintain total control of the
discussion. It was a competition among narratives of progress. Rosenstirn, who was at the meeting, brought up his version of the picture rightaway. Criticizing Committee member Clayton Herrington, a judge who
was one of the Clinic’s vocal critics, Rosenstirn named many other professionals and other cases that supported the Clinic project. Claiming theauthority of the Clinic, he conversely criticized “hysterical” abolitionists.
And just as surely as the civilized world is ready now to adopt the lessons ofmodern science in exchange for its possessions of old prejudices and superstitions, so will this question be solved in its spirit even if a reactionary andsentimental hypocrisy should command a temporary halt [of the Clinic] withthe aid of hysterical politics. (Applause.)47

In this way, the anti-prostitution activists engaged in endless discussion
with no hope of reaching a consensus in the foreseeable future. The Commonwealth Club published the third report on this issue in September
1914. Speciﬁcally discussing the Red-Light Abatement Act in the
California legislature, the report showed the same old division of opinions.48 Despite the legislative and administrative decision to close the
red-light district, the discussion in San Francisco was not yet settled at
this point.

100

HIROYUKI MATSUBARACONCLUSION
The series of debates within the anti-prostitution movement of 1910s
San Francisco was an attempt to decide through cultural politics who theauthentic reformers were and what legitimate knowledge was. Claiming
the values of morality, science, and progress, both the opponents and the
supporters of the San Francisco Municipal Clinic had to deﬁne the meanings, boundaries, and legitimacy of these values. And the reformers
could not establish a single dominant value to command the issue of prostitution. Certainly, the San Francisco mayor turned prior city policy
around and abolished the red-light district. The Municipal Clinic closed
its doors. Many other American cities also abolished brothels. Nonetheless, the series of events did not mean that a particular group ofreformers had ﬁnally come to command the situation; discussions in the
Commonwealth Club went on endlessly. Morality could be regarded
either as a positive or a negative idea. Even the meaning and value ofscience, supposedly a form of objective knowledge, was controversial.
While reformers proposed a variety of alliances between morality andscience, they could not safely claim progressiveness for their respective
opinions. Previous studies of anti-prostitution movements, which highlight the control of middle-class reformers over the lower-class, havefailed to account for this competition and the instability of the categoryof “middle-class reformers.”
It is noteworthy that gendered language was crucial in deﬁning how
reformers gave meaning to their respective values and claimed the superiority of one notion over others. The discourse of “science” had gendered implications in San Francisco. Entering into the debates related toprostitution, where women’s groups had been central players, malereformers displaced women’s authority, which was based on speciﬁcmodes of womanhood. By either keeping silent about women’s activities, or by explicitly criticizing the “emotional” nature of the women’scause, “scientiﬁc” language replaced the argument of female reformers.
Notably, the projected contrast between the women’s sentimental cause
and the men’s medical knowledge made it hard to see that women’sgroups were also active in various ﬁelds of science.
Yet, this engendered cultural authority created a dilemma for thereformers. Male reformers, especially those who opposed the Municipal
Clinic, could not simply exclude female reformers any longer. California
women’s suffrage in 1911 signiﬁcantly changed the political landscape.

THE ANTI-PROSTITUTION MOVEMENT

101

Women’s activities were crucial in the passage of the Red-Light Abatement Act in the California legislature, and women succeeded in pushing
the mayor of San Francisco to abolish the red-light district. An alliancewith women was indeed indispensable. However, wishing to maintaintheir political authority, which was masculine in nature, men were notyet ready to accept women’s full public political presence. Whereas thewomen’s contribution was crucial, male brothel abolitionists had to
manage the risk of their opponents feminizing them. Indeed, ridiculing the “irrational” nature of the abolitionists’ morality, Dr. Rosenstirn
continued to advocate the validity of the Municipal Clinic. The fear of
de-masculinization might explain why the Commonwealth Club neverinvited women to its discussions of prostitution problems.
Addressing this crucial—and disturbing—role of gendered politics isa key to understanding the age of Progressivism. Indeed, the course of
the San Francisco anti-vice movement must have shared many elementswith the era’s general situation. It is not surprising that the debates aboutprostitution turned out to be nothing less than discussions about the corevalues of the period. Facing the transformation of racial and class relations in postbellum America, many reformers employed gendered language to justify and naturalize their causes. However, the contents ofgender relations were also in transition. Women’s more visible participation in the public sphere was one of the major factors which requireda full reformulation of the political structure of turn–of–the–century
America. Introducing “science” became one of the means to install a newgendered concept of politics, which assigned rationality to men and discounted women’s causes and abilities as irrational. Yet, women’s groups
could not be easily neglected. Female activists often made indispensable
contributions in diverse reform movements, even transforming themeaning of womanhood. Women’s active roles challenged men to redeﬁne cultural authority. While allying themselves with women’s groups,
male reformers wished to maintain their masculinity. The politics of theanti-prostitution movement in San Francisco show what great difﬁculty
different groups had in securing cultural identities and authority in thiscomplex terrain of gendered politics. While noting the diverse roots andmotives of so-called Progressivism, scholars still ask whether reformers
were progressive or conservative. Assuming the existence of a priori values, this question overlooks the fundamental instability of reformers in
the Progressive Era. The deﬁnition of what ‘progressive’ or ‘reactionary’
actually meant was, indeed, always open to debate.

