The Distilled Spirits case of 1870 was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court. The case involved a dispute between the federal government and the state of New York over the taxation of distilled spirits. The federal government argued that the state of New York was violating the Constitution by imposing a tax on distilled spirits that was higher than the federal tax. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the federal government, holding that the state of New York was in violation of the Constitution. The Court held that the federal government had the exclusive power to tax distilled spirits, and that the state of New York could not impose a higher tax than the federal government. This decision was significant because it established the principle of federal supremacy over state taxation. The decision also established the principle that the federal government has the exclusive power to tax certain items, such as distilled spirits. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then, and it remains an important precedent in the area of taxation.

In the case of The Distilled Spirits, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion. He argued that the majority's decision was in direct violation of Congress' intent when they passed the Internal Revenue Act of 1864. According to Field, this act imposed taxes on distilled spirits only after they had been removed from their original place of production and not before. Therefore, he believed that any tax collected prior to removal would be an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce and should not be allowed by the court. Furthermore, Field noted that if such taxation were permitted it could lead to other forms of taxation being applied at earlier stages in production processes as well - something which he felt would have far-reaching implications for businesses across America. Ultimately then, while recognizing his colleagues' interpretation of existing law regarding excise taxes on alcohol producers, Justice Field disagreed with their conclusion and instead argued against allowing such pre-removal taxation as unconstitutional under both federal statutes and constitutional principles alike.