Debary v. Arthur, Collector was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a tax imposed by the United States on distilled spirits was constitutional. The case was brought by the plaintiff, Debary, who was a distiller of spirits in New York. Debary argued that the tax imposed by the United States was unconstitutional because it was a direct tax on the production of spirits, and thus violated the Constitution's requirement that direct taxes be apportioned among the states. The Supreme Court held that the tax was constitutional, finding that it was an indirect tax, not a direct tax. The Court reasoned that the tax was imposed on the sale of the spirits, not on the production of the spirits, and thus did not violate the Constitution's requirement that direct taxes be apportioned among the states. The Court also held that the tax was not a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, as the tax was imposed on the sale of the spirits, not on the production of the spirits. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the tax imposed by the United States on distilled spirits was constitutional, as it was an indirect tax, not a direct tax, and did not violate the Constitution's requirement that direct taxes be apportioned among the states. The Court also held that the tax did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

In Debary v. Arthur, Collector, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a tax imposed by Congress on distilled spirits was constitutional. The majority opinion held that the tax did not violate any of the provisions of the Constitution and therefore upheld its validity. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that it violated Article I Section 8 Clause 1 of the Constitution which grants Congress power to lay taxes only for “the common defense and general welfare” as well as Article I Section 9 Clause 4 which prohibits direct taxation without apportionment among states according to population. He further argued that since there is no evidence in support of how this particular tax would promote either defense or general welfare, it should be declared unconstitutional because it does not meet these criteria set out in Articles I Sections 8 & 9 Clauses 1 & 4 respectively.