102

HIROYUKI MATSUBARA

NOTES
1Barbary Coast was an area of San Francisco, which was notorious for its brothels,
gambling dens, saloons, and disreputable boarding houses.
2
Julius Rosenstirn, Our Nation’s Health Endangered by Poisonous Infection throughthe Social Malady: The Protective Work of the Municipal Clinic of San Francisco and
its Fight for Existence (San Francisco: The Town Talk Press, 1913), 5.
3
Mark Thomas Connelly, The Response to Prostitution in the Progressive Era(Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1980), 26.
4Regina Kunzel’s work, which examines how female social workers attempted toreform their cultural authority over male professionals who employed gender to legitimate their social positions, is suggestive. (Regina G. Kunzel, Fallen Women, Problem
Girls: Unmarried Mothers and the Professionalization of Social Work, 1890–1945 [NewHaven: Yale University Press, 1993].)5Mark Thomas Connelly, The Response to Prostitution; Ruth Rosen, The Lost
Sisterhood: Prostitution in America, 1900–1918 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University
Press, 1982); Barbara Meil Hobson, Uneasy Virtue: The Politics of Prostitution and theAmerican Reform Tradition (New York: Basic Books, 1987). My previous work sharesa similar problem. (Hiroyuki Matsubara, “Gender, Kaikyu, Ethnicity kan Kankei no
Saihen-katei: Nijusseiki shoto no Beikoku ni okeru Baishun-hantai-undo [The Reconstructing Process of the Relations of Gender, Class, and Ethnicity: The Anti-prostitution Movement in Early Twentieth Century America],” Shiso 889 [July 1998]: 86–105.)6
Criticizing an assumption of the dominance of the middle-class reformers, Mary
Odem and Peggy Pascoe address negotiation between classes. However, a critical examination of “the middle-class” itself is yet to be made. (Mary E. Odem, Delinquent
Daughters: Protecting and Policing Adolescent Female Sexuality in the United States,
1885–1920 [Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1995]; Peggy Pascoe,
Relations of Rescue: The Search for Female Moral Authority in the American West,1874–1939 [New York: Oxford University Press, 1990].)7
Rosen, The Lost Sisterhood, xiii.
8
Allan M. Brandt, No Magic Bullet: A Social History of Venereal Disease in the
United States since 1880, expanded ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987), 51.
9Richard L. McCormick, The Party Period and Public Policy: American Politics
from the Age of Jackson to the Progressive Era (New York: Oxford University Press,
1986), Ch. 7; Daniel T. Rodgers, “In Search of Progressivism,” Reviews in American
History 10 (December 1982): 113–32; William Deverell, “Introduction: The Varietiesof Progressive Experience,” in California Progressivism Revisited., eds. William
Francis Deverell and Tom Sitton (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994), 1–11.
10
William Issel and Robert W. Cherny, San Francisco, 1865–1932: Politics, Power,and Urban Development (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986), 106–109,
155–61.
11
Discussions in the Club show that gender mattered fundamentally even in this areaof male dominated politics. This essay is a part of a larger project, which fully addresses the cultural politics in San Francisco during the Progressive Era by studying multiple sites and interactions among them.
12
Commonwealth Club of California, Progress Report of the Commonwealth Club of
California, (San Francisco, 1908), 10, 1–2.
13
Jacqueline Baker Barnhart, The Fair but Frail: Prostitution in San Francisco,
1849–1900 (Reno: University of Nevada Press, 1986), Ch. 6, 7.
14
Frederick K. Grittner, White Slavery: Myth, Ideology, and American Law (NewTHE ANTI-PROSTITUTION MOVEMENT

