Scribd
Upload
5K views

Whitney v. Robertson

Merchants imported sugar from San Domingo claiming it should be duty free under a treaty. When they had to pay duties, they sued. The Court affirmed that both treaties and acts of Congress are supreme law, but if they conflict, the most recent one controls. Here, the acts of Congress imposing duties were later than the treaty, so the acts of Congress allowing duties collection took precedence. The ruling established that the most recent law controls if a treaty and statute conflict.

Uploaded by

crlstinaaa
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as TXT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
5K views

Whitney v. Robertson

Merchants imported sugar from San Domingo claiming it should be duty free under a treaty. When they had to pay duties, they sued. The Court affirmed that both treaties and acts of Congress are supreme law, but if they conflict, the most recent one controls. Here, the acts of Congress imposing duties were later than the treaty, so the acts of Congress allowing duties collection took precedence. The ruling established that the most recent law controls if a treaty and statute conflict.

Uploaded by

crlstinaaa
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as TXT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Treaties and the Constitution

Case: Whitney v. Robertson (1888; US)

Facts: Merchants were importing sugar from San Domingo, and when they arrived at
the custom house in NY, they claimed b/c of the treaty btwn US & San Domingo, that
the goods should be admitted duty free. The collector at the port refused, and the
merchants were made to pay $21,936 in duties. Merchants then brought this claim to
get back the duties paid. Merchants (P) argued that the treaty btwn US and San
Domingo promised to provide most favored nation treatment to imports from San
Domingo. The most favored nation treatment was from a treaty btwn US and the
Hawaiian Islands, where certain goods, including sugar, were exempt from duty-
collection. Collector of the port (D) argued that he treated the goods as
dutiable articles under the acts of Congress.

Issue: Whether a treaty supersedes conflicting acts of Congress. -Not


necessarily, both are binding.

Holding: Affirmed for D.

Reasoning: Both self-executing treaties and acts of Congress are considered


supreme laws of the land, and both should have effect. Justice Fields says that
when they conflict with each other, "the one last in date will control the other."
Since the acts of Congress were dated last, they control. He also says that if
the country with which the treaty is made is dissatisfied with the action of the
US legislative dept, then they may present a complaint to the executive had of the
govt.

RULE: In the case of a conflict btwn a federal statute and a treaty, the one last
in date will control.

Notes

• Hierarchy - last in time rule


• Here the act of congress has trumped an earlier treaty
• Dualism again
○ Domestically, we care about checks and balances, that treaty no longer has
any effect
○ But in international realm, this is a problem, b/c we are not honoring the
treaty with Dominican Republic
§ Breaching treaty - can be taken to ICJ, etc.
§ Example of dualist - domestic vs. international obligations

You might also like