The Catholic bulletin. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1911-1995, 1918-06-22

the letter of the act, he had not
violated the spirit. 1t was said:
If a literal construction of the
words of a statute make the act abb
surd, it must be so construed as to
avoid the absurdity. The literal i'm
port of the words and phrases en-
ployed will be controlled by the object
which the act was designed to reach.
In the case of U. S. versus Kirby, "A
U. S., 10 L. Ed. 27S, Kirby and others
were indicted, charged, with violating
the United States statutes against OBJ
structing the passage of the mail, or
in any manner retarding the passage
of the mail carrier Farris, a carrier
of the mail, was arrester by Kirby
and others, on bench warrant issued
out of the Circuit Court of Kentucky,
and taken from a steamboat carrying
the United States mail. He plead as
defence that he, was acting in
obedience to the warrant. Upon
demurrer to his defense the case was
certified to the Supreme Court. The
questions presented were:
First Whether the arrest of the
mail carrier, upon the bench warrants
from the Circuit Court of Kentucky
was under the circumstances an OBJ
struction of the mail, within the mean
ing of the act of Congress.
Second Whether the arrest was
obstructing or retarding the passage
of the carrier of the mail, within the
meaning Of that act. .-
In holding the delay and interference
incident to the arrest did not fall
within the terms of the act, it was
said:
When the acts which create the OBJ
struction are within themselves I'M
lawful the intention to obstruct will
be imputed to their author, although
the attainment of other ends may
have been his primary object. The
statute has no reference to acts law
| full in themselves, from the execution
of which a temporary delay to the
mails unavoidably follows. :.
The public inconvenience which may
occasionally follow from the tenn
porary delay in the transmission of
the mail caused by the arrest of it's
| carrier, upon such charges, is far less
| than that which would arise from eX-
| tending to them the immunity for
which the counsel of the Government
| contends. Indeed, it may be doubted
whether it is competent for Congress
| to exempt employees Of the United
| States from arrest on original process
from the State courts, when the Grim
inal charges against them are not
merely "mala prohibita," but are ''mala
! in Sc" But whether legislation of that
character be constitutional or not, no
| intention to extend such exemption
should be attributed to Congress I'M
less clearly manifested by its Ian
| guage. All laws should receive a
sensible construction. General terms
should be so limited in their applica-
ton as not to lead to injustice, oppres-
sion or an absurd consequence. 1t
| will always, therefore, be presumed
| that the legislature intended eXcep-
lions to it's language which would
-ayoid results. of this character. The
reason of the law in such cases
should prevail over it's letter.
In the case of Reiche versus
Smythe, 80 U. S., 20 L. Ed. 566, it was
said:
The meaning of general words in a
statute must be restricted whenever it
is found necessary to do so in order
to carry out the legislative intention.
| In the case of Elk Parte Ellis II Cal.
222, it was said:
A familiar rule in the construction
of statutes is to give effect to the
meaning and Interpretation of the law
maker; this may be gathered from the
reason of the statute, the motive
which led to the making of it, the OBJ
| ject in contemplation at the time the
act was passed.
| In the case of the Church of the
Holy Trinity versus u. S., 143 U. S.
! Sc L. Ed. 226, the act of Congress,
under review, made it unlawful to
prepay the transportation, or in any
| way assist or encourage the impor-
tation of immigration of any alien or
foreigner into the United States under
contract or agreement to perform
labor or services of any kind in the
! United States. The plaintiff in error
there made contract with an alien
minister, residing in England, by the
terms of which he was to remove to
the city of New York and enter into
! its services as rector and pastor. 1t
! was claimed this contract was forbid
| den by the act of Congress. The
/ United States Circuit Court held that
/ the contract was within the prohibit
| tiOn of the statute and rendered judg-
ment accordingly. The judgment was
reversed by the Supreme Court, hold
| ing that while the contract was within
| the letter of the statute, it was not
within the statute, because not within
it's spirit not within the intention of
its makers. The intention of the act,
it was held, was to prevent importa-
ton of cheap, unskilled labor, and to
prevent the practice of large capital
lists in this country from contracting
with their agents abroad for the ship
ment of large numbers of ignorant
and servile laborers under contracts,
by which the employer agreed, upon
the one hand To nrpnaV thar ma G q a Oo