1. Constitutional Law <©=266 — Poisons <©=2 — Due Process — Presumption op Innocence.

Act Cong. Feb. 9, 1909, c. 100, 35 Stat. 614, as amended by Act Jan. 17, 1914, c. 9, 38 Stat. 275, providing in section 2 (Comp. St. 1916, § 8801) that, if any person shall fraudulently or knowingly import or bring into the United States, or assist in so doing, any opium, or derivative thereof, contrary to law, or shall receive, conceal, buy, sell, or in any manner facilitate the transportation or concealment of, such opium, knowing the same to have been imported contrary to law, shall be punished, and that whenever, on trial for a violation, the defendant is shown to have had possession of such opium, such possession shall be deemed 'sufficient evidence to authorize conviction, unless the defendant shall explain the possession to the satisfaction of the jury, and in section 3 (C'omp. St. 1916, § 8801a) that on or after July 1, 1913, all smoking opium or opium prepared for smoking found in the United States shall he presumed to have been imported after the 1st day of April, 1909, on which date the importation of opium, save for medicinal purposes, etc., was forbidden, and that the burden of proof shall be on the accused to rebut the presumption, is not invalid, as violating Const. Amend. 5, declaring that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, for the statute did not do away with the presumption of innocence, or require accused to take the stand, but merely declared a rule of evidence; the presumption declared not rebutting the inference of innocence.

2. Criminal Daw <©=789(4) — Trial—'Instructions—Reasonable Doubt.

In a prosecution for violating Act Cong. Feb. 9, 1909, e. 100, as amended by Act Jan. 17, 1914, c. 9, §§ 2, 3, by concealing and facilitating the transportation and concealment of opium, where the court charged that accused was presumed to be innocent, and that such presumption continued to operate in her favor until overcome by evidence establishing her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but that such presumption should be considered with the statute declaring that possession of opium should be deemed to make out a prima facie case, etc., the instructions were not misleading, and could not have led the jury to believe that accused should be convicted without proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt