KELLY
v.
HEDDEN
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In Kelly v. Hedden, the Supreme Court affirmed that an 1883 tariff act did not violate a prior treaty with San Domingo regarding duty-free importation of goods, because the statute contained a savings clause explicitly preserving the force of existing treaties on the same subjects. The Court held that subsequent legislation does not automatically conflict with treaty provisions when the legislation is drafted to protect those treaty obligations.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Field delivered the opinion of the court.
This case, except in one particular, presents the-same questions considered and determined in Whitney v. Robertson. The exceptional circumstance is this, that the act of 1883, under which the duties were levied and collected, to recover which the action is brought, declares that nothing in it “ shall in any way change or impair the force and effect of any treaty between the United States and any other government, or any laws passed in pursuance of or for the execution of any such «treaty,, so long as such treaty shall remain in force in respect of the subjects embraced .in this aet.” 22 Stat.
525. The most that can be conceded to this provision is, that it leaves a previous treaty relating to the same subjects unaffected by the act. Our observations in the former case, as to the effect of subsequent legislation in conflict with the stipulations of a treaty, are therefore inapplicable to the present case. But all other considerations as to specific exemptions in return for special concéssions remain, in answer to the alleged contention of the plaintiffs that articles, the produce and manufacture of the island of San Domingo should he admitted free of duty because similar articles, the produce and manufacture of the Hawaiian Islands, are thus admitted.
Judgment affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Five Per Cent. Disc. Cases, 243 U.S. 97 (U.S. 1917)
-
Utah Fuel Co. v. Nat'l Bituminous Coal Comm'n, 101 F.2d 426 (D.C. Cir. 1938)…threatened injury, and thus obtain judicial relief before the prescribed administrative remedy has been exhausted, have been held to be at war with the long-settled rule of judicial administration. Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., 303 U.S. 41, 8 S.Ct. 459, 82 L.Ed. 638. See also, Securities & Exchange Comm’n v. Andrews, 2 Cir., 88 F. 2d 441.” See United States v. Los Angeles & Salt Lake R. R., 273 U.S. 299, 314, 47 S.Ct. 413, 71 L.Ed. 651. See Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., 303 U.S. 41, 51,…
-
Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs OF Dade Cnty. v. Aerolineas Peruanasa, 307 F.2d 802 (5th Cir. 1962)…e inapplicable in situations where exceptions are made for valuable consideration. Bartram v. Robertson, 1887, 122 U.S. 116, 7 S.Ct. 1115, 30 L.Ed. 1118; Whitney v. Robertson, 1888, 124 U.S. 190, 8 S.Ct. 456, 31 L.Ed. 386; and Kelly v. Hedden, 1888, 124 U.S. 196, 8 S.Ct. 459, 31 L.Ed. 389. The compelling logic of these cases is persuasive if not controlling in this regard, and we adopt it as controlling here. Plaintiffs in Bartram were importers of sugar from a Danish possession. They sought a refund of du…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence