§ 39. Local and special laws. The legislature may enact special or local laws except where forbidden to do so by the constitution,86 and a law applicable to a specified locality or specified localities only does not violate the fourteenth amendment to the federal constitution or similar provisions in state constitutions,87 or a provision requiring all laws of a general nature to have uniform operation throughout the state.88 But there are provisions in some of the state constitutions prohibiting the enactment of special or local laws, either generally or in relation to particular subjects,89 or prohibiting the enactment of North Carolina. State v. Moore, 104 N. C. 714, 10 S. E. 143, 17 Am. St. Rep. 696; State v. Chambers, 93 N. C. 600. Oregon. State v. Savage, 96 Ore. 53, 184 Pac. 567, 189 Pac. 427; Fouts v. Hood River, 46 Ore. 492, 81 Pac. 370, 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 483, 7 Ann. Cas. 1160. The legislature is sometimes expressly given power by the constitution to enact special laws applicable to particular counties or geographical districts. Sibley v. State, 107 Tenn. 515, 64 S. W. 703; Peters v. State, 96 Tenn. 682, 36 S. W. 399, 33 L. R. A. 114. 87 United States. People of State of New York v. Bennett, 113 Fed. 515; In re Ah Kit, 45 Fed. 793. Alabama. Davis v. State, 68 Ala. 58, 44 Am. Rep. 128. New Hampshire. State v. Griffin, 69 N. H. 1, 39 Atl. 260, 76 Am. St. Rep. 139. North Carolina. State v. Moore, 104 N. C. 714, 10 S. E. 143, 17 Am. St. Rep. 696. Oregon. State v. Savage, 96 Ore. 53, 184 Pac. 567, 189 Pac. 427. a A law that operates only in a limited territory to accomplish specific purpose does not deny equal protection of the laws, as it affects all persons equally and impartially who are similarly situated. State v. Savage, 96 Ore. 53, 184 Pac. 567, 189 Pac. 427; Portland Fish Co. v. Benson, 56 Ore. 147, 108 Pac. 122. 88 State v. Covington, 29 Ohio St. 102. 89 See the constitutions of the various states and the following cases. California. Ex parte Jentzsch, 112 Cal. 468, 44 Pac. 803, 32 L. R. A. 664. Illinois. Miller v. Sincere, 273 Ill. 194, 112 N. E. 664. Indiana. Hammer v. State, 173 Ind. 199, 89 N. E. 850, 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 795, 140 Am. St. Rep. 248, 21 Ann. Cas. 1034. Kentucky. Com. v. Porter, 113 Ky. 575, 68 S. W. 621. Nevada. Ex parte Boyce, 27 Nev. 299, 75 Pac. 1, 65 L. R. A. 47, 1 Ann. Cas. 66. Oregon. Lewis v. Varney, 85 Ore. 400, 167 Pac. 271. South Carolina. State v. Higgins, 51 S. C. 51, 28 S. E. 15, 38 L. R. A. 561. Where the constitution does not forbid the enactment of special or local laws, but provides that all laws for the punishment of crime shall be general and of uniform operation special laws in cases where a general law is applicable,90 or can be made applicable.91 A local law is one which relates only to a portion. of the territory of the state, or operates over a particular locality,92 and a special law is one which grants some special right, privilege or throughout the state, the punishment for violation of a special or local law. may and should be fixed by a general law. Fine v. Moran, 74 Fla. 417, 77 So. 533; Stinson v. State, 63 Fla. 42, 58 So. 722; Snowden v. Brown, 60 Fla. 212, 53 So. 548; Harper v. Galloway, 58 Fla. 255, 51 So. 226, 26 L. R. A. (N. S.) 794, 19 Ann. Cas. 235. A law making it an offense to take fish in a specified county, etc., does not violate a constitutional provision prohibiting the enactment of special or local laws for the punishment of crime, State v. Savage, 96 Ore. 53, 184 Pac. 567, 189 Pac. 427; nor does a statute making it an offense to take fish except with hook and line in waters designated by the fish commission as fish preserves. People v. Diekmann, 285 Ill. 97, 120 N. E. 490. 