But we would say that the Territory of Alaska and
the residents thereof won another signal victory
when Judge Harding sustained the Act of the last
Legislature that imposes a tax of $250 on non
resident trailers.
A similar principal had previously been pass
ed upon by the United States Supreme Court, in
the case instituted by the Alaska Fisheries Com
pany, when the Supreme Court said:
“Even if the tax should destroy business
it would not be invalid or require com
pensation. * * We know of no objection
to exacting a discouraging rate as an al
ternative to giving up a business when
the Legislature has full power of taxation.”
“It must be born in mind that the
Supreme Court in the case of Haavik vs.
Alaska Pacific Fisheries has already up
held a tax based upon residence alone,
wherein resident fishermen were taxed
nothing, and non-resident fishermen $5;
and further that the Supreme Court in
that case stated that they found nothing
in the Constitution which prohibits Con
gress from favoring those who have ac
quired a local residence and upon whom
the future development of the Territory
must largely depend—and that in the
same case it was stated that the Legisla
ture would have the same right as Con
gress with reference to such legislation
as we are considering.”
In the present case Judge naming iuuk. a view
similar to that previously held by the United
States Supreme Court, and decided against the
non-resident trollers, who contended that the tax
of $250 was not for revenue purposes but intended
entirely to prevent them from fishing in the wat
ers of Alaska, unless they became residents there
of. That was the intent of the law and the local
court decided that the Legislature was entirely
within its rights when it passed the bill.
Now that the District Federal Court has sus
tained the validity of the Act which was intro
duced by Senator Benjamin, who first thought to
make the tax $250 but changed it to $150 because
it was represented that the House would not ac
cede to the higher figure, the partizan Democratic
Organ seeks to give credit to the House for the
measure that it is hoped will give more resident
fishermen to the Territory. In its article men
tioned, after crediting its candidate for Delegate
to Congress for winning the decision it says:
_“The tax on non-resident trollers, which was
attacked by Freeman in this case, was written in
to the Alaska statutes by the House of Represent
atives of the 1929 Legislature, etc.” And further
on, the Juneau Empire says: “The House virtual
ly rewrote the measure.” As a matter of fact, the
bill as originally passed by the Senate was only
changed in a few instances, the principal one be
ing the change from $150 to $250 without refer
ence to the size of the boat and cutting out the tax
of $50 for those who use boats “not over 20 feet
long.” The amendments were accepted by the
Senate as soon as presented, by unanimous vote.
The text of the bill was not changed.
Much as we regret to disagree with the po
litical writer of the Empire, who was also the
Legislative reporter, we cannot allow him to get
away with all of his dreams and impositions on
the reading public. If he were allowed undisput
ed sway, no one could predict where his vagaries
and misrepresentations might lead.
-x
FIFTY PER CENT ESCAPEMENT
-x
Tom D. McKeown of Oklahoma talks about
50 per cent escapement as if such a thing were a
fact and one for which Mr. Henry O’Malley should
be commended.
We are here to say that the 50 per cent es
capement contemplated by the law is not attain
ed in the slightest degree; furthermore, this fail
ure is due to the fact that the Bureau of Fisher
ies has set aside this law of Congress exactly as
that Bureau for many years (and in some indi
vidual cases still does so) set aside the law requir
ing traps to open a space 25 feet wide nearest the
pot during the weekly closed season.
The Bureau of Fisheries deceives well-inten
tioned men like Mr. McKeown by showing how
they are building weirs in rivers (as at Karluk, the
Setuc, Anan, and other places) and by actual
count see that this provision of the law is obeyed.
The law itself is plain. “It is hereby declar
ed to be the intent and policy of Congress that in
all waters of Alaska in which salmon run there
shall be an escapement of not less than 50 per
centum thereof."
To illustrate: Suppose a run of fish one mil
lion strong started for Anan Creek. Under the
policy as laid down by Congress, 500,000 should
enter that stream. But under the O’Malley in
terpretation what happens? A trap may be plac
ed which will catch 900,000. Only 100,000 will
reach the creek. O’Malley thinks he has complied
with the law if he counts 50,000 as entering that
stream. And zealous supporters of his like Mr.
McKeown think that there is actually a 50 per
cent escapement.
To carry the illustration further—suppose all