In the 1902 case of Zane v. Hamilton County, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over bonds issued by Hamilton County in Tennessee to aid in railroad construction. The county had been authorized by state law to issue these bonds and did so, but later argued that it was not obligated to pay them back because they were unconstitutional under both state and federal law. However, the court ruled against this argument on several grounds: firstly, it stated that if there was any unconstitutionality involved in issuing these bonds then it would have been an issue at their issuance - not when payment came due; secondly, even if there had been some constitutional violation initially (which they didn't concede), those who bought the bonds should still be able to rely on their validity unless such a violation was obvious; thirdly and finally, since no specific provision of either constitution could be pointed out as having been violated by issuing these bonds - only general principles allegedly contravened - this further weakened any claim of unconstitutionality.

In the dissenting opinion for Zane v. Hamilton County, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a tax levy in support of a World's Fair exhibit violated both state and federal constitutions. The dissent emphasized that such levies should only be used for public purposes directly benefiting taxpayers, not indirect benefits like promoting commerce or industry. It also criticized the court’s broad interpretation of what constitutes a “public purpose,” warning this could lead to misuse of taxpayer funds without clear limits on government power. Furthermore, they contended that if every project with potential benefit were deemed worthy of public funding, it would blur the line between private enterprise and governmental functions - potentially leading to an overreach by local governments into areas best left to private initiative.