Cramer v. Arthur’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 71 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The plaintiff seeks to go behind this valuation, and to show that at the time of the purchase of the goods the value of the silver florin in Vienna, as quoted in the papers, and as exhibited by the actual rate of exchange, was less than 47.60 cents, namely, 45.60 cents, and that the value of the paper florin was 43.71 cents. This, we think, the plaintiff cannot be allowed to do. The proclamation of the secretary and the certificate of the consul must be regarded as conclusive. In the estimation of the value of foreign moneys for the purpose of assessing duties there must be an end to controversy somewhere. When congress fixes the value by a general statute, parties must abide by that. When it fixes the value through the agency of official instrumentalities, devised for the purpose of making a nearer approximation to the actual state of things, they must abide by the values so ascertained. If the currency is a standard one, based on coin, the secretary’s proclamation fixes it; if it is a depreciated currency, the parties may have the benefit of a consular certificate. To go behind these, and allow an examination by affidavits in every ease, would put the assessment of duties at sea. It would create utter confusion and uncertainty. * * * It is of the utmost consequence to the government, and it is, on the whole, most beneficial to importers, that the value of foreign moneys should be officially ascertained, and that they should be fixed by a uniform method or rule ” 102 U. S. ”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hadden v. Merritt · United States v. J. Allston Newhall & Co.

2. ““First. Where the standard value of a foreign currency has been proclaimed by the secretary 'of the treasury in the manner provided by law, or, not having been so proclaimed, has been fixed by special enactment, that value is to be taken in all cases in estimating customs duties, unless collectors have been otherwise instructed, or unless a‘depreciation of the value of the foreign currency expressed in an invoice from the standard of that currency shall be shown by consular certificate thereto attached. Secondly. Where the standard value of a foreign currency has not been proclaimed by the secretary of the treasury, in the manner provided by law, an invoice expressed in such currency must be accompanied by a consular certificate, showing its value in standard gold dollars of the United States.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. J. Allston Newhall & Co. · Amalgamated Textiles, Ltd. v. United States

3. “That valuation, so long as it remained unchanged,, was binding on the collector and, on importers — just. as binding as if it had been in a permanent statute, like the statute of 1846, for example. Parties cannot be permitted to go behind the proclamation, any more than they would have been permitted to go behind the statute, for the purpose of proving, by parol or by financial quotations in gazettes, that its valuations are inaccurate. The government gets at the truth as near as it can, and proclaims it. Importers and collectors must abide by the rule as proclaimed. It would be a constant source of confusion and uncertainty if every importer could on every invoice, raise the question of the value of foreign moneys and coins,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hadden v. Merritt