Anderson v. Mullaney, 6102-A.

Citation91 F. Supp. 907
Decision Date21 March 1950
Docket NumberNo. 6102-A.,6102-A.
PartiesANDERSON et al. v. MULLANEY
CourtUnited States District Courts. 9th Circuit. District of Alaska

Wm. L. Paul, Jr., Juneau, R. E. Jackson, Seattle, Wash. for plaintiffs.

J. Gerald Williams, Atty. Gen., John H. Dimond, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant.

FOLTA, District Judge.

By Chapter 66, S.L.A.1949, the Territorial Legislature increased the license taxes on resident fishermen from $1 to $5 and on nonresident fishermen from $25 to $50. The $25 tax, imposed in 1933, Laws 1933, c. 30, when the purchasing power of a dollar was more than double what it now is, was sustained in Anderson v. Smith, 9 Cir., 71 F.2d 493.

Plaintiffs seek to restrain the enforcement of this act, so far as it applies to nonresident fishermen, on the grounds that:

(1) It contravenes the 14th amendment in that it discriminates against nonresidents;

(2) That it conflicts with the provision of Section 9 of the Organic Act, 37 Stat. 512, 514, 48 U.S.C.A. § 78, requiring uniformity of taxation on the same class of subjects;

(3) That it encroaches on the admiralty jurisdiction, thereby substantially affecting its uniformity, and (4) Burdens interstate commerce in violation of Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution.

Since the third contention is disposed of adversely to plaintiff by Alaska Steamship Company v. Mullaney, 9 Cir., 180 F.2d 805, and Just v. Chambers, 312 U.S. 383, 392, 61 S.Ct. 687, 85 L.Ed. 903, and it is well settled that a tax of this kind is not a burden on interstate commerce because the taxable event — the taking of the fish — occurs before the fish have entered the flow of commerce, Toomer v. Witsell, 334 U.S. 385, 394, 68 S.Ct. 1156, 92 L.Ed. 1460, and that the uniformity provision of the Organic Act does not apply to license taxes, Alaska Fish Saltery & By-Products Co. v. Smith, 255 U.S. 44, 41 S.Ct. 219, 65 L.Ed 489, these contentions will not be discussed.

So far as the remaining contention that the tax violates the Fourteenth amendment is concerned, the question differs in form only from that presented in Martinsen v. Mullaney, D.C., 85 F.Supp. 76. In that case this Court held that in the absence of evidence of the existence of a rational basis for classification, the tax of $50 on nonresident fishermen was invalid under the Civil Rights Act, 8 U.S.C.A. § 41. In the instant case the defendant has introduced evidence showing the earnings of nonresident fishermen and the difficulty and expense of collecting the tax from them, detecting evasions and apprehending violators. Briefly, the evidence shows that thousands of nonresidents come to Alaska each year and engage in fishing for salmon during the fishing season, which varies from 20 days in Bristol Bay to 2 months elsewhere, during which time they enjoy the protection of the local government; that among them are hundreds of trollers who come to the Territory in their power boats, roaming far and wide along the 26,000 miles of coastline; and that since they own no property and are not required by the shipping laws to enter or clear upon arrival in or departure from the Territory and, moreover, warn each other by radiophone of the proximity or presence of the tax collector, the difficulties of detection, apprehension and collection during the short fishing season are well nigh...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Territory of Alaska v. The Arctic Maid
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Alaska
    • March 17, 1956
    ... ... Martinsen v. Mullaney, D.C., 85 F.Supp. 76, at pages 78, 79 ...         (3) It is well settled that the imposition by the Legislature of the Territory of ...         In Anderson v. Smith, 9 Cir., 71 F.2d 493, 495, wherein a license fee of $25 for non-residents and $1 from residents was held not violative of such Act, the ... ...
  • Mullaney v. Anderson
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • March 3, 1952
    ...fees rests on substantial differences bearing a fair and reasonable relation to the objects of the legislation, and upheld the statute. 91 F.Supp. 907. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, one judge dissenting. 191 F.2d 123. We brought the case here for clarification of the ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT