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 sidewalk—­the 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 States, 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.”