Honolulu star-bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1912-2010, 1915-04-10
RED.LIGHT' Law IS effective, SAY
THOSE Who GOT FACTS F|RST.HAND

women, seduced the weak. and other.
wise satisfied upon respectable NO
men his animal passions which form
erly found outlet within segregated
districts upon professional prostitutes.
II Is perhaps sufficient TO state, in
answer 10 this objection, that there is
not a shred Of evidence in support Of
II: not even the bitterpst enemies OF
the policy OF the abolition Of the seq.
regated district who were interviewed
(sOme Of them chiefs Of pOlicel took
any stock in this argument. Either
this objection or the objection contain
ed in A. namely that prostitution has
not been lnssened and has been scat
tered throughout the various cities BY
the abolition Of segregated districts
must fall to the ground as they are
obviously inconsistent.
2. UPON ARGUMENTS FOR THE
LAW.
A. SEGREGATED Districts impossible
Since Passage Of Injunction Law.
The Injunction law has proved i'm
menseIv valuable as a legal instru-
ment for wiping out segregated dis
tricts. as shown by the experience of
Omaha which, we are informed by the
district attorney, was duplicated by
Portland. Oregon. The mere existence
OF this law upon the statute books
moreover. has influenced unwilling or
Indifferent public officials to close
such districts eithe" by use of this
law or by executive action.
The best example OF this conten
ton among the cities in Iowa and Ne,
braska is Omaha. In Omaha. the dis
trict was closed Immediately after the
passage of the injunction law, by the
police and county attorney acting to-
gether-a combination of executive
and legal action. A representative OF
this association found by investigation
on the ground that the cities of Wash,
ington. D. c., and Duluth, Mimi, have
also successfully taken such executive
action after the passage of this law.
1t is evident that the officials either
welcomed this law as a new weapon
or were convinced that their further
refusal or neglect to teke action to
places would be met by action. under
the injunction law, by some citizen or
association. The fear of TIE public
disgrace involved in the necessity for
such private action, has undoubtedly
influenced law-enforcing officials, and
can confidently be expected to influ-
ence such officials in the cities of 9th
er states which are considering the
passage of such law. The fact that
few private citizens have been forced
to use this law is evidence of the
prompt response of officials generally
to an aroused public opinion and to
the satisfaction of citizens with the
efforts of their officials
Aside from the influence on officials
of the threat of an expose by private
action, the injunction law renders the
renting of houses by private owners
for such purposes within a segregated
district extremely hazardous. A prop
erty owner cannot plead ignorance of
the existence on his property of pros
titution. which is advertised, open and
notorious. In self-protection, the own
er would have to insist on the elimina-
ton of all those advertising features
which make it possible to pay for pro-
lection monthly fines such as are usu-
ally levied by the police or courts, as
we'll as the vast amount of petty graft.
In this way the districts would be
broken up even without official action.
AS a matter of fact, no city was
found in the two states visited in
which there existed a segregated dis
trict where prostitution was open
and notorious.
3. Effective Legal Instrument.
The use of this law mas in every in
stance resulted in the immediate and
permanent clearing out of prostitutes
from the addresses complained of.
This was extremely difficult to &C.
complish under the criminal laws be-
cause of the delays, evasions, change
OF personnel, and other time-killing
devices possible under the criminal
laws, and impossible under the injunc-
ton law. 1t has not infrequently hap
pened under the administration of the
criminal laws that numerous raids, ar
rests and convictions lasting over a
period of several years have been ne
cessary before the business became
too improbable to run. Furthermore,
the injunction law places the prosti-
tute permanently under the control of
the court, whose order prohibits her
forever from practising her profession
anywhere within the judicial district
There is no fine or imprisonment pro-
vided for the first offense but thu
penalty for infraction of the restrain
ing order is so severe and the method
of proof so quick and easy (being with
out a jury and before the judge or
court who issued the order) that only
one prostitute has been found with the
temerity even to attempt to renew the
practise of her profession within the