The Alaska daily empire., 1922-04-17
COURT MANDATE
ON JONES BILL
CASE RECEIVED
Costs of Action Charged
Against Plaintifs-Full
Text Of Decision.

The mandate of the Supreme Court
OF the United States in the case OF
the Juneau Hardware Company and
the Territory of Alaska against John
w. Troy, Collector of Customs for
Alaska, assessing the costs of the
action against the plaintiffs, was
filed today in the office of Clerk OF
the U. S. District Court. Copies OF
the mandate were received by U. S.
Attorney A. G. Shoup. that office hav-
ing represented the Collector in the
action in the lower court.
Jennings Upheld
The case was brought to test the
constitutionality of Sec. q, of the
Merchant Marine Act, of June s.,
1920 Judge R. w. Jennings upheld
the validity of the act and the case
was taken direct to the Supreme
Court by the Territorial Attorney
General The latter appeared before
that court last December and pre-
scented his brief supporting the local
contention. On February q last,
Justice McReynolds delivered the
courts opinion sustaining Judge Jen-
nings' ruling.
Not Ask Rehearing
Shortly after the Supreme Court s
decision was announced, the Attor-
ney General said it was possible
that a rehearing would be asked for.
This, however, will not be done. Mr..
Rustgard, after reading full copy
of the decision, said that it was
not possible to go farther in the
matter.
Texa of Decision
The decision, which Is brief, fol
lows in full:
'In the court below appellants bill
was dismissed upon demurrer. 1t at
tacks the validity of Sec 27, Merch-
ant Marine Act of June 5, 1920, Oh.
$50, Al, Stat, 9SS Quoting the sec
ton in a footnote), upon the ground
that the regulation of commerce pre-
scribed therein gives a preference
to ports of the Pacific Coast states
over those of Alaska, contrary to
Section s, Art /, Federal Constitu-
tion-iNo preference shall be given,
by any regulation of commerce or
revenue, to the ports of one state
over those Of another
'sThe Act purports among other
things to provide for the promotion
and maintenance Of the American
Merchant Marine and section q for
bids transportation of merchandise
over any portion of the house be-
tween points in the United States, in
Guiding Alaska in any other vessel
than a vessel built in and documented
under the laws of the United States
and owned by persons who are citi-
zens OF the United States, or vessels
to which the privilege Of engaging
in the cOastwise trade Is extended
by Sections is or % OF this Act pro
vided that under certain conditions
this limitation shall not apply to mer-
chandise transported between points
within the United States, excluding
Alaska, over through routes by Can
adam rail lines and connecting water
facilities.
THE bill assumes that the prefer
ence is obvious upon a consideration
OF the statute without more. And
although by fostering lines Of boats
which afford frequent, regular and
speedy service, and otherwise, the
practical effect may be highly bene-
fetal to Alaskan ports, nevertheless
in view Of the record, we will assume
that the Act does give preference to
the ports of the states over those of
the Territory.
Alaska has been Incorporated into
and is a part OF the United States.
and the Constitution, so far as APP
plicable, is controlling upon Con-
gress when legislating in respect
thereto Rasmussen " United States,
1877. u. s. SIG, 525, 52S. 1t has
been organized and is governed I'M
der appropriate Congressional action.
For present purposes, therefore, we
need not inquire into the object and
scope OF the treaty Of cession.
The questioned regulation relates
directly to commerce and clearly is
not within the usual meaning of the
words Of Sec. s. Art. l. of the Con-
stitution-'All duties. imposts and
excuses shall be uniform throughout
the United States That such regu-
laaions are not controlled by the uni.
formity clause was pointed out in
Cooley v. Board of Warden of the
port of Philadelphia, II. Howe,
2s9, 3l4-
but, having previously stated
that. in this instance. the law com,
planned OF does not pass the ap
prOpriate line which limits laws for
the regulation OF pilots and pilot
age. the suggestion, that this law
levies duty on tonnage or on i'm
ports or exports, is not admissible
and. II SO. 1t also follows, that this
law is not repugnant to the first
clause OF the eighth section OF the
first article of the Constitution. which
declares that all duties, imposts and
excuses shall be uniform throughout
the United States; for, II ii is moi
TO be deemed a law levying duty