The Carondelet Canal and Navigation Company v. State of Louisiana case in 1913 revolved around the ownership and control of a canal that was initially constructed under Spanish rule, before Louisiana became part of the United States. The company claimed it had been granted perpetual rights to operate the canal by an act passed by the state legislature in 1858. However, Louisiana argued that this grant violated its constitution as it surrendered control over a navigable waterway indefinitely. The Supreme Court sided with Louisiana, ruling that while states could delegate authority for improvements on public waters to private entities, they couldn't surrender their overall control or give away such resources permanently without violating public trust doctrine principles.

In the dissenting opinion for Carondelet Canal and Navigation Company v. State of Louisiana, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold Louisiana's right to revoke a charter granted by Spanish authorities in 1795 was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that when Louisiana became a state, it accepted all existing contracts and charters as they were at the time of admission, including those established under foreign rule. They contended that this principle is fundamental to American law and should have been upheld in this case. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of an 1823 act by Congress which confirmed land grants made by previous sovereigns; according to them, this act also implicitly affirmed any associated rights or privileges such as navigation rights on waterways within these lands. Therefore, they concluded that Louisiana did not have authority over these matters after becoming a state.