912 HARVARD LAW REVIEW tion; if not, it must be excluded or cannot be reached. The argument concedes that the Federal stock is not subject to the general taxing power of the State, a power resting in the discretion of its constituted authorities as to the objects of taxation, and the amount imposed." ^ But the argument need not make any such concession. Whether United States bonds are subject to the taxing power of the state may depend upon the effect of such taxation on the borrowing power of the nation. The effect will vary with the methods adopted. If United States bonds are taxed and securities which compete for buyers are exempted, the former are placed at a disadvantage. The same result does not necessarily follow when all corporations are taxed on their capital irrespective of the securities in which it is invested. Certainly the effect of such a tax differs from'.the effect of a discriminatory tax, and the concession that a state may not impose a tax "that distinguishes unfavorably the stock of the United States from the other property of the taxpayer" does not in common sense carry an admission that a state cannot impose a tax which avoids any such tmfavorable distinction. Mr. Justice Nelson is to be criticized also for his later assertion that it cannot be a question for judicial determination whether there is discrimination. He thinks that if the state can tax in any way, it must necessarily be free to tax in every way. Restraints against discrimination can be imposed only by the state itself. This conclusion is interwoven with the assumption that any com- plaint against discrimination goes only to the wisdom or unwisdom of an exercise of power and not to the existence or lawfulness thereof. The absence of any inexorable necessity for such a position is demonstrated by the cases dealing with state taxes on peddlers or property and holding them invalid when goods or the sales of goods of extra-state origin are selected for discriminatory burdens.^^ Congress has made the absence of discrimination the test of state authority to tax the shares of stock in national banks, and the Supreme Court has had abundant practice in applying the test.^^ That the test of discrimination is often a difficult one to apply may be conceded. Mr. Justice Nelson is on firmer ground when he 2« 2 Black (U. S.) 620, 629-30 (1862). " Welton ti. Missouri, 91 U. S. 275 (1875); Darnell v. Memphis, 208 U. S. 113, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 247 (1908), 31 Harv. L. Rev. 573-74. " See 31 Harv. L. Rev. 344-69.
