Ex Parte Hitz
111 U.S. 766 · 1884 U.S. LEXIS 1832 · 28 L. Ed. 592 · 4 S. Ct. 698
May 5, 1884
Headnotes
Generated summaries- Headnote 1
Hitz asserted he was a political agent of the Swiss Confederation and sought free entry of his imported goods. The Department of State, via letters from Secretaries Seward and Fish, found no ground to continue such privilege. The Court held that without an affirmative State determination, no diplomatic privilege exists.
- Headnote 2
The Court explained that the writ of certiorari, when applied for by a defendant, is not a writ of right but is discretionary. Accordingly, the Court denied Hitz's petition, leaving the parties to pursue other remedies.
- Headnote 3
The Court held that certiorari applications do not confer a guaranteed right to Supreme Court review and may be refused at the Court’s discretion, leaving the parties to seek other remedies.
- Headnote 4
The record showed the Department of State received Hitz’s credentials but concluded there was no basis to extend free‑entry privilege, illustrating that diplomatic privileges arise only from explicit governmental recognition.
- Headnote 5
The Court examined Mr. Hitz’s claim of political‑agent status for the Swiss Confederation. The State Department’s records contained only his credential letter and a response stating that no ground existed to continue a privilege of free entry for his goods. Accordingly, the Court held no diplomatic privilege existed.
- Headnote 6
The Court noted that a writ of certiorari, when filed by a defendant, is not a guaranteed entitlement. Because the writ is discretionary, the Court exercised its authority to dismiss the petition, leaving the parties to seek other remedies.
Opinion
delivered the ^.pinion of the court. He stated the facts in the foregoing language and continued:
Precisely what the relations of Mr. Hitz to the United States were as' Political Agent of the Swiss Confederation we have not been advised, and on application to the Department of State, made on the suggestion of the court by the counsel in this proceeding, we are informed that the records of the department show nothing upon this subject except a letter from him under date of March,30th, 1868, enclosing his letter of credence, and soliciting an interview with the Secretary of State for its formal presentation; the answer of Secretary Seward according such an interview, and fixing the 2d of April as the time; and a letter from Secretary Fish to Mr. Hitz, under date of June 28th, 1870, informing him that he (the Secretary) did not find in his relations to the United States-any ground for continuing the privilege to him of a free entry of goods imported for his use.
Under these circumstances, as the writ of certiorari, when applied for - by a defendant, is not a writ of right, but discretionary With the court (Bac. Ab. Certiorari A), we deny this application, leaving the parties to such remedies as they may be entitled to elsewhere, or under any other form of proceeding.
Petition dismissed.