20? U. 8. Syll?u? proofs of, or paid such loss or damage, it skall forward the proof of its le?s and claim and a copy of the receipt taken for payment. It means that if the loss or claim has been in fact paid, then a copy of the receipt is to be sent, but it does not mean that there must be payment before any hability on the part of the reinsuring company exists. We do n(?t think ttmt the language of these two subdivis?ous was intended to entirely nullify and tear up by the roots the construction given to the contract of reinsurance for so many years throughout the civilized world and upon which its chief value is based. The nature of the contract is accurately scribed in its commencement. It is described as a "compact of reinsurance," and there has been no doubt as to the meaning of such contract for the last two centuries. The judgment of the Court of Appeal? is right, and is UNITED STATES v. CERECEDO HERMANOS COMPA_?IA. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED 8?A?ES FOR PORTO RICO. No. 152. Submitted M?oh When the meaning of a statute is doubtful the construction given by the department charged with its execution should be given great weight. R?oertson v. Douming, 127 U.S. 607; United ,Sto? v. Healy, 160 U.S. �136. The re?nactment by Congress, without change, of a statute which had previously received long continued executive construction, is an adoption by Congress of such construction. United $tat? v. Fa//?, 204 U.S. 143. Par. 296 of the Tariff Act of July 11, 1897, eomtruad in aooordauoo ?h T?m?ry dec,ions. T?E facts are stated in the opinion.
�
