*1 1H5 сonsequences non-payment, relationship of DUII collateral affecting loss of partake license of a criminal nature. On [driving a vehicle under the influ- motor balance, that elements we find these major ence of to the other intoxicants] support proceedings our conclusion that the offenses, legislative traffic the evident nature, are neither criminal civil in nor but emphasize desire to the seriousness of this quasi-criminal. facilitating punishment, offense while its application original for relief is and the of criminal law retention enforce- granted. quash- The district courts’ orders ment procedures, the 1975 code did not ing outstanding warrants issued for failure punitive freе this offense from the traits to appear satisfy fines in traffic cases prosecution. characterize a criminal involving infractions as defined in 28.- AS Accordingly, petitioner is entitled to the cases, 35.230 are reversed. In future such statutory protections constitutional and warrants quashed except prosecutions afforded of the other good cause.13 major traffic offenses that remained REVERSED. traffic crimes under the code. 570 P.2d at 61. Brown,
Respondents contend that
these a weighed elements in favor of “crim- offense; opposed
inal” as to a civil while in elements, case, present these on bal- ance, weigh in a If favor of civil offense. LIBERATI, Ralph Ennis, Sam Peter Mos deciding we were whether сonstitutional ness, Lundgren, John A. and Alaska In rights by jury to counsel and trial afforded dependent Marketing Fishermen’s Asso prosecutions defendants in criminal were ciation, Appellants, applicable prosecutions for traffic infrac- v. tions, we agree respondents.12 would BOROUGH, Appellee. BRISTOL BAY This, however, is not the issue before us. We only procedures hold criminal No. 3365. applicable enforcement are to traffic in- Supreme Court of Alaska. Moreover, fraction although cases. it is Sept. true that some of the factors discussed in Brown indicate that infraction traffic cases
are civil proceedings, others indicate that
they Thus, penalty are criminal. prosecution Agency Supe- because it found this
12. See Alaska Public Defender
v.
ment
to be a
Court,
1106, Opn.
(Alas-
prosecution.
rior
ka,
P.2d
No. 1733
criminal
29, 1978)
3842);
Sept.
(File No.
Alexander
City
Anchorage,
(Alaska
v.
1971);
P.2d 910
legislature
that the
13. Petitioner also contends
Fairbanks,
City
Baker v.
11J7 (3%) tax on the sale caught of all raw fish within borough.2 They contend that the ordinance is invalid because: proper public hearing prior notice of a to the enactment of the ordinance *3 given; was not 2. the tax is a tax on a natu- severance ral resource and the to levy such a is exclusively, reserved by Article VIII of State the Alas- Constitution; ka municipal 3. taxation of raw fish has State; been preempted by the and assuming tax, 4. the tax to be a sales specific is on a commodity a general tax may imposed by sales municipalities. court, superior
The in a carefully reasoned decision, rejected arguments each of these and entered summary judgment for the borough. We affirm.
