Whitney v. Robertson
| Decision Date | 09 January 1888 |
| Parties | WHITNEY et al. v. ROBERTSON, Collector. 1 |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
A. J. Willard, H. E. Tremain, and M. W. Tyler, 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 August, 1882, they imported a large quan- tity of 'centrifugal and molasses sugars,' the produce and manufacture of the island of San Domingo. These goods were similar in kind to sugars produced in the Hawaiian islands, which are admitted free of duty under the treaty with the king of those islands, and the act of congress passed to carry the treaty into effect. They were duly entered at the custom-house at the port of New York; the plaintiffs claiming that, by the treaty with the republic of San Domingo, the goods should be admitted on the same terms, that is, free of duty, as similar articles, the produce and manufacture of the Hawaiian islands. The defendant, who was at the time collector of the port, refused to allow this claim, treated the goods as dutiable articles under the acts of congress, and exacted duties on them to the amount of $21,936. The plaintiffs appealed from the collector's decision to the secretary of of the treasury, by whom the appeal was denied. They then paid, under protest, the duties exacted, and brought the oresent action to recover the amount. The complaint set forth the facts as to the importation of the goods; the claim of the plaintiffs that they should be admitted free of duty, because like articles from the Hawaiian islands were thus admitted; the refusal of the collector to allow the claim; the appeal from his decision to the secretary of the treasury, and its denial by him; and the payment, under protest, of the duties exacted; and concluded with a prayer for judgment for the amount. The defendant demurred to the complaint, the demurrer was sustained, and final judgment was entered in his favor; to review which the case is brought here.
The treaty with the king of the Hawaiian islands provides for the importation into the United States, free of duty, of various articles, the produce and manufacture of those islands, in consideration, among other things, of like exemption from duty on the importation into that country of sundry specified articles which are the produce and manufacture of the United States. 19 St. 200. The language of the first two articles of the treaty, which recite the reciprocal engagements of the two countries, declares that they are made in consideration 'of the rights and privileges,' and 'as an equivalent therefor,' which one concedes to the other. The plaintiffs rely for a like exemption of the sugars imported by them from San Domingo upon the ninth article of the treaty with the Dominican republic, which is as follows: 'No higher or other duty shall be imposed on the importation into the United States of any article, the growth, produce, or manufacture of the Dominican republic, or of her fisheries; and no higher or other duty shall be imposed on the importation into the Dominican republic of any article, the growth, produce, or manufacture of the United States, or their fisheries, than are or shall be payable on the like articles, the growth, procuce, or manufacture of any other foreign country, or its fisheries.' 15 St. 475.
In Bartram v. Robertson, (decided at the last term,) 122 U. S. 116, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1115, we held that brown and unrefined sugars, the produce and manufacture of the island of St. Croix, which is part of the dominions of the king of Denmark, were not exempt from duty by force of the treaty with that country, because similar goods from the Hawaiian islands were thus exempt. The first article of the treaty with Denmark provided that the contracting parties should not grant 'any particular favor' to other nations in respect to commerce and navigation which should not immediately become common to the other party, who should 'enjoy the same freely if the concession were freely made, and upon allowing the same compensation if the concession were conditional.' 11 St. 719. The fourth article provided that no 'higher or other duties' should be imposed by either party on the importation of any article which is its produce or manufacture into the country of the other party than is payable on like articles, being the produce or manufacture of any other foreign country. And we held, in the case mentioned, that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sei Fujii v. State
...in the courts. See Head Money Cases (Edye v. Robertson) 112 U.S. 580, 598, 5 S.Ct. 247, 254, 28 L.Ed. 798; Whitney v. Robertson, 124 U.S. 190, 194, 8 S.Ct. 456, 458, 31 L.Ed. 386; Cook v. United States, 288 U.S. 102, 118-119, 53 S.Ct. 305, 311, 77 L.Ed. 641; Valentine v. United States, 299 ......
-
Sanchez-Llamas v. Bustillo, Nos. 04–10566
...cases in support of its position, Charlton v. Kelly, 229 U.S. 447, 474, 33 S.Ct. 945, 57 L.Ed. 1274 (1913); Whitney v. Robertson, 124 U.S. 190, 195, 8 S.Ct. 456, 31 L.Ed. 386 (1888); and Foster, 2 Pet., at 306–307, 7 L.Ed. 415. The first of these, Charlton, says that the question whether a ......
-
U.S. ex rel. Rickard v. Sternes
...is federal law and is cloaked in the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the United States Constitution. Whitney v. Robertson, 124 U.S. 190, 194, 8 S.Ct. 456, 31 L.Ed. 386 (1888) (holding that under the Constitution a treaty is on equal footing with federal legislation); see also United State......
-
United States v. Enger
...between the two are resolved by the doctrine of implied repeal, with the later in time prevailing. In Whitney v. Robertson, 124 U.S. 190, 194, 8 S.Ct. 456, 458, 31 L.Ed. 386 (1888), the Supreme Court By the constitution, a treaty is placed on the same footing, and made of like obligation, w......
-
Enforcing international commercial arbitration agreements and awards in U.S. Courts: is the New York convention a 'self-executing' treaty?
...of powers issue. 20. Medellín v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008). 21. Id. at 504–06 (citations omitted) (quoting Whitney v. Robertson, 124 U.S. 190, 194 (1888)); see also Edye v. Robertson (The Head Money Cases), 112 U.S. 580, 598–99 (1884) (“A treaty, then, is the law of the land as an act of c......
-
International Miranda? Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations
...44. Id. at 185. See also, United States v. $69,530.00 in United States Currency, supra, 22 F.Supp.2d 593. 45. See Whitney v. Robertson, 124 U.S. 190, 194, 31 L.Ed. 386, 8 S.Ct. 456 (1888). 46. 68 F.Supp.2d at 185(citing Mallory v. United States, 354 U.S. 449, 1 L.Ed.2d 1479, 77 S.Ct. 1356 (......
-
The Judicial Philosophy of Chief Justice John Roberts: an Analysis Through the Eyes of International Law
...U.S. (2 Pet.) 253, 254, 314 (1829), overruled in part by United States v. Percheman, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 51 (1833).98. Whitney v. Robertson, 124 U.S. 190, 194 (1888).99. Medellín v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491, 505 (2008) (quoting Igartua-De La Rosa v. United States, 417 F.3d 145, 150 (1st Cir. 2005) ......
-
THE IMAGINARY IMMIGRATION CLAUSE.
...Cases), 112 U.S. 580, 597 (1884). (362.) Id. at 598 (citing In re Ah Lung, 18 F. at 28). (363.) Id. at 600. (364.) Whitney v. Robertson, 124 U.S. 190, 195 (365.) Act of July 5, 1884, ch. 220, 23 Stat. 115 (1884)(repealed 1943); H.R. Rep. No. 48-614, at 2 (1884). (366.) Angell Treaty of 1880......