ALASKA FISHERY AND FUR-SEAL INDUSTRIES, 1920. 29 



they must be .iuclged by their contents not l)y the characterization of them in the 

 complaint. 



The requirement of uniformity in § 9 is disposed of by what we have said of 

 the classification when considered with reference to the Constitution. Tlie 

 legislature was warrantefl in treating: the making of oil and fertilizer from 

 herring as a different class of subjects from the making of the same from 

 salmon offal. The provisions against taxing in excess of one per centum of 

 the assessed valuation of property does not apply to a license tax like this. 

 This is not a property tax, Ahi-sh-a Pacific Fisheries v. Territonj of Alaska, 23G 

 Fed. Rep. 52, 61. The objection that the plaintiff in error is doubly taxed, first 

 by the United States and then by the Territory, is answered by the express 

 authority to levy additional taxes to which we have referred heretofore. 

 Without'going into more detail we are of opinion that the tax uuist be sustained. 



ROBBERY OF FISH TRAPS. 



The fishing season of 1920 was marked by a renewal in southeast 

 Alaska of the piratical operations of 1919, which caused the packers 

 considerable loss of salmon. The regions chiefly affected were the 

 Cape Fox district, Craig and vicinity, Icy Strait, and the northern 

 part of Chatham Strait^ The first robberies were reported in June, 

 and from that time until the middle of August depredations occurred 

 at short intervals. Calls for assistance in putting down the disorder 

 were made to officials of the district court and to the governor of 

 Alaska, who was instrumental in securing the presence in Alaskan 

 waters of certain vessels of the Navy, supposedly for the better en- 

 forcement of all laws and especially the suppression of this par- 

 ticular form of lawlessness. 



Subchaser i\o. 20Jf Avas almost constantly engaged in patrolling 

 the southern districts while subchaser No. SIO made infrequent cruises 

 into the northern localities. But with all these activities tlie unlawful 

 taking of salmon was not stopjx'd thereby. In Septeml)er informa- 

 tion was presented by one packing company to the grand jury at 

 Juneau which indicted four men who had operated in the ley and 

 Chatham Straits region. ])iit when the case came on for trial it was 

 dismissed against three of them for lack of sufficient evidence while 

 the other one was tried and acquitted. 



Investigation has shown that uuu-h of this so-called piracy was the 

 l)urchase of salmon from dishonest trap watchmen. Negotiations 

 were unsuccessful when they were undertaken with faithful, upright 

 watchmen. In some instances salmon were taken from unwatclied 

 traps, but the number so secured nuist have been small, as all traps 

 making even fair catches of salmon were watched by one or more 

 men. 



C)f further interest in this connection is the fact that salmon were 

 taken chiefly from floating traps, owing to the ease with which fish 

 could be removed from such apparatus, there being no material 

 change of conditions at any stage of the tide. With but occasional 

 exceptions, it is imi)robable that more than a few hundred salmon 

 were taken or purchased at anyone time, for the boats engaged in the 

 business Avere small and manned by very few men. Most reports of 

 large los.ses of salmon from this cau.se must be regarded as exagger- 

 ated, for in view^ of the scarcity of salmon many traps making even 

 moderate catches were carefully guarded V)y reliable employees, who 

 in some instances are said to have easily frightened away would-be 

 thieves by the discharge of firearms. 



