Santa Fe daily New Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1885-1897, 1891-02-16

ties and no more "nle pdiC atPil9n
all the other counties, excepting thos
D four. In no view generally speaking ne
this law general application to the terri
tory. Part is local to A counties part
! local to 10 counties, easily asceltained
r and 4 are excluded.
{ But the territory contends that Their
, NAV be classihcations OF agencies unde
government aud law which is applicable
= generally to the agency or class ls gen
, eral, and not local. This contention il
correct, and the only question is, doe
the law classification hold in this case
: Upon this point the territory plants itsel
, as its only tenable ground. In truth, by
taking its position here 1t says that II thl!
is not tenable the law must be held loca
, and special and therefore, subject to The
inhibition OF congress.
What authorities are cited by the ter
ritory to sustain it's position? | will en-
deavor firmly and honestly to consider
them. In passing it may be we'll to say
that all the cases cited upon this PROPOSE
ton are based upon substantially the
same character of Inhibition as to pass
ing local or special laws in certain speci'
fed cases.
A leading case upon this point ls the
"Matter OF N. Y Elevated h. +. Co.,
| ION. Y. 1927. In this case the Legislature
passed what WAS known rs the General
rapid transit act, which was, by its title,
can act further to provide for the con-
structlon and operation OF steam rail
way or railways in the counties OF the
state" BY its terms it could only apply
to certain communities, but those com
munities were not named or limited by
the act. To all inteuts and purposes ii
was general. In disposng of the objec-
ton that it was local law the court
said "the act in form offers the same
opportunities to all citizens OF the state.
The fact that some are not able to avail
themselves of the opportunities does not
impune the general character OF the act. y
How is it with the law am considering
Does the act IN form offer the same OPP
poltunities to all citizens? Can law in
form or fact be OF general character
which says, ''if you live in Santa Fe
county you have twelve chances against
being indicted for murder, but if you go
Taos, you only have nine chances, While
if you are in Rio Arriba county you can
have an accusation against you - by
the people among whom you reside, but
if you are in Santa Fe county your case
must be inquired into by body drawn
from three countless" To the like
effect is the case in the matter OF
the application of Church '92, N. y. ]
The court says in this case: "a law
relating to particular persons or things as
class was said to be general lin the case
above 70, N. Y. 328}; while one relating
to particular persons or things of class
was deemed local and private. The act
of 1881 relates to class and applies to it
as such, and not to be selected or particu
lar elements of which it Is composed. The
class consists of every county in the state
having within its boundaries city of
lO0, 900 inhabitants and territory beyond
the city limits mapped into streets and
avenues. How many such counties there
are now, or may be in the future We do
not know, and it Is not material that we
should. Whether many or few, the law
operates upon them all alike, and reaches
them not by a separate selection of | or
more, but through the general class OF
which they are individual elements, and
by it's terms it applies equally to every
other county which may prove to be With
in the constituted class"
Although cited by the territory this all
thority is decidedly against it. What
classification is there in the law before
US? Either it is simply counties, in
which case the law is not uniform and
general, or it is "those counties in which
U. S. cases are triable." But this
under the above rule fails
because it does make q separate selection
of the elements. -Four counties and four
only can ever be in the classification, and
the fact is that there is today U. S.
trial county-Socorro-w by no rule
Of Interpretation can come within this
aw. On the other hand as to all other conn
les there is no rule of classification at all
IS to them, and if there were it would be
fatally defective, because it excludes by
name four counties, and if tomorrow this
county should lose its position as q county
ior the trial of U. S. cases, no power or
rule exists to place it in the other class,
In the case OF Wheeler vs. Philadelphia
II, Pa. State 1888, the court only holds
that cities may be classified 90 that law
applicable to the class is not local. There
can be no question as to that proposition.
They say, lit permits legislation for
classes, but not for persons or things OF a
class" In the cases OF McAunich vs..
The Miss. Il Mo. X. K. Co., SO Iowa 1888,
and the Iowa K. r. Co. VS.. Soper, 80
Iowa 1l2, the same idea is sustained. In
he latter case, quoting from the former
he court says they" the loss under
care general and uniform
a their operation upon all persons i'll
ike situation" 1t is plain that this jury
aw is not, and never can be. The per-
sons in Socorro are in like situation as
Santa Fe, but the law applies to them
The holding OF the Iowa
court is simply for the case in point and
loes not fully state the lew as in the N.
Y. cases, the law to be general contem-
plates that all persons or things who are
now or may in the future come under the
classification will be amenable to its
In the case of Wilker VS.. Potter and wife,
Is Ohio state IS, the court simply decides
that law having q uniform operation
upon all cities in certain class is gem
eral law. This in no way sustains the
jury law under consideration. The last
case cited by the territory is that OF the
people We. sharp luf ~. L ~, III Mblell
the court takes occasion simply to re-af-
firm its holdings in the two N. Y cases
above cited.
The result then Of the earnest labors Of
the counsel OF the territory is al utter fail
ure to find one authority which by the
most learned ingenuity can in the remot-
est degree place this law in the category
OF cassifcations, which justify its being
considered as obedient to the express re-
quirements OF the congressional enact
ment. But there are cases which plainly
by their authority contravene the law in
question.
In the case of Mccarthy vs.. Com
monwealth 2 Atlantic Ry., 423, Pa.
case, the legislature passed d law
regulating the affairs Of counties
the population OF which exceeds 100000