Whitney v. Robertson
124 U.S. 190 (1888)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a self-executing treaty and a federal statute conflict on the same subject, the one enacted later in time will control as domestic law in United States courts. A self-executing treaty has the same legal standing as a federal statute, and neither is superior to the other.
Facts:
- The United States and the Dominican Republic were parties to a treaty containing a 'most-favored-nation' clause, which stipulated that no higher duty would be imposed on Dominican goods than on like articles from any other foreign country.
- The United States also had a separate treaty with the Hawaiian Islands, which provided for the duty-free importation of Hawaiian sugar in exchange for reciprocal trade concessions.
- In August 1882, the plaintiffs, New York merchants, imported a quantity of centrifugal and molasses sugars from the Dominican Republic.
- The imported Dominican sugars were of the same kind as the sugars produced in the Hawaiian Islands that were admitted duty-free.
- A general Act of Congress, passed after the Dominican treaty was ratified, imposed duties on all such imported sugars without making an exception for any country.
- Robertson, the collector of the port of New York, assessed and exacted duties on the plaintiffs' sugar pursuant to this Act of Congress.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiffs imported sugars and claimed they should be admitted duty-free at the custom house in New York.
- The defendant, the collector of the port, refused the claim and exacted duties amounting to $21,936.
- The plaintiffs appealed the collector's decision to the Secretary of the Treasury, who denied the appeal.
- The plaintiffs paid the duties under protest and brought an action in a lower federal court to recover the amount paid.
- The defendant demurred to the complaint.
- The lower court sustained the demurrer and entered a final judgment in favor of the defendant.
- The plaintiffs brought the case to the Supreme Court of the United States for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a federal statute imposing a duty on imported goods prevail over a conflicting provision in an earlier, self-executing treaty that would otherwise grant those goods duty-free status under a most-favored-nation clause?
Opinions:
Majority - Field
Yes, a federal statute prevails over a conflicting provision in an earlier treaty. The Court offered two independent lines of reasoning. First, the most-favored-nation clause in the Dominican treaty was not intended to apply to special arrangements, like the Hawaiian treaty, which were founded upon the concession of special privileges in exchange for valuable consideration. Such clauses are pledges against discriminatory legislation, not guarantees of concessions made to other nations for reciprocal benefits. Second, and more fundamentally, the Act of Congress imposing the duties was passed after the Dominican treaty. The Constitution places treaties and acts of legislation on the same footing as the 'supreme law of the land,' with no superior efficacy given to either. If the two are inconsistent, the one last in date must control. Any complaint by the Dominican Republic about a violation of the treaty is a political question to be resolved by the executive and legislative branches through diplomacy, not a matter for judicial redress.
Analysis:
This case firmly establishes the 'last-in-time' rule, treating self-executing treaties and federal statutes as co-equal sources of domestic law. It empowers Congress to legislate in ways that may override or abrogate the domestic legal effect of prior treaties, even if doing so places the United States in violation of its international obligations. This decision clearly separates the domestic enforceability of a treaty from the nation's international obligations, designating the former as a judicial question and the latter as a political one for the other branches of government to resolve.
Unlock the full brief for Whitney v. Robertson