按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
health and the public morals。〃111 U。 S。 751。
Speaking specifically； a sweeping decision of the highest tribunal of
the land； is as follows： 〃There is no inherent right in a citizen to thus
sell intoxicating liquors by retail； it is not a privilege of a citizen of a
state or a citizen of the United States。〃137 U。 S。 86。
No state or citizen of the United States then has any power； authority
or right to vend intoxicating liquors at all。
That there may be no misconception or misconstruction； in a case
from Kansas； this final court of appeal in American jurisprudence； said：
〃For we cannot shut out of view the fact； within the knowledge of all；
that the public health； the public morals； and the public safety may be
endangered by the general use of intoxicating drinks； nor the fact；
established
by statistics accessible to everyone； that the idleness； disorder；
pauperism； and crime existing in the country are； in some degree at least；
traceable to the evil；〃Mugler vs。 Kansas； 123 U。 S。 623。
And again： 〃The statistics of every state show a greater amount
of crime and misery attributable to the use of ardent spirits obtained at
these liquor saloons than to any other source。〃137 U。 S。 86。
Hon。 Justice Grier said： 〃It is not necessary to array the appalling
statistics of misery； pauperism； and crime that have their origin in the use
and abuse of ardent spirits。 The police power； which is exclusively in
the state； is competent to the correction of these great evils； and all
measures
of restraint or prohibition necessary to effect that purpose are within
the scope of that authority； and if a loss of revenue should accrue to the
United States； from a diminished consumption of ardent spirits； she will
be a gainer a thousand…fold in health； wealth and happiness of the
people。〃5 Howard 532。
These far…reaching decisions settle forever the disloyalty and un…
Americanism of any state or citizen presuming to authorize or condone
liquor selling。 The whole license system of the United States is clearly
illegal and unconstitutional。
Abraham Lincoln interpreted the Constitution right； when he wrote
the Emancipation Proclamation。 The Presidents of the United States
are oath bond to enforce it； and the license to vend intoxicating liquors
as unconstitutional。 Mr。 Roosevelt is violating his oath to allow this
business to continue。 He has the same right and more cause than Abraham
Lincoln to cancel every license； and shut up every brewery and distillery
in the United States。 God says； 〃Woe to the crown of pride； to
the drunkardsYes； this thing at the head of the nation is cursedLook
at the assassinated Presidents； since the license was given by the Republican
Party in 1863。 Lincoln refused to put his name to the bill at
first； but was over persuaded to do so by those parties who said it was
to pay a war debt； and when that was done； the license would be revoked；
but poor； honest Abe Lincoln was not suffered to undo the wrong he
was persuaded to commit。 Every drunkard's wife and drunkard's mother
and child ought to bring suit against the Government； for the durgging；
poisoning and murdering of their loved ones。 A man can recover if his
wife's affections are alienated from him； a person can recover damages
even； if he injures his foot on a defective sidewalkthe inference is clear。
And now let us look at the Legal Status of Joint Smashing。 Let
every lawyer； judge and law…abiding person read carefully the following：
Kansas； true to the doctrines enunciated above； and loyal to the best
welfare of her populace； enacted constitutional prohibition forbidding the
sale of ardent spirits。
Section 14 of the Prohibitory Law reads： 〃It shall be the duty of
all sheriffs and constables； in their respective counties and townships； to
file complaints and make arrests for violation of this act； whenever they
shall be informed of the violation thereof； and any such officer who shall
neglect or refuse to file such complaint or make such arrest； upon being
informed of the omission of such offense； shall be subject to a fine not
exceeding 100； and his office shall be vacant： Providing that no such
officer shall in any event be liable for costs of such prosecution。〃 ；
Hence； it is not necessary that the private citizen drum up evidence；
swear out warrants and prosecute liquor drug…stores and joints。 That
is what officials are elected and paid for and if officers fail to abate
these liquor venders； then the duty devolves back on the patriotic citizen。
This decision of the Supreme Court of the United State；； carried
up from Vermont； Spaulding vs。 Preston； 21 p。 9； towit： 〃If any member
of the body politic instead of putting his property to honest uses；
converts it into an engine to injure the life； liberty； health； morals； peace
or property of others； he can； I apprehend； sustain no action against one
who withholds or destroys his property with the bona fide intention of
preventing injury to himself or others。〃
In Kansas every liquor selling place is not only a declared nuisance；
but a constitutional outlaw。 And in the case from Pennsylvania
where a private individual had abated a nuisance； the court held： 〃We
consider it also well settled； as is claimed by this defendant； that a common
nuisance may be removed； or； in legal language； abated by any individual。
Any man； says Lord Hale； may justify the removal of a common
nuisance； either by land or by Nyater； because every man is concerned in
it。〃
It is not only the privilege of the patriotic citizen to abate a dangerous
nuisance but it is commendable。 Bishop on Criminal Law； paragraph
1081； says： 〃This doctrine （of abatement of a public nuisance by an
individual） is an expression of the better instincts of our natures； which
lead men to watch over and shield one another from harm。〃
〃The buildings； premises and paraphernalia of a nuisance are not
legitimate property and have no rights in law。 Damages cannot be recovered
for their destruction by an individual。 The question of malice does
not enter into the case at all。〃
I Bishop's Criminal Law 828； I Hilliard on Torts； 605。
〃At common law it was always the right of a citizen； without official
authority； to abate a public nuisance； and without waiting to have it
adjudged such by legal tribunal。 His right to do so depended upon the
fact of its being a nuisance。 If be assumed to act upon his own adjudication
that it was； and such adjudication was afterwards shown to be
wrong； he was liable as a wrong…doer for his error； and appropriate damages
could be recovered against him。 This common law right still exists
in full force。 Any citizen； acting either as an individual or as a public
official under the orders of local or municipal authorities； whether such
orders be or be not in pursuance of special legislation or charter provisions；
may abate what the common law deemed a public nuisance。 In
abating it； property may be destroyed； and the owner deprived of it
without trial； without notice and without compensation。 Such destruction
for public safety or health is not a taking of private property for
public uses without compensation； or due process of law； in