In the 1893 case of South Carolina v. Seymour, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a dispute regarding railroad taxation between the state of South Carolina and an individual named Seymour. The issue at hand was whether or not South Carolina had violated federal law by imposing higher taxes on railroads that were part-owned by out-of-state investors compared to those owned solely within the state. The court found in favor of Seymour, ruling that such differential tax treatment did indeed violate federal law as it discriminated against interstate commerce and thus contravened the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. This decision reinforced principles established in previous cases about states' inability to impede interstate commerce through discriminatory taxation practices.

In the dissenting opinion for South Carolina v. Seymour, 1893, it was argued that the federal government should not have jurisdiction over navigable waters within a state's boundaries unless those waters cross into another state or foreign territory. The dissenting justices believed that states should retain control and regulation of their internal waterways as part of their inherent sovereignty. They disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the Commerce Clause in granting Congress broad regulatory power over all navigable waters, regardless of whether they crossed state lines or not. This view held that such an expansive reading undermined states' rights and upset the balance between federal and state powers established by Constitution. Furthermore, they contended this could lead to potential abuses by allowing federal intrusion into areas traditionally under local control like fishing regulations or wharfage fees which are more appropriately managed at a local level due to unique geographic conditions and needs.