The Daily Alaska empire., 1951-05-11
DECISION OF
 JUDGE PRATT
 I5 REVERSED
Levy of One Per Cent Sus- tdined-May Be Taken
 to High Court

SAN FRANCISCO. May II --R-- A decision of the District Court of the Territory of Alaska, holding the Alaska Property Tax of 1949 invalid, was reversed by the Ninth U. s. Cir cult Court of Appeals yesterday.
 The act calls for levy of per cent tax on all property, real and personal, in the Territory.
 Federal District Judge Harry E. Pratt ruled at Fairbanks August l, 1850. that the act was invalid under Territorial. law, except for, section relating to tax on boats.
 On petition of Luther c. Hess, Fairbanks property owner, and the Alaska Juneau Gold Mining Co.,, Judge Pratt issued an injunction against collection of the tax.
 Yesterdays opinion by the higher court followed the filing of appeal by Territory Tax Commissioner M. P. Mullaney.
 The appeals court directed Judge Pratt to dismiss the action. Their opinion implied that relief for Hess and the gold company would lie in suit of protest rather than a re- quest for injunction.
 After the General Property Tax was enacted by the l949 Alaska Legislature, the Territory's Senate Finance committee estimated it would raise about $2.500 O00 for the biennium.
 The main legal points on which it was challenged were that it lacks uniformity in assessment and valua- tion, that taxpayers living outside towns under the act must indirectly i share municipal tax burden and that the law is vague and self-contra- | dictory."
 | A main point of challenge was a provision that collections in cities ! would revert to the cities in lieu of the municipal property tax. That | was enacted into the law to prevent residents having to pay the Territor- ial property tax on top of local property tax.
 The tax was one of the features of the Basic Tax Program" long advocated by Governor Gruening prior to enactment by the 1949 Leg lislature.
 Controversial Issue It was a controversial issue dur 1 ing the l951 Legislative, too.
 Critics of the property tax have contended that it would be too ex- l pensiye to collect in Alaska, that the areas are too vast, many proper ties too isolated and property rec ords too sketchy.
 Proponents argued in the Legis- lature that it would be readily col- lected from such big properties as canneries and big mining proper ties, which have not been subject to property taxes.
 Critics have contended that It would cost as high as 50 per cent or so of the tax revenues to get assess ments and make collections from the vast areas of the Territory.
 Opposition to the tax has been especially strong in the second and fourth divisions the mining di- 1 visions
 l Legislators from those divisions succeeded in getting bill through the 1851 House for repeal of the Property Tax Law. Parliamentary maneuvering delayed it's transmits sion to the Senate, however, and the Senate refused to consider it be- cause the deadline for receiving Hous bills had passed. | Some 1851 legislators expressed I the opinion that if the property tax law were upheld the additional amount of revenue it would produce | Attorney H. L. Faulkner said to- day he must await full report of the circuit court before deciding whether to carry the case to the |