90 See the constitutions of the various states and the following cases: King v. State, 136 Ga. 709, 71 S. E. 1093; Glover v. State, 126 Ga. 594, 55 S. E. 592; Hancock v. State, 114 Ga. 439, 40 S. E. 317; Harris v. State, 114 Ga. 436, 40 S. E. 315; Papworth v. State, 103 Ga. 36, 31 S. E. 402. A usury law having general application throughout the state is not a special or local law because it makes penal the exaction of more than five per cent per month when there is a general law providing civil penalties and forfeitures for exacting more than eight per cent. The fact that there are certain usurers to which it does not apply does not make it a special law. King v. State, 136 Ga. 709, 71 S. E. 1093. 91 See the constitutions of the vari ous states and the following cases: California. In re Spencer, 149 Cal. 396, 86 Pac. 896, 117 Am. St. Rep. 137, 9 Ann. Cas. 1105; Ex parte Jentzsch, 112 Cal. 468, 44 Pac. 803, 32 L. R. A. 664. Colorado. Robertson v. People, 20 Colo. 279, 38 Pac. 326. Illinois. Miller v. Sincere, 273 Ill. 194, 112 N. E. 664; People v. McBride, 234 Ill. 146, 84 N. E. 865, 123 Am. St. Rep. 82, 14 Ann. Cas. 994. Indiana. Pennsylvania Co. V. State, 142 Ind. 428, 41 N. E. 937. Nevada. Ex parte Boyce, 27 Nev. 299, 75 Pac. 1, 65 L. R. A. 47, 1 Ann. Cas. 66; Ex parte Spinney, 10 Nev. 323. Texas. Bohl v. State, 3 Tex. App. 683. 92 People v. Diekmann, 285 Ill. 97, 120 N. E. 490; State v. Irwin, 5 Nev. 111; State v. Higgins, 51 S. C. 51, 28 S. E. 15, 38 L. R. A. 561. "The phrase local law means, primarily at least, a law that in fact if not in form is directed only to a specific spot." Gray v. Taylor, 227 U. S. 51, 57 L. Ed. 413, 33 Sup. Ct. 199. "A local act applies only to a limited part of the state. It touches but a portion of its territory, a part of its people, or a fraction of the property of its citizens." Lewis v. Varney, 85 Ore. 400, 167 Pac. 271; Ladd v. Holmes, 40 Ore. 167, 66 Pac. 714, 91 Am. St. Rep. 457; Maxwell v. Tillamook County, 20 Ore. 495, 26 Pac. 803. An act is local when the subject relates to a part of the people only, or to their property, or when it immunity, or imposes some particular burden upon some portion of the people of the state less than all,93 or, as sometimes defined, one which applies to an individual, association or corporation.94 A law is general, and not local or special, within the common acceptation of these terms, when it is general and uniform in its operation upon all persons in like situation,95 or applies to and operates uniformly upon all of a class, provided the classification is a proper one.96 Provisions of this character do not prevent classifications of persons, subjects and localities for the purpose of legislation, provided the classification has some reasonable relation to real differences with reference to the subject regulated, and the law operates equally upon all who come within the class to be affected.97 Nor, as a rule, is it necessary in order to make a law general that it be equally applicable to all parts of the state, but it is sufficient if it extends to all persons doing or operates within a single city, county or other particular division. Couch v. Marvin, 67 Ore. 341, 136 Pac. 6. The Alabama Constitution defines a local law as one which applies to any political subdivision or subdivisions of the state less than the whole. State v. Sayre, 142 Ala. 641, 39 So. 240, 4 Ann. Cas. 656; Wallace v. Board of Revenue of Jefferson County, 140 Ala. 491, 37 So. 321. 