In the case of Campbell, Federal Prohibition Administrator, et al. v. W.H. Long & Company, Incorporated in 1929, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute concerning alcohol prohibition laws during the era of American Prohibition (1920-1933). The plaintiff was a federal prohibition administrator who argued that W.H. Long & Company had violated these laws by selling industrial alcohol with knowledge or reasonable cause to believe it would be used for beverage purposes - an illegal act under Volstead Act which enforced national prohibition. However, W.H.Long & Co., defended themselves stating they were not aware their product was being misused and thus should not be held accountable for third-party actions beyond their control. The Supreme Court sided with W.H.Long & Co., ruling that mere suspicion or possibility is insufficient grounds to hold someone liable under this law; there must be concrete evidence proving intent or awareness of misuse before liability can apply. This decision clarified how responsibility and accountability are determined within complex supply chains where end-use may differ from intended use – setting precedent for future cases involving similar disputes over indirect involvement in unlawful activities.

In the dissenting opinion for Campbell, Federal Prohibition Administrator, et al. v. W.H. Long & Company, Incorporated (1929), Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision to allow a company to sell industrial alcohol without paying taxes was incorrect because it violated federal prohibition laws and undermined Congress' authority over taxation policy. He contended that even though the alcohol in question was not intended for consumption but rather for manufacturing purposes, it could still be misused as an intoxicant if improperly handled or distributed - thus falling under the purview of prohibition legislation. Furthermore, he believed that by exempting such sales from taxation based on their supposed non-consumable nature, the Court had effectively usurped Congress' power to determine what should and shouldn't be taxed – a prerogative explicitly granted by Constitution.