1. An annual poll tax, and an annual license imposed only on
nonresident fishermen within Alaska, are within the power delegated
to the Alaska Legislature by the Organic Act. P.
263 U. S.
514.
2. These taxes, as applied to a citizen of California who went
to Alaska to engage in the business of fishing and remained there,
so engaged, for four months, are not in conflict with the due
process clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Id.
3. Nor doe the license tax, confined to nonresident, violate the
"privileges and immunities" provision (Const., Art. IV, § 2), nor
was it arbitrary or unreasonable to favor local residents by
exempting them from it. P.
263
U. S. 515.
Affirmed.
Appeal from a decree of the district court dismissing a libel
brought by the appellant to recover the sum of ten dollars, claimed
to be due him from the appellee as part of his wages as a
fisherman. The appellee had paid that sum to discharge the taxes
laid on the appellant in Alaska, the constitutionality of which the
appellant disputed.
Page 263 U. S. 513
MR. JUSTICE McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.
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. 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 above-mentioned 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
Page 263 U. S. 514
upheld by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Alaska Packers' Association v. Hedenskoy, 267 F. 154;
Northern Commercial Co. v. Territory of Alaska, 289 F.
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,
139 U. S. 448;
Binns v. United States, 194 U. S. 486,
194 U. S. 491;
Alaska Pacific Fisheries v. United States, 248 U. S.
78,
248 U. S. 87;
Territory of Alaska v. Troy, 258 U.
S. 101.
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, and
Union Refrigerator Transit Co. v. Kentucky, 199 U.
S. 194,
199 U. S. 202,
relied upon to support the contrary view, are not controlling.
The tax was upon an individual actually within the territory;
there was no attempt to reach something in a mere state of transit
or beyond the borders. Some general rules touching the taxation of
property were pointed out in
Brown v. Houston,
114 U. S. 622,
114 U. S.
632-633, and
Pullman's Palace Car Co. v.
Pennsylvania, 141 U. S. 18. No
more stringent ones should be applied when poll taxes are
questioned. Unless restrained by constitutional provision, the
sovereign has power to tax all persons and property actually within
its jurisdiction and enjoying the benefit and protection of its
laws. Cooley on Taxation, 3d ed., p. 22.
Page 263 U. S. 515
We are not here concerned with taxation by a state. The license
tax cannot be said to conflict with § 2, Art. IV, of the
Constitution: "The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all
privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states." It
applies only to nonresident fishermen; citizens of every state are
treated alike. Only residents of the territory are preferred. This
is not wholly arbitrary or unreasonable, and we find nothing in the
Constitution which prohibits Congress from favoring those who have
acquired a local residence and upon whose efforts the future
development of the territory must largely depend.
See Alaska
Pacific Fisheries v. United States, supra, and
Alaska Fish
Co. v. Smith, 255 U. S. 44,
255 U. S.
47-48.
None of the points relied upon by appellant is well taken, and
the decree below must be
Affirmed.