does not shut out from the party affected a reasonable opportunity to submit to the jury in his defense all of the facts bearing upon the issue there is no ground for holding that due process of law has been denied him." (Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co., 220 U. S., 81-82.)

"It was obviously the province of the State legislature to provide the nature and extent of the legal presumption to be deduced from a given state of facts, and the creation by law of such presumptions is after all but an illustration of the power to classify. When the statute is properly understood, therefore, the argument of the plaintiff in error amounts to an assertion that the whole subject of the probative force to arise by operation of law from any specified state of fact is in every sense, by the effect of the fourteenth amendment, removed from the jurisdiction of the local authorities." (Jones v. Brin, 165 U. S., 180, 183.)

The provision of the act of May 5, 1892, which puts the burden of proof on a Chinese laborer of rebutting the presumption arising from his having no certificate is constitutional. (Fong Yue Ting v. U. S., 149 U. S., 698;

Adams v. N. Y., 192 U. S., 585.)

For a discussion of the general principle see Wigmore on Evidence, volume 2, section 1354 (subd. 3), pages 1670-1672 and cases cited; also, People v. Rose (207 Ill., 352); Williams v. National Bank (82 Pac., 496); State v. Lawson (82 Pac., 750); Andricus v. Pineville Coal Co. (90 S. W., 233); Commonwealth v. Anselvoch (186 Mass., 376); Toole v. State (170 Ala., 41); People v. McBride (234 Ill., 146); Diamond v. State (123 Tenn., 348); Mulkey v. State (1 Ga. App., 521); Wilson v. State (138 Ga., 489); ex parte Allen (82 Vt., 365).

PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE.

Instances of prima facie clauses in recent Federal statutes:

Books of Auditor for Post Office Department as evidence of balance against person charged with embezzlement (Crim. Code, sec. 225).

Books of Treaury Department as evidence of balance against person charged with embezzlement (Crim. Code, sec. 93).

Accumulation of profits of corporation beyond reasonable needs of business as evidence of fraudulent purpose to evade income tax (38 Stat. L., 167; Oct. 3, 1913).

Invoices exceeded more than 75 per cent in appraisal as evidence of fraud (38 Stat. L., 184 (I); Oct. 3, 1913).

Possession of opium, etc., as evidence of violation of act of December 17, 1914 (38 Stat. L., 789; Dec. 17, 1914).

Refusal to honor drafts, etc., of Treasury officer as evidence of embezzlement (Crim. Code, sec. 94).

Possession of sponges as evidence of violation of act of August 13, 1914 (38 Stat. L., 692, sec. 2; Aug. 13, 1914).

Absence of stamps from wine bottles, etc., as evidence that tax not paid (38 Stat. L., 747; Oct. 22, 1914).

Possession of intoxicating liquors with means of carrying on business of dispensing same as evidence of barroom (37 Stat. L., 1,000; March 4, 1913).

UNITED STATES STATUTES DEFINING PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE.

Citations refer to United States Compiled Statutes, 1901.

SEC. 3352. And the absence of the proper stamps from any hogshead, barrel, keg, or other vessel containing fermented liquor, after its sale or removal from the brewery where it was made or warehouse as aforesaid, shall be notice to all persons that the tax has not been paid thereon and shall be prima facie evidence of the nonpayment thereof.

SEC. 3373. The absence of the proper stamp on any package of manufactured tobacco or snuff shall be notice to all persons that the tax has not been paid thereon and shall be prima facie evidence of the nonpayment thereof. And such tobacco or snuff shall be forfeited to the United States.

SEC 3398. The absence of the proper revenue stamp on any box of cigars sold, or offered for sale, or kept for sale, shall be notice to all persons that the tax has not been paid thereon and shall be prima facie evidence of the nonpayment thereof, and such cigars shall be forfeited to the United States.

SEC. 3954. Any person or persons bidding for the transportation of the mails upon any route which may be advertised to be let, and receiving an award of the contract for such service, who shall wrongfully refuse or fail to enter into contract with the Postmaster General in due form to perform the service described in his or their bid or proposal, or having entered into such contract shall wrongfully refuse or fail to perform such service, shall, for any such failure or refusal, be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and be punished by a fine of not more than $5,000 and by imprisonment for not more than 12 months. And the failure or refusal of any such person or persons to enter into such contract in due form, or having entered into such contract the failure or refusal to perform such service shall be prima facie evidence in all actions or prosecutions arising under this section that such failure or refusal was wrongful.

SEC. 5495. The refusal of any person, whether in or out of office, charged with the safe-keeping, transfer, or disbursement of the public money, to pay any draft, order, or warrant drawn upon him by the proper accounting officer of the Treasury for any public money in his hands belonging to the United States, no matter in what capacity the same may have been received, or may be held, or to transfer or disburse any such money promptly, upon the legal requirement of any authorized officer, shall be deemed, upon the trial of any indictment against such person for embezzlement, as prima facie evidence of such embezzlement.

Citations from United States Compiled Statutes 1901 of Supplement 1911.

SEC 225. Any failure to produce or to pay over any such money or property, when required so to do as above provided, shall be taken to be prima facie evidence of such embezzlement, and upon the trial of any indictment against any person for such embezzlement it shall be prima facie evidence of a balance against him to produce a transcript from the account books of the Auditor for the Post Office Department.

Citation from New York Consolidated Laws (Annotated), volume 3, Labor

Laws.

SEC. 77. Hours of labor of children, minors, and women.—

Par. 4. The presence of such persons in the factory at any other hours than those stated in the printed notice, or if no such notice be posted, before 7 o'clock in the morning or after 6 o'clock in the evening, shall constitute prima facie evidence of a violation of this section.

PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE AS SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF.

The prima facie rule of evidence in a criminal case does not overcome a presumption of innocence or change the burden of proof or require the jury to convict unless they are satisfied from all the evidence of the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. (24 Cyc. Law and Proc., p. 192.)

The effect of a prima facie evidence clause is to shift the burden of going forward with the evidence, and does not in any respect affect the guilt or innocence of the accused. In People v. Cannon (139 New York, 32 (1903)) an act provided that the having by any junk dealer or dealer in secondhand articles possession of certain kinds of marked bottles or kegs without the written consent of the owner of such marks shall be presumptive evidence of the unlawful use, purchase, and traffic in such bottles. The court, in holding the statutes constitutional, said:

"The inference of the existence of the main fact because of the existence of the fact actually proved must not be merely and purely arbitrary, or wholly unreasonable, unnatural, or extraordinary, and the accused must have in each case a fair opportunity to make his defense and to submit the whole case to the jury, to be decided by it after it has weighed all the evidence and given such weight to the presumption as to it shall seem proper. A provision of this kind does not take away or impair the right of trial by jury. It does not in reality and finally change the burden of proof. The people must at all times sustain the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. It, in substance, enacts that, certain facts being proved, the jury may 27896-16-19

urge them, if believed, as sufficient to convict in the absence of explanation or contradiction."

A statute of New York prescribed that possession of policy tickets is presumptive evidence against all except public officers. In Adams v. New York (192 U. S., 585 (1903)) it was argued that this statute was unconstitutional. The court held the statute constitutional and discussed the prima facie clause as follows:

"Innocent persons would have no trouble in explaining the possession of these tickets, and in any event the possession is only prima facie evidence, and the party is permitted to produce such testimony as will show the truth concerning the possession of the slips. Furthermore, it is within the established power of the State to prescribe the evidence which is to be received in the courts of its own government."

The CHAIRMAN. If no one else desires to be heard the committee will now adjourn.

(Thereupon at 5 minutes past 6 o'clock the committee adjourned sine die.)