In St. Louis v. Knapp Company, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether the City of St. Louis had the right to tax the Knapp Company for the privilege of doing business in the city. The Knapp Company argued that the tax was unconstitutional because it was a direct tax on the company's property, which was prohibited by the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the tax was not a direct tax on the company's property, but rather a tax on the privilege of doing business in the city. The Court reasoned that the tax was not a direct tax because it was not imposed on the company's property, but rather on the company's privilege of doing business in the city. The Court also held that the tax was not a violation of the Constitution because it was not a direct tax on the company's property. The Court concluded that the tax was valid and that the City of St. Louis had the right to impose it. The Court also held that the tax was not a violation of the Constitution because it was not a direct tax on the company's property. This decision established that the City of St. Louis had the right to impose taxes on the privilege of doing business in the city.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in St. Louis v. Knapp Company, arguing that the majority's decision was inconsistent with prior Supreme Court precedent and should be overturned. He argued that under previous cases, a municipality could not impose taxes on property owned by another state or its citizens without their consent; thus, he maintained that St. Louis had no authority to tax the bonds of Missouri held by Knapp Company as they were issued by an entity outside of its jurisdiction and did not involve any contract between it and St. Louis itself. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that even if such taxation was permissible under certain circumstances, this case did not meet those requirements because there was no evidence showing any agreement between Missouri and St. Louis regarding taxation of these bonds nor had either party consented to such action being taken against them; therefore, he concluded that taxing these bonds would constitute an unconstitutional taking from one sovereign power (Missouri) for the benefit of another (St.Louis). In conclusion, Justice Field believed strongly in upholding established precedents when making decisions about constitutional matters like this one which is why he dissented from the majority opinion in this case