209 U. 8. Op'mion of the Court. It is the contention of the Government that the paragraph ?eparates still wines in bottles into three elates and frees a specific rate of duty on each, as follows: "(a) Bottles 'containing each not more than one pint,' which are to be assessed as fu]? pints at $1.60 pe? 24 bottles, or atthe rate of 6] cents per pint; (b) bSttles 'containing each not. more tl?an one quart and' more than one pint,' which are to be asse?ed as full quarts at $1.60 per dozen bottles, that is, at the ?ame rote'of'6] cents per pint; and (c) bottles containing 'any excess beyond these quantities,' which are to be assessed at the rate of $1.60 per dozen, pins 5 cents per pint or frac- tional pint on the excess over a quart contained in'each bottle." . We think the contention is right, and need? no comment to make it 'clear. - Counsel for the Government 'also points out that the pro- visions of the tariff act of 1875 and subsequent act? were substantially similar .to' par.-.?raph 296, and that the Treasury decisions thereunder were-in. accordance wi?h the interpreta- tion for which the Government now contends. The first of the? decisions wns made in 1879: -_In re De L?ze, T. D. 4060. The ruling was repeated in 1893. ' In re G. W. Sheldon & Co., T. D. 14,461. And_ again in 1899. In re WFrnan, T. D. 20843. We have said that when the m?aning of a statute is. doubt- ful great weight should be given to the construction placed upon it by the department charged with its execution. Robert-. U.S. 136. And we have decided that the rc?nactment by Congress, without change, of a statute, which had previously received long continued executive construction, is an adoption U.S. 143, 152. Judgment reversed. MR. JUSTICE WHITE and MR. JUSTICE PECKHAM concur �solely because of the prior administrative construction.
�
