The record-union., 1897-01-03


further in effect than to determine the
validity of the assessment. f. That it
prescribes a particular method of
pleading applicable only to this kind of
case; and 5. That it is not designed to
interfere with an action for the re-
covery of money due upon an assess
ment or with a defense thereto.
When we come to analyze this section
it seems to have had but one purpose,
and that purpose was to supply what at
that time seemed to be an obvious
omission in our swamp land laws; that
is. to give the owner of the lands oppor-
tunity to appear in some proper tribunal
and combat the validity of the list pre-
pared by the Commissioners. Until the
decision of District 531 VS.. Phillips,
cited in the 10S Cal. 306 the courts
were at sea as to what were the actual
rights of swamp land owners in the
premises. That case finally set an end
to the question by fixing the rule that
the owner might by oral testimony i'm
peach the validity of the assessment list
in an action to collect the assessment.
Then does this section of the code vio-
late Section 25, Article w. of our fun
damental law. 1t is often very difficult
to draw the line of distinction between
what are special and what are general
laws as contemplated by the Constitu-
ton. Our Supreme Bench say in People
VS. c. p r. r. Co., 105 Cal. 5S3:
"The distinction between a special
| and a general law may not be capable
of being formulated in a definition
| which will be exhaustive of the subject
and applicable to every case; and the
question may be better determined upon
a consideration of each particular case
presented for its application by taking
into view the purpose and character of
the law, as we'll as the individuals upon
which 1T is to operate. The Legislature,
in it's function of providing for the pub
Lie welfare and the benefit of the entire
people of the State, must determine the
character of the laws which it will en-
act, and, except in 50 far as 1t is pro-
hibited by the Constitution, should
adapt these laws to the condition or
necessities of different portions of the
State or the different classes of it's citi-
zens. The Constitution does not ne
| quire that all the laws which the Legis-
lature shall pass shall have a uniform
operation in every part of the State, nor
does it prohibit legislation for different
| classes of citizens. The requirement
that all laws of a general nature shall
have uniform operation, and that the
Legislature shall not pass special laws
upon certain subjects, still leaves open
for determination whether any particu-
lar statute is a general or a special law.
A law which operates only upon a class
of individuals is none the less a general
law if the individuals to whom it is ap-
plicable constitute a class which re-
quires legislation peculiar to itself in
the matter covered by the law. The
class, however, must not only be ger
name to the purpose of the law, but
| must also be characterized by some
substantial qualities or attributes
which render such legislation necessary
or appropriate for the individual MEM
bers OF the class. 1t may be founded
upon some natural or intrinsic or con-
stjtutional distinction" pasadena vs.
Stimson, 81 Cal. 251), but the distinc-
tion must be of such a nature as to rea-
sonably indicate the necessity or pro-
priety OF legislation restricted to that
| class. If the conditions of such a class
are such as to require legislation which
would be inappropriate or injurious to
others, or such as to require the enact
ment of laws which, either in their
mode of enforcement or the remedy
they provide, are inapplicable to Others
than the designated class, laws enacted
for that class are not special for the
reason that they apply to all of the in
dividuals within the conditions. "A law
is regarded as general when the provi-
sions apply to all objects of legislation
distinguished alike by qualities and ait
tributes which necessi tate the legisla-
ton to which the enactment has mani
fest relation" (Randolph vs. Wood. 49
N. j. L. S5.) The rule has been formu-
lated by the Supreme Court of Mime
sofa in the following terms: "The true
practical limitation of the Legislative
| power to classify is that the classifica-
ton shall be based upon some apparent
natural reason, some reason suggested
! by necessity, by such a difference in the
| situation and circumstances of the sub
! jects placed in different classes as sug-
geSts the necessity or propriety of diff
| ferent legislation with respect to them. y
| (Nichols VS.. Walter 81 Mimi 272.) II
| is very clearly expressed by Mr.. Com
missioner Temple in Darcy vs. Mayor
etc, 104 Cal. 642: ''The classification
must be founded upon differences which
are either defined by the Constitution
or natural, and which will suggest a
reason which might nationally be held
| to justify the diversity in the legisla-
| ton, and must be made for the purpose
of meeting different conditions natural
ly requiring different legislations."
| 1t would seem to my mind that this
case and the cases there cited are con-
elusive of this case Here we have a
| class of cases that is general IN their
nature. That is, swamp land reclama-
| ton cases; they constitute an entire
portion of our internal policy. A dis
tinct and separate mode Is provided for
| their reclamation ard would, from the
nature of things. be susceptible of be-
| ing governed by the same laws as in
other classes of improvements. 1t will
| be seen that a scheme to reclaim
| swamp lands could not be made appli-
cable to a scheme to reclaim lands by a
! system of irrigation, or vice versa. They
constitute two general classes Of sub
| jects we'll defined by nature, and laws
| regulating each class cannot be called
special legislation. As said before, the
action fixes mode by which the valid
/ ity of an assessment may be deter
mined without putting the parties to the
expense of contesting a suit for it's col
lection. The reclamation assessment
is rarely all called in at one time, but in
| serya ra 70 calls as tho pe.reacSitiec of &c, q