Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 2).pdf/111

 Association, 62 Ind. 264; Hawkeye, etc., v. Blackburn, 48 Iowa 385; Merrill v. McIntyre, 13 Gray 157; Shannon v. Dunn, 43 N. H. 194; Hoboken v. Martin, 13 N. J. Eq. 427. Where the constitution provides that the legislature "shall pass no special law for any cause for which provision can be made by a general law " the Legislature is the sole judge as to whether provision by a general law is possible. State v. County Court, 50 Mo. 317, 11 Am. Rep. 415; State v. Hitchcock, 81 Am. Dec. 503.

Bangs & Fisk of counsel, for appellant:

Section 2 of article 1 of the state constitution requiring all laws of a general nature to have a uniform operation must be construed to mean that all laws of a general nature must operate equally upon all persons who are brought within the relations and circumstances provided for, though it may not affect every citizen of the state. 3 Am. & Eng. Ency, of Law, 697; McAunich v. Railroad Co., 20 Iowa 338; Railroad Co. v. Iowa, 94 U.S. 163; Cordova v. State, 6 Tex. App. 207; Sutherland on Stat. Con., § 125 and cases cited; Bumsted v. Govem, 47 N. J. Law 368; Id, 48 N. J. Law 612; State vs. Mining Co., 16 Nev. 432; Corwin v. Ward, 35 Cal. 198; Jackson v. Shawl, 29 Cal. 267; Merritt v. Boom Co., 25 N. W. Rep. 403; Ex Parte Smith, 38 Cal. 702; State v. Barker, 30 N. W. Rep. 267; People v. Henshaw, 18 Pac. Rep. 413. The word "operation" as used in said section refers to the practical working and effect of the law. Geebrick v. State, 5 Iowa 491. If a law acts equally and uniformly upon all parties upon whom it acts at all, it is not repugnant to the above constitutional provision. Corwin v. Ward, 35 Cal. 198. A law is general and uniform in its operation which operates equally upon all the subjects within the class of subjects for which it is adopted. Nichols v. Walter, 33 N. W. Rep. 800; Sutherland on Stat. Con., § 124. A general law is one which refers to persons and things as a class. Kilgore v. Magee, 85 Pa. St. 411; Wheeler v. Philadelphia, 77 Pa. St. 349; Walker v. Potter, 10 Ohio St. 85; McAunich v. Railroad Co., 20 Iowa 343; Barbier v. Connolly, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 357; Minn. Loan Co. v. Beebe, 41 N. W. Rep. 232. The law in question is not a special law. Holmes v. Smythe; 100 Ill. 413; Freeman v. Association, 114 Ill. 182;