In the 1893 case of Herrman v. Robertson, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a New York law that prohibited non-residents from dredging oysters in its waters violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV or the Commerce Clause of Article I Section 8 of the Constitution. The plaintiff, a citizen and resident of New Jersey, argued that these clauses granted him equal rights to harvest oysters in any state's waters as residents had. However, after considering both arguments, the court ruled against Herrman. The court found that while states cannot discriminate against citizens from other states when it comes to fundamental rights (such as owning property), they can regulate activities related to natural resources within their borders for conservation purposes without violating either clause mentioned above. In this case specifically, New York’s regulation aimed at preserving its oyster beds did not violate constitutional principles because it applied equally to all non-residents regardless if they were involved in interstate commerce or not.

In the dissenting opinion for Herrman v. Robertson, Justice Brewer argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and principles of maritime law. He contended that a ship owner should not be held liable for damages caused by a vessel under charter to another party unless it can be proven that they were negligent in their duties or responsibilities as owners. In this case, he believed there was no evidence to suggest such negligence on part of the ship owner and thus disagreed with holding them accountable for losses incurred due to actions taken by those who chartered the vessel. Furthermore, he expressed concern over potential negative implications this ruling could have on future cases involving similar circumstances.