I McGrath, James, Allen Graham and An- 29.48.150(a)3 prescribes AS ordinance en- chorage, for appellants. procedures actment which must be followed by municipalities. Before an ordinance is Davis, Anchorage, Harland W. appel- for public hearing. enacted there must be a At lee. days least five public hearing before the BOOCHEVER, Justice, summary publish- Before of the ordinance must be Chief WITZ, CONNOR, along place ed with a time RABINO notice of the BURKE and MATTHEWS, public hearing. for the If there is a Justices. news-
papеr general circulation distributed within municipality, the notice must OPINION there, appear at least once and if there is no MATTHEWS, Justice. such newspaper, posted the notice must be Appellants1 challenge Bay a Bristol Bor- public places municipali- three within the ough ordinance imposing percent a three ty.4 Appellants place public hearing. are commercial fishermen and a tice of time and for organization. hearing fishermen’s publication by follows at least five days. Copies of the ordinance must be availa- Bay Alaska, Borough,
2. Bristol Ordinance No. persons present must ble to all ordinance (April 1973). assembly be read full. The or council shall persоns wishing hear all interested to be heard. 3. AS 29.48.150 hearing, assembly After the or council shall procedure, (a) following pro- Ordinance may adopt consider ordinance and it with governs cedure the enactment of all ordinances assembly or without amendment. The or coun- except emergency ordinances. An ordinance print copies cil make available be introduced a member or committee adopted ordinances. assembly municipal or council or 29.78.010(12) “published”: 4.AS defines executive or chief administrator. An ordinance (12) “published” hearing appearing shall be set for at the affirmative vote means least majority newspaper general of a of the votes authorized on once in a circulation dis- question. or, summary municipality of the ordinance and its tributed within if there is published together newspaper amendments with a no- circulation distributed must proposed place public In this case the What take at ordinance was hearing 29.48.150(a).7 public hearing February set for is defined Copies must either be read of the ordinance public hearing published A notice of was present, or be available to those and the Anchorage Daily February News on assembly wishing must hear all those to be proposed 1973.5 The notice summarized the Appellants heard. do cop not contend that ordinance as: ies of the ordinanсe were not available or providing and collection of sales persons wishing that all to be heard were (3%) tax of percent three of the sales at February meeting. heard price'on all eggs fish and fish which are presumption proceedings There is a harvested within the boundaries of the the governing body municipality of a have Bay Bristol Borough.6 been conducted in accordance with law.8 hearing date, On the which was also the That presumption has not been rebutted *4 - next regular meeting the borough assem here. We public therefore conclude that a bly, the hearing February ordinance was called for discussion. 19. place took on Representatives cannery ap- of a salmon question The next the is whether further peared ordinance; and the commented on public hearing April 2 was needed. If it other citizens it as well. discussed Action not, was properly publish then the failure to on the postponed ordinance was then to an concerning legally notice it irrelevant. unspecified meeting. subsequent At its February meeting After the 19 and be- 13, March meeting assembly the dis- April fore 2 the was ordinance amended. the proposed cussed ordinance further and applied original its form the ordinance 2, 1973, April set as the date for a new salmon, major species red the harvested public hearing. There was no newspaper borough, in the eggs; and red salmon as publication April hearing, of the although amended applied to all raw fish. The posted notice was in public places within other pertained responsi- amendment the borough. At the April meeting the bility as buyer between and seller of fish passed ordinance was by borough the as- for the payment collection and of the tax. sembly. special A election was then set for The initial placed obligation ordinance the 27, April 1973, proper newspaper notice of to pay buyer, and collect the tax on the election published, was and the ordi- leaving while responsibilities seller’s nance passed was by the voters. ambiguous poorly defined.9 The municipality, posting public within the Legal in three Notice No. 8177 places days. for at least five 7. See footnote 3. parties stipulated 5. The have that the Anchor- age Daily newspaper general News was a Antieau, Law, Municipal Corporation § 4.19 Bay circulation distributed within the Bristol at 4-38 Borough. example, 9. For the ordinance stated: “collec- provides 6. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit G as follows: tion is enforceable the seller as the certified NOTICE OF ORDINANCE & PUBLIC borough”; tax collector of the “the seller or the HEARING buyer borough is at all times accountable to the hereby given Bay Notice is that the Bristol collected; for” sales taxes and “taxes due the Naknek, Borough Assembly, Alaska, is enact- borough collected a seller . . . shall be ing providing Ordinance No. 32 for paid expiration quarter at the of each of each per collection (3%) of sales tax of three cent year. Every calendar seller liable for collection price eggs of the sales on all fish and fish buyer responsible for the retention shall file which are harvested within the boundaries of borough with the Moreover, ... a return . . .” Bay Borough. public hearing the Bristol buyer of a fish seller’s business Monday, 19, February will be held 1973 at required portion pur- was to withhold a M., Borough Building 7:00 P. in the Court- money chase to cover the amount of sales tax- room. might borough es which be due the from the February DATED: Bay Alaskа, Borough, Proposed seller. Bristol Ray /s/ E. Baker borough Ordinance No. assembly introduced to the Borough Manager February Published: Feb.
