*1 with in connection other be used that'they should afeo the flood control district. purposes for the facilities enacted to create a new challenged section was not one to authorize the specially district but assessment desig- accept, maintain, and use the already established purposes some of the enumerated improvements nated flood control act. The essential features necessarily imply special statute challenged benefits ruling court’s question. lands in think We findings is legislature requisite made the impliedly the formal adequate foundation. Mere lack not without ’ require is not express statement them sufficient reversal.
Judgment affirmed. GRAVES COMMISSIONERS CONSTITUTING et al.,
THE STATE TAX COMMISSION OF YORK, NEW O’KEEFE. v. NEW YORK ex rel. Argued 478. 1939. Decided March 1939.
No. March *2 Henry E.pstein, Mr. Solicitor General of New York, with whom Bennett, Jr., Messrs. John' J. Attorney Gen- eral, M. Joseph Mesnig, and J. Austin. Tobin were the brief, petitioners. *3 McNamara, for respondent. Jr.
Mr. Daniel *6 Jackson, Solicitor General with whom Assistant Attor- ney Morris, General Key Messrs. Sewall and Warner W. Gardner were on the brief, the United States, as curiae, amicus by leave of Court.
,475' McKittrick, Roy Attorney Messrs. Court, By leave Miller, Edward H. Missouri, and Assistant General of that General, State, filed a brief behalf as Attorney curiae, support petitioners. amicus opinion delivered the Mr.- Stone' Justice Court. imposition by whether the asked to decide
We are the salary income tax on of an York án State of New Corporation places Owners’ Loan of the Home employee government. federal upon burden an unconstitutional York, employed of New was a resident Respondent, attorney for the Home examining an during salary $2,400. at an annual Corporation Loan Owners’ year return for that he included his In income tax his York,state im- income tax subject to the New salary as (Consol. the Tax Lawof New'York by Art. posed 2f since repealed, §of 60). .Laws,' c. Subdivision wages and other com- “Salaries, from the exempted of officials from the United received States pensation military or thereof, including persons employees . .” Petitioners, . the United States. forces of naval *9 476
New York State Tax rejected Commissioners, respond- ent’s claim for a refund of the tax ground based the his salary that was constitutionally exempt taxation because the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation is an instrumentality of the United States Government and he, taxable during year, an employee the. was the federal engaged performance in the of a governmental function. by review
On
certiorari
Board’s action was set
by
aside
the Appellate Division of the Supreme
Court
York, 253 App.
New
Div.
1 N.
S.Y.
2d 195, whose
was affirmed by
order
of Appeals.
Court
278 N. Y.
691; 16
E. 2d
N.
404. Both
respondent’s
courts held
salary was
from tax on the
free
authority of New York
Rogers Graves,
ex rel.
constitutional being record importance. public
The Home Owners’ Loan Corporation was pur created 4 (a) to Home § suant Owners’ Loan Act of 1933, 12 U. S. C. 1461 seg., § Stat. et which was enacted provide emergency relief home owners, particularly them with respect to assist to home mortgage indebted which corporation, ness. is authorized to lend money home owners on mortgages and to home refinance loans within mortgage purview Act, of the is de (a) § to be an instrumentality clared of the United wholly Its shares of stock are government-owned. States. (b). funds deposited Its are the Treasury § States, compensation and the of its employees United upon Treasury. by drafts paid For the purposes may case assume we this Corporation creation the Home Owners’ was,a Loan *10 exercise the powers gov federal constitutional of States, Kay ernment. Cf. United 1. As v. 303 U. S. authority wholly its government powers that derives from delegated by Constitution, every to it the action with its power governmental in its constitiitional is and action, Congress is the judge since sole what made powers be, grant within the constitutional are to all' exercised, constitutionally government by activities authorized on must stand Congress respect a parity their with immunity from constitutional taxation. v. McCulloch Maryland, 316, 432; Wheat. Tennessee, Van Brocklin v. 158-159; States, South 151, U. S. Carolina v. United 452; 437, Helvering Gerhardt, 199 U. S. v. U. S. 451 — 412 — 415. And when the national government law a fully through corporation acts which it owns and con trols, those activities governmental are functions entitled immunity tax attaches to whatever functions those when on carried through itself by its See McCulloch Maryland, v. 421- departments. supra, City Co., v. 422; Smith Title 255 U. 208; Kansas S. Bank Crosland, Federal 261 U. Land New Rogers Graves, rel. supra. York ex question The single which with are now we concerned by the tax laid is whether the state upon salary of by a respondent, employed corporate instrumentality of the federal government, imposes an unconstitutional government. The upon theory burden immunity government, either state or national, and from instrumentalities, its taxation by the other, has Upon been rested an implied liniitation on taxing each, as to power of such forestall undue interference, through the exercise power, with govern- mental activities of other. That the two types may in all immunity not, respects, stand has parity recognized beginning, Mary been McCulloch v. land, supra, 435-436, possible and differences in applica tion, deriving from source, differences nature extent of the governments their agencies, were out pointed and discussed Court this in detail Helvering Gerhardt, last term. during supra, 412-413, 416. far now relevant,
So
those differences
been
have
thought
traceable to the fact
gov
that the federal
ernment,
delegated
one of
powers
is
in the exercise of
which Congress
every
so that
supreme;
agency which
Congress
constitutionally
can
create
governmental
is a
*11
agency.
