Mr. HENDERSON. There is the difficulty. If the Senator will provide some fact which being established the resumption of guilt will arise unless the defendant can exculpate himself, I will vote for it; but I cannot vote for the amendment as it now stands “and the burden of proof shall lie upon the defendant where probable cause is shown for such prose cution. Take a case. A man is prosecuted and it is shown that he commaned a vessel which brought goods into this country. Am I to understand, as would seem to be inferred in the argument of the Senfrom Oregon [Mr. WILLIAMS] yesterday, that he commanding the vessel is to e an osed to be uilty when the fact is once established that tcgoods came in his vessel? Or is it his duty to land the goods and to let the revenue officers attend to that matter, or must he know that the goods have paid duty? In one part of the U.S. it may be supposed that the court in trying the partyunder circumstances of this sort will say that the mere fact of the delivery of goods by the master of the vessel and the non-payment of duties on them is a primafacia case from which his guilt is to be presumed, because they will say that that thing itself constitutes probable cause. OrI will give the Senator another instance. Say that goods are imported into this country by A, and in the course of 5 days thereafter B is found in colon of them, and B is prose cuted. ow, I desire to know of the Senator if B is to be presumed guilty when the fact is shown that.the goods were improperly imported and had not paid duty. So recenta possession as that certainly ought to constitute some evidence of guilt; it. ought to constitute aprima. Jacte case anyhow, and make it obligatory on the defendant to show facts exonerating him. But is that the intention of the section? One court may say that 5 days possession is so very recent that the party in possession of the goods will be presumed guilty, and it devolves on him then to show that he is not guilty. Another court in another section of the country may say it requires 20 days; another may say it requires 40 days, or that 40 days possession is yet so recent that probable cause is made. out against the party. I merely suggest. tlwse dilhculties. If the section is left as it is now proposed by the committee, there can be no uniformity in the establishment of guilt. in the courts of the U.S. There is no rima facie case except that which is framed in the breast of the court itself. Is that the intention of this section?