The Statler v. United States case in 1894 revolved around the interpretation of a tariff law. The plaintiff, Statler, imported iron bands used for baling cotton and was charged with a duty under the Tariff Act of March 3, 1883 as if they were "iron or steel bands or hoops." However, he protested that these items should have been classified as "bale ties" which would result in lower duties. The U.S Supreme Court ruled against Statler stating that while it is true that these iron bands are used to tie bales of cotton together, this does not make them 'bale ties' within the meaning of the statute. According to their ruling, 'bale ties' refer specifically to patented articles made up ready for use on bales and sold by number rather than weight; whereas what Statler had imported were simply strips or bars of iron cut into suitable lengths for making such ties but requiring further manipulation before they could be applied to bind bales.

In the dissenting opinion for Statler v. United States, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a conviction based on circumstantial evidence was flawed. The dissenting justices believed that there were too many uncertainties and potential explanations for the defendant's actions other than guilt. They felt that in order to convict someone of a crime, especially one as serious as murder, there must be clear and convincing proof beyond reasonable doubt - something they did not believe existed in this case. Furthermore, they expressed concern about setting a dangerous precedent where individuals could be convicted based largely on suspicion or conjecture rather than solid evidence.