Alaska Pacific Fisheries v. Territory of Alaska
Decision Date | 03 March 1919 |
Docket Number | 118,Nos. 117,s. 117 |
Parties | ALASKA PACIFIC FISHERIES v. TERRITORY OF ALASKA (two cases) |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. J. A. Hellenthal, of Juneau, Alaska, and Harvey M. Friend, of Washington, D. C., for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 53-55 intentionally omitted] Mr. George B. Grigsby, of Juneau, Alaska, for the Territory.
These cases were argued and submitted together, and may be disposed of in a single opinion.
In case No. 117 the action was brought in the District Court for Alaska to recover moneys alleged to be due under a statute imposing a tax upon prosecuting the business of fishing by means of fish traps in the waters of Alaska. The defendant, the Alaska Pacific Fisheries, filed an answer in which it set up that the act of the Alaska Legislature, under which the suit was brought, was void under the act of Congress creating the Legislature of Alaska, and under the Constitution of the United States, and set up other defenses not involving the Constitution.
In case No. 118 the Territory brought an action to recover taxes claimed to be due under an act of the Legislature of the Territory of Alaska for prosecuting the business of fishing for and canning salmon in Alaska. With other defenses the constitutionality of the law was contested by the defendant.
Judgment in each case was rendered in the District Court in sums in excess of $500 against the Alaska Pacific Fisheries. Upon error to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit the judgments of the District Court were affirmed. 236 Fed. 52, 149 C. C. A. 262; 236 Fed. 70, 149 C. C. A. 280.
Motions to dismiss the writs of error were filed by the Attorney General of the Territory upon the ground that the judgments of the Circuit Court of Appeals are final. Consideration of the motions was passed to the hearing upon the merits. A determination of the motions involves a construction of sections of the Judicial Code regulating appeals and writs of error in the District Court for Alaska and the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Section 134 of the Judicial Code (Act March 3, 1911, c. 231, 36 Stat. 1134 [Comp. St. § 1125]) provides:
Section 247 (36 Stat. 1158 [Comp. St. § 1224]) of the Code provides:
Section 241 (36 Stat. 1157 [Comp. St. § 1218]) of the same Code provides:
'In any case in which the judgment or decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals is not made final by the provisions of this title, there shall be of right an appeal or writ of error to the Supreme Court of the United States where the matter in controversy shall exceed one thousand dollars, besides costs.'
It is the contention of the plaintiff in error that under section 241 the judgments of the Circuit Court of Appeals are not final and there is a right to a writ of error from this court, the matter in controversy exceeding $1,000, besides costs.
The District Court of Alaska is a court with the jurisdiction of United States District Courts and general jurisdiction in civil, criminal, equity, and admiralty causes. 4 U. S. Comp. St. § 3564. In that court these suits were brought to recover the taxes in question. As already indicated, the answer in each of the cases raised an issue as to the constitutionality of the statute under which the taxes were levied, and the question which we are now to consider is: Are the judgments of the Circuit Court of Appeals final? In interpreting the sections of the statutes controlling this matter resort must be had to the language of the laws, to the history of the legislation, and the decisions of this court interpreting the Circuit Court of Appeals Act, now substantially carried into the Judicial Code, in so far as the same are applicable.
The sections of the Judicial Code pertaining to Alaska had their origin in prior federal legislation concerning the territory. The committee on revision of the laws in its report to Congress said of section 134:
'This section is drawn from section 202 of the Criminal Code for Alaska (Act March 3, 1899, c. 429, 30 Stat. 1307), and from sections 504 and 505 of the Civil Code (Act June 6, 1900, c. 786, 31 Stat. 414, 415), and states what was the existing law on the subject. Those portions of the sections which authorize the taking of writs of error and appeals direct to the Supreme Court are revised in section 247. Formerly capital cases went direct to the Supreme Court. Section 247 was so modified as to take from the Supreme Court its jurisdiction of capital cases, the effect being to vest the right to review on a writ of error in the Circuit Court of Appeals. This is accomplished, so far as this section is concerned, by the omission of the words 'other than capital' after the words 'and in all criminal cases." Note by Committee on Revision, 5 Fed. Stat. Ann. p. 644, note to section 134.
Sections 504 and 505 of the Alaska Civil Code, as they stood before the enactment of the Judicial Code, are found in 31 Statutes at Large, pp. 414, 415. These sections are as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Taylor
...A.) 255 F. 253; United States v. O'Brien (C. C.) 170 F. 508; United States v. Partello (C. C.) 48 F. 671; Alaska Pacific Fisheries v. Alaska, 249 U. S. 53, 39 S. Ct. 208, 63 L. Ed. 474; Alaska Pacific Fisheries v. U. S., 248 U. S. 78, 39 S. Ct. 40, 63 L. Ed. 138; Light v. United States, 220......
-
Aguilar v. United States
...fiduciary standards" apply to the federal government in its conduct toward Alaskan Natives. Alaska Pacific Fisheries v. United States, 249 U.S. 53, 39 S.Ct. 208, 63 L.Ed. 474 (1918); Aleut Community of St. Paul Island v. United States, 480 F.2d 831, 202 Ct.Cl. 182 (1973); Adams v. Vance, 18......
-
People of Togiak v. United States
...U.S. 60, 82 S.Ct. 562, 7 L.Ed.2d 573 (1962); see also, 25 U.S.C. §§ 2, 13), and to Alaskan Natives. Alaska Pacific Fisheries v. United States, 249 U.S. 53, 39 S.Ct. 208, 63 L.Ed. 474 (1918); Edwardsen v. Morton, 369 F.Supp. 1859 (D.D.C.1973). These various responsibilities impose fiduciary ......
-
State of Ohio Seney v. Swift Co, 67
...Ct. 312, 65 L. Ed. 510; The Carolo Poma, 255 U. S. 219, 221, 41 Sup. Ct. 309, 65 L. Ed. 594; Alaska Pacific Fisheries v. Territory of Alaska, 249 U. S. 53, 60, 61, 39 Sup. Ct. 208, 63 L. Ed. 478. And we accordingly hold that, whenever the suitor might have come here directly from the Distri......