The Catholic bulletin. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1911-1995, 1918-06-22
CONTINUED from page IL
Oklahoma Altar Wine Case

from the general terms, it must be
held to be included, invoking. the rule
announced in Lewis Sutherland
Statutory Construction, Section 705:
Where the Legislature has made no
exceptions the courts of justice can
make none, as this would be legisla-
tive.
The case Of Delaney versus Plunkett
(Ga.), 81 S. E. SCI, L. R. A. 1917-D.
926, is relied upon, where it was held
that when the State undertakes to
suppress what it is free to regard as a
public evil, it may adopt such meas
ures having reasonable relation to that
end as it may deem necessary in order
to make its action effective. And
that a transaction which separately
considered may be innocuous may
nevertheless be included in a prohibit
ton, the scope Of which is regarded as
essential to accomplish the purpose of
the act. The transaction referred to
in that case was having large guam
tity of intoxicating liquors for per-
sOnal use, which was held to be in
Guided in the terms and purpose of
the prohibition statute. We are not
unmindful of this rule, but in our
opinion it has no application here.
The cardinal rule of constitutional
and statutory construction is to arrive
at the intention of the legislative body.
Elk Parte WhitehOuse, Okla. (Crim.)
81, 1O4 Pac. 372. 1t must be conceded
that any fermented and Intoxicating
wines fall within the general terms of
the Constitution. But from the early
days Of Jurisprudence it has been held
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. In the
case of Stradling versus Morgan,
EliZ., First PlOwden, POS, it was said:
From which case it appears that the
sages of the law heretofore have con-
strued statutes quite contrary to the
law in some appearances, and those
statutes which comprehend all things
in the letter, they have eXpounded to
extend but to some things, and those
which generally prohibit all people
from doing such an act, they have in
terpreted to permit some people to do
it, and those which include every per-
son in the letter they have adjudged
to reach to some persons only, which
eXpositions have always been founded
upon the intent of the legislature,
which they have collected, sometimes
by considering the cause and necessity
of making the act. So that
they have ever been guided by the
intent of the legislature, which they
have always taken according to the
necessity of the matter and according
to that which is consOnant to reason
and good discretion.
A guide to the meaning of the sec
tiOn of the Constitution is found in
the evil which it was designed to
remedy; and, therefore, this court
may properly consider the situation as
it existed and as it was pressed upon
the attention of the members of the
Constitutional convention. 1t is a mat
ter of common knowledge that prior
to the passage of the enabling act the
use of intoxicating liquors among the
Indians was the fruitful source OF
much crime. The Congress of the
United States, recognizing this situa
ton, and to suppress this traffic, en-
acted stringent laws against the sale
and importation Of Intoxicating liquors
Of every kind in the Indian country
CT Stat. L. 234; % Stat. L. 145; 2S
Stat. l.. 109), and in order that this
traffic might not be resumed on the
coming of Statehood, the enabling act
required the inhibition found in Sec
ton 46, Art. % That these provi
siOns might extend and be applied
throughout the entire State, the sec
ton was submitted to the people, anC
on its adoption became a part Of oul
constitutional law. All this legisla
ton had but one purpose, to conserve
the morals and guarantee the safety Of
the public by suppressing the use anG
traffic in intoxicating liquors and pre-
ventiOn of kindred and resulting
evils. We do not believe that the
members of Congress and the Consti
tutional convention, in framing this
section, had in mind the sacred use OF
wine in the sacramento service in
connection with the suppression OF
this evil.
General terms of the statutes or the
Constitution must be construed in the
Hight OF their common ordinary usage
and meaning. While it appears the
altar wine in question is intoxicating
if drunk in sufficient quantities, yet il
can hardly be said, it seems to US, that
the terms Intoxicating liquors." as
commonly used in prohibition statutes
include such wine when used in Di
vine worship. The object and pur
pose of prohibition statutes is to pre-
vent the Incorporate use of intoxi
eating liquors with the attending anC
consequential evils. The use of wine
in this sacred service forms no par
of this evil.
We are not without authority il
considering these conditions In the
case of Henry versus Tilson, II vt
1913, it was said:
The history of the legislature O.
the State in reference to fhn sinh