[76] Baltimore Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. _v._ Baltimore, 195 U.S. 375 (1904).
[77] Northern P.R. Co. _v._ Myers, 172 U.S. 589 (1899); New Brunswick _v._ United States, 276 U.S. 547 (1928).
[78] Irwin _v._ Wright, 258 U.S. 219 (1922).
[79] United States _v._ Allegheny County, 322 U.S. 174 (1944).
[80] 117 U.S. 151 (1886).
[81] Lee _v._ Osceola & L. River Road Improv. Dist, 268 U.S. 643 (1925).
[82] Clallam County _v._ United States, 263 U.S. 341 (1923). _See also_ Cleveland _v._ United States, 323 U.S. 329, 333 (1945).
[83] Mayo _v._ United States, 319 U.S. 441 (1943).
[84] Western U. Teleg. Co. _v._ Texas, 105 U.S. 460, 464 (1882).
[85] Des Moines Nat. Bank _v._ Fairweather, 263 U.S. 103, 106 (1923); Owensboro Nat. Bank _v._ Owensboro, 173 U.S. 664, 669 (1899); First Nat.
Bank _v._ Adams, 258 U.S. 362 (1922).
[86] Baltimore Nat. Bank _v._ State Tax Comm"n., 297 U.S. 209 (1936).
[87] Maricopa County _v._ Valley National Bank, 318 U.S. 357, 362 (1943).
[88] 308 U.S. 21 (1939).
[89] 314 U.S. 95 (1941).
[90] Ibid. 101.
[91] Ibid. 102; _cf._ 9 Wheat. 738, 864-865 (1824).
[92] Colorado Nat. Bank _v._ Bedford, 310 U.S. 41 (1940).
[93] 342 U.S. 232 (1952).
[94] 60 Stat. 765; 42 U.S.C. -- 1809 (b).
[95] 342 U.S. 232, 234.
[96] Ibid. 236.
[97] Long _v._ Rockwood, 277 U.S. 142 (1928).
[98] 286 U.S. 123 (1932).
[99] Educational Films Corp. _v._ Ward, 282 U.S. 379 (1931).
[100] 235 U.S. 292 (1944).
[101] Indian Territory Illuminating Oil Co. _v._ Oklahoma, 240 U.S. 522 (1916).
[102] Howard _v._ Gipsy Oil Co., 247 U.S. 503 (1918); Large Oil Co. _v._ Howard, 248 U.S. 549 (1919).
[103] 257 U.S. 501 (1922).
[104] Oklahoma Tax Comm"n _v._ Barnsdall Refiners, 296 U.S. 521 (1936).
[105] 330 U.S. 342 (1949). Justice Rutledge, speaking for the Court, sketched the history of the immunity of lessees of Indian lands from State taxation, which he found to stem from early rulings that tribal lands are themselves immune (The Kansas Indians, 5 Wall. 737 (1867); The New York Indians, 5 Wall. 761 (1867)). One of the first steps taken to curtail the scope of the immunity was Shaw _v._ Gibson-Zahniser Oil Corp., 276 U.S. 575 (1928), which held that lands outside a reservation, though purchased with restricted Indian funds, were subject to State taxation. Congress soon upset the decision, however, and its act was sustained in Board of County Comm"rs _v._ Seber, 318 U.S. 705 (1943).
[106] McCulloch _v._ Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 416 (1819).
[107] Ex parte Garland, 4 Wall. 333, 337 (1867).
[108] c.u.mmings _v._ Missouri, 4 Wall. 277, 323 (1867).
[109] The Federalist No. 27, p. 123; I Farrand Records, 404.
[110] _See_ Article I, Section III, Paragraph 1; Section IV, Paragraph 1; Section X; Article II, Section I, Paragraph 2; Article III, Section II, Paragraph 2; Article IV, Sections I and II; Article V; Amendments XIII, XIV, XV, XVII, and XIX.
[111] 1 Stat. 73 (1789).
[112] 5 Stat. 322 (1839).
[113] 1 Stat. 302 (1793).
[114] 2 Stat. 404 (1806).
[115] _See_ 2 Kent"s Commentaries, 64-65 (1826); 34 Stat. 590, 602 (1906); 8 U.S.C. ---- 357, 379; 18 ibid. -- 135 (1934); _also_ Holmgren _v._ United States, 217 U.S. 509 (1910).
[116] For the development of opinion especially on the part of State courts, adverse to the validity of the above mentioned legislation, _see_ 1 Kent"s Commentaries, 396-404 (1826).
[117] 16 Pet. 539 (1842).
[118] 24 How. 66 (1861).
[119] 16 Pet. at 622.
[120] 24 How. at 107-108.
[121] 100 U.S. 371 (1880).
[122] Ibid. 392.
[123] Claflin _v._ Houseman, 93 U.S. 130, 136, 137 (1876); followed in Second Employers" Liability Cases, 223 U.S. 1, 55-59 (1912).
[124] 40 Stat. 76 (1917).