INDIRECT ENCROACHMENT ON FEDERAL AUTHORITY 909 Mr. Justice Thompson also dissented. He understands that the majority means to hold that stock of the United States "is not to be included in the estimate of property subject to taxation" on "the broad ground" that it is "not taxable in any shape or manner whatever." ^^ His objection to the decision is that the interference with the United States from permitting the tax is slight as com- pared with the evil of exempting the property and creating a priv- ileged class of public creditors : "No one procures stock without exchanging for it an equivalent in money or some other property; all which was, doubtless, subject to the payment of taxes. Exemption from taxation may hold out an inducement to invest property in stock of the United States, and might, possibly', enable the government to procure loans with more facility, and perhaps on better terms. But this possible, or even certain benefit to the United States, cannot extinguish pre-existing state rights. To consider this a tax upon the means employed by the general government for carrying on its operations, is, certainly, very great refinement. It is not a tax that operates directly upon any power or credit of the United States. The utmost extent to which the most watchfiil jealousy can lead is, that it may, by possibility, prevent the government from borrowing money on quite so good terms. And even this inconvenience is extremely question- able; for the stock only pays the same tax that the money with which it was purchased did. And whether the property exists in one form or the other, would seem to be matter of very little importance to the owner. But great injustice is done to others, by exempting men who are living upon the interest of their money, invested in stock of the United States, from the payment of taxes; thereby establishing a privileged class of public creditors who, though living under the protection of the govern- ment, are exempted from bearing any of its burdens. A construction of the Constitution, drawing after it such consequences, ought to be very palpable before it is adopted." ^^ In 1842, Dobbins v. Commissioners of Erie County ^^ held without dissent that a revenue ofl5cer of the United States could not be subjected to a state tax imposed on "all offices and posts of profit." The law made it the duty of the assessors "to rate all offices and posts of profit, professions, trades, and occupations, at tiieir dis- cretion, having a due regard to the. profits arising therefrom." ^^ " 2 Pet. (U. S.) 476. 20 n^j_^ 478_ a 16 Pet. (U. S.) 435 (1842). 22 jiid^^ 445.
