In the 1893 case of The Haytian Republic, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving maritime law and salvage rights. A ship named "The Haytian Republic" was stranded in international waters due to engine failure. Another vessel, "The Strathdon," came to its aid and towed it back to port. The owners of The Strathdon then sought compensation for their rescue efforts under maritime salvage laws which allow those who voluntarily save a sea-going vessel from danger without any pre-existing duty or contract to do so, can claim remuneration proportionate with the value saved. However, there was disagreement over how much this compensation should be as well as whether such an award should even be granted since both ships were owned by British companies but had been operating in American waters at the time of incident. Ultimately, the court decided that although both vessels were foreign-owned they could still apply U.S. law because they were within American jurisdiction when assistance was rendered; thus making them subject to local legislation including maritime salvage rules. They awarded $7,500 (a substantial sum at that time) as fair recompense for services provided by The Strathdon's crew - acknowledging their right under international law principles governing marine rescues.

In the dissenting opinion for The Haytian Republic case of 1893, Justice Brewer argued that the court should not have jurisdiction over political questions such as recognizing foreign governments. He believed this power was vested solely in the executive branch and that courts should refrain from interfering with these decisions. Furthermore, he contended that if a government is recognized by the President and conducts business on behalf of its country within U.S borders, it must be considered legitimate by all branches of government including judiciary. Therefore, according to him, since President had recognized Hyppolite's regime in Haiti at that time as legitimate; any contracts made under his authority were valid and enforceable under U.S law. Brewer also disagreed with majority’s interpretation of international law regarding recognition of new governments arguing it could lead to unnecessary conflicts between judicial and executive branches.