The Colonial Old Town Ledgers Digitization Project

The New York City Municipal Archives recently applied for funding to digitize colonial-era ledgers selected from the “Old Town” records collection. These unique administrative and legal records, dating from 1645 through the early 1800s, document the Dutch and English colonial settlements in New York City, western Long Island, and the lower Hudson Valley. The project is part of a larger Archives plan to describe and provide online access to all records in the Municipal Archives from the Dutch and English colonial era through early statehood.

The Archives has already successfully completed digitization and provided on-line access to the Dutch records of New Amsterdam and the proposed project will expand this effort to include the earliest records of communities throughout the metropolitan New York City region.

“The Court Book and nothing else to be found therein, 1751.” Newtown, Book 1, Old Town Records, NYC Municipal Archives.

The ledgers chosen for digitization are the earliest records in the Old Town records collection. These records were created by European colonists in communities throughout the New York City region. Commissioned by the Dutch East India Company, Henry Hudson led the expedition to what is now New York City in 1609. In 1614, the area between the Delaware and Connecticut Rivers was designated the colony of New Netherlands. Ten years later the States General of the Netherlands created the Dutch West India Company awarding them a monopoly on trade over a vast domain from West Africa to Newfoundland.

The first colonists in New Netherlands arrived in 1624 at Fort Orange (near Albany). In 1626 other settlers came to Manhattan Island and named their community New Amsterdam. As more colonists arrived they established new settlements resulting in an archipelago of Dutch communities throughout what is now Brooklyn, Queens, Richmond (Staten Island), and Westchester.

Dutch conflict with England over boundaries and trade led Charles II of England to grant the colony to his brother James, Duke of York, in March 1664. New Amsterdam surrendered to the English on September 8, 1664, and was renamed New York. Though in 1673, the Dutch briefly reclaimed the colony, the Treaty of Westminster returned it to English control in 1674.

Bushwick Deeds from 1660 and 1661 issued by Petrus Stuyvesant. Old Town Records, NYC Municipal Archives.

The provenance of the Old Town records collection dates from consolidation of the modern City of New York on January 1, 1898. Previously, the towns, villages and cities within the counties of Kings, Queens (parts of which are now in Nassau County), Richmond and Westchester (parts of which are now in Bronx County) maintained their own local governments that each created records—legislative, judicial, property, voter, health, school, etc. These local governments were dissolved during the latter part of the nineteenth century, at first by annexation to the old City of New York (Manhattan), or the City of Brooklyn, and finally through the unified City consisting of the five Boroughs in 1898.

The Comptroller of the newly consolidated city recognized the importance of the records of the formerly independent villages and towns and ordered transfer of the Queens, Richmond and Bronx/Westchester ledgers to the central office in Manhattan. In August 1942, fearing that New York City would be a prime target for enemy invasion, the Comptroller packed the ledger collection into crates and shipped them to New Hampton, N.Y. for the duration of the war. The Archives received the records from the Comptroller in several accessions from the 1960s to the 1990s.

The bulk of the Kings County town and village records were acquired by the Kings County Clerk via annexation during the latter part of the 19th century. Beginning in the 1940s, James A. Kelly, then Deputy County Clerk of Kings County arranged that the “historical” records of the county be turned over to St. Francis College in Brooklyn Heights, “on permanent loan.” They were housed in the James A. Kelly Institute for Historical Studies at the College. While in the custody of the Institute the ledgers were microfilmed. In 1988, due to financial considerations, the College closed the Institute and the records were transferred to the Municipal Archives.

Of particular note are the records of the Gravesend settlement in Kings County. Granted to Lady Deborah Moody in 1645, it became the only English town in the Dutch-dominated western area of Long Island. Based on the frequency in which her name appears in the Gravesend Town records, it is clear that Lady Moody, a religious dissenter who fled England and later Massachusetts, took an active and intense interest all aspects of her community.

Patent for the town of Gravesend, given to Lady Deborah Moody and her followers, 1645. Old Town Records, NYC Municipal Archives.

The Old Town records consist of hand-written manuscripts bound in a variety of styles (single-section pamphlets, spring-back account-book, and case-bound ledgers, among others). They include town and village governing board and legislative body proceedings and minutes, criminal and civil court docket books, deeds and property conveyances, records of estate administration, and coroners' records.

The earliest records are written in mid-17the century Dutch which differs from modern Dutch. The records from the English colonial period are written in a combination of old Dutch and English. The materials also include non-contemporary (19th Century) manuscript translations and/or transliterations of the Dutch records.

Several unique characteristics of the New Netherlands/New York colony make its records important for understanding the origins of the American democratic system. From its earliest years, the colony was notable for its diversity. Unlike New England and Pennsylvania where religion played the dominant role, the New Netherland colony was founded as a commercial enterprise. The official religious denomination of the colony was the Calvinism of the Reformed Church, but the Dutch West India Company urged tolerance toward non-Calvinists to encourage trade and immigration. Among the religious groups in New Netherlands (and more or less tolerated) were Lutherans, Quakers, Anabaptists, Catholics and Jews. The colony actively recruited immigrants from Germany, England, Scandinavia, and France, and was the home of the largest number of enslaved Africans north of Maryland.

“Register of the children born of slaves after the 2nd day of July 1799, within the town of Flatlands in Kings County in the State of New York…” Old Town Records, NYC Municipal Archives.

