Sturges v. the Collector

Mr. George Ticknor Curtis, and Mr. A. R. Culver, for the plaintiff in error: 1. The difficulty which existed, as to the proper construction of the 14th section of the act of 1862, was remedied by Congress in June, 1864, by an enactment, as a substitute for the 14th section of the act of 1862, leaving out in the latter act the word 'and,' substituting the word 'east' for 'beyond,' the words 'west of' in place of the words 'this side,' and repealing in terms the act of July 14th, 1862. This repeal and substitution took place seven months after the decision on the circuit, in the case of Hadden v. The Collector, Congress being at the time aware of the construction which had been put upon the 14th section of the act of 1862, by the courts. Why after this decision in favor of the government, did it thus legislate upon the subject, repeal the act of 1862, enact a new section, and use different language in the latter act, unless for the purpose of showing that the court had misunderstood its former intentions, and of placing them beyond doubt?