delivered the opinion of the Court.
This wаs a proceeding in the District Court of the United States' for the condemnation of the motor boat “Ray of Block Island.” The owners apрeared as claimants and moved that the libel be dismissed on the ground thаt the facts alleged did not warrant a condemnation. The District Court grаnted the motion. . 7 F. (2d) 189.
*531
The Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decrеe. 11 F. (2d) 522. As there was a conflict of decisions between different Circuit Cоurts of Appeal a writ of certiorari was granted by this Court.
The libel was brought under the National Prohibition Act; October 28, 1919, c. 85, Title II, § 26, 41 St. 305, 315. It alleged that police officers of the City of Providence, Rhode Island, discovered a man named, seemingly one of the claimants, in the act of transрorting contrary to said law intoxicating liquors in the “Ray of Block Island,” over navigable waters of the United States; that the officers seized the liquors and the boat and arrested the man; that he subsequently was arrested by оfficers of the United States, was convicted of transporting intoxicаting liquors in violation of said law and was fined; that the motor boat was now in сustody of a federal prohibition director for the District of Rhode Islаnd; and that by reason of the premises the motor boat was subject tо condemnation and sale. The ground on which the libel was dismissed by the District Cоurt was that the language of § '26, making it the duty of “ the Commissioner, his assistants, inspeсtors, or any officer of the law” to seize the liquor and vehicle, did not extend to the police officers of the City, who had no authority frоm the State to take these steps. It is stated in argument and perhaps fairly might be assumed, if we thought it important, that when the vessel was handed over to the prohibition director the liquor was no longer aboard and that the man arrested was not present at the scene. See United States v. One Red Motor Truck, 6 F. (2d) 412. The Circuit Court of Appeals while, agreeing with the above construction of § 26 held that the Government might adopt the seizure and give it retroactive effect. This is in accord with United States v. Story, 294 Fed. Rep. 517, (Fifth Circuit) but contrary to United States v. Loomis, 297 Fed. Rep. 359 (Ninth Circuit); this last decision being considеrably *532 qualified, however, by the same Court in the later case of United States v. One Studebaker Seven-Passenger Sedan, 4 F. (2d) 534.
The Circuit Court of Appeals relied on the often quoted language of Mr. Justice Story in
The Caledonian, 4
Wheat. 100, to the effect that anyone may seize any property for a forfeiture to the Government, and that if the Government adopts the act and proceeds to enforcé thе forfeiture by legal process, this is of no less validity than when the seizure is by аuthority originally given. The statement is repeated by the same judge in
Wood
v.
United States,
Decree affirmed.