The Pedro case of 1899 revolved around the seizure of a British vessel, The Pedro, by U.S. authorities off the coast of Alaska for illegal seal hunting in Bering Sea. The key issue was whether or not an international arbitration award between Great Britain and the United States had established that such seizures were legal under international law. In this case, it was determined that while there were restrictions on pelagic sealing (seal hunting at sea), these did not extend to allowing one nation to seize another's vessels outside its territorial waters without explicit agreement from both nations involved. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of The Pedro’s owners stating that although the U.S. had jurisdiction over fur seals within its territory and could regulate their killing even on high seas due to an existing treaty with Great Britain; however, it didn't have authority to seize foreign vessels beyond three miles from its own coast unless explicitly authorized by treaty provisions which wasn’t applicable here. This decision clarified limits on national jurisdiction over wildlife conservation efforts in international waters and emphasized respect for sovereignty rights among nations.

In the dissenting opinion for THE PEDRO case, Justice Harlan disagreed with the majority's interpretation of maritime law. He argued that a ship owner should not be held liable for damages caused by an independent contractor who was hired to repair the vessel. According to him, this liability should only apply if it can be proven that the ship owner had knowledge or reason to believe that such damage could occur due to negligence on part of the contractor. The principle applied by majority in holding owners responsible even without their fault is inconsistent with general principles governing relations between principal and independent contractors according to Justice Harlan. He believed this decision would create unnecessary burdens on commerce and trade as it imposes excessive liabilities on innocent parties.