28 U. S. BUREAU OF FISHERIES. 



1912, c. 387, § 3. 37 Stat. 512, cieatiujj; a legislative assembly iu the Territory 

 of Alaska, and to the Constitution of the United States. Judsment was given 

 for the defendant upon demurrer to the complaint, the parties agreeing that 

 the foregoing grounds of recovery were the ouly matters iu dispute. The 

 statutes attacked, viz: May 1, 1913, April 29, 1915, and May 3, 1917, levy 

 license taxes of two dollars a barrel and two dollars a ton respectively, upon 

 persons manufacturing llsh oil, fertilizer and tish meal in whole or iu part 

 from herring. The Act of Congress after giving effect to the Constitution and 

 laws of the United States in the Territory provides that the authority therein 

 granted to the legislature " to alter, amend, modify, and repeal laws in force 

 in Alaska shall not extend to the * * * tish * * * laws * * * ^f 

 the United States applicable to Alasta, or to the laws of the United States 

 providing for taxes on business and trade * * * Provided further, that 

 this provision shall not operate to prevent the legislature from imposing other 

 and additional taxes or licenses." Some reliance is placed also upon § 9 that 

 all taxes shall be uniform upon the same class of subjects, &c., and that no 

 tax shall be levied for territorial purposes in excess of one per centum upon 

 the asse.-^sed valuation of property therein in any one year. 



The complainant alleges that the tax will prohibit and confiscate the plaintiff's 

 business, which is that of manufacturing tish oil, fertilizer, tish meal and by- 

 products from herring either in whole or in part ; that the tax unreasonably 

 discriminates against the iJlaiutiff, as it levies no tax uiwn the producers of 

 tish oil, &c., from other tish, and is otherwise extortionate; and that it con- 

 travenes the Act of Congress in lack of uniformity and in exceeding one per 

 centum of the actual value of the plaintiff's property. The prophecies of de- 

 struction and the allegations of discrimination as compared with similar 

 manufactures from salmon are denied by the Attorney General for Alaska, 

 the latter denial being based uiwn a comparison of the statutes which of course 

 is open. We are content however to assume f(jr the puii)oses of decision that, 

 not to si)eak of other licenses, the questioned Acts do bear more heavily upon 

 the use of herring for oil and fertilizer than they do upon the use of other tish. 

 But there Is nothing in the Constitution to hinder that. If Alaska deems it 

 for its welfai'e to discourage the destruction of herring for manure and to 

 presence them for food for man or for salmon, and to that end imposes a greater 

 tax upon that part of the plaintitt"s industry than upon similar use of other 

 fish or of the offal of salmon, it hardly can be said to be contravening a Con- 

 stitution that has known protective tariffs for a hundred years. Ra.-^t v. Van 

 Deman ct- Leicis Co., 240 U. S. 342, 357. Even if the tax should destroy a busi- 

 ness it would not be made invalid or require compensation upon that ground 

 alone. Those who enter upon a business take that risk. McCruij v. United 

 States, 195 U. S. 27. See Quong Wing v. KirkendaU, 223 IT. S. 59: Aluglcr v. 

 Kansas, 123 U. S. 623 ; Louisville d Nashville R. R. Co. v. Mottley, 219 U. S. 

 467, 482. We need not consider whether abuses of the power might go to 

 such a point as to transcend it. for we have not such a cast^ before us. The 

 Acts must 1)6 judged by their contents not by the allegations as to their pur- 

 jjose in the complaint. We know of no objection to exacting a discouraging rate 

 as the alternative to giving up a business, when the legislature has the full 

 power of taxation. The case is different from those where the power to tax is 

 limited to inspection fees and the like, as in Postal Telegraph d- Cable Co. v. 

 Taylor. 192 U. S. 64, 72. 



But it is .said that however it may be with regard to the Constitution taken 

 by it.self, the statutes brought into question are contrary to the Act of Congress 

 from which the local legislature derives its power. In the first place they are 

 said to be an attempt to modify or rei)eal the fish laws of the United States. 

 The Act of Congress of June 6, 1900. c. 7S6. § 29; 31 Stat. 321, 331; Alaska 

 Compiled Laws, S 2569 ; imposes a tax on fish oil works of ten cents per barrel 

 and on fertilizer works of twenty cents per ton, repeated in slightlv different 

 words by the Act of .lune 26, 1906, c. 3.547 ; 34 Stat. 478 ; Alaska Compiled Laws, 

 § 259. But these are not fish laws as we understand the phrase. It is argued, 

 however, that at least they import a license. License Tax Cases, 5 Wall. 462, 

 470, and that a tax alleged to be prohibitory flies in their teeth. It would be 

 going far to say that a tax on fish oil works in general terms imported a license 

 to a specific kind of works deemed undesirable by the local powers, and when 

 we take into account the express and unlimited authority to imi)ose additional 

 taxes and licenses we are satisfied that the objection should not prevail. We 

 confine our decision to the statutes before us, repeating in this connection that 



