Tombstone epitaph., 1890-03-29

ARIZONA TERRITORY,
 JANUARY TERM, 1890. J
 George w. Cheyney, plaintiff, V: John Y. T. Smith, defendant.
 Application for writ of mandamus. C. F. Ainsworth for plaintiff Clarl Churchill, Attorney General, for defend ant. Ben. Goodrich, anaicals curis.
 The plaintiff herein applies to thi court for peremptory writ of man. damus to compel the defendant, as Ter ritorial Treasurer. to pay the amount o a certain warrant drawn by the Territo rial Auditor in favor of plaintiff, as au- thorized by subdivision I5 of section of an act commonly known as the "Ap- propriation Bill" passed by the Fifteentt Legislative Assembly and approved by the Governor on the 10th day of April 1889.
 This action is brought for the purpose of having judicial determination as to the validity of sad act, it being contend ed that at the date of the passage and approval thereof the Fifteenth Legisla- tive Assembly had no legal existence, for the reason that the limit of time within which it could by the organic Inv law fully rem lin in session had expired, and therefore it had become at said date functus oftcio.
 The Journals show that the Fifteenth Legislative Assembly began Its session on the 2Ist day of January, 1889, and adjourned a sine die upon the Io.h day of April, I8S9 being the date of the ap- proval of said ac'. The Journals further show that the Assembly was in actual session but forty eight working, or legis- lative days, the last day being denomi- hated the forty-elghth day of the session.
 The restriction upon the length of the sessions of the Legislative Assembly is found in Section 1852. K s. U. S., as amended December g, 1880 Said sec tion, as amended, reads as follows: "The sessions of the legislative assemblies of the several Territories of the United States shall be limited 10 sixty days du- ,tion ," Said section being in its terms mandatory, must be so construed. It therefore remains for us to determine which of the two views as to the proper constructor to be placed upon said sec lion contended for at the hearing of the case we should adopt, viz., upon the one hand that the session of the Legislative A7semb y be limited therein to sixty con secuuve days from the day upon which the Assembly convenes; or, upon the other hand, that the session is limited to sixty legislative, or working days, exclu- sive of Sundays, public h ,lldays and days of intermediate adjournment.
 After careful consideration, the great public interests involved in this contro- versy demands, we have arrived at the conclusion that the latter view must pre- vail.
 Said section is part of the organic law of the Territory. It is proper to con- sider, therefore, the relation which the Organic Act and other acts of Congress amendatory or supplementary thereto bear to the government of the Territory.
 It was argued at the hearing of thls case that Congress had granted to the legislature of Territory certain limited powers and restricted their exercise to the particular mode and manner ex- pressed in its grant. That this grant is in every instance to be strictly construed and that the legislature having acted in a particular manner, no inference is to be drawn therefrom that it has therefore acted within the limit of its delegated powers.
 We think the true view is that the Organic Law of a Territory bears the same relation to the government of the Territory as the constitution of State sustains to the people of the State.
 The Supreme Court in National Bank vs. Coun y of Yankton, II Quo, I29, has said: 'The organic law of Territory takes the place of constitution as the the fundamental law of the local govern rent" If the view we have given be correct, then it follows that the same rules of construction apply, and like ef- feet must be given to any part Of the org mic law as would apply and be given to similar provision in the constitution of State. A well established rule is that the conlemporaneous construction If constitutional provision put upon it by he authority for whose guidance It was intended, particularly if acquiesced m for long term of years, should be followed by the courts.
 See United States vs. State Bank of No~th Carolina, 6 Peters, 39; Caldwell, vs. Darlington, 9 Peters, Io3; Edwards, Lessee, vs. Darby, I2 Wheat, 2o6.
 That this rule applies to the construc- ton of the organic acts of the Territo- ries is asserted by Chief Justice Chase in the case of Clinton vs. Englebrecht, B Wall, 434.