Mr. JOHNSON. I have no doubt that the honorable member from Vermont is right that we have the power to make the law as the amendment suggested by his colleague would make it; but tEat is the law now iti relation to seizures. The 71st section of the act of 1799 says that in all cases of seizares of goods liable to forfeiture the burden of proof shall be cast upon the claimant. When this section says that goods illegally imported shall be forfeited. it brings the goods within the operation of the act of 1790; and thatprovides precisely what would be provided for by the amendment suggested by his colleague, as I think the honorable member will admit. I endeavored to distinguish the rules rescribed by the section of the act of 1799, reied upon yesterday, from the principle contained in the amendment of the committee, and I am glad to find that the honorable member from Vermont [Mr. Pomxn] agrees that that distinction was well taken, and I understood his colleague, who offered the amendment which is now before the Senate, to agree also in the same view. “l The 4th section has 2 objects. The 1st is to provide that the goods illegally imported abs 1 be forfeited. That is one of their amendments, and the 2nd is that the party who imports or the party who comes into possession of the goods knowing them to have been illegally imported shall be personally liable to punishment if convicted. I have no doubt that the act of 1799 in the provision referred to was clearly within the authority of Congress; and of course we could provide in the same way now; and that is all that is done by the amendment suggested by my friendfromI/ermont, [Mr. Emumns] But it seems to me that it is unnecessary, because the law will be precisely the same. If we pass the 4th section unchanged in the particular in which it provides that the goods imported shall be liable to be forfeited, then we brin the goods under the o oration of the act of 1799, which authorizes the government to proceed by way of libel against the goods, an the not then provides that whoever comes in and claims the goods as his own shall be compelled to establish his case. That is reenacting the act of 1799, and that is all, as I think.