Whitney V. Robertson 6i3e2q

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 itted 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 dutycollection. 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