(Pennie v. Reis, 80 Cal. 266, 22 Pac. 176; Jennings v. Le Roy, 63 Cal. 397; Baum v. Raphael, 57 Cal. 361.)

An act adding a new section to the Political Code, and by implication amending another section of the same code, was held to violate this provision, if considered as an amendment, since it did not republish the section of the code affected by it. (Earle v. Board of Education, 55 Cal. 489. But see Hellman v. Shoulters, 114 Cal. 136, 44 Pac. 915, 45 Pac. 1057; University of California v. Bernard, 57 Cal. 612.)

This section does not apply to amendments by implication, nor to an act which merely adds new sections relating to a named subject, which leaves in full operation all the language of the statute which it purports to amend, and does not purport to amend any section of that act, but affects its operation only by implication from the sections added. (Hellman v. Shoulters, 114 Cal. 136, 44 Pac. 915, 45 Pac. 1057. But see Earle v. Board of Education, 55 Cal. 489.) This section does not prevent a section amended from taking its place by its appropriate number in the original act. (Fletcher v. Prather, 102 Cal. 413,

36 Pac. 658.)

Where a section of the code is "amended to read as follows," and the amended section is published at length, without any saving clause, the effect of the amendment is to repeal the section as it originally stood; and a section of the amendatory act merely providing that the amendment shall be applicable to certain counties does not operate as a saving clause to continue the original section in force in other counties. (Huffman v. Hall, 102 Cal. 26, 36 Pac. 417.)

Under the provisions of this section the amendment of a statute operates as an absolute repeal of the statute or section amended, even if the amendment takes nothing away from the old law, but merely adds a proviso in certain cases. (Billings v. Harvey, 6 Cal. 381.)

An act adding five new sections to the Political Code is not within the mischief which this section was intended to prevent. (University of California v. Bernard, 57 Cal. 612.)

An act entitled "An act to revise the Code of Civil Procedure of the state of California by amending certain sections, repealing others, and adding certain new sections," and amending, repealing, or adding some five hundred sections of that code, and which did not set out and republish at length the entire Code of Civil Procedure, was held to violate this provision of the constitution. (Lewis v. Dunne, 22 Cal. Dec. 559.)

This appears to be the only decision as to what constitutes a "revised" act within the meaning of this section. See, however, on the same subject the following cases: Portland v. Stock, 2 Or. 70; Dolan v. Barnard, 5 Or. 390; David v. Portland etc. Co., 14 Or. 98, 12 Pac. 174; Greencastle etc. Co. v. State, 28 Ind. 382; Town etc. v. Frieze, 33 Ind. 507; Swails v. White, 4 Neb. 353; Arnoult v. New Orleans, 11 La. Ann. 54; Tuskaloosa etc. Co. v. Olmsted, 41 Ala. 9.

Sec. 25. The legislature shall not pass local or special laws in any of the following enumerated cases, that is to say:

First-Regulating the jurisdiction and duties of justices of the peace, police judges, and of constables.

Second-For the punishment of crimes and misdemeanors.

Third-Regulating the practice of courts of

justice.

Fourth-Providing for changing the venue in civil or criminal actions.

Fifth-Granting divorces.

Sixth-Changing the names of persons or

places.

Seventh-Authorizing the laying out, opening, altering, maintaining, or vacating roads, highways,

streets, alleys, town plats, parks, cemeteries, graveyards, or public grounds not owned by the state.

Eighth Summoning and impaneling grand and petit juries, and providing for their compensation.

Ninth Regulating county and township business, or the election of county and township officers.

Tenth-For the assessment or collection of

taxes.

Eleventh-Providing for conducting elections, or designating the places of voting, except on the organization of new counties.

Twelfth Affecting the estates of deceased persons, minors, or other persons under legal disabilities.

Thirteenth-Extending the time for the collection of taxes.

Fourteenth-Giving effect to invalid deeds, wills, or other instruments.

Fifteenth Refunding money paid into the state treasury.

Sixteenth-Releasing or extinguishing, in whole or in part, the indebtedness, liability, or obligation of any corporation or person to this state, or to any municipal corporation therein.

Seventeenth-Declaring any person of age, or authorizing any minor to sell, lease, or encumber his or her property.

Eighteenth-Legalizing, except as against the state, the unauthorized or invalid act of any officer.

Nineteenth-Granting to any corporation, association, or individual any special or exclusive right, privilege, or immunity.

Twentieth-Exempting property from taxa

tion.

Twenty-first-Changing county seats.

Twenty-second-Restoring to citizenship persons convicted of infamous crimes.

Twenty-third-Regulating the rate of interest

on money.

Twenty-fourth-Authorizing the creation, extension, or impairing of liens.

Twenty-fifth-Chartering or licensing ferries, bridges, or roads.

Twenty-sixth-Remitting fines, penalties, or

forfeitures.

Twenty-seventh-Providing for the management of common schools.

Twenty-eighth-Creating offices, or prescribing the powers and duties of officers in counties, cities, cities and counties, townships, election or school districts.

Twenty-ninth-Affecting the fees or salary of

any officer.

Thirtieth-Changing the law of descent or suc

cession.

Thirty-first-Authorizing the adoption or legitimation of children.

L

Thirty-second-For limitation of civil or criminal actions.

Thirty-third In all other cases where a general law can be made applicable.

LOCAL AND SPECIAL LAWS-In general.-Under the former constitution the legislature was not forbidden to pass local or special laws. (Wigmore v. Buell, 122 Cal. 144, 54 Pac. 600; People v. Twelfth District Court, 17 Cal. 547; Ex parte Burke, 59 Cal. 6; Nevada School Dist. v. Shoecraft, 88 Cal. 372, 26 Pac. 211.)

The provisions of this section are prospective only, and do not affect statutes passed before its adoption. (Nevada School Dist. v. Shoecraft, 88 Cal. 372, 26 Pac. 211; Ex parte Burke, 59 Cal. 6; Rollins v. Wright, 93 Cal. 395, 29 Pac. 58; Smith v. McDermott, 93 Cal. 421, 29 Pac. 34; Meade v. Watson, 67 Cal. 591, 8 Pac. 311; Ex parte Chin Yan, 60 Cal. 78.)

The legislature cannot make a special act general by a legislative declaration that it shall be considered a general act. (San Francisco v. Spring Valley W. W., 48 Cal. 493.)

A law which on its face is general and may be applied to all cities cannot be assailed on the ground that it was in fact passed to effect an improvement in one city only. (Davies v. Los Angeles, 86 Cal. 37, 24 Pac. 771.)

A special law is one relating to a selected class, as well as a particular object. (Smith v. McDermott, 93 Cal. 421, 29 Pac. 34.)

As to what is a general and what a special law, see Ex parte Burke, 59 Cal. 6, per Morrison, C. J. A general law, must be as broad as the subject matter to which it relates. (Desmond v. Dunn, 55 Cal. 242.)

An act applying uniformly upon the whole of any single class of individuals or objects, when the classification is founded upon some natural, intrinsic, or constitutional distinction, is a general law. (Abeel v. Clark, 84 Cal. 226, 24 Pac. 383; Cody v. Murphey, 89 Cal. 522, 26 Pac. 1081; Foster v. Police Commrs., 102 Cal. 483, 37 Pac. 763; Rode v. Siebe, 119 Cal.