since the
to
power
And
create the
in
-agency
implied
cludes the
to
power
is
do whatever
or
needful
if
appropriate,
expressly
not
prohibited,
to protect
agency, there has been attributed to Congress
scope,
some
limits which
is
necessary
not now
define,
to
granting
withholding immunity
of federal agencies
Van
from state taxation. See
Allen
The Assessors,
v.
3
573, 583, 585;
Wall.
Bank
Supervisors,
v.
7 Wall. 26, 30,
Railroad,
31; Thomson v.
Congress § has declared instrumentality an Corporation Loan is Owners’ prin- to exempt, are and that its bonds United States except taxation, from federal interest, and cipal and gift corpora- and taxes. surtaxes, estate, inheritance reserves “including franchise, capital, its its itself, tion ex- likewise surplus, income,” and its loans is subject is to tax' taxation; property its real empted Congress real But property. to extent as other the same grant to any purpose no intimation of either given has salary from state taxation of the or withhold in- Congressional corporation’s employees, and the of the impli- gathered not to be from the statute tention is State Cf. Baltimore National Bank Tax cation. Comm’n, supra.
It true that the silence of when it has au Congress, give implica to an thority speak, may sometimes rise Congressional The nature and ex purpose. tion as to implication depend upon of that the nature tent But power and the effect of its exercise.1 Congressional Congress regulate interstate commerce 1 The failure of has Congressional signify purpose generally to leave been taken regulations authority affecting make states to undisturbed the peculiarly concern, local in matters of but to withhold the commerce *12 regulations authority affecting phases, to make those them of from uniformity, a national which, of the-need of demand it because that by single any, prescribed authority. a regulation, Cooley if their 319; 299, 12 Wardens, Cases, How. Minnesota Board Rate 230 v. of Kelly Washington, 352, 399-400; 1, 14; v. 302 U. S. U. South S. Dept. Highway Brothers, Barnwell v. Carolina U. 184- S. Eisenberg 185; ante, Farm Products, Board v. p. Milk Control 346. Congressional implications silence in As to the from the field of instrumentalities, interstate commerce and its taxation of see West Revenue, Gwin, Bureau ern Live U. S. Stock White & of Henneford, 305 S. 434. Prince v. U. fqr of seope application there is little the that to doctrine immunity governmental the tax of instrumentalities. government The constitutional of either from by other, silent, the is its where taxation Congress has . source an implied powers restriction the upon of the taxing government. implication So as the upon far rests the purpose interference with the of avoid functions government the taxed or the imposition upon the it.of economic the no it is that tax, plain of there is burden basis for implying purpose Congress the exempt federal or government agencies its which from burdens are or unsubstantial are to discern. which .courts unable Congress implies immunity no more Silence than does the that ex Constitution. when silence It follows emption from on the ground is claimed state taxation government is burdened the tax, federal and Congress has disclosed no with intention respect to the claimed immunity, it is in order to the nature consider alleged if burden, appears it effect ground there is for implying a constitutional no immun equally a there is ity, any ground want o'f assuming for part any purpose on of Congress to create an immun ity. present
The tax is a non-discriminatory tax on income applied at a specified salaries It rate. is not in form upon or substance a tax Owners’ Loan Corpora Home or its or property tion nor it income, paid by corp is or oration from their funds. It is meas by income ured which property becomes the tax when payer compensation received services; his and the tax laid upon privilege receiving paid is private from his funds and not the funds either or government, indirectly. directly theory, which once won a qualified that a tax income approval, legally economically is a tax oil source, longer its no ex Graves, New York rel. tenable, Cohn U. S. 313, 314; Hale State Board, 95, 108; 302 U. Helver-
[00] .—l Mitchell, Eddy v. & Gerhardt, cf. supra; ing v. Metcalf 123; 286 U. S. Doyal, Corp. Film 514; Fox 269 U. S. Helvering v. Co., Contracting supra, Dravo James v. only the and 376, 303 U. S. Producers Corp., Mountain immunity a constitutional implying possible basis the of employee of an salary of the income tax from state is that agency governmental or a government of national on passed way in of tax is some burden the the economic government national oh impose a burden the so as with government one by to an interference tantamount of its functions. in performance the the other held that this Court has the cases which In the four in of or its employee government one of an officer salary other, the by immune taxation instrumentality was discussion, without that the assumed, it was the instrumentality or its extends government 'of a (cid:127) assumption employees.2 This of its officers salaries officer salary governmental of a respect to made with 435, County, a 16 Pet. Erie In Commissioners Dobbins v. of captain of nominally upon laid the office of the Pennsylvania tax, salary by paid roughly cutter, but measured a federal revenue have rested officer, The Court seems to was held invalid. ground