Mr. EDMUNDS. Mr. President, there is very great force indeed in the observations which have been submitted by the honorable Senfrom Maryland in opposition to this amendment of the committee as it stands now, and inasmuch as I was not able to be present in the committee when this bill was considered, I venture to offer an amendment to the amendment reported by the committee, which I think will relieve it of the objections made by the Senfrom Maryland, and will put it precisely upon the footing of the act of the 2 of March, 1799, which is in force to da on this subject, and which has been found in the courts of the U.S. to be absolutely indispensable in cases of the seizure of smuggled goods. The amendment which I propose is to insert after the word “probandi” the words "in cases of seizure, ” and in the same line to strike out the word “defendant” and insert the word “claimant, ” so that the amendment if adOpted, will cause the section to read “ and the onus probandi in cases of seizure shall lie upon the claimant where probable cause is shown for such prosecution, due. The act of 1799, which may be called the constitutional basis of all our revenue and importation laws, provides.in the 701st section, the followmg rule of evidence in causes of this nature: “In actions.suits or informations to be brought iyfhere any seizuremay bemadepursuant to this act. the property he claimed by any person.in ev cry sucthpaset comuprobandi shall lie uponsuchclaim on and in a succeeding part of the section: “But the onus probandI shall lie on the claimant only where probable causeis shown for such prose cution to be adjudgedof by the court beforewhom the prosecutionis had.” It is well known by everybody who has had any experience in the prosecution or defense of these seizure causes that the most which the Government, in 99 cases in 100, can do is to prove the unlawful importation resumptively; that is, to prove the fact that the particular goods in question have been introduced into the U.S. without the payment of duty; and then, pursuant to the act of 1799, it is the duty of the court to call upon the defendant to show a reasonable ground of excuse or exculpation against the primafacic presumption which the illegal importation Without the payment of duty ought justly to raise. It has been found in practice and in my knowledge within the short period of my acquaintance with legal affairs, it him been prac ticed constantly that a clause of the dese ri tion which I now name has not been ony useful but indispensable to the Government, without being in the least degree reudicial and injurious to anyjust claimant who has not reall and truly intended to evade the laws proViding the revenue. Therefore it appears to me that if we adopt the amendment which I have suggested, and leave it on the basis of the act of 1799, we shall put the law in a position where nobody can reasonably find fault With it.