Arizona weekly enterprise., 1890-04-05
THE DECISION.
THE END REACHED IN OUR DUAL
 GOVERNMENT.
The Supreme Court of Arizona Declares the Appropriation Bill and other Acts of the 18th Legisla-
 ture Legal.

The Supreme Court of Arizona Declares
 the Appropriation Bill and other
 Acts of the 18th Legisla-
 ture Legal.
 IN THE SUPREME coURT,l January
 ARIZONA TERRITORY. Term. 0''''. '" 0"i5ssa Slsa' Application Es4 s,'5 s2 JOHN Y. T. SMITH, Mandamus.
 Defendant.
 c. F. Ainsworth, for Plaintiff.
 Clark Churchill, Attorney General,
 for Defendant.
 Ben Goodrich, Amicus Curiae. OPINION BY SLOAN, JUSTICE:
 The plaintiff herein applies to this court for peremptory writ of man. damus to compel the defendant, as Territorial Treasurer, to pay amount of certain warrant drawn by the Territorial Auditor in favor of plain tiff, as authorized by subdivision l5 of section 1 of an act commonly known as the Appropriation Bill,'' passed by the Fifteenth Legislative Assembly and approved by the Cover nor on the 10th day of April, 1889.
 This action is brought for the pur- pose of having a judicial determine tion as to the validity of said act, it being contended that at the date of the passage and approval thereof the Fifteenth Legislative Assembly had no legal existence, for the reason that the limit of time within which it could by the organic law lawfully remain in session had expired, and therefore it had become at said date functus officio.
 The journals show that the Eff teenth Legislative Assembly began its session on the 21st day of Janu- ary, 1889, and adjourned "sine die" upon the 10th day of April, 1889, being the date of the approval of said act. The journals further show that the assembly was in actual ses- sion but forty-eight working, or legislative days, the last day being denominated the forty-eighth day of the session.
 The restriction upon the length of the session of the Legislative Assem- bly, is found in section 1852, R. $. U. S., as amended Dec. g, 1880. Said section as amended reads us follows i; 2 "The sessions of the Legislative of the several territories of the United States shall be limited to sixty days duration" Said section being in it's terms mandatory, must be construed. It therefore remains for us to determine which of the two views contended- for at the hearing of the case as to the proper construction to be placed upon said section We should adopt, viz: upon the one hand that the session of the Legislative Assembly is limited therein to sixty days from the day upon which the assembly convenes; or, upon the other hand, that the ses- sion Is limited to sixty Legislative or working days, exclusive of Sundays, public holidays and days of interme- diate adjournment.
 After the careful consideration the great public interests involved in this controversy demand we have ar rived at the conclusion that the latter view must prevail.
 Said section is part of the Organic law of the Territory. It is proper to consider. therefore, the relation which the Organic act and other acts of Con- gress amendatory or supplementary thereto bear to the government of the territory. It was argued at the hearing of this case that Congress had granted to the Legislature of g territory certain limited powers and restricted their exercise to the partic ular mode and manner expressed in it's grant. That this grant is in every instance to be.strictly construed, and that the Legislature having acted 1T a particular manner, no inference Ii to be drawn therefrom that it Ina! therefore acted within the limit of it delegated powers.
 We think the true view is that th' Organic Law of 8 Territory bears th' same relation to the government o the Territory as the Constitution of state sustains to the people of thu state.
 The Supreme Court in Nationa Bank vs. County of Yankton, l Otto, 129, has said: "The Organi law of Territory takes the place c constitution as the fundamenta law of the local government" If tn view we have given be correct, thel it follows that the same rules of cor struction apply and like effect mus be given to any part of the Organi law as would apply and be given t similar provision in the constitu ton of q state. A well establishe rule is that the contemporaneou construction of constitutions provision put upon it by the author ty for whose guidance it was intended particularly if aequiesced in for long term of years should be followe by the courts. See United States VI State Bank of North Carolina, Peters, 39; Caldwell vs. CarringtoI 9 Peters 103; Edwards Lessee VI Darby l2 Wheat, 206.
 That this rule applies to the col struction of the organic acts of th territories is asserted by Chief-Justic Chase in the case of Clinton vs. Enl lebrecht, 13 Wall, ASA.
 It speaking of the power of the lel islature of Utah to legislate with refe ence to the practice of the courts the matter of juries, he said; 9Th uniformity of construction by SO man territorial legislatures of the Organ acts in relation to their legislatiN authority, especially when considert in connection with the fact that noi of their jury laws have been disa proved by Congress, though any
 them could be annulled by such disa { proyal, confirms the opinion warran ed by the plain language of the ( ganic act itself that the whole subje
 matter of jurors in the territories
 committed to the territorial regul
 tion."
 A provision in the Organic Law
 New Mexico, which by the act (
 ganizing the Territory of Arizor
 was made applicable to the latter, W
 to the effect that no session of t
 legislative assembly could exceed t
 term of forty days.
 The first legislative assembly of t
 new Territory convened by proc ~ A