Arizona weekly enterprise., 1890-04-05

indicated their view to be that the limitation was intended to be sixty, or other number of, consecutive days; i. e., that when the session begins every day must be counted as a part of the session, till the sixty, or other number of days elapse. See Sup. Court of Utah Territory ex-rel. Hal Ter vs. IS Pac. Rep, 628; Sup. Court of Dakota territory ex. rel. Smith Dist. Atty, vs. Scott, ct. al, 20 N. W. R p 401 Sup. court of Idaho, Stevenson vs. Moody, 12 Pac. Rep. 9O2: Tread way vs. Schnauber, l Dakota 249. See also State ex rel. Perry vs. Airing ton, ct al, Sup. Court of Nevada, 735; National Bank vs. County of Yank- ton ? Dakota 236, and 101 U. s. 126, and Miners Bank vs State of Iowa, 19 Curtis l. s-s.
 But if the question, were doubtful :; if the courts had expressed or intim- ated views that are conflicting, we should unhesitatingly hold that the opinions of the encouragement of the United States, delivered va the 10th of March and July last, have put the question beyond the line of dis cussion. This is the great law officer of the government.
 In passing upon federal statutes his opinions, next be the positive judicial determination to the great tribunal of final resort-he supreme court of the United States-are entitled to the highest consideration, and should have the binding force of exalted authority. In an official opinion, rendered to the Hon. the secretary of the interior, on the 18th day of of July last, the Honorable w. H. H. Miller, attorney-general of the United States, referring to letters of the gov ernor and secretary of Arizona, bear ing dates of June 2nd and 18th, res pectively, said:
 "I am unable to find in either any question of law, which is not covered by the opinions of this department rendered to you under dates of March 18th, May 18th and June 18th, 1889. The first of these opinions was to the effect that, under the act of congress, which is the organic law of the terri tory, the session of the legislature of Arizona is limited to sixty consecutive days. The corollary to this conclusion seems clear, that any attempted legis- lation after that time would be mug atory"
 This language was uttered subse- quently to the reception by the Alt torney General of the memorandum" of Asst Attorney General Shield, filed with the argument of the learn ed counsel for the plaintiff herein. This is apparent from the face of each. It must therefore be regarded as 8 re- assertion and endorsement of the views expressed by the Attorney Gen. eral in his opinion of March 16th 1889, on the same subject. And as already indicated, we regard these opinions by the Attorney General as decisive of the main question involved in the case at bar. With the Attorney General, we hold that any attempted legislation after the sixty consecutive days was nugatory.
 The fifteenth legislative assembly of this territory, having by operation of the law of its being, been dissolved after the 21st day of March, 1889, on the tenth day of April, 1889 it had ceased to have legal, organized ex- istence; and could therefore pass u6- valid acts.
 Hence 1t is our conclusion that the prayer of the petition should be de- nied.
 JAMES H. WRIGHT. c. J.