Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 105 views

    Whitney Vs Robertson

    Uploaded by

    Meah Brusola
    Whitney, a merchant, sued Robertson, a customs official, to challenge duties imposed on sugar imports from the Dominican Republic. Whitney argued this violated a treaty guaranteeing equal tariff treatment between the US and Dominican Republic. However, Congress later passed an act authorizing duties on goods from the Dominican Republic. The lower court ruled in favor of Robertson, upholding the duties. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that when a treaty and later legislative act conflict, the act takes precedence based on its more recent enactment. While the act made terms of the treaty unenforceable, the treaty's status as a binding international commitment remained.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Whitney Vs Robertson

    Uploaded by

    Meah Brusola
    105 views1 page
    Whitney, a merchant, sued Robertson, a customs official, to challenge duties imposed on sugar imports from the Dominican Republic. Whitney argued this violated a treaty guaranteeing equal tariff treatment between the US and Dominican Republic. However, Congress later passed an act authorizing duties on goods from the Dominican Republic. The lower court ruled in favor of Robertson, upholding the duties. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that when a treaty and later legislative act conflict, the act takes precedence based on its more recent enactment. While the act made terms of the treaty unenforceable, the treaty's status as a binding international commitment remained.

    Original Title

    Whitney vs Robertson

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Whitney, a merchant, sued Robertson, a customs official, to challenge duties imposed on sugar imports from the Dominican Republic. Whitney argued this violated a treaty guaranteeing equal tariff treatment between the US and Dominican Republic. However, Congress later passed an act authorizing duties on goods from the Dominican Republic. The lower court ruled in favor of Robertson, upholding the duties. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that when a treaty and later legislative act conflict, the act takes precedence based on its more recent enactment. While the act made terms of the treaty unenforceable, the treaty's status as a binding international commitment remained.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    105 views1 page

    Whitney Vs Robertson

    Uploaded by

    Meah Brusola
    Whitney, a merchant, sued Robertson, a customs official, to challenge duties imposed on sugar imports from the Dominican Republic. Whitney argued this violated a treaty guaranteeing equal tariff treatment between the US and Dominican Republic. However, Congress later passed an act authorizing duties on goods from the Dominican Republic. The lower court ruled in favor of Robertson, upholding the duties. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that when a treaty and later legislative act conflict, the act takes precedence based on its more recent enactment. While the act made terms of the treaty unenforceable, the treaty's status as a binding international commitment remained.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    WHITNEY, et.al. vs.

    ROBERTSON
    124 U.S. 190 January 9, 1888
    Facts
    Whitney, a merchant intricately involved in the importation of sugar from the Dominican Republic to the
    United States, initiated legal proceedings against Robertson, a Customs official within the United States.
    The core contention of Whitney's case was his objection to the imposition of duties on his sugar imports,
    rooted in his argument that the similarity between his product and sugar imported from the Hawaiian
    Islands, which was granted duty-free status, should exempt him from such duties. Central to Whitney's
    argument was a treaty between the United States and the Dominican Republic, wherein it was explicitly
    guaranteed that goods imported from the Dominican Republic would not be subjected to higher tariffs
    compared to imports from any other nation.
    The crux of Whitney's claim hinged on the perceived violation of the treaty's principle of equal tariff
    treatment between the United States and the Dominican Republic. However, a crucial counterpoint
    existed in the form of a Congressional act that authorized the collection of duties on goods coming from
    the Dominican Republic. Notably, this statute was enacted subsequent to the treaty's establishment
    between the two countries. In the initial trial, the lower court ruled in favor of Robertson, asserting the
    legality of the duties imposed on Whitney's sugar imports. Unsatisfied with the outcome, Whitney
    pursued an appeal to seek a different verdict on the matter.
    Issue
    Whether or not a conflict arises between a treaty and a legislative act, the determining factor rests on the
    sequence of their enactment, favoring the supremacy of the more recent one.
    Ruling
    Yes. In the context of a conflict arising between a treaty and a legislative act, precedence is accorded to
    the document with the more recent date of enactment. This principle finds validation in the present case
    where the act of Congress, which facilitated the imposition of duties on the imported sugar, came into
    existence subsequent to the treaty in question. As a result, the hierarchy of authority tilts in favor of the
    more recently promulgated statute, thereby solidifying its supremacy over the earlier treaty. This verdict
    stands as a validation of the sequence of enactment as a decisive criterion in resolving such discrepancies.
    It is imperative to emphasize that the coexistence of a later inconsistent statute alongside a pre-existing
    treaty does not inherently nullify or revoke the treaty itself. While the specific terms of the treaty might
    not retain their enforceability in the face of a subsequent contradictory legislative act, the treaty's status as
    a binding international commitment persists. This ruling reinforces the enduring legal relevance of the
    treaty, albeit in a constrained capacity, within the legal framework. This distinction underscores the
    nuanced interplay between domestic legislation and international obligations, illustrating that while
    legislative acts might alter the practical applicability of certain treaty clauses, the treaty's fundamental
    legal standing remains intact.

    You might also like