Bartram v. Robertson
| Decision Date | 23 May 1887 |
| Citation | 7 S.Ct. 1115,122 U.S. 116,30 L.Ed. 1118 |
| Parties | BARTRAM and another v. ROBERTSON, Collector, etc. 1 |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
H. E. Tremaine, M. W. Tyler, and A. J. Willard, for plaintiffs in error.
Sol. Gen. Jenks, for defendant in error.
The plaintiffs are merchants doing business in the city of New York, and in March and April, 1882, they made four importations of brown and unrefined sugars and molasses, the produce and manufacture of the Island of St. Croix, which is a part of the dominions of the king of Denmark. The goods were regularly entered at the custom-house at the port of New York, the plaintiffs claiming at the time that they should be admitted free of duty under the treaty with Denmark, because like articles, the produce and manufacture of the Hawaiian Islands, were, ud er the treaty with their king, and the act of congress of August 15, 1876, to carry that treaty into operation, admitted free of duty. The defendant, however, who was the collector of the port of New York, treated the goods as dutiable articles, and, against the claim of the plaintiffs, exacted duties upon them under the acts of congress, without regard to those treaties, amounting to $33,222, which they paid to the collector under protest in order to obtain possession of their goods. They then brought the present action against the collector to recover the amount thus paid. The action was commenced in a court of the state of New York, and, on motion of the defendant, was transferred to the circuit court of the United States. The complaint sets forth the different importations; that the articles were the produce and manufacture of St. Croix, part of the dominions of the king of Denmark; their entry at the custom-house, and the claim of the plaintiffs that they were free from duty by force of the treaty with the king of Denmark and of that with the king of the Hawaiian Islands; the refusal of the collector to treat them as free under those treaties, his exaction of duties thereon to the amount stated, and its payment under protest; and asked judgment for the amount. The defendant demurred to the complaint on the ground, among others, that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against him. The circuit court sustained the demurrer, and ordered judgment for the defendant with costs, ( and the plaintiffs have brought the case to this court for review.
We are thus called upon to give an interpretation to the clause in the treaty with Denmark which bears upon the subject of duties on the importation of articles produced or manufactured in its dominions, and the effect upon it of the treaty with the Hawaiian Islands for the admission without duty of similar articles, the produce and manufacture of that kingdom. The existing commercial treaty between the United States and the king of Denmark, styled 'General convention of friendship, commerce, and navigation,' was concluded on the twenty-sixth of April, 1826. It was afterwards abrogated, but subsequently renewed, with the exception of one article, on the twelfth of January, 1858. The first article declares that 'the contracting parties, desiring to live in peace and harmony with all the other nations of the earth, by means of a policy frank and equally friendly with all, engage mutually not to grant any particular favor to other nations in respect to commerce and navigation which shall not immediately become common to the other party, who shall enjoy the same freely if the concession were freely made, or upon allowing the same compensation if the concession were conditional.' The fourth article declares that 'no higher or other duties shall be imposed on the importation into the United states of any article the produce or manufacture of the dominions of his majesty the king of Denmark, and no higher or other duties shall be imposed upon the importation into the said dominions of any article the produce or manufacture of the United States, than are or shall be payable on the like articles being the produce or manufacture of any other foreign country.' The treaty, or convention as it is termed, between the king of the Hawaiian Islands and the United States, was concluded January 30, 1875, and was ratified May 31 following. Its first article declares, that 'for and in consideration...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Toho Co., Ltd. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
... ... See Bartram v. Robertson, 122 U.S. 116, 119-21, 7 S.Ct. 1115, 1117- ... 1118, 30 L.Ed. 1118 (1887). The treaty at issue here therefore requires only that ... ...
-
Consul v. Westphal (In re Lis' Estate)
...have been denied to other nations whose only claim thereto was based upon a ‘most favored nation’ clause (see Bartram v. Robertson, 122 U. S. 116, 7 Sup. Ct. 1115, 30 L. Ed. 1118; Devlin on the Treaty Power, § 131); but it seems that the courts have not deemed consular conventions, of the k......
-
Austro-Hungarian Consul v. Westphal
...have been denied to other nations whose only claim thereto was based upon a "most favored nation" clause (see Bartram v. Robertson, 122 U. S. 116, 7 Sup. Ct. 1115, 30 L. ed. 1118; Devlin on the Treaty Power, § 131); but it seems that the courts have not deemed consular conventions, of the k......
-
Board of County Com'rs v. Aerolineas Peruanasa, SA
...nation clauses may be inapplicable in situations where exceptions are made for valuable consideration. Bartram v. Robertson, 1887, 122 U.S. 116, 7 S.Ct. 1115, 30 L.Ed. 1118; Whitney v. Robertson, 1888, 124 U.S. 190, 8 S.Ct. 456, 31 L.Ed. 386; and Kelly v. Hedden, 1888, 124 U.S. 196, 8 S.Ct.......
-
Equality of Treatment Among Nations and a Bargaining Tariff
...and a may receive equal treatment in the territory ofthe other by statute law of the country of resi- 1 Bartram vs. Robertson, 122 U. S. 116 dence ; or as regards protection of life, equality Whitney vs. Robertson, 124 U. S. 190 (1888); before the law, etc., under principles of inter- Moore......