21 Argument for Respondent. of late, the Court has continued to recognize the historic and specific basis for federal tax immunity. Thus, Congress has an undoubted power to waive the immunity from state taxation which would otherwise attach. In other cases, the Court has recognized the power of Congress to create an immunity for private persons who dealt with the Government and have held the taxpayer liable because Congress had provided no such immunity; correlatively, the Court has extended immunity to such private persons because Congress had declared that they should not be subject to state taxation. With these broad powers as to the tax immunity even of private persons, simply because they deal with the United States, it follows a fortiori that Congress has full power to provide either tax immunity or liability for the property and operations of the Government itself. The ultimate incidence of a tax can not ordinarily be determined with categorical exactness. In the case of the Maryland tax here involved, it is wholly impossible to determine on a priori grounds whether the economic burden will ultimately rest upon the Corporation or upon its borrowers. Even if the tax could be precisely allocated, it is impossible to measure the extent to which it is an interference with the governmental functions of the Corporation in providing credit relief for distressed home owners. The decision of these questions, impossible of exact answer, is committed to Congress alone. The Constitution, in giving to Congress this power, has not placed the States in jeopardy. From the beginning it has been recognized that Congress, by its very nature, represented the interests of the States as well as those of the National Government. McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 435 436; Helvering v. Gerhardt, 304 U. S. 405, 412-413, 416. And in practice, Congress has many times waived an immunity which otherwise would attach to federal instrumentalities; indeed, in the last three Argument for Respondent. 308 U.S. Congresses some thirty-two statutes contain such a waiver. The question, therefore, is simply one of Congressional intention. No private person should be exempt from non-discriminatory taxation simply because he deals with the Government; but the Government itself should not in the absence of a clear consent be forced to account to the tax collector of a State. It would be anomalous for the operations of the United States, buttressed by the supremacy clause, to be subject to a compulsory exaction by an independent sovereign. The delay and accounting burdens, the necessity of opening the Government's books to numerous tax officials, and the burden of numerous and protracted suits, would combine to impose a staggering obstacle to the efficient conduct of the nation's business, which reaches into every taxing jurisdiction in the United States. It is, we believe, because of these considerations that so marked a contrast appears in the decisions of this Court which deal, on the one hand, with the tax immunity of private persons and, on the other hand, with that of the Government itself. Because of the strong reasons for such an immunity and because of the unbroken consistency of the decisions of this Court, Congress can be taken to have intended a different rule only when the waiver of immunity is clear. Graves v. New York ex rel. O'Keefe, 306 U. S. 466, dealt with the immunity of a private person from taxation simply because he chanced to deal with the Government. Section 4 (c) of the Home Owners' Loan Act of 1933 contains nothing to destroy this normal implication of immunity; on the contrary its language points with compelling force to a Congressional desire for immunity. The fragmentary legislative history points to a similar conclusion. Cf., Baltimore National Bank v. Tax Commission, 297 U. S. 209. 21 Opinion of the Court. The omission of a specific exemption for mortgages, found in the Federal Farm Loan Act and relied upon in Federal Land Bank v. Crosland, 261 U. S. 374, indicates no desire to waive their immunity. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES delivered the opinion of the Court. The Home Owners' Loan Corporation brought this proceeding in the Baltimore City Court for a writ of mandamus requiring the Clerk of the Superior Court of Baltimore to record a mortgage executed to the Corporation upon the payment of the ordinary recording charge and without affixing stamps for the state recording tax. Demurrer to the petition was overruled, the Clerk did not avail himself of the opportunity to answer, and mandamus was granted. The order was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. 175 Md. 512; 2 A. 2d 689. We granted certiorari. 