In the United States v. Matthews case of 1898, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter concerning maritime law and salvage rights. The dispute arose when two vessels, one American (the "Matthews") and one British (the "Industrie"), were both involved in rescuing another distressed ship at sea. Both ships claimed salvage rights to the rescued vessel's cargo. The U.S government argued that since the Matthews had first spotted and approached the distressed ship, it should be awarded full salvage rights despite not being able to complete rescue operations alone due to adverse weather conditions. The Supreme Court disagreed with this argument, ruling instead that both ships were entitled to share in any potential rewards from their joint efforts based on their respective contributions towards saving lives and property at risk during a marine disaster situation. This decision was significant as it clarified how international maritime laws regarding salvaging should be applied under such circumstances where multiple parties are involved in rescue operations.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Matthews, the justice argued that the majority's interpretation of tax law was incorrect and overly broad. The justice believed that Congress did not intend to impose a tax on all forms of income but only on those specifically enumerated in the statute. He also disagreed with the majority's view that dividends received by a taxpayer should be considered as part of his gross income for taxation purposes, arguing instead they were merely returns on capital investment and thus should not be subject to taxation under existing laws. Furthermore, he contended that taxing such dividends would result in double taxation since corporations already pay taxes before distributing profits to shareholders. This could discourage investment and harm economic growth according to him.