314 OC'rOBER TERM, 1907. Opinion ot th? Court. 209 U. 8. been completed or that six months had expired since its com- pletion, or that the United States had not itself sued on the bond. The act which is amended consists of but one material sec- tion, the second section providing only for the comparatively unimportant matter of security for costs. The act amending the section also consists of but one section. The question is whether the amended act applies to this case. There are certain principles which have been adhered to with great strictness by the courts in relation to the construc- tion of statutes as to whether they are' or are not retroactive in their effect. The presumption is very strong that a statute was not meant to act retrospectively, and it ought never to receive such a construction if it is susceptible of any other. It ought not to receive such a construction unless the words used are so clear, strong and imperative that no other meaning can be annexed to them or unless the intention of the legis- Johns. 499; Jackson v. Van Zandt, 12 Johns. 168 ;' Un/ted Sates v. Heth, 3 Cranch, 399, 414; ,.qouthwestern Coal Co. v. McBride, U. S. 563, 577. The language of the amended act is prospective, as it pro- vides "that hereafter any person or persons entering into a formal contract with the United States," etc. That language standing alone would leave little doubt as to the intention of Congress in the matter of the taking effect of the amendment. It is urged, howevcr, that as the amendment in this respect but reiterates the language of the original act, the use of the word "hereafter" in the commencement of the amendment ought not to have the significance which would otherwise at- tach to it, because it is simply in this particular re'?acting the law as it already stood. There is considerable force in the suggestion that the word "hereafter" is not to receive the weight which in othe?' cir- cumstanees it ought to have. The question i?.? however, one
�
