Mr. JOHNSON. He does me great injustice in any such supposition. If I have any of the arts belonging to the practicing lawyer, I do not bring them into this forum knowingly; and let me say that if my friendfrom Massachusetts had been at the bar as long as I have been, I think, perhaps, some of his speeches would be. as far as the law is concerned, a little more sound than they are. [Laughter] The effect of this amendment is to take from the jury the finding of the fact. If this section passes as it is, instead of telling the jury that If they believe that the goods were imported “contrary to law, and if the believe that the defendant, if he is prosecuted, as having bought goods, or being in possession of goods illegally imported, really bought the goods in fact, or was found in possession of the goods, then they must convict unless he shall be able to account for his purchase or possession; instead ofleaving it to the jury to find the fact that the goods Were imported illegally, and that if imported illegally they came into the possession of the defendant against whom the prosecution is in stituted, it leaves it to the court to say, as I understand it, that the ease as it stands upon the proofis one in which;in point of law there must be a conviction unless the defendant can absolve himself from the supposed primafacie evidence of the facts offered on the part of the Government. It is, therefore, in my judgment to deprive a party charged in a criminal prose cution of the security which the common law gives and which the Constitution of the U.S. exressly gives, of having the offense with which he may be charged passed upon by ajury; and of the right he has to have all the facts passed upon by the jury. to have the evidence offered on the part of the Government as well as the evidence offered on the part of the traverser or accused heard by the jury. If this means anything it means to say that importation illegal in fact and possession in fact as to be considered as possession with a knowl edge of the illegal importation, unless the party can clear himself of it by affirmative evidence; and the jury have nothing to do but to convict, taking away from the jury the right to find whether the factcharged existed or not, whether the importation was an illegal importation or not, or whether the defendant was a purchaser of the goods or found in possession of the goods thus illegally imported. Unless I am grossly mistaken, it very materially interferes with the security which the Constitution gives to every man charged with an offense, of having the matter investigated by a jury. " “uh rRUIN., lhe Senfrom Maryland reminds me that I do not bring to this discussion the large professional experience which we all know belongs to him. Sir, no body can regret that more than I do, nor am I unwilling that the Senator should remind me of it. I bring to the question nothing but an honest judgment.