The daily Nome industrial worker., 1916-02-23

The proposal to deprive the AL aska legislature of the right to tax the Fisheries of Alaska is a direct suggestion embodied in the report of Secretary Redficld of the Depart ment of Commerce, as follOws:- 4
 "On April 29, 1915, the legfsla- ture of Alaska passed an act impos- ing additionaI license fees on cer-, tan kinds of business, including fisheries, salteries, fish traps and gill nets. It at once became apparent that if the Legislature of Alaska. exercises this power the result is! double taxation on persons engaGe1i in such kinds of business, and further a dual control would exist between the department of conie fnerce and the legislature of Alaska over at least a branch of such kinds of business. The latter condition is the one that primarily concerns the department of commerce. i The con trol of the fisheries of Alaska is by law placed in that department, which is responsible not only for their preservation but also for the-r growth and development. Clearly, ii the Territory nf Alaska has a joint control over the whole or any DOT tion of such fisheries, the plans oi 0f won fnr their growth and development may meet with serious interference and the result may be most harmful to the industry. If, for example, the Legislature of Alaska may impose license fees and taxes to an extent that might seriously impair the in- dustry by making it unprofitable, the department of commerce, charged with the responsibility of caring for this industry, would be practically helpless.
 "Not even the responsibility Of such situation. much less the si- tuation itself. should be allowed to exist. As long as congress sees fit to contiEne the control of the -\l aska fisiierier in the departmon: of commerce, that control shoud be eX elusive It is respectively suggested that Congress should either repeal the proylso contained in section 2 of the act of August 24, 1912, which authorizes the legislature of AL aska to impose other and additional to exclude fisheries and kindred Oc taxes or licenses, or 50 :'we.d it as to exclude fisheries and kindred oc equations in Alaska from it's opera tion
 Congress Would Fix Fees.
 This would leave tbe law Gs II stood before the passage of the act of August 24, 1912, end ell license fees and taxes for carrying on the fisheries and kindred occupations in Alaska would then be fixed by congress.
 Tt may be urged that section 20 of the act of August "A. 1912, meets the situation. It reads thus:
 "'All laws passed by the legisla- ture of the territory of Alaska shall be submitted to the congress by the president of the United States, and. if disapproved by congress, they shall be null and of no effect
 This provision, however, does not meet the case. for unless. by its terms congress actually disGpproves of the acts of the Alaska Legisa- ture they are law. Applying 1t to the case under consideration, lt would mean that congress would have to disapprove each and every license tax or law that continue to have the force and effect might be passed by the legislature of Alaska on the fisheries in that territory.
 There should be no doubt on this important matter, which is re. spectfully commended to the atten- tion of congress. The difficulty ap pears to arise from the possibly doubtful interpretation of the provl sions of section of tho act o August 24, 1912 (37 Stat, 5i2I which establishes the territory o Alaska"
 In quoting from that report, on' clearly sees the position of the De partment of Commerce as an inteili gible one, although there is also an other alternative which the secrsta