The Catholic bulletin. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1911-1995, 1918-06-22
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
STATE OF OKLAHOMA.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
STATE OF OKLAHOMA.
Urban de Hasque, plaintiff in error,
versus the Atchison, Topeka & Santa
Fe Railway Company, defendant in
error. No. 1894.
Syllabus.
/. Intoxicating Liquor-Bone Dry
Law-CathOlic Priests. Chapter 1856.
Session Laws 1917, prohibiting the re-
ceiving of liquors. the sale of which
is prohibited by the laws of this State,
from common carrier, does not make
it an offense for a Roman Catholic
priest to receive altar wine to be used
solely for sacramental purposes in Di-
vine worship.
2. Intoxicating Liquor-Constitu-
tion-Altar Wine. The provisions of
Sec. 46, Art. 25 of the Constitution
(Sec. 410, WINS. Anno), prohibiting
the sale and transportation of intoxi-
eating liquors, does not apply to altar
wine to be used solely for sacramental
purposes in Divine worship, although
such wine be capable of use as a
beverage, and if drunk in sufficient
quantities. will produce intoxication.
3. Statutes-Letter and Spirit, A
thing may be within the letter of the
law and yet not within the law, be-
cause not within it's spirit, nor within
the intention of it's makers.
4. Statutes-Construct De-
signed to be Remedied. Among other
things which may be considered in de-
termining the intent of the law max
ers is the evil which it is designed to
remedy; and therefore this court
properly looks at contemporaneous
events, the situation as it existed, and
as it was pressed upon the intention
of the law makers.
5. Statutes-Action Against Re-
ligion Not Imputed. No purpose of
action against religion and religious
institutions, when properly conducted,
can be imputed to any legislative
body.
6. Statutes-Rule of Construction
Intention of Law Makers. 1t is a
cardinal rule in the construction of
constitutions and statutes that the in
tention of the law makers, when ascer-
tanned, must govern, and that to
ascertain the intent all the various
portions of the legislative enactment
upon the particular subject, including
subsequent enactments, should be
construed together and given effect as
a whole.
T. Statutes-Strict Interpretation
Not Adopted. When it is apparent
that a strict Interpretation of par
ticular statute, construed alone, would
defeat the intention of the legislature
as shown by other legislative enact
| ments which relate to the same sub
| iect, and which have been enacted in
pursuance of and according to a gen
eral purpose in accomplishing particu-
| lar results, the suppression of a par
| ticular evil, such construction should
not be adopted.
8. Statutes tes-Construction by Of
| ficers. Construction placed on the
laws by officers charged with the en-
forcement thereof in the discharge of
| their duties at or near the time of
their enactment, which has long been
acquiesced in is a just medium for
their judicial Interpretation.
Error from the District Court OF
Oklahoma county; Hon. George w
Clark, Judge.
| Reversed and remanded, with
4 directions.
Wilson, Tomerlin & Buckholtz
Mont. F. Highley, Fulton, Shirk
Danner, attorneys for plaintiff il
error.
Il j. R. Cottingham, S. w. Hayes, at
torneysz for defendant in error.
S. P. Freezing, Attorney General o
the State of Oklahoma.
Owen, J. This action was brough
by plaintiff in error, in the Distric
Court of Oklahoma county, for mar
damus to compel defendant in error t
accept a shipment of wine rendered b
plaintiff in error at Oklahoma City t
be delivered to the Rev. John Va
Castel, Catholic priest, at Guthri'
Okla, and to compel the railway con
!, pany to accept like shipments, tran
/ port and deliver the same, wheneve
S rendered. both intfastate and inte
t state. The action was brought
g plaintiff in error on behalf of all mer
4 bers of the Roman Catholic faith. 2
n leging that he is a Roman Cathol
priest, and Chancellor to the Cathol
). / Diocese of Oklahoma, and secretal