on emoluments párt that a tax on its decision activity equivalent upon tax an of the national of a his officewas the was, infringement ground that an government, part Congress compensation superior power to fix the implied employees without state taxation. government diminution salary Day, held that the 11 Wall. this Court In Collector constitutionally immune from federal judge was probate of a state salary state an officer of a grounds on the that income tax from, performs an if the function federal taxation he exempt is Commissioners, supra, and citing exempt, Dobbins officer upon power implied restriction constitutional was an there those a state in exercise of to tax the national govern- to the maintenance which were essential functions organized the time when the Constitution they át were ments as non-discriminatory upon possibility adopted. was any substantial interference involve did not a state officer income Erie County, 16 Pet. *14 v. Commissioners in Dobbins of extended 113, 11 was later Day, Wall. in Collector v. and from by a lessee immunity income derived to confer in by government performance him a the leased to lands Oklahoma, Gillespie v. 257 governmental function, of a Co., & Gas 501; U. Burnet v. Coronado Oil U. S. although exemp claim of a like 393, cited, and cases the engaged tion from tax on of contractor the income a in' carrying governmental project rejected out a was both in a state, the case of contractor with a Eddy& v. Metcalf functioning government with the the of state was not discussed either in this or the Dobbins case. Rogers Graves, York ex question
In New rel. v. S.U. the salary general whether the of the was counsel of Panama the Rail exempt Company Road was from income state tax because the company instrumentality railroad was an of the government. federal question by taxing sole the The raised whether the rail- was company government was instrumentality. road Court, hav- ing company that railroad found the was such instrumentality, an disposed exemption of the salary matter of employees of the of its by declaring: company being “The railroad immune from state taxa- necessarily tion, compensation results paid that fixed salaries and employees capacity to its officers and in their as such are likewise Rogers York Graves, immune.” New ex rel. supra, v. 408. Commissioner, applicable In Brush treasury U. S. regulation upon government which the exempted relied from federal compensation income tax the of employees” officers and “state rendered “services in connection with the exercise of an essential governmental function of the State.” The Court held that public of system maintenance City water of New York was governmental an function, essential determining and in whether the salary engineer charge of the in project subject of that was to federal declared, citing income tax the Court Rogers New York ex rel. supra, Graves, depends upon “The answer whether the water system city created was and is conducted in the exercise of governmental city's so, operations functions. If its are immune . and, necessary from federal taxation as a corollary, ‘fixed salaries compensation paid to and its employees officers and in their capacity as such likewise are immune.” Brush Commissioner, supra, 360. a contractor with the Mitchell, supra, national Contracting Co., supra. Dravo James v. government, Helvering v. Mountain repudiation The ultimate a tax on the of the doctrine Corp., supra, Producers government from a lease of income of lessee derived a. is a forbidden interference with owned or lands controlled re led government the activities of the concerned case, Gerhardt: by Court, examination this from taxation theory underlying the asserted the other. employees of salaries by government one implied immunity out pointed It was there agencies its one taxation construction, other as a constitutional should, principle expansion For the narrowly restricted. im *15 curtails munity government correspondingly of the one tax, the to where that sovereign power of other and the the it tends to by private is invoked citizen immunity taxing govern expense for his the the operate benéfit.at govern- corresponding benefit the without to ment and . See Met immunity in name the claimed. mént whose Mitchell, v. Dravo supra, 523-524; James Eddy& v. calf Co., pointed further Contracting 156-158. It'was supra, em of salaries of the applied, to the taxation that, out as. - immunity government, of the ployees purpose of one the relieving by on the employees was not to confer benefits sup financial contributing their of the them share enjoy, they port of whose benefits government, the other enabling to government or a give advantage by to an to for like engage paid at salaries lower than those employees or but to by employers, public private,3 other services 3 might government be less expenses that the ef the The fact one exempt by the from taxation if who with it were ened all those deal adequate thought basis tax not to be an other was Corp. 1 Eddy Mitchell, Group No. Oil 514; v. & v. U. S. Metcalf Jergins 508; Trust, James 279; Bass, U. S. Burnet 283 U. S. Contracting Helvering Producers Mountain Co., 302 U. S. Dravo Corp., U. 376. by- government with the one interference prevent undue other. tax of the on it burdens imposing the controlling principles the Gerhardt In applying these employees the salaries case Court held that instrumentality a