In the case of Honolulu Rapid Transit and Land Company v. Wilder, Assessor in 1908, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over taxation on property owned by an American company in Hawaii. The Honolulu Rapid Transit and Land Company argued that it was being unfairly taxed for its street railway system because the tax assessor had included franchise rights as part of its taxable property value. The court ruled against this argument, stating that while franchises are not typically considered tangible property subject to taxation under Hawaiian law, they can be if they're connected to physical assets like land or buildings - which was true in this case due to the nature of a railway system operation. Therefore, it upheld the assessment made by Mr.Wilder (the tax assessor), ruling that his inclusion of franchise rights into total taxable value did not violate any constitutional principles.

In the dissenting opinion for Honolulu Rapid Transit and Land Company v. Wilder, it was argued that the taxation of a foreign corporation's property in Hawaii should be based on its actual value rather than an arbitrary assessment. The justice contended that the majority ruling violated principles of equal protection by imposing a higher tax burden on out-of-state corporations compared to local ones. He also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Hawaiian law, arguing that it did not provide explicit authority for such discriminatory taxation practices. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential negative impacts on interstate commerce and investment if states were allowed to arbitrarily inflate tax assessments against non-resident businesses without any basis in reality or fairness.