1H9 amended responsibil- unique ordinance clarified the needs of Alaska. Traditional coun- seller, ities of buyer placing obliga- ties were viewed as financially handi- pay tion to the tax on capped, the seller and the poor government, cousins of state obligation to collect and retain the tax on adequate without fiscal autonomy. In a buyer. report prepared for the constitutional con- vention, problem was summarized this 29.48.150(a)contemplates way: an may ordinance public be amended after Tax Base: Within the framework of hearing necessity without of a new home provisions rule local govern- for hearing. The statute “after the ments, enjoy such units would seem to hearing, assembly or council shall con taxing considerable freedom. This is not sider the ordinance adopt it with case, however, necessarily or without Only amendment.”10 those state law frequently can and does restrict changes to an ordinance which are so sub severely taxing powers of local units. stantial as to change its basic character use, Where home rule is not in local units require public hearing that the process be have taxing powers permitted those repeated.11 The amendments in question them state law or such charters as fall far short of that They standard. are they may permitted to draft or may squarely within the descriptive summary of receive from the legislatures. state It is the ordinance published on February 6.12 say understatement through- not, They appellants contend, do shift out the United States most counties and the economic burden to fishermen.13 In *5 municipalities long have been scraping forms, both its initial and amended the ordi the bottom of the tax resource barrel. In requires nance percent (3%) that three be the face of ever-increasing service de- fish, added price to the of places pri mands and mounting construction and mary collection responsibility on the buyer. costs, administrative few cities are amply If anything, the practi amended form is in supplied with revenue. sources are New cal effect less burdensome to fishermen be everywhere being sought. cause it does impose collection and major difficulty government for local accounting responsibilities them, on as the in their search for revenues is adequate initial ordinance ambiguously somewhat the virtual preemption of the most lucra- We, therefore, did. conclude that no addi tive tax fields the states and federal hearing tional February after that of government. many About all that mu- required, was and the prop ordinance was nicipalities prop- have left to them is the erly enacted. tax,
erty always has been their II source, principal and a few business license taxes and fees. Counties are in In reviewing appellants’ claims that the shape. better consequence, legisla- As a borough’s raw fish tax is substantively ille- tures increasingly have been bombarded gal the following general comments are rel- requests with govern- to liberalize local evant. During stages the formative of our taxing powers.14 ment state constitution considerable attention was focused on designing system of local Acutely problem, aware of this the dele- government to perceived gates answer to the to at- the constitutional convention placed challenging See footnote 3. been it. Heaton v. those Charlotte, City of 277 N.C. 178 S.E.2d City Anchorage, 11. Jefferson v. of 513 P.2d (Alaska 1973). Studies, Prepared 14.Constitutional 12. See footnote 6. Alaska Statehood Public Admin- Committee 13. One factor which has been used in determin- Service, Washington, D.C:, istration Vol. No. ing proposed whether an amendment to a ordi- (November 1955). VIII at 41-2 require public nance is such as to a new hear- ing significant is whether a added burden has Powers. Municipalities General have fiscally tempted strong, to create a sound subject following general powers, to system policy is government. of local This provisions other of law: first Local reflected in the section of the Government Article of the Alaska Constitu-
tion: (7) to taxes . provide The purpose of article is to authority, grant taxing limit- This broad of self-government for maximum local with law, of is con- provisions ed other units, government a minimum local the second sentence Article sistent with tax-levying prevent duplication and to X, liberal requires 1 which Section “[a] jurisdictions. A liberal construction powers to the given shall be construction govern- given powers of local This theme of liberal government.” local ment.15 power was re- construction broad local 29.48.310— iterated non-dupli implement goal To 330.18 jurisdictions, taxing cation of lim Section its taxing authority organized boroughs rule of liberal constitutional other citiеs.16 No local entities explicit to make construction was intended tax. Section 3 authorizes the overrule the framers’ intention to a com borough powers,17 enumerate which it has mon law rule of interpretation which re taxation, done respect 29.48.