state created Authority, Port New York York were immune from by Jersey, New and New not though re- tax, Authority federal infeome even garded subject as not to federal taxation. It was said that protection benefit taxpayers enjoyed the common duty, laws States and were under United all citizens, gov- to contribute financial support ernment; tax on by laid their salaries and paid them or could be said affect burden their employer, the 'creating Port Authority, it, only states so far the burden the tax 'economically passed was on to the employer; that a on in- non-discriminatpry laid all community come of members could not be as- obstruct the sumed to function which New York New Jersey had undertaken to or to perform, cast an economic upon them, burden more than general does the taxation of property and income which, to extent, some incapable economists, may measurement tend to raise the level of labor and price materials.4 Court concluded 4That the economic burden passed of a tax salaries is on to the employer or employees accept will a lower salary immunity, its tax because of are formulas which- have not won ac *16 ceptance 'economists and judicially cannot be assumed. toAs the on” “passing of the economic burden tax, of the see Seligman, Tax, Encyclopedia Income VII of Social Sciences, 626-638; Plehn, (5th ed.), Public p. 320; Finance Buehler, Public Finance, p. Lutz, (2d ed.), Finance p. Public Motocycle and see Indian Co. v. United States, 570, 581, 283 U. S. 1. preference footnote As to government employment salary because the is tax exempt, see Dickin son, Compensating Industrial Effort (1937), pp. 7-8; Douglas, The Reality of Non-Commercial Incentives in Life, Industrial c. V of The Trend of (1924); I, Economics Fetter, Vol. Principles Economic (1915), p. 203. do Ho more than relieve immunity that the claimed would support financial to the taxpayers duty the the from a in to secure to state government national order and meas- in character advantage, speculative theoretical an to form urement and too unsubstantial .the basis immunity from taxation. implied constitutional reached in the Gerhardt case conclusion federal income immunity of constittitional a tax terms employee tax of an not á bur- salary prohibited on is it that we should imperative den on the employer makes immunity salary anew the here claimed for the consider instrumentality. already As employee of an of a federal may such as there be between the indicated, differences corresponding tax of a state and the implied immunity its instru- immunity government national fact national may be traced mentalities to qne in the delegated powers, exercise of government scope may give Whatever this' supreme.- which it is from immunity to claim state government national which may consti- taxation all instrumentalities authority Congress may whatever tutionally create, delegated powers to the exercise of incidental possess its taxation, withhold Con- grant case to exercise such sought power. not this gress has between the two im- types of Hence these distinctions question with affect the which we are now munity cannot government on of a The burden non-dis- concerned. salary of the criminatory applied income em- instrumentality or its same, is the government ployee of or national is concerned. a state whether in the Gerhardt case that the federal The determination employees Au- imposed Port income tax on the Authority burden Port made it not a thority was whether itself Authority consider unnecessary to im- taxation; from federal the claimed immune was if Port Authority were failed because even munity *17 (cid:127) itself immune federal tax, income the tax upon employees
income of its upon cast no unconstitutional burden. do, as we that
Assuming, the Home Owners’ Loan Cor poration is clothed with the same immunity from state government taxation itself, as the we say cannot that present tax on the lays income its any employees upon unconstitutional burden it. the reasons for All refusing to a imply prohibition constitutibnal of .federal income taxation of salaries of employees, state stated at in length Gerhardt case, are of'equal force when im munity is-claimed from state income tax on salaries paid by national or government agencies. its In this re no spect perceive we basis a difference in result salary whether the taxed income 'be or some other form whether compensation, or the taxpayer be an employee or an officer of either a .state the national government, In or of its instrumentalities. no case is there basis for such assumption any tangible or certain economic concerned, imposed burden is as would justify declaring the taxpayer court’s is clothed with the constitutional implied tax immunity of the gov ernment which he is employed. That assumption, Day, supra, Collector v. and in made New York ex rel. Graves, contrary Rogers supra, to the reasoning and to the conclusions reached in the Gerhardt case and Mitchell, Eddy supra; & Group 1No. Oil Metcalf Bass, 283 U. S. Corp. v. James v. Dravo Contracting Co., supra; Helvering v. Mountain Producers Corp., McLoughlin Commissioner, supra; U. S. 218. In light assumption their can no longer be made. Col Day, New supra, lector v. York ex Rogers v. rel. Graves, supra, are overruled so far they recognize an constitutional implied from income taxation of salaries of or employees officers of the national or a government or their instrumentalities.
