Summary

Portrait of Samuel Freeman Miller Samuel Freeman Miller Campbell v. United States (107 U.S. 407…

He concludes nobody's rights, and has no power to do so. The rights which the law gives cannot be defeated by his refusal to act, nor by his decision that no drawback was due. Neither the act of congress, nor any rule of construction known to us, makes the claimant's right, when the facts on which it depends are clearly established, to turn upon the view which the collector, or the secretary, or both combined, may entertain of the law upon that subject, and much less upon their arbitrary refusal to perform the services which the law imposes on them.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Samuel Freeman Miller Samuel Freeman Miller Campbell v. United States (107 U.S. 407…

A suggestion is made that the right to enforce the drawback in the court is affected by the fact that it is a gratuity. It has never been supposed that there was a gratuity in all the cases where imports are free of duty. The purpose of the drawback provision is to make duty free, imports which are manufactured here and then returned whence they came or to some other foreign country-articles which are not sold or consumed in the United States. The linseed in this case was bought abroad and imported for the purpose of being manufactured, and the product immediately sent out of the country.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature