Mr. POLAND. It is very true that this section does not provide specifically for proceedings by way of libel in what are termed seizure cases, but it does provide for the forfeiture of goods. The subject is not entirely foreign to this section as the Senfrom Maine says. It provides that where goods are illegally imported the goods themselves shall be forfeited and the person illegally importing them shall be liable to be punished by fine and imprisonment. As the bill was drawn it intended to make this change in relation to the burden of proof apply to both classes of cases, to proceedings against goods, what are known technically as seizure cases, and also to prosecutions against the person for illegally importin them or having them in possession.after ey were illegally imported with knowledge. There is nothing new in reference to this. We had statutes before which forfeited goods that were illegally imported, and statutes prowidiu for proceedings of that character. We had a so statutes before this that provided pen alties for smuggling. There is nothing new in this unless it provides a higher penalty, a greater penaltyt an the law did before. As this last clause of the section stood originally, and as the amendment that the committee propgsed to it stood until amended. it upplie to th classes of cases where goods were liable, and where a person who was prosecuted for being a smugg er, for illegally importing goods. In both classes ofcases, upon the fact of illegal importation being proved, the burden of proof was thrown on the individual. It seems to me just and right, so far as the proceeding against the goods is concerned, and perfectly competent for us to say violating no rule of law, no constitutional provision, not invading this particular right olPt/rial by Jury, and of having them 9 on all the facts of the case “ If you illegally import goods, and the fact of the ille importation be shown, the goods shall be orfeited unless you have some excuse that on are able to produce and show; we cast the urden on you. But when you proceed against the man as a criminal, undertake to charge him with a crime, and subject him to fine and imprisonment, then I think the principle that the committee undertook to establish here is all wrong; but the amendment that my colleague v proposed, and which we adopted yesterday. it seems to me relieves it of all difficulty, and it is precisely proper that it should be passed in the form in which we amended it.