Mr. JOHNSON. With due deference to my friendfrom Maine and my friendfrom Ver mont, I think they misapprehend the act of 1799 altogether, if they suppose that the principle contained in that act in the section referred to justifies such a provision as is the one now before the Senate. The act of 1799in the section referred to, which is, I suppose, the only one in the law supposed to bear at all on the subject before the Senate, provides for 2 classes of cases. The 1st is, thatif any officer seizing goods is sued he may give the act in evidence to show the authority under which he was acting. Where he is sued or molested for anything that he does by virtue of the act, in defense of such suit the provision is that he may give in evidence under the general issue this act and the special matter that he may be able to submit. n order to protect the officer against impropersuits by persons who may find fault with what the officer is doing, it gives to the officer, who becomes the defendant in such suits of course, in the event that the plaintiff fails, double costs; and then it provides “And in actions.suits or informations to be brought, iyfrhereanyseizureshall bemadepursuant tothis act. the property be claimed by any person, in are such case the onus prubandi shall lie upon such claimant." What is that? The officer seizes goods and he is sued in an action of releving or any possessory action, or he is sue in an action of trover; and then the law provides, as it has a clear right to provide such was the law before that in such a case as that, the claimant being plaintiff is to make out his own case. He is to prove that the goods were his, and he is to prove that they were not improperly imported. The officer, being authorized expressly y the terms of the act to rely upon the act and upon special matter in hisde eiise, is in possession of the goods, and he is sued by the alleged Owner to recover the goods or in damages; and in such case as that the statute declares that the party sueing, the alleged claimant, shall make out his case. There is no doubt about that, and the latter part of the section to which my friendfrom Maine adverted is intended merely as an exlanation of that part which I have just read. t says this: “But the omu prob and tshall lie on the claimant only where probable cause is shown for such prose cution." That is for the benefit of the claimant. If the claimant sues and the defendant does not show probable cause, he is not comelled to prove anything; butif the defendant oes show that there was probable cause for the seizure, then the onus probandi is cast upon the claimant. But that is not this case. Here is a plrosecution against a (person for a penalty. e may be confined an imprisoned under the provisions of this act. Now, what says the statute? Prove all that the Government need prove; prove the importation; prove the buying or the selling; prove the possession by the defendant who is prosecuted of the goods proved to have been imported; and then he is guilty not a matter to e left to the jury, but so far the whole matter is with the court. If the court is satisfied that the case as it stands upon the evidence offered on the part of the prosecution presents a probable cause of guilt, then it is made the duty of the court to tell the jury “the case now stands in that situation that there must be a verdict of guilty unless the defendant satisfies you of his innocence.” I say that that is contrary to anything to be found in the books, as far as my recollection oes. g The honorable member from Massachusetts said very properly that the term “probable cause” is not so familiar to common law lawers as to those familiar with the Roman law. e seemed to suppose that that phrase was not known to the common law. In that I think he is mistaken. Those words are in our statutes; they are familiar in cases of prize and in all cases of admiralty.