for the purposes of our analysis. We begin with the pre-Code bankruptcy practice. The Debtor notes that courts interpreting the present Bankruptcy Code have referred to the practices under the Act of 1898 that preceded it, and in construing provisions of the Code that were codifications of earlier judge-made law, as § 523(a)(7) evidently was, courts interpret the codification to match the prior judge-made law absent evidence of specific intent that it be interpreted otherwise, see Kelly, 479 U.S. at 44, 47, 107 S.Ct. at 358, 359. Valid though this may be as an interpretive tool, it does not help us here where prior to the present Code courts treated bail bond surety obligations both as dischargeable and as nondischargeable, compare United States v. Hawkins, 20 F.2d 539 (S.D.Cal.1927) (<HOLDING>) with In re Caponigri, 193 F. 291, 292
holding that debts owed to the united states for liabilities of the debtor as a surety on bail bonds are of a class as to which a discharge in bankruptcy is a release holding that the fourteenth amendment which makes persons bom in the united states and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the united states and requires that representatives be apportioned among the states based on population excluding indians not taxed did not make an indian a citizen of the united states recognizing a cause of action for conspiracy to deprive a class of persons of their fundamental rights under the laws of the united states holding the act inapplicable to the united states in its role as employer holding that the plaintiff must demonstrate that defendants contacts with the united states as a whole support the exercise of jurisdiction consistent with the constitution and laws of the united states