The state rights democrat. [volume] (Albany, Linn County, Oregon) 1865-1900, 1891-04-24
rnr -DrsocnAr" SUSTAINED.

Article Of the constiiutioD. This eill
was one ofthe well known wagon road bills
that drew from the treasury about Si3o,-
600 ali Of which sums have been cxpend-
ed and can not be recovered BY the state.
The following ii an extract from the de-
cision:
SYLLAn rg-- 1heact entitled "an act 70
appropriate $1,000 TO aid Tillamook
county IN the construction II wagon road
from tic Eehalen, river 10 The north end
OF said county 10 fhe Fuqna toll road 10
the south end Of The county and to rse ore
thousand dollars OF taid appropriation In
branch road from South ptaifie TO
Netaris bay and 10 create board of COM
| n isslonere to construct eaid road" APP
proved Feb is, 1850. II i ID confic'
With art 4, fsc. 23, subdivision 7, Of The
constitution, which declares ihat,hc "ieg.
islaiive assembly shall no. pass special or
local laws IN any Of the following enum-
Grated cases; that Is to say for
laying, opening, and working on highways.
and for the election or appoiDtmt nt Of
supervisors. The said act Is not gen
efal Law, but a special and local law within
the meaning of that clause Of the consil-
sntiob.
Judge Lords opinion: 10 this opinion,
which is Of considerable length, Judge
Lord sa,s ihis IL an action TO recover from
the defendant, TilIamook county, the sum
Of SSos for services alleged to have been
rendered as superintendent ofconsirnction
Of public wagon road from Nehalem 10
the ruqua toll road IN said county, with
branch from South prairie 10 Netaris bay
The complaint alleges, Ia substance, that
BY virtue Of the provisions Of an act (men-
tened Ia The syIlabLs) the commissioners
named in the act dulY employed the plain
tiff as superintendent 10 suPeriniend the
xork on said road Al an agreed con.pen-
saticn Of Ss per day; thai under said en-
plcyment aud under the direction Of said
commissioners the plaintiff rendered ser
vices a. superintendent upon and about
the construction Of said road for period
OF ITO days: that the commissioners 20 re
ported to the county commissioners and
tha, thereby The said coun.y became In
dcbted 10 the plaintiff IN ths sum aforesaid;
that The court examined the account aai
ordered warrant drawn on the treasurer
Ia the sum OF $500.
The opinion Of Judge Lord goes on to.
cay that the main question 70 be deter
mined Is 10 the validity Of the act under
witch the services were rendered The
contention Is that the act Is special aud
local and as such IS In seonsraventioa Of
the consultation. which provides that the
Legislative assembly shall not pass special
or local Laws, etc las quoted n the syl-
iabus
rhe opinlon says: "Itlwill be admitted,
II this act Is special or local law, that
then It comes directly within the Prohibi-
lion OF the clause Of the constitution cited,
and never lad any validity whatever. for
the legislature had no power TO enact IL
But 10 determine whether an act is special
or local Il j. necessary TO ascertain the
meaning to be given 10 the words special
or LEGAL as used in the constitution. :
The inhibition Is directed against both.
and AZ lava may be spcciA and not loca.,
or they may be local and not special, Il Is
necessary that each word receive It's dis
tinct and peculiar Specification. u is no,
easy to define with precision the distinction
between q general law and one that Is
special or local. In general language a
local statute may be said TO be one lshat :
operative only within d portion of The
state, aud n special statute is or.e that Is
applicable to particular indisidnals or
things. Statui,ss are sometimes distin-
guished as gener u or local, according to
whether they are intended 70 operate
throughout the enii.-e Jurisdiction, CT oaly
within single cour sys or other division
or place. A law which aFplies only to
limited part of the state snd the inhaoi-
eants of that place, is local.
~'There can be no other ,ha n general law
enefed. Hence, II the act in ,sneslso;i Is lcea
or epecial-obnoxicus 10 either otSasiso 18th
llleeislaiare was without power 10 enaeS i. An'
the:ae, Is withou, any validity. The &C
in questsaz apples aud opsra,es eS sinsasesy
Tillamock county,. II confers on iha
county special benefits. a, the expense Of 'h
general ,puhlic. not conferred upon the othe
counties ii the state.
s.The purpose of the constitutional :stric'
ton upon the legislative power. in the case
enumerated, wasohviousy 10 require thai thes
specified subjects should be regulated by gen
erAl laws Of uniform operation throughout n
state. In the execution Of this purross,
was intended by this restriction to prevent uE
just distinction from The operation of local law
between different localities. and 10 preven
like distinctions from The application :
special laws to particular individuals, counties
or things. This act violates that principle {
this constitutional restriction. and embodis
the mischief Il was intended to prevent, an
cannot be upheld. This is the gSound upo
which we declare this acs to be unconstitu
tionn.
aWhile il Is true, that evary court approach
es with gravity the question Of declaring la
10 be unconstitutional and never exerts j
power SO 10 do while doubt exists, yet consss
erations OF gravity stand for naughs when
incompat:bility with the constitution is show
and nothing remaius for the court but 70 dis
cha,ge its duty by declaring the law 10 be IN