One recent example of the type of research that will be facilitated by the digitization work is the New York Slavery Records Index project underway at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice (City University of New York). Impetus from the project came from the realization that the college’s namesake, John Jay, and his family, were prominent slave-holders. The index project will result in a searchable compilation of records that identify individual enslaved persons and the slaveholders, beginning as early as 1619, and ending during the Civil War. The John Jay researchers have started examining the Municipal Archives collection of manumissions and legal records.

The Municipal Archives has already described and digitized the New Amsterdam records, including the original manuscripts and their English translations documenting proceedings, resolutions, minutes, accounts, petitions, and correspondence of the colonial government. When the Old Town records phase is completed, historians will be able to explore how colonial New York legal institutions and practices served as a foundation for the judicial system and guaranteed freedoms of the new Republic and answer important questions about a formative time period in the nation’s history.

Future blog posts will describe project progress and highlight unique “finds” in this rare collection.

The Brooklyn Battery Bridge

Proposed design for the Brooklyn Battery Bridge. Department of Parks Collection, NYC Municipal Archives.

About 55,000 cars, trucks and buses use the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel every day—more than 20 million a year—but only a handful of drivers know that if mega-builder Robert Moses had gotten his way, they would be crossing on an approximately 1.5-mile long, twin-span Brooklyn Battery Bridge.

The author Robert Caro’s Pulitzer Prize-winning biography of Moses, The Power Broker describes a battle between reformers and preservationists on one side and Team Moses on the other. Moses launched an aggressive, vicious and intensely personal, last-minute push to build a bridge instead of a tunnel. The fight stretched from Albany to City Hall to the halls of the White House and President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s War Department and—80 years ago in 1939—resulted in what many believe was Moses’s most bitter defeat.

Documents, reports, letters and even Western Union telegrams in the Municipal Library and Archives paint a vivid picture of how a master builder used to getting his way by cajoling and bullying his opponents finally met his match.

Construction of the approach to the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel in Brooklyn, November 10, 1948. NYC Municipal Archives. Department of Parks and Recreation Collection, NYC Municipal Archives.

PROLOGUE

The tunnel idea had been kicking around since the early 1920s, but did not pick up steam until 1935, when Mayor Fiorello La Guardia set up a public works authority so the city could borrow $60 million, but the project had to be completed within two years.

As plans were proceeding for the tunnel—and how to pay for it—Louis Wills, president of the Brooklyn Chamber of Commerce, wrote a letter to La Guardia on January 11, 1935 supporting the tunnel plan as the “next important step in your efforts to procure adequate vehicular connections to Manhattan.”

The Chamber noted that “much of the congestion in Lower Manhattan and Downtown Brooklyn is due to the concentration of heavy interborough traffic from the three lower East River bridges.”

The City ponied up $75,000 for a feasibility study. An April 28, 1936 report from the Board of Transportation to the Board of Estimate also championed the tunnel idea. “The tunnel would create a continuous highway that would be the shortest and most direct route for transportation of freight along the East River and South Brooklyn waterfront.” Proponents of the tunnel estimated it would cost about $60 million and would be “self-supporting.

At around that time, La Guardia tried to get Washington to foot the bill through Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt’s public works initiative.

OPPOSITION FORMS

Not everyone was crazy about the tunnel proposal, though. On September 16, 1938, Manhattan Borough President Stanley Isaacs fired off a letter to Alfred Jones, chairman of the New York City Tunnel Authority, saying he was opposed to the plan unless there were provisions “for the handling of traffic once it is let loose” in the tunnel area.

In a prelude to the battle ahead, Moses informed La Guardia on September 29, 1938 that Washington nixed paying for the tunnel because it could not be completed within the proscribed two-year period for public works projects

An alternate proposal had an entrance ramp for the Brooklyn Battery Bridge on Governors Island. Department of Parks Collection, NYC Municipal Archives.

Then, on January 23, 1939, against the backdrop of a brewing World War II, Moses threw his last-minute curveball: The tunnel would become a bridge. O. H. Hamman, chief engineer of the Triborough Bridge Authority, released a brochure espousing Moses’s plan to build the Brooklyn Battery Bridge. In an introduction to the brochure, Moses wrote that it was “indisputable” that a bridge would be better, cheaper and more efficient than the tunnel he had once espoused.

The bridge, with all necessary approaches, can be built for about $41 million, as opposed to $84 million for a tunnel, Moses proclaimed. He said the bridge, which would sit 600 feet east of Governor’s Island, would be six lanes, as opposed to four in the tunnel; would cost under $350,000 in annual maintenance, less than half of the tunnel’s yearly upkeep; could be financed through bonds “without the contribution of a nickel” of city or federal money; could be built in 2 years and 3 months, rather than 3 years and 10 months for the tunnel, and would be 130-to-150 feet above the river so as not to interfere with navigation. Lacking funds to construct the tunnel, Mayor La Guardia quickly lent his support for the bridge.

Opposition was quick and fierce.

“And then, on January 25, the storm broke,” Caro wrote. “This was no protest that was going to go unheard. This was no circulating of petitions by a group of housewives out in Flushing …” Instead, he wrote it would be an epic battle between reformers and powerful civic and merchant groups that felt this was another example of Moses’s attempts to destroy “many of the values that made life in the city livable.” The reformers called Moses’s bridge construction numbers ridiculously low.

On January 25, Issacs fired off a “Dear Fiorello” letter which read: “I am sure you know that I am not wholly in agreement with you and Bob Moses concerning the plan for a new Brooklyn Battery Bridge. For the record, I have written a long letter in opposition to Commissioner (Rexford) Tugwell,” chairman of the City Planning Commission. That letter said a bridge would be detrimental to the City’s appearance and skyline, including “Battery Park and the tall buildings of Manhattan (which) are among the City’s greatest aesthetic assets.”

Moses fired back five days later, in a letter to Tugwell, which said Isaac’s “criticism of the project appears to be based upon the fallacious idea that any new artery into Manhattan creates more congestion and serious traffic problems.”

THE BATTLE JOINED

“There Must Be No Bridge,” Pamphlet, West Side Association of Commerce, Inc. Mayor LaGuardia papers, subject files, NYC Municipal Archives.

The powerful West Side Association of Commerce quickly joined the opposition, as did the Real Estate Board, the Citizens Union, the American Institute of Architects and the Regional Planning Association (RPA), headed by George McAneny, a former City official, municipal reformer and preservationist active in city politics.

On March 31, 1939, Harold Lewis, the RPA’s chief engineer, issued a letter strongly opposing the bridge plan, saying that a “series of vehicular tunnels of relatively small capacity and constructed progressively as demands require is a far better solution” than an enormous bridge. The RPA contended that the proposed site was “not a natural one for the bridge and its approaches in Manhattan would cause unjustifiable defacement and make impossible … improvement of Battery Park.”

Three days earlier, a man who identified himself as Frederick P. Bearings of Woodhaven, Queens, sent a La Guardia a telegram warning: “BROOKLYN BATTERY SPAN WOULD BE A VERY OBVIOUS TARGET FOR A HITLER SUICIDE SQUAD.”

Telegram, March 28, 1939. Mayor LaGuardia papers, subject files, NYC Municipal Archives.

The reformers hoped to get public opinion on their side. But as Caro observed, “All the reformers hopefulness proved was that they didn’t understand how much power—power over politicians—Moses had been given and how independent of public opinion he now was.”

Most of the city’s planning commissioners and elected officials sided with Moses as the process began to speed up. Two public hearings were held in February and on March 1, the Planning Commission approved Moses’s bridge plan by a 4-2 vote.

On March 9, Moses, who was vacationing in Key West., Fla., fired off a telegram urging the Mayor to authorize a bridge and remove the tunnel authorization, saying they were incompatible. Caro wrote that the telegram was not a request but an ultimatum: If the mayor wanted money from Moses’s Bridge Authority, he would need to officially scrap the tunnel idea.

The die was cast. On March 27, the City Council held a marathon hearing on the bridge plan. Seven hours into the hearing, after the reformers had spoken, Moses launched into his hostile and aggressive argument with vicious personal attacks, basically branding the reformers as Communists and, according to Caro’s book, calling the 70-year-old McAneny “an extinct volcano … an exhumed mummy.” Caro wrote that Moses sidestepped many of the issues and “those he did answer he answered with lies” about the cost and construction timeline before striding out of the hearing chamber brimming with confidence. The Council approved the plan 19-6 the next day, the Legislature authorized the bridge on March 30 and the Board of Estimate okayed it 14-2 on June 8.

Construction of the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel; tunnel interior, October 14, 1948. Department of Parks and Recreation Collection, NYC Municipal Archives.

VICTORY—AND THE DEFEAT

It seemed that Moses had won. But defeat was lurking about 225 miles away in Washington, D.C. —and he was about to suffer one of his few major losses in trying to recreate the city as he saw fit.

President Roosevelt’s War Department needed to approve the project before work could begin because there were War Department facilities on Governor’s Island and Treasury Department facilities in the Battery. There also was concern that the bridge would be a wartime target, impede shipping access to the Brooklyn Navy Yard and, Caro wrote, a feeling that FDR wasn’t too enthusiastic about it.

Moses must have sensed trouble because he was having difficulty getting meetings, according to documents in the Archives. On July 17, War Secretary Harry Woodring flatly rejected the bridge plan later calling it “a hazard to self-defense.”

Moses wasn’t done yet, though his effort to pull victory from the jaws of defeat failed. In an appeal of Woodring’s decision he said the ruling “has created an impossible situation in that it eliminates the only practical solution (the bridge) of the vitally needed vehicular crossing” from the Battery to Brooklyn.

He also enlisted editorial writers at the Daily News and the Brooklyn Eagle to urge FDR to set aside Woodring’s decision. But they fell on deaf ears.

On July 20, 1939—even before Moses’s appeal was rejected—the bridge opponents held a “Victory Luncheon,” featuring several hours of self-congratulatory speeches.

When all was said and done, the Tunnel Authority broke ground for the new tunnel on October 28, 1940. Construction was not completed for nearly 10 years due to a wartime shortage of materials. The 9,117-foot-long tunnel finally opened on May 25, 1950. The toll was 35 cents. It’s now $9.50—and known as the Hugh L. Carey Tunnel.

Mayor Robert F. Wagner speaks at the ceremony opening the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel, May 25, 1950. NYC Municipal Archives.

Mayor Robert F. Wagner speaks at the ceremony opening the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel, May 25, 1950. NYC Municipal Archives.