93 People v. Diekmann, 285 Ill. 97, 120 N. E. 490. A statute which relates to particular persons or things of a class and not to persons or things as a class is a special as contradistinguished from a general law. State v. Rogers, 93 Minn. 55, 100 N. W. 659; State v. Cooley, 56 Minn. 540, 58 N. W. 150; State v. Walsh, 136 Mo. 400, 37 S. W. 1112, 35 L. R. A. 231; State v. Julow, 129 Mo. 163, 31 S. W. 781, 29 L. R. A. 257, 50 Am. St. Rep. 443; State v. Irwin, 5 Nev. 111. 94 A special or private law is so defined by the Alabama Constitution. State v. Sayre, 142 Ala. 641, 39 So. 240, 4 Ann. Cas. 656; Wallace Board of Revenue of Jefferson County, 140 Ala. 491, 37 So. 321. V. 95 People v. Earl, 42 Colo. 238, 94 Pac. 294; Clendaniel v. Conrad, 3 Boyce (Del.) 549, 83 Atl. 1036, Ann. Cas. 1915 B 968; People v. Nellis, 249 Ill. 12, 94 N. E. 165; Douglas v. People, 225 Ill. 536, 80 N. E. 341, 8 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1116, 116 Am. St. Rep. 162. 96 California. In re Zhizhuzza, 147 Cal. 328, 81 Pac. 955; Ex parte Jentzsch, 112 Cal. 468, 44 Pac. 803, 32 L. R. A. 664. Delaware. Clendaniel v. Conrad, 3 Boyce 549, 83 Atl. 1036, Ann. Cas. 1915 B 968. Minnesota. State v. Rogers, 93 Minn. 55, 100 N. W. 659; State v. Cooley, 56 Minn. 540, 58 N. W. 150. Missouri. State v. Swagerty, 203 Mo. 517, 102 S. W. 483, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 601, 120 Am. St. Rep. 671, 11 Ann. Cas. 725; State v. Walsh, 136 Mo. 400, 37 S. W. 1112, 35 L. R. A. 231. Oregon. State v. Savage, 96 Ore. 53, 184 Pac. 567, 189 Pac. 427; Ladd v. Holmes, 40 Ore. 167, 66 Pac. 714, 91 Am. St. Rep. 457. omitting to do an act within the limits prescribed in the statute.98 But in at least one state the constitution defines a general law as a law which applies to the whole state.99 The words "private" and "local," as applied to statutes, are often used synonymously, but an act may be public and yet local.2 § 40. Uniform operation of general laws. Many of the state constitutions provide that all laws of a general nature shall have uniform operation throughout the state. Such a provision does not prohibit local legislation. Nor does it prevent classifications of persons, subjects and localities for the purpose of legislation, provided the classification has some reasonable relation to real differences with reference to the subject regulated, and the law operates equally upon all who come within the class to be affected.5 98 People v. Diekmann, 285 Ill. 97, 120 N. E. 490; People v. Gordon, 274 Ill. 462, 113 N. E. 864. A law may be general and have but a local application. State v. Savage, 96 Ore. 53, 184 Pac. 567, 189 Pac. 427; Ladd v. Holmes, 40 Ore. 167, 66 Pac. 714, 91 Am. St. Rep. 457. A law is not special or local merely because it authorizes or prohibits the doing of a thing in a particular locality. It is nevertheless a general law if it applies to all the citizens of the state and deals with a matter of general concern. State v. Corson, 67 N. J. L. 178, 50 Atl. 780; Doughty v. Conover, 42 N. J. L. 193. 99 It is so defined by the Alabama Constitution. State v. Sayre, 142 Ala. 641, 39 So. 240, 4 Ann. Cas. 656; Wallace V. Board of Revenue of Jefferson County, 140 Ala. 491, 37 So. 321. 1 Kerrigan v. Force, 68 N. Y. 381. 2 State v. Sayre, 142 Ala. 641, 39 So. 240, 4 Ann. Cas. 656; Wallace v. Board of Revenue of Jefferson County, 140 Ala. 491, 37 So. 321; Kerrigan v. Force, 68 N. Y. 381; State v. Chambers, 93 N. C. 600; Farrell v. Port of Columbia, 50 Ore. 169, 91 Pac. 546, 93 Pac. 254. 