Territory of Alaska v. The Arctic Maid
| Decision Date | 17 March 1956 |
| Docket Number | A-7142,A-7130 to A-7132,No. A-7093,A-7143,A-7129.,A-7093 |
| Citation | 140 F. Supp. 190 |
| Parties | TERRITORY OF ALASKA, Plaintiff, v. THE ARCTIC MAID and Arctic Maid Fisheries, Inc., Defendants. TERRITORY OF ALASKA, Plaintiff, v. THE PACIFIC QUEEN and Pacific Queen Fisheries, Defendants. TERRITORY OF ALASKA, Plaintiff, v. ALASKA REEFER FISHERIES, Defendant. TERRITORY OF ALASKA, Plaintiff, v. THE NORTH STAR and North Star Fisheries, Defendants. TERRITORY OF ALASKA, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN PACKING CO., Pacific Reefer Fisheries, a partnership, and THE PACIFIC REEFER (a vessel), Defendants. TERRITORY OF ALASKA, Plaintiff, v. NORTHERN REEFER COMPANY, Grimes Packing Company, and THE REEFER II (a vessel), Defendants. TERRITORY OF ALASKA, Plaintiff, v. PACIFIC REEFER FISHERIES, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Alaska |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
J. Gerald Williams, Atty. Gen., Territory of Alaska, and Edward A. Merdes, Asst. Atty. Gen., Territory of Alaska, for plaintiff.
Evans, McLaren, Lane, Powell & Beeks, Seattle, Wash., and John H. Dimond, Juneau, Alaska, for defendants.
Plaintiff in seven consolidated actions seeks to recover of the defendants occupational license taxes totaling, with penalty and accrued interest, $116,730.21, imposed by the Territory for the years 1951 to 1954 incl. under the provisions of Chapter 97, S.L.A.1949, Chapter 116, S.L.A.1951.
The pertinent parts of the statute involved read as follows:
Defendants deny liability for the tax, setting up six defenses, in substance as follows:
(1) A general denial of liability, under which issue defendants raise a question of statutory construction, denying that the fish which they buy or otherwise obtain are bought or obtained "for processing through freezing," but that they are obtained "for the purpose of preserving the fish for later processing through canning."
(2) That the fish taken by them are so taken partly in and partly outside of the three-mile limit and frozen aboard the vessel to preserve them for transportation to the State of Washington for canning, and that therefore their activities are beyond the taxing jurisdiction of the Territory, as in violation of Sections 3 & 9 of the Organic Act, 48 U. S.C.A. §§ 24 & 77, and the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
(3) That the provisions of Chapter 97 abridge, impair, and deny to the defendants the right to take or preserve fish in the waters of the Territory, in violation of the White Act, 48 U.S.C.A. § 222, as amended, and Section 3 of the Organic Act.
(4) The tax imposed is invalid and unconstitutional in that it imposes an undue burden on interstate commerce, and discriminates against and is an attempted regulation of interstate commerce, in violation of Article I, § 8 of the Constitution.
(5) The tax unreasonably and arbitrarily discriminates against freezer ships and floating cold storages in favor of shore-based cold storages, which classification and discrimination is without reasonable justification, in violation of the equal protection, due process, and privileges and immunities clauses of the Fifth Amendment, the privileges and immunities clause of Article IV, § 2, of the Constitution of the United States, and of Section 9 of the Organic Act.
(6) The tax imposed is arbitrary, oppressive, and confiscatory, and constitutes an attempted taking of defendants' valuable property and denial of their right to fish and preserve fish, in violation of the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.
The following facts are undisputed: Defendants are the owners and operators of certain "freezer ships," converted and equipped with refrigeration facilities for the freezing of fish in the Territorial waters of Alaska, which are frozen by the "brine method," dumped into refrigerated holds, and taken to Puget Sound, Washington, where they are canned prior to resale. The freezer ships themselves do not engage in any fishing, but the fish loaded aboard the vessels are obtained either by purchase from individual fishermen or by the operation of "catcher boats" owned and operated by the defendants, or under contractual arrangement between the defendants and the owners of such boats. Fishing is done by means of gill nets in the Bristol Bay area and seines in other areas. Vessels anchor seaward of the three-mile zone while operating in the Bristol Bay area during such season, but while operating in the Kodiak Island and Southeastern Alaska areas they anchor at points closer to the shore than three miles, usually in bays or inlets. The fishing boats operate between the ships and the shore, in all cases inside of the three-mile zone. Taxes have been paid by the defendants under the Act for the period from 1951 to 1954 inclusive amounting to $8,929.99, but taxes accrued amounting to $93,583.75, exclusive of penalty and interest, have not been paid; and it is conceded that such taxes are due and owing to the Territory if valid.
