Haavik v. Alaska Packers Ass
| Decision Date | 07 January 1924 |
| Docket Number | No. 128,128 |
| Citation | 44 S.Ct. 177,68 L.Ed. 414,263 U.S. 510 |
| Parties | HAAVIK v. ALASKA PACKERS' ASS'N |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. H. W. Hutton, of San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 510-512 intentionally omitted] Mr. John Rustgard, of Juneau, Alaska, for appellee.
Appellant challenges the validity of the Act of the Alaska Legislature approved May 1, 1919 (Session Laws 1919, c. 29), which imposes upon each male person, with certain exceptions, within the territory or the waters thereof an annual poll tax of $5 to be used for school purposes; and also that portion of the Act of the same Legislature approved May 5, 1921 (Session Laws 1921, c. 31), which imposes an annual license tax of $5 upon every nonresident fisherman—the term 'to include all persons employed on a boat engaged in fishing.'
Congress established an organized government for Alaska by the Act of August 24, 1912, c. 387, 37 Stats. 512 (Comp. St. § 3530). It declares that:
'The Constitution of the United States, and all the laws thereof which are not locally inapplicable, shall have the same force and effect within the said territory as elsewhere in the United States.'
It also created a legislature, with power and authority which 'shall extend to all rightful subjects of legislation not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States,' subject to specified restrictions. One of them is this:
'Nor shall the lands or other property of nonresidents be taxed higher than the lands or other property of residents.'
While residing in California, appellant was employed by appellee corporation, owner and operator, to serve as seaman and fisherman upon the sailing vessel Star of Finland. He sailed upon her to Alaska, and served with her there while she engaged in fishing, from the middle of May, 1921, until the middle of September. In compliance with the abovementioned statutes, appellee paid the taxes which they imposed upon him, and on final settlement charged the same against his wages. By this proceeding he seeks to recover the amount so deducted. Without opinion the court below sustained the validity of the taxes. Both statutes have been considered and upheld by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Alaska Packers' Association v. Hedenskoy, 267 Fed. 154; Northern Commercial Co. v. Territory of Alaska, 289 Fed. 786.
Plainly, we think, the territorial Legislature had authority under the terms of the Organic Act to impose both the head and the license tax, unless, for want of power, Congress itself could not have laid them by direct action. Talbott v. Silver Bow County, 139 U. S. 438, 448, 11 Sup. Ct. 594, 35 L. Ed. 210; Binns v. United States, 194 U. S. 486, 491, 24 Sup. Ct. 816, 48 L. Ed. 1087; Alaska Pacific Fisheries v. United States, 248 U. S. 78, 87, 39 Sup. Ct. 40, 63 L. Ed. 138; Territory of Alaska v. Troy, 258 U. S. 101, 42 Sup. Ct. 241, 66 L. Ed. 487.
Appellant went to the territory for the purpose of engaging in the business of fishing, and remained there for at least four months. He was not merely passing through—not a mere sightseer or tourist—but for a considerable period while so employed enjoyed the protection and was within the jurisdiction of the local government. To require him to contribute something toward its support did not deprive him of property without due process of law, within the Fifth Amendment. Such cases as Dewey v. Des Moines, 173 U. S. 193, 19 Sup. Ct. 379, 43 L. Ed. 665, and ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hynes v. Grimes Packing Co
... ... entire shore line of the uplands that touched Shelikof Strait between Kodiak Island and the Alaska Peninsula. The authority of the Secretary to utilize presidential power in the designation of this ... from the reserved waters is so large that the trial court found irreparable injury to the packers if they could not obtain the catch of the reservation. '* * * no other replacement source of such ... See Haavik v. Alaska Packers' Association, 263 ... Page 126 ... U.S 510, 44 S.Ct. 177, 68 L.Ed. 414. So ... ...
-
Torao Takahashi v. Fish and Game Commission
...(planting oyster beds). Fishing licenses discriminating between residents and non-residents are permissible. Haavik v. Alaska Packers Ass'n, 263 U.S. 510, 44 S.Ct. 177, 68 L.Ed. 414. 3 The right of an alien to own land is controlled by the law of the state in which the land is located. Such......
-
Duehay v. Acacia Mut. Life Ins. Co.
...U.S. 211, 213, 55 S.Ct. 356, 79 L.Ed. 865, 98 A. L.R. 347. 14 U.S.Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 17, U.S. C.A.; Haavik v. Alaska Packers' Ass'n., 263 U.S. 510, 515, 44 S.Ct. 177, 68 L. Ed. 414; McFadden v. Blocker, 3 Ind. T. 224, 54 S.W. 873, 58 L.R.A. 894; Little v. Miles, 204 N.C. 646, 169 S.E. ......
-
Toomer v. Witsell, 415
...34 Appellees rely also upon Patsone v. Pennsylvania, 1914, 232 U.S. 138, 34 S.Ct. 281, 58 L.Ed. 539, and Haavik v. Alaska Packers' Ass'n. 1924, 263 U.S. 510, 44 S.Ct. 177, 68 L.Ed. 414. The Patsone case involved a 1909 Pennsylvania statute, P.L. 466, forbidding resident aliens to kill game ......
-
California Could Say No to Nings and Don't to Dings
...17016.105. Rev. & Tax. Code, section 17745(e).106. Shaffer v. Carter (1919) 252 U.S. 37, 52.107. Haavik v. Alaska Packers' Assn. (1924) 263 U.S. 510, 514.108. Lawrence v. State Tax Commission (1932) 286 U.S. 276, 281.109. State of Wisconsin v. J.C. Penney Co. (1940) 311 U.S. 435, 444.110. N......
-
When Should a Trust Be Subject to State Income Tax in California?
...and Incentives (2006); Traynor, Roger J., "State Taxation of Trust Income," 22 Iowa L. Rev. 284 (1936-1937).9. 252 U.S. 37 (1919).10. 263 U.S. 510 (1924).11. 286 U.S. 276 (1932).12. 305 U.S. 19 (1938).13. The states are Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentu......