In the United States v. Alger case of 1893, the Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Boston Harbor. The federal government claimed that it had owned and used the disputed area for military purposes since before Massachusetts became a state, thus making it exempt from property taxes levied by local authorities. Francis Alger contested this claim, arguing that he held title to part of the disputed territory through inheritance and purchase. The court ruled in favor of Mr. Alger on technical grounds related to evidence presentation rather than addressing broader constitutional issues about federal versus state authority or public versus private rights in navigable waters.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Alger, it was argued that the government did not have a right to take private property without just compensation under any circumstances. The justice believed that this principle should be upheld even in cases where public safety is at risk, such as when buildings are deemed fire hazards and ordered to be demolished by authorities. He contended that if the state has an interest in removing dangerous structures, then they should bear the cost of doing so rather than forcing individual citizens to shoulder this burden themselves. This view contrasts with majority's ruling which allowed for uncompensated destruction of private property deemed hazardous by local officials.