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

""' O'h'tftu'tvht ututnt WIN Bfdt-
teal affairs, that will not be found
susceptible of more than one con-
struction when it comes to be applied
through legislation to the condition
II was intended to affect. The coun-
ty unit legislation presented new
feature, calling for new construc-
ton of section 81, and thus brought
to attention of the court directly for
the first time the question whether
under this section it was competent
for the Legislature to make the
county the controlling unit. And
when the court was thus compelled
to either recognize this legislative
power or deny it by adhering to the
former construction, it adopted the
course indicated and gave to section
81 broader and more beneficial
meaning than had been placed on
il in the previous cases. Under the
new construction the people were
given large power to control effect
lively the local traffic in intoxicating
liquors than they had under the old
construction, and that this larger
control has served a good purpose
is undeniable.
The ruling in this case has since
been followed uniformly and with
out any deviation in O'Neal VS.. Min
airy, 125 KY, ST.; Yates VS.. Nun
nelly, 1875 KY, 664; Eggen VS.. Offut,
1913 KY, BIB, Edwards VS.. Porter,
141 Ky; 314; McAnliffe VS.. Helm,
157 KY, 626, and Welch VS.. Irvine,
1853 KY, 1893. So that if any ques-
ton directly involving the construc-
ton Of section of the constitution
and a statute enacted in pursuance
thereof can be said to be definitely
settled by the opinions of court of
last resort, then this question has
been settled.
But Notwithstanding the ruling in
this consistent line of cases, it is
now earnestly commended by dis
tinguished counsel that these decis-
ions, extending over a period of
several years, should be overruled,
and the construction that was
adopted in the Cole. and other like
cases should be restored. But we
are not disposed to set aside or de-
part from the construction announc-
ed in the New Castle case and the
ones that followed it. This con-
struction has been approved by the
legislative as well as by the exec
utive departments of the govern
ment, as is shown by the legislation
enacted subsequent to 1906, when
a construction placed by the judic-
larry on an administrative section of
the Constitution has received the
approval of the legislative as well
as the. executive departments of the
government, and of the people,
speaking through them, it should be
adhered to as part of the settled
and satisfactory public policy of
the State.
We may, therefore, close this
branch of the case with the final
statement that. the Legislature had
the power under the Constitution to
enact the county unit legislation of
1906, and this being so, it had the
power to enact the county unit legis-
lation Of 1912, which merely amend
ed the act Of 1906, so as to- bring
the cities of the first, second, third
and fourth classes, that had been
exempted by the act of 1906 from
the operation of the county unit
law, under the effect and control of
the. county as the controlling unit.
This conclusion disposes of the
asserted right Of the cities of Shell
byville, Georgetown, Mt. Sterling and
Paris to have separate elections and
to regulate and control for them
selves the sale of liquor within their
limits. 1t is wholly immaterial
whether they were or were not CIV
en- the right to hold a separate cleo
ton, because if they had held a
separate election and majority of
the votes in the city had been in
favor of the sale of liquor, the vote
of the county being against the sale,
this vote would nullify the vote of
the people in the city. Under the
operation of the county unit law the
vote in the county controls abso-
lutely all parts of the county, in
GLIDING each city, town. district and
precinct, and when the county has