Hampton Co v. United States, 242
| Decision Date | 09 April 1928 |
| Docket Number | No. 242,242 |
| Citation | 48 S.Ct. 348,276 U.S. 394,72 L.Ed. 624 |
| Parties | J. W. HAMPTON, Jr., & CO. v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Walter E. Hampton, of New York City, for petitioner.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 395-397 intentionally omitted] The Attorney General and Mr. W. D. Mitchell, Sol. Gen., of Washington, D. C., for the United States.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 398-400 intentionally omitted] Mr. Chief Justice TAFT delivered the opinion of the Court.
J. W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. made an importation into New York of barium dioxide which the collector of customs assessed at the dutiable rate of six cents per pound. This was two cents per pound more than that fixed by statute. Paragraph 12, c. 256, 42 Stat. 858, 860 (19 USCA § 121, par. 12). The rate was raised by the collector by virtue of the proclamation of the President, 45 Treas. Dec. 669, T. D. 40216, issued under, and by authority of, section 315 of title 3 of the Tariff Act of September 21, 1922 (c. 356, 42 Stat. 858, 941 (19 USCA §§ 154-159)), which is the so-called flexible tariff provision. Protest was made and an appeal was taken under section 514, part 3, title 4 (chapter 356, 42 Stat. 969-970 (19 USCA § 398)). The case came on for hearing before the United States Customs Court, 49 Treas. Dec. 593, T. D. 41478. A majority held the act constitutional. Thereafter the case was appealed to the United States Court of Customs Appeals. On the 16th day of October, 1926, the Attorney General certified that in his opinion the case was of such importance as to render expedient its review by this Court. Thereafter the judgment of the United States Customs Court, was affirmed. 14 Ct. Cust. App. 350. On a petition to this Court for certiorari, filed May 10, 1927, the writ was granted June 6, 1927. 274 U. S. 735, 47 S. Ct. 769, 71 L. Ed. 1336. The pertinent parts of section 315 of title 6 of the Tariff Act (chapter 356, 42 Stat. 858, 941, U. S. C. tit. 19, §§ 154, 156 (19 USCA §§ 154, 156)) are as follows:
* * *
'(c) That in ascertaining the differences in costs of production, under the provisions of subsidivisions (a) and (b) of this section, the President, in so far as he finds it practicable, shall take into consideration (1) the differ- ences in conditions in production, including wages, costs of material, and other items in costs of production of such or similar articles in the United States and in competing foreign countries; (2) the differences in the wholesale selling prices of domestic and foreign articles in the principal markets of the United States; (3) advantages granted to a foreign producer by a foreign government, or by a person, partnership, corporation, or association in a foreign country; and (4) any other advantages or disadvantages in competition.
The President issued his proclamation May 19, 1924 (43 Stat. 1951). After reciting part of the foregoing from section 315, the proclamation continued as follows:
'Whereas, under and by virtue of said section of said act, the United States Tariff Commission has made an investigation to assist the President in ascertaining the differences in costs of production of and of all other facts and conditions enumerated in said section with respect to * * * barium dioxide, * * *
'Whereas in the course of said investigation a hearing was held, of which reasonable public notice was given and at which parties interested were given a reasonable opportunity to be present, to produce evidence, and to be heard;
'And whereas the President upon said investigation * * * has thereby found that the said principal competing country is Germany and that the duty fixed in said title and act does not equalize the differences in costs of production in the United States and in * * * Germany, and has ascertained and determined the increased rate of duty necessary to equalize the same.
'Now, therefore, I, Calvin Coolidge, President of the United States of America, do hereby determine and proclaim that the increase in rate of duty provided in said act shown by said ascertained differences in said costs of production necessary to equalize the same is as follows:
The issue here is as to the constitutionality of section 315, upon which depends the authority for the proclamation of the President and for two of the six cents per pound duty collected from the petitioner. The contention of the taxpayers is twofold-first, they argue that the section is invalid in that it is a delegation to the President of the legislative power, which by article 1, § 1 of the Constitution, is vested in Congress, the power being that declared in section 8 of article 1, that the Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises. Their second objection is that, as section 315 was enacted with the avowed intent and for the purpose of protecting the industries of the United States, it is invalid because the Constitution gives power to lay such taxes only for revenue.
First. It seems clear what Congress intended by section 315. Its plan was to secure by law the imposition of customs duties on articles of imported merchandise which should equal the difference between the cost of producing in a foreign country the articles in question and laying them down for sale in the United States, and the cost of producing and selling like or similar articles in the United States, so that the duties not only secure revenue, but at the same time enable domestic producers to compete on terms of equality with foreign producers in the markets of the United States. It may be that it is difficult to fix with exactness this difference, but the difference which is sought in the statute is perfectly clear and perfectly intelligible. Because of the difficulty in practically determining what that difference is, Congress seems to have doubted that the information in its possession was such as to enable it to make the adjustment accurately, and also to have apprehended that with changing conditions the difference might vary in such a way that some readjustments would be necessary to give effect to the principle on which the statute proceeds. To avoid such difficulties, Congress adopted in section 315 the method of describing with clearness what its policy and plan was and then authorizing a member of the executive branch to carry out its policy and plan and to find the changing difference from time to time and to make the adjustments necessary to conform the duties to the standard underlying that policy and plan. As it was a matter of great importance, it concluded to give by statute to the President, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mohamed v. Holder
...action is not a forbidden delegation of legislative power.’ " Id. at 372, 109 S.Ct. 647 (quoting J.W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States , 276 U.S. 394, 409, 48 S.Ct. 348, 72 L.Ed. 624 (1928) ).The Supreme Court has only twice sustained a non-delegation challenge. In Panama Refining Co. v......
-
Synar v. United States, Civ. A. No. 85-3945
...Commission v. Nelson Brothers Bond & Mortgage, 289 U.S. 266, 53 S.Ct. 627, 77 L.Ed. 1166 (1933); J.W. Hampton, Jr. & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 394, 48 S.Ct. 348, 72 L.Ed.2d 624 (1928); United States v. Grimaud, 220 U.S. 506, 31 S.Ct. 480, 55 L.Ed. 563 (1911). As Chief Justice Taft expl......
-
U.S. v. Stevens, No. CR-08-36-B-W.
...the inherent necessities of government co-ordination.'" Id. (alteration in original) (quoting J.W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 394, 406, 48 S.Ct. 348, 72 L.Ed. 624 (1928)). So long as Congress "shall lay down by legislative act an intelligible principle to which the perso......
-
Robinson v. Salazar
...v. Am. Trucking Ass'ns, Inc., 531 U.S. 457, 472, 121 S.Ct. 903, 149 L.Ed.2d 1 (2001) (quoting J.W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 394, 409, 48 S.Ct. 348, 72 L.Ed. 624 (1928)). Pursuant to Congress' plenary power, Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 3. "Congress has the power, both dire......
-
SEC's Climate Risk Disclosure Proposal Likely To Face Legal Challenges
...the lives of Americans are subject to the robust democratic processes the Constitution demands."). 21 See J.W. Hampton v. United States, 276 U.S. 394 22 See Gundy v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2116 (2019); Paul, 140 S. Ct. at 342. In his dissenting opinion in Gundy, Justice Gorsuch, joined b......
-
Second Circuit Holds CFPB's Funding Structure Is Constitutional
...the person or body authorized to [exercise the delegated authority] is directed to conform." J.W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 394, 409 The CFPA states that the CFPB's budget is for the payment of the agency's expenses in carrying out its duties and responsibilities and li......
-
The Supreme Court and the Future of Commercial Regulation by the Administrative State
...omitted). [15] F.D.A. v. Brown & Williamston Tobacco Corp., 259 U.S. 120, 159 (2000). [16] J.W. Hampton, Jr., & Co., v. United States, 276 U.S. 394, 409 (1928). [17] Federal Trade Commission, Policy Statement Regarding the Scope of Unfair Methods of Competition Under Section 5 of the Federa......
-
Depoliticizing Judicial Review of Agency Rulemaking
...not perform its duties in a responsible and effective way without administrative agencies."); J.W. Hampton, Jr., and Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 394, 407-08 (1928) (permitting Congress to delegate legislative power on the grounds that "common sense" allows Congress to delegate what it ca......
-
Administering the National Environmental Policy Act
...Inc., 375 F.2d 629, 632 (5th Cir. 1967); Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S. 414, 420-22 (1944); J.W. Hampton Jr. & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 394 (1928); United States v. Midwest Oil Co., 236 U.S. 459, 470 (1915); Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649 (1892). 171. Cf. Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F.......
-
Table of Cases
...997 Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88, 96 S.Ct. 1895, 48 L.Ed.2d 495 (1976), 1083, 1161 Hampton, J.W., Jr., & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 394, 48 S.Ct. 348, 72 L.Ed. 624 (1928), 771, 774 Hancock v. Train, 426 U.S. 167, 96 S.Ct. 2006, 48 L.Ed.2d 555 (1976), 852, 854 Hankins v. Lygh......
-
The Alteration of Ex Ante Agreements by the Bankruptcy Code.
...209 [section] 1 (1890). (228) Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361, 655 (1989) (quoting J.W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 394, 406 (229) WILLIAM N. ESKRIDGE, JR., DYNAMIC STATUTORY INTERPRETATION 122-123 (1994). (230) CROSS, supra note 226, at 6. (231) Id. (232) Id......