Mr. IgOLAND. It seems to me that the Senfrom Maine does not precisely understand his own bill. This 4th section provides that where goods are illegally imported the goods shall be forfeited and the person illegally importing them shall be subjectto fine and imprisonment. The provision in relation to the burden of proof would apply to both classes of cases to proceedings against the goods where they were libeled in the district court and where some person came in as a claimant; and would also apply to cases where a prosecution was brought, where a man was indicted or informed against for having illegally imported goods, or having goods illegally imported in his possession, with knowledge. Now, I entirely agree with the Senfrom Maryland that in a prosecution a inst a man where you treat him as a crimina, where you institute proceedings against him for the purpose of subjecting rim to fine and imprisonment, it is altogether wrong to undertake to interfere with the common law rules of evidence. He is entitled to have his case go to the jury untrammeled by any such provision; and as I understand the effect of the amendment. which my colleague proposed, and which was adopted yesterday, it. relieves it entirely of any application to that class of cases; it merely makes it apply to cases where a proceeding is instituted against the good; what is known that is a technical term as aseizure case, that is, where certain goods are libeled as having been unlawfully imported. It seems to me there is nothing wrong in our saying that where the fact of illegal importation is rovad, then if the party should excuse himselFupon the ground of some accident or some inadvertence, the burden of proof should be upon him; and as I understand, the effect of this amendment is to confine it merely to that class of cases, to proceedings against the goods. To be sure in this section they do not go on and provide anything in relation to the mode of proceeding against the goods in order to procure a forfeiture; but that is already provided for by other laws, and, indeed, I do not know but by some other section in this bill. At any rate we have other statutes that apply to that class of cases, and this amendment merely confines this rule of evidence, as I understand it, to proceedings against goods, and entirely takes awa the effect of this clause in relation to the bur en of proof in relation to prosecutions against the person. Mr. MORRILL. Which prosecution of the goods, the Senator will allow me to say, is not contemplated by this section, and therefore it is irrelevant, to say the least of it.