The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1888-01-26
SAN DOMINGO SUGAR.
AN INTERESTING SUP ENIE COURT DE-
CISION.

CIsIoy.
Washington, Jan. 9.-In the STU
preme Court to-day q decision was
rendered in the case of James L.
Whitney arc others against William
A. Robertson, Collector of the port
of New York. The question pre-
sented by this case is the force and
scoge of certain provisions contained
in treaties concluded between the
United States and the Republic of
San Domingo and the Kingdom of
Hawaii, respectively. The plaintiffs
in error, who are merchants of New
York City, imported in 1882 from
the island of San Domingo a large
quantity of centrifugal and molasses
sugars, similar in kind TO sugars
imported free of duty from the
Sandwich Islands. The Collector
exacted duties on the San Domingo
sugars to the amount of S22, 900,
which the importers paid under pro.
test and then brought this suit to
recover the money so eXacted on the
ground that, by virtue of the ninth
article of the treaty between the
United States and the Dominican
Republic, the United States was
debared from imposing any higher
duty upon the products of San
Domingo than should be imposed
upon similar products of other
countries with which the United
States might have commercial rela-
tions.
HAWAIIAN SUGAR.
Sugars of the kind here in con-
troversy were imported free of duty
from the Sandwich Islands under the
treaty provisions, therefore it was
contended that they should be adj
mitted free of duty from the Island
of San Domingo.
The Supreme Court in an opinion
by Justice Field holds
First-That the ninth article OF
the treaty between the United States
and San Domingo was merely {
pledge of the contracting parties
that there should be no discriminat
ing legislation against the importa
ton of articles which are the growth
product or manufacture of theiI
respective countries in favor O.
articles of like character from any
other country. 1t was never de
signed to prevent special concessions
like those made to the Kingdom o
Hawaii, upon sufficient considera
tions, for the importation of specific
articles. 1t would require the clear
est language to justify the conclu
sion that the Government of tn,
United States intended to preclud
itself from such engagements will
other countries which might in tn
future be of the highest impoltanc
to our interests.
THE LAWS REQUIREMENTS.
Secondhand the act of Congress
under which the duties in this cas-
were collected authorized their e1
action. 1t was of general apple;
ton and made no exception in fave
of the goods of any country.
was passed after the treaty with til
Dominican Republic, and if there /
any conflict between the stipulation
of the treaty and the requirement
of the law the latter must contro
If the country with which the treat
is made is dissatisfied with the actio
of the Legislative Department
may present its complaints to IL
Executive head of the Governmel
and take such other measures as
may deem essential for the prote
ton of its interests. The Cour
can afford no redress when the la
is clear in its provisions. Its vail,
ity cannot be assailed before IL
Courts for want of conformity
the stipulations of previous trea
not already executed. The judi
ment of the United States Circr
Court in favor of the Collector
affirmed.
A similar decision was render,
in the case of Hugh Kelly V
Edward l.. Hedden, Collector, viii,