Arizona weekly enterprise., 1890-04-05

end tnelr sesslOn, they can only recon yene by authority of the governor. When congress adjourns the Presi- dent alone can call one or both branches of 1t back into legal session. And even the British Parliament it. self, has no inherent power of conven- ton after dissolution; the Queen may prorogue 1t, and it cannot of itself re- convene. So that, as the Supreme court of Dakota says, in Treadway vs. Schnauber: "The territorial legis- lature IS a creature of congress; it's powers, duties, and sessions are de- fined and limited by the act organ lzing the territory, and the amend ments thereto; and it derives no life or power from any other source. It is authorized to hold biennial session of not to exceed forty" (now sixtyl, days" and there is no provision to ex- tend the session beyond the time spec flied" (See 1 Dakota, 249).
 The court seems to rely upon the decision of the Supreme court of Ala bama, in Moog vs. Randelph-See " Ala. COY. But it must be remember ed that the limitation there referred to was upon the session of a state legislature, which had given repeated Legislative constructions to the limit atlon contained in the constitution of Alabama; all to the effect that the fifty days limitation meant fifty legis- lative, working days; and that the court followed that construction-as MT. Justice Somerville, who delivered the opinion of the court, said, because of the serious consequences that would ensue; the court holding that It would be reluctant to depart from such construction in doubtful cases, the question being no resintegra.
 We fully agree with the court, i'll the case at bar, that where laws have long been acquiesced in; where sub stantial rights have grown up and vested under them; it is well settled policy of the courts not to disturb them, though they may not have been legal or constitutional originally. This was, as we have just seen, the true reason for the decision in the Alabama case; it was also the reason for the Oregon decision But this doctrine cannot obtain here. The acts of the 18th legislative Assembly, pas sed after the expiration of the sixty consecutive days from the beginning of it's session, have not been acquiesced in. The validity of those acts has been questioned ever since their pas sage,
 The court is not called upon to of effects; but to say whether or not we will truly decide living vital issue. Nor will it do to say there has been uniform legislative construction on this subject by our legislative as- semblles. If the first and eleventh Legislative Assemblies of this Territo- ty construed the limitation to be sixty legislative, working days, presumably the other thirteen legislative assem- plies of the territory construed it to mean sixty consecutive days; for we must infer that if any of the remain ing thirteen legislative assemblies had construed limitation to be sixty legis- lative, working days, this resource would have been drawn upon to strengthen the position taken.
 At all events, it is absolutely cer- tain that a number of those assemblies did cons.rue the limitation to be sixty consecutive days.
 And therefore the territorial legis- lative construction put upon the lim- ltation, lends neither force to the argument, nor strength to the posi- ton.
 For the first time, the Supreme Court of this Territory is called up- on to put its construction upon the purview of that limitation. That con struction should be according to the true tenor and effect of the statute
 unaffected by past illegal acts, ac- quiesced in, or rights to be hereafter
 affected under them.
 This is plainly so, for all legal ques-
 tions and rights, arising under the
 acts of the Fifteenth Legislative As
 sembly, passed after the expiration of
 the sixty consecutive days, are still
 resintegra.
 But even to the modified extent to
 which the Alabama case goes, it seems
 to stand alone. Every other state
 legislature so far as we have been able
 to learn, whose sessions have, or are
 limited by their constitutions to a
 certain number of days, seem to have
 entertained no doubt that the limit
 atlon meant consecutive days.
 The constitution of Missouri, Art.
 4, Sec. 16, provides that "The mem
 berers of the general assembly shall severally receive from the public treas ury such compensation for their ser
 vices as may, from time to time, be provided by law, not to exceed five dollars per day for the first seventy days of each session; and after that not to exceed one dollar per day for the remainder of the session, &c.' This constitution was adopted in 1875, and every general assembly of Mis- seuri, that has held legislative session since, has construed the seventy days limitations to mean seventy con secutive days from the beginning o
 the session.
 Section 16, Art. 5, of the State O. Arkansas adopted in 1874, provide: that "The regular biennial session" (o , the general assembly, "shall not ex . ceed sixty days in duration, unless by , vote of two-thirds of the member. elected to each house of said genera 3 assembly, &c."
 It will be observed that the word. of limitation in this section are very similar in their import, to the word; . elimination upon the session of tht } territorial legislative assemblies, con l tained in Sec. 1852, of the U. $. Re | vised Statutes as amended. The ont g says: "Shall not exceed sixty days il ], duration" the other says; "Shall b. e limited to sixty days duration" Every general assembly of Arkan s sas, that has held session since th' l. adoption of this constitution, ha j. construed this limitation to meal T sixty consecutive days.
 # And in Trammell vs. Bradley d County Judge, See 37th Ark. pag h 375, the Supreme Court of that stat g have passed directly upon the mean | ing of this limitation; and they us l. this emphatic language: "The reg l. ular biennial session of the legislatur l L.. II |