The Grays Harbor Logging Company case in 1916 revolved around a dispute over land ownership and logging rights. The plaintiffs, Grays Harbor Logging Company and others, claimed that they had purchased the disputed lands from the State of Washington under an Act of Congress which granted certain swamp and overflowed lands to the state. However, defendants argued that these were not swamp lands but rather tide lands which belonged to them as per another Act of Congress granting such areas to private parties for development purposes. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendants stating that at time when these laws were enacted, it was impossible for surveyors to accurately determine boundaries between swamp or overflowed land versus tide land due its submerged nature during high tides. Therefore, any ambiguity should be resolved in favor of grantees (defendants) who have been using this area continuously since their grant without any objections until now by either state or federal authorities.

In the dissenting opinion for the Grays Harbor Logging Company case of 1916, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Washington state law requiring loggers to pay their workers every two weeks was an overreach of government power. The dissenters believed this ruling violated employers' rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against deprivation of life, liberty or property without due process. They contended that businesses should have more freedom in determining how and when they compensate their employees. Moreover, they expressed concern about potential negative economic consequences from such regulation on business operations and warned about setting a precedent for further governmental interference in private sector wage practices.