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

the proposition whether or not
spirituous, vinous or malt liquors
shall be sold, bartered or loaned
therein"
II will thus be seen that so far
as the question here presented is
concerned, there is no difference
whatever between section 1854 as
enacted in 1894 and section 1854 as
amended in 1914, and really the
matter might be treated as if the
act Of 1894 had not been amended.
Let us now see how section 1850,
which contains the county unit law
of 1906, was amended by the act
of 1912, now inserted in the stat
utes as section 1850, in place Of the
old section. The act of 1906 and
the act of 1912 are exactly alike,
except in one particular; the act
IF 1906 except from the operation
Of the county as the controlling
unit cities of the first, second, third
and fourth classes, and provided
that they might hold an election on
the same day on which an election
FOR the entire county was held.
This exception was expressed in the
act of 1906 in the following words !:
Except that cities of the first, Sec
md, third and fourth classes may
hold an election on the same day on
which an election for the entire
county is held" The amendatory
act of 1912 struck from the act of
1912 these quoted words, leaving
the remainder of the section as it
was enacted in 1906. The act Of
1912, therefore, did not make any
change whatever in the act of 1906
in so far as that act recognized the
power of the counties the controll-
ing unit and denied to cities, towns,
districts and precincts within the
county the right to regulate the mat
ter for themselves. In other words,
in both the acts of 1906 and 1912
the county was recognized as the
controlling unit, and in both of these
acts the right of the smaller units
to act for themselves was taken
away when the county as q whole
had spoken. This being the sit
uation, it seems clear treating as we
do the county unit legislation as
valid, that the act of 1914 did not
repeal the county unit law of 1912
If section 1854 as it existed until
1914, and the county unit law of
1906 as it existed until its amend
ment in 1912, should be construed
together, as they were in the New
Castle and other cases, there is no
reason that we can think of why
section 1854 as amended by the act
of 1914 and the act of 1906 as
amended by the act of 1912 should
not likewise be read together and
sustained, because, as we have
pointed out, the amendments made
to section 1854 and to the act of
1906 do not in any manner affect
the construction of these sections in
so far as they relate to the ques-
ton we are now considering. Sec
ton 1854, as first enacted, and as.
| it now stands, merely provides for
the calling and holding Of the cleo
ton for the purpose of ascertaining
the will Of the people in the territory
to be affected by the election. 1t
does not now and never did attempt
in any manner to define the effect
of an election in the larger unit
upon the rights of the smaller unit.
The controlling power that the larg-
err unit, for example, the county,
should have over the small unit, as
for example, the precinct, was not
declared until the enactment of the
county unit law in 1906. The only
purpose of the county unit law of
1906, and the act of 1914, amend
| ing it was to make the county if it
chose to vote as an entirety, the
dominating unit. 1t was not intend
ed by this legislation to affect in
any other manner section 1854.
After the enactment of the county
unit law of 1906 election could be
and were called and held under and
in the manner provided in section
1854, and they may yet be so called
and held, as the amendment of the
county unit law in 1912, and the
amendment of section 1854 in 1914
did not in any manner change the
relative functions of section 1854
and section 1850. Each of these
sections had its place in the scheme
Of regulation, and neither of them
repealed the other. The county unit
law of 1912 merely took the place