The Collector v. Richards was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a collector of customs had the authority to seize goods that were imported into the United States without the payment of duties. The case was brought by the Collector of Customs of the Port of New York against the importer, Richards. The Collector argued that Richards had imported goods into the United States without paying the required duties, and that the Collector had the authority to seize the goods. The Supreme Court held that the Collector did have the authority to seize the goods, as the Collector was acting within the scope of his authority as a Collector of Customs. The Court noted that the Collector was acting in accordance with the laws of the United States, and that the Collector had the authority to seize the goods in order to protect the revenue of the United States. The Court also noted that the Collector had acted in good faith, and that the Collector had acted in accordance with the laws of the United States. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the Collector had the authority to seize the goods imported by Richards without the payment of duties, as the Collector was acting within the scope of his authority as a Collector of Customs. The Court noted that the Collector had acted in good faith, and that the Collector had acted in accordance with the laws of the United States.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in The Collector v. Richards, arguing that the majority's decision was wrong and should be reversed. He argued that Congress had not intended to impose a tax on vessels owned by citizens of foreign countries when they were engaged in coastwise trade within the United States, as this would conflict with international law and treaties between nations. Furthermore, he noted that if such a tax were imposed it could lead to retaliatory measures from other countries which could have serious economic consequences for American commerce abroad. He also pointed out that there was no precedent for imposing such a tax under similar circumstances and thus concluded that it would be unwise to do so now without further consideration or debate by Congress itself.