- quired in AS reading govern a narrow of local 010(7): foregoing powers.19 summary ment Constitution, X, power upon boroughs 15. Alaska Article or function § conferred illustrative or cities this title are X, 16. Article 2 of the Alaska § Constitution object and not a on or exclusion limitation from exercise of the or function. Local Powers. All local Government rule, rule, called 19.The Dillon’s states: government powers shall be vested in bor- municipal cоrporation possesses and can [a] oughs taxing powers may delegate The State and cities. followingpowers and not others. exercise First, second, organized boroughs words; granted express those only. cities necessarily implied those or neces- *6 X, 3 of Article the Alaska § Constitution expressly sarily powers grant- incident to the third, ed; absolutely essential those to the corpo- Boroughs. entire be divid- The State shall objects purposes declared ration—not pensable. organized unorganized. boroughs, ed into or convenient, simply but indis- They shall be established in a manner and according provided by to standards law. The Executors, Moody’s Merrian v. 25 Iowa population, geogra- standards shall include The the minutes of constitutional phy, economy, transportation, fac- and other reveal convention clause assure as those that the liberal construction borough tors. Each and shall an area embrace X, of Article 1 was Section intended to population to common interests the municipalities, law as well possible. degree maximum having powers, home rule would not boroughs classify prescribe their by rule, governed would be powers but have their powers by and functions. Methods liberally interpreted. following may organized, incorporated, boroughs colloquy delegates between Hellenthal and Vic- consolidated, reclassified, merged, or dis- tor Fischer is illustrative: prescribed by solved shall be law. compelling HELLENTHAL: Is there a reason provide: 18. AS 29.48.310-330 for the retention of the last sentence in the AS 29.48.310. General construction. A section? pow- President, given all liberal construction shall be ers to we were advised V. FISCHER: Mr. by boroughs and functions and cities con- our committee that due to the consultants past very frequent- in the ferred in this title. fact that ly, courts have powers. generally interpreted powers AS 29.48.320. Extent of Unless the or rather law, by very strictly something boroughs government otherwise limited may cities under local called “Dillon’s that, may Rule”, something powers and have and exercise all or like necessarily fairly implied or functions incident to the or that a to this was rather im- statement effect object purpose pow- portant, particularly with the connection government provisions ers and functions conferred in of the article this title. local make sure that it would be it the maximum powers. interpreted give AS 29.48.330. Enumeration of Specific examples flexibility within an enumerated amount of we
H21 question The ordinance in cautionary only should have at least a effect on taxes quick to judiciary. borough. We should not be It sale of fish taken within the authority of imply taxing limitations on the borough, has construed as well been expressed. are municipality below, a where none apply only thе court to sales place borough. which take within the We Ill who harvests accept that construction. One he pay raw fish need not the tax if does not pro Section 1 of the ordinance or, sell the fish at all if he wishes to sell vides: them, if he does so outside the boundaries per- There is levied a sales tax of three Therefore, borough. price the sales (3%) cent on the sale of all raw fish not, colleague suggests, is as our dissenting harvested within the boundaries of the merely a a measure for severance tax. The Bay Borough, Bristol their measured caught tax is a sales sale of fish gross paid by sales value in dollars fish and sold within of the bor- the boundaries buyers.20 ough. Appellants arguе that this ordinance is a
