At page 644 of 176 Tenn., at page 1097 of 144 S.W.2d. In the case of Clark v. Vaughn, 177 Tenn. 76, 146 S.W.2d 351, a special act providing for a special board of election commissioners for the city of Athens, Tennessee, and being an Act in conflict with the general law applicable to all other municipalities, was held unconstitutional because of its conflict with the general law, there being no sound reason or basis for the attempted discrimination. These cases are not in the slightest in conflict with the well settled law that the legislature may constitutionally enact a special act affecting one particular county or municipality alone in its political or governmental capacity, provided such special act is not contrary to the provisions of a general law, applicable to all the counties or municipalitites.
We hold that the general law of the state, as incorporated in the Local Option Liquor Law, supersedes all private acts and all charter provisions. Trotter v. City of Maryville, 191 Tenn. 510, 235 S.W.2d 13 (1950); Clark v. Vaughn, 177 Tenn. 76, 146 S.W.2d 351 (1941). II.
No reason is apparent, or is conceived, as to why the payment of a poll tax shall not be required as a condition precedent to voting in the municipal elections of McMinnville, when it is mandatory that such payment shall be made as a condition precedent to voting in elections of all other municipalities of the State. 183 Tenn. at 446-447, 192 S.W.2d at 999. The Court in McMinnville supports the above statements citing State ex rel. Bales v. Hamilton County, 170 Tenn. 371, 95 S.W.2d 618 (1936); State ex rel. Smith v. City of Chattanooga, 176 Tenn. 642, 144 S.W.2d 1096 (1940); Clark v. Vaughn, 177 Tenn. 76, 146 S.W.2d 351 (1941); Berry v. Hayes, 160 Tenn. 577, 28 S.W.2d 50 (1930). After reviewing these cases the Court said:
In State et al. v. Miner et al., 176 Tenn. 158, 138 S.W.2d 766, it was held in an opinion by the late MR. JUSTICE COOK: "The statute applicable to Hawkins county alone fixing county trustee's commissions at a rate different from that allowed by general law to other county trustees in state violates constitutional provision prohibiting Legislature from suspending any general law, or from passing any law for the benefit of individuals, inconsistent with the general laws of the land." See also Kyle v. Marcom, 181 Tenn. 57, 178 S.W.2d 618; Clark v. Vaughn, 177 Tenn. 76, 146 S.W.2d 351; and Anderson v. Carter County, 172 Tenn. 114, 110 S.W.2d 321; State ex rel. Bales v. Hamilton County, 170 Tenn. 371, 375, 95 S.W.2d 618, 619; State ex rel. Smith v. City of Chattanooga, 176 Tenn. 642, 144 S.W.2d 1096. In the Bales case the special Act was in conflict with the general law and unconstitutional because it required Hamilton County to pay its teachers a minimum wage regardless of the condition of the county's treasury.
In State ex rel. v. City of Chattanooga, 176 Tenn. 642, 144 S.W.2d 1096, the Court struck down a special act which required the City of Chattanooga to pay its public schoolteachers salaries above the minimum required by the general law, holding the act to be in conflict with Article 11, section 8, of the Constitution. And in Clark v. Vaughn, 177 Tenn. 76, 146 S.W.2d 351, the Court held invalid a special act which provided for the creation of a Board of Election Commissioners for the City of Athens as being in conflict with the general law and violative of Article 11, section 8, of the Constitution. There is no reasonable basis for a different statutory requirement for the circumstances under and by which an individual may institute a suit in one of the courts of lesser jurisdiction in Knox County than the statutory requirement for the circumstances under and by which an individual may institute a suit in a court of like jurisdiction in any other county of the State.
Otherwise it is void." We dealt with this question in Clark v. Vaughn, 177 Tenn. 76, 146 S.W.2d 351, and there held that a private act affecting the Town of Athens in its political capacity was invalid because it operated to suspend the general election laws of the state and conferred a special benefit upon the town which was not enjoyed by other political subdivisions of the state, citing State ex rel. Bales et al. v. Hamilton County, 170 Tenn. 371, 95 S.W.2d 618, and other cases. See also Hunter v. Conner, 152 Tenn. 258, 277 S.W. 71.
Counsel refer the Court to special acts authorizing bond issues, government of schools, redistricting counties, etc. But we are here dealing with a special ordinance to raise revenue from a special class. In Clark v. Vaughn, 177 Tenn. 76, 78, 146 S.W.2d 351, Justice CHAMBLISS, speaking for the Court, said: "While the Legislature may constitutionally enact special laws affecting a municipality of the State, usually by amendment to its charter, this cannot be done with respect to matters which are governed by general laws applicable to the entire State and all counties and municipalities therein alike.