The Glide, a Supreme Court case in 1896, revolved around the issue of maritime salvage rights. The steamship "Glide" had sunk near Boston Harbor and was subsequently raised by two different parties at separate times. The first party salvaged the ship but did not complete repairs to make it seaworthy again; instead, they abandoned it due to financial difficulties. Later on, another party found the vessel and completed its restoration without knowledge of prior salvage efforts. The original owners then claimed their property back from this second group who sought compensation for their work under maritime law's principle of 'salvage' - which allows those who save a vessel at sea to be rewarded with part or all of its value depending upon circumstances. However, the court ruled against them stating that since they were unaware about previous attempts when they began their operations; hence could not claim any reward as per established principles governing such situations. This decision clarified legal aspects related to marine salvage rights in cases where multiple parties are involved over time.

In the dissenting opinion for The Glide case, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling that allowed forfeiture of an entire vessel due to illegal activity by some crew members was unjust. This view held that punishing innocent parties who had no knowledge or involvement in the illicit activities is fundamentally unfair and contrary to principles of justice. It emphasized on proportionality between crime and punishment, suggesting penalties should be directed only at those directly involved in wrongdoing rather than extending them indiscriminately. Furthermore, it questioned whether such broad application of maritime law truly served its intended purpose - deterring criminal behavior aboard ships - or instead created undue hardship for unsuspecting ship owners and other stakeholders who may suffer significant financial loss as a result.