The Use and Need of the Life of Carrie A. Nation [61]
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 the sense
of the constitution. It is simply the prevention of its noxious and unlawful
use, and depends upon the principle that every man must so use his
property as not to injure his neighbors, and that the safety of the public
is the paramount law. These principles are legal maxims or axioms
essential to the existence of regulated society. Written constitutions
presuppose them, are subordinate to them, and cannot set them aside."
These great principles of civil jurisprudence and popular government
apply alike in every state in the Union. An eminent jurist, Judge
James Baker, of Evanston, Ill., formerly a resident of Missouri, gives
his professional opinion of the late crusading by the women there. He
maintains that it was legal; he points out that the saloons raided, at
Denver and Lathrop, were unlawful and that they were "nuisances at
common law." He quotes Illinois law as follows: "As the summary
abatement of nuisances is a remedy which has ever existed in the law,
its exercise cannot be regarded as in conflict with constitutional provisions
for the protection of the rights of private property and giving
trial by jury. Formal legal proceedings and trial by jury are not appropriate
and have never been used in such cases." Judge Baker sums up
the case thus: "The women who destroyed such property are not criminals.
They have the same right to abate such common nuisances as men
have to defend their persons or domiciles when unlawfully assailed. As
the women of that state are denied the right to vote or hold office, I
think they are fully justified, morally and legally, in protecting their
homes,
their families, and themselves from the ravages of these demons of vice
in the summary manner which the law permits."
More citations might be given proving the legality of joint smashing
by the crusaders, but the foregoing is ample, for all fairminded, loyal
people. Had the joint smasher's cases been tried on their merits, not one
would have been convicted of a misdemeaner. They were arrested, tried,
convicted, imprisoned and fined for disturbing the "peace" of a common
nuisance, and "malicious" destruction of rebel paraphernalia. Their only
intent was against the treasonable liquor traffic. Had there been no liquor
dispensing there had been no smashing. This the liquorized courts would
not admit for a moment. Every ruling was a burlesque on civil law, a
travesty on justice and a contemptible farce. The whole proceedings
from beginning to end were a miserable outrage.
DECAY AND DECLINE OF THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
Today the country is ringing with the cry of political
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 the sense
of the constitution. It is simply the prevention of its noxious and unlawful
use, and depends upon the principle that every man must so use his
property as not to injure his neighbors, and that the safety of the public
is the paramount law. These principles are legal maxims or axioms
essential to the existence of regulated society. Written constitutions
presuppose them, are subordinate to them, and cannot set them aside."
These great principles of civil jurisprudence and popular government
apply alike in every state in the Union. An eminent jurist, Judge
James Baker, of Evanston, Ill., formerly a resident of Missouri, gives
his professional opinion of the late crusading by the women there. He
maintains that it was legal; he points out that the saloons raided, at
Denver and Lathrop, were unlawful and that they were "nuisances at
common law." He quotes Illinois law as follows: "As the summary
abatement of nuisances is a remedy which has ever existed in the law,
its exercise cannot be regarded as in conflict with constitutional provisions
for the protection of the rights of private property and giving
trial by jury. Formal legal proceedings and trial by jury are not appropriate
and have never been used in such cases." Judge Baker sums up
the case thus: "The women who destroyed such property are not criminals.
They have the same right to abate such common nuisances as men
have to defend their persons or domiciles when unlawfully assailed. As
the women of that state are denied the right to vote or hold office, I
think they are fully justified, morally and legally, in protecting their
homes,
their families, and themselves from the ravages of these demons of vice
in the summary manner which the law permits."
More citations might be given proving the legality of joint smashing
by the crusaders, but the foregoing is ample, for all fairminded, loyal
people. Had the joint smasher's cases been tried on their merits, not one
would have been convicted of a misdemeaner. They were arrested, tried,
convicted, imprisoned and fined for disturbing the "peace" of a common
nuisance, and "malicious" destruction of rebel paraphernalia. Their only
intent was against the treasonable liquor traffic. Had there been no liquor
dispensing there had been no smashing. This the liquorized courts would
not admit for a moment. Every ruling was a burlesque on civil law, a
travesty on justice and a contemptible farce. The whole proceedings
from beginning to end were a miserable outrage.
DECAY AND DECLINE OF THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
Today the country is ringing with the cry of political