as otherwles prorId@ In this OonetI+utIon,pa58 any loaal or lpaoIal laws, suthorltlng.... rsgulatlngthe affairs of oountlee, alt,Ise, towm, wards or eohool dletrIate....andin all othsr aaeee where e gmnoral law oan k medo npplloable,no looal or epeoial law shell bs oaaoted; prwldsd, that nothIng.hersinoon- talned shall be oonetruod to prohibit the Leglelatruo from peealhg lpeaiel lawe Sor the prreervationof (c(old and rieh of this State in oertaln 100a11t1s*~* In the aaee, Ora9 vs. Taylor, eE7 0. 81 $1, the Suprsms Court of ths United Stats8 defined a loaal law aet -ho phraes 'loaal law' moans prImmIlT, at least, e lew In faot, If not In form, Is dlraoted only to a lp eo lila epotrm Hon. Chas. R. Martin, &m-ah 6. 1939, Pago 4
The aase, City o? Fort Worth vs. Bobbitt, S6 S+?(2nd) 470, holds among other things, that: *An aat applloable to oOuutIe8 having a population Of fran 3!5190 to 35,EOO was sraeIn and clpeolal, oltlng &eon te. Buraon, 64 Ohio State 4701 Owen OOunty CommIeeIouerevs. 8pane- lar, 159 Ind. 575, and that an act authorisIng bonds by aItIse having between 106,000 and llOoOOO InhabItanteby 1920 OOIISUBbslng a pll- oable only to one alty hold looal law withPn oonstItutIonalprovIsIon.W Con8tItutIonArtl- ale 3, Seation 56. The aaeo, Bsrar Ootmty vs. Tyman et al, 97 81 (2nd) 567, holds In effsat, that: *Courts In determining whether law Is public, general, spoolal or looal ~111 look to Its eubetanoo and praotlaal operation rather than to Its title, form, phraseology ulnae otherwise prohibitionand fundamental law ~ainet epoolal legislationwould ba nugatory. The Laglelaturamay olaesffy aountlae on basis o? populationfor purpoaa o? fixin oomp6meatlono? oounty and preolnet oiifoere but alaesl?laatIoamust bo'baeed . on real dIetlnotionand must not bs arbltrar- Ily deolsod to gI+o what ia, In eubetanao,a looal o r lpeolal law tha form o? goneral law. Aote rodualng ealarise of offiasre In soum- ties o? eOO,Of?Oand loos than 310,OOO popula- tlon hold uureasonabloand arbitrary In its sleseIfIoatlonand void as a epoolal law.' 'Weballeva that whether the aats in question an to ba regarded as epaoial and whothir their operation is uniform throughoutthe &tate depends upon whether the popu- lation afiords a fair baeIe for the ol.aeai?iaatioa Of noun- ties with reraronoo to matter8 to whloh they relate and whether the rasult they aaoolPplleh Is in fast a real ala8si- ?IatIoa upon that basis and not a daelgnatlonof a SIP&&la aounty to whioh clone they #hall apply under the gufeo of . 5
=,
Hon. Chas. R. Martin, Maroh 6, 1939, Page S
suoh olassIfIoatIon. The laws In question ware so dram that they are general In tora but In faot only applied,at the tI5e they Went intO emat, t0 &ZTiSOn COUUty rith the lxaeptloa above stated relatlre to Mardoa County. You further inquire, If any ol the abovomentlon- ed atatqtes ara unoonstltutlonal,la the CommIa~Ionera~ Court authorlsedand IS It mandatory on It to oolleot and reoorer tram the wulour persons the amounts of funda paid to them under and by virtue of the abwe q&f#d