The Central Pacific Railroad Company v. United States case in 1896 revolved around the interpretation of an act passed by Congress in 1862, which provided federal support for the construction of railroads across America. The Act required railroad companies to repay these loans with interest after a certain period. However, it was unclear whether this repayment should include subsidies given to the companies as well or only direct cash loans. Central Pacific Railroad argued that they were only obligated to pay back direct cash loans and not any additional subsidies received from land grants or bonds issued under government authority. On the other hand, U.S Government contended that all forms of financial assistance including those derived from land grants and bonds should be repaid. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Central Pacific Railroad Company stating that while there was ambiguity in language used within parts of legislation, overall intent seemed clear - repayment obligations pertained solely to sums directly loaned by government rather than broader financial benefits accrued through indirect means such as land grants or bond issues.

In the dissenting opinion for Central Pacific Railroad Company v. United States, it was argued that the majority's interpretation of the contract between Central Pacific and the government was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that Congress intended to provide a subsidy in order to encourage railroad construction, not impose an additional burden on these companies. They contended that if Congress had wanted to require repayment of interest subsidies, they would have explicitly stated so in their legislation. Furthermore, they pointed out inconsistencies within the majority’s decision regarding different sections of related acts passed by Congress at various times which were interpreted differently despite having similar language and intent. Thus, according to them, this inconsistency further undermined its validity as well as fairness towards all parties involved.