In the 1893 case of Hedden v. Robertson, the United States Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a certain type of woolen cloth could be classified as worsted fabric under customs law. The plaintiff, George B. Robertson, imported this material and argued that it should not be subject to duties because it did not meet the legal definition of worsted fabric at that time. However, Edward L. Hedden, Collector of Customs for New York City disagreed and imposed duties on these imports anyway. The court ruled in favor of Hedden stating that although technically speaking the imported goods were not made from combed wool (a requirement for classification as worsted), they were similar enough in appearance and use to genuine worsted fabrics to warrant being treated as such under customs law. This decision reinforced an important principle: when interpreting laws related to trade and tariffs, courts must consider how goods are commonly understood by merchants and consumers rather than relying strictly on technical definitions or manufacturing processes.

The dissenting opinion in the Hedden v. Robertson case is not available or was not recorded. In many older Supreme Court cases, only the majority opinion was documented and preserved, making it difficult to ascertain any dissenting views that may have been expressed during deliberation. It's also possible that this particular decision was unanimous among all justices involved, thus resulting in no dissenting opinions being voiced or written down for posterity.