Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 6.djvu/153

 HEIDBITTEB V, ELIZABBTH Qnj-CLOTH CO. 141 �fhat it seems to have been the clear intention of congress, in these sections, to forfeit the thing, when proved to be an offender, without regard to the owner's culpability, or to the interest of outside parties. To this effect was the opinion of the late Judge WoodrufF in U. S. v. The DistiUery at Spring Valley, 11 Blatchf. 255, reversing the district court, and I 666 no good reason to hold differently. See, also, IJ, S. v. Dig- tilled Spirits, etc., 8 Int. Eev. Eeo. 81, and Dobbins' DistiUery \. U. S. 96 U. S. 399, where it is declared that the privity or consent of the persons interested in the offending property was not in any degree necessary, in order to include their interests in the forfeiture. �The whole legislation of congress shows a disposition and intention, under different circumstances, to distinguish be- tween forfeiting the thing itself and forfeiting particular rights or interests in the thing. This observation is illus- trated by comparing the phraseology used in sections 3260 and 3305 with that employed in sections 3063 and 3281. �2. That while the decree of condemnation in favor of the United States was not made and entered in the district court untn February 25,1873, the real estate was in fact seized by the officers of the revenue on the twenty-f ourth day of the pre- ceding January, and the forfaiture to the government related back to the timeof the commission of the acts incurringthe for- feiture, and the title to the property from that moment vest$d in the United States. Henderaon's Distilled Spirits, 14 Wall. 56, in which case the supreme court says: "Where ■the forfeiture is made absolute by statute the decree of con- demnation, when entered, relates back to the commission of the wrongful acts, and takes date from the wrongful acts, and not from the date of the sentence or decree." This bas ever been the uniform rule in this country, in which our courts have followed the long-established doctrine of the English courts. Wilkins v. Despard, 6 T. E. 112; U. S. v. 1,960 Bags of Coffee, 8 Cranch, 398; Gehton-v. Hoyt, 3 Wheat. 311 ; U. S. V. DistiUery, 21 Int. Eev. Eec. 166 ; U. S. v. 56 Barrels, 6 Am. Law Eeg. (N. S.) 37. �3. That the mechanic's lien law of New Jersey, under the ��� �