In Henderson Bridge Co. v. Kentucky6 it is held that, in assessing for taxation the property of a bridge company owning and operating a bridge across the Ohio river, connecting the shores of Kentucky and Indiana, the value of the franchise granted by the taxing State might be included as intangible property, and that the value of this franchise might be estimated by taking the total value of the entire property and subtracting therefrom the value of the tangible property in the taxing State and the value of all the property, tangible and intangible, in the other State.7

In Keokuk, etc., Bridge Co. v. Illinois8 it was held that a state tax on the capital stock of a bridge company consolidated from corporations of different States, which maintains an interstate bridge, is not a tax on a franchise conferred by. the Federal Government, although the corporation had an authority under an act of Congress to construct the bridge. Also that such a tax was not a taxation of Interstate commerce, because the bridge company did not itself transact any interstate business over it The court quote with approval the statement in Henderson Bridge Co. v. Kentucky9 that "clearly the tax was not a tax on the interstate business carried on over or by means of the bridge, because the bridge company did not transact such business. That business was carried on by the persons and corporations which paid the bridge company tolls for the privilege of using the bridge. The fact that the tax in question was to some extent affected by the amount of the tolls received, and therefore might be supposed to increase the rate of tolls, is too remote and incidental to make it a tax on the business transacted."

6 166 U. S. 150; 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 532; 41 L. ed. 953.

7 Four justices dissented.

8 175 U. S. 626; 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 205; 44 L. ed. 299.

9 166 U. S. 150; 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 532; 41 L. ed. 953.