28 U. S. BUREAU OF FISHERIES. 
1912, ¢e. 887, § 3, 87 Stat. 512, creating a legislative assembly in the Territory 
of Alaska, and to the Constitution of the United States. Judgment was given 
for the defendant upon demurrer to the complaint, the parties agreeing that 
the foregoing grounds of recovery were the only matters in dispute. The 
statutes attacked, viz: May 1, 1915, April 29, 1915, and May 3, 1917, levy 
license taxes of two dollars a barrel and two dollars a ton respectively, upon 
persons manufacturing fish oil, fertilizer and fish meal in whole or in 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 * * * fish *—7* *° Jaws *) = s2ion 
the United States applicable to Alaska, 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, &¢., and that no 
tax shall be levied for territorial purposes in excess of one per centum upon 
the assessed valuation of property therein in any one year. 
The complainant alleges that the tax will prohibit and confiscate the plaintiffs 
business, which is that of manufacturing fish oil, fertilizer, fish meal and py- 
products from herring either in whole or in part; that the tax unreasonably 
discriminates against the plaintiff, as it levies no tax upon the producers of 
fish oil, &c., from other fish, 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 upon a comparison of the statutes which of course 
is open. We are content however to asSume for the purposes of decision that, 
not to speak 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 fish. 
But there is nothing in the Constitution to hinder that. If Alaska deems it 
for its welfare to discourage the destruction of herring for manure and to 
preserve them for food for man or for salmon, and to that end imposes a greater 
tax upon that part of the plaintiffs 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. Rast v. Van 
Deman & Lewis Co., 240 U. S. 342, 857. 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. McCray v. United 
States, 195 U. S. 27. See Quong Wing v. Kirkendall, 223 U. S. 59; Mugler v. 
Kansas, 123 U. 8. 628; Louisville € 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 case before us. The 
Acts must be judged by their contents not by the allegations as to their pur- 
pose 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 & Cable Co. v. 
Taylor, 192 U. S. 64, 72. 
But it is said that however it may be with regard te the Constitution taken 
by itself, 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 repeal the fish laws of the United States. 
The Act of Congress of June 6, 1900, c. 786, § 29; 31 Stat. 321, 331; Alaska 
Compiled Laws, § 2569; imposes a tax on fish oil works of ten cents per barrel 
and on fertilizer works of twenty cents per ton, repeated in slightly different 
words by the Act of June 26, 1906, c. 3547; 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 tnx 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 impose 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 