,487 *18 general non-discriminatory aof of tke burden So much state government, of a employees the incomes of upon tax gov- to that economically on may national, passed be or as level price on the through effect of the the ernment, the of incident the normal is but materials, of or labor same, govern- two territory of the organization within burden, The taxing power. possessing each the ments, government the- exist to affect far it can be said to so as Con- the is one which any way, in or incidental indirect be rightly it cannot and hence presupposes, stitution the tax- upon restriction implied within an deemed to be which governments national and state ing power con- granted to one has expressly has and the Constitution im- The one to to other. not firmed if it would because allowed plied Constitution, from the tax- on the restriction impose an inadmissible extent a to the state to ing which the Constitution has reserved power governments.
Reversed. Hughes in the result. Justice concurs Me. Chief . Frankfurter, concurring: Justice Me. opinion in but join appropriate
I the Court’s deem The volume of Court’s busi- add a few remarks. impossible made the early healthy since long ness has whereby gave the Justices to indi- expression practice vidual But old tradition still has relevance opinions.1 in constitutional doctrine is an- important when an shift in membership after a reconstruction nounced opinion shifts of should not derive from Court. Such mindful of They duly mere must be private judgment. in continuity civilized necessary society. demands High docket of Court of Australia and permits still them Supreme Court of Canada continue opinions. seriatim practice classic
A reversal of a long justified current decisions can be if only in rooted the Constitution itself an historic document designed developing nation.
For twenty one hundred years this Court has been claims of immunity .with imposed concerned taxes authority our system one dual be- cause of the taxpayer’s relation to the other. The basis for the Court’s intervention this field not any has been explicit provision of the Constitution. The States, after they formed the Union, continued have range the same power of taxing they before, which barring had duties only affecting exports, imports,’ tonnage.2 Congress, hand, on the Other to lay in order “to pay taxes the Debts *19 provide and for the common general and Defense Wel- fare, of the I, 8, United Art. States,” § can every reach every person dollar in the land with regard due to Constitutional limitations as the laying to method of But, taxes. as true of other great activities'of thé state governments, national the fact that we are a problems "federalism regarding.these powers vital of rais.es taxation. Since governments authority have within tw.o the same territory, through neither its power to’ can be allowed to cripple operations the of the other. Therefore governments federal state and must avoid exactions which each against discriminate other or obviously interfere operations. with one another’s These the'-determin- were ing great considerations led the Chief Justice to Maryland strike down the statute an as unambiguous against the by measure use the United discrimination Bank of States of the the United States as one its government. instruments arguments upon which McCulloch v. Maryland, 316,
4 rested had their roots in Wheat. actuality. But been distorted sterile they have refinements unrelated 10, U. S. Article Constitution'. § from ah authority derived refinements These to affairs. Mary in McCulloch opinion in the remark unfortunate because partly rhetoric and flourish of Partly as a land. free use times a fashion the intellectual indulged the the gave currency Marshall Chief Justice absolutes,. involves, power to tax power that “the phrase (cid:127)' dictum was Id., 431. This destroy.” p. at treated Blit with mandate: it were a constitutional though not most trenchant minds One of the protest. out analyzed Johnson, early court, Marshall Justice William freedom of the political inroads dangerous upon re respective their orbits the Union within States and- generalities sulting application from doctrinaire a in Maryla course of the McCulloch opinion uttered cliché that the to tax involves power nd.3 The seductive assumption, destroy with another power waslfused namely itself, not to the Constitution likewise found doctrine that'the are immunities correlative —because national immuni government implies the existence taxation, govern ties existence- of state implies equivalent ments immunities from federal taxa tion. When doctrine was first applied this Mr. Justice whiph Bradley registered powerful dissent,4 force gathered strength rather than with lost time. Collector Day, Wall. 128. *20 City Charleston, Weston v. Council 449, 2 Pet. 472-73. of opinion case, because,
4 “I in dissent from the of the court this it general government power seems me to has the same of taxing governments -of of the State of income as it has officers , taxing my judgment, officers. . that of its own . In the limitation power general government, present of the of taxation in the which the very decision establishes, will difficult of Where' are found control. enumerating stop governments we to in -the functions State with which will be interfered Federal . . taxation? . How can we tell the effect this what decision I now cannot but will be?' regard fallacy, it a as founded on and that will lead to mischievous ) consequences.” (11 113, Wall. 128-29.
