The principle that property belonging to the United States is not taxable by the States in which it is situated did not receive final judicial affirmation until 1885 in Van Brocklin v. Tennessee.20 Prior to this decision it had quite generally been taken for granted that federal property was thus exempt from state taxation, but in a number of cases Congress would seem to have implied that it was not confident upon this point since it incorporated into enabling acts for the admission of territories into the Union as States, the requirement that after admission the property of the United States should be exempt from state taxation. The effect of the decision in Van Brocklin v. Tennessee was, of course, to hold that these provisions were declaratory merely, and, therefore, superfluous. The fact that the lands concerned in this Tennessee case were acquired by the United States through sales for direct taxes levied by act of Congress and not expressly ceded by the States, was held immaterial.

18 16 Pet. 435; 10 L. ed. 1022.

19 It is probable that an act of Congress imposing a tax upon salaries of the president and federal judges would be held void as in violation of the constitutional provision that the compensation of these officials shall not be diminished during the period for which they are elected or appointed. See Sen. Mis. Doc., No. 214, 53rd Cong., 2nd Sess.

In W. U. Telegraph Co. v. Texas (105 U. S. 460; 26 L. ed. 1067) the court held that a state tax upon telegraph messages could not be collected upon messages sent by officers of the United States on public business.

20 117 U. S. 151; 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 670; 29 L. ed. 845.

In Wisconsin C. R. Co. v. Price County21 the doctrine of Van Brocklin v. Tennessee reappeared and was broadened so as to include taxation not only by the State but by any of its administrative subdivisions.22