Head Money cases, Edye v Robertson 112 US 580 (1884) Facts: In 1882 the Congress passed an act providing

that a duty of fifty cents should be collected for each and every passenger who was not a citizen of the United States, coming from a foreign port to any port within the United States. Individuals and steamship companies brought suit against the collector of customs at New York, Mr. WH Robertson, for the recovery of the sums of money collected. The act was challenge on the grounds that it violated numerous treaties of the US government with friendly nations. Issue: WON the act is void because of the conflict with the treaty. Ruling: A treaty is a compact between independent nations, which depends for its enforcement upon the interest and honor of the governments that are parties to a treaty. Treaties that regulate the mutual rights of citizens and subjects of the contracting nations are in the same category as acts of Congress. When these rights are of such a nature as to be enforced by a court of justice, the court resorts to the treaty as it would to a statute. However, a constitution gives a treaty no superiority over an act on congress. In short, so far as a treaty made by the United States with any foreign nation can become the subject of judicial cognizance in the courts of this country, it is subject to such acts as Congress may pass for its enforcement, modification, or repeal. Whitney v Robertson 124 US 190 (1888) 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 between 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 between 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 between 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 between a federal statute and a treaty, the one last in date will control.