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

lature construed the provisions of the
Constitution not to include wine for
sacramento purposes. The exception
found in the act of 1908 is:
The provisions of this act shall not
apply to the use of wine for
sacramento purposes in religious
bodies.
The language in the act of 1901
is:
The provisions of this act shall not
apply to that Ciquors) for sacramental
purposes.
In the case of Board Of County Com
missioners versus Alexander (Okla.)
159 Pac. 81, it was held that when
apparent that strict Interpretation of
particular statute, construed alone,
would defeat the intention Of the
Legislature, as shown by other legis-
lative enactments, which relate to the
same subject, and which have been
enacted in pursuance of and according
to general purposes in accomplishing
particular result, such construction
should not be adopted. The section of
lature, so far as they deal with the
prohibition question were enacted in
pursuance of and according to a gen
eral purpose of suppressing the evils
incident to the liquor traffic and to
prevent the Incorporate use of intoxi-
eating liquors. In the case just re-.
ferred to, in the opinion by the present
Chief Justice, it was said:
1t is a cardinal rule in the construc-
ton of statutes that the intention of
the Legislature, when ascertained,
must govern, and that to ascertain the
intent, all the various provisions of
legislative enactments upon the par
ticular subject should be construed
together and given effect as a
whole
When the language of a statute is
dubious, the court in constituting it will
| consider the reason and intent of the
law to discover it's scope and true
meaning.
Subsequent legislative enactments
| may be considered as an aid in the
Interpretation of the prior legislation
| upon the same subject.
Another rule of construction, under
| which we arrive at the conclusion that
prevention of the use of wine in the
sacramento service was not intended,
| is the construction placed upon a
| statute by officials charged with the
duty of enforcing the statute, either at
| or near the time of enactment, and is
just medium for judicial interpreta-
ton. This rule was recognized by, this
| court in the case of Hunter versus
State ex rel, City of Shawnee, 40 Okla.
| 672, 154 Pac. 545, where Justice Hardy,
in delivering the opinion, said
If there were any doubt of this be-
ing the correct construction Of these
| statutes, unless the legislative intent
| to the contrary were clearly apparent,
| the fact in the various counties off
Gals charged with the enforcement
| thereof, from the date of the statute
until the present, in the discharge of
their duties under the revenue laws of
the territory and State, have given
such Statute the same construction as
we give, would be of great weight, and
we would not disregard such construc-
| ton without the most cogent and per-
suasive reasons.
In the case Of Kelly, Sheriff, versus
Multnomah county (Ore.), % Pac.
ITO, the Supreme Court of Oregon
said:
l IC hn1 hot f11a - ION
here given to these provisions is the
same they received by those charged
with the duty of their execution ever
since their enactment, this, of itself,
| would be sufficient to turn the scale
if the question were doubtful. In all
cases where those persons whose duty
it is to execute a law have uniformly
| given it a particular construction, and
that construction has been acquiesced
in and acted upon for long time, it
| is a contemporaneous exposition of
the statutes which always commands
the attention of the courts and will be
followed unless it clearly and mani.
testify appears to be wrong.
In 1892, by an act of Congress or
Stat. l.. 234), it was made crime to
introduce, under any pretense, any ar.
dent spirits, wine or Intoxicating
| liquors, of whatsoever kind, into the
Indian Territory. In 1895, by an act
of Congress (28 Stat L. 145), it was
provided:
| That any person, whether an Indian
or otherwise, who shall in said terri
tory, manufacture, sell, give away, or
in any manner, or by any means, fur
tnish to any one, either for himself or
another, any vinous, malt or fermented
liquors or any other intoxicating
drinks of any kind whatsoever,
whether indicated or not, or who
shall carry or in any manner have
carried into said territory any such
liquors or drinks, shall be punished,
etc.
| 1t must be admitted the terms of
this act are sufficiently comprehensive
to include every kind of fermented and
intoxicating liquors. In the case of
Elk Parte Webb, 225 u. S., Sc L. Ed.
1248, this act was held to be in full
force and effect after Statehood in
that portion of the State formerly
| known aS Indian Territory TT ic a