[1389] United States v. Cornell, 25 Fed. Cas. No. 14,867 (1819).
[1390] James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. 134, 145 (1937).
[1391] Silas Mason Co. v. Tax Commission of Washington, 302 U.S. 186 (1937). See also Atkinson v. State Tax Commission, 303 U.S. 20 (1938).
[1392] 4 Wheat. 316 (1819).
[1393] Ibid. 420. This decision had been clearly foreshadowed fourteen years earlier by Marshall's opinion in United States v. Fisher, 2 Cr. 358, 396 (1805). Upholding an act which gave priority to claims of the United States against the estate of a bankrupt he wrote: "The government is to pay the debt of the Union, and must be authorized to use the means which appear to itself most eligible to effect that object. It has, consequently, a right to make remittances, by bills or otherwise, and to take those precautions which will render the transaction safe."
[1394] See pp. [74-82], supra.
[1395] Neely v. Henkel, 180 U.S. 109, 121 (1901). See also Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920).
[1397] Den ex dem. Murray v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co., 18 How. 272, 281 (1856).
[1398] Kohl v. United States, 91 U.S. 367, 373 (1876); United Slates v. Fox, 94 U.S. 315, 320 (1877).