Case Name: KELLY v. HEDDEN
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1888-01-09
Citations: 124 U.S. 196
Docket Number: 
Parties: KELLY v. HEDDEN.
Judges: 
Reporter: United States Reports
Volume: 124
Pages: 196–197

Head Matter:
KELLY v. HEDDEN.
ERROR TO THE CIECUIT COUET OF THE UNITED STATES FOE THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF HEW YORK.
Argued December 13, 14, 1887.
Decided January 9, 1888.
The distinction between this case and Whitney v. Robertson, ante, 190, does not warrant a different disposition of it.
This was an action to recover back duties alleged to have been illegally exacted. It was argued with Whitney v. Robertson, ante, 190.
Mr. A. J. Willard and Mr. H. E. Tremain for plaintiff in error. Mr. M. W. Tyler was with them on their brief.
Mr. Solicitor General for defendant in error.

Opinion:
Me. 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.