Alaska Salmon Co. v. Territory of Alaska

• Decision Date: 05 September 1916
• Docket Number: 2720.
• Citation: 236 F. 62
• Parties: ALASKA SALMON CO. v. TERRITORY OF ALASKA. [1]
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

236 F. 62

ALASKA SALMON CO. v. TERRITORY OF ALASKA. ^[1]

No. 2720.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

September 5, 1916

Z. R Cheney, of Juneau, Alaska, Warren Gregory, of San Francisco Cal., and E. S. McCord and W. H. Bogle, both of Seattle Wash., for plaintiff in error and appellant.

J. H Cobb, Chief Counsel for the Territory of Alaska, of Juneau, Alaska, for defendant in error and appellee.

Before GILBERT, ROSS, and HUNT, Circuit Judges.

HUNT Circuit Judge.

This case was submitted to the District Court of the Territory of Alaska, Division No. 1, upon an agreed statement of facts, and thereafter judgment was given in favor of the territory, and from such judgment writ of error has been prosecuted.

It appears that the Alaska Salmon Company is engaged in the business of annually operating a salmon cannery and manufacturing canned salmon in Alaska; that during the year 1915 it also maintained and operated at its cannery gill nets; that since the Act of Congress of June 26, 1906 (chapter 3547, 34 Stat. 478), the plaintiff in error has paid the license taxes on its business and output as therein provided, and has complied with all the provisions of chapter 3 of title 7, of the Compiled Laws of Alaska relating to fish and fisheries; that the Legislature of Alaska, by an act approved May 1, 1913 (Laws 1913, c. 52), and by another act approved April 29, 1915 (Laws 1915, c. 76), imposed licenses and taxes.

The questions presented by the brief of appellant may be stated as follows: (1) The plaintiff in error having complied with all the conditions and paid the license fees imposed by the acts of Congress, is it obliged to apply for a license and pay the license fees and taxes imposed by the act of the Legislature of Alaska approved May 1, 1913? (2) Plaintiff in error having complied with all the conditions and paid the license fees imposed by the act of Congress just hereinbefore referred to, is it obliged to apply for a license and pay the license fees and taxes imposed by the act of the Legislature of Alaska approved April 29, 1915? (3) Is the plaintiff in error, as the owner of a private salmon hatchery, and also engaged in the business of canning salmon in Alaska, by virtue of certificates issued to it by the Secretary of Commerce and Labor for salmon fry liberated from its hatcheries, entitled by virtue of such certificates to have the same applied pro tanto in payment of all license fees and charges not only imposed by the act of Congress referred to, but also by the acts of the Legislature of Alaska?

We need not pass upon the last question, because the agreed statement of facts gives no information upon the matter, nor was it regarded by the lower court as involved in the case.

The act of the Legislature of the territory of Alaska approved May 1, 1913 (Laws 1913, c. 52), was entitled 'An act to establish a system of taxation, create revenue, and provide for collection thereof for the territory of Alaska, and for other purposes. ' Section 1 provided:

'That any * * * corporation * * * prosecuting or attempting to prosecute any of the following lines of business * * * shall first apply for and obtain a license so to do from the District Court * * * in said territory, and pay for said license for the respective lines of business and trades, as follows, to wit: Fisheries: Salmon canneries, seven cents per case on sockeye and king salmon; one-half cent a case on hump-back, cohoe, or chum salmon.'

Many other license charges were fixed by this act which it is unnecessary to refer to, because they are...