The Queens Borough President Panoramic Photographs, part 2

Aerial and panoramic views of New York City are some of the most popular photographs in the Municipal Archives collection. The August 30th blog post described our project to digitize the photographs from the Queens Borough President’s office and highlighted a series of panoramic images dating from the 1920s and 1930s. The collection now is completely digitized. It totals approximately 10,500 images, of which 1,296 are panoramas. Once the new digital images are processed, they will be added to the on-line gallery. This blog post offers a ‘sneak peak’ of the amazing panoramas. Future blogs will feature other images in this fascinating collection.

P-856: Elevated view of Long Island City south of the Queensboro Bridge (visible at right), looking toward Manhattan, November 16, 1929. Borough President Queens Collection, NYC Municipal Archives.

P-856-a: Elevated view of Long Island City, November 16, 1929. The Chrysler Building is at the center of the Manhattan skyline. Borough President Queens Collection, NYC Municipal Archives.

P-856-b: Elevated view of Long Island City, looking north towards the Queensboro Bridge, November 16, 1929. The school that would later become MoMA PS1 is just beyond the rail yards. Borough President Queens Collection, NYC Municipal Archives.

P-856-c: Elevated view of the Sunnyside train yards, November 16, 1929. Borough President Queens Collection, NYC Municipal Archives.

P-918-b: Nassau River (Newtown Creek), July 10, 1930. The Chrysler Building is visible in the distant Manhattan skyline. Borough President Queens Collection, NYC Municipal Archives.

P-987-c: View of Manhattan skyline from Long Island City, January 1, 1934. Borough President Queens Collection, NYC Municipal Archives.

Visible buildings include the Vanderbilt Hotel, Empire State, 10 East 40th Street, Daily News, Chanin, Lincoln, Chrysler, 500 Fifth Avenue, New York Central, Grand Central Palace, RCA, Waldorf Astoria, General Electric, River House, Savoy Plaza, Ritz Towers, Sherry Netherlands.

Immigration Acts and Fiorello LaGuardia

Fiorello LaGuardia served in Congress prior to his election as Mayor of New York City. He served from 1916-1920 and then again from 1922-1930 and was a member of the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization. In the latter period the Congress debated several proposals to either limit or expand the number of immigrants permitted to legally enter the country. The debates around these bills echo in the Halls of Congress today.

Mayor LaGuardia in 1939. NYPD Collection, NYC Municipal Archives.

Although the bulk of the Municipal Archives collection of LaGuardia records are from his three terms serving as Mayor of the City, the records from his Congressional years offer a glimpse into his leadership on a variety of issues, including immigration. The records contain copies of bills he introduced to exempt overseas family members from the immigration quotas, correspondence, commentary and news clippings.

Below are LaGuardia’s remarks on two legislative proposals. The first oppose a family separation bill and LaGuardia objects to the process which he calls inhumane. The second commentary is about an amendment to a bill introduced by Washington Congressman Albert Johnson that mandated the central registration of immigrants and subsequent deportation of those who did not become citizens within a set period. Interestingly in this piece, LaGuardia focuses on the issue of “alien bootleggers.” In both pieces, LaGuardia decries the influence of the Ku Klux Klan on Congress. Both sets of remarks eventually were published in the Congressional Record.


Fiorello LaGuardia Congressional testimony. Office of the Mayor, Mayor LaGuardia, Subject Files, NYC Municipal Archives.

MR. LA GUARDIA. Mr. Speaker, there is no use attempting to make an appeal on the merits of the bill, when we are proceeding under mob rule and not under parliamentary procedure: It is almost incredible that when a bill that deals with human beings, that when a bill that will separate families, is before the House any human being can be so inhuman as to gloat over the misery you are inflicting by this bill.

Oh, what a different performance it is around October when you go down on your knees and you come around and say, “LaGuardia, will you come in my district and tell my people what a good Congressman I am.”

I say that the procedure this afternoon is a blot on the history of the American Congress. You would not dare bring out a bill at this time under this mob rule dealing with pigs in the Agricultural Department.

You would not do it. You ought to be ashamed of yourselves. It is not only inhuman but it is not parliamentary.

But next session you are going to follow rules; you will have no mob rule, and I hope you will tell the clansman over there what I am telling them over here.

Mr. O’CONNER of N.Y. There are as many Ku Klux men over there as we have over here.

MR. LAGUARDIA. I will give them to you. This is according to the rules of the Klan and not according to the rules of the American Congress. Gloat over it, but I do not think that the statesmen in the other body are going to pass the bill when you have acted as you have. I do not believe they will. They are too decent. They are too clean. They are too human. I am ashamed of this conduct. It is a disgrace. (Applause)

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the remainder of my time.


A DIFFERENCE WITHOUT A DISTINCTION.

Fiorello LaGuardia Congressional speech. Office of the Mayor, Mayor LaGuardia, Subject Files, NYC Municipal Archives.

The Johnson Deportation Bill, known as the undesirable alien bill, was before the House a few days ago. The purpose of the bill was to deport all undesirable aliens. The bill, far fetched and extreme as it was, seemed not to have been sufficiently cruel for the Klansmen and one hundred percenters. Whereupon an amendment was adopted by the House which was carried with a great deal of zest and joy, providing for the deportation of so called “alien bootleggers.”

