The weekly Floridian. [volume] (Tallahassee, Fla.) 1867-19??, 1885-03-19

W Ao'~, uOI Will tuat Ot the QtSCrctlOu Ot u Ccf-
tain number Of bondholders and residents which
destroyed the act of 1881, but it acts proprio
cigore OF this there Can be no doubt
Ii IS contended that this act was intended for,
and in fact applies only to- the city Of Pensacola,
and is consequently special act. This court
Will not perpetrate an insincerity by denying
that the rcpued condition OF that city led 10 its
enactment. We have spent no inconsiderable
time or labor in endeavoring TO ind adjudica-
tlons covering the objection made, and our la
bors have not been unsuccessful.
In Pennsylvania the Constitution provided
that the General Assembly shall not pass any
local or special laws regulating the affairs
Of countless cities, townships, wards, boroughs
or school districts; nor shall they ind-
rsctly enact such special or local law by the par
tial repeal of general law; nor shall any
law be passed granting powers and privileges
where the granting Of such powers or privileges
shall have been provided for by general law"
The Legislature passed an act dividing the cities of
the State into three classes for the exercise Of
certain corporate powers, and having respect to
the numbers, character, powers and duties Of
| certain officers thereof" Those containing
population Of BOO, 900 to be the first class those
containing between 100000 and 100, 900 to be
| the second class and those containing between
| 100 900 and 10 600 to constitute the third class
| 1t was contended that this act was void because
there was but one city in the State having
population OF over 100000. The court say that
a statute which relates to persons or things a
class is general law, while statute which re.
lates to particular persons things of class is
| special, and comes within the constitutional pro-
hibiton" After affirming the right to classify, the
| court further says: " But il is cOntended that
even if the right to classify exists the exercise of
ii by the Legislature in this instance is in viola
ton of the Constitution for the reason that there
| is but one city in the State with population
ceeding 300, 900; that to form class containing
but one city is in point of fact legislaiing for that
one city to the exclusion Of all Others, and con-
stutes the local and special legislation prOhib-
| tied by the Constitution. This argument is
| plausible, but unsound 1t is true" Philadelphia
is the only city in the State at the present time,
containing 3 population of 100000. 1t is also
| true that the city of Pttsburg Is rapidly ap
| preaching that number, if it has not already
reached il, by recent enlargement of its territory.
Legislation is intended not only 10 meet the
wants of the present, but to provide for the fu-
ture. Ii deals not with the past but theory at
least anticipates the needs Of State, healthy
with vigorous development 1t is intended to
be permanent Classification does not
depend upon numbers. The word is used
not to designate numbers, but rank or order Of
persons or things in society it is used to nd
cate equality or persohs distinguished by common
chdrdcterstscs as the trading classes or the labor
ing classes in science it is division or arrange
ment containing the subordinate divisions Of or
der genus and species" If the Constitution
means what the complainants aver that it does
common to all other cities of the State, and for
this there is absolutely no remedy but a change
in the organic law itself" If it be true coun-
sci for petitioner seems to intimate, that there is
another city in Florida whose financial condition
may be ihe same even worse than that of Pen
sacola then il will be presumed that the Legisa
ture WAS not influenced merely by the condition
of the latter to create this new class of municipal
corporations
1n State er rel. vs. Tolle. II Mo. 645, it was
held that an act providing that in all cities hav
ing population OF over 100, 900 inhabitants a
board consisting OF the Circuit Judge of such cit
les should have certain powers, was held not to
be special law. The court say " Nor do we
think The act in question is special law within
the meaning of the Constitution. The dstinc-
ton between general and special laws is very
clearly laid down by the Supreme Court of Penn
sylvania in Wheeler VS.. Philadelphia, that "a
statute which relates TO persons things as a
class is a general law, while a Statute which re-
lates 10 particular persons or things OF a class is
special" and that classification does not depend
on numbers. Vide also 30 Iowa, $685. and 40 n.
j., Uaw,) l, 8. ST Louis the only city of
such population. 1t is true there was special
constitutional provision upon which OF itself the
statute could have been maintained, yet the view
of the court is, as above, upon the particular
question.
In New Jersey the Constitution provides:
The Legislature shall not pass private, local or
special laws in any of the following enumerated
cases. that is to say: regulating
the internal offairs Of towns and counties; ap-
pointing local officers or commissions to regulate
municipal affairs" Clause ii. sVII. Art w.
A statute approved March g. 1877, repealed all
public, special and local laws providing for the
appointment of commissions and Commissioners
by the Legislature, to regulate municipal affairs,
and substituted board of six persons with the
same powers to be chosen by the voters. 1t was
claimed 10 be general law. The court say:
In point of form it is manifest that this act does
not belong to such category. Upon the
lace Of this law the repeater is general and the
substitution of other agencies equally So"
" But it is said that, although such is the frame
and aspect of this statute, still it must be re-
garded as local and special as of necessity 1t Can
be applicable to but few places of the State, in
asmnch as it is well known that few localities in
the State have been subjected to the rule of leg
isative commissions This contention assumes
the truth of the hypothesis that law that en-
braces but Jeo localities a small number of
objects is not general but special or local law
But l think there is mistake in this. The
terms general law do not import universally in
the subject or operation of such law.
Interdicted local special laws are all those
that rest on q false or deficient classification
Their view is that they do not embrace all the
class to which they are naturally related They
create preference and establish inequalities
They apply to persons, things or places possessed
of certain qualities or situations and exclude
from their effect ether persons, things or places
which not dissimilar in these respects The
present law is not Objectionable on the former
ground assigued-that in its operation it must
necessarily be confined to certain localities
As it does not exclude from its sway or
effect any place subject belonging to the
class to which it relates it is upon its face gen.
eral and not a local or special law within the
| clause of the Constitution now under cOnsidera-
| ton" Van Riper VS.. Parsons. 40 N. j., Uaw,)
l. In the same case, p. 125, it is said in reply to
| the contention, that in Jersey City alone were
| there such commissions: "Conceding that an
examination of the public statutes of which the
courts take judicial notice will reveal the truth
| of this reason, yet l think the conclusion as
serted does not follow the law in all its provisions
| is general, broad enough to reach every portion
OF the Stale. and abaiing legislative commits
| sions for the regulation of municipal affairs
| wherever they existed. Such commissions are
| distinguished from other sorts of municipal gov.
ernments by characteristics sufficiently marked
| and important to make them clearly class by
| themselves, and upon the whole of this case this
law operates equally by force of terms which
| are restricted to no locality. A law so framed
without regard to the consideration that within
| the State there happens to be but indiUidual
| of the class or one place Dhere produces effects"
| Haw,) 542, the facts were that an act provided
that any incorporated borough having net more
| than $50 voters, might, at an election, decide
whether or not such borough incorporation
should be continued or set aside, and it was held
| that such repeating act was not within the
constitutional provision. We may observe that
| IN Nou Joraav CONTRARY n the riile here and in