WHITE V. ARTH0B. 89 �"Xo moneys nollei^ted as diities on imports, inaccordancewithanydecisioi;, ruling, or direction previously made or given by the secretary of the treasury, shall, except as hereinafter provided, be refunded or repaid, unless in accord- aiice with the judgment of a circuit or district court of the United States giv- ing construction to the law, and frora which the attorney general shall certify tliat no appeal or writ of error will be taken by the United States, or unless in pursuanee of a special appropriation for the partlcular refund or repayment to be made: provided, that whenever the secretary shall be of opinion that such dnties have been assessed and eollected under an erroneous view of the tacts in the case, he may authorize a re-examination and reliquidation in such case, and inake such refund in accordance with existing laws as the facts so ascertained shall, in his opinion, justify; but no such reliquidation shall be allowed unless protest and appeal shall have been made as required by law." �This does not require a judgment in the partioular case, but only a judgment construing the law, which might be had in another case. It does not refer to the payment of a judgment, but to the refunding of moneys eollected. �By the act of February 15, 1876, (19 St. at Large, 3,) provision was made for the payment under judgments rendered by the court of commissioners of Alabama claims of said judgments, with interest on the principal at 4 per cent, per annum from the date of loss until notice should be given for payment. �In section 3 of the appropriation bill, passed June 14, 1878, (20 St. at Large, 128,) is the following provision: �"For repayment to importers the excess of deposits for unascertained duties, or duties or other moneys paid under protest, iucluding interest and costs in judgment cases, $250,000 : provided, that no portion of this appropria- tion shall be expended for the payment of claims knovvn as the 'charges and ���In section 1 of the appropriation bill passed March 3, 1879, (Id. 384,) is the following provision : "To enable the secretary of the treas- ury, in his discretion, to refund excess of duties and to pay costs in suits and proceedings in ' charges and commissions cases,' in which judgments may hereafter be obtained, or which may be compro- mised by said secretary, $15,000." �In section 1 of another appropriation bill passed March 3, 1879, (Id. 414,) is this provision: �" The nnexpended balance of the appropriation of $250,000 made by the act of June 14, 1878, for the repayment to importers of the excess of deposits for unascertained duties, or duties or other moneys paid under protest, ineluding interest and costs in judgment cases, is hereby continued and made available for the payment of all claims to which the appropriation is applicable, which ��� �
