neither the Governor or Lieutenant Governor shall be eligible to any other office during the term for which he shall have been elected. In Article 7, Section 9, circuit judges shall hold their office for the term of six years, etc.; and in Section 16 of the same article, no person elected to any judicial office shall, during the term for which he was elected, etc. In the fifth clause of the schedule the word is used, and in the thirteenth clause it is twice used in the same sense. We cannot see that it can make any difference whether the period of time is to be computed by days, weeks, months or years. It is a continuous period, made up of successive days, in either case, and as Sundays are days, why should they be excluded, unless the language or words used, of which a proper construction is sought, expressly require. Had the language of the Constitution been that the General Assembly should not sit, or not be in session, more than sixty-one days, it might then be construed to exclude all days where the legislature was not actually in session or doing business, as well Sundays as other days. At this session, the sixty-one days, if we include Sundays, expires on the 6th of March, now if the General Assembly shall be in session on the 10th of March, is not that beyond the term of sixty-one days from the time the session began? We think that when a period of time is to be reckoned in days, months or years, that Sundays must be included, unless expressly excluded. If money is to be paid, or any other act performed, in thirty, sixty, or any other number of days, the Sundays following within that time must be counted. Such is the rule in computing the ten days' notice to a party sued, and such is the rule where a party is required to appeal within a certain number of days. The Sundays are counted against him, and yet they are not days on which he should be engaged in preparing his defense, or perfecting his appeal. Where it is intended that Sundays shall be excluded, it is so expressed in the Constitution, and in our statutes, and as Sundays are excepted in the section in regard to the approval of bills by the governor, it furnishes ground to suppose that if it had been intended in the other case it would have been so expressed. Sundays and certain holidays are spoken of as non-legislative days; but we do not understand by this, that legislative business cannot be done on these days, but only that by a kind of common consent it is not done. It is expressly laid down in Cushing's Manual, that legislative business may be done on Sunday, and instances can be cited where it has been done, but still he says Sunday is a non-legislative day. We must not be understood as saying that legislative business ought to be done. But suppose the legislature should sit on each successive day from the commencement of the session, and suppose bills to have one of their indispensable readings, or to be passed on Sunday, would the act be void? There is no provision in the State Constitution which prevents the legislature from being in session on Sunday. Legislation is not enumerated among the acts prohibited by the Sunday law. If it was might it not in some plausible case become a work of necessity, and for that means be allowable? There was a reason for fixing upon sixty-one days as the length of the session, rather than some more convenient and even number of days. By a previous section of the Constitution, the time when the session was to begin was fixed. It was fixed for Thursday after the first Monday in January, counting sixty days from that time and the sessions would always close or the time would expire on Sunday. We know from some who were members of the Convention, and that is pretty commonly understood, that sixty days was the term first agreed on, and that the odd day was added to prevent the termination of the period on Sunday. The legislature has some kind of limitation of its session prior to the adoption of this constitution, but as it was only by virtue of a statute, it was subject to change, and as we now recollect, it operated only by way of reducing or cutting off pay after a certain lapse of time. Contemporaneous construction of constitutions and statutes is of very great weight in ascertaining their true meaning; and by this we mean not only what occurred at the exact time, but also that which prevailed soon afterwards. The reasons for this are, that those who are acquainted with the causes, which induced the making of the provision, or enactment, and first had occasion to act upon it, are presumed to be better able to know its true construction, than those who live at a more remote period. The first session of the legislature under the present Constitution, was unlimited as to its duration. At the next session, that in 1853, very little legislation was necessary, and the term closed. before the sixty-one days expired, Sundays included. But an able report [was submitted] on this subject [and is given] in House Journal, pages 449 and 450, in which it is shown that Sunday must be included. At the session in 1857, the question was raised and settled by a concurrent resolution passed by both houses, which is found of the Journal of the House. on page Then the session began on the 8th of January, and, according to the resolution, ended on the 9th day of March, which made just sixty-one days, Sundays included. At the session in 1859, in House Journal page 908, the opinion of the Judiciary Committee is given in accordance with our opinion. At the session in 1861, the subject was referred, in the House, to the Judiciary Committee, and their report is found on page. 961. This session began on the 10th of January, and ended on the 11th of March, just sixty-one days, Sundays included. At the session in 1863, and on the 12th day of February, 1863, resolutions were introduced and adopted, as found on page 330, of the Senate Journal. Which shows that it was then believed the session ended in 61 days, Sundays included. For these reasons we come to the conclusion that the session must end at the expiration of the term of sixty-one days, including Sundays, and that bills could only be presented to the Governor for approval as late as Saturday, the 4th inst. We recommend the adoption of the same resolution, which was adopted by both houses in 1857, changing only the dates to make it apply to the present year, as follows: Resolved, That this session of the General Assembly, which began on the 5th day of January, must end on the 6th of March, and that bills could be presented to the Governor as late as the 4th. PARIS A. DUNNING, By an indirect vote, both reports were laid on the table, the first by a vote of 23-21 and the second by a vote of 24-23. 236. Majority House Committee Report on Duration of Legislative Sessions (March 6, 1865). In the House, the Governor's message was referred to a select committee which presented a unanimous report with two slightly dissenting opinions. The report of the committee was as follows: [House Journal, Forty-fourth Session, 856.] The special committee to whom was referred the message of the Governor, in reference to the construction of the duration. of the term of the legislature, whether sixty-one legislative days. was intended excluding Sundays, have had the same under consideration and have instructed me to report, that in the opinion of the committee, without entering into a discussion of authorities, or giving a legal reason for our conclusion, we have unanimously agreed that it would be inexpedient to unsettle the now established rule of construing the session, to be sixty-one consecutive days. including Sundays. 237. First Minority House Committee Report on Duration of Legislative Sessions (March 6, 1865). Mr. Horatio C. Newcomb, a member of this committee, presented the following report: [House Journal, Forty-fourth Session, 875.] The undersigned, one of the Select Committee, to whom was referred the message of the Governor, with the opinion of the judges of the Supreme Court, as to the number of legislative days allowed by the Constitution to the General Assembly, beg leave to say, that he agreed to the majority report, because he deemed it doubtful whether a quorum could be kept in attendance for a longer period at the present session, and because he had been informed that the Judiciary Committee of the Senate had reported against a continuance of the session. The undersigned further states, that he agrees in opinion with the Governor and Judges as to the legal question involved, but regards it as unnecessary to go into the reason for his opinion in view of the impracticability of extending the session. 238. Second Minority House Committee Report on Duration of Samuel H. Buskirk and John R. Coffroth presented the Downey report of the Senate. (See Document No. 235.) 239. Suspension of the Rules (January 17, 1865). Another quasi-constitutional question which arose during the Fortyfourth session was in regard to the suspension of the rules by a two-thirds vote. Did the Constitution mean two-thirds of the members elected to the House or only two-thirds of a quorum or of the members present? Accordingly, on January 17, a resolution was adopted by the House instructing the Judiciary Committee to report their opinion on this question, and to report also whether it requires two separate motions or only one to suspend the rules. Apparently no report was made. [House Journal, Forty-fourth Session, 105.] WHEREAS, There is no settled rule established, as yet, in reference to the suspension of the rule by a two-thirds vote, so as to authorize the reading of a bill more than once upon the same day; therefore, Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be and are hereby instructed to investigate and report, at their earliest convenience, setting forth their reasons from which they arrive at a conclusion, as to whether the two-thirds vote, as required by the Constitution, means two-thirds of all the members elected to the House, or only two-thirds of a quorum or of the members present. That the Committee on the Judiciary be also instructed to enquire whether it requires two separate motions, or only one to suspend the Constitutional rule requiring a bill to be read on three separate days, and, also, by sections instead of by its title. THE SPECIAL SESSION OF 1865 (November 13 to December 22). The extra session of 1865 was convened on November 13 to dispose of unfinished business and to enact measures which attention to a state of war had caused to be neglected. The personnel of the two houses was unchanged. All told, five constitutional measures were proposed, including the excision of the thirteenth article concerning the immigration, colonization and political and civil disabilities of negroes, annual sessions of the General Assembly, enabling school corporations to levy supplementary taxes for the support of common schools, extending the right of suffrage to women, and constituting a majority of the members elected to each House a quorum to transact business. None of these measures were passed. Scores of petitions were presented in both houses concerning the civil and political disabilities of negroes and the liquor traffic, but it is not clear that any of these memorials recommended constitutional changes. 240. Negro Exclusion and Colonization (November 16, 1865). At the regular session of 1865, Mr. F. M. Meredith's resolution proposing to strike out the thirteenth article of the Constitution relative to the exclusion, colonization and civil and political disabilities of negroes was advanced to third reading. As the special session was merely a continuation of the regular session, all unfinished business could be taken up for consideration. Accordingly the measure was taken up for consideration on November 16 and made the special order for November 21, when it was |