In the 1899 Supreme Court case, The Panama, a dispute arose over damages caused to the ship 'The Panama' during its passage through the Suez Canal. The owners of 'The Panama', an American vessel, sought compensation from the Suez Canal Company for damage incurred when their ship was grounded due to alleged negligence by canal pilots provided by the company. However, they had signed a contract with terms absolving the company of any liability for such incidents. In this context, Justice Gray delivered his opinion that despite these contractual terms and international law principles limiting liability in cases involving compulsory pilots (those required by local authorities), there could be exceptions if gross negligence or willful misconduct were proven - which wasn't established in this case. Therefore, he concluded that no recovery could be granted under either French or general maritime law as per existing precedents and practices related to pilotage on canals like Suez.

In the dissenting opinion for The Panama case in 1899, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to allow a foreign ship owner to limit their liability under American law was incorrect. He believed that this interpretation of maritime law would unfairly favor foreign ship owners over American ones and could potentially harm domestic shipping interests. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view that international comity required such an interpretation. Instead, he asserted that each nation has the right to determine its own laws regarding maritime commerce within its jurisdiction without being bound by other nations' laws or practices. Thus, according to him, it should be up to Congress - not courts - whether or not U.S law should incorporate provisions from foreign legislation limiting shipowners’ liabilities.