The defenses interposed will be considered in the order named.
(1) The contention that the fish are not obtained for "processing through freezing" as defined by the Act cannot be sustained within any reasonable statutory interpretation. The word "process" or "processing" in the sense used in this statute is defined by Webster's New International Dictionary as "a method of operation or treatment," and "denotes a progressive action or series of acts or steps, especially in the regular course of performing, producing or making something." It "applies especially to measures or transactions, as a chemical process." It cannot be denied that freezing is "processing" as thus commonly understood.
(2) The tax is levied upon the occupation of freezer ships and floating cold storages, but is based upon the value of the raw fish "bought or otherwise obtained for processing through freezing," and not upon the operation of freezing, as contended by defendants. Hence the prosecution of the line of business of the defendants taxed is not the freezing, the major portion of which is done outside the three-mile limit, but the taking of the fish, all of which is done within the Territoral limits. The rule of Cunard Steamship Co. v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 100, 43 S.Ct. 504, 67 L.Ed. 894, limiting the jurisdiction of the Territory over Territorial waters within the three-mile zone, does not apply in this case. Martinsen v. Mullaney, D.C., 85 F.Supp. 76, at pages 78, 79.
(3) It is well settled that the imposition by the Legislature of the Territory of license taxes relating to the commercial fisheries of Alaska to provide revenue as authorized by the Organic Act does not in any way alter, amend, modify, or repeal the existing fish laws of the United States applicable to Alaska; and hence such are not violative of the White Act or the Organic Act of Alaska. Pacific American Fisheries v. Territory of Alaska, 9 Cir., 2 F.2d 9, affirmed 269 U.S. 269, 46 S.Ct. 110, 70 L. Ed. 270; Alaska Fish Salting, etc., Co. v. Smith, 255 U.S. 44, 41 S.Ct. 219, 65 L. Ed. 489; Haavik v. Alaska Packers' Ass'n, 263 U.S. 510, 44 S.Ct. 177, 68 L. Ed. 414; Alaska Pacific Fisheries v. Territory, 9 Cir., 236 F. 52.
The case of Freeman v. Smith, 9 Cir., 44 F.2d 703, wherein it is held that a license tax of $250 on non-resident and $1 on resident fishermen violates the White Act as impairing equal rights of residents and non-residents to fish in Territorial waters, is distinguished from the case at bar as no distinction is made in Chapter 97 between residents and non-residents. In P. E. Harris & Co. v. Mullaney, D.C., 87 F.Supp. 248, 251, a statute imposing a tax on salmon traps in effect 3,000 times greater than the tax on seines was held "so excessive as to infringe on the right to fish on the basis of equality guaranteed by the White Act", and in reality an attempt to accomplish by such legislation the abolishment of fish traps, which was a right reserved to Congress, as "a legislative body may not, under the guise of exerting the power to tax, accomplish a forbidden end." Such attempted regulation does not appear to be the purpose of this Act.
In Anderson v. Smith, 9 Cir., 71 F.2d 493, 495, wherein a license fee of $25 for non-residents and $1 from residents was held not violative of such Act, the Circuit Court of Appeals for this Circuit has this to say upon the question:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State of Alaska v. Arctic Maid
...of Alaska for taxes claimed to be due and owing under the foregoing Act. The District Court entered judgments for the plaintiff. 140 F.Supp. 190, 16 Alaska 126. It held that the taking of the fish was the taxable event, not the freezing of the On appeal the Court of Appeals held that respon......
-
The Arctic Maid v. Territory of Alaska
...an opinion containing findings of fact and conclusions of law in addition to a discussion of the issues. Territory of Alaska v. The Arctic Maid, D.C., 140 F.Supp. 190, 16 Alaska 126. In an unreported supplemental opinion thereafter filed there is further discussion of some of the Defendants......
-
Arctic Maid v. Territory of Alaska
...constitutionality of that statute as applied were advanced at the trial. The territorial district court entered judgments for plaintiff. 140 F.Supp. 190. Defendants appealed and a division of this court affirmed in part and reversed in part, remanding for further proceedings. A rehearing en......