Part 7 (2/2)

He is also the proprietor of a $5 house located in West 49th Street.[209]

In some houses there are three partners who are said also to own shares in other places of the same character; in one instance, two brothers are partners in two houses--one in Sixth Avenue, and one in West 27th Street.

Four partners were formerly interested in a business conducted in West 24th Street.

The group of men who operate these 28 houses of prost.i.tution are very careful in disposing of their shares. The purchaser must either be one of their own number or some relative or friend. Sales are made for different reasons, sometimes to effect economies in management. For example, on June 7th, 1912, an owner[210] sold a half interest in a Sixth Avenue resort to a man from the West, for $2,200. Thereupon he bought a one-third interest in another house on Sixth Avenue for $900, being admitted to the firm that he might serve as lighthouse and procurer. A half-partner[211] was taken into another Sixth Avenue house[212] for $1500. The low price was subsequently accounted for by the owner as follows: ”Do you suppose if the new partner had not had a good woman, I would have taken him in for that sum? I would have to take a woman in anyway and give her at least 20 per cent of the profits, without getting anything for it except her labor. To start with, I am getting $1,500 and a good woman; I save $25 per week on a procurer, and besides get a partner who is interested in the house and not a total stranger who does not care whether the house does business or not; the place is running straight now.” While these two men were discussing this economical move, the madame[213] of a house in West 40th Street[214]

approached, to remark that she had a good house in the 26th police precinct, and wanted to have one of them come with her as a partner, so that she could use his influence in making some very necessary arrangements looking toward the success of the business. In reply to this offer, the person addressed replied: ”They (meaning the police authorities) will not stand for a one-dollar house of prost.i.tution on that street and besides I have enough, my hands are full.” Thereupon one of the partners in another resort on Sixth Avenue,[215] remarked that if she wanted to pay him $2,000 for his one-third interest, he would sell it.

”Why do you want to sell?” asked the woman.

”My woman is very sick,” he replied, ”and she has to go to the mountains; also her sister is very sick and I am 'broke.'”

”How heavy is business?” she asked.

He replied that the house was ”working” between $1,000 and $1,200 per week. She regarded $2,000 as too much for a one-third interest, as the hot months were coming on and business would probably be very dull; however, she would give $1,500.

”No,” he answered, ”you cannot buy my share for $1,999.”

Buyers are of course wary. They must be convinced that they are getting what they pay for; occasionally, therefore, tentative arrangements are made. A madame is installed until actual experience proves that the property is worth the price asked.

The following transactions were actually witnessed by our investigators: On March 3rd, 1912, sale of three one-third interests in a Sixth Avenue resort for $650 apiece; March 11th, 1912, sale of a half interest in another Sixth Avenue resort for $2,200; March 19th, a sale of a one-third interest in a West 40th Street resort for $1,500,--a poor investment, for the house was shortly closed; in July, 1912, a one-third interest in another resort in West 40th Street was purchased for $3,000 by an owner, who transferred his women thither from a place in 28th Street.

Occasionally pressure is brought to force a part owner out. On one such transaction, a profit of $500 was made; in another a share was bought for $500,--far below its market value.[216]

Quarrels and disputes between shareholders are of frequent occurrence.

Such disputes are deplored among the more intelligent promoters because they fear exposure of one sort or another. A dissatisfied shareholder may ”squeal” to the police; or his woman may sit on the steps of a rival's resort, calling the attention of the police to a particular house. The policy of the business is to keep everybody satisfied and contented.

Nevertheless, misunderstandings occur; on April 8th, 1912, two shareholders were engaged in a hot dispute; one of them had been a silent partner who never ”came to the front” when extra demands were made on the finances of the firm, but left the other to pay the bills. It was claimed that, as a result of his neglect, the house was closed and an officer was ordered to stay inside. The business was ruined. Finally the officer was removed, whereupon the ”silent” partner wished to be recognized as owning a share. As the complainant had borne the brunt of the difficulties with the police, as well as the subsequent losses, he refused; besides, he had taken in two other men as partners. The delinquent partner became very angry and threatened to send his woman to the house and to make all sorts of trouble. The two new partners advised that he receive $150 and be declared ”out for good.” But the silent partner was not satisfied when he heard that one of the new partners had sold his share for $1,700. So he demanded $600 more for his share, claiming that he was still a partner, which sum he subsequently received.[217]

The precarious nature of such investments, depending, as it does, for its value on variations in public opinion and munic.i.p.al policy, can be ill.u.s.trated from former as well as current history:

During the fall of 1907, the Commissioner of Police, as well as the District Attorney, became very active in closing houses of prost.i.tution in Manhattan. An owner who was put out of business at that time made the following statement, in substance, in the presence of two witnesses:

”At the time I was put out of business by Police Commissioner Bingham in 1907, I left New York with $4,800 and bought a farm in Jersey. After things had cooled down, or in February, 1911, I came back to New York to look the ground over. Finally things looked all right and I bought a one-third interest in a place in West 25th Street for the sum of $1,200.

Three days later, ”bing,” I get a raid and a cop in front of the door for a whole month. Then the cop was taken away and I opened again for a few days, when, ”bing,” another $300 raid with a cop inside. I was tipped off that my partner did not suit, so I bought her interest for $600 while the cop was still inside. I then ”doubled up” with a friend. We opened very slowly; I would not let the women solicit at the windows. The weather was very hot. In August I bought my friend out for $1,200 which made me even.

From February to April, I paid $100 a month in rent and other expenses and didn't make a cent until August. Since that time up till now I have saved only $9,000. The house stands me $4,000 after paying rent, the cost of the raids, and the purchase price.”

As already pointed out, any change in the political situation or in the att.i.tude toward the business on the part of the authorities of the city, or a reform movement, reacts immediately upon the value of the shares in vice resorts. Just before the murder of the gambler Rosenthal last summer, the shares in houses of prost.i.tution were very valuable, and it was practically impossible to secure them except at large prices. On June 4th, a part owner in a house in West 25th Street declared: ”It is impossible to get something decent unless you pay a prohibitive price. I had to pay $1,700 for a one-third interest in this place and only to-day I paid $1,000 for a year's lease on three houses in the same street. These buildings have changed hands seven or eight times during the past year and it is rumored that they are going to be torn down.”[218] On June 19th, 1912, the owner of a share in a Sixth Avenue house told a man that the ”stocks are awful high.” He offered to sell his one-third share, costing $500 originally, for $2,000.

The Rosenthal murder took place July 15, 1912, and shares in houses of prost.i.tution at once declined. Some of the promoters were very pessimistic over the situation and declared that the houses would be closed and their business ruined. On August 6th, 1912, while discussing the situation, one of them[219] declared that it was all over with them. His partner[220]

remonstrated with him, holding that the authorities would not close the houses. To this the former replied:

”Well, I show you how much I think of it--I will sell my interest and get out.”

”It's a go,” said the other, ”I've been a gambler all my life; I'll buy it.” The price paid for this share several months before was $1,700, and the same sum was demanded and refused. After some arguing, the bargain was closed at $1,000 and $100 was paid on account.

Prior to the murder in question, a one-third interest in a Sixth Avenue place was worth $2,000. On August 8th, 1912, the owner offered to sell his interest for $1,000.

”No,” said the prospective buyer, ”I will give you $500, and I am taking a gambler's chance in giving you that much.”[221]

<script>