with whom concurs Mr. Justice McKenna, dissenting.
Although I dissented in De Lima v. Bidwell, 182 U. S. 1, Dooley v. United States, 182 U. S. 222, and Fourteen Diamond Rings, 183 U. S. 176, nevertheless I agreed to the judgment of reversal as previously rendered in this case. 197 U. S. 429. I was constrained so to do because to me it seemed that the determination of the substantial issues in the case were foreclosed by the prior cases above mentioned, which were binding on me under the rule of stare decisis. It is true that in this case, as previously- argued and decided, there was present the question • of an alleged ratification by Congress of the imposition and collection of the taxes in controversy; but, on the former argument, my attention was not directed to public reports and documents throwing light upon the scope of the ratifying act, as was done on the present argument. Construing the act of Congress which is relied upon to establish the ratification, by the light of the public documents referred to, my mind sees no possible escape from the conclusion that that act was intended to and did ratify the collection of the charges complained of. Having no doubt of the power of Congress to ratify, to my mind it clearly results that I erred in giving my assent to the previous judgment of reversal, and I therefore dissent from the opinion and conclusion of the court now announced.
I am authorized to say that Mr. Justice McKenna concurs in this dissent. -