The impression seems to be in some quarters, and especially among the Klansmen, that only aliens violate the Prohibition Law. It was pointed out that there are several thousand aliens engaged in the boot-legging industry. Of course that statement was not true. But all the extreme restrictionists and fanatic drys seem to overlook the fact that if there are a thousand bootleggers they must be selling their wares and hootch and rum to native drinkers.

Now, it does seem strange that the law which is supposed to be equal for all, just and impartial, will impose a penalty of deportation on an alien bootlegger who sells, but no penalty to the native buyer who drinks. As a matter of fact, the bootleg industry is too lucrative to be left in the hands of aliens. There are, no doubt, aliens who engage in bootlegging in a small retail way. It is this kind of retail, small bootleggers that are generally arrested, convicted and sent to jail.

A still at 1366 East 58th St., Brooklyn, December 17, 1926. One of the many small bootlegging operations raided by the police in the late 1920s. NYPD Collection, NYC Municipal Archives.

After ten years of prohibition there have been very few cases of wholesale bootleggers arrested or convicted. Millions of gallons of liquor which is consumed every week in this country is brought in, transported and distributed in wholesale quantities. This industry requires financing – running into large figures, and today the records fail to show that any of the big men financing this new industry and profiting by it have been convicted and punished.

The reason there are thousands of bootleggers is because there are millions of drinkers. There are millions of drinkers in this country for the reason that the law is extreme and unenforceable. The trouble is that a great many of the people who violate the law and drink, are strong for the law for everybody else except themselves.


Many policies similar to those that LaGuardia and his cohort opposed have recently resurfaced. The language and the opposing sides seem eerily like the anti-immigrant and anti-Semitic rhetoric of the late 1920s.

A new exhibit, The Language of the City: Immigrant Voices, opened to the public on September 13th at the NYC Municipal Archives 1st Floor Gallery, 31 Chambers Street, Manhattan. The new show incorporates “We Are Brooklyn: Immigrant Voices,” a multimedia exhibition based on oral histories conducted by Brooklyn College students with materials from the New York City Municipal Archives.

Prostitution in New York-Part 2, From Lucky Luciano to the Bad Old Days of Times Square

Mugshot of Charles Luciano, alias Lucky, April 18, 1936. New York County District Attorney, Case File 211537, NYC Municipal Archives.

Prohibition made “Lucky” Luciano the richest and most powerful organized crime boss in the country—but his chokehold over New York City’s prostitution industry would ultimately bring him down.

Lucky Luciano (left) enters police headquarters with detective on arrival from Little Rock, April 18, 1936. NYC Municipal Archives Collection.

He had managed to escape prosecution for mob-related murders that had made him the reigning boss in the late 1920s and 1930s, but in 1936, Thomas Dewey, then a federally-appointed special prosecutor for Manhattan, and his team of investigators and lawyers developed what would become a sensational prostitution case that riveted the city.

Investigators conducted simultaneous raids on some 40 brothels and eventually built a case against him using about three-dozen witnesses, including a slew of prostitutes and madams. The key witness was a prostitute named Florence “Cokey Flo” Brown, a hard-bitten heroin addict who testified that Luciano told her he wanted to run his string of bordellos like a chain-store operation.

Amazingly, Luciano took the witness stand, confident he could charm the jury. It didn’t work; he was convicted on 60 counts of compulsory prostitution and sentenced to 30 to 50 years in prison. 

Mugshot of Florence Newman, alias “Cokey” Flo Francis Martin, alias Flo Brown, alias Fay Marston, October 10, 1934. New York County District Attorney, Case File 211537, NYC Municipal Archives.

He likely would have died in prison, but he cooperated with the war effort in 1942 after the sinking of the SS Normandie on the Brooklyn waterfront raised fears of sabotage and longshoremen threatened to strike. After becoming Governor of New York, Dewey commuted Luciano’s sentence on the proviso that he be deported to Italy, where he died in 1962. While in Italy, he continued to coordinate with fellow mobsters on international drug trafficking.

Prostitution burst back into the headlines in 1967, with a dramatic two-part series in the New York Times, contained in the Municipal Library files. The first story quoted Alfred Scotti, the head of the Rackets Bureau in the Manhattan district attorney’s office, as saying the mob pulled back on prostitution after Luciano’s conviction. 

 “It’s too difficult to organize and the mobsters find gambling, narcotics—and for that matter many legal operations—much more profitable.”

The two-month Times investigation found that some East Side bars allowed hookers to “operate surprisingly openly,” although the woman often had to convince her customer to buy three drinks before leaving.

The Times series prompted the State Assembly to toughen prostitution laws over the objections of some, like then-Assembly member Charles Rangel, who wanted to decriminalize it. “Prostitution is a problem that will be with us as long as we are a legislative body,” he said.

249 West 42nd Street, ca. 1985. Department of Finance Collection, NYC Municipal Archives.

As the city began its slide toward an ugly, wide-open Times Square—as later depicted in movies like Taxi Driver and the television series The Deuce—an NYPD press release in the archives dated February 1970 said prostitution arrests had increased 13 percent from 1968 to 1969.  

Public pressure pushed the Lindsay administration to crack down on prostitution. On July 2, 1971, Mayor Lindsay’s criminal justice coordinator reported on a meeting with representatives of District Attorney Frank Hogan and said prosecutors vowed to “push harder” and seek jail terms for repeat offenders and bail jumpers. A week later, a memo from Lindsay’s counsel’s office suggested a broad crackdown on pimps.

