In the United States Ex Rel. Redfield v. Windom case of 1890, the Supreme Court examined whether a law passed by Congress in 1882 that required all national banks to pay taxes on their circulating notes was constitutional or not. The plaintiff, Redfield, argued that this tax violated the U.S Constitution's prohibition against direct taxation without apportionment among states according to population (Article I, Section 9). However, Secretary of Treasury Windom maintained that it was an indirect tax and thus constitutionally permissible. The court ruled in favor of Windom stating that such a tax is indeed an excise or duty upon the privilege of issuing banknotes and does not fall under direct taxation as claimed by Redfield.

The dissenting opinion in the case of United States ex rel. Redfield v. Windom argued that the Secretary of Treasury did not have the authority to issue bonds at a rate lower than what was specified by Congress, as it would be an overreach of executive power. The justice contended that such action could lead to potential misuse and manipulation for personal or political gain, undermining public trust and potentially destabilizing financial markets. Furthermore, they asserted that this decision contradicted previous rulings which had established clear boundaries between legislative and executive powers regarding fiscal policy decisions. They believed this ruling set a dangerous precedent for future cases involving government finance management.