The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1899-07-18

Judge Hazen then cited sixteen deeis-
ions bearing on this point. Among
them We're the following:
In the case of Gulf, Colorado & San
Ia F'e Railroad company VS.. Ellis, 165
L s. page $50, the supreme court in
discussing the right of a state to cIas
sify. speaking through Judge Brewer
says:
. Yet is is equally true that such clas-
si9catiOn cannot be made arbitrarily.
The state may not say that all white
men shall be subjected to the payment
of attorneys fees of parties successfully
suing them and all black men not. 1t
may not say that all men beyond a GER
tain age shall be alone thus subjected,
or all men possessed of a certain wealth.
These are distinctions which do not Iur-
nish any proper basis for the attempted
classification. That must always rest
upon some difference which bears
reasonable and just relation to the act
in respect to which the classification is
proposed. and can never be made arbi-
trarily and without any such basis.
1t must be evident that differences
which would serve for a classification
for some purposes furnishes no reason
whatever for classification for legisla-
tive purposes. The differences which
will support class legislation must be
such as in the nature of things furnish
a reasona BILE basis for separate laws
and regula tlOnS.
It is apparent that the mere fact of
classification is not sufficient to relieve
the statute from Jne T6aCn OF the equal
ity clause of the fourteenth amendment,
and that in all cases it must appear not
only that classification has been made,
but also that it is based upon some
reasonable ground-sOme difference
which bears just and proper relation
to the attempted classification
In the case of the People VS.. Board
of Trustees, 40 H., 46S. the third sub
division of the syllabus reads as fol-
lows:
An act which attempts to put GER
tain charter municipalities into class
by themselves, basing such classifica-
ton not upon any rule for classifying
municipalities or any circumstance af-
fecting them differently from other
municipalities in the state, but
msFsIy nisi9n upon their cbaF4e9g fiIfe9gt from P69
those of other municipalities and a pref
erence of the electors for such provision
is unconstitutional
In the case of Adams VS.. Nemeyer,
mayor, ct al, 81 Ohio st. GA, the court
says:
The act of the legislature passed
March 81 1892, authorizing cities having
al the last federal census a population
the city, to be used for the purpose of
purchasing grounds and buildings with
in such city or it immediate vicinity for
manufacturing purposes is invalid be
cause it is a special act of a general ma
ture comforting corporate powers
In the case Of the People vs. the
Central Pacific Railroad company, So
Cal 1893, in the syllabus, the court says.
A clause or provision special in its
character, applying to particular indi-
Viduals, particular places or particular
cases is none the less special because
inserted in the most general of public
acts. While it is true. with some ex-
Ceptions. that law which applies to all
of a class in a state is held to be a gen
eraI law, it is equally true that one
which applies to only part of a class is
special. and void as being within the
constitutional inhibition. Legislation
which relates not to any genus but only
to species, Is special legislation
In the case of Darcy vs.. Mayor etc,
of San Jose, 104 Cal 642, in the syllabus
is found the following:
'' classification must not be arbitra-
~, for the mere purpose of classified
tiOn, or in order that legiSla ton really
local or special may seem to be general,
but must be for the purpose Of meeting
different conditions naturally requiring
different legislation; and, in claSslh-
cation, for the purpose of a general
law, all must be included and made
subject to it. and none omitted that
stand upon the same footing regarding
the subject of legislation.
In the case of Davis VS.. Clark, 106
Pa St. 377 the third subdivision Of the
syllabus reads as follows:
- The classification Of counties by
population and the passage of laws
applicable to a certain class only. have
within reasonable limits and for some
purposes been admitted, upon the as
sumption that counties having a small
population may ultimately have one
much larger. In the present case, how
ever. two counties in the state had, at
the time the law in question was pass
ed, a greater population than 100000 1t
cannot be assumed that their popula-
tion will ever fall below that limit;
hence they are practically and perma-
nentIy excluded from the operation of
the act which is therefore special in
its terms and local in its effect
THE principle laid down in this case
is particularly applicable to the case at
bar Kansas City, Kansas, has a pop
ulation of more than 10000. and there
fore excluded from the operation of the
act in question, and no presumption
can be INDUCED in that it will ever fall
below that population, and therefore
that city is forever excluded from the
operation of the act under cOnSidera-
ton"
After citing these precedents Judge
Hazen continued in his opinion:
Guided then by the principles an
nounces in the foregoing decisions,
what must be the conclusion as to
whether the act in question is general
or special2 BY its terms it excludes all
cities of the first class having less pop
ulatiOn than thirty thousand or a
greater population than 100000 What
reason can be given why cities of the
first class with a population between
thirty and forty thousand should have
the exclusive privilege of purchasing
real estate. erecting buildings thereon
and issuing bonds to pay for the same,
and other cities of the same class, sim
llarly situated be prevented from 50
doing? BY this act cities of the first
class are excluded at both ends of the
line. If the legislature may designate
a class of cities having between thirty
and forty thousand inhabitants and
confer corporate powers upon them,
then by the same process of reasoning
it may designate a class having be
tween thirty and thirty-five thousand,
or class having between thirty and
thirty-One thousand: any other
limits the legislature may see fit to fix.
The ten thousand classification seems
to have been the favored limit of the
legislature; for the very next act in the