severance tax on a natural resource rather They argue than a tax. further that a sales IV a imposed by severance tax not be question We next turn to the whether municipality provisions because of the of municipal of raw fish has been taxation gov- Article VIII of the Alaska Constitution preempted by the state. The state does erning ownership, management use and very manage harvesting of fish to a it unneces- of natural resources. We find Likewise, some of the inci- detailed extent. municipality whether a is sary decide regulated.21 the sale of raw fish are dents of tax, prohibited levying from a severance addition, the state levies a licеnse tax on tax. question because the tax in sales percent salmon canneries based on three upon taking severance tax is a tax (3%)of the value of raw fish obtained for or extracting of a resource. It is assessed year. percentage processing each A certain sold, though even the resource is not to be of the amount collected the state for merely personal but consumed for use. A municipality tax is in which refunded to the hand, imposed, sales tax is on the other it is collected.23 after the resource has been harvested and en private ownership reduced to the state has Merely because concerning particular when it is legislation sold. acted product. provide price desire to have in it and to the maxi- wholesale finished powers mum government and to the local 43.75.010. carry units to out the intent of this *7 article. provide: 23.AS and .135 43.75.130 governments. The com- Refund local to I 11. HELLENTHAL: Now refer to Section Doesn’t you organ- pay to each revenue shall missioner of ized clearly 11 reverse this rule that Section city borough of the first class and each to as Rule? refer Dillon’s percent amount of tax revenue 10 of the rule, apply V. That FISCHER: would home borough city or from taxes collected in the boroughs, point that cities and but the is there by chapter. levied 10-90 of this §§ may government be a of in lot locаl units Alas- boroughs and cities. Additional refund to years may granted ka over the not the be payment in 130 § In addition to the allowed authority by home rule the and it chapter, of of this the commissioner revenue may adopt not want to a home rule charter. pay organized borough per- 10 to each Proceedings, Alaska Constitutional Convention collected cent of the amount of tax revenue 4, Part 2690-96. borough in the from taxes levied 10-90 §§ 32, supra 20. Ordinance No. note 2. city chapter pay of this and shall to each of unorganized first bor- the class located in the 21. See AS 16.10.270-296. ough percent tax 10 of the of the amount city revenue in the from taxes lev- collected artificially 22. The value is is determined. It chapter. §§ ied 10-90 of this equal year average considered to be to a five 1122 Business License municipal the Alaska Act.28 Under does not mean that all
subject
subject
percentage
is lost.
col-
money
to act on the same
the latter a
of the
consistently rejected
of
application
municipality
We have
is
lected in a
also refunded
dealing
our
any
concept
such
in
cases
with
In most of its ramifica-
municipality.29
rule
do so now
municipalities.24
home
We
is
gross receipts
tax
in
general
tions
respect
general
municipalities
law
with
sales;30 it
essence a state tax on retail
requires
our constitution
that their
because
obviously
wrong
bе
to conclude
would
be
well.25 We
powers
liberally
construed
it
merely because
taxes sales that a munici-
the n '
appropriate
believe
an
accommodation
taxing
thereby precluded
pality is
from
general
can made between the state
be
same sales. Courts have taken different
deter-
municipalities by
law
a rule which
be
views on whether a local tax should
exist,
absence of
preemption
mines
in the
prohibited
exists a statewide
because there
or a
express legislative direction
direct
an
tax
character or on the same
of
similar
statute,
an
only
with a
where
ordi-
conflict
In view
con-
related commodities.31
with the ef-
substantially
nance
interferes
mu-
statutory
stitutional and
command that
statute or
functioning
fective
of a state
nicipal powers
broadly interpreted
regulation
underlying purpose.26
or its
Alaska,
is no
adopt
we
the view that there
municipal
general prohibition against like
indicated,
regu-
As
of Alaska
State
it is
present
and state taxes.
In the
case
taking
quite extensively
of fish
lates
tax
Bay Borough
doubtful that the Bristol
regulates
to some extent
sale of
the effect of
state
However,
decreasing
will have
the ordinance at issue is
fish.
base
revenue because
state license tax
intended
to raise
and has no
money,
component.
computed
permitting any
no
is
without
deduc-
regulаtory
We see
direct or
Moreover, the fact
regula-
indirect conflict between
tion for other taxes.32
the State’s
fish
that a
tax
harvesting
tion of
or fish sales and the
local
reduce somewhat
in question.
ordinance
revenues
a state
not
generated
tax has
preclude
been
as sufficient to
regarded
We have also
state
noted
local tax.33
license tax on
and the
salmon canneries
gener
refund of certain
perceive any
of the revenues
Because we do not
substan
tax with
municipalities.27
ates to
That
its
tial
interference caused
the ordinance
sharing provision
functioning
any
is
different in
of
state
question
revenue
with
general
receiрts
law,
legisla
tax
gross
impute
kind from the
of
we are unable to
37,
State,
43.70.010(a)(5)
(7)
30.
ex-
24. Jefferson v.
537 P.2d
43 n. 33
See AS
Fairbanks,
1974);
(Alaska
Rubey City
empt
by processors
v.
