ALASKA FISHEBY AND FUR-SEAL INDUSTRIES, 1920. 27 



oil, amounting to $8,224, and the tax of $2 per ton on 1,037 tons of 

 fish meal, amounting to $2,074, making a total tax of $10,298, for 

 which judgment was asked, together with interest thereon at 8 per 

 cent per annum from January 14, 1918. The second suit, for 1918 

 taxes, was filed on February 17, 1919, to recover the tax of $2 per 

 barrel on 2,720 barrels of fish oil, amounting to $5,440, and the tax 

 of $2 per ton on 645 tons of fish meal, amounting to $1,290, making 

 a total tax of $6,780, for which judgment was asked, together with 

 interest tliereon at 8 per cent per annum from Januar}- 15, 1919. 



Eight assignments of error were presented and based on the action 

 of the trial court in sustaining demurrers, dismissing the complaints, 

 denying plaint ill's motion for judgment, and rendering judgment 

 against the plaintiff, and thus upholding the constitutionality and 

 validity of the act of the Territorial Legislature and the taxes im- 

 posed thereby. The phiintiff company, through its attorney, filed a 

 brief before the United States Supreme Court on December 2, 1920, 

 setting forth at length the contention that the legislation imposing 

 the tax, to avoid which this litigation was had, contravened and vio- 

 lated the Constitution of the United States, particularly the fifth and 

 fourteenth amendments, in that the plaintiff was denied the equal 

 protection of the law and was deprived of its liberty and property 

 without the process of law; that the legislative classification of plain- 

 tiff's business was so arl)itrary and unreasonable as to constitute 

 class legislation, and that the tax was confiscatory and prohibitive, 

 and that it was not laid on other businesses or industries which were 

 essentially the same as plaintiff's business; that the legislation was a 

 clear abuse of the Territory's legislative authority, and that it ac- 

 complished, by means of an intentionally arbitrary and confiscn- 

 tory exaction imposed under the guise of a tax. the unauthorized 

 destruction and confiscation of a lawful pursuit; that the legislation 

 was a clear, arbitrary discrimination against the manufacture of fish 

 oil and fish meal from herring in wiiole or in i)art, although there 

 was no reasonable distinction between that business and other busi- 

 nesses in all essentials similar thereto carried on in Alaska upon 

 which no tax whatsoever was laid; that the legislation, if deemed to 

 be a police regulation, was unreasonable and unauthorized, as Con- 

 gress had expressly reserved police supervision and control of the 

 fisheries to itself; that the legislation was extortionate, unfair, and 

 prohibitive, and so confiscatory as to result in a tax of 1 1;{.64 per cent 

 of the net profits for one year; and that the legislation and the taxes 

 imposed thereby violated the Alaska Organic Act in that they were 

 not uniform on all occupations or businesses, nor were they uniform 

 on all businesses of the same class; that the tax exceeded 1 per cent 

 of the actual value of plaintiff's property, and that it was not levied 

 or assessed on the actual value of the property, but Avas purely an 

 arbitrary imposition in utter violation of the constitutional limita- 

 tions of the Alaska Organic Act. 



On January 81, 1921, the Supreme Court handed down a decision 

 aflirming tlie jurlgment of the trial court. In view of its interest 

 to the fishery industry of Alaska the opinion is here quoted in full, 

 as follows: 



Thi.s Is an ar'tion to recover tlic jiiinMint of taxes levied under statutes of Alaska 

 which the jilaintiff alleges to be c<»ntrary to the jict of ('onKress of Au.uust -4, 



