Whitney v. Robertson 123 U.S.

190 (1888) Facts: Merchants working in New York imported sugar from San Domingo and were subsequently charged with a duty on the sugar. The merchants refused to pay, citing the exemption of duties on sugar imported from Hawaii under a treaty with the King of Hawaii. The duty collector of New York insisted on payment, since statute holds such a product is a dutiable good. The merchants appealed to the Secretary of the Treasury. The appeal was denied and the merchants payed the duty and filed a claim against the duty collector of New York in order to recoup the cost. As justification for their case, the merchants cited a treaty with the dominions of the King of Denmark which prohibited either party (the United States and Denmark) from charging the other a higher duty than that being charged on products of a similar kind from foreign countries. The merchants argued that the treaty was similar in this respect to that the United States had with San Domingo. Therefore, the merchants should not pay higher duties than that being payed for a similar product (sugar, in this instance) from a foreign country and Hawaii pays zero duty; the merchants thus argued they should not have to pay any more than zero duty on the sugar imported from San Domingo. During the subsequent trial the defendant demurred the complaint, and the judge sustained the demurrer. The judge ruled in the defendant's favor and the plaintiffs appealed. Legal Question: Are the merchants exempted from paying duties on the imported sugar under the treaty with San Domingo, despite the fact that statute treats the sugar as dutiable? Decision: No. Rationale: The treaty with the dominions of the King of Denmark does not prohibit exemptions on duties based upon special privileges, as the United States has established with Hawaii. Rather, it is merely meant to prohibit punitive legislative against either party of the treaty. Since the treaty with the dominions and the treaty with San Domingo are exactly analogous, what holds for the former also holds for the latter. Therefore, the United States can legally impose duties on imports from San Domingo while not doing the same for like products from Hawaii. Independent of the above argument, the merchants still must pay the duty for the following reason: the Constitution treats both legislative acts and treaties as the supreme law of the United States. Both are put on an equal footing. The court will attempt to give power to both, but when a treaty and an act of legislation on the same subject matter contradict one another, it is the most recent of the two which is to be upheld, whether it is the treaty or the legislative act. And in the case of the statute treating the sugar as dutiable, it was passed more recently than the treaty with San Domingo. Therefore, if indeed there is a contradiction, it is the statute which must be upheld. Significance: This ruling is significant for determining the role of treaties in American law because of its rationale that when a treaty and a statute, or a treaty and another treaty on the same subject contradict one another, it is the most recent law or treaty which is to be upheld.