The Catholic bulletin. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1911-1995, 1918-10-19
PROHIBITION AND MASS WINE

prevention of an evasion of the law,
cannot be known until the legislature
has acted, but it may safely be said
that no statute can be enacted except
such as will conform to the intention
of the people in adopting the amend
ment Further than this we cannot
go at present. We cannot anticipate
what the legislature may do. The
most that can be said at this time is
that no unreasonable restrictions and
regulations can lawfully be imposed.
(3) The legislature will have exclu-
sive jurisdiction to enact laws giving
force and effect to the amendment,
and will have exclusive jurisdiction
to enact laws regulating the use of
intoxicating liquors for sacramental,
mechanical, scientific and medicinal
purposes. The matter of prescribing
punishments for violations of the
amendment and such regulations as
may be imposed with reference to the
use of Intoxicating liquors for the ex-
cepted purposes, will rest in legisla-
tive discretion.
(4) 1t is proper to call attention to
the fact that if the proposed consti-
tutional amendment is adopted, two
things are provided for: (a) the pro-
hibition generally of the manufacture,
sale, ETC., of intoxicating liquors in
this state, and (b) the permission for
the manufacture, sale, ETC., of intoxi-
eating liquors for sacramental, me-
chanical, scientific and medicinal pur-
poses. The permission above referred
to is just as much part of the amend
ment as is the prohibition and must
be as vigorously safeguarded and pro-
tected. 1t is altogether likely that
the permission for sacramental pur-
poses is in a somewhat different class
than is the permission for mechanical,
scientific and medicinal purposes. Our
constitution expressly reserves "The
right of every man to worship God ac-
cording to the dictates of his own con-
science" and expressly provides that
this right shall never be infringed."
1t is also further provided that, nor
shall any control of or interference
with the rights of conscience be per-
mitted." A regulation that would be
held reasonable under the amendment
when applied to the manufacture, sale,
ETC., of Intoxicating liquors for me-
chanical, scientific and medicinal pur-
poses, might be held to be unreason-
able when applied to sacramento
purposes" on account of the express
provisions of our constitution above
referred to. In the case of De Hasque
VS.. Atchinson, ETC., Railway Co., 173
Pac. 73 (Okla.), it was held that, not
Withstanding the prohibition provision
in the constitution of the state of
Oklahoma in which no exception was
made permitting the transportation
of intoxicating liquor for sacramental
purposes, nevertheless the same was
permissible for that purpose.
In addition to the case above cited
/ call your. attention to the following
cases and authorities as bearing upon
the subject under consideration:
Fitch VS.. State, 167 N. w. AT (Neb.);
State VS.. Durein, Is L. R. A. N. S. 9O8
(Kas.); State VS.. G. N. Railway Co.,
172 Pac. 546 (Wash.); City of Seattle
VS.. Brookins, 167 Pac. $40 (Wash);
City of Delto VS.. Charlesworth ct al,
10 Pac. 965 (Col); Sorrls VS.. Com,
SO KY. 327; Woollen and Thornton on
Law of Intoxicating Liquor, Sec. 507;
Black on Intoxicating Liquor, Sec. 80.
Yours truly, 49,
CLIFFORD L. HILTON,
Attorney General