A January 1973 report on the “Status of Enforcement Programs to Control Prostitution and Pornography in the Midtown Area" warned of the deterioration of Times Square.

“For a considerable period of time, the Midtown area, and particularly Times Square, has witnessed a thriving business in prostitution and pornography,” the report said. “These vices do not exist in a vacuum. On the contrary, they prosper in a milieu of thieves, degenerates and undesirables.”

It noted that the NYPD’s Manhattan South Morals District made 1,031 prostitution arrests between April and November of 1972, but that just 92 resulted in jail time, while 396 cases generated fines. There was also some violence when three cops were injured in a melee with hookers resisting arrest; one pimp was arrested for trying to stab a cop.

The report listed 30 hotels that “catered to” prostitution, including The Sun, at 606 Eighth Avenue listed then as owned by the “Trump Realty Corp.” The city secured restraining orders against six of the hotels. Three of them, The Raymona, The Radio Center and the Lark, soon closed. The report noted that The Sun was “cooperating” with authorities to clean up the hotel.

The Sun Hotel at 606 Eighth Avenue was purchased by the Trump Realty Corp. in 1970. Department of Finance Collection, NYC Municipal Archives.

It also listed 41 massage parlors involved in prostitution and six midtown bars as “havens for pimps,” and noted that the random arrest and conviction approach “has not achieved the hoped-for success." The city then tried another tactic: It subpoenaed the tax records of 13 pimps to determine if tax evasion charges were an option and also formed a multi-agency task force to inspect and possibly shut down massage parlors.

That brought mixed results, at best. In 1976 Mayor Abe Beame created the federally-funded Midtown Enforcement Project (MEP) to clean up Times Square. One tactic was to put together a team of investigators from the city’s Health, Buildings and Fire departments to shut the parlors down for various violations.

In one of its first reports for the period of April to June of 1977, officials reported about 200 arrests for prostitution and obscenity, including live sex shows. From January 1 to March 31 of 1977, the NYPD’s Public Morals Squad made a total of 850 prostitution arrests, most of which resulted in some jail time. And a zoning change in the late 1970s “effectively banned most massage parlors.”

The most disturbing part in this period was a spike in juvenile prostitution, primarily in the Times Square area, as noted in a MEP report on juvenile prostitution from the Criminal Justice Center of John Jay College.

The report, which drew on 3½ months of data and interviews with 32 teenage girls, found it was hard to dissuade girls from that life.

“It is quite daunting to consider methods to persuade a 15-year-year-old who is earning $150 a night, seven days a week, that she should return to her vocational high school,” the report said, adding that the girls they interviewed came from every part of the country and that most said girls that they knew brought them into the life.

It told of Debbie, 15, from upstate New York who came to the City to visit a friend and found the friend was living with a “friendly charming man who bought and gave her clothes” and persuaded her to become a prostitute. Debbie told the interviewer the pimp thwarted her attempts to go back home.

The report also cited Kathy, 17, from Westchester County, who struck up a friendship with a girl on a visit to New York City. They stayed in touch, and after a while, the girl convinced Kathy to become a prostitute.

“None of the girls claimed they were kidnapped or raped and then ‘turned out’ as prostitutes.”

Times Square Action Plan, 1978. NYC Municipal Library.

The problem continued to worsen, though. In July, 1978, it was estimated that Times Square had 52 adult movie houses with live sex and peep shows, 63 massage parlors and 34 “prostitution-prone” hotels.

In August, 1978, the first of two Times Square “Action Plans” declared that: “Over the past four decades, successive city administrations have made repeated attempts to ‘clean up’ Times Square.”

Part of the plan was the creation of bi-weekly Midtown Task Force meetings at City Hall. The report noted that the city launched Operation Crossroads earlier in the year, which included increased police visibility and foot patrols in the area from 40th to 50th Streets between Sixth and Ninth Avenues. The NYPD also began a crackdown on “johns” carried out by undercover female police officers.

But news reports of the increasing problem angered Mayor Koch, who sent a stern memo to Deputy Mayor Nat Leventhal on May 20, 1982, in which he called for a “campaign to deal with child prostitution” in Midtown.

Letter from Mayor Koch to Deputy Mayor Nat Leventhal on child prostitution on 42nd Street, 1982. Mayor Koch Collection, Departmental Correspondence, NYC Municipal Archives.

“Enclosed is a copy of a report that I received from (Police Commissioner) Bob McGuire,” Koch wrote. “From my point of view, it is unsatisfactory. They believe they are doing all that can be done and that they are limited by laws in making inquiries when they see a suspicious adult with a child. We know that many of these situations involved adult pickups of children who may want to be picked up for prostitution purposes; nevertheless, they must be protected.”

Koch ordered Leventhal to convene a meeting “with the appropriate people to figure out a strategy to deal with this problem.” Attached to the letter was report from the U.S. General Accounting Office, which said child prostitution had increased in the last five years and that as many as 400 to 500 minors were working as prostitutes on any given day.

The various strategies made a dent in teen prostitution, at least in Midtown.  A second Times Square Action Plan, issued in October 1984, noted an increase in “quality hotels” in the area. It also said there had been a decrease in “sex-related” business in Times Square from 96 in December 1977, to 51 in September 1984.

By the early 1990s and beyond, Times Square was largely transformed from a hotbed of prostitution to a tourist-friendly area, with rejuvenated hotels, Disney Stores and Mickey Mouse largely replacing streetwalkers.

251 West 42nd Street, ca. 1985. Department of Finance Collection, NYC Municipal Archives.

But of course, prostitution didn’t go away. A Daily News story in the files from March 1981 was headlined: “Thy Neighbor’s Vice, a Tour of the Thriving Brothels of Manhattan.” It reported that brothels were alive and well between East 14th St. to Times Square and in parts of the Upper East Side and Upper West Side.

In 1986, a State Bar Association committee suggested creating “commercial districts” where prostitutes could work. That didn’t go anywhere, nor did a bill introduced in the State Senate this summer which called for the decriminalization of prostitution.

As Charlie Rangel said many years ago, prostitution will always be with us.

A History of Prostitution in New York City from the American Revolution to the Bad Old Days of the 1970s and 1980s

Prostitution has long been called the “World’s Oldest Profession.” It also is the most resilient.

In New York, it begins in Colonial times, stretches through the Civil War Era, the “Halcyon Days” of the bawdy mid-1880s, to police corruption and Tammany Hall protection at the turn of the 20th Century, the sensational “Lucky” Luciano prostitution trial in the 1930s, and the Bad Old Days of the 1970s and 1980s when teenage hookers and “Live Sex” porn palaces clogged Times Square.

It has survived and thrived despite periodic crackdowns, blue-ribbon investigations and “clean up” drives. Laws have been passed with varying results and there have been repeated calls to legalize it—as recently as June, when several State lawmakers introduced legislation to decriminalize it. 

Yet it persists.

The Municipal Library and Archives collections provide a wealth of documentation on the periodic fights to control prostitution. There are court records dating back to the 1800s, reports from civic organizations, City agency publications, books and correspondence from several mayors including Ed Koch and Rudy Giuliani.

“Over the past four decades, successive city administrations have made repeated attempts to ‘clean up’ Times Square; each new attempt was met by increased skepticism,” the first of two Times Square “Action Plans” declared in 1978.

The timeline was off by a couple of centuries.

The Municipal Library collection includes Timothy Gilfoyle’s meticulously researched book, City of Eros: New York City, Prostitution and the Commercialization of Sex 1790-1920.  Gilfoyle drew upon scores of sources in the Municipal Archives, particularly the District Attorney Indictment Papers, dating back to the late 18th Century.

In the years before the American Revolution, prostitutes worked the wharves, entertaining British sailors and local New Yorkers alike. Most of the traffic was in three main areas in what is now known as Lower Manhattan: The “Holy Ground” behind St. Paul’s Chapel, George Street near City Commons—now called City Hall Park—and East George Street, then the northeast fringe of New York City.

“Between 1790 and 1809 … two-thirds of the nearly 200 indictments for prostitution were for illegal activities near the East River docks; 26 percent on East George and George streets alone,” Gilfoyle reports, referring to district attorney records in the Archives.

Citizen outrage over widespread prostitution led to a crackdown, but “by mid-century New York had become the carnal showcase of the Western World.”    

In addition to the women who worked the streets, there were an estimated 200 brothels in New York City in 1820. That grew to more than 600 by the end of the Civil War. Over those years, much of the prostitution moved north to “Paradise Square” in Five Points, as well as lower Broadway, the Bowery, Greenwich Village and Chelsea—much of it out in the open and protected by Tammany Hall stalwarts and big street gangs.

Gilfoyle called the period between 1836 and 1871 “the Halcyon Years” of commercialized sex. It was so widely known that one Sunday in 1857, the Rev. William Berrian, rector of Trinity Church, supposedly declared from the pulpit that in his 50 years in the ministry he had not been “In a house of ill fame more than 10 times.”

“THE QUEEN” OF NEW YORK’S MADAMS

New York had its share of so-called “Celebrity” or “Star” madams, but one that stands out was Rosa Hertz, who, with her husband, Jacob, and her brother ran a string of brothels on the Lower East Side on Stanton Street, Ludlow Street and East Ninth Street, and later along Flatbush Avenue in Brooklyn.  

Indictment papers in the archives show that Hertz, a one-time prostitute also known as “Rosie,” or “Mother Hertz,” was charged with keeping a bawdy house where one of her prostitutes “did commit whoredom and fornication.”  She and her husband were in indicted in May 1886 on charges of “keeping and maintaining a common bawdy house and house of ill fame,” despite claims that she was paying off police for “protection.” 

cropped Indictment - Rose Hertz 11 Feb 1885 - Ct. of Gen. Sessions Box 166 f. 1694.jpg
On February 11, 1885, a grand jury indicted “Rose” Hertz for “Keeping a Bawdy House.” The felony prosecution case file includes the Manhattan 3rd District Police Court complaint where one Louis Burger alleges that he “… .was solicited in the premise…

On February 11, 1885, a grand jury indicted “Rose” Hertz for “Keeping a Bawdy House.” The felony prosecution case file includes the Manhattan 3rd District Police Court complaint where one Louis Burger alleges that he “… .was solicited in the premises no 64 Stanton Street for the purpose of prostitution… . ” The file also includes a letter from Police Captain Anthony J. Allaire, stating that to his knowledge Rose Hertz had moved away from the Precinct. In consequence, the Assistant District Attorney in charge of the case recommended that the indictment should be dismissed since the “nuisance” had been abated. New York City Court of General Sessions Felony Indictment Files, 1879-1894. NYC Municipal Archives


The Library also holds biennial reports from the Committee of Fourteen, an anti-saloon civic group, which noted that at one point Hertz “obtained from the courts an injunction to restrain the police from interfering with her.”

