A re-enacted statute receives the same in terpretation as the former act ; Copper Queen Consol. Min. Co. v. Board of Equaliza tion, 206 U. S. 474, 27 Sup. Ct. 695, 51 L. Ed. 1143. When congress in enacting revised statutes adopts language that has been con strued by the courts, they adopt that con struction ; Sessions v. Romadka, 145 U. S. 29, 12 Sup. Ct. 799, 36 L. Ed. 609.
When two sections of the revised statutes taken together are not free from ambiguity and cannot be harmoniously applied, recourse must be had to legislation prior to the re vised statutes from which those sections were drawn ; Merchants' Nat. Bank of Baltimore v. U. S., 214 U. S. 33, 29 Sup. Ct. 593, 53 L. Ed. 899. In a general code a later section does not nullify an earlier one ; Iglehart v. Iglehart, 204 U. S. 478, 27 Sup. Ct. 329, 51 L. Ed. 575 ; In the case of a codifying statute, the first step should be to interpret the Ian guage ; and appeal to earlier decisions can only be made upon some special ground ; [1891] L. R. 145, A. C. In the U. S. Revised Statutes, the change of arrangement from ' earlier statutes will not be regarded as changing their scope and purpose, unless an I intent to change the prior law is clearly ex pressed ; Anderson v. S. S. Co., 225 U. S. 187, 32 Sup. Ct. 626, 56 L. Ed. 1047.
Language in a statute which has a welt known meaning, sanctioned by decisions, ids I presumed to be used in that sense ; Kepner v. U. S., 195 U. S. 100, 124, 24 Sup. Ct. 797, 49 L. Ed. 114, 1 Ann. Cas. 655. The presence of a provision in one part of a statute and its absence in another is an argument against reading it as implied where omitted; U. S. v. R. Co., 220 U. S. 37, 31 Sup. Ct. 362, 55 L. Ed. 361.
To change the phraseology creates a pre sumption of a change in intent ; Crawford v. Burke, 195 U. S. 176, 25 Sup. Ct. 9, 49 L. Ed. 147 ; words defined in a prior statute will be understood in the same sense in substitute statutes unless the contrary appears ; Pur tell v. Coal & Iron Co., 256 Ill. 110, 99 N. E. 899, 43 L. R. A. (N. S.) 193.
When several acts relate to the same sub ject matter, a subsequent act may be consid ered upon the interpretation of prior legis lation; Tiger v. Inv. Co., 221 U. S. 286, 31 Sup. Ct. 578, 55 L. Ed. 738 ; Swigart v. Bak er, 229 U. S. 187, 33 Sup. Ct. 645, 57 L. Ed.
1143.
Where one statute relates to a subject gen erally and another deals with it more specif ically, if they cannot he harmonized, the spe cific statute should control ; Stadler v. Hel ena, 46 Mont. 128, 127 Pac. 454 ; Gardner v. School Dist., 34 Okl. 716, 126 Pac. 1018 ; usu ally a general intent in an act controls a par ticular intent. Where there is an earlier special and a later general statute (which is broad enough to include the former), the general will not be taken to repeal the spe cial, unless the repeal is express or there is a manifest inconsistency ; Rodgers v. U. S., 185 U. S. 83, 22 Sup. Ct. 582, 46 L. Ed. 816. But there will be a repeal where a later stat ute is a complete revision of the subject to which a former statute applied ; U. S. v. Ran lett, 172 U. S. 133, 19 Sup. Ct. 114, 43 L. Ed. 393.
The rule known as the ejusdem generig rule. (see that title) does not overrule all other rules. When the particular words ex haust the genus, general words must refer to words outside of those particularized ; U. S. v. Mescall, 215 U. S. 26, 30 Sup. Ct. 19, 54 L. Ed. 77, following National Bank of Com merce v. Ripley, 161 Mo. 126, 61 S. W. 587 ; Gillock v. People, 171 Ill. 307, 49 N. E. 712 ; Winters v. Duluth, 82 Minn. 127, 84 N. W. 788.
Contemporaneous construction by a depart ment of government is a rule of interpreta tion, but not an absolute one ; it does not preclude inquiry as to its original correct- , ness ; Houghton v. Payne, 194 U. S. 88, 24 Sup. Ct. 596, 48 L. Ed. 888 ; so of a tariff act ; Komada & Co. v. U. S., 215 U. S. 392, 30 Sup. Ct. 136, 54 L. Ed. 249 ; courts will be guided by the construction adopted by of ficers appointed to enforce an act ; Deming v. McClaughry, 113 Fed. 640, 51 C. C. A. 349 ; in case of doubt, the interpretation •of the proper department has great weight ; Alle mania Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburg v. Ins. Co., 209 17. S. 327; 28 Sup. Ct. 544, 52 L. Ed. 815, 14 Ann. Cas. 948 ; any continued executive construction will be adopted ; Solomon v. Commissioners of Cartersville, 41 Ga. 157; Wright v. Forrestal, 65 Wis. 341, 27 N. W. 52 ; but it must be long continued ; Mackall v. Casilear, 137 U. S. 562, 11 Sup. Ct. 178, 34 L. Ed. 776.