reads: “The legislative assembly shall meet at the seat of government at 12 o'clock noon on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in January in the year next following the election of the members thereof.” The contention is that the term of office of the members of the legislature elected on October 1st, 1889, did not begin until the first Tuesday in January, 1890. Such would be true, if we could not look beyond or away from said § 41. But it must be remembered that when the state was admitted all the legislative offices were vacant unless filled by the newly-elected officers; and unless so filled, however great the emergency, or however imperative the necessity for action, the sovereign state was without power to take legislative action from November 2nd, 1889, to the first Tuesday in January, 1890. We do not think any such condition was contemplated. Section 24 of the enabling act provides that, upon the admission of North Dakota as a state, the officers of the state government shall proceed to exercise all the functions of state officers. In the broad sense here used, members of the legislature are state officers. This section as well as § 17 of the schedule, required that the legislature should meet and organize and elect United States senators. It is a solecism to say that the persons thus called together were legislators for one purpose, but not for all purposes. If they were not legislators they could not elect United States senators. If they were legislators, being legally convened, and there being no restrictions in the constitution or the enabling act, they possessed plenary legislative powers. Cooley, Const. Lim. 187; Morford v. Unger, 8 Iowa, 82. As other plain provisions had been made respecting the members and the first session of the first legislature, it is clear that § § 41 and 53 of the constitution were intended to apply only to subsequent legislatures, elected in the regular manner, and at the regular time provided by law, and that said Ch. 110 is not vulnerable to this attack.
All the questions pertaining to defects in the title of this act in this case were raised and fully discussed in State v. Haas, 2 N. D. 202, 50 N. W. Rep. 254. These same objections are here urged,
