In making constitutions it is quite as easy to unite the executive and legislative powers by giving the control of the executive power to a majority of the legislature as it is to hand the control of the legislative power over to the single executive. From the point of view of expediency there is much to be said of the plan which places the control of the executive power in the hands of the legislature. FOOTNOTES: [18] Joint resolution 4A, introduced June 16, 1913. [19] These were furnished to the author by Mr. U. S. U’Ren of Oregon City, Oregon. One is in the form of a letter dated December 28, 1911, asking for criticisms on the draft of constitutional changes. The other is in the form of an initiative petition for the submission of particular constitutional amendments (being a part of the entire plan of changes) for adoption by the electorate. [20] “The power of the governor to promote initiative and referendum petitions is not, however, increased by the suggested amendment. He has now the same rights in this as a private citizen but no official powers” (comment of U. S. U’Ren). CHAPTER XVI THE SECOND-CHAMBER PROBLEM[21] The institution of private property is still with us and likely to remain for some time. The acquisition and holding of private property is still the main object of our existence and doubtless will continue to be so. It is privately held property which pays taxes and supports the state. In any government property is entitled to fair consideration and protection. Special differentiated classes of property, such as railroads and other public-service plants, manufacturing interests, mines, and landlords’ and farmers’ holdings are entitled to fair consideration and protection. Indeed, the state that permitted indiscriminate assaults upon private property or upon differentiated classes of private property could not long endure. Certainly its prosperity would be short-lived. These premises have not been questioned in the past. Not many in this day would be found to controvert them. What sort of demand, then, was there, when our state governments were first organized, for governmental arrangements suitable to protect property interests? How was that demand answered in our mid-nineteenth-century plans of government? What is the character of that same demand today and how do our present governmental arrangements answer it? These are important inquiries preliminary to our ultimate question: How are property interests to be protected when the principles of the commission form of government are applied to the state? It is the object of this chapter to attempt to answer in outline these questions.