The Collector v. Beggs was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1872. The case involved a dispute between the Collector of Customs for the Port of New York and the owner of a vessel, John Beggs. The Collector had seized the vessel for failing to pay duties on imported goods. Beggs argued that the Collector had no right to seize the vessel, as the goods had been imported by a third party and not by Beggs himself. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Beggs, holding that the Collector had no right to seize the vessel. The Court reasoned that the Collector had no authority to impose duties on goods imported by a third party, and that the Collector had no right to seize the vessel for failing to pay duties on goods that were not imported by Beggs. The Court also held that the Collector had no right to impose duties on goods that had already been imported and paid for. The Collector v. Beggs is an important case in the history of the United States Supreme Court, as it established the principle that the Collector of Customs has no authority to impose duties on goods imported by a third party. This case has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving the authority of the Collector of Customs.

In The Collector v. Beggs, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a tax imposed by Congress on distilled spirits was constitutional. In an 8-1 decision, the court held that it was not. Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in which he argued that Congress had broad powers under Article I of the Constitution and could impose taxes for any purpose they deemed necessary or proper as long as it did not violate other provisions of law. He further argued that since there were no express prohibitions against such taxation in either Article I or elsewhere in the Constitution, then Congress had every right to impose this particular tax on distilled spirits without violating any laws or infringing upon anyone's rights. Ultimately, Justice Field concluded that if Congress believed this type of taxation would be beneficial to society then they should have been allowed to do so without interference from the courts