Summary

Charles Evans Hughes Silas Mason Company v. Tax Commission of Washington…

Acceptance may be presumed in the absence of evidence of a contrary intent, but we know of no constitutional principle which compels acceptance by the United States of an exclusive jurisdiction contrary to its own conception of its interests. The mere fact that the Government needs title to property within the boundaries of a State, which may be acquired irrespective of the consent of the State (Kohl v. United States, 91 U.S. 367, 371, 372, 23 L.Ed. 449) , does not necessitate the assumption by the Government of the burdens incident to an exclusive jurisdiction.
Source: Wikisource

Charles Evans Hughes Silas Mason Company v. Tax Commission of Washington…

Not only do we find no violence done to federal right or frustration of federal intent by the State's construction of its statute, but the evidence is clear that the Federal Government contemplated the continued existence of state jurisdiction consistent with federal functions and invited the cooperation of the State in providing an appropriate exercise of local authority over the territory.
Source: Wikisource

Charles Evans Hughes Silas Mason Company v. Tax Commission of Washington…

We have frequently said that our system of government is a practical adjustment by which the national authority may be maintained in its full scope without unnecessary loss of local efficiency. In acquiring property, the federal function in view may be performed without disturbing the local administration in matters which may still appropriately pertain to state authority.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature