Rainier Nat. Park Co. v. Martin, No. 582.
| Court | United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Western District of Washington) |
| Writing for the Court | HANEY, Circuit , and CUSHMAN, and BOWEN |
| Citation | 18 F. Supp. 481 |
| Parties | RAINIER NAT. PARK CO. v. MARTIN, Governor of Washington, et al. |
| Decision Date | 04 March 1937 |
| Docket Number | No. 582. |
18 F. Supp. 481
RAINIER NAT. PARK CO.
v.
MARTIN, Governor of Washington, et al.
No. 582.
District Court, W. D. Washington, S. D.
March 4, 1937.
Hayden, Metzger & Blair, of Tacoma, Wash., for plaintiff.
G. W. Hamilton, Atty. Gen. Wash., and R. G. Sharpe, Asst. Atty. Gen. Wash., for defendants.
Robert H. Jackson, Asst. Atty. Gen. U. S., Sewall Key, Andrew D. Sharpe, and F. A. LeSourd, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen. U. S., and J. Charles Dennis, U. S. Atty., and Oliver Malm, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Tacoma, Wash., for the United States as amicus curiæ.
Before HANEY, Circuit Judge, and CUSHMAN, and BOWEN, District Judges.
HANEY, Circuit Judge.
This suit was brought to obtain an injunction against defendants, as members of and constituting the Tax Commission of the State of Washington, restraining them
On March 2, 1899, Congress "dedicated and set apart as a public park, to be known and designated as the Mount Rainier National Park, for the benefit and enjoyment of the people" certain lands located in Washington. 16 U.S.C.A. § 91. About two years later, the State of Washington passed an act providing in part: "Exclusive jurisdiction shall be, and the same is hereby ceded to the United States over and within all the territory * * * known as the Rainier National Park; saving, however, to the said state, the right to serve civil or criminal process within the limits of the aforesaid park, in suits or prosecutions for or on account of rights acquired, obligations incurred or crimes committed in said state, but outside of said park; and saving further to the said state the right to tax persons and corporations, their franchises and property on the lands included in said park: Provided, however, This jurisdiction shall not vest until the United States through the proper officer, notifies the Governor of this state that they assume police or military jurisdiction over said park." (Session Laws of 1901, c. 92, p. 192, § 1.)
By the Act of June 30, 1916, the United States assumed "sole and exclusive jurisdiction * * * over the territory embraced within the Mount Rainier National Park." The act also provided that "the right to serve civil or criminal process within the limits of the aforesaid park" and "the right to tax persons and corporations, their franchises and property, on the lands included in said park" were saved to the State of Washington. Chapter 197, § 1, 16 U.S.C.A. § 95. Section 2 of the act provided that said park "shall constitute a part of the United States judicial district for the western district of Washington." 16 U.S.C.A. § 96. It appears from the bill that the Secretary of Interior notified the then Governor of the State of Washington that the United States had accepted jurisdiction over the park area.
Congress thereafter created in the Department of the Interior "a service to be called the National Park Service," and provided: "The service thus established shall promote and regulate the use of * * * national parks * * * by such means and measures as conform to the fundamental purpose of the said parks * * * which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations." 16 U.S.C.A. § 1. Congress likewise provided that the Secretary of the Interior "may also grant privileges, leases, and permits for the use of land for the accommodation of visitors in the various parks * * * but for periods not exceeding twenty years." 16 U.S.C.A. § 3.
The bill alleges that plaintiff is a West Virginia corporation, and is authorized to do business in Washington as a foreign corporation; that on April 2, 1928, the Secretary of the Interior, acting on behalf of the United States, entered into a written contract with plaintiff, a copy of which contract is attached to the bill.
