The Mencke v. Cargo of Java Sugar case in 1902 revolved around a dispute over the ownership and sale of a cargo of sugar from Java, which was seized by U.S. customs officials due to alleged smuggling activities. The plaintiff, Mencke, claimed that he had purchased the sugar legally before it was confiscated and sold at auction by the government. He sought compensation for his loss but faced opposition from both the original shipper and purchaser who also laid claim to the proceeds from its sale. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mencke on grounds that he had acted in good faith when purchasing the sugar without knowledge or suspicion about any illegal activity associated with it. It held that once an innocent third party has acquired goods through legal means, they cannot be deprived of their property rights even if those goods were originally obtained unlawfully. This decision established important principles regarding property rights under American law: namely, that they are protected regardless of previous illicit actions connected to said property as long as current owners have not participated or been aware thereof.

In the dissenting opinion for MENCKE v. CARGO OF JAVA SUGAR, it was argued that the seizure of a cargo of sugar by U.S. customs officials from a Dutch ship during the Spanish-American War should not have been deemed lawful. The dissenting justices contended that since Holland was neutral in this conflict, its vessels were entitled to free passage and their goods should not be subject to confiscation under international law principles recognized by the United States itself. They also disagreed with majority's interpretation of "continuous voyage" doctrine which allowed interception if ultimate destination was enemy territory; they believed it didn't apply here as there wasn't sufficient evidence proving such intent or destination for seized cargo. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential harm to U.S.'s foreign relations due to perceived violation of neutrality rights.