The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1914-03-07
F1exner Consisted With F1cxner.

Editor of The Richmond Virginian;
Sir.-In order to make II still further evident
that effort, whether by portal quotation, or
otherwise, to cite Mr.. Fexner on authority
in opposition to the principles OF the anti-vice
bill is not only futile, but must act boom
erang against the opponents of the bill wish
to put Mr.. Flexner himself on record again in
the public press The English language could
| not be used for a stronger and more I'M
| equivocal arrangement OF any form of public
regulation recognition of the social vice than
Mr.. Flexner has made. The point that
seemed to have misled the gentleman who took
| the unfortunate position regarding Mr.. Flexner.
is the statement of that author that where, as
| in Zurich and elsewhere the domcile has been
denied to the prostitute, there has been in
crease of those who have domicile a result
that would evidently follow at first, that II is
not necessary to quote Mr.. Flexner to prove II.
| In other words. those who continue in this way,
when domicile is denied them. have no domi-
cile for plying their nefarious trade, which Is
| practically IA se1f-evident proposition. and is
equivalent to saying that this and every vicious
class. when the protection OF the law is with
drawn from them, are left unprotected. and thus
the way of vice is made harder and more I'M
attractive. That the outcome is good In Zurich.
ls made very evident by Mr.. Flexner. He says
Zurich is not substantially different from other
abolition towns AS late midnight. only coca
sionnal and cautious street-walkers were to be
| observed: in reply to a question enquirer was
informed that she would shortly leave for Ge-
| neva~--a regulation town--'there is too little
doing here In the Canton OF Zurich, refer
| endum. proposed in favor of returning to the
| abandoned system, defeated by vote
1886 to 1916. newspaper comment on
| the result warns the interests in favor of regu-
laton that every proposition emanating from
them is hopeless AS between Zurich and Ge-
neva. the contrast is all in favor OF Zurich.
| though II is twice large
| The above will indicate that even the quota
ton used in order to line FleXner up against
the principles of the Saunders bill, will. when
taken in its true bearing, give strong reasons
in its favor.
| For those who have not read the hook under
consideration. the editorial and quotation from
the Saturday Evening Post, in Sundays VIZ
gilman, will be accepted conclusive testimony
For those who have the case Is clear. However
let Mr.. Flexner say this last word for himself;
| 81 have throughout this chapter considered
the bortieif mainly factor in the program
| Of regulation 1t is from the standpoint OF order
evidently futile. But from another standpoin,
it is than futile. The bordell gives ia
/, sexual vice its most prominent advertseme nit
| BY working the curiosity of the young and
| OF strangers--its main patrons, by the way,
su bstantia1ly increases demand: by requiring
slant service Of its inmates 1t virtually increases
supply 1t is therefore absolutely at war with
sound public policy, which aims to reduce both
certainly to avoid their gratuitous increase
Finally the bordell is the most fragrant In
stance of exploitation for the benefit Of third
parties, which modern feeling and legislation
are emphatically determined to prevent. For
the keepers proflt, men waste their substance
and are--to what extent the ensuing chapter
| will tell--infected with disease: while women
are dragged to the lowest depths of degradation
and excess. The bordell ts therefore, something
more than futile something more than inhu-
man" Then in a note the author adds the fol-
lowing: ut Is often said that this opinion is
held only by sentimentalists and religious per
sons. AS matter of fact, 1t Is the conclusion
of police officers all the continent, many
| of whom are still administering the system
| JOHN w. SHACKFORD.