Where shall the line properly be traced? We believe that in testing this question these inquiries should be made: Would it be unjust to include the classes of objects or persons excluded? Would it be unnatural? Would such legislation be appropriate to them? Could it properly be made applicable? Is there any reasonable ground for excluding them? It is impossible, from the very nature of the case, to state with precision the true doctrine. But it is our opinion that every law is special which does not embrace every class of objects or persons within the reach of statutory law, with the single exception that the legislature may exclude from the provisions of a statute such classes of objects or persons as are not similarly situated with those included therein, in respect to the nature of the legislation. The classification must be natural, not artificial. It must stand upon some reason, having regard to the character of the legislation.
We find in the adjudications no more felicitous statement of the true doctrine than that of Chief Justice Beasley in State v. Hammer, 42 N. J. Law 439: “But the true principle requires something more than a mere designation by such characteristics as will serve to classify; for the characteristics which thus serve as a basis for classification must be of such a nature as to mark the object so designated as peculiarly requiring exclusive legislation. There must be a substantial distinction, having reference to the subject matter of the proposed legislation between the objects or places embraced in such legislation and the objects or places excluded. The marks of distinction on which the classification is founded must be such, in the nature of things, as will in some reasonable degree, at least, account for or justify the restriction of the legislation.” The whole trend of the authorities is in this line. See Nichols v. Walter, 37 Minn. 264, 33 N. W. Rep. 800; Appeal of Ayars, 122 Pa. St 216, 16 Atl. Rep. 356; People v. Railroad Co., 83 Cal. 393, 23 Pac. Rep. 303; In re Washington St., 132 Pa. St. 257, 19 Atl Rep. 219; State v. Boyd, 19 Nev. 43, 5 Pac. Rep. 735; Closson vy. Trenton, 48 N. J. Law 438, 5 Atl. Rep. 323; Bray v. Hudson Co., 50 N. J. Law 82, 11 Atl. Rep. 135; Township of Lodi v. State, 51 N. J. Law 402, 18 Atl. Rep. 749; Utsy v. Hiott, 30S.