306 U. S. 628. The Maryland statute imposes a tax upon every mortgage, recorded or offered for record, at the rate of ten cents for each $100, or fraction thereof, of the principal amount of the debt secured by the mortgage.1 As the Home Owners' Loan Corporation is expressly declared to be an instrumentality of the United States (Home 1 The Act provides for a "Tax on the Recordation of Instruments in Writing" as follows: "A tax is hereby imposed upon every instrument of writing recorded or offered for record with the Clerks of the Circuit Courts of the respective Counties, or the Clerk of the Superior Court of Baltimore City, on and after June 1, 1937, to and including September 30th, 1939, including mechanics liens, deeds, mortgages (except purchase money mortgages), chattel mortgages, bills of sale, conditional contracts of sale, leases, confessed judgments, magistrates' judgments, crop liens, deeds of trust, and any and all other instruments of writing, so recorded or offered for record, which create liens or incumbrances on real or personal property, or convey title to real or personal property; provided, however, that said tax shall not apply to assignments of Opinion of the Court. 308 U.S. Owners' Loan Act of 1933, c. 64, 48 Stat. 128) and the mortgage was acquired in that capacity, the Court of Appeals held the tax as thus applied to be invalid. The court relied upon our decision in Federal Land Bank v. Crosland, 261 U. S. 374. The question there related to a tax imposed by Alabama as a condition for the recording of a mortgage executed to a Federal Land Bank. The Federal Farm Loan Act of 1916 provides that first mortgages executed to Federal Land Banks shall be deemed "instrumentalities of the Government of the United States, and as such they and the income derived therefrom shall be exempt from Federal, State, municipal, and local taxation." 39 Stat. 360, 380. We held that the state tax, as distinguished from a reasonable fee to meet the expenses of the registry, constituted a general tax on mortgages, using the condition attached to registration as a practical mode of collecting it, and that the tax on the mortgage in question was beyond the power of the State. Petitioner suggests that the Crosland case may be distinguished; that the Alabama tax was imposed on the lender, whereas the Maryland tax is on the privilege of recording the instrument and the statute is silent as to mortgages, purchase money mortgages, absolute or partial releases, or orders of satisfaction." "The tax hereby imposed shall be at the rate of 10¢ for each $100, or fractional part thereof, of the actual consideration paid or to be paid, for the property transferred, in the case of instruments conveying title, and at the rate of 10¢ for each $100, or fractional part thereof, of the principal amount of the debt secured, in the case of instruments securing a debt, or reserving title as security for a debt." "In addition to the tax hereby imposed, the Clerks shall collect a charge of 50¢ for each such instrument recorded or offered for record." Acts of 1937, Chap. 11, Code of Maryland, Art. 81, § 213. The same Act, in § 214, provides for the affixing of stamps to cover the tax and makes it unlawful for any person to record any written instrument without providing for the payment of the tax, as stated. 21 Opinion of the Court. the one who shall pay the tax; also that the Federal Farm Loan Act expressly declared the mortgages of Federal Land Banks to be instrumentalities of the Federal Government. The Court of Appeals thought these differences to be immaterial. As to the first, the court rightly observed that in the Crosland case the provision for the payment of tax by the lender was regarded as having no determining significance. We said that "whoever pays it it is a tax upon the mortgage and that is what is forbidden by the law of the United States." 261 U. S., pp. 378, 379. Here, also, the tax is imposed upon the mortgage and is graded according to the amount of the loan, and the condition attached to the registration is a practical method of collection. The recording sought was for the protection of the interest of the Home Owners' Loan Corporation. In fact, the mortgage in the instant case was offered for record by the Corporation and the tax was demanded from the Corporation. 3 The second suggested distinction rests upon the terms of the Home Owners' Loan Act. That provides that the Home Owners' Loan Corporation, its franchise, capital, reserves and surplus, and its loans and income shall be exempt from all state or municipal taxes. The critical term, in the present relation, is "loans." We think that this term, in order to carry out the manifest purpose of the broad exemption, should be construed as covering the entire process of lending, the debts which result therefrom and the mortgages given to the Corporation as security. The Home Owners' Loan Act requires that the loans made by the Corporation "shall be secured by 3 2 See Note 1. Section 4 (c) of the Home Owners' Loan Act provides: "The bonds issued by the Corporation under this subsection shall be exempt, both as to principal and interest, from all taxation (except surtaxes, estate, inheritance, and gift taxes) now or hereafter imposed by the United States or any District, Territory, dependency, or possession thereof, or |