Mr. HENDERSON. Let there be uniformity; let the establishment of the fact go to the court, because then there will be uniformity. The court will certainly always instruct the jury hypothetically, thatif the jury are satisfied from the evidence in the case that A ini orted the goods illegally and that B. iurchase the goods from A, they will presume to be guilty unless he shows that he innocently purchased them. That would make a perfectly clear case. The court would instruct upon the fact and instruct the jury of course hypothetically. This would leaveit to the ury to say whether the original fact upon which the presumption is to be based has been established or not. But I really cannot see the meaning of this proposition as it stands, because the section in the 1st part of it. requires that there shall be guilty knowledge, and it devolves upon the Government to prove that fact; but in the latter art of it it is distinctly stated that the bur on of proof shall rest upon the defendant to show his innocence where probable cause is shown for the prosecution. Then this “probable cause” is left to the discretion, left in the bosom of each and every judge, and there is no uniformity in the practice. I hope the amendment will not he adopted in its present shape. I am perfectly willing to take that portion of the section proposed to be struck out, for I think that cOvers all that could be desired. I understand the design of the committee is to reach all guilty parties. Air though we allow the resumption of guilty knowledge in a case of this sort, the defendant may show himselfto be innocent, or may produce evidence tending to show his innocence, or at least bring it within a reasonable doubt; and the court will instruct the jury, of course, according to the criminal law of the land, that the mans guilt must appear beyond any reasonable doubt, and every other reasonable hypothesis must be excluded in order to convict the defendant. It may very easily be shown that he had no knowledge, or at least aprimafacic case may be shown by him, that he had no knowledge of the violation of the law orivinally in the importation of the goods. But to leave it within the discretion of a judge in Oregon to say what is probable cause, and a judge somewhere else to say that something else is probable cause, it seems to me, is placing the liberty of the citizen in jeopardy, and too much in jeopardy for us to let this provision stand. I think it ought to be stricken out and the original clause left as it. was, or else the section left. without either. It would then devolve upon the prosecuting attorneyin every case to show the guilty knowledge; but I have no objection to saying that the guilty knowl edge shall be presumed when the fact itself of a violation of the law shall have been established, and it shall then devolve upon the defendant. to show that he did not possess that knowledge; that is, that the primafacie case shall be taken against hime but beyond that I am not willing to go.