In the 1892 case Arnold v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter involving maritime law and salvage rights. The plaintiff, Arnold, had discovered an abandoned ship (the "Tropic Wind") in international waters and claimed it under maritime salvage laws. However, upon bringing the vessel to port in Alaska, he found that the U.S government had already declared ownership of it as property lost at sea by American citizens. Arnold sued for compensation based on his claim of salvage rights but was denied by lower courts which held that U.S federal law superseded international maritime law in this instance. The Supreme Court upheld these decisions stating that while generally salvors have certain rights to abandoned property at sea under international law; however those rules do not apply when a sovereign nation has previously asserted its own claims over such property - as was done here by US authorities who took possession of Tropic Wind after she drifted into Alaskan waters following her abandonment due to ice damage during a sealing expedition.

In the dissenting opinion for Arnold v. United States, it was argued that the court erred in its decision to uphold a conviction based on circumstantial evidence alone. The dissenting justices believed that there were too many uncertainties and potential explanations for the circumstances surrounding this case to definitively conclude guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. They felt that without direct evidence linking Arnold to the crime, such as eyewitness testimony or physical proof, his conviction should not stand. This view emphasizes caution when dealing with cases reliant solely on indirect evidence due to their inherent ambiguity and potential for misinterpretation.