Public Officers—Payment op Premium op Bond Furnished by Surety Company—Act op March 25, 1903, Is Constitutional.—The aet of March 25, 1903 (Stats. 1903, p. 476), providing for the payment by the state, or county, or cities, or cities and counties, of the premium or charge on official bonds of all state officers (except notaries public), and all county, city, or city and county officers, when given by surety companies, is constitutional.

Id.—What Corporations Are Surety Companies.—The term “surety companies” as used in that act, was intended to include any corporation organized for the purpose of carrying on the business of becoming a surety on bonds and undertakings, which by sections 1056 and 1057 of the Code of Civil Procedure and subdivision 4 of section 955 of the Political Code, is authorized to become the sole surety on any undertaking or bond required by any law of this state, and may be accepted as such by the approved authority in lieu of a bond with natural persons as sureties.

Id.—Constitutional Law—Inhibitions op Constitution not Violated. —That act is not violative either of section 11 of article I of the constitution,' requiring all laws of a general nature to have a uniform operation; or of section 21 of article II, prohibiting the granting to any citizen or class of citizens of privileges or immunities which, upon the same terms, shall not be granted to all citizens; or of subdivision 9 of section 25 of article IV, prohibiting local or special laws for the regulation of county and township business.

Id.—Discrimination not to Be Assumed—Grounds por Classification.—It is not to be assumed, for the purpose of nullifying the act, that there was any intention to discriminate in favor of surety companies as against personal sureties, or in favor of certain officers as against others. If a reasonable ground for the conclusion of the legislature confining the operation of the act to bonds given by surety companies can be conceived, the courts must assume that the legislature acted on that ground, and consequently, that the classification made by it was authorized by the constitution.

Id.—Encouragement op Giving Bonds by Surety Companies.—The act may reasonably be construed as one designed to encourage the giving by the officers to whom it is applicable of surety company bonds, rather than personal surety bonds, upon the theory that the public interests will be better protected by such bonds. So construed, there is nothing in the foregoing constitutional provisions that makes the act void because it is applicable only to the premiums and charges on bonds furnished by surety companies.

Id.—Premium Made a Public Charge.—The aet may also be reasonably construed as one designed to make the cost of an official bond to the officer furnishing it, a public charge. The legislature may have reasonably concluded that the cases where a charge is made by a personal surety on an official bond are so inappreciable and few in number that, in reality, the surety corporation bonds “compose the entire class” as to which there is a premium or charge for the risk assumed by the surety, and such a conclusion would warrant the limitation of the provisions of the act to such bond.

Id.—Act Limited to All of Certain Kind of Officers.—The legislature had the power to limit the operation of the act to the bonds of all officers of the classes designated therein, and the fact that it fails to include other kinds of officers, such as justices of the peace and constables, does not render the aet violative of such constitutional inhibitions.

Id.—Distinctions Existing as to Other Officers.-—Such distinctions exist as to notaries public, who are state officers, and the officers of districts organized within the various counties for special purposes, as warrant their exclusion from the act.

Id.:—Officers Whose Compensation Is Fixed by Constitution—Cities Organized under Freeholders’ Charter.;—The fact that the act may not be operative as to state officers whose compensation is fixed by constitutional provision, or to cities organized and existing under freeholders’ charters, does not affect the question of the validity of the act.