103

York: Garland Pub., 1990).
15
Elizabeth Andrew and Katharine Bushnell, Heathen Slaves and Christian Rulers(Oakland: Messiah’s Advocate, 1907); Judy Yung, Unbound Feet: A Social History ofChinese Women in San Francisco (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995), 76–
77. After Congress passed the Mann Act in 1910, which prohibited the interstate andinternational trade of women, some reformers utilized the law to restrain the sex industry. (Brenda Elaine Pillors, “The Criminalization of Prostitution in the United States: theCase of San Francisco, 1854–1919” [Ph.D. Diss., University of California Berkeley,
1982], 140–45.)
16
Dorcas James Spencer, A History of the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union of
Northern and Central California (Oakland: West Coast Printing Co., 1913), 92–94.
17
Board of Health, Annual Report of the Department of Public Health, San Francisco,Cal. for Fiscal Year, July 1, 1910, to June 30, 1911 (1911), 1–7; Julius Rosenstirn, “TheMunicipal Clinic of San Francisco,” Medical Record: A Weekly Journal of Medicine
and Surgery 83 (March 15, 1913): 467–76.
18
The California Social Hygiene Association was the San Francisco branch of theAmerican Social Hygiene Association. Its headquarters in New York was active in promoting the abolishment of red-light districts in the Eastern cities.
19
Commonwealth Club of California, “The Red Plague,” Transactions of the Commonwealth Club of California VI, no. 1 (May 1911), 5. Italics are mine.
20
Mary S. Gibson, A Record of Twenty-Five Years of the California Federation of
Women’s Clubs, 1900–1925 (California Federation of Women’s Clubs, 1927), 131–33;
Spencer, A History of the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, 92–94, 102–104;
Karen J. Blair, The Clubwoman as Feminist: True Womanhood Redeﬁned, 1868–1914(New York: Holmes & Meier Publishers, 1980).
21
Commonwealth Club, “The Red Plague,” 6–9, 21–23, 35–37.
22
Ibid., 1–39.
23
In a supplemental report in the next meeting, the Committee also reported on situations in some colonized and semi-colonized societies such as the Philippines, Cuba,
and Japan. (Ibid., 42–45.)
24
Ibid., 32.
25
William Denman was a prominent attorney in San Francisco. Once investigating a
graft case, he was one of the reformers in the city. San Francisco. Committee on the
Causes of Municipal Corruption, Report on the Causes of Municipal Corruption in San
Francisco (San Francisco, Rincon Pub. co., 1910).
26
Commonwealth Club, “The Red Plague,” 52–58.
27
Ibid., 55.
28
Ibid., 76–77. Macarthur later became a member of the reorganized Club Committee
in 1913 and also tried to pass the Red-Light Abatement Act in the California legislature.
29
Ibid., 61–62.
30
Ibid., 62.
31
Ibid., 70.
32
Ibid., 76.
33
Ibid., 79–81.
34
Ibid., 81.
35
Gibson, A Record of Twenty-Five Years of the California Federation of Women’s
Clubs, 131–133; Spencer, A History of the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union,
92–94, 102–104; Franklin Hichborn, “California’s Fight for a Red Light Abatement
Law,” Social Hygiene 1, no. 1 (December 1914): 6–8.
36
Pillors, “The Criminalization of Prostitution,” 146–54; Rosenstirn, Our Nation’s

104

HIROYUKI MATSUBARA

Health Endangered.
37
The Red-Light Abatement Act had to wait for the result of referendum. Franklin
Hichborn, The Anti-Vice Movement in California (New York: The American Social
Hygiene Association Incorporated, 1920).
38
Rosenstirn, Our Nation’s Health Endangered, 7.
39
Julius Rosenstirn, “The Municipal Clinic of San Francisco,” in Transactions of theFifteenth International Congress on Hygiene and Demography, Washington, September
23–28, 1912 (Washington: Govt. Print. Off., 1913), 5: 95–115.
40
Julius Rosenstirn, Our Nation’s Health Endangered, 29–30.
41
Ibid., 54.
42
Ibid., 5.
43Commonwealth Club of California, “The Red Plague: Second Report,” Transactions of the Commonwealth Club of California 8, no. 7 (August 1913), 332.
44
Ibid., 331–32.
45
Ibid., 338.
46
Ibid., 341–42
47
Ibid., 403–404.
48
Commonwealth Club of California, “The Red Light Abatement Law,” Transactionsof the Commonwealth Club of California IX, no. 8 (September 1914): 469–503.