The Mt. Sterling advocate. (Mt. Sterling, Ky.) 1890-current, 1915-05-05

d. N Young, ct al, Appellants, VS.
B. w. Trimble, ct al, Appellees
Appeal From Montgomery Circui
Court.
A. f. Hitter, ct al, Appellants, VS.
George w. Waddy, ct al, Appellees
Appeal From Shelby Circuit Court
T.. F. Brannon, ct al, Appellants, VS.
William Myall, ct al, Appel)ees
Appeal From Bourbon Circuit
Court.
George Lancaster, ct al, Appellants
VS.. Jas. w. Thacker, ct al, Appel
lees; Appeal from Scott Circuit
Court.
Opinion of the court by Judge
Carroll, affirming in each case.
These several appeals involve thu
validity of liquor elections, held un.
der what is known as the County
unit law" in the counties Of Mont.
gomery, Shelby, Bourbon and Scott
The election in each of these coun-
ties resulted in a majority of the
votes being cast against the sale Of
liquor, and the election in each coun-
ty was contested by those favoring
the sale of liquor. On trial Of
these contests in the circuit courts
of the several counties, the validity
of each of the elections was sus-
tanned, and from the judgments SO
holding these appeals are prosecut-
ed.
There are two principal grounds
urged for reversal that are common
to each case, and for this reason the
appeals were heard together and will
be disposed of in one opinion. One
ground attacks the county unit law
as being violative of section 81 Of
the Constitution, and the other
raises the question that the act of
1912, now section 1850 Of the Ken
lucky Statutes, was repealed by the
act of 1914, now section 1854 and
1857 of the Kentucky Statutes.
Section 81 of the Constitution, in
obedience to which the various laws
for the regulation of the liquor traf-
fic have been enacted, reads as fol-
lows:
"The General Assembly shall, by
general law, provide means where
by the sense of the people Of any
county, city, town, district or pre-
cinct may be taken, as to whether
or not spirtuous, vinous or malt
liquors shall be sold, bartered OF
loaned therein, or the sale thereof
regulated. But nothing herein shall
be constructed to interfere with OF
to repeal any law in force relating
to the sale or gift Of such liquors
ALI elections on this question may be
held on a day other than the regular
election days"
Prior to 1906 this section and the
legislation of 1894 to give it effect
came before this court for construc-
ton in the cases of Cole VS.. Com.
1O1 KY, ISL; Com. VS.. Bottoms, %
KY, L. R., 40; Smith VS.. Patton
103 KY, 444; George Brothers VS.
City Of Winchester, 118 KY, 429
and Early VS.. Rains, 121 KY, 439
and it was held, in effect, in these
eases that under this section of the
Constitution the county, city, town
district and precinct was each an
independent unit, with the right to
control and regulate for itself the
liquor traffic within its territory
free from the dominion of any
larger unit in the territory Of which
the smaller unit was a part; or, In
other words, that the county could
not control the wishes Of the city
town, district or precinct within
the county.
The idea was expressed in the
Cole case as follows: at is the con.
tention of the State that no sepa-
rate election in the city can be haG
on the proposition involved at the
time of an election throughout ant
for the entire county on the sam,
question, and if such an election b'
held it is ineffective for any purpose
and must yield to and be controlled
by the result of the county election
Otherwise say counsel, each dis
trict might do the same thing, ant
the county as a whole might vot,
in favor Of local option, and ye
every precinct in the county excep
one vote in favor of license, ant
result being that the county as {
whole might vote against the sale
yet in nineteen twentieths of it sucl
liquors might be Sold
"This may be conceded, but, in