Tombstone epitaph., 1890-03-29

of construction by so many territorii
 legislatures of the organic acts in rela
 ton to their legislative authority, espe
 cialIy when considered in come ctio
 with the fact that none of their jury law
 have been disapproved by Congress
 though any of them could be annullec
 By such dlsapproval, confirms the opIn
 ion warranted by the plain language o
 the organic act itself, that the whol,
 subject matter of jurors in the Territo-
 ries is committed to the territorial regu
 lation."
 A provision of the organic law of New
 Mexico, which by the art organz g the
 Territory of Arizona, was made appIica-
 ble to the latter, was to the effect that no
 session of the legislative assembly could
 exceed the term Of fcrty days.
 The first legislative assembly of the
 new Territory convened by proclamation
 of Governor Goodwin on the 26 h day of
 September and remained in session until
 the 10th day Of November, 1864, total
 of forty six consecutive days, deducting
 ten Sundays that intervened between the
 day upon which the assembly first met
 and the day upon which it finally ad- Journed, and we find that it was in ses-
 sion forty working or legislative days.
 After forty consecutive days had ex
 pired, the mere important acts of the sess'on were passed; among hem being what was known as the HowelIs sCode." Under the provisions of this code oflaws the government of the Territory was for the most part administered until it was superseded by the cole of 1887. The validity of these laws was never ques- tioned, and the courts, as we'll as subse- quent legislatures, recognized them as equally operative and binding with the other acts of this session. If 1t be con- tended that the act of 1880, amending Sec. I85, K. S., is to be construed diff ferently from the provisions of the Or ganic Act of New Mexico on the same subject, and that legislative construction upon the latter provision cannot there fore be considered, We find that the first legislative assembly to meet after said act took effect, viz: the eleventh legisla- tive assembly, convened upon the third day of January 1881, and finally ad- journed upon the twelfth day of March following, total of sixty nine consecu- tive days. D ducting as before the in- tervening Sundays, and we found that the assembly was in actual session upon sixty working or legislative days. Sixty consecutive days from the beginning of the session ended with M lrch 3rd. Alter sad date an act was passed fixing the date for the convening of subsequent legislatures. This act was followed and acquiesced in by succeeding assemblies, until the act of 1887 again changed the date of the beginning of the sessions. Among other acts was one creating the county of Graham; another providing for the Issue of bonds and the levy and collection of taxes; others were passed amending the revenue laws and the statute of limitations. During the ses- sion, the Council directly gave S assent to this legislative construction in rel ct- ing resolution to adjourn at the end of the sixty consecutive days.
 Thus the legislative construction from the beginning has been uniform tlrst the sessions are limited to sixty days of actual session. In the case of Hoog vs. Randolph [77 Ala 6o8l the Supreme Court of Alabama distinctly recognize'l the rule that the practical construction of the legislature will govern in a case of this kind, and gave like construction upon the term "daysP in a similar provi- sion of the constitution of that state.
 In construing the constitutional pro vision that the general assembly sh Il not remain in session longer than fifty days, Justice SomervlIe in that case said: q am satisfied that fifty days mean fifty legislauve days, working days, ex- elusive of Sundays and other days upon which the Senate and the House concur in refusing to sit by joint resolution Of This question has been considered by the Judiciary Committees of the Senate and House of and successive sessions of the general assembly since tle adop- ton Of the constitution and their report in this view have in each in stance been adopted by these bodies. Even if we regard the question as a doubtful one, we would hesitate to depart from the settled legislative construction of the fundamental law, especially in view of the serious consequences which would necessarily flow from it."
 But aside from the legislative con- s,ruction, we think consideration of the subject matter as we'll as the evident purpose and intent Of the act of 1880 warrants the interpretation we put upon it. Congress certainly contemplated thai might arise that would ren- 1 ar lau;sIotion batueep 6vaJ do ae .,-oo