Arizona weekly citizen., 1889-06-01

THE editor of the CITIZEN does no
 write himself 6 lawyer in his review O
 Judge Porter's decision in the case O
 Smith against Foster. In that opinion
 it was clearly stated that congress hai
 the right to iegislate directly or indirect
 ly for this territory. Congress has plac
 sixty days, but holding supreme power
 1t may approve acts which were passed
 by our lawmakers after the expiration
 of the session. But the courts if called upon In the meantime can not very well
 hold that an acts is valid and of full | force when passed by body which has
 no existence under the statutes. A ques-
 tion does exist as to whether the acts
 passed by our legislature after sixty days
 do not come into force, by implication when a session of congress to which they
 have been submitted fails to take nuga- tory action. But this question Judge Porter WAS not called upon to consider
 in the Smith case e.-Arizonan.
 The Editor of the Arizonan before al
 lowing any editorial to appear in his paper adverse to statements of the CTTI- ZEN, Should be certain the articles furn- ished or the statements made are true. It is certain that the writer of the editorial above quoted has never read Judge Porters decision or he would not make such serious blunder as to say, that the acts of our legislative after six ty days were not passed upon. Judge Porter in his decision says "These quo tations from the statutes are made to meet the contention that a previous legislature had fixed the time for meet ing of the legislature on the first Mon day of January, and that the statute fix ing it on the second Monday and other laws of the Revised Code, were passed sixty days after the first Monday, and it is contends that these laws would be made imperative, if the legislature is to be confined to sixty days session.
 This is plain language and cannot be misunderstood. It is true that Judge Porter was not called upon to consider 1t in the Smith case" but it is also equally true that he did for the Judge immidiate- ly following the above says ''The Revised Code has been submitted to Congress, and one Session of Congress has passed 1 since submission, and there being no ad- | verse active, The Revised Code as an en- tirely is the law of the land"
 We again state that if the statutes and decisions of courts are quoted to | support the "Code" and Acts of past | done after the sixty days, that by so doing admits that they con tnue to be Legislature. If they con tinue to be Legislatures, then the Acts of the Fifteenth Legislature are laws un- til annulled by Congress.
 If they did not continue to be Legis- latures then it would be immaterial one or dozen sessions of Con- gress had intervened. The silence of Congress applies only to the Acts of le- gal Legislatures. Otherwise any autho- ized body of men could prepare what would have just as much semblance of laws and submit them to Congress, and if Congress did not take advance ac- ton" they too would be 'the law of the land. Of course Congress can originally egislate for the Territories, but what an absurdity that would be to call mo ad- verse action" as original legislation.
 We trust the editor of the Arizonan will take the advice of the CITIZEN and read the decision before again taking us to task.
 We are still modestly awaiting the heartfelt thanks of the Court We know that We are entitled to the thanks because the lawyers of both political parties are open in support of our posi- ion.