No references found
Bouvier’s Dictionary of Law, 1856:ORGAN, n. [Latin organum]
1. A natural instrument of action or operation, or by which some process is carried on.
2. The instrument or means of conveyance or communication. A secretary of state is the organ of communication between the government and a foreign power.
ORGANIC, ORGAN'ICAL, adjective [Latin organicus.]
1. Pertaining to an organ or to organs; consisting of organs or containing them; as the organic structure of the human body or of plants.
2. Produced by the organs; as organic pleasure.
3. Instrumental; acting as instruments of nature or art to a certain end; as organic arts.
Organic bodies, are such as possess organs, on the action of which depend their growth and perfection; as animals and plants.
1. The act and process of forming organs or instruments of action.
2. The act of forming or arranging the parts of a compound or complex body in a suitable manner for use or service; the act of distributing into suitable divisions and appointing the proper officers, as an army or a government.
3. Structure; form; suitable disposition of parts which are to act together in a compound body.
1. To form with suitable organs; to construct so that one part may cooperate with another.
2. To sing in parts; as to organize the halleluiah.
3. To distribute into suitable parts and appoint proper officers, that the whole may act as one body; as to organize an army. So we say, to organize the house of representatives, which is done by the appointment of officers and verification of the powers of the several members. So we say, a club, a party or a faction is organized, when it takes a systemized form.
Formed with organs; constructed organically; systemized; reduced to a form in which all parts may act together to one end.
Constructing with suitable organs; reducing to system in order to produce united action to one end.
Black’s Law Dictionary, 1st Edition, 1891 Black’s Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1910 Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, 1991
Black’s Law Dictionary, 7th Edition, 1999Organic Law.
The fundamental law, or constitution, of a state or nation, written or unwritten. That law or system of laws or principles which defines and establishes the organization of its government. See also Organic Act.
An act of Congress conferring power of government upon a territory. Statute creating an administrative agency. A statute by which a municipal corporation is organized and created is its “organic act” and the limit of its power, so that all acts beyond the scope of the powers there granted are void.
The law which determines the constitution of government in a nation or state, and prescribes and regulates the manner of its exercise. The organic law of a nation or state; its constitution.
"Organic Laws" are listed in the front matter of the US Code.Organic Act. See organic statute under Statute.
1. The body of laws (as in a constitution) that define and establish a government. FUNDAMENTAL LAW.
2. Civil law. Decisional law; CASELAW
1. A body of persons (such as a union or corporation) formed for a common purpose
2. See UNION.
A law that establishes an administrative agency or local government. – Also termed organic act.
“Organic Law” is referred to in numerous court cases, mostly concerning the organization of the territories. They can be searched HERE. Some examples:
MESSENGER v. MASON. 77 U.S. 507 (10 Wall. 507, 19 L.Ed. 1028)
HERSHFIELD v. GRIFFITH. 85 U.S. 657 (18 Wall. 657, 21 L.Ed. 968)Although the organic law of the Territory of Iowa did incorporate into its system of laws, indirectly, many of the provisions of the Ordinance of 1787, by extending to its inhabitants the rights and privileges theretofore secured to the Territory of Wisconsin by its organic law, among which were those found in the ordinance, yet the same section that conferred these rights and privileges upon the Territory of Iowa provided that they should be subject to be altered, modified, or repealed by the governor and legislative assembly of the said Territory.
DUNPHY V. KLEINSMITH AND DUER. 78 U.S. 610 (11 Wall. 610, 20 L.Ed. 223)Mr. Lyman Trumbull, for the appellant, adverting to the seventh amendment to the Federal Constitution, the Process Act of 1792, the organic law of the Territory, and the Civil Practice Act all set forth in the preceding case (supra, p. 648-650),—and to the same cases as Mr. Leech referred to in the argument there, argued, that a foreclosure of a mortgage—a proceeding in its essence equitable—had been performed through common-law means, and argued further, as Mr. Leech did in the preceding case, that it was not competent for the Territorial legislature of Montana to abolish, as it had sought to do by its Civil Practice Act, the distinction between chancery and common-law proceedings, which the organic act, adopting the Process Act, had recognized; and that this court had in numerous cases so decided.
The principal question presented by this case was whether these proceedings, conducted in the manner stated, could be sustained. By the organic act constituting the Territory of Montana, passed by Congress May 26th, 1864, section 6, the legislative power of the Territory was declared to extend to all rightful subjects of legislation consistent with the Constitution of the United States and the provisions of that act. By the 9th section provision was made for establishing various courts of the Territory, namely, a Supreme Court, District Courts, Probate Courts, and justices of the peace; and it was enacted that the Supreme and District Courts, respectively, should possess chancery as well as common-law jurisdiction. By the 13th section it was declared that the Constitution and all laws of the United States, which are not locally inapplicable, shall have the same force and effect within the Territory as elsewhere in the United States. These were the only provisions of the organic law which were referred to in the argument.
YAZOO & MISSISSIPPI VALLEY RAILROAD COMPANY, Appt., v. MAYOR AND ALDERMEN OF THE CITY OF VICKSBURG. 209 U.S. 358 (28 S.Ct. 510, 52 L.Ed. 833)
'The principle governing these decisions, so plain that it needs no reasoning to support it, is that those who seek and obtain the benefit of a charter of incorporation must take the benefit under the conditions and with the burdens prescribed by the laws then in force, whether written in the Constitution, in general laws, or in the charter itself.'
The formation of the consolidated company was not imposed upon the complainant; it had the privilege of standing upon such rights as it had by contract or otherwise under the former legislation in force before the adoption of the new Constitution. When it saw fit to enter into the consolidation and form a new corporation in 1892, the Constitution then in force in the state became the law of its corporate being, and the requirement that corporate property should not be exempt from taxation then became binding upon it, as upon all other corporations formed under the new organic law.
MIDDLETON v. INHABITANTS OF THE TOWNSHIP OF MULLICA, COUNTY OF ATLANTIC. 112 U.S. 433 (5 S.Ct. 198, 28 L.Ed. 785)
An examination of the organic laws of the state of New Jersey shows that the inhabitants of the several townships in the different counties are corporate bodies, being authorized, at their annual or special town meetings, 'to vote, grant, and raise such sum or sums of money for the maintenance and support of the poor; the building and repairing of pounds; the opening, making, working, etc., roads; the destruction of noxious wild animals and birds; for running and ascertaining the lines, and prosecuting or defending the common rights, of such township; and for other necessary charges and legal objects and purposes thereof as are or shall be by law expressly vested in the inhabitants of the several townships of this state by this or some other act of the legislature.'
NATIONAL BANK v. COUNTY OF YANKTON. 101 U.S. 129 (, 25 L.Ed. 1046)
E. P. CALKIN AND SAMUEL JONES, TRADING UNDER THE FIRM AND STYLE OF E. P. CALKIN AND COMPANY, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, v. JAMES H. COCKE. 55 U.S. 227 (14 How. 227, 14 L.Ed. 398)The organic law of a Territory takes the place of a constitution as the fundamental law of the local government. It is obligatory on and binds the territorial authorities; but Congress is supreme, and for the purposes of this department of its governmental authority has all the powers of the people of the United States, except such as have been expressly or by implication reserved in the prohibitions of the Constitution.
In the organic act of Dakota there was not an express reservation of power in Congress to amend the acts of the territorial legislature, nor was it necessary. Such a power is an incident of sovereignty, and continues until granted away. Congress may not only abrogate laws of the territorial legislatures, but it may itself legislate directly for the local government. It may make a void act of the territorial legislature valid, and a valid act void. In other words, it has full and complete legislative authority over the people of the Territories and all the departments of the territorial governments. It may do for the Territories what the people, under the Constitution of the United States, may do for the States.
UCC § 1-201. General Definitions.But the obvious answer to this view is, that these several provisions in the constitution were designed and intended, and had the effect, to organize a government at once, on the adoption of the constitution by the people, and thereby to avoid an interregnum between the abrogation of the old and the erection of the new system, and until the legislative body could meet, and put the government in operation in conformity with the requirements of the organic law.
(25) "Organization" means a person other than an individual.