3 See the constitutions of the va rious states and the following cases: California. People v. Finley, 153 Cal. 59, 94 Pac. 248; In re Spencer, 149 Cal. 396, 86 Pac. 896, 117 Am. St. Rep. 137, 9 Ann. Cas. 1105; Ex parte Sohncke, 148 Cal. 262, 82 Pac. 956, 2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 813, 113 Am. St. Rep. 236, 7 Ann. Cas. 475; Ex parte Burke, 59 Cal. 6, 43 Am. Rep. 231. Georgia. King v. State, 136 Ga. 709, 71 S. E. 1093. Indiana. Pennsylvania 432. Missouri. Ex parte Handler, 176 Mo. 383, 75 S. W. 920. Ohio. State v. Gardner, 58 Ohio St. 599, 51 N. E. 136, 41 L. R. A. 689, 65 Am. St. Rep. 785; Gordon v. State, 46 Ohio St. 607, 23 N. E. 63, 6 L. R. A. 749. That a local option law imposes a different penalty for selling or giving away liquor from that imposed for such acts in localities where it is not in force does not make it conflict with such a provision. Ex parte Handler, 176 Mo. 383, 75 S. W. 920. 4 See § 39, supra. 5 See § 48, infra. § 41. Privileges and immunities. The Constitution of the United States declares that "the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states." This provision prohibits any state from denying to a citizen of another. state, while within its limits, any privilege or immunity of its own citizens as such.7 The fourteenth amendment to the constitution provides that "no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." This provision refers only to such privileges and immunities as pertain to citizenship in the United States, as distinguished from state citizenship, that is, those which arise out of the nature and essential character of the national government, and are granted or secured by the federal constitution and the laws and treaties made in pursuance 6 U. S. Const. art. IV, § 2. 7 See, as to this clause, United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 23 L. Ed. 588; Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. (U. S.) 36, 21 L. Ed. 394; Corfield v. Coryell, 4 Wash. C. C. 371, Fed. Cas. No. 3,230. The privileges and immunities secured to the citizens of each state in the several states are those enjoyed by the citizens of the latter states, and not the special privileges enjoyed by the citizens in their own states. Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. (U. S.) 168, 19 L. Ed. 357; People v. Griswold, 213 N. Y. 92, 106 N. E. 929, L. R. A. 1915 D 538, aff'g 151 N. Y. App. Div. 933, 135 N. Y. Supp. 1132; Lemmon v. People, 20 N. Y. 562. V. 8 U. S. Const. amendment 14. 9 United States. Rosenthal People of State of New York, 226 U. S. 260, 57 L. Ed. 212, 33 Sup. Ct. 27, Ann. Cas. 1914 B 71, aff 'g 197 N. Y. 394, 90 N. E. 991, 46 L. R. A. (N. S.) 31; Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U. S. 581, 44 L. Ed. 597, 20 Sup. Ct. 448, 494; Duncan v. Missouri, 152 U. S. 377, 38 L. Ed. 485, 14 Sup. Ct. 570; SlaughterHouse Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 21 L. Ed. 394; United States v. Eberhart, 127 Fed. 254. California. People v. Coleman, 145 Cal. 609, 79 Pac. 283. Indiana. Hammer v. State, 173 Ind. 199, 89 N. E. 850, 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 795, 140 Am. St. Rep. 248, 21 Ann. Cas. 1034; Parks v. State, 159 Ind. 211, 64 N. E. 862, 59 L. R. A. 190. Iowa. Shaw v. Marshalltown, 131 Iowa 128, 104 N. W. 1121, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 825, 9 Ann. Cas. 1039. Kansas. State v. Durein, 70 Kan. 13, 80 Pac. 987. Louisiana. State v. Judge, 39 La. Ann. 132, 1 So. 437. Maryland. Short v. State, 80 Md. 392, 31 Atl. 322, 29 L. R. A. 404. New York. People v. Gallagher, 93 N. Y. 438, 45 Am. Rep. 232. Utah. State v. Bates, 14 Utah 293, 47 Pac. 78, 43 L. R. A. 33; State v. Holden, 14 Utah 71, 46 Pac. 756, 37 L. R. A. 103. West Virginia. State v. Peel Splint Coal Co., 36 W. Va. 802, 15 S. E. 1000, 17 L. R. A. 385. For this reason it does not secure the right to attend the public schools of a state. People v. Gallagher, 93 N. Y. 438, 45 Am. Rep. 232. And see Cory v. Carter, 48 Ind. 327, 17 Am. Rep. 738. Neither does it secure the rights of personal liberty and security, these being with |