THE CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIII, Issue 7646, 25 May 1886, Page 3

THE CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACT.

TO THE EDITOR. Sib,—As you stated this morning that a memorial with regard to the C.D. Act is in course of signature, it is probable that many of your readers may be interested in hearing what has been done in the matter in England, and the conclusion which has been reached after long ind careful examination and discussion. A medical man, Dr. Charles Bell-Taylor, was the first to protest against the Acts ; a brave woman, Mrs, Josephine Butler, devoted her life to the cause, and many others followed in har steps; a statesman, the Right Honorable James Stansfeld, has given to repeal a atateman's mind, a stateman's skill, but more than a stateman's sense of right and unswerving allegiance to duty, and willingness to forego the prizes of a legitimate ambition. To quote the words of Mr. Campbell Bannerman, Secretary of State for War, during the recent debate : " A strong committee sat year after year and collected a mass of evidence. . . . The House had the benefit of all the arguments for and against the system then in force, and it pronounced its judgment upon it. , . . Thereupon this practice of compulsory examination was suspended, and 1 dismiss the belief that any Government, or any House of Commons will revive it." For two years the operation of these Acta has been suspended, and on March 16 of this year Mr. Stansfeld moved the following resolution in the House of Commons: — That in the opinion of the House the Contagious Diseases { Act, 1866-69 ought to be repealed." J In so doing the right honorable gentle- I man said "1 do not wish to go into the hygienic question unless I am compelled to do so. I do not think that this new House will stop to consider that question. I think it will determine to deoiae on the higher ground of constitutional and moral and religious liberty. . . . Our difficulties have been enormous, from the nature of the subject, from the unwillingness of this House or a former House to entertain it, from the unwillingness of tho Press to ventilate it in their columns. . . . Those hon. members who have been members of the House during the years in which I have advocated this measure will bear me out when I say that I have never made a tactical movement with the object of carrying repeal by surprise, because X knew what the object was for which I and hundreds and thousands of other men and women in this country had determined to make any necessary sacrifice, for any necessary number of years, to accomplish ; and that it was not merely the repealing of these Acts, but something far deeper, far higher, far more momentous than that it was the arousing and the awakening of the popular mind to the danger, and the degradations, and the crimes of the growing sexual vice of this country." In the remarkable debate which followed, not a single speech was made in favour of the Acts, Sir John Kennaway, a believer in their efficacy, declaring " that the opinion of the country is, that these benefits are obtained at too great a cost—the cost, namely, of injury to the moral feeling of the country—the injury that was felt by the different treatment of women from men, and the danger to which women felt that they were subjected in being liable to be called upon to answer for their character." Mr. Stansfeld's motion was carried without a division. Remembering that every possible source of information has been open to members of the House of Commons, and that their conclusion has been reached with great deliberation, those inhabitants of Auckland ! who are alive to ithe fearful moral cost of the regulation, entertain the hope that that which has been so emphatically condemned in the old country will not be tolerated in the new. It takes men of noble nature publicly to declare themselves in the wrong ; yet the City Council have it in their power to earn for themselves a great reputation by spontaneously doing away with this evil thing. If this is not to be, if these gentlemen decline the honour open to them, then all who have at heart the moral good of the community, tho real strength of the State, must gird themselves for the struggle, resolved, like Mr, Stansfeld and his fellowworkers, not to shrink from any necessary sacrifice for any necessary.time. I shall be happy to send a copy of the memorial to any person who in willing to help in the collection of signatures,—l am &c., Mary Steadman Aldis. Mount Eden, May 20, ISS6. TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—As a petition is about to be signed praying for the repeal of the Contagious Diseases Act, I would ask the public to pause and think before petitioning for the repeal of an Act, the carrying out of which is of most vital importance to this, as well as to all countries. A great deal of sentimental morality and mock-modesty has been the means of preventing the public from viewing this matter' in its true light, and a : number of misguided but well-meaning enthusiasts have so far been the only opponents of this moat important and wise Act. I The narrow and prejudiced view which they takeof it is that it is an Act which renders it safe for men to sin, from which they would seem to argue that the passions of men aud women can be regulated by Act of Parliament, i an argument which is conclusively negatived by tho experience of the world from its very commencement. It is not only absurd to suppose that the Aot was passed to enable men to sin with safety, but to take such a view of the motives which urged those in power to pass it is an insult to our Government and the Queen. All those who have any knowledge of the world are aware that the sin, to mitigate the evils of which this wise Act has been passed, exists, has existed, and will continue to exist to the end, and that where it is checked in one direction, it seeks a new channel. It is said that since the Act was passed, immorality has increased, but this is not borne out by statistics, which show that it has, if anything, decreased, and been confined within narrower limits. Again, it has been urged that the supervision of women is disgusting and degrading to the sex, being also repulsive to the women themselves. This certainly is not proved. The life such women lead is truly degrading to their sex, but cannot be made mOre so by legal supervision of them, and many of them have told me that far from shrinking from the inspections, they submit to them without demur, looking upon the working of the Act as a safeguard and direct benefit to them. This answer will be given with very few exceptions to all who take the trouble to question them on the subjeot, Before the Act was in force seduction was an everyday occurrence, not that vice for mere selfish ends led mon to ruin young girls, but the fear of a terrible disease kept them from sinning whore harm could result primarily to no one but themselves. Now as to the question of disease. If it only affected the individuals committing the sin it would be monstrous to shield them from the results of their act, and I would under such circumstances be the first to denounce any such measure ; but it is not the individual alone who suffers, for even though he may seem to have got quite rid of the traces of disease it is none the less in his system, ready to break out at any time, even after the lapse of twenty years or more of apparently perfect health, influencing to his hurt all diseases from which he may subsequently suffer, and showing unmistakably the venereal taint. But this is not all, and only refers to him who originally sins and becomes diseased. Now, we must go further and see the results of disease in the children of infected parents. Even at birth the ravages of venereal disease are frequently seen, and every form of physical and mental deformity occurs from this cause ; deafness, blindness, insanity, affections of the skin, and many other pitiable and loathsome forms of disease may ba present in the bodies of innocent and helpless children who, if they survive, will in turn become the fathers and mothers of a puny, miserable, and tainted offspring. And so widespread is the influence of this terrible disorder that I do not hesitate to attribute to it the physical and mental decline of thousands of families which must feel its effects for years and years to come. Again, a young man may be led away by passion to commit a single act of «in for which he is, upon reflection, sincerely sorry and disgusted with himself, but, too late, be finds himself the victim of disease, and & fair young life is ruined. In such a case the result is frequently suicide, ant l the life which might have been a useful one t" the country, and the father of healthy, helpful members of sooiety is 'lost, because hia Government will not save him from the results of one mad act. But it will be said that men will sin habitually when fear of disease is removed, Some may do so, but not many, and it 1 j

