The Daily Alaska empire., 1949-10-03
R Regulation 5ought,Judge
 Fo|ta Believes
White Act Cireumvented- Tax 72h Times Previ-
 ous Confisedtory

OuS l0nfISCdf0Ty The fish trap tax enacted by the last legislature was declared void today by U. s. Federal Judge George w. Folta, on grounds that 1t was confiscatory and regulatory.
 Action was brought by the P. E. Harris Company, which operates three canneries and % pile and floating traps in Southeast and Southwest Alaska, and an interven- Ing suit was brought by the Mutual Trap Company. which operates three traps.
 M P. Mullaney, Territorial Tax Commissioner. the defendant, con- tended the tax, with it's gradua- tions. is merely revenue measure
 ased on ability to pay. Judge Folta pointed out in his .lecision that seines and gill nets, which procure 60 percent of the salmon caught. were not taxed in comparison to traps, and therefore
 manifestly a tax on the fish caught in trap is tax on the trap itself.'
 The plaintiffs introduced evil dence that If such taxes had been in effect the past seven or eight years, there would have been sub- Stantial losses suffered
 The defendant claimed that ty use of other bookkeeping methods and computation, this claimed loss turns into profit.
 There are 405 traps operating in Alaskan waters. taking an average of less than 80.000 salmon each, and 869 seines. each taking slightly more than 30,000 apiece. evidence showed. Tax under present rates would be 1-400 of cent for those caught in seines and 7.43 cents for those caught in trap, differ sntial of 5000 times.
 PROPOSED TAX The tax proposed a levy on the irst 100000 salmon of $6,750, and progressively increasing so that on 25O00O salmon taken the increase was from $500 to $43. 3.5O0.
 The plaintiffs also brought out hat the tax was retroactive to January l, giving them no rebate on taxes already paid and not allowing them to withdraw without payment.
 Judge Folta went into explana- tion of how a trap operates com- pared to a seine and the costs in- solved in each operation.
 QUESTION. SUSTAINED T am of the opinion" the judge stated, that the contention that the tax is so excessive as to in- fringe on the right to fish on the basis of equality guaranteed by the White Act must be sustained. :"
 The White Act denies exclusive rights to the fisheries by any type of gear or to any citizen. and was passed in 1924.
 The complaining companies asked the judge to note the fact that the l949 legislature, composed of the same members in the l949 session. which brought up a referendum showed the electors favored the abolition of fish traps by large majority This is leeyond the power of the Territorial legislature. LEGISLATURE USURPATION
 This enactment" the judgement declared, "on the heels of the ref erendum vote is pointed to as proof of the charge that the legislature, under the guise of exerting tax power, in reality usurped the power of regulation reserved by Congress. in an attempt to abolish fish traps. Further support is indicated on the excessiveness of the tax. the fact that it bears no relationship to the value of the fish that 1t is the antithesis of any scheme to equitably distribute the tax burden and whole disregards the fact thas since canned salmon must com pete not only with other fish, but with meats also, the increased bur- den cannot be passed on to the consumer. If all this be true. the act would appear to be the modern guise of an ancient tyranny" Previous cases upholding tax statutes. even though confiscatory. were not pertinent, the judge held. Another decision did nos hold se- cause it preceded the White Act. with it's guarantee under considera- tion by the court.
 | Tt is impossible to escape the conclusion" the judge wrote, that in imposing a tax on fish taken