ColumbiaMagazine.com
Printed from:

Welcome to Columbia Magazine  
 



































 
History: Part II of The fight for local option 1934-1937

JIM

The fight for local option in Adair County, 1934-1937
Part II of II: a court ruling, an election that wasn't, a troublesome amendment cast out, and another election. (To review Part I = Click here)

The fight for local option in Adair County, 1934-1937 (part 2 of 2)

On October 11, just nine days after the prohibitionists' crushing special election victory, eleven Adair County businessmen, including the previously named Mssrs. Tabor, Morris, and Epperson, presented to County Clerk W.E. Harris a petition seeking to nullify the election, claiming that County Judge W.G. Shepherd had erred in certifying the order for the special election. Clerk Harris in turn served notice on Judge Shepherd, and that same week and for the two weeks following, a copy of the entire petition the appeared in the News. In the October 24 edition, Reed Logan, one of the eleven signees, formally withdrew his name, stating in a paid advertisement that signing the petition "was a mistake and a misunderstanding on my part."



No updates appeared in the News until the November 14 edition when a top-center article informed readers Judge Richard Priest Dietzman, in writing the opinion of the Kentucky Court of Appeals, then the highest court of the Commonwealth, in a case from Whitley County involving a similar issue (Renfro v. Hamlin, Sheriff), had stated (in part) there existed no provision for holding local option elections on other than normally scheduled voting days. In short, the election of October 2 never legally occurred.

The following year, 1935, four dozen or more Kentucky counties, including Adair, had the wet/dry issue on the ballot for regular election day, Tuesday November 5 -- until the Court of Appeals handed down a ruling (Ball v Riding, Sheriff) on October 8. Reported the newspaper,

"The opinion, written by Judge James W. Stites, of Louisville and concurred in by the whole court, bars the holding of local elections on any day so long as the seventh amendment is in the [Kentucky] constitution."

The crux of the issue? The seventh amendment, Kentucky's Prohibition Act of 1919, and the local option legislation passed by the state in 1934, contradicted each other.

In a double twist of bitter irony for the local option proponents, one of the issues on the same ballot was the repeal of the above-named amendment. When the votes were tallied, not only was it repealed, but new legislation (in 1936) specifically stated, "All elections on this [local option] question may be held on a day other than the regular election days" -- such as the special election of October 1934 had been held.

With the offending amendment repealed, the Liquor Control Act of 1935 held sway, and the Adair dry contingent brought a local option election before the county voters in the late spring of 1937. On Saturday, June 5, in a light turnout, the prohibition faction carried the day by almost a three to one margin. In the Melson Ridge, Hovious, and Keltner precincts combined, only four votes were cast in opposition. The proposition failed to pass in Harmony and Egypt but lost in those two precincts by a total of three ballots.

Adair County, then, would go dry in early August -- "unless the forces opposing local option succeed in delaying the date upon which the law becomes operative here."

On Friday, July 2, Stanley W. Epperson, proprietor of Epp's Place, filed suit contesting the election on five distinct points, naming as defendants the members of the Adair County Election Commission. to-wit: Lewis Coffey, Elsey Young, and Sheriff Bert Harper.

Defendants Coffey, Young, and Harper presented the petition to Circuit Judge J.C. Carter on Saturday, September 25 in Jamestown. The News indirectly quoted Judge Carter as saying he had dismissed it because it "was evidently not brought in good faith, but merely to prolong the sale of spiritous liquor in the county." Judge Carter also set October 20 as the last date of legal sales in the county. However, Epperson's attorney Bertram immediately made a motion to file an appeal.

On November 12, the Court of Appeals upheld Judge Carter's ruling in the Epperson v Harper case and gave retailers until December 16 to liquidate their stock of alcohol. After that date, they could no longer legally sell alcohol in the county.

(An article in the December 15 edition of the paper stated Columbia stood to lose some $1,450 -- around $26,000 in today's money -- per annum, as alcohol retailers had been paying roughly that much in license fees each year: $50 a month for hard liquor, $2 a month for beer retailers. The amount indicates the likelihood of two liquor and five beer retailers within the corporate limits.)

And so it was that just before Christmas 1937 -- three years, two months, and two weeks after the local option forces first rode a tidal wave of votes to brief victory -- the (legal) sale of alcohol again faded from The Shire in a banishment lasting over three-quarters of a century.


This story was posted on 2019-10-15 20:09:17
Printable: this page is now automatically formatted for printing.
Have comments or corrections for this story? Use our contact form and let us know.



 

































 
 
Quick Links to Popular Features


Looking for a story or picture?
Try our Photo Archive or our Stories Archive for all the information that's appeared on ColumbiaMagazine.com.

 

Contact us: Columbia Magazine and columbiamagazine.com are published by Linda Waggener and Pen Waggener, PO Box 906, Columbia, KY 42728.
Phone: 270.403.0017


Please use our contact page, or send questions about technical issues with this site to webmaster@columbiamagazine.com. All logos and trademarks used on this site are property of their respective owners. All comments remain the property and responsibility of their posters, all articles and photos remain the property of their creators, and all the rest is copyright 1995-Present by Columbia Magazine. Privacy policy: use of this site requires no sharing of information. Voluntarily shared information may be published and made available to the public on this site and/or stored electronically. Anonymous submissions will be subject to additional verification. Cookies are not required to use our site. However, if you have cookies enabled in your web browser, some of our advertisers may use cookies for interest-based advertising across multiple domains. For more information about third-party advertising, visit the NAI web privacy site.