In Blaine v. Ship Charles Carter et al., the Supreme Court considered whether a vessel owned by an American citizen and sailing under a foreign flag was subject to admiralty jurisdiction in the United States. The plaintiff, Blaine, had sued for damages arising from his cargo being damaged while on board the defendant's ship. The defendants argued that since their vessel sailed under a foreign flag, it was not subject to U.S. admiralty jurisdiction and thus could not be held liable for any damage caused to Blaine's cargo during its voyage across international waters. However, after considering all of the evidence presented before them, including testimony from witnesses who had seen the ship flying both American and foreign flags at different times throughout its journey, as well as other relevant documents pertaining to ownership of said vessel;the court ultimately ruled that regardless of which flag flew over it at any given time or whose name appeared on its papers;the fact remained that this particular vessel was owned by an American citizen and therefore fell within U.S admiralty jurisdiction despite having flown under a foreign banner during part of its voyage abroad . Thus they found in favor of Blaine awarding him damages accordingly

In Blaine v. Ship Charles Carter et al., the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a state court had jurisdiction to try a case involving an admiralty matter, which is traditionally within federal jurisdiction. The majority opinion held that the state court did not have such authority and thus dismissed the suit. However, Justice Chase dissented from this decision on two grounds: firstly, he argued that Congress had never explicitly given exclusive power over admiralty matters to any particular branch of government; secondly, he maintained that if it were assumed for argument's sake that Congress had intended to give such exclusive powers to one branch or another then they would most likely be vested in the states rather than in federal courts due to their greater proximity and familiarity with local issues. He concluded by asserting his belief that allowing state courts concurrent jurisdiction over these cases would serve as an important check against potential abuses of power by either party involved.