States

The Revised Statutes were enacted June 22, 1874, and, when printed in 1875, embraced the laws, general and permanent in their nature, in force December 1, 1873. A second edition was completed in the latter part of 1878, and includes only the specific amendments passed by the forty-third and forty-fourth congresses, with references to some other acts. The period from 1874 to 1S80 is provided for by a supplement published in 1881. See Preface to Supplement to Rev. Stat. A second edition of the supplement, covering the legislation from 1S74 to 1891, and embracing the matter in the Supplement to the Revised Statutes of 1881, was prepared and published under the direction of congress by Chief Justice Wm. A. Richardson of the Court of Claims. Volume 2 of the Supplement covers legislation down to March 4, 1901. Subsequent legislation is found in Statutes at Large, vols.

32 to 37.

Vol. 37 covers the 63d Congress, 1911-1913. Transactions subsequent to the enactment of the Revised Statutes must be determined by the law as there found, and not by the earlier statutes incorporated therein. In cases of ambiguity or uncertainty, the previous statutes may be referred to to elucidate the legislative intent, but where the language is clear, the Revised Statutes must govern. licatlon, a compilation containing the original law with certain specific alterations and amendments made by subsequent legislation incorporated therein according to the judgment of the editor, who had no discretion to correct errors or supply omissions; Wright v. U. S., 15 Ot. Cl. 80. Sections of a statute re-enacted in the Revised Statutes are to be given the same meaning they had in the original, unless a contrary intention is clearly manifested; U. S. v. Le Bris, 121 U. S. 278, 7 Sup. Ct. 894, 30 L. Ed. 946; the Revised Statutes are merely a compilation of the statutes of the United States, and resort may he had to the original statute to ascertain what, if any, change of phraseology there is, and whether such change should be construed as changing the law; U. S. v. Lacher, 134 U. S. 626, 10 Sup. Ct. 625, 33 L. Ed. 1080; and this is specially so where the act authorizing the revision directs marginal references as in this case; Barrett v. U. S., 169 U. S. 227, 18 Sup. Ct. 327, 42 L. Ed. 723, where some historical matter relating to the subject is found. “They must be treated as the legislative declaration of the statute law on the subjects embraced, on the first day of December, 1873. When the meaning is plain, the courts cannot look to the statutes which have been revised, to see if congress erred in that revision, but may do so when necessary to construe doubtful language."

Bate Refrigerating Co. v. Sulzberger, 157 U. S. 1, 15 Sup. Ct. 508, 39 L..Ed. 601; U. S. v. Commercial Co., 74 Fed. 145.

An intention to alter the scope and purpose of an existing law cannot be imputed to congress because it placed in the Revised Statutes in two separate sections portions of what was a single section of the original act; Anderson v. Steamship Co., 225 U. S. 187, 32 Sup. Ct. 626, 56 L. Ed. 1047.

See Statutes at Barge.