Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1909-07-11

excluded. The marks of distinction
upon hich the classification Is found
ed must be such IN the nature Of things
as will. in some BILE degree al
least account for or justify the re-
striction Of legislation"
Classification Tor legislative pur-
poses must have some reasonable basis
upon which to stand 1t must be cvi-
dent that differences which would
serve Tor "A classification for some pur-
poses furnish no reason whatever for a
classification for legislative purposes.
The differences which win support
the nature OF things furnish "a reason
able basis for separate laws and regu-
l%ations.'
state s. LOOMS. ll5 80. 307; = l..
n A.. 1888: (Cited with approval in
Gulf and Ry. Co. v. Ellis, 165 t.. :,
$50. which sec)
1T is not the form the statute Is
made to assume but its operation ana
stitutionality.'
state y. Pugh, 40 Ohio st, oS-
1903.
"A law Is not general In any correct
sense Of the term. but Is special. where
II is suspended in one locality whore
there exists a particular subjeet-mat-
ter on which to operate, but remains
IN full force and vigor In another To-
cality Of exactly the same kind.
People y. Cooper. sS ILL.,. SIS.
such a law must embrace all and
exclude none whose condition and
wants render such legislation clearly
necessary or appropriate to thcm as q
class"
state y. Wood. ~ n J l., D. IS
our own supreme court, in Goblin y.
K|ohlhousen. has fully approved the
principle OF law stated, although in a
case in which it was not considered
applicable. Speaking through Judge
Merle, the court says
There must he a substantial distinc-
ton. having reference to the subject
matter Of the proposed legislation, be
tween the places excluded. The marks
OF distinction on which the classifi-
cation is founded must be such, in tho
nature Of things. as viii. in some reS1-
sonuble degree at loast account for or
Justify the restriction OF the lcgisla-
ton
Goblin y. I%<ohlhouscn. 3 Pae. i99
2 \. NJ. bG5.
The supreme court Of California. IN
Miller v. Kister. s Pac St3. dealt with
what appears to be precisely the ques
ton now under consideration, and
soid
by these sections the optration OF
the law upon the subject Of the com
ponsation Of Officers in 80 counties OF
the state. except the counties of three
classes. is suspended until the exrira-
ton % the terms Of the then incum-
bents in office. and is put in force
almost Immediately upon officers of
the three specified classes. Unques
tionably. the legislature has power to
suspend the operation Of the general
OF the state. But when 1t does
So says Cooley In his work on CON
stitutional laws. page 39t, the sus-
pension must he general and cannot
be made In individual cases or for par
ticular localities.
n Law spcaks from the time Of its
tNAilE llAN fAltiNr lNVlAf v bNitAA
son, & Cal G,S. In - of the As class
p. into which the S2 counties Of the
state have been divided. the statutcs
of 1855 do not speak at an. They
speak only in counties of three class
IS. In other words after classifying
the counties OF the state. and regula-
ting the compensation of the county
officers therein, the laws hy which tl,
classification and regulations are ac-
complained are declared tnapplicablc
during the terms OF office cf officers
OF A. Of the as classes ana applicable
during the terms Of office OF three
,iasscs only. the operation of the law
is therefore exceptional and eccentric,