City of Ardmore v. Excise Board of Carter County, 1932 OK 48, ¶ 12, 155 Okla. 126, 8 P.2d 2. ¶ 29 For example, in City of Sapulpa v. Land, 1924 OK 92, 101 Okla. 22, 223 P. 640, the City's charter provided that the board of commissioners may, by ordinance, provide a system for assessment, levy and collection of all municipal taxes. The board did so by adopting a city ordinance authorizing the district or superior courts to foreclose city ad valorem tax liens.

City of Ardmore v. Excise Board of Carter County, 1932 OK 48, ¶12, 8 P.2d 2. ¶29 For example, in City of Sapulpa v. Land, 1924 OK 92, 223 P. 640, the City's charter provided that the board of commissioners may, by ordinance, provide a system for assessment, levy and collection of all municipal taxes. The board did so by adopting a city ordinance authorizing the district or superior courts to foreclose city ad valorem tax liens.

It has not been overruled in terms. It has been cited by this court in Re Initiative Petition, City of Okmulgee, 89 Okla. 134, 214 P. 186, City of Sapulpa v. Land, 101 Okla. 22, 223 P. 640; Caruth v. State, 101 Okla. 93, 223 P. 186; Oklahoma News Co. v. Ryan, Co. Treas., 101 Okla. 151, 224 P. 969; Ryan, Co. Treas., v. Roach Drug Co., 113 Okla. 130, 239 P. 912, and City of Okmulgee v. Okmulgee Gas Co., 140 Okla. 88, 282 P. 640. In Re Initiative Petition, City of Okmulgee, supra, it was held that it was beyond the power of the Legislature to run counter to the provisions of a charter or to interfere with municipal officers and inhabitants of a city in a matter of purely municipal concern.

In fact, municipal law "supersede[s] the laws of the state in conflict therewith, in so far as such general laws attempt to regulate purely municipal matters." City of Sapulpa v. Land, 1924 OK 92, ¶ 8, 223 P. 640, 642. But this Court has demarcated this principle--municipal authority can be overcome despite "chiefly local interest" if "the state has a sovereign interest" in the municipal matter.Thurston v. Caldwell, 1913 OK 714, ¶ 10, 137 P. 683, 687.

A law may be general and have a local application or apply to a designated class if it operates equally and uniformly upon all the subjects within the class for which it was adopted, and upon all persons and parts of the state that are brought within the relation and circumstances provided by it. It must affect alike all persons in like situations, and where it operates upon a class, the classification must not be arbitrary or capricious, but must be reasonable and pertain to some peculiarity in the subject-matter calling for the legislation. This principle is discussed in the following cases: Burks v. Walker (1909) 25 Okla. 353, 109 P. 544; Leatherock v. Lawter (1915) 45 Okla. 715, 147 P. 324; Coyle v. Smith (1911) 28 Okla. 121, 113 P. 944; School Dist. No. 85 v. School Dist No. 71 (1928) 135 Okla. 270, 276 P. 186; City of Sapulpa v. Land (1924) 101 Okla. 22, 223 P. 640. In Leatherock v. Lawter, supra, it is said:

Section 2, art. 10, Williams Constitution, providing that the Legislature shall not impose tax for the purpose of any city, county, town or other municipal corporation, but may by general laws confer on the proper authorities thereof respectively the power to assess and collect such tax, having expressly prescribed the manner by which the Legislature may authorize the assessment and collection of municipal taxes, excludes the assessment and collection of such tax in any other manner than pursuant to the general laws. City of Sapulpa v. Land, 101 Okla. 22, 223 P. 640. 4.

General taxes in this state must be assessed and collected pursuant to and under the authority of general laws enacted by the Legislature. City of Sapulpa v. Land, 101 Okla. 22, 223 P. 640. Such levy is not a matter of purely municipal concern. Error from Superior Court, Pottawatomie County; Leander G. Pitman, Judge.

"`Where the Constitution confers the power to do a particular act, and prescribes the means and manner of doing such act, such means or manner is exclusive of all others.' Sapulpa v. Land [ 101 Okla. 22] 223 P. 640 [35 A.L.R. 872]."

Quoting the Oklahoma Supreme Court, the Court observed that the Constitution “in no way limited or abridged the supreme sovereign control over such municipality, but only guarantees to such municipality the right of municipal government subject to the Constitution and laws of the state.” Id. at 143 , 297 P. 1037 (quoting City of Sapulpa v. Land, 101 Okla. 22 , 223 P. 640 , 646 (1924)). If *606 charter powers were not “subject to the supreme powers of the Legislature!!,] ... then we have the inevitable result that the framers of the Constitution authorized the establishment of independent petty states within this state.”

See also T. Sedgwick, A Treatise on the Rules Which Govern the Interpretation and Construction of Statutory and Constitutional Law, 534-536 (J. Pomeroy 2d ed. 1874 photo. reprint 1980), (citations to, and explanations of, opinions from various states, and including a discussion of the principle that a general law need not operate universally); 1 T. Cooley, Constitutional Limitations, 258-264 (8th ed. 1927), (citations to various states, including a quote from City of Sapulpa v. Land, 1924 OK 92, 223 P. 640, 35 A.L.R. 872 stating that a general law need not operate on every locality of the state). ¶ 12 In pre-1900 special-law and local-law jurisprudence, a legislature generally possessed power to create law that discriminated in some circumstances between the municipalities in a particular state.