Mr. ELIOT. It is something to be able to say, in reporting a bill containing so many important provisions, that a gentleman who has examined every section as carefully as the Gentfrom the Buffalo district has done, has been able to find but 2 provisions in it which he desires to correct. I understand that there are 2 amendments now before the House offered by the Gentfrom NewYork, both of which he has vindicated in the speech which he has just concluded. The 1st of the amendments relates to the 2nd section of the bill, and the 2nd to the 4th section of the bill. The Gentfrom Buffalo 1st discussed the amendment to the 4th section, and I will say a few words upon that subject. The question is not whether the provision of this hi i is or is not in exact accordance with the laws of evidence prevailing hitherto in criminal cases. That is not the point. If we wereadministering thislaw, audio the capacity of judges should be called upon to determine questions of evidence, it might arise, and of course we ought to be controlled by the rules applicable to evidence in criminal cases. But Congress is not controlled by any considerations of that sort. The question we have to determine is not whether the provision is or is not in accordance with what has been hereto fore, but whether the provision is not such a one as, under the circumstances of the case, ought to be incorporated in a law upon the subject. Now, this bill was reported by the ComCommerce in the Senate and was subjected there to very careful deliberation. And no one provision of the bill called to itself more examination than the one which is now the subject of discussion here. And the various reasons which have been stated as properly urged against a provision of this sort were urged and answered in the Senate. In the discussion upon that question in the Senate, as I find by reference to the Globe, a short argument was made by an honorable Senator who has been SecyTreasury a gentleman whose public life‘is drawing to a close; I refer to the Senfrom Kentucky. [Mr. Gunman] I advocatingthisbill, andingiving the reasons which induced him to vote for it with the provision now contained in it, he states the circumstances under which he was placed, when SecyTreasury, in regard to this matter of smuggling. Without reading the argument that he makes, I will say that he stated that in his judgment it was needful that stringent provisions should be embraced in the law if it was desired to prevent smuggling. If members do not want to prevent smugglin, that is one thing. Now, I am perfectly rea y to admit that where smugglers are broughtbefore the courts, your laivs must be plain, must be explicit, must be strong, or else the talent, theingenuity, and the eloquence of gentlemen whom they employ, will be sufficient to override the provisions of the law. But it is said that you must no; put upon the smuggler the dut of proving, of showin, of explaining where he got the merchandise which has not been entered in the customhouse. Why should he not explain? The Government finds in the hands of some man a large amount of merchandise which has not been entered in the customhouse. He is prosecuted as a suing ler", and proof is produced that the merchan discin his possession was there without the payment of duty. But the learned gentlemen who may be employed to defend him, come forward and say, “What of it all? To be sure the Government charges that these goods have not been entered regularly, and have not paid duties. What of it all? That is not enough. A man is to be held innocent until you prove him guilty. Prove where he got his goods; prove how he came by them; prove that they were not entered in the customhouse. Ay; show more than that; show that he received the goods knowing that they had not been entered.” That is the way they will talk. Now, sir, the proof has been put in on the part of the government. But the counsel for the defendant calls upon the prosecuting officer to show where the goods came from, to show facts that there is but one man can show, and that man is the defendant. Now, I want to know why the defendant should not be called upon to show that fact. The Gentfrom NewYork [Mr. HALE] says that “probable cause” means more than “prime facic case.” It means more, or it does not mean so much, according to the stand point that may be taken. Where the words “probablecause" are used in connection with proceedings in rem, where it is ordinarily found; or where the words “probable cause” are used in order to justify an officer for having made a complaint, as is the case in many of our legal statutes; or where those words are used upon a question to determine whether or not a.party shall be subjected to costs; in those cases, and in others like them, it inay be that what the Gentfrom NewYork terms “suspicion” merely will be enough. But that, Iapprehend, is not the meaning of the words here. It may not, perhaps, mean that there shall be a full prima farie case made out, although upon that pomt I am not imparted to yield to the suggestions made by the gentfrom NewYork, from the Buffalo district, [Mr. HUM PHREY.] There is to be proof that the property is in the hands of the party charged; there is to be proof that the property has not been entered in the customhouse.