surely better, even bo, than that the state of things I have shown should continue to exist. lb has been stated by opponents of feba Act that both immorality and disease have greatly increased since it has been in for.'e. This is not so, but both have vastly increased in those places where the Act was in force but has been suspended, and venereal diseases have appeared in so hideous and virulent a form that we only find descriptions of them written by the older surgeons at a time when these disorders were not so clearly understood as at present, and when sanitary precautions against disease were oarried out but imperfectly or not at all. I feel sure that the motives of those who oppose the Act are the very best, and, no doubt, the result of careful thought, but surely no man or woman with the good of the country and his fellow-creatures at heart can look at the question from my point of view and still wish the Act repealed. The full and thorough carrying out of the Act means to the country less immorality, healthy parents and offspring, and safety to tha honour of hundreds of young girls who otherwise would fall victims to the seducer. 1 do not excuse the sin, but, seeing no possibility of suppressing it, uphold tha wisest and most thorough means of keeping it within bounds. A full description of tha nature and results of venereal disease, as written by some of the most eminent sur« geons, would do more to keep the Act in foroe than any argument I can use; and, after reading it, I do not think that any Christian father or mother would be guilty of indirectly assisting at the possible ruin of his or her fellow-creature—perhaps a son or brother—by opposing the working of the wise and humane Contagious Diseases Act.—l am, &c, Maori. Auckland, May 24, 1886. ' I