The Siren was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1868. The case involved a dispute between the owners of the steamship Siren and the owners of the steamship City of New York. The Siren had been damaged in a collision with the City of New York, and the owners of the Siren sought to recover damages from the owners of the City of New York. The Supreme Court held that the owners of the Siren were entitled to recover damages from the owners of the City of New York. The Court found that the owners of the City of New York had been negligent in the operation of their vessel, and that the negligence had caused the collision. The Court also held that the owners of the Siren had acted reasonably in attempting to avoid the collision, and that they were therefore entitled to recover damages. The Court also held that the owners of the City of New York were liable for the damages caused by the collision, regardless of whether the collision was caused by the negligence of the owners of the City of New York or the negligence of the owners of the Siren. The Court reasoned that the owners of the City of New York had a duty to exercise reasonable care in the operation of their vessel, and that they had breached that duty by failing to do so. The Court's decision in The Siren established the principle that the owners of a vessel are liable for damages caused by the negligence of their vessel, regardless of whether the negligence was caused by the owners of the vessel or the owners of the other vessel involved in the collision. This principle has been applied in numerous cases since The Siren, and it remains an important part of maritime law today.

In The Siren, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a foreign-built vessel that had been purchased by an American citizen and brought into U.S. waters could be considered a "vessel of the United States" for purposes of admiralty jurisdiction. In a dissenting opinion, Justice Field argued that Congress had not intended to extend admiralty jurisdiction over vessels owned by citizens but built abroad and imported into U.S. waters as merchandise; rather, he believed they were meant only for commerce on navigable rivers or lakes within the country's boundaries and thus should not be subject to such jurisdiction under existing laws at the time. He further noted that if this interpretation were accepted it would lead to absurd results in which any foreign-built ship entering U.S ports could become liable for maritime claims even though its owner may have no intention of using it as anything other than merchandise or cargo transportation on domestic waterways - something clearly beyond what Congress intended when enacting these statutes in question here today