Note 25 — Chapter XVI · THE SECOND-CHAMBER PROBLEM[21]
Reading edition
The results reached by the Illinois Supreme Court, especially when contrasted with those reached by the United States Supreme Court, exhibit an extreme exercise of the power of courts to hold legislation void because it takes the property or liberty of individuals without due process of law.
Since 1886 the Illinois Supreme Court has held void acts of the legislature compelling mine-owners to weigh coal mined and to pay the miners on the basis of such weight, because such acts took the mine-owner’s liberty and property without due process of law contrary to the provisions of the state constitution: Millett v. The People, 117 Ill. 294 (1896); Ramsey v. The People, 142 Ill. 380 (1892); Harding v. The People, 160 Ill. 459 (1896). The United States Supreme Court, however, has held that a similar act from Arkansas did not violate the “life, liberty, or property” clause of the fourteenth amendment: McLean v. Arkansas, 211 U.S. 539 (1908).
Since 1892 the Illinois Supreme Court has held void state acts regulating the keeping of truck stores by owners of coal mines and factories, because they deprived such owners of liberty and property without due process of law, contrary to the state constitution: Frorer v. The People, 141 Ill. 171 (1892); Kellyville Coal Co. v. Harrier, 207 Ill. 624 (1904). In 1886 the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held void an act which prohibited the payment of wages to miners in anything but money: Godcharles v. Wigeman, 113 Pa. 431 (1886). Yet the United States Supreme Court holds that such acts are not in violation of the “life, liberty, or property” clause of the fourteenth amendment: Knoxville Coal Co. v. Harrison, 183 U.S. 13 (1901).
In 1896 the Illinois Supreme Court held void the barbers’ Sunday law, which forbade the employment of barbers on Sunday, because the act violated the “life, liberty, or property” clause of the state constitution: Eden v. The People, 161 Ill. 296 (1896). But the United States Supreme Court sustained a like act from Minnesota, declaring that it did not violate the “life, liberty, or property” clause of the federal constitution: Petit v. Minnesota, 177 U.S. 164 (1898).
In 1900 the Illinois Supreme Court held void the state flag law which prohibited the use of the American flag for advertising purposes, because it deprived advertisers of liberty and property without due process of law, contrary to the provision of the state constitution: Ruhstrat v. The People, 185 Ill. 133 (1900). The United States Supreme Court, however, sustained a similar act from Nebraska holding that it was not in violation of the “life, liberty, or property” clause of the fourteenth amendment: Halter v. Nebraska, 205 U.S. 34 (1907).
In 1908 the Illinois Supreme Court held void the bulk sales acts regulating sales of stocks of goods in bulk otherwise than in the usual course of trade, because it violated the “life, liberty, or property” clause of the state constitution: Off &. Co. v. Morehead, 235 Ill. 40 (1908). But the United States Supreme Court has held similar statutes from Connecticut and Michigan valid and not in violation of the “life, liberty, or property” clause of the fourteenth amendment: Lemieux v. Young, 211 U.S. 489 (1908); Kidd, Dater & Price Co. v. Musselman Grocer Co., 217 U.S. 461 (1910).
In 1909 the Illinois Supreme Court held void the loan-shark act regulating the assignment of future wages as security for money borrowed and requiring the assignment to be recorded and signed by the wife. Again the reason was that the “life, liberty, or property” clause of the state constitution was violated: Massie v. Cessna, 239 Ill. 352 (1909). But the United States Supreme Court has sustained a similar act passed in Massachusetts on the ground that it did not infringe the “life, liberty, or property” clause of the fourteenth amendment: Mutual Loan Company v. Martell, 222 U.S. 225 (1911).
The Illinois Supreme Court has also held void, as infringing the “life, liberty, or property” clause of the state constitution, the following acts: (a) An act penalizing employers in the importation of workmen from another state by reason of deceit touching the matter of the existence of a strike or the sanitary condition of the employment: Josma v. Western Steel Car Co., 249 Ill. 508 (1911); compare, however, Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270; (b) An act providing that no public contractor shall employ alien labor on any public work: City of Chicago v. Hulbert, 205 Ill. 346 (1903). But in Atkin v. Kansas, 191 U.S. 207 (1903), the United States Supreme Court held valid an act of Kansas making it a criminal offense for a public contractor to permit or require an employee to perform labor upon public work in excess of eight hours each day; (c) The miners’ washroom act, requiring owners of mines to provide a washroom at the top of the mine for the use of the miners: Starne v. The People, 222 Ill. 189 (1906); (d) An act prohibiting more than six persons sleeping in one room in a lodging-house: Bailey v. The People, 190 Ill. 28 (1901); (e) An act prescribing an eight-hour day for women in certain occupations: Ritchie v. The People, 155 Ill. 98 (1895). This case was approved in Ritchie v. Wayman, 244 Ill. 509 (1911), which, however, held a ten-hour labor law for women in certain occupations valid, following the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court sustaining a similar act passed in Oregon: Muller v. Oregon, 208 U.S. 412 (1908). It seems entirely probable from its opinion in the last-mentioned case that the United States Supreme Court would have held valid the act condemned by the Illinois Supreme Court in Ritchie v. The People, supra.