In the 1895 case of Streep v. United States, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a matter involving customs duties. The plaintiff, Streep, imported iron from Belgium and was charged with an import duty under the Tariff Act of 1890. He protested this charge arguing that his goods should have been classified as "iron in slabs," which would have resulted in a lower duty rate according to another section of the same act. However, both the Circuit Court for Southern New York and later on appeal by SCOTUS upheld that classification made by Customs officials was correct based upon their interpretation of what constituted 'slab iron'. They concluded it did not include such forms as those imported by Streep (i.e., thin sheets). Therefore, they affirmed that he had been correctly charged under law at time for his specific type of importation.

The dissenting opinion in the case of STREEP v. UNITED STATES argued that the majority's decision to uphold Streep's conviction for perjury was incorrect because it relied on a flawed interpretation of the law. The dissent contended that, under federal law, perjury could only be committed when false testimony is given under oath in an official proceeding or investigation. In this case, Streep had lied during a private conversation with a government agent who was conducting an informal inquiry and not acting as part of any formal legal process at the time. Therefore, according to the dissenters' view, his actions did not meet the statutory definition of perjury and he should have been acquitted.