Hampton Co v. United States, No. 242

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtTAFT
Citation48 S.Ct. 348,276 U.S. 394,72 L.Ed. 624
PartiesJ. W. HAMPTON, Jr., & CO. v. UNITED STATES
Docket NumberNo. 242
Decision Date09 April 1928

276 U.S. 394
48 S.Ct. 348
72 L.Ed. 624
J. W. HAMPTON, Jr., & CO.

v.

UNITED STATES.

No. 242.
Argued March 1, 1928.
Decided April 9, 1928.

Page 395

Mr. Walter E. Hampton, of New York City, for petitioner.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 395-397 intentionally omitted]

Page 398

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]

Page 400

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.

Page 401

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:

'Section 315(a). That in order to regulate the foreign commerce of the United States and to put into force and effect the policy of the Congress by this act intended, whenever the President, upon investigation of the differences in costs of production of articles wholly or in part the growth or product of the United States and of like or similar articles wholly or in part the growth or product of competing foreign countries, shall find it thereby shown that the duties fixed in this act do not equalize the said differences in costs of production in the United States and the principal competing country he shall, by such investigation, ascertain said differences and determine and proclaim the changes in classifications or increases or decreases in any rate of duty provided in this act shown by said ascertained differences in such costs of production necessary to equalize the same. Thirty days after the date of such proclamation or proclamations such changes in classification shall take effect, and such increased or decreased duties shall be levied, collected, and paid on such articles when imported from any foreign country into the United States or into any of its possessions (except the Philippine Islands, the Virgin Islands, and the islands of Guam and Tutuila): Provided, That the total increase or decrease of such rates of duty shall not exceed 50 per centum of the rates specified in title 1 of this act, or in any amendatory act. * * *

'(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-

Page 402

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.

'Investigations to assist the President in ascertaining differences in costs of production under this section shall be made by the United States Tariff Commission, and no proclamation shall be issued under this section until such investigation shall have been made. The commission shall give reasonable public notice of its hearings and shall give reasonable opportunity to parties interested to be present, to produce evidence, and to be heard. The commission is authorized to adopt such reasonable procedure, rules, and regulations as it may deem necessary.

'The President, proceeding as hereinbefore provided for in proclaiming rates of duty, shall, when he determines that it is shown that the differences in costs of production have changed or no longer exist which led to such proclamation, accordingly as so shown, modify or terminate the same. Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize a transfer of an article from the dutiable list to the free list or from the free list to the dutiable list, nor a change in form of duty. Whenever it is provided in any paragraph of title 1 of this act, that the duty or duties shall not exceed a specified ad valorem rate upon the articles provided for in such paragraph, no rate determined under the provision of this section upon such articles shall exceed the maximum ad valorem rate so specified.'

Page 403

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:

"An increase in said duty on barium dioxide (within the limit of total increase provided for in said act) from 4 cents per pound to 6 cents per pound.

"In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

"Done at the city of Washington this nineteenth day of May in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty-four, and of the Independence of the

Page 404

United States of America the one hundred and forty-eighth.

"Calvin Coolidge.

"By the President: Charles E. Hughes, Secretary of State."

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...

To continue reading

Request your trial
707 practice notes
  • Hill v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, Civil Action No. 1:15–CV–1801–LMM.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Northern District of Georgia
    • June 8, 2015
    ...v. Am. Trucking Assocs., 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) ). "Whether the statute delegates legislative power is a question for the courts, and an agency's voluntary......
  • Buckley v. Valeo, No. 75-1061
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • August 29, 1975
    ...fixed according to common sense and the inherent necessities of the governmental co-ordination. J. W. Hampton, Jr. & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 394, 406, 48 S.Ct. 348, 72 L.Ed. 624 (1928). Under this interpretation, one department may exercise some powers belonging to other departments ......
  • Big Time Vapes, Inc. v. Food & Drug Admin., No. 19-60921
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • June 25, 2020
    ...person or body authorized [to exercise the authority] is directed to conform." 963 F.3d 442 J.W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States , 276 U.S. 394, 409, 48 S.Ct. 348, 72 L.Ed. 624 (1928). It is "constitutionally sufficient if Congress clearly delineates the general policy, the public agen......
  • Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., No. 07–582.
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • April 28, 2009
    ...principle,’ ” and the agency must follow it. Id., at 372, 109 S.Ct. 647 (quoting [556 U.S. 537]J.W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 394, 409, 48 S.Ct. 348, 72 L.Ed. 624 (1928)). Congress passed the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to ensure that agencies follow constraints ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
695 cases
  • Hill v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, Civil Action No. 1:15–CV–1801–LMM.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Northern District of Georgia
    • June 8, 2015
    ...v. Am. Trucking Assocs., 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) ). "Whether the statute delegates legislative power is a question for the courts, and an agency's ......
  • Buckley v. Valeo, No. 75-1061
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • August 29, 1975
    ...according to common sense and the inherent necessities of the governmental co-ordination. J. W. Hampton, Jr. & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 394, 406, 48 S.Ct. 348, 72 L.Ed. 624 (1928). Under this interpretation, one department may exercise some powers belonging to other departments wh......
  • Big Time Vapes, Inc. v. Food & Drug Admin., No. 19-60921
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • June 25, 2020
    ...or body authorized [to exercise the authority] is directed to conform." 963 F.3d 442 J.W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States , 276 U.S. 394, 409, 48 S.Ct. 348, 72 L.Ed. 624 (1928). It is "constitutionally sufficient if Congress clearly delineates the general policy, the publ......
  • Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., No. 07–582.
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • April 28, 2009
    ...” and the agency must follow it. Id., at 372, 109 S.Ct. 647 (quoting [556 U.S. 537]J.W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 394, 409, 48 S.Ct. 348, 72 L.Ed. 624 (1928)). Congress passed the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to ensure that agencies follow constraints even as ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • SEC's Climate Risk Disclosure Proposal Likely To Face Legal Challenges
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • May 12, 2022
    ...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 ......
15 books & journal articles
  • Administering the National Environmental Policy Act
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Reporter Nbr. 45-4, April 2015
    • April 1, 2015
    ...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, 65......
  • New Wine in Old Bottles: Distorting the Antiquities Act to Aggrandize Executive Power
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Reporter Nbr. 48-4, April 2018
    • April 1, 2018
    ...58. 293 U.S. 388, 421 (1935). 59. See , e.g. , Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S. 414 (1944); J.W. Hampton Jr. & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 394, 406-07 (1928); Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361, 373 (1989). 607, 448 U.S. 646 (1980); National Cable Television Assn. v. United Sta......
  • THE CONTINGENT ORIGINS OF FINANCIAL LEGISLATION.
    • United States
    • Washington University Law Review Vol. 99 Nbr. 1, September 2021
    • September 1, 2021
    ...REV. 599, 607 (2010). (389.) Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361, 372 (1989) (quoting J.W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 394, 409 (390.) Only twice (both times in 1935) has the Court struck down delegations based on Congress's failure to provide an intelligible pri......
  • The Separation-Of-Powers Counterrevolution.
    • United States
    • Yale Law Journal Vol. 131 Nbr. 7, May 2022
    • May 1, 2022
    ...See supra note 111 and accompanying text. (388.) Brief of Appellee at 3, Embry v. United States, 100 U.S. 680 (1879) (No. 253). (389.) 276 U.S. 394 (390.) Id. at 406. (391.) See, e.g., Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 121-22 (1976). (392.) See Seila L. LLC v. Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau, 140 S.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT