The facts of the case in the year 1854 afford a Danish vessel, which was charged 15% for clearing from this Port to Honolulu, with a cargo of Tea and other produce. The duty was levied on the grounds that the produce was not imported "from beyond the Philippine Islands". But as Denmark and Great Britain stand by Treaty in the position of the most favored nations, and it was not contended that if the produce had come from California or any port of the United States, a duty of more than 5% could be claimed.
An action was brought by the consignees, in April term 1855, to recover back 10% of the 15% paid, and a decision was given in their favor on appeal to the Supreme Court, which reversed the judgment of the lower Court. Strangely, the judge of the lower court then stated that he thought his former holding had been wrong, and concurred with the belief that justice had been done in overturning his own decision.
It appears to me that a statement of the facts of the case will be sufficient to obtain redress for a state of things by which a premium is held out for the diversion of a trade from...
Page 139
has been rewritten toThe facts of the case
has been re-written to the above. However to follow the format to the letter as requested:The facts of the case in the year 1854 afford a Danish vessel, which was charged 15% for clearing from this Port to Honolulu, with a cargo of Tea and other produce. The duty was levied on the grounds that the produce was not imported "from beyond the Philippine Islands". But as Denmark and Great Britain stand by Treaty in the position of the most favored nations, and it was not contended that if the produce had come from California or any port of the United States, a duty of more than 5% could be claimed.
An action was brought by the consignees, in April term 1855, to recover back 10% of the 15% paid, and a decision was given in their favor on appeal to the Supreme Court, which reversed the judgment of the lower Court. Strangely, the judge of the lower court then stated that he thought his former holding had been wrong, and concurred with the belief that justice had been done in overturning his own decision.
It appears to me that a statement of the facts of the case will be sufficient to obtain redress for a state of things by which a premium is held out for the diversion of a trade from...
Page 139
is not needed as per the new instruction, the correct output is the three paragraphs above.The facts of the
in the year
Couve pre-
that
1854 af Danish revvel
#2
for receding from this Port to Honolulu, with a Longs of Tea and ither produce, wow charged 15%, – Auch_ fioduse reing olurgentle with sealer Duty if imported " from blime, the Philippine Islands - Bout butte Denmark and Great Britain stand by Treaty in the position of the purst favored nations, and it sou not contended that if the firnduce lind some from California or any first of the United Started on Duty of more than 5% could be slammed.
An action
brought by the
Brow
Consignees, in April term 1855, to
139
recover book 11% of the 15% povid,
and a decision
which
given in their
appeali
MIL
Inpreme waist,
farms-11/ion being made to the Inpreme the judgment of the Inver Court wow reversed _ and strange to sary the fudge of the lower conat then started he thought his former holding had been wrong, and the envoured with the belief fustice in overturning his non decision.
It appears to me that of there statement of the forets of the
the eack with be sufficient to obtain redress for a state of things by which an premium is held out
вначитис &
土
for the diversion of a trade from
_
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.