Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, when interrupted by the expiration of the morning hour, I was engagedin the endeavor to direct the attention of the House to the propriety and justice of striking out the last 3 lines of section 4 of this bill. I have heard but 2 reasons assigned for incorporating in the bill this provision One of the reasons stated is that this prov.sion is designed to guard against aspecies of crime which requires unusual stringency in the law. But, sir, so far as regards the question presented by this section, I undertake to say that less stringency is required than in almost any provision of crimina law. Why? Because the offense of smuggling can be more readily established by the prosecution than almost any other. All that is necessary to establish a primafacie case of smuggling, under the present rules of the criminal law, is to Show that the property has come into our country without iiaving passed through the proper offices and paid the proper duties. These facts can be established by simply calling on the stand the officers themselves, and then you i have what is known in the criminal law as a prime facie case made against the prisoner, one which carries the prosecution to the jury. Then the party may, or may not, as he sees fit, come in and give evidence of his good character, or other evidence tending to show the fact that he had nothing to do with smug ling in the case charged. The reason assigned alls to the ground, because there is no necessity for it. Again, there is another reason which has been assigned that there should be some more stringent provision in this law because of the necessity to put a stop by the terrors of the criminal law to crimes of this character. Mr. Speaker, when the State and Federal Governments have found the present rules of evidence nde mite to the prevention and punishment of all crimes, treason and murder included, it can hardly be supposed that any modification of those rules is necessary to prevent smuggling, and certainly not such an amendment as is proposed in this bill; by this provision the present rules of evidence are wholly revolutionized; instead of requiring the Government to prove the guilt of the accused beyond “reasonable doubt.” and to the “sat isfaction of the jury, ” it merely requires such evidence to be given by the Government as will “satisfy the court” that there is “reason to suspect” the prisoner is guilty, and then he is required to prove his innocence or stand convicted. I see no necessity growing out of the increase of smuggling or any other class of crime that will justify such a law as this. It is a w’elbknown fact that for the last 20 or 30 years the whole current of proceedings in reference to criminal law has been in the direction of enlightened action under it. In the State of Massachusetts they became so liberal to the prisonera few years ago that they passeda law for him to come upon the stand and testify himself. And this subject has been discussed in all of the States of the Union. Now, instead of going in the direction of reform, instead of following in the line of increased intelligence, we seem to be going back to the days when a man, after he was arrested for a crime, was put upon the rack to convict himself. I say that this is a step in that direction instead of a step in the way of progress and enlightened legislation on this question. I now desire to call the attention of the House to the other amendment, as I am upon the floor. I ask the Clerk to read it.