Mr. SUMNER. I brin to the question nothing but an honest u gment, with some slight recollection of early professional study. That is all I pretend to do. But bringing such as I have to the discussion, the Senfrom Maryland will pardon me if I suggest to him what it seems to me are 2 mistakes on his part on this occasion. In the 1st place, he argues on this proposition as if we were to bring it to the test of existing law. Now, bringing it to the test of existing law, I am not going to argue that the proposttion could be sustained; but the question is whether it is not in our powerto declare a new rule a iplicable to this case to meetwhat I said yester a was the strin ency that seemed to be required, and there differ with the learned Senator. It does seem to me that it is clearly within our province to lay downthis rule, and if it is within our province I think that the exigency demands it; and therefore the Senator will pardon me if I put aside absolutely all hisingenious argument, which is founded on existing law, and which goes to show that according to existing law this cannot he done. I put it all aside; but then I am not willing to stop there. I remind the learned Senator and no one needs to be reminded of it less that there is a whole class of legal presump tious, presumptions of law in contradlstinction to presumptions of fact, which when they occur are considered the grounds of conclusion in a case. Certain facts appear; to those the court apply not a conclusion merely of fact, but an absolute conclusion oflaw, and that we call a presumtion oflaw. How often that occurs in criminu proceedings; I will not goidto details, but the Senator will remember them, I dare say, by the dozen. much more freshly than I should: Suffice it to say they do occur; and now, as I understand it, here is simply one more presumption of law which it is proposed to add to other presumtions of law. The other mistake w rich it seems to me my honorable friend fell into I havementioned one was one which we all know in the excel lence of his disposition and from long professional habit he is disposed to fall into that is, to become the AttyGen of criminals. He falls into that character easily. In short, my learned friend seems to have a warm side for criminals; and whenever any proposition is brought forward which promises to give a new restraint to crime, my earned frien finds some objectionhe receives the criminal on his warm side; he embraces him and he resists the statute. Now, I think he is under that influence today. He resists this proposition because if adopted it will be a new restraint upon crime, it will help to prevent smuggling, and to that end certainly it will be a benefaction to the country.