Page:Leslie Miller, Inc. v. State.pdf/5

ARK.] apply to appellants' activities herein. It is contended that the enforcement of the provisions of the Act is in contravention of the sovereign power of the United States, as Article 4, § 3, Clause 2, of the Constitution of the United States expressly grants to Congress the power to make all needful rules and regulations respecting property belonging to the United States.

The facts in these cases clearly show that the appellants are independent contractors. The fact that each appellant had a contract, in excess of $20,000, with the United States to construct buildings on United States Government property does not grant to them immunity from the State's law (Ark. Stats., §§ 71-701 to 71-721) which requires contractors to procure a contractor's license before they can legally bid, contract or perform work on a contract, in Arkansas.

The United States Government is not a party to this suit, nor are the appellants herein, agents or representatives of the United States Government. An independent contractor is not clothed with governmental immunity solely because of his contractual relationship with the Federal Government. A tax imposed upon an independent contractor is not laid upon a government instrumentality. Ernest K. James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. 134, 82 L. Ed. 155, 58 S. Ct. 208; Metcalf and Eddy v. Mitchell, 269 U.S. 514, 46 S. Ct. 172, 70 L. Ed. 384; Alabama v. King and Boozer, 314 U.S. 1, 62 S. Ct. 43, 86 L. Ed. 3; Graves v. ''New York, ex rel. O'Keefe'', 306 U.S. 466, 59 S. Ct. 595, 83 L. Ed. 927.

By analogy to these tax cases, state regulation of independent contractors has also been sustained in the face of increased economic burdens passed on indirectly to the Government by the independent contractors. Penn Dairies v. Milk Control Commission, 318 U.S. 261, 63 S. Ct. 617, 87 L. Ed. 748; Stewart & Co. v. Sadrakula, 309 U.S. 94, 60 S. Ct. 431, 84 L. Ed. 596; Railway Mail Ass'n v. Corsi, 326 U.S. 88, 65 S. Ct. 1483, 89 L. Ed. 2072; E. E. Morgan Co., Inc. v. State, Use Phillips County, 202 Ark. 404, 150 S.W.2d 736; Sollitt & Sons Construction Co. v.