Local and special legislation. In all but a few states constitutional provisions are found forbidding the passage of local or private or special laws. While these provi sions were not unknown at an earlier date, the 'principle was fully developed in the Il linois constitution of 1870, and has become more fixed as a part of American constitu tional law since then. In some states, such prohibited legislation Is specified as "local or special," and in some "special or private," and in some "private, local, or special." The act of congress of July 30, 1886, prohibited local and special legislation in the territories, See Binney, Restrict. upon Loc. and Spec. Legisl. 130. The subject-matter of legislation to which this prohibition applies varies in dif ferent states. Mr. Binuey has grouped them in a general way. See id. 132. Among the subject-matters most usually found are: changing names of persons; legitimation and adoptio4 of children; divorce; granting char ters; changing laws of descent; providing for the sale or conveyance of real estate of persons under disability; granting the right of eminent domain; regulating legal proced ure; incorporating municipalities; creating offices; or regulating the fees of officers; laying out highways; providing for the man agement of public schools ; taxation. In some states special laws are permitted only when a general law cannot be made applica ble.
A general law is defined as "neither for one or more ,particular persons, nor to oper ate exclusively in any particular part or parts of the state"; Binney, Restr. etc. 22. Such an act is not necessarily universal and need not be one which operates on all persons or all things; a law which affects a class of persons or things may be a general law; Brooks v. Hyde, 37 Cal. 375; State v. Par sons, 40 N. J. L. 1. A law is to be regarded as such when its provisions apply to all ob jects of legislation, distinguished alike by quality and attribute which necessitate the enactment as manifest relation. Such laws must embrace all and exclude none whose condition and wants render such legislation equally necessary or appropriate to them as a class; Randolph v. Wood, 49 N. J. L. 88, 7 Atl. 286. See GENERAL LAWS.
A special law is one which relates either to particular persons, places, or things, or to persons, places, or things which though not particularized, are separated by any method of selection from the whole class to which the law might, but for such legislation, be applicable. Binney, Restr. etc. 26.
A local law is one whose operation is con fined within territorial limits, other than those of the whole state or any properly con stituted class or locality therein.
The features of local and special legisla tion overlap; and they are not conterminous. The matter to which a local law relates •may be either general or special, but in either case the law itself is not in force outside of the locality for which it is passed.
The following are held special acts and in valid : An act for holding primary elections made applicable only to counties casting a certain number of votes at the last election, which makes it applicable only to two coun ties; Marsh v. Hanly, 111 Cal. 368, 43 Pac.
975; an act, though general in form, regu lating the of county seats which was in fact applicable to but a single coun ty; Mode v. Beasley, 143 Ind. 306, 42 N. E. 727; an act for the extension of corporate limits of cities having a certain population which can be applicable only to one city; State v. Des Moines, 96 Ia. 521, 65 N. W. 818, 31 L. R. A. 186, 59 Am. St. Rep. 381; an act relating to the collection of taxes, cities of the first, second, and fourth class being excepted, and it not being confined to municipal matters; Van Loon v. Engle, 171 Pa. 157, 33 Atl. 77.
The following are not within the constitu tional prohibition : An act amending a city charter granted previously to the adoption of the constitution; Cunningham v. Denver, 23 Colo. 18, 45 Pac. 356, 58 Am. St. Rep. 212 ; an act relating to a subject as to which there was already a local law ; 96 Ga. 403 ; one providing a daily pay for jurors although it only applied to a single county in which there was already a special law, it being at the time of the passage of the act the existing rate in the remaining counties ; State v. Sullivan, 62 Minn. 283, 64 N. W. 813 ; an act making it a misdemeanor to work as a barber on Sunday, exempting from its opera tion New York and Saratoga; People v. Sher iff of Kings County, 13 Misc. Rep. 587, 35 N. Y. Supp. 19; an act providing a different and better system of education for cities of ten thousand or more inhabitants than is enjoyed by the rest of the state; Holmes & Bull Furniture Co. v. Hedges, 13 Wash. 696, 43 Pac. 944.
A territorial act classifying counties ac cording to the equalized assessed valuation of property and graduating salaries of county officers in reference to population is not a local special law under the act of congress; Harwood v. Wentworth, 162 U. S. 547, 16 Sup. Ct. 890, 40 L. Ed. 1069.
The proviso of a general act that it shall not apply to suits pending at its passage does not render it special; New York & 0. L. Co. v. Weidner, 169 Pa. 359, 32 Atl. 557.
An act offering a reward for the first to obtain in each county an artesian well is void; McRae v. Cochise County, 5 Ariz. 26, 44 Pac. 299. At least two individuals, actual or potential, are necessary to constitute a class which may be the subject of an act on the subject concerning which special acts are forbidden ; such a class cannot be created by statute, however general, which takes as a class characteristic, to designate the mem bers of a class, peculiarities of a single in dividual; Groves v. Grant County Court, 42 W. Va. 587, 26 S. E. 460. An act forbid ding a sale of of bonds and provisions, cotton, etc., on margin without delivering the property is not a special act ; State v. Gritz ner, 134 Mo. 512, 36 S. W. 39; but an act prohibiting book-making and pool-selling ex cepting on a race course is a special • act ; State v. Walsh, 136 Mo. 400, 37 S. W. 1112, 35 L. R. A. 231; and so is an act permitting a limited divorce instead of an absolute di vorce when asked by a person holding con scientious scruples against absolute divorce ; Middleton v. Middleton, 54 N. J. Eq. 692, 35 Atl. 1065, 37 Atl. 1106, 36 L. R. A. 221, 55 Am. St. Rep. 602.