Publisher's Synopsis
This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1906 edition. Excerpt: ... ioregoing discussion of the Atkin case and the conclusion from it that Section III. is constitutional, proceed upon the hypothesis that the New York statute and the Kansas statute are substantially the same in legal effect. This hypothesis has been vigorously combated by Justice O'Brien of the New York Court of Appeals in his opinion in the Grout case, Justices Martin and Vann concurring with him in the views expressed. How closely parallel the two statutes are may be seen from a comparison of their respective provisions, already quoted above. But it is insisted by Justices O'Brien and his colleagues, that the two laws are radically distinguishable, in that the Kansas statute is penal and criminal as to its provisions for enforcement, while the New York statute merely confiscates the property of the offending contractor and denies his compensation for work done under the illegal contract. Justice O'Brien makes the point that the single question before the Supreme Court of the United States in the Atkin case was whether the state statute violated the Federal Constitution in that it deprived the defendant of his liberty without due process of law. It is learnedly and effectively argued that should the New York statute ever reach the Supreme Federal Court, the sole point of law would be whether the section deprived the defendant of his property without due process of law. While it is true that the Kansas case decided nothing but the single proposition that the defendant having voluntarily entered into the contract was not deprived of his personal liberty by the statute, yet the same reasoning would seem to hold good where the defendant had voluntarily entered into a contract for violation of which he might lose the compensation or property...
