In the case of Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. State of Washington ex rel. Atkinson, Attorney General in 1911, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over land ownership and taxation between a railway company and the state government. The Northern Pacific Railway Company claimed that certain lands granted to it by Congress were exempt from taxation by the State of Washington due to an agreement made when they were initially granted these lands as part of their charter for building railroads across western territories in 1864. However, this claim was rejected by both lower courts and eventually brought before the Supreme Court. The court held that while some federal grants may indeed be tax-exempt under specific circumstances or agreements, there was no such provision within this particular grant given to Northern Pacific Railway Company; thus making them liable for taxes imposed by Washington state law on those lands used for non-railroad purposes like timber harvesting or leasing out mineral rights etc., which constituted significant portions of their holdings at issue here. This decision affirmed states' rights to levy taxes upon properties owned by corporations operating within their borders unless explicitly prohibited from doing so through federal legislation - thereby reinforcing principles central to our system's balance between national power versus local autonomy.

In the dissenting opinion for Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. State of Washington, Justice Holmes argued that the state had a right to regulate rates on intrastate commerce and disagreed with the majority's interpretation of federal law as preemptive in this area. He contended that states should retain their traditional police powers unless explicitly superseded by Congress, which he did not believe was the case here. Furthermore, he believed that allowing railroads to set their own rates without any regulatory oversight could lead to abuses and harm public welfare. Thus, while acknowledging potential conflicts between state and federal authority over interstate commerce, Holmes maintained that these issues were better resolved through legislative action rather than judicial intervention.