Under the contract, plaintiff agreed to "establish, maintain and operate a general hotel and camping business * * * for the complete accommodation and entertainment of tourists and others"; to install and operate facilities in connection with the hotel and camping business "including laundries, barber shops, Turkish and other baths, swimming pools, and bathhouses"; to provide facilities for amusement and sports; to establish and maintain hothouses "for the purpose of propagating flowers and raising vegetables, etc., to be used in supplying the services required under this contract"; to sell photographic views of objects of interest in the park, paintings, photographic supplies, postal cards, souvenirs, curios, newspapers, magazines, periodicals, ice cream, soda water, soft drinks, tobacco and other smokers' supplies "and other supplies or conveniences for tourists."
Said contract also obligated plaintiff to "establish, maintain, and operate a general transportation service, using therefor automobiles, automobile trucks * * * and the transportation of freight and mail to and through said park * * * it being understood that this service will include the operation of * * * vehicles to, and within the Mount Rainier National Park, from Ashford, Tacoma, Seattle, and other points outside" said park.
The contract also provided that plaintiff might furnish water, electric lights, telephone and telegraph services at its own expense, on certain conditions.
Among other things, plaintiff agreed to pay certain compensation for the franchises granted by the contract.
General provisions of the contract are that accommodation or service furnished and articles sold would be in accordance with a schedule satisfactory to the Secretary; that plaintiff's employees who came in direct contact with the public should wear a uniform or badge to distinguish them as such employees; that "the exercise of the privileges conferred by this contract shall be subject to the laws of Congress governing the park and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, whether now in force or hereafter enacted or provided"; and "* * * (1) that satisfactory service to the public shall be the consideration of first importance and (2) that capital invested shall be entitled to a fair earning, irregularity of seasons and the otherwise generally hazardous nature of the investment to be considered in this connection."
The bill alleges that on March 13, 1933, the contract was modified with respect to the compensation plaintiff agreed to pay the United States.
It is also alleged that the contract was entered into "solely for the purpose of promoting the use and providing for the enjoyment of said park and of rendering the public service in connection with the accommodation of visitors thereto"; that "by the terms of said contract plaintiff corporation was made an agency of the United States to carry out and perform the function of the United States * * * and to discharge the obligation of the federal government to render said park available to the general public"; that "plaintiff has at no time and is not now engaged in any operations or activities within said park except as are required by the terms of said contract and necessary for the performance of the agency created and established thereby."
It appears also from the bill that the activities of plaintiff "include making sales at retail to employees, the Federal Government and to tourists and other visitors to said park, the furnishing of hotel accommodations to such employees, tourists and others, the furnishing of automobile transportation to and within the park to tourists and others and the supplying of a limited amount of electrical energy to the National Park Service or other departments or agencies of the Federal Government"; that such activities are "wholly without the legislative or judicial jurisdiction of the State of Washington." It is also alleged that plaintiff "* * * has no property except that which is devoted to and used in performance of said contract with the United States, dated April 2, 1928, and has no property outside of Mount Rainier National Park and within the jurisdiction of the State of Washington except a limited amount of office furniture and equipment, certain automobiles and auto stages used for the transportation of visitors and supplies for its operations under said contract within the park which are temporarily warehoused in Tacoma awaiting transportation to the Park."
The pertinent provisions of the 1935 Revenue Act (Laws of 1935, c. 180, p. 706) are as follows:
"Sec. 4. From and after the first day of May, 1935, there is hereby levied and there shall be collected from every person a tax for the act or privilege of engaging in business activities. Such tax shall be measured by the application of rates against value of products, gross proceeds of sales, or gross income of the business, as the case may be, as follows: * * *
"(c) Upon every person engaging within this state in the business of making sales at retail; as to such persons, the amount of tax with respect to such business shall be equal to the gross proceeds of sales of the business, multiplied by the rate of one-quarter of one per cent. * * *
"(e) Upon every person engaging within this state in any business activity other than or in addition to those enumerated * * * as to such persons the amount of tax on account of such activities shall be equal to the gross income of the business multiplied by the rate of one-half of one per cent. This subsection includes, among others, and without limiting the scope hereof, persons engaged in the following businesses; * * * repairing * * * mechanical and educational service businesses; * * * hotel businesses. * * *
"Sec. 6. Every person engaging in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City & Cnty. of S.F. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., A144500
...be an empty gesture.’ " (Eastern Mun. Water , at p. 31, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 823, quoting Rainier Nat. Park Co. v. Martin (W.D. Wash. 1937) 18 F.Supp. 481, 488, aff'd 302 U.S. 661, 58 S.Ct. 478, 82 L.Ed. 511.)218 Cal.Rptr.3d 495The majority distinguishes Eastern Mun. Water as involving only an is......
