In Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway Company v. Ham & Others, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a state law that prohibited railroads from charging more than a certain rate for the transportation of passengers was constitutional. The railroad argued that the law violated the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, which gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. The Court held that the law was unconstitutional because it interfered with the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce. The Court reasoned that the law was an attempt to regulate interstate commerce, which was the exclusive power of Congress. The Court also held that the law was an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce because it prevented the railroad from charging a rate that would be sufficient to cover its costs. The Court's decision in this case established the principle that states cannot pass laws that interfere with Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce. This principle has been applied in numerous cases since then, and it remains an important part of the law today.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway Company v. Ham & Others. He argued that Congress had not intended to give exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving interstate commerce to federal courts and that state courts should have concurrent jurisdiction with them in such matters. He noted that the Constitution did not grant any power to Congress regarding this issue, and thus it was up to each individual state as to how they wanted their court systems structured when dealing with these types of cases. Furthermore, he stated that if a party wished for an appeal from a decision made by a state court on an interstate matter then they could do so through the Supreme Court's appellate powers instead of having all appeals go directly through federal district courts first before being heard at the Supreme Court level. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that allowing states concurrent jurisdiction would be more beneficial than giving exclusive authority solely to federal courts because it would provide parties greater access and flexibility when seeking justice for disputes related to interstate commerce issues