456
wholesale sales and sales
470,
(Alaska 1969).
475
P.2d
and manufacturers.
opinion.
Part II of
25. See
prohi-
holding
Examples
of cases
Dunne,
544,
Mulligan v.
bition are:
61 I11.2d
Note, Conñicts
Between State Statutes and
Denver,
(1975);
City
338
6
Berman v.
N.E.2d
Ordinances,
737,
Municipal
72 Harv.L.Rev.
745
538,
(1965);
156
H23 Further, ture an intent preclude municipalities evolutionary development from taxing the sale of raw fish. We are present language 29.53.415(a) in- AS supported in that conclusion the fact dicates that this statute was not meant to where the has levied a tax 1949, general be limited to sales taxes. In on other natural resources and has intended Legislature empowered Territorial mu- that resource to from local taxes be free nicipalities a sales tax” “consumer expressed has directly that intention. Such on “all retail sales and services made within an expressed early intention was as 1955 municipality.”39 (emphasis added) Properties in the and Production Oil Gas Thus, 1949, as the law stood in a sales tax containing Tax.34 Other statutes an ex required 1953, was general. to be In rents pression exclusivity are the current Oil subject were added to the items to sales Tax,35 Properties and Gas Production and 1957, taxes.40 In added au- Exploration, and Gas Production Oil thority exemptions for the creation of from Pipeline Transportation Property and Tax.36 prior taxation and exemptions.41 ratified n 1959, In placed word “all” was in front Y of “rents” and “services” as well as “retail Appellants’ next contention is that sales”. The law as it then read authorized if the tax is a sales tax specific it is on a municipality a commodity municipalities may im levy and collect a consumer’s sales [t]o pose general Appellants rely sales taxes. tax exceeding percentum of the three 29.53.415(a) on AS sales, rents, sales price on all retail on all A borough may collect a sales levy and services, and on all within the mu- made percent tax not on exceeding three sales tax nicipality, sales and such consumer’s rents, оr and on within the services made may be option levied and collected at the borough. may apply any The sales tax any council or one or more of the Exemptions may all of these sources. three preceding tax sources. granted by be ordinance. Provided, however, any municipality Appellants exemption pro- contend that the exemption may provide by ordinance implies vision of this statute that a sales if not oth- from the tax levied hereunder agree. general. must be We do not expressly prohibited by erwise law.42 The statute states on what no limits added) (emphasis exempted, nothing and there is in the the sales tax After recodification exprеssly requires general statute which 29.10.- authorization was contained AS Moreover, tax. the term “sales tax” carries 357-366 and 07.10.140 without substan- generality. no connotation of The first change. law was recodi- tive sales taxes country used were selec- fied, form, present amended to its tive rather than and selective sales major placed in AS 29.53.415.43 bearing taxes are not Also unusual.37 and new statute changes between the old 29.53.415(a) permits our conclusion that AS were of the limitation that the elimination a selective sales tax are the constitutional statutory imposed only that a tax be on retail sales requirements broad given municipal powers.38 construction be of the word “all” as a modi- elimination 43.55.010, 1(b) 1977). seq. (repealed 34. AS et 39. Ch. 38 SLA 1949. § 35. AS 43.55.017. 1(b) 40. 121 SLA 1953. Ch. § 36. AS 43.56.030. 1(b) 151 SLA 1957. 41. and Ch. §§ Note, 37. The State Retail Tax: A Reex Critical Policy, Underlying amination of 1 Ga.L.Rev. 66 SLA 1959. § Ch. (1967); Roddey Byrnes, State ex rel. (S.C.1951). S.C. 66 S.E.2d 118 SLA 1972. Ch. opinion. 38.See Part II of this
