Today in Supreme Court History: October 22, 1915

10/22/1915: Hadacheck v. Sebastian argued.

The White Court (1914-1916)

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Maney v. United States, 278 U.S. 17 (decided October 22, 1928): District Court award of citizenship was not res judicata; United States could still institute cancellation proceedings; award could be attacked on basis that necessary Certificate of Arrival from the Department of Labor had not been attached to petition

Davis v. Wechsler, 263 U.S. 22 (decided October 22, 1923): Supreme Court can review facts on federal claim that had been rendered irrelevant by state court due to state rules on pleading

American Ry. Express Co. v. Levee, 263 U.S. 19 (decided October 22, 1923): common carrier limitation on liability, though invalid under state law, is valid under ICC rules which supersede on interstate commerce (here, damages for value of contents of trunk lost by railroad)

Benziger v. Robertson, 122 U.S. 211 (decided October 22, 1887): imported rosaries are not subject to tariff on "beads or bead ornaments"; though made of the same material, they are used in prayer and not as ornaments and put in pockets when prayers are finished (having grown up Catholic in the 1960's I saw rosaries used ostentatiously, in effect as ornaments, and also the nuns wore them around their waists like belts)

[Michael D]

The absurdity of a tariff on “beads or bead ornaments” cannot be understated.

[F.D. Wolf]

There were tariffs on essentially everything because, before the income tax, tariffs were the main source of revenue for the federal government.

In this case, the plaintiffs were suing to recover some of the duties they had already paid, not under the theory that they were duty-free, but they should not have been categorized as "beads and bead ornaments", but as "manufactures of wood", "manufactures of glass", etc., as the case may be, because those had lower tariffs. Beads had a 50% tariff, whereas, for example, it was 35% on manufactures of glass and 40% on wood.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Good thing there wasn't a rate per Hail Mary. Though per Our Father wouldn't be so bad.

[Krayt]

The Bible says what to do, especially in the face of a dishonest, self-serving, corrupt government official.

Pay to Ceasar what is Ceasar's, and to God what is God's.

[Dan Schiavetta]

The Pharisees continually tried to trap Jesus, but he would defeat them with a clever reply, such as this one.

[Gandydancer]

What clever reply?

[Dan Schiavetta]

“Pay to Ceasar what is Ceasar’s, and to God what is God’s.“

IOW, pay your taxes. He was holding up a coin with Caesar’s face on it. Which meant the Pharisees couldn’t turn him in to the Romans, at least not for that reason. But of course as to other matters the statement, while acceptable to everyone, begs the important question as to what belongs to whom.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

But there’s no theological dilemma if Caesar issues a rescript saying, “my officials were too greedy; by law your tax obligation is lower than they claimed.”