
    EMANUEL HAHN V. THE UNITED STATES.
    (107 U. S. B., on appeal from 14 C. Cls. R., 305.)
    A person was surveyor of customs at the port of Troy, N. Y., a port of delivery and not a port of entry, in the collection district of the city of New York, from June 13, 1872, to May, 1876.
    At various times during, the period from June 13, 1872, to June 22, 1874, there was a surveyor of customs at the port of New York, which was a port of entry, and surveyors of customs at two other ports, which were ports of delivery and not ports of entry, all of said ports being in said collection district. .
    In accordance with the uniform practice of the Treasury Department, under ‘ section 1 of the 'Act of March 2, 1867, ch. 188 (14 Stat. L., 546), the'Secretary of the Treasury distributed to the collector, naval officer, and surveyor at the port of New York, as such officers, and not as informers or seizing officers, one-fourth part of the proceeds of fines, penalties, and forfeitures incurred at the port of New York between June 13,1872, and June 22, 1874, and paid no part thereof to the surveyor at Troy.
    He sued the United States in the Court of Claims in May, 1877, claiming to share equally with the collector and the naval officer at tlifc port of New York, and all the surveyors in the district, in said one-fourth, under the provisions of section 1 of said act.
    Said provisions had been repealed by section 2 of the Act of June 22,1874, ch. 391 (18 Stat. L., 186), and Congress had not interfered with such construction while the act was in force, and the claimant had raised no question in regard to such construction until March, 1874, and had been informed by the Treasury Department, in June, 1874, that it adhered to such construction, and he had not complained again until March, 1877, but had permitted moneys to be distributed under such construction until he sued.
    
      The Court of Claims held that as such construction did not appear unreasonable, and might well have been reached in the exercise of a sound judgment, all the circumstances of the ¡case were such, regarding the statute as ambiguous, as to justify the application of the principle of interpretation, that the, contemporaneous construction of those who had been called upon to carry the law into eifect was entitled to great respect, and it refused to interfere with such construction, and the claimant’s petition was dismissed.
    Held by the Supreme Court:
    This court, being satisfied with the decision or the Court of Claims, and with the grounds above stated as assigned by it therefor, affirm the judgment of the court below.
   Opinion by

Mr. Justice Blatchford.  