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. 1905 edition. Excerpt: ...must stand or fall together. It provides that the execution of all bonds for the faithful performance of oflicial or fiduciary duties, or the faithful keeping, applying or accounting for funds or property, or for one or more of such purposes, with certain exceptions, is thereby required to be by a ...
Read More
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. 1905 edition. Excerpt: ...must stand or fall together. It provides that the execution of all bonds for the faithful performance of oflicial or fiduciary duties, or the faithful keeping, applying or accounting for funds or property, or for one or more of such purposes, with certain exceptions, is thereby required to be by a surety company or companies. We are therefore not able clearly to perceive that the general assembly intended in any event to require bonds to be executed by a surety company or companies in any one of the classes mentioned to the exclusion of another. This being so if the statute is void as to administrators, or other fiduciaries, it is void as to public oflicers, and if void as to public officers it is void as to fiduciaries, and the contention here made as to the bond of an administratrix involves as well the question as to the validity of the bonds of public oflicers. Liberty to contract is one of the inalienable rights of man which is guaranteed to every citizen by thebill of rights (Constitution, article 1, section 1) subject only to such restrictions as clearly appear to befor the general welfare. The mere fact that the general assembly has enacted a law which narrows the liberty of contract as to the whole people or as to a class of citizens, is not decisive. If it were so, the constitutional guaranty might be made a dead letter by bills passed through the procurement of inter Opinion of the Court. ested parties or in response to the demands of extremists in times of popular excitement. It is the province of the courts to determine whether a given statute infringes the constitution, which is the supreme law; and therefore it is within the province of the courts to decide whether the common welfare ' demands a restriction of the...
Read Less
Choose your shipping method in Checkout. Costs may vary based on destination.
Seller's Description:
Good. iv, 272, [4] pages. S. Hrg. 107-622. The Chairman stated that these hearings were to begin its consideration of the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT), which the President submitted to the Senate on June 20 [2002]for its advice and consent to ratification. It was hoped that the treaty signed in May by Presidents Bush and Putin was a very important step forward in U. S>-Russian relations and toward a mores secure world. Cutting the number of each country's deployed strategic nuclear warheads from approximately 6, 000 to between 1, 700 and 2, 200 could move the U.S. another step away from the cold war preparations for massive nuclear exchange. The Treaty Between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on Strategic Offensive Reductions (SORT), also known as the Treaty of Moscow, was a strategic arms reduction treaty between the United States and Russia that was in force from June 2003 until February 2011 when it was superseded by the New START treaty. At the time, SORT was positioned as "represent[ing] an important element of the new strategic relationship" between the two countries with both parties agreeing to limit their nuclear arsenal to between 1, 700 and 2, 200 operationally deployed warheads each. It was signed in Moscow on 24 May 2002. After ratification by the U.S. Senate and the State Duma, SORT came into force on 1 June 2003. It would have expired on 31 December 2012 if not superseded by New START. Either party could have withdrawn from the treaty upon giving three months written notice to the other.