1124 provided Here the tax for fier of what We is on may be taxed. can think bottomed resource, the the prerequisite of taxable purpose for these amendments other fish, within the borough’s raw be harvested than the municipalities obvious: were If, fact, boundaries. the fish were levy meant to to sales power have the taxes caught borough’s boundaries outside the nonretail, sales, retail and to as well as borders, but sold within its then the sale all, some, tax as well transactions. Thus, would the reach. I elude ordinanсe’s AFFIRMED. would hold contested tax is a that the sev- erance tax and in turn address the would RABINOWITZ, Justice, dissenting in question imposition the of whether part. borough prohibited severance tax is the disagree I with the court’s conclusionthat by the provisions of Article VIII of the provided the tax Bay Borough for in Bristol Alaska pertaining Constitution to the own- Ordinance sales tax. No. 32 is a As I ana- ership, management use and of natural re- lyze ordinance, the it calls for a severance sources. tax on the of fish within harvesting my opinion, imposed the severance tax Bay boundaries of the Borough. Bristol Bay Borough Bristol does violate the A severance a tax tax is levied on the provisions of VIII of the Alaska Article severance of natural resources from the soil Constitution reserve the benefits Heath, or water. Phillips Petroleum Co. v. from, management of the and control over 847, (1973). 254 Ark. 30 497 S.W.2d people fisheries all the of the resource to taxing entity levying incapable sev- borough’s state.2 The of the effect ordi- erance tax on resources which have been exclusively nance is to appropriate to its severed outside of its boundaries. Gulf Re- benefit, residents, own of its and that McFarland, fining Co. of Louisiana 154 use of a natural resource which is reserved (1923), La. per So. aff’d to all people of the of the state for their curiam, 44 S.Ct. VIII, U.S. L.Ed. common use. 2 of the Article Section hand, On the other is in the Alaska legisla- Constitution reserved to the of the power taxing entity ture, a sales borough, authority to act upon tax jurisdic- all within its items sold as to this a delegation by resource. Absent tion, regardless borough, of where severance of to the I conclude the resource occurred.1 the ordinance contravenes Alaska’s utilization, reclamation, development, 1. It is clear that a severance can be meas- and price ured or lands, sales market value of the settlement and to assure fuller utili- resource involved. fisheries, development zation and wild- life, and waters. pro- 2. Article VIII of the Alaska Constitution Right Fishery. Section 15. No Exclusive vidеs, part: right special privilege No exclusive of fish- Authority. legis- Section 2. General ery shall be or authorized in the nat- created provide utilization, lature shall for the devel- ural waters of State. This section does opment, and conservation of natural re- not restrict of the State to limit State, belonging including sources to the land entry any fishery purposes into for of re- waters, for the maximum benefit of its conservation, prevent source economic people. among depend- distress fishermen and those Section 3. Common Use. Wherever oc- upon pro- ent them for a livelihood and to curring state, fish, wildlife, in their natural development aquacul- mote the efficient people and waters are reserved for ture in the State. common use. Application. Section Fish, forests, 17. Uniform Laws Section 4. Sustained Yield. wildlife, regulations governing disposal grasslands, replenisha- the use or all other belonging apply equally ble resources of natural the State shall be resources to all utilized, developed, persons similarly and maintained on the situated reference to yield principle, subject prefer- sustained subject purpose matter and to be served among ences beneficial uses. regulation. the law or Improvements. Section 5. Facilities facilities, may provide im- provements, greater and services to assure
H25 disposition Constitution. This makes it un-
necessary ques- for me to reach the further municipal
tion of whether taxation of raw existing
fish has been preempted by state
legislation or regulations. FRANTZ, Appellant,
Jack
v.
FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF
ANCHORAGE, Appellee.
FIRST BANK NATIONAL OF ANCHOR-
AGE, Cross-Appellant, FRANTZ, Cross-Appellee.
Jack
Nos.
Supreme Court of Alaska.
Sept. Schaible, Merdes, Cramer,
Stephen D. DeLisio, Fairbanks, appellant Staley & cross-appellee.