Another very effective regulation which every state will do well to adopt by enactment of its general assembly is that making the premises leased or used for a house of ill-fame liable for any and all fines against its lessee. The following seems to me a desirable clause covering this point: "Whoever keeps or maintains a house of ill-fame, or a place for the practice of prostitution or lewdness, or whoever patronizes the same, or lets any house, room or other premises for any such purpose, or shall keep a lewd, ill-governed or disorderly house to the encouragement of idleness, gambling, drinking, fornication or other misbehavior, shall be fined not exceeding one thousand ($1,000) dollars. When the lessee or keeper of a dwelling house or other building is convicted under this section the lease or contract for letting the premises shall, at the option of the lessor, become void and the lessor may have like remedy to recover the possession as against a tenant holding over after the expiration of his term. And whoever shall lease any house, room or other premises, in whole or in part, for any of the uses or purposes finable under this section, or knowingly permits the same to be so used or kept, shall be fined not exceeding one thousand ($1,000) dollars and the house or premises so leased, occupied or used shall be held liable for, and may be sold for, any judgment obtained under this section." Some enactment of this nature is particularly desirable for two reasons: First, because actual experience has shown that judgments obtained against keepers of such houses are difficult of collection and that the ones against whom the judgments are obtained are remarkably resourceful in avoiding punishment even after conviction. Second, it seems obvious that when a property owner knows that his real estate is particularly available for houses of this character he is, if unprincipled enough to do so, bound to encourage the use of his premises for that which will bring him the largest money returns. This puts him in the way of fattening upon the wages of the social vice without incurring danger of punishment. Naturally he becomes a friend of the traffic and ready to aid and abet it wherever and whenever he can. Therefore it seems to me he should no longer be allowed to escape the penalties attached to those who engage in this infamous trade. As the owner of the property on which unlawful acts are persistently committed, and as a sharer in the unlawful profits of those acts, he should be made to share also in its perils and punishments; he should be made to feel that, as the owner of the property used for the purpose of harboring fallen women he is a link in the chain which draws innocent womanhood to its doom and that he must suffer to the full proportion of his guilt. Again, it is the first instinct of the lessee or keeper of such a house, on coming in contact with the law, to flee and forfeit his or her bonds. By making the