The Big Sandy news. [volume] (Louisa, Ky.) 1885-1929, 1907-12-27

end Of the different fights made on
their constituts.nality. The constitu n
t.onaI convention Of 1890 took special Ii
cognizance Of the land situation in e
Eastern Kentucky. and adopted pro- s
vision ruling against actions for pos \
session Of any lands in the State
where IT was necessary for the claim {
ant 10 rely for his recovery on any 6
grant or patent issued by the Com I
monwealth Of Virginia OF by the Com
monwealth Of Kentucky prior TO the
year 1890, against any person claiming
such lands By possession to a well
defined boundary under title Of record.
unless sneb action should be instit-
ste1 within five years after this con-
stitution went into effect
The various Legislators since the
adoption OF the new constitution
haye attempted TO clarity the situa-
'ltion BY the adopted of statutes apply |
ling directly 10 the question Of the
old parents From the very beginning
II Is seen that the State has beeen en-
deavoring to rid itseIf Of the incubus
causeed by the dormant titles and
Inactive owners and claimants. who
refuse or at least persistently fail 10
do anything toward supporting the
State Government OF allowing the
property which they claim TO do so.
II Is also seen, the Court says, that
notwithstanding the public insist
eEce and the important question Of
governmental policy involved. tlis
Court has from the start adhered TO
the strictest construction OF the terms
ot the compact and OF the constitu-
tional rights OF delinquents so as 10
afford them every chance to come
!. forward and save whatever title OF
claim they have, and yet they did
nothing
= The Court goes on to say: Thus
xe see that in 1906 the Legislature
was confirmed with the situation:
! Every evil that had existed from IN,
beginning threatening the stability
OF the land titles OF a large and i'm
Dortant section o. the State was still
4 unaIleviated; that every Legislative
measure adopted during the past II!
,ears had been unayailing; that IL
spite OF their public duty and Of tn
Imperative command OF the law ant
: needs OF the State, these claimants
refused to respond, and were beyon
The reach Of the laws In existenci
{, that the reason of the failure OF IN
!, previous legislation upon the sub
Z iect we're those constitutional oh
q stacles which had been pointed on
In various opinions OF this Cour
l., and in the Supreme Court Of tn
NJ United States.
he The idea was not new to the Les
lit islature that the duty OF the common
ne ! wealth was to protect herself fror
H. a continuation of the thrall that wa
Cd paralyzing the energies of large Sc
~ ton of the State. disturbing it
peace and robbing the State Treasur
no 0: its revenues" The decision cor
10 tinues: There upon Article 3 {
~ the act Of 1906 was most deliberatel
N adopted. There can be no doubt thi
a,- the Legislature determined TO ou
Inc law those dormant titles and Their
ant by protect the treasury and increai
tha the States revenue. nor can there
tad doubt that the legislative purpo.
6a, was to proceed carefully and in tn
~ manner that would satisfy the requi
40 ments OF the constitutions OF tn
mi, State and of the United States"
AZ In reference to the grounds urg'
the against the constitutionality
the act the Court says:
urt Were these objections well foun
ua- ed. they would afford no basis
the relief at the hands Of the Court. 7
ees. policy of the Legislature may
of looked int by the courts only for I
the purpose OF an Interpretation of I
,me statutes. There ois abundant ba'
.oes for the act. in which II win appe
live not only as reasonable. but ar1higf
.ua- public. Tested by precedent and pr
cts clple. we are unable to find that
for violates any provision Of the CO
Ieen s,ituiion Of the United States Of Il
tors State or in any wise transcends
lew abe power Of the legislative depa
act ment OF the State Government.