In County Commissioners v. Chandler, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a county commission had the authority to levy a tax on the property of a non-resident. The case arose when the County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland, attempted to levy a tax on the property of a non-resident, William Chandler. Chandler argued that the county commission did not have the authority to levy a tax on his property because he was not a resident of the county. The Supreme Court held that the county commission did have the authority to levy a tax on the property of a non-resident. The Court reasoned that the power to tax was an inherent power of the state, and that the county commission was acting as an agent of the state in levying the tax. The Court further held that the power to tax was not limited to residents of the county, and that the county commission had the authority to levy a tax on the property of a non-resident. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the county commission had the authority to levy a tax on the property of a non-resident. The Court reasoned that the power to tax was an inherent power of the state, and that the county commission was acting as an agent of the state in levying the tax. The Court further held that the power to tax was not limited to residents of the county, and that the county commission had the authority to levy a tax on the property of a non-resident.

In County Commissioners v. Chandler, the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a county commission had the authority to issue bonds for public improvements without voter approval. The majority opinion held that such an action was unconstitutional and violated state law, but Justice Field dissented from this ruling. He argued that while it may be true that some states have laws prohibiting counties from issuing bonds without voter approval, there is no federal constitutional provision which prevents them from doing so. Furthermore, he noted that in many cases where local governments are authorized by their respective states to make certain decisions or take certain actions on behalf of their citizens, they should not be prohibited by the federal government unless specifically stated otherwise in its constitution or statutes. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that since no such prohibition existed here and since the county commissioners were acting within their legal authority granted by state law when they issued these bonds for public improvement projects without voter approval, then their decision should stand as valid under both state and federal law.