Joseph Binns v. United States

• Decision Date: 31 May 1904
• Docket Number: No. 196,196
• Citation: 48 L.Ed. 1087,24 S.Ct. 816,194 U.S. 486
• Parties: JOSEPH R. BINNS, Plff. in Err. , v. UNITED STATES
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

194 U.S. 486

24 S.Ct. 816

48 L.Ed. 1087

JOSEPH R. BINNS, Plff. in Err.,

v UNITED STATES.

No. 196.

Submitted April 6, 1904.

Decided May 31, 1904.

Section 460 of title II. of the Alaska Penal Code (act of March 3, 1899, 30 Stat. at L. 1253, 1337, chap. 429), as amended by the act of June 6, 1900, entitled 'An Act Making Further Provision for a Civil Government for Alaska, and for Other Purposes' (31 Stat. at L. 321, 330, chap. 786), reads 'that any person or persons, corporation or company prosecuting or attempting to prosecute any of the following lines of business within the district of Alaska shall first apply for and obtain license so to do from a district court or a subdivision thereof in said district, and pay for said license for the respective lines of business and trade, as follows, to wit: . . . Transfer companies, fifty dollars per annum.'

Section 461 provides: 'That any person, corporation, or company doing or attempting to do business in violation of the provisions of the foregoing section, or without having first paid the license therein required, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor,' etc.

Section 463: 'That the licenses provided for in this act shall be issued by the clerk of the district court or any subdivision thereof . . . duly made and entered: . . . Provided, That . . . all moneys received for licenses by him . . . under this act shall, except as otherwise provided by law, be covered into the Treasury of the United States, under such rules and regulations as the Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe.'

Under this statute, plaintiff in error was prosecuted and convicted in the district court for the district of Alaska, second division. This conviction has been brought to this court on writ of error, and the question presented is whether the statute is in conflict with § 8 of article 1 of the Constitution of the United States, which reads: 'The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.' Messrs. J. C. Campbell and W. H. Metson for plaintiff in error.

Assistant Attorney General Purdy for defendant in error.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 488-490 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice Brewer delivered the opinion of the court:

The contention of plaintiff in error is that the license tax is an excise, that it is laid and collected 'to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,' because, by § 463, it is provided that 'all moneys received for licenses . . . under this act shall . . . be covered into the Treasury of the United States;' that it is imposed only in Alaska; and is not 'uniform throughout the United States.'

It is unnecessary to consider the decisions in the Insular Cases, for, as said by Mr. Justice White in his concurring opinion in Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U. S. 244, 335, 45 L. ed. 1088, 1125, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 770: 'Without referring in detail to the acquisition from Russia of Alaska, it suffices to say that that treaty also contained provisions for incorporation, and was acted upon;' and by Mr. Justice Gray, in his concurring opinion (p. 345, L. ed. 1128, Sup. Ct. Rep. p. 809): 'The cases now before the court do not touch the authority of the United States over the territories, in the strict and technical sense, being those which lie within the United States, as bounded by the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, the Dominion of Canada, and the Republic of Mexico, and the territories of Alaska and Hawaii; but they relate to territory, in the broader sense, acquired by the United States by war with a foreign state.'

It had been theretofore held by this court in The Coquitlam v. United States, 163 U. S. 346, 352, 41 L. ed. 184, 186, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1117, that 'Alaska is one of the territories of the United States. It was so designated in the order [the order assigning the territory to the ninth judicial circuit], and has always been so regarded. And the court established by the act of 1884 is the court of last resort within the limits of that territory.' Nor can it be doubted that it is an organized territory, for the act of May 17, 1884 (23 Stat. at L. 24, chap. 53), entitled 'An Act Providing a Civil Government for Alaska,' provided: 'That the territory ceded to the United States by Russia by the treaty of March thirtieth, eighteen hundred and sixty-seven, and known as Alaska, shall constitute a civil and judicial district, the government of which shall be organized and administered as hereinafter provided.' [15 Stat. at L. 539]. See also 31 Stat. at L. 321, chap. 786, § 1.

We shall assume that the purpose of the license fees required by § 460 is the collection of revenue, and that the license fees are excises within the constitutional sense of the term. Nevertheless, we are of opinion that they are to be regarded as local taxes, imposed for the purpose of raising funds to support the administration of local government in Alaska.

It must be remembered that Congress, in the government of the territories as well as of the District of Columbia, has plenary power, save as controlled by the provisions of the Constitution; that the form of government it shall establish is not prescribed, and may not necessarily be the same in all the territories. We are accustomed to that generally adopted for the territories, of a quasi state government, with executive, legislative, and judicial officers, and a legislature endowed with the power of local taxation and local expenditures; but Congress is not limited to this form. In the District of Columbia it has adopted a different mode of government, and in Alaska still another. It may legislate directly in respect to the local affairs of a territory, or transfer the power of such legislation to a legislature elected by the citizens of the territory. It has provided in the District of Columbia for a board of three commissioners, who are the controlling officers of the District. It may intrust to them a large volume of legislative power, or it may, by direct legislation, create the whole body of statutory law applicable thereto. For Alaska, Congress has established a government of a different form. It has provided no legislative body, but only executive and judicial officers. It has enacted a penal and civil code. Having created no legislative body and provided for no local legislation in respect to the matter of revenue, it has established a revenue system of its own, applicable alone to that territory. Instead of raising revenue by direct taxation upon property, it has, as it may rightfully do, provided for that revenue by means of license taxes.

In reference to the power of Congress, reference may be had to Gibbons v. District of Columbia, 116 U. S. 404, 29 L. ed. 680, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 427, in which it was held that 'it is within the constitutional power of Congress, acting as the local legislature of the District of Columbia, to tax different classes of property within the District at different rates;' and further, after referring to the case of Loughborough v. Blake, 5 Wheat. 317, 5 L. ed. 98, it was said (pp. 407, 408, L. ed. p. 681, Sup. Ct. Rep. p. 429):

'The power of Congress, legislating as a local legislature for the District, to levy taxes for District purposes only, in like manner as the legislature of a state may tax the people of a state for state purposes, was expressly admitted, and has never since been doubted. 5 Wheat. 318, 5 L. ed. 98; Welch v. Cook, 97 U. S. 541, 24 L. ed. 1112; Mattingly v. District of Columbia, 97 U. S. 687, 24 L. ed. 1098. In the exercise of this power Congress, like any state legislature unrestricted by constitutional provisions, may, at its discretion, wholly exempt certain classes of property from taxation, or may tax them at a lower rate than other property.'

In view of this decision it would not be open to doubt that, if the act had provided for a local treasurer to whom these local taxes should be paid,...