You better save this one because what this really says is that codification can never be relied

on until the statute is consulted, note: 'change of arrangement, which placed portions of what

was originally

a single section in two separated sections cannot be regarded as altering the scope and purpose of the enactment. For it will not be inferred that Congress, in revising and consolidating the laws, intended to change their effect, unless such intention is clearly expressed.'
Oh I get it! Lets take one section of the 19 9 code and !ake "#$ sections out of it and then %ust o!it the 1& ta'(a)ers sub%ect to the %urisdiction of ta' court fro! the code and this won't count. Let the fools *)ou and !e+ look all over the (lace tr)ing to figure out the code while it !eans absolutel) nothing until )ou go to the statutes and the %udges will let )ou dangle fro! the ro(e till the last twitch has been shaken fro! )our lifeless bod). U. S. v. Welden 3 U.S. !" #$!%&' ". ,his -ct, as codified, a((ears at 1. /.0.C. 1 &. (he

codification, which has not been

enacted into positive law, eli!inates the a((ro(riation (rovision of the -ct which b) its ter!s was of no
effect after 2une #, 19#". ,he codification !akes no other change. 31 0tat. 3 4, 1 /.0.C. 1 &#"* a+, declares that the /nited 0tates Code establishes '(ri!a facie the laws of the /nited 0tates, general and (er!anent in their nature 5 5 5 )rovided,

however, (hat whenever titles of such *ode shall have been enacted into positive law the te+t thereof shall be legal evidence of the laws therein contained, in all the courts , , ,.' This Court, in construing that statute has said that 'the very meaning of 'prima facie' is that the Code cannot prevail over the Statutes at Large when the two are inconsistent.'
0te(han v. /nited 0tates, 19 /.0. "& , "&3, 3 0.Ct. 11 ., 11 6, 46 L.7d. 1"9#. -ven where *ongress has enacted a codification into positive law, this *ourt has said that the 'change of arrangement, which placed portions of what was originally a single section in

two

separated sections cannot be regarded as altering the scope and purpose of the enactment. .or it will not be inferred that *ongress, in revising and consolidating the laws, intended
to change their effect, unless such intention is clearly expressed.' Fourco 8lass Co. v. ,rans!irra Cor(., . /.0. &&&, &&6, 66 0.Ct. 646, 691, 1 L.7d.&d 643, 9uoting -nderson v. :acific Coast 0.0. Co., &&. /.0. 146, 194;199, & 0.Ct. 3&3, 3 #, .3 L.7d. 1#"6. Certainl) where, as here, the 'change of arrangement' was !ade by a codifier without the a((roval of Congress, it should be given no weight. '/f

construction #of a section of the United States *ode

which has not been enacted into positive law' is necessary, recourse

must

be had to the original statutes themselves.' <urrell v. =estern /nion ,el. Co., . Cir.,
13# F.&d 646, 644. -ccordingl), in order to construe the i!!unit) (rovision of the -((ro(riations -ct of Februar) &., 19# , we !ust read it in the conte't of the entire -ct, rather than in the conte't of the 'arrangement' selected by the codifier. 0!!1