In the case of Western Union Telegraph Company v. Alabama State Board of Assessment, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Alabama State Board of Assessment had the authority to assess a tax on the Western Union Telegraph Company’s property. The Court held that the tax was not a violation of the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, which prohibits states from imposing taxes on interstate commerce. The case arose when the Alabama State Board of Assessment assessed a tax on the Western Union Telegraph Company’s property. The company argued that the tax was a violation of the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, which prohibits states from imposing taxes on interstate commerce. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the tax was not a violation of the Commerce Clause. The Court reasoned that the tax was not a direct burden on interstate commerce, but rather a tax on the company’s property, which was located in Alabama. The Court also held that the tax was not discriminatory, as it was applied equally to all companies operating in the state. Ultimately, the Supreme Court held that the Alabama State Board of Assessment had the authority to assess a tax on the Western Union Telegraph Company’s property. The Court reasoned that the tax was not a violation of the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, as it was not a direct burden on interstate commerce, but rather a tax on the company’s property, which was located in Alabama.

In the dissenting opinion of the Supreme Court case Western Union Telegraph Company v. Alabama State Board of Assessment, Justice McReynolds argued that a state cannot impose a tax on an interstate telegraph company without violating the Commerce Clause and thus infringing upon Congress’s exclusive power to regulate commerce between states. He noted that while it is true that some taxes may be imposed by states on activities related to interstate commerce, they must not interfere with or burden such commerce in any way. In this particular case, he felt strongly that Alabama was attempting to do just this – impose a tax which would have had an effect on Western Union's ability to conduct business across state lines and thus should be considered unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause.