In the 1890 case of Talbott v. Silver Bow County, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a Montana law that imposed taxes on ore mined in the state violated the United States Constitution's prohibition against export duties. The plaintiff, Talbott, argued that since most of his mined ore was shipped out-of-state for smelting and refining processes before being sold to customers outside Montana, taxing it amounted to an unconstitutional tax on exports from one state to another. However, after careful consideration of both parties' arguments and relevant constitutional provisions (particularly Article I Section 9), the court ruled against him. It held that ores extracted within a state are not considered "exports" until they leave US borders; thus states can legally impose taxes on them without violating federal laws or constitutionally protected rights. This decision upheld states' authority over their natural resources while also clarifying what constitutes an 'export' under American law.

In the dissenting opinion for Talbott v. Silver Bow County, it was argued that the majority's ruling contradicted previous decisions and established principles of law. The dissent contended that a county in Montana could not be held liable for bonds issued by its predecessor territory because there was no explicit provision in the state constitution or enabling act to assume such debts. It pointed out that while territories can incur debt, they do so as agents of Congress and not on their own behalf; therefore, when a territory becomes a state, it does not automatically inherit those obligations unless explicitly stated otherwise. Furthermore, it emphasized that even if an obligation were assumed implicitly through silence or ambiguity in relevant laws or constitutions, this would still violate fundamental principles of contract law which require clear consent from both parties involved.