In the 1903 case of Carstairs v. Cochran, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving maritime law and salvage rights. The plaintiff, Carstairs, had salvaged a vessel owned by Cochran that was stranded in Cuban waters during the Spanish-American War. After towing it to safety, he claimed compensation for his services based on U.S. salvage laws which allow individuals who voluntarily save a ship from danger to claim remuneration proportional to their efforts and risks taken. Cochran contested this claim arguing that since the incident occurred in foreign waters (Cuba), American courts did not have jurisdiction over it; instead international or local (Cuban) law should apply where no such generous provisions existed for salvors. The Supreme Court sided with Cochran ruling that U.S. salvage laws could not be applied extraterritorially i.e., outside national boundaries unless there is express legislative intent indicating otherwise - which was absent here. This decision clarified an important aspect of maritime law: while ships carry their nationality wherever they go (law of flag), domestic statutes do not automatically extend beyond territorial limits without explicit provision.

The dissenting opinion in the Carstairs v. Cochran case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a New York law prohibiting liquor sales on Sundays was inconsistent with previous rulings of the Court. The dissent contended that this ruling violated individual rights and liberties, as it allowed for government interference in personal affairs without sufficient justification or evidence of public harm. It also suggested that such laws were discriminatory, as they targeted specific industries while ignoring others engaged in similar practices. Furthermore, it pointed out inconsistencies within these types of laws themselves - for example, allowing restaurants to serve alcohol but not liquor stores to sell them seemed arbitrary and unfair. The dissent concluded by expressing concern over potential future implications of this ruling; if governments could regulate one industry based on moral grounds alone, then there would be no limit to what they could control next.