It is not the purpose of the present writer to advocate either the second chamber representing property interests or the establishment of a unicameral legislature in which all legislative and executive powers are united and which is extremely sensitive to the popular will without any special protection to property interests other than that which their numerical strength and property holding gives them. It is enough that the difficulties of the situation be faced and the several general lines of procedure be indicated. It will be time enough to have opinions when we are brought, by constitution-making, nearer to the practical settlement of the difficulty. FOOTNOTES: [21] Much of the argument in this volume is in support of the Short Ballot movement. It is only fair to say, however, that the leaders of this movement in the National Short Ballot Organization dissent from the suggestions put forward in this chapter as to the need of special protection to property interests, and the methods suggested of working out such special protection are, therefore, no part of the Short Ballot doctrine. [22] _Hurtado_ v. _California_, 110 U.S. 516. [23] James Bradley Thayer, “The Origin and Scope of the American Doctrine of Constitutional Law,” 7 _Harv. Law Rev._, 129, 139 ff. [24] “The validity of a law ought not, then, to be questioned, unless it is so obviously repugnant to the constitution, that when pointed out by the judges, all men of sense and reflection in the community may perceive the repugnancy.”--Per Chancellor Waties in _Adm’rs of Byrne_ v. _Adm’rs of Stewart_, 3 Des. 466 (South Carolina, 1812). [25] 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).