agent or employ? to d?sobey them at the risk stated. The nece?___ ? effect and result of such i?' ?.iion mus? be to pre- elude & resort to the courts (either state or Federal) for the l,urpese of testing its validity. The o?ce?s and employs could not be expected to disobey any of the provisions of the acts or orders st the risk of such fines and penalties being im- ? upon them, in case the court should decide that the law was valid. The result would be & denial of any hearing to the company. The observations upon & ?imilar question made by Mr. Justice Brewer in Cott/ng v. Ktrn?z C/tl/,.qtoc? Yardz he stated: "Do the laws secure to an individual an equal pro- tection when he is silowed to come i?to court and m,k? his claim or defense subject to the condition that upon & failure to make good that claim or/def?use the penalty for such failure either appropriates all his property or subjects him to extravagant and unreasonable loes?" Again, at page 102, he says: "It is doubtless true that the State may impo? penalties, such as will tend to compel obedience to its man- dates by all, individuals or corporations, and if extreme and cumulative penalties are imposod only after there has been a ? determination of the validity of the statute, the question would be very different from that here presented. But when the legislature, in an effort .to prevent any inquiry of the validity of & particular statute, so burdens any challenge thereof in the courts tha? ,the par?y affected is neeeesatily constrained to submit rather than take the chances of the penalties imposed, then it becomes a serious question whether the party is not deprived of the equal protection of the laws." The question was not decided in that case, as it went off on another ground. We 'have the same question now before us, only the penalties are more severe in the way of fines, to which is added, in the case of officers, agents or employ6s of the company, the risk of imprisonment for years as a common
�
