The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1914-03-06

an endeavor OF John d. Rock efeller, Jr., with
laboratories at Bedford, N. Y. This bureau ID
undertaking to attack these evils In a scientific
way, which precludes hasty and ill-advised ac-
| ton. 1t has sent to Europe, DR.. Abram Flex-
| ner. to study the question there. and the result
after two years OF assiduous toll. is q volume
OF data comprising more than four hundred and
/ fifty pages. Dr. Flexner II any one, would be
expected to urge such action as is here proposed,
but on page 827 he says:
| THE street walkers Of London tend to con-
gregate in apartment houses or mansions"
| from which respectable parties are crowded out:
In the provincial towns they occupy email
houses. II renting rooms to prostitutes In in
itself made crime, the law is broken, as at
Berlin and, Of course. most regularly in case of
the more clever and wel-to-do: or the stupid
and wretched pushed into vagabondage
rather than out Of prostitution"
And in his final chapter, he states that until
cities have many times the present institutional
facilities. it is useless to hope to eradicate the
evils discussed.
| And on the 27th:
| Neither did cite Flexner as believing feeble
| mindedness to be the cause OF prostitution. DR..
Flexner Is one of the most eminent Of scientists,
but does not pretend to know anything about
the subject OF the feeble minded: in fact, / be-
lieve in his book he states that he thinks 1t only
| a contributing cause.
/ cited Flexner supporting the proposition
| that 1t is improper to deprive prostitutes of a
domcile.
Now. I have made no representation that
Flexner approves of red-liRht segregated dis
trct. / have not even said that I approved of
such a district. Frankly do not hold opin-
ion on the subject. except that 1t is probably a
thing to be governed by local conditions.
What is good for seaport Norfolk, may not
be good for inland Richmond. and / have no
opinion. for against, Flexner this point
1t Is only against the present bill. cruel bill
denying a prostitute a domcile, that I protest
now. Why the purpose of this bill is to
deny such a woman a home-it is not to close
the district; this done in Atlanta with only
our present laws And so in other cities.
Let us, however, turn to Flexner and obtain
other proof of the veracity of the reverend gen.
tlemen or myself He says further. p 327, i'm
medately following the above quotation:
Some interesting statistics this point come
from Zurich, where, since 1897, the renting of a
domicile To prostitute constitutes punishable
offense. AS the execution of the law has heen
more efficient the percentage OF homeless pros
| titutes, who sleep In public lodging houses or
| elsewhere, now here now there. betravs a
tendency to increase, Police statistics dealing
with 361 prostitutes In 1904, show 69s per cent
having a regular domicile. 800 per cent without
domicie: in l08, Of 500 women the proportions
were 52.6 per cent, 47.4 per cent respectively. N
1910, of COL women, 62.2 per cert and as per
cent respectively. The domice problem is In
deed soluble only the general problem Of
! prostitution itself is solved Is is made neither
| better worse by abolition"
| To the readers of this paper l ask is il act
possible that either the Reverend NJ shackfore
Is so accustomed to making statements from the
pulpit which no one may answer. and, therefore,
cannot brook opposition, also, entirely lack
| ing sense of huomr and power OF discrim ma
ton, he fails to see how absurd ne makes himself
! by his inability to distinguish between the pre-
sent bill and obnlshment Of any regulation?
Very respectfully,
! J. Fl, DRAKE JR.