In the 1907 U.S. Supreme Court case of La Bourgogne, the court had to decide on a dispute involving maritime law and international jurisdiction. The French steamship "La Bourgogne" collided with British sailing ship "Cromartyshire" off the coast of Nova Scotia, causing significant loss of life. Survivors and relatives sued for damages in American courts as both ships were headed towards New York when they crashed. However, France claimed that under international law, such cases should be tried in its own courts because La Bourgogne was a French vessel. The Supreme Court ruled against this claim by stating that while it is generally true that matters concerning internal discipline or management onboard a foreign ship are subject to exclusive jurisdiction from its home country's laws; issues regarding collisions on high seas do not fall into these categories and can therefore be adjudicated in any competent tribunal where proceedings may be initiated. This ruling established an important precedent about how far national sovereignty extends over vessels traveling internationally - specifically clarifying which legal system has authority over incidents occurring outside territorial waters but still having substantial connections with another nation (like being en route to one).

In the dissenting opinion for the case of La Bourgogne, 1907, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes disagreed with the majority's decision to hold a French steamship company liable for damages resulting from a collision at sea. He argued that international law should govern such cases and under those rules, both ships involved in an accident share liability if they are both found to be at fault. In this particular case, he believed that evidence showed negligence on part of both vessels - The Cromartyshire (British) and La Bourgogne (French). Therefore, according to him it was unjust to place full responsibility on one party alone. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential diplomatic implications of ignoring established international maritime laws in favor of domestic ones. His view was essentially rooted in maintaining respect for international legal principles even when they might not align perfectly with national interests or perspectives.