Mr. HENDERSON. I certainly have no desire to enter into the discussion of the legal guestion that has grewn up between the 2 Senators. I desire simplyto regulate my own vote on this subject, an 1 should like to make an inquiry of the Senator having charge of the bill, in order to ascertain the extent of this provision and what is the meaningofit; for I really do not understand it. The 1st part of the section providm for the punishment ofu person who “shall fraudulent y or knowingly import or bring into the U.S., or assrst in so doing, any goods, wares, or mer chandise contrary to law, or shall receive, conceal, buy, sell, or in any manner facilitate the transportation, concealment or sale of such goods, wares, or merchandise, after their importation, knowing the same to have been no orted contrar to law.” lhe Senate will see that the 1st clause provides that before the party can be guilty he shall fraudulently or knowingly import or as sist in the importation of goods against the law, that is, with a design not to pay custom duties. The 2nd clause of it applies to those individuals who shall attempt to sell and to assist in the transportation through the country of goods that are thus fraudulently brought in. The Senate will see that it re. quires, 1st, a fraudulent knowledge of the improperimportation; and 2ndly, even if he asststs in receiving, buying, or selling the goods. it must be with a knowledge that they were imported contrary to law. Now, suppose, that a prosecution is leded against an individual thus situated. He as either imported the goods into the country and failed to pay the duties, or he has purchased the goods after they are imported. Vhat is necessary to be established in order to produce a conviction? Is it not a knowledge of the fact? Is it not necessary for the prosecution to show that the party thus affecte must have shown of the violation of the law? Then it rests upon the U.S. to establish guilt, to show a guilty knowledge. There can be noquestion about that fact; and the original bill it seems provided that if the fact itself were shown, that is, if the party was found in the possession of goods that Iiad not.aid duty, orithe ha bought goodsthat adbeen thus imporptas r?, whether he new the fact of the illegal importation or not, guilty knowledge should be presumed. “The guilty knowledge of the defendant, when convicted of the fact, shall in all cases be presumed unless he or she prove the contrary. I can understand that provision. That will produce uniformity in the administration of justice under this bill. When the fact is once established against a party that he is found in possession of goods fraudulently broughtby somebody, then guilty knowledge is toie presumed against him. Whereaparty has struck another with a deadly weapon, he is presumed to have done it with the intention to (ill, because of the fact that it is a deadly weapon; and when once that fact isshown, the presumption of law arises that the assault was with intent to kill and malice is presumed from the act itself, and it then devolves upon the defendant to show facts that will exculpate him; it devolves upon him then to remove the presumption which would naturally arise from the use of a deadly weapon. Now, the intention of the committee originally evidently was that if goods were imported and the dut not paid, the party who is in possession of the goods is to be presumed in a prosecution to have had guilty knowledge of the fact of illegal importation.