ALASKA FISHERY AND FUR-SEAL INDUSTRIES, 1920. 29 
they must be judged by their contents not by 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. The 
legislature was warranted 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, Alaska Pacific Fisheries v. Territory of Alaska, 236 
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 must 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 Vo. 294 was almost constantly engaged in patrolling 
the southern districts while subchaser Vo. 3/0 made infrequent cruises 
into the northern localities. But with all these activities the unlawful 
taking of salmon was not stopped thereby. In September informa- 
tion was presented by one packing company to the grand jury at 
Juneau which indicted four men who had operated in the Icy and 
Chatham Straits region, but when the case came on for trial 1t was 
dismissed against three of them for lack of sufficient evidence while 
the other one was tried and acquitted. 
Investigation has shown that much of this so-called piracy was the 
purchase of salmon from dishonest trap watchmen. Negotiations 
were unsuccessful when they were undertaken with faithful, upright 
watchmen. In some instances salmon were taken from unwatched 
traps, but the number so secured must have been small, as all traps 
making even fair catches of salmon were watched by one or more 
men. 
Of 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 improbable that more than a few hundred salmon 
were taken or purchased at any one time, for the boats engaged in the 
business were small and manned by very few men. Most reports of 
large losses of salmon from this cause must be regarded as exagger- 
ated, for in view of the scarcity of salmon many traps making even 
moderate catches were carefully guarded by reliable employees, who 
in some instances are said to have easily frightened away would-be 
thieves by the discharge of firearms. 
