The United States v. Cornell Steamboat Company case in 1905 revolved around the issue of whether a steamboat company could be held liable for damages caused by one of its tugboats to a government vessel, despite the fact that it was not directly operating or controlling the tug at the time of incident. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Cornell Steamboat Company, stating that liability for such incidents rests with those who are actively managing and operating vessels rather than their owners or charterers who have no control over daily operations. This ruling established an important precedent regarding maritime law and liability, emphasizing operational control as a key factor in determining responsibility for accidents on waterways.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Cornell Steamboat Company, it was argued that the majority's decision to hold a private company liable for damages caused by a government-owned vessel was unjustified. The dissenting justices believed that the U.S. government should bear full responsibility for any damage caused by its vessels, regardless of whether they were operated by private companies or not. They contended that since the government had ultimate control over these vessels and their operations, it should also be held accountable when things go wrong. Furthermore, they expressed concern about setting a precedent where private entities could be held responsible for actions taken under governmental authority - an issue which they felt could have far-reaching implications beyond this particular case.