ization as a shield against the imposition of duties there, while by his absence he was avoiding his duties here. Naturalization secured with such a purpose was wanting in one of its most essential elements-good faith on the part of the applicant. It involved a wrongful use of a beneficent law. True, it was not expressly forbidden; neither was it authorized. But, being contrary to the plain implication of the statute, it was unlawful, for what is clearly implied is as much a part of a law as what is expressed. United States v. Babbit, 1 Black, 55, 61; McHenry v. Alford, 168 U. S. 651, 672; South Carolina v. United States, 199 U. S. 437, 451.

Perceiving nothing in the prior laws which shows that Congress could not have intended that the last paragraph of § 15 of the act of 1906 should be taken according to the natural meaning and import of its words, we think, as before indicated, that it must be regarded as extending the preceding paragraphs of that section to all certificates of naturalization, whether secured theretofore under prior laws or thereafter under that act.

Several contentions questioning the constitutional validity of § 15 are advanced, but all, save the one next to be mentioned, are sufficiently answered by observing that the section makes no discrimination between the rights of naturalized and native citizens, and does not in anywise affect or disturb rights acquired through lawful naturalization, but only provides for the orderly cancellation, after full notice and hearing, of certificates of naturalization which have been procured fraudulently or illegally. It does not make any act fraudulent or illegal that was honest and legal when done, imposes no penalties, and at most provides for the annulment, by appropriate judicial proceedings, of merely colorable letters of citizenship, to which their possessors never never were lawfully entitled. Johannessen v. United States, 225 U. S. 227. See also Wallace v. Adams, 204 U. S. 415.

Objection is specially directed to the provision which declares that taking up a permanent residence in a foreign country within five years after the issuance of the certificate shall be considered prima facie evidence of a lack of intention to become a permanent citizen of the United States at the time of the application for citizenship, and that in the absence of countervailing evidence the same shall be sufficient to warrant the cancellation of the certificate as fraudulent. It will be observed that this provision prescribes a rule of evidence, not of substantive right. It goes no farther than to establish a rebuttable presumption which the possessor of the certificate is free to overcome. If, in truth, it was his intention at the time of his application to reside permanently in the United States, and his subsequent residence in a foreign country was prompted by considerations which were consistent with that intention, he is at liberty to show it. Not only so, but these are matters of which he possesses full, if not special, knowledge. The controlling rule respecting the power of the legislature in establishing such presumptions is comprehensively stated in Mobile &c. Railroad Co. v. Turnipseed, 219 U. S. 35, 42, 43, as follows:

"Legislation providing that proof of one fact shall constitute prima facie evidence of the main fact in issue, is but to enact a rule of evidence, and quite within the general power of government. Statutes, national and state, dealing with such methods of proof in both civil and criminal cases abound, and the decisions upholding them are numerous.

"That a legislative presumption of one fact from evidence of another may not constitute a denial of due process of law or a denial of the equal protection of the law it is only essential that there shall be some rational connection between the fact proved and the ultimate fact presumed, and that the inference of one fact from proof of another shall not be so unreasonable as to be a purely arbitrary

mandate. So, also, it must not, under guise of regulating the presentation of evidence, operate to preclude the party from the right to present his defense to the main fact thus presumed.

"If a legislative provision not unreasonable in itself prescribing a rule of evidence, in either criminal or civil cases, 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."

Of like import are Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U. S. 698, 729; Adams v. New York, 192 U. S. 585, 599; Bailey v. Alabama, 219 U. S. 219, 238; Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co., 220 U. S. 61, 81; Reitler v. Harris, 223 U. S. 437, 441.

Nor is it a valid objection to such legislation that it is made applicable to existing causes of action, as is the case here, the true rule in that regard being well stated in Cooley's Constitutional Limitations, 7th ed. 524, in these words:

"It must also be evident that a right to have one's controversies determined by existing rules of evidence is not a vested right. These rules pertain to the remedies which the State provides for its citizens; and generally in legal contemplation they neither enter into and constitute a part of any contract, nor can be regarded as being of the essence of any right which a party may seek to enforce. Like other rules affecting the remedy, they must therefore at all times be subject to modification and control by the legislature; and the changes which are enacted may lawfully be made applicable to existing causes of action, even in those States in which retrospective laws are forbidden. For the law as changed would only prescribe rules for presenting the evidence in legal controversies in the future; and it could not therefore be called retrospective

even though some of the controversies upon which it may act were in progress before."

This court applied that rule in Webb v. Den, 17 How. 576, 578; Hopt v. Utah, 110 U. S. 574, 590; Thompson v. Missouri, 171 U. S. 380; and Reitler v. Harris, supra.

That the taking up of a permanent residence in a foreign country shortly following naturalization has a bearing upon the purpose with which the latter was sought and affords some reason for presuming that there was an absence of intention at the time to reside permanently in the United States is not debatable. No doubt, the reason for the presumption lessens as the period of time between the two events is lengthened. But it is difficult to say at what point the reason so far disappears as to afford no reasonable basis for the presumption. Congress has indicated its opinion that the intervening period may be as much as five years without rendering the presumption baseless. That period seems long, and yet we are not prepared to pronounce it certainly excessive or unreasonable. But we are of opinion that as the intervening time approaches five years the presumption necessarily must weaken to such a degree as to require but slight countervailing evidence to overcome it. On the other hand, when the intervening time is so short as it is shown to have been in the present case, the presumption cannot be regarded as yielding to anything short of a substantial and convincing explanation. So construed, we think the provision is not in excess of the power of Congress.

Lastly it is urged that the District Court erred in not according to the defendant a trial by jury. The claim is predicated upon the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution, which declares that "in suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved." This, however, was not a suit at common law. The right asserted and the remedy sought were essentially equitable,

not legal, and this, according to the prescribed tests, made it a suit in equity. Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet. 433, 447; Irvine v. Marshall, 20 How. 558, 565; Root v. Railway Company, 105 U. S. 189, 207. In this respect it does not differ from a suit to cancel a patent for public land or letters patent for an invention. See United States v. Stone, 2 Wall. 525; United States v. San Jacinto Tin Co., 125 U. S. 273; United States v. Bell Telephone Co., 128 U. S. 315.

Finding no error in the record, the decree is

Affirmed.

UNITED STATES v. SANDOVAL.

ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO.

No. 352. Argued February 27, 1913.-Decided October 20, 1913.

Congress has power to make conditions in an Enabling Act, and require the State to assent thereto, as to such subjects as are within the regulating power of Congress. Coyle v. Oklahoma, 221 U. S. 559, 574. Such legislation, when it derives its force not from the resulting compact but solely from the power of Congress over the subject, does not operate to restrict the legislative power of the State in respect to any matter not plainly within the regulating power of Congress. Coyle v. Oklahoma, 221 U. S. 559, distinguished.

The status of the Pueblo Indians in New Mexico and their lands is such that Congress can competently prohibit the introduction of intoxicating liquors into such lands notwithstanding the admission of New Mexico to statehood.

The power and duty of the United States under the Constitution to regulate commerce with the Indian tribes includes the duty to care for and protect all dependent Indian communities within its borders, whether within its original limits or territory subsequently acquired and whether within or without the limits of a State. United States v. Kagama, 118 U. S. 375.