490
All
intergovernmental
these doctrines of
have
until
been
recently
moving in the realm of
Lincoln
what
“pernicious
called
abstractions.”1
unreality
The web of
spun from Marshall’s famous dictum was
away
brushed
by one stroke of Mr.
pen:
Justice Holmes’s
to
power
“The
power
is not
destroy
while this
sits.”
Court
Panhandle
Co. Mississippi,
Oil
v.
CO Both of Supreme High Court Canada and the Court of Australia on fuller present consideration —and for pur poses the British North 30 America & 31 Act, Viet., 3, c. and the Commonwealth of Australia Act, Constitution & 64 Viet., c. raise the legal same issues as does our rejected Constitution8 —have completely of the doctrine intergovernmental In immunity.9 this Court dissents gradually have majority become opinions, and before even present the rationale of the decision doctrine had been undermined.10
The judicial history this doctrine of immunity is a striking illustration an tendency occasional to encrust interpretations upon 'unwarranted the Constitution and thereafter merely to consider what has been judicially said about the rather Constitution, than to be primarily controlled a fair conception of the Ju- Constitution. dicial exegesis is unavoidable with reference to an or- ganic like Constitution, act our in many drawn par- with purposed vagueness ticulars so as to leave room unfolding future. But the ultimate touchstone constitutionality Constitution itself and we not what 8Especially is this true the Australian Constitution. One of framers, distinguished its who afterwards became one most judges, Higgins, of Australian Mr. Justice characterized it as hav ing “pe.dantic Constitution with imitation.” Australasian followed our Temperance Society Howe, M. & G. Assurance v. C. L. R. Life 290, 330. City John, 9 Abbott v. Sup. St. 597; Caron v. 40 Can. Ct. King, (1924) Amalgamated Society Engineers 999; A. C. v. Ade Co., Steamship 129; laide 28 C. L. West v. Commissioner Taxa R. . tion, 56 C. L. R. 657 Co., g., Contracting Helvering E. James Dravo 134; 302 U. S. Helvering Corp., Gerhardt, Mountain Producers 303 U. S. 304 U. 405. *22 Commissioners, Dobbins about it.11 Neither v.
have said Day, offspring, supra, nor Collector 435, and its v. Pet. its, appeal can to Constitution and his- and stand its both starting Since are the of an purposes. points toric interdependent doctrine, both should I assume be, as them to be, day. Congress may, overruled this Whether legislation, relieve express its functionaries their obligations to for the benefits of pay gov- civic the State they is ernments under which matter live for another day. Butler, dissenting:
Mr. Justice McReynolds I- Mr. Justice are and of opinion that Loan Corporation, the Home Owners’ an instru being mentality of the heretofore United States im deemed from state “it taxation, necessarily mune results,” as Rogers held in York ex rel. v. New Graves (1937) 401, compensation U. S. “that salaries fixed and paid to its officers and employees their capacity as such are immune”; judgment likewise and that of the state court, unquestionably required by that decision, should be affirmed: just the decision it announced,
From
is clear that
Court has overruled Dobbins v.
Erie
Commissioners of
County (1842)
Appraisal apparent implications of the opinion can serve no useful for, Court’s end occa- should may ignored sion arise, they given be direction differing seemingly that at first intended. safely But may presently marked for said destruction is the doc- trine of reciprocal by recent decisions here impaired. has been so much
PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INSURANCE CO. v. INDUS-
TRIAL ACCIDENT COMM’N al. et Argued December No. 158. 1938. Decided 1939. March