The group’s annual report from 1916-1917 called Hertz a longtime “power in the vice district” in Lower Manhattan.”

She was convicted on February 3, 1913 on charges of running a disorderly house on East Ninth Street and jailed in the Tombs. This time, she threatened to name her protectors.  A lengthy New York Times article on February 21, 1913, based on statements from then-Manhattan District Attorney Charles S. Whitman, reported: “For twenty years she had run disorderly resorts and built up a big business that made her rich. During all those years she paid fat prices for protection to police and more fat prices to politicians for other favors and because she was squeezed.”

Though the article named several police officials who took money from brothels, it’s unclear whether Hertz delivered on her promise to identify crooked cops and politicians. In any event, a July 6, 1913 Times article headlined “WOMAN WHITE SLAVER GOES TO JAIL” reported: “Sheriff Harberger took yesterday Rosie Hertz, the proprietress of several white slave dens, to Blackwell’s Island to begin her sentence of one year’s imprisonment. Mrs. Hertz has been in the Tombs since February 3 on the promise that she would reveal police graft in the white slave traffic.”

The Times estimated she was worth $105,000 in 1903, which would be about $3 million today.

THE “SOCIAL EVIL” IN NEW YORK

Public outrage had become so vocal by the early 1900s that the Committee of Fourteen was formed to combat “The Social Evil in New York City.” 

The Committee, whose reports are in the Municipal Library, noted that in 1905 Park Row and Bowery dives catering to prostitution were “going full blast.” Among them were “The Flea Bag,” “Scottie Lavelle’s,” “Paddy Mullins’,” and “The Little Jumbo.”

It also made a distinction between the higher-class bordellos like Hertz ran and the lower-priced ones where women “were poorly fed and exploited in various ways by the madames and proprietors. When a woman received a patron, the money was immediately turned over to the madame.” Women got half of what they earned, minus board, drinks, doctor’s fees and clothes.

One of its first reports included a chapter on “The Protection of Women” and detailed how prostitution operated in those days despite “feeble” legislative attempts to curb it. The report said the first rung in exploiting women was the “cadet” or pimp. “The cadet is the procurer who keeps up the supply of women for immoral purposes” through “entrapment, threats of bodily harm, seduction, fraud or duplicity.”

Some of the cadets came from the ranks of street gangs with ties to local Tammany Hall politicians. “Small army of vicious young men are used to ... see that houses secure inmates and that vice in general is not allowed to decrease. it is for the profit of these men and of various businesses and political interests which find prostitution valuable.” 

Subsequent committee reports described police corruption in detail. A 1907-1908 report claimed that large brothels paid police $400 to $600 a month, corrupt plainclothes cops received $205 and patrolmen got about $184 monthly.  

One of the leading books on the topics in the Municipal Library is Commercialized Prostitution in New York City, by George Kneeland, written in 1917. It focuses on information from a 1910 Special Grand Jury probe of “white slave traffic” in New York, creation of the Bureau of Social Hygiene and delves into police corruption.

The book describes several locales for bordellos: “The parlor house, the tenement house apartment, the furnished room house, the disorderly hotel and the message parlor.”

It also describes the pecking order of such places. He wrote that investigators visited 142 parlor houses between January 24, 1912 and November 15, 1912. Of those visited, “20 are known to the trade as fifty-cent houses, 80 as one-dollar houses, 6 as two-dollar houses and 34 as five- and ten-dollar houses.” The remaining two were uncategorized.

Prostitution and Its Repression in New York City, 1900-1931, by Willoughby Cyrus Waterman, 1932.

Prostitution and Its Repression in New York City, 1900-1931, by Willoughby Cyrus Waterman, 1932.

Another book in the Library that describe the prostitution business and its protectors in the era is Prostitution and its Repression in New York City 1900-1931, by Willoughby Cyrus Waterman. 

“It is clearly evident that during the early years of the century the New York police, far from protecting the city from vice, were rather actively engaged in aiding and abetting the very conditions which they were obliged to protect.” 

The book noted that police crackdowns often concentrated on low-level operations while leaving the high-class brothels alone. The city created night courts for women in 1910 to handle the ever-increasing volume of prostitution arrests.

In its 1930 report, the Committee of Fourteen said that the turn of the century “corruption in the Police Department was almost general and the main source of that corruption was organized, commercialized vice.”

That corruption wasn’t confined to police, though. In one of its final reports, the Committee felt compelled to make an embarrassing admission—and to issue a public apology: John Weston, an assistant district attorney assigned to the Women’s Court—whom the committee had praised over the years—confessed to accepting “petty cash gratuities” involving 350 to 400 cases.

The Committee of Fourteen disbanded in 1932, when it was no longer able to raise money for its operations. 

Four years later, prostitution again captured the public’s imagination with the sensational trial of perhaps the most powerful Organized Crime boss in the country, Charles “Lucky” Luciano. 

TO BE CONTINUED ...