-
City of S.F. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., S242835
...of Moreno Valley , at p. 30, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 823.)9 The court sounded a similar theme in Rainier Nat. Park Co. v. Martin (W.D.Wn. 1937) 18 F.Supp. 481, affd. sub nom. Rainier Nat. Park Co. v. Martin (1938) 302 U.S. 661, 58 S.Ct. 478, 82 L.Ed. 511, which we cited in Ainsworth . A corporation ......
-
Kiker v. City Of Philadelphia
...‘in Philadelphia’ excluded from the rest of the City where the tax is clearly applicable. See Rainier Nat. Park Co. v. Martin, D.C., 18 F.Supp. 481, affirmed 302 U.S. 661, 58 S.Ct. 478, 82 L.Ed. 511; Standard Oil Co. v. California, supra, 291 U.S. page 243, 54 S.Ct. 381, 78 L.Ed. 775. The a......
-
State ex rel Rice, Atty.-Gen. v. Allen, 33615
...86, 54 S.Ct. 575, 78 L.Ed. 1141. See, also, Heriot v. Pensacola, 108 Fla. 480, 146 So. 654; Rainier National Park Co. v. Martin, D. C., 18 F.Supp. 481; Johnson v. Diefendorf, 56 Idaho 620, 57 P.2d 1068; Fox v. Frank, 52 Ohio App. 483, 3 N.E.2d 996; Morrow v. Henneford, 182 Wash. 625, 47 P.2......
-
City & Cnty. of S.F. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., A144500
...be an empty gesture.’ " (Eastern Mun. Water , at p. 31, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 823, quoting Rainier Nat. Park Co. v. Martin (W.D. Wash. 1937) 18 F.Supp. 481, 488, aff'd 302 U.S. 661, 58 S.Ct. 478, 82 L.Ed. 511.)218 Cal.Rptr.3d 495The majority distinguishes Eastern Mun. Water as involving only an is......
-
City of S.F. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., S242835
...of Moreno Valley , at p. 30, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 823.)9 The court sounded a similar theme in Rainier Nat. Park Co. v. Martin (W.D.Wn. 1937) 18 F.Supp. 481, affd. sub nom. Rainier Nat. Park Co. v. Martin (1938) 302 U.S. 661, 58 S.Ct. 478, 82 L.Ed. 511, which we cited in Ainsworth . A corporation ......
-
Kiker v. City Of Philadelphia
...‘in Philadelphia’ excluded from the rest of the City where the tax is clearly applicable. See Rainier Nat. Park Co. v. Martin, D.C., 18 F.Supp. 481, affirmed 302 U.S. 661, 58 S.Ct. 478, 82 L.Ed. 511; Standard Oil Co. v. California, supra, 291 U.S. page 243, 54 S.Ct. 381, 78 L.Ed. 775. The a......
-
State ex rel Rice, Atty.-Gen. v. Allen, 33615
...86, 54 S.Ct. 575, 78 L.Ed. 1141. See, also, Heriot v. Pensacola, 108 Fla. 480, 146 So. 654; Rainier National Park Co. v. Martin, D. C., 18 F.Supp. 481; Johnson v. Diefendorf, 56 Idaho 620, 57 P.2d 1068; Fox v. Frank, 52 Ohio App. 483, 3 N.E.2d 996; Morrow v